Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Sunday, December 19, 2004

2005 BTF Hall of Fame Ballot

There will be a two weeks worth of discussion, then a ballot thread will be posted (Jan. 3).

The complete ballot (in alphabetical order): Jim Abbott, Bert Blyleven, Wade Boggs, Tom Candiotti, Dave Concepcion, Chili Davis, Andre Dawson, Steve Garvey, Rich “Goose” Gossage, Tommy John, Mark Langston, Don Mattingly, Jack McDowell, Willie McGee, Jeff Montgomery, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Otis Nixon, Dave Parker, Tony Phillips, Jim Rice, Ryne Sandberg, Lee Smith, Terry Steinbach, Darryl Strawberry, Bruce Sutter, Alan Trammell.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 19, 2004 at 09:40 PM | 76 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2004 at 05:38 PM (#1031631)
Prelim:

1) Boggs
2) Sandberg
3) Trammell
4) Blyleven
5) Gossage

I'm still not sure about Sutter and Smith. I think I'll have the answer by next year. I'm only up to 1985 in my analysis, so I'd rather be safe than sorry (not that my vote counts anyway :-).

Strawberry, Strawberry, Strawberry...
   2. Michael Bass Posted: December 20, 2004 at 06:44 PM (#1031758)
The 5 John has voted for are the 5 locks for my ballot.

Sutter is a definate no. Smith is closer. I'd have to decide where my in-out line goes there.

John and Morris are close, but a little peakless. Dawson is closer, but still a touch off. Concepcion in the same boat (a lot closer to a vote from me than I thought).

If I were to add anyone to my ballot, it would be Murphy and/or Mattingly, as I am a peak guy. In fact, I'm a big Hall type, so I'd go ahead and add them.

1) Boggs
2) Blyleven
3) Sandberg
4) Trammell
5) Gossage
6) Murphy
7) Mattingly
   3. karlmagnus Posted: December 20, 2004 at 07:06 PM (#1031795)
FWIW, on approximately the same criteria as my HOM votes:

1) Blyleven
2) Boggs
3) Rice
4) Dwight Evans (if still on ballot)
5) John
6) Mattingley
7) Morris
8) Gossage
9) Sandberg

Trammell not enough OPS+ Murphy not enough OPS+ or career, Sutter not enough career. Rice and Evans both surprisingly good; Santo's between Rice/Evans and John if you want to add him
   4. Tiboreau Posted: December 20, 2004 at 07:21 PM (#1031826)
Hmm, I pretty much agree with John, but for the sake of variety let's mix it up:

Wade Boggs
Bert Blyleven
Ryne Sandberg
Alan Trammell
Rich Gossage

A quick glimpse at the eligible relievers, both the career and peak, with WARP:
[b]Name                 G   IP   ERAWARP1 WARP2 WARP3[/b]
Rich Gossage      1002 1809.1  126  87.6  83.5  84.9
Jeff Montgomery    700  868.2  134  54    56.3  57.3
Lee Smith         1022 1289.2  132  78.4  79.5  81.1
Bruce Sutter       661 1042.1  136  56.9  56.4  57.5

[b]Name               WARP1   1    2    3[
/b]
Rich Gossage        37.8  10.9 10.4  7.7
Jeff Montgomery     33.5   9.1  6.9  6.6
Lee Smith           32.9   8.3  7.1  6.9
Bruce Sutter        32.3   9.2  8.5  7.9 

Of the Veteran's Committee eligibles, only Ron Santo is a HoFer, IMO.
   5. Jim Sp Posted: December 20, 2004 at 07:27 PM (#1031842)
The top five are clearly worthy of induction.

1)Bert Blyleven
2)Wade Boggs
3)Ryne Sandberg
4)Alan Trammell
5)Rich “Goose” Gossage


The next four I’ll support, but they are pretty close to the in/out line.

6)Dave Concepcion
7)Tommy John
8)Andre Dawson
9)Jim Rice

Parker and Murphy are close, but under the line.

McDowell, McGee, Abbott, Montgomery, Nixon and Phillips are obviously nowhere close to qualified.

The rest I would put in this order

•Jack Morris
•Lee Smith
•Tom Candiotti
•Terry Steinbach
•Chili Davis
•Mark Langston
•Darryl Strawberry
•Don Mattingly
•Bruce Sutter
•Steve Garvey
   6. Michael Bass Posted: December 20, 2004 at 07:49 PM (#1031897)
I left out Phillips, but the BP author who did the HOF article made a case that he is potentially deserving. I completely forgot him above, but a look at him suggests much the same thing: that he is at a minimum on the margin.

He has to be the most underrated player of my time as a serious baseball fan (Bobby Grich would probably be the one before him).

At any rate, certainly, not in the McDowell/Abbott/Nixon "What the hell is HE doing on the ballot?" category.
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2004 at 08:32 PM (#1031998)
Of the Veteran's Committee eligibles, only Ron Santo is a HoFer, IMO.

Maybe we should set up a Vet thread in the middle of January?
   8. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2004 at 08:36 PM (#1032008)
I left out Phillips, but the BP author who did the HOF article made a case that he is potentially deserving. I completely forgot him above, but a look at him suggests much the same thing: that he is at a minimum on the margin.

Why is Phillips listed a rightfielder in the NBJHA?
   9. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 20, 2004 at 09:54 PM (#1032166)
Since the Hall is a Yes/No vote, I'll just list my unprioritiezed yeses.

Boggs
Sandberg
Blyleven
Gossage
Trammell

Each of those guys is, in my mind, a no-doubt about it guy, the last four of whom are unjustifiably being left out of the Hall for no good reason, but lots of silly ones.

As I conceive their cases, the best argument for the non-Boggs guys is this: they are all better than numerous HOF members at their position as well as the best eligible candidates at their position. To wit and IMO:

-Sandberg is an obviously better player than: Evers, Lazzeri, Fox, Doerr, Schoendienst, McPhee, Mazeroski, and Herman. He's no Morgan or Lajoie or Collins, but he's not so far away from Gehringer that it's laughable to put them in the same sentence. He's clearly the best unelected 2B.

-Gossage is better than Fingers, and because I don't think all that highly of Eck's case, better than Eck. He's got a very strong argument for second-best reliever ever. He and Rivera will fight that one out as Hoyt W watches mirthfully. Much as I love Tom Henke, Gossage is very clearly the best eligible reliever.

-Blyleven is in the middle of a group that includes Niekro, Sutton, Wynn, Ryan, Perry, Carlton, Ruffing, Seaver, Jenkins. He is very obviously better than at least a dozen other HOF pitchers: Gomez, Pennock, Waddell, Bender, Haines, Marquard, McGinnity, Chesbro, Griffith, Hoyt, Coveleski, Joss, and Dean and Koufax---depending on how you fall in the peak/career argument. He's got a reasonable argument for being better than Bunning and Drysdale as well and maybe Newhouser depending on how you view Hal's war years. Among eligible and historical starting pitchers, TJ and Kaat are well behind him in line. In fact, the line forming behind him may be long, but he's a mile ahead of everyone else.

Trammell is was a better player than: Aparicio, Maranville, Sewell, Bancroft, Tinker, Jackson, Smith, and Wallace, and his career looks comparable to Rizzuto (with MS credit) or maybe Boudreau. His career is better than Hughie's even if his peak isn't close (who's is?) Trammell is clearly preferable to Davey Concepcion, but, perhaps not quite as good as Dahlen among eligible candidates (including the vets, of course) Germany Long is a little behind.

Trammell got/gets little attention because he played in the shadow of Ripken and Yount; did a lot of little things well, but no one thing really well; played in a small/declining market; didn't play for a dynastic team; didn't contemplate a career in golf and likewise didn't have a big consecutive games streak.

As for the rest, every single one has a fatal flaw, and I draw my in/out line above Dawson, TJ, and Lee Smith. You can't have them all in. Quick hits on them:

-Abbott: Pass.

-Candiotti: Pass.

-Concepcion: As someone said, better than I thought, not good enough.

-Davis: Nice career, no peak.

-Dawson: Without any of the automatic-entry milestones, he doesn't have enough of anything else to recommend him. Poor MVP selection.

-Garvey: King of BIP influencing RBIs totals.

-John: No peak to speak of.

-Mattingly: Same boat as Sisler--neither has enough peak to merit a peak-happy vote from me, and each has half a career of Hal Morris. I like Herndanez better. Will Clark even moreso.

-McDowell: If he'd come up in 2001, he'd be a future Hall of Famer, instead Torborg and company turned his arm into jelly.

-McGee: Nyet.

-Montgomery: Pass.

-Morris: Joe Sheehan said it so much better than I ever could.

-Murphy: Just two more All-Star years would have done it for me. His generation's Berger/Wilson/Averill?

-Nixon: He had a secret plan to get into the HOF. It didn't work.

-Parker: If he hadn't been playing in the snow, he might have been Clemente Part 2.

-Phillips: The only way he goes in is if a sabrmetric study conclusively proves that his positional flexibility allowed his teams to create lots more runs than they otherwise would have with him at a static position.

-Rice: Poster boy for slow-footed sluggers who benefit from park effects.

-Steinbach: If sac hits in the All-Star game can build your legend, get me some shinguards and a bat.

-Strawberry: I wish I had his talent and my psychology. Peak is softer than remembered.

-Sutter: Not enough innings, ERA+ too low; his lone argument is Lev Index; it's not enough.
   10. Buddha Posted: December 20, 2004 at 09:59 PM (#1032188)
Wade Boggs
Bert Blyleven
Ryne Sandberg
Alan Trammell
Rich Gossage


I think will be the most popular Primer ballot. Which, of course, will be nothing like what the baseball writers do. Which will be to elect Boggs and maybe Sandberg.
   11. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2004 at 10:06 PM (#1032197)
-Strawberry: I wish I had his talent and my psychology. Peak is softer than remembered.

He had a few seasons where he was hitting the ball extremely well, but was injured (how many times did he injure his thumb throughout his career?)
   12. PhillyBooster Posted: December 20, 2004 at 10:06 PM (#1032198)
If God were given a ballot, he would vote for:

Wade Boggs
Ryne Sandberg
Bert Blyleven
Tommy John
Alan Trammell
Rich Gossage

Don't defy the Lord.
   13. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2004 at 10:13 PM (#1032214)
Tommy John

He's another one that I should have an idea about whether he belongs or not by the next election. I've never been crazy about his candidacy since there were a gazillion pitchers who had long careers from his era, but I may be underrating him somewhat. He can wait another year.
   14. Jim Sp Posted: December 20, 2004 at 10:21 PM (#1032232)
Agreed, Phillips is worthy of consideration, it's probably a research project to definitively take him off. Though I'm pretty sure he's still below the line, I shouldn't have dismissed him outright.
   15. Eugene Freedman Posted: December 20, 2004 at 10:23 PM (#1032234)
Baseball writers always vote partially based upon reality and partially based upon fantasy. All sorts of guys get votes for all of the wrong reasons. I'm using my power as a BBTFWAWWW (baseball think factory writers association of the world wide web) to vote on somewhat arbitrary grounds.

1. Wade Boggs. There is no real need to mention this as I wrote an entire article about his ranking as an inner circle great.

2. Bert Blyleven. He is Nolan Ryan without the mythology.

3. Alan Trammell. One of the top 10 greatest shortstops of all-time, present players excluded. If you're top 10 at your position, you're in in my book.

4. Ryne Sandberg. See Alan Trammell.

5. Write in- Lou Whitaker. See Ryne Sandberg. Lower peak. Same career. It's as simple as black and white. Didn't get to a second ballot. Horrendous.

6. Write in- Ted Simmons. If Pete Rose's name could have been written in for all of these years I will write in Whitaker and Simmons. These guys were great players. Simmons equal to Carter, yet Ted fell of the ballot in one season. A travesty in my mind.

7. Willie McGee. I may lose credibility on this one, but I'm voting for McGee. He doesn't deserve to get into the HOF and I know he won't. But, I think a guy deserves a handful of votes. He was the ugliest guy I have ever seen in uniform and that deserves something. He was exciting to watch. The guy could run, but boy did he look funny doing it. Guys like Mickey Rivers were compared to gazelles, Willie McGee was no gazelle. But, he could run. He stole bases and hit triples, and looked liked he was tripping over himself the entire time. Great fun to watch. This guy never used steriods. Before: ]http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/3001/willieminor.html
After:
(Parental Warning: contains graphic image of Kirby Puckett as well)
[url=http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hof_weekend/2002/events/020727/01_pages/img_008x.htm]http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hof_weekend/2002/events/020727/01_pages/img_008x.htm[/url

8. Lee Smith. I want someone to demostrably prove that Goose Gossage was actually better than Smith over his career. I'm tired of being a lemming on this one. Either way, Smith is better than Fingers.

I will not vote for Dawson or Rice despite the fact that I really liked them both growing up. I liked them, but they way they made me feel and their actual contribution to the game are different things. I wish the Mattingly voters would see that. Mattingly, however, never made me feel that way.
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2004 at 10:38 PM (#1032273)
5. Write in- Lou Whitaker. See Ryne Sandberg. Lower peak. Same career. It's as simple as black and white. Didn't get to a second ballot. Horrendous.

6. Write in- Ted Simmons. If Pete Rose's name could have been written in for all of these years I will write in Whitaker and Simmons. These guys were great players. Simmons equal to Carter, yet Ted fell of the ballot in one season. A travesty in my mind.


I fully support your write-in choices, Eugene.

7. Willie McGee.

I've never understood voting for a player that you liked who wasn't really close to being a HOFer. I loved watching Mookie Wilson probably as much as you loved watching McGee (as did I), but I would never think about giving him a vote. I'm not criticizing your selection, but just making a point.
   17. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 20, 2004 at 10:52 PM (#1032306)
NAME ERA+ INN LI
Fingers 135 1553 1.75
Gossage 160 1585 1.62
Smith 132 1289 1.73
Sutter 136 1042 1.90

Allow me to explain this real quick. The Leverage Index (LI) comes from a TangoTiger piece from a couple years back. In the cases of both Fingers and moreso Gossage, the LIs are career totals that may include some or all of their starts (I just don't know if they do or not). Trying to capture as much of Goose and Rollie's relief-only ERA+ and INN as I could in short time, I just removed the entire seasons where they each made a bunch of starts (1976 for Gossage, 29 starts in 31 G, 90 ERA+ and 1970 for Fingers, 45 games, 19 starts, 97 ERA+) and recalculated their inn total and era+.

Now back to Smith v. Gossage. Goose has more relief innings and a major relief-only ERA+ advantage. His LI disadvantage comes from two possible sources a) his starts in 1976 and b) from doing a lot of late-career work as a middle man.

Between the innings and the ERA+, it's pretty clear that Gossage was a better quality of pitcher than Smith. Given that I'm not certain whether TangoTiger was capturing Gossage's starts or not, I don't want to draw major conclusions based on the LI info, but I will say that Gossage was obviously used in critical situations since his LI is much closer to 2.0 than 1.0.

In sum: Go Goose and you can't go wrong.
   18. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 20, 2004 at 10:56 PM (#1032323)
Oy, those spaces are rough, i've got issues with how to make them work. Maybe this will make the table a little clearer...though not much, I'm sorry to say.

Fingers
ERA+ INN LI
135 1553 1.75

Gossage
ERA+ INN LI
160 1585 1.62

Smith
ERA+ INN LI
132 1289 1.73

Sutter
ERA+ INN LI
136 1042 1.90
   19. jimd Posted: December 20, 2004 at 11:33 PM (#1032391)
Agreed, Phillips is worthy of consideration,

Phillips was noted for his positional flexibility. If this allowed his manager to carry an extra setup-man or pinch-hitting bat, should Phillips also get the credit for the extra guy's accomplishments/value?
   20. Lenny Posted: December 20, 2004 at 11:51 PM (#1032420)
My easy picks are Boggs, Gossage and Blyleven. The other pick I am comfortable with is Sandberg.

I am on the fence about Sutter, Trammell, Concepcion, Dawson, John and Morris. My rule of thumb is that if I am on the fence I hold off unless it's the last year on the ballot or if I have another compelling reason. This year, the only one who makes it under the latter criteria is Sutter, since it appears that the only way Gossage gets in is if Sutter goes first. Since I don't really have a problem with Sutter being in, I'll add him to my ballot. That leaves me at:

1. Boggs
2. Gossage
3. Blyleven
4. Sandberg
5. Sutter
   21. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 12:07 AM (#1032449)
No Comments, but here are my guys

Boggs
Sandberg
Blyleven
Trammell
Gossage
Mattingly
   22. Eugene Freedman Posted: December 21, 2004 at 12:19 AM (#1032476)
I've never understood voting for a player that you liked who wasn't really close to being a HOFer. I loved watching Mookie Wilson probably as much as you loved watching McGee (as did I), but I would never think about giving him a vote. I'm not criticizing your selection, but just making a point.

John, I think the reason is similar to a point of personal priviledge under Robert's Rule of Order. You say something, that's not related to the business of the meeting, but it means something to you, and perhaps to some others in the group because either they know you or they know the subject of which you speak.

As a voter in a small group you can exercise this priviledge on a guy like McGee because you know it will not impact the result, but you have the power to make the point.
   23. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 21, 2004 at 12:39 AM (#1032508)
As a voter in a small group you can exercise this priviledge on a guy like McGee because you know it will not impact the result, but you have the power to make the point.

Point taken, Eugene.
   24. sunnyday2 Posted: December 21, 2004 at 01:28 AM (#1032536)
Well, I'm a small Hall kind of guy and I would only vote for Boggs, Sandberg and Rice for my HoF.

But Cooperstown is NOT a small Hall, and for the Coop I would vote for ten guys every year. Otherwise more recent players are being held to a totally different standard than the players of the past and that ain't fair.

BTW, last year at this time, didn't we submit a HoM style ballot (15 deep) for the HoF?? Just in case, that it what I'm posting. If we're to submit a HoF style ballot, then it would be the first ten.

1. Boggs
2. Sandberg
3. Rice
4. Gossage--check out the string of ERA+s for about 9-10 years there. This is the best relief pitcher of all-time not named Wilhelm.
5. Trammell
6. Blyleven
7. Dawson
8. Sutter
9. Mattingly
10. Parker

11. Murphy
12. L. Smith
13. Morris
14. Garvey
15. Strawberry

At least the first 8 are HoFers by the Coop's own standards--easy. Maybe (probably) the first 14. Sorry, Straw, not you.
   25. John Posted: December 21, 2004 at 03:29 AM (#1032648)
Blyleven
Boggs
Gossage
Sandberg
Smith
Trammell
Parker

in roughly that order, with strong feelings about only the first four. Rice and Sutter are near-misses -- I think Jay Jaffe made a good argument for Smith over Sutter at BPro today. Phillips being even close, I don't see. No closer than Mark Langston. Or Chili Davis, for that matter.

Parker? I convinced myself last year at this time that he's more worthy than Dawson, Rice, Murphy, Mattingly, and Garvey. Not sure why, at the moment. The fact that he was actually good when he was old, as opposed to all the rest of the group? Maybe. I'll have to think about this some more.
   26. Kelly in SD Posted: December 21, 2004 at 03:41 AM (#1032653)
What is wrong with this site today? I must have had 5 502 connection timed out messages in the last 2 hours.
   27. Adam Schafer Posted: December 21, 2004 at 05:36 AM (#1032941)
Blyleven
Boggs
Trammell
Gossage
Sutter

In that order.
   28. Kelly in SD Posted: December 21, 2004 at 06:47 AM (#1033067)
2005 HoF ballot:

Done as a HoF ballot:
Boggs
Sandberg
Blyleven
Trammell
Gossage
Santo (write-in, like the Vet Committe can get it done)
Whitaker (write-in)
Simmons (write-in)
Grich (write-in)

Done as a HoM ballot
1. Boggs – One of the top10 3rd Basemen ever. Hit for average and lots of walks, adequate to improving defense.
2. Sandberg – Great hitter. Excellent fielder. Did have Wrigley advantage. Definitely meets all the established HoF standards. 3 times best in Majors, 3 other times best in NL.
3. Blyleven – Long career of above average seasons with some dregs and some big highs. 19th in career pitching win shares – 5th among 60s-80s pitchers (behind Seaver, Niekro, Perry, and Carlton).
4. Gossage – So far the HoF has enshrined three totally different types of relievers – Wilhelm, Fingers, and Eck – so there really is no standard. Whatever the standard is, Gossage is above it. Pitched a high number of innings for a reliever and was incredibly consistent at a very high level.
5. Grich – Best AL ss in 72, Best AL 2b in 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 81. Misses by a hair in 75 and 82. Power, defense, walks in an era where people were not paying attention like nowadays. 11th most career (as of 2001) – Collins, Morgan, Hornsby, Lajoie, Gehringer, Frisch, Whitaker, Sandberg, Alomar, Biggio (and Carew).
6. Santo – Great third baseman with excellent power and defense. Offensively favored by Wrigley, but played throughout the 60s so its probably a push. Unfairly compared with the public image of Robinson. Behind Schmidt, Matthews, Brett, (Molitor) Boggs, (Darrell Evans) Leach for career win shares at 3rd.
7. Trammell – meets every standard for a HoF shortstop. He is a top10/15 career shortstop. Long career. At least one MVP vote stolen by idiot voters. Behind Wagner, Ripken, Yount, (Ward), Davis, Dahlen, Appling, Vaughn, Wallace, Cronin, Ozzie, Larkin for shortstop career.
8. Whitaker – Longer more consistent career than Trammell, but w/o the higher peaks. Definitely meets existing 2nd base standards. Tied with Carey for 88th more career win shares. 7th most (as of 2001) win shares in a career for 2nd base: Collins, Morgan, Hornsby, Lajoie, Gehringer, Frisch (Carew).
9. Darrell Evans – great unknown player. Played good defense. Hit with power, took walks, didn’t play in media centers or for teams that made a lot of playoffs. 6th highest career total for 3rd basemen.
10. Dwight Evans – Best years were in his 30s. Did things people didn’t catch when he played – the defense, the walks, the power (gee does this sound familiar yet?). Every outfielder with his career win shares is in except for Sherry Magee (been in the HoM for almost 80 years), Tim Raines (not eligible), and Rusty Staub (not as good).
11. Bruce Sutter – Utterly dominant ace.
12. Ted Simmons – great hitting out of the catcher spot. Not the easiest to deal with, but a getting those numbers is worth it.
13. Graig Nettle – another 3rd baseman shadowed by Schmidt. Great fielder and a hitter with good numbers despite playing in a time where hitting numbers were greatly reduced.
14/15. Tommy John / Jim Kaat – I would rather have two innings eaters than 2 more low walking, homer-hitting, friendly-home park having (at least most of the time) outfielders who were overrated by RBI totals.
   29. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 07:37 AM (#1033156)
Bert Blyleven, Wade Boggs, Andre Dawson, Rich “Goose” Gossage, Tommy John, Dave Parker, Ryne Sandberg, Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter, Alan Trammell.

I know that's 11, but I like them all. I'd probably drop Dawson or Parker if I had to drop one.

There are many guys in purgatory right now, not eligible for the BBWAA or Veteran's Committee that I'd vote for.

I'm thinking of the Evans's, Grich, Whitaker, Nettles, Simmons, Kaat, Henke.

Eugene - Goose threw over 500 innings more than Lee Smith with a 126 ERA+ (vs. 132 for Smith). If you discount Goose's 1976 where he was stupidly made a starter, and threw 224 innings at 90; he'd probably be higher than 132, with 300 more innings (between 20-25% more).

Goose hit an ERA+ over 165 seven times a full-time reliever (8 if you count 1981, when the season was short). Smith only did it twice with only one other season over 150 (two if you count 1994).

Lee Smith was very, very good, sometimes great. Goose was often great, and very, very, good when he wasn't.

I think Tom Henke could concievably be ranked ahead of all of them, but should probably be behind Goose, even with Smith (better, but shorter career) and Sutter. Henke has to be ahead of Sutter in my opinion.
   30. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 07:39 AM (#1033160)
I've harped on this before, but I see no way to defend a ballot that would include Ozzie Smith that doesn't include Trammell.
   31. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 11:11 AM (#1033294)
"Well, I'm a small Hall kind of guy and I would only vote for Boggs, Sandberg and Rice for my HoF.

But Cooperstown is NOT a small Hall, and for the Coop I would vote for ten guys every year . . . "

Wow. That may be the best thing I've read in a month. Now Marc, we just need to covince the BBWAA, and 60-70% of the people that post on this site that this is proper thinking.
   32. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 11:20 AM (#1033296)
I could see Phillips becoming a pet candidate of some people. Unfortunately none of them are in the BBWAA.

109 OPS+ (OBP heavy too)
peaks in the 120-130 range from 1991-95.
777 G at 2B, 428 at 3B, 294 at SS, rest in the OF.

Sounds a bit like Tommy Leach, but 3 or 4 seasons fewer in the bank. Unfortunately that's enough to keep one out and the other in. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

Phillips ends up with 268 WS, roughly 278 if you give him some 1994-95 strike credit. It's a little short, but closer than most would think. He's actually a guy that deserves some Jim Deshaiesish votes, and because he was a prick (maybe more accurately he was perceived as one, I don't know), he probably won't get any.
   33. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 11:31 AM (#1033298)
I just looked - I can't believe the Expos traded him for Willie-F******-Montanez. Not just any Willie Montanez, but the 32-year old, 93 OPS+ 1B version. We even threw in cash. Willie hooked us up with a 4-for-19, 0 extra-base hit, 3 BB, 1 CS, 1 R, 1 RBI performance in 14 games. OPS+: 53. Lost the division last weekend of the season.

In 1981 Willie was even better, 11-for-62, 1 3B, 5 RBI, 6 R, 4 BB - 25 OPS+.

But we were able to turn Willie into a season of John Milner, who did help with the 1981 2nd half division title. Thanks, gave us the Rick Monday heartache.

Milner was released in July of 1982 with a craptastic, -8 OPS+. WOW.

Phillips didn't turn into a really good player until 1985, but in 1983-84 he sure would have been a lot better than giving Doug flipping Flynn over 800 PA.

At least all of this gave us a gem from Bill James. IIRC he said something along the lines of, 'for everything Tim Raines does to build an offense, Doug Flynn does an equal amount to destoy it.'

I'm very bitter now.
   34. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 11:34 AM (#1033299)
Heh - look at Phillips 40 year old comps. Leach and Wally Moses are the two with the same OPS+ - Julio Franco and Joe Kuhel (swear I never heard of him) are also close. Didn't even look at that before my earlier comment. I guess they really were pretty close.
   35. Sean Gilman Posted: December 21, 2004 at 12:04 PM (#1033305)
Definitely:

Boggs
Sandberg
Blyleven
Gossage
Trammell


Maybe:

Dawson
Parker
Murphy
Mattingly
Sutter


Probably Not:

Smith
Morris
John
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 21, 2004 at 03:46 PM (#1033414)
I've harped on this before, but I see no way to defend a ballot that would include Ozzie Smith that doesn't include Trammell.

The problem, Joe, is that it's easy to dream up what Smith could do defensively if you're a BBWWAA writer. Why, he saves 100 runs per game, don't ya know! See also Brooks Robinson in that department.

While the Wizard was the best that I ever saw at shortstop, Trammell more than made up the up the difference with his offense.
   37. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 21, 2004 at 03:52 PM (#1033424)
But Cooperstown is NOT a small Hall, and for the Coop I would vote for ten guys every year . . . "

Wow. That may be the best thing I've read in a month. Now Marc, we just need to covince the BBWAA, and 60-70% of the people that post on this site that this is proper thinking.


Does that mean I need to add five more to my ballot to keep Boggs, Sandberg, Trammell, Blyleven and Gossage company? Well, I'll play along for now...

If I had to fill out my ballot, I would include Smith, Sutter, Dawson, Murphy and Mattingly.

But if I really had a ballot, I would stick with the other five (at least for now).
   38. Michael Bass Posted: December 21, 2004 at 05:41 PM (#1033578)
Well, I had a long post typed out with numbers, but the server died, and the post died with it. (That ever going to get fixed?)


The sum total is, Win Shares prefers Trammell, but WARP quite clearly prefers Ozzie, so

I've harped on this before, but I see no way to defend a ballot that would include Ozzie Smith that doesn't include Trammell.

is a pretty huge overstatement. When the time comes, as someone who prefers WARP to WS, Ozzie will be higher, perhaps significantly so, on my ballot than Trammell (though both will, I expect, be on the right side of the in-out line).
   39. Michael Bass Posted: December 21, 2004 at 06:06 PM (#1033609)
I should add, WARP1 like Ozzie a lot better than Trammell. WARP3 likes the modern AL a lot more than the modern NL, so it has it much closer, virtually breakever.
   40. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 21, 2004 at 06:37 PM (#1033678)
Michael Bass,
I personally think WARP's FRAR is set way too low, so I substitute FRAA for FRAR WARP. So combining BRAR with FRAA to get a shorthand for wins, adjusted for all time...

Smith
BRAR: 374
FRAA: 264
Total: 638 runs
Dividing by ten, that makes Smith worth 63.8 wins.

Trammell
BRAR: 532
FRAA: 70
Total: 602 runs
Dividing by ten, that makes Trammell worth 60.2 wins.

Smith is indeed better, but I don't think it's an overstatement at all to suggest that any ballot with Smith should have Trammell as well. They created comparable value over their careers.

However, I think one could argue that Trammell negates Oz's career-value advantage on a per game basis. Trammell generated those 60.2 wins in 2293 games, for an average of 4.25 per 162. Smith generated his 63.8 wins in 2573 games, for an average of 4.02 per 162. Trammell's roughly 6% advantage in per annum value matches Smith's advantage in career value.

Incidentally, Concepcion in this type of analysis comes out at 43.1 wins for his career.
   41. Michael Bass Posted: December 21, 2004 at 06:47 PM (#1033706)
Smith is indeed better, but I don't think it's an overstatement at all to suggest that any ballot with Smith should have Trammell as well. They created comparable value over their careers.

But that's only if one assumes agreement with your fielding replacement theory; obviously BP doesn't. Joe said that there was *no* good reason to have Smith without Trammell, and I'm pointing to what I would call a pretty reputable stat from a pretty reputable outfit that has a significant gap between the two.

FWIW, since I go with WARP3 generally, they would probably be right next to each other on my ballot (contradicting what I said earlier, I know :) ). But one who does not like WARP3 (well, WARP2) league quality adjustment, but does like the WARP system in general is going to strongly prefer Smith to Trammell.
   42. jimd Posted: December 21, 2004 at 07:43 PM (#1033840)
I personally think WARP's FRAR is set way too low, so I substitute FRAA for FRAR WARP. So combining BRAR with FRAA

Dr. Chaleeko, there's a major problem with this.

BRAR knows nothing about fielding position; it's purely a product of the batting stats. If you then use FRAA instead of FRAR, then an average fielding SS is no more valuable than an average fielding DH when they hit the same amount.
   43. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 08:53 PM (#1034016)
If we get put in write-in votes, I vote for Santo, Grich, Hack, Evans, and Wynn (not to mention Cupid Childs and all the other 19th century guys that arent' in there.)

And why no love for Jimmy Wynn? I think he was better than the elected Kirby Puckett. It's just that Wynnplayed in a severe pitcher's era and a severe pitcher's park or two.

I can say that Wynn will be getting high votes from me when he beomces eligible for the HOM.
   44. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 21, 2004 at 09:04 PM (#1034051)
But couldn't we say the same for FRAR/FRAA?

Let's say that Mr. SS contributes 0 FRAR. And so does Mr. 1B. They are presumed to be of equal caliber defensively relative to a replacement player at their positions and they get a credit of zero defensively.

The same holds true for FRAA, only the bar is raised higher. So if Mr. SS is 0 FRAA, and so is Mr. 1B, then they are both getting a credit of zero for their defensive work.

A DH in both instances gets the same defensive credit. It's a problem with the system. And it also begs the question: is earning the same FRAR/FRAA at SS more valuable than earning the same total of FRAR/FRAA at 1B?
   45. jimd Posted: December 21, 2004 at 09:20 PM (#1034111)
No. The credit for being an acceptable major-league SS is built into the fielding runs between replacement and average. Win Shares does a similar thing with it's built-in shares for being average defensively. Both systems then dock a player for being sub-average. If you compare players at different positions, you will quickly realize that average SS's get many more FRAR then average 1B-men; this is because the position is considered more difficult to play.
   46. jimd Posted: December 21, 2004 at 09:23 PM (#1034132)
if Mr. SS is 0 FRAA, and so is Mr. 1B, then they are both getting a credit of zero for their defensive work.

And if they both have a 100 OPS+ in the same PA, they both get the same BRAR. And your system gives them the same overall rating - average hitter, average fielder. Yet we all know that an average fielding SS is much more valuable than an average fielding 1B when they hit identically.
   47. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 22, 2004 at 07:06 AM (#1035509)
"60-70% of the people that post on this site that this is proper thinking."

By this comment I meant Primer - I realize most of the people in the HoM area already understand this.

"The sum total is, Win Shares prefers Trammell, but WARP quite clearly prefers Ozzie, so"

WARP comes to this conclusion because their defensive ratings give way too much credit to slick fielding middle infielders, if you ask me. As Dr. Chaleeko already mentioned. See McPhee, Bid. Trammell didn't play 100% SS, Ozzie played 372 more games there (and probably fewer partials) so there's a bunch of extra replacement level credit in there at a minimum.

Jim since both were mainly shortstops, I don't see why your objection would be that big a deal in this particular case. A slight bias against Ozzie because Trammell played some non-SS, but that's it, right? The alternative, giving too much credit for Ozzie's D seems much worse.

"But that's only if one assumes agreement with your fielding replacement theory; obviously BP doesn't."

I think they do know this is an issue. Didn't I read somewhere that they admit their system treats replacement level as roughly a AA player? I forget who posted it, but I know I read that in the last week. They know there are issues with WARP and the fielding replacement level. I trust what Tango says about their system more than I trust them, in any event.
   48. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 22, 2004 at 07:08 AM (#1035511)
I'd also like to add Quisenberry to my list of guys that should be in . . . forgot him.
   49. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 04:12 PM (#1035821)
If we get put in write-in votes, I vote for Santo, Grich, Hack, Evans, and Wynn

If Darrell, yes. If Dwight, no.
   50. jimd Posted: December 22, 2004 at 07:48 PM (#1036345)
<objection would be that big a deal in this particular case.</i>

Joe, my objection is purely theoretical here. You can't add BRAR+FRAA and get a valid measure of value. That measure says that an average fielding 1b-man and an average-fielding SS that hit the same amount have the same value. Ludicrous. To use FRAA that way, you have to modify BRAR so that it accounts for position; i.e. the old BRARP on the WARP sheets of a year or two ago. (We've had this discussion before.)
   51. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 23, 2004 at 12:34 AM (#1037078)
Yes, John I meant Darrell :-)
   52. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2004 at 12:36 AM (#1037083)
Whew! :-)
   53. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 23, 2004 at 05:34 AM (#1037479)
Why not Dwight?

127 OPS+. Great defense. Long career. Solid peak (look at 1981, 82, 84, 87). Never had a bad year after 1973, even as a 39 year old he went out with a 119 OPS+ in 1991. I think he's an easy Hall of Fame choice. 2446 hits, 385 HR and 1391 walks, putting him on base nearly 3900 times. Almost 500 doubles too. Easy Hall of Fame choice.
   54. jimd Posted: December 23, 2004 at 08:22 PM (#1038515)
Why not Dwight?

Looked at through WARP, the two Evanses are nearly interchangeable. Darrell 113.7, Dwight 113.0. Darrell was the better defender, Dwight the better hitter. Darrell has a slightly longer career, and definitely a better peak; I can see selecting Darrell first, but not drawing the in/out line between the two.

Joe, these two form an interesting case for WARP study. Darrell has a larger advantage in WARP-1, 113.7 to 104.6. Dwight closes this gap in WARP-2, and he closes it due to adjustments that increase his batting runs. Now Dwight was playing in the AL and Darrell in the NL for most of their careers; the NL was usually regarded as being slightly superior during this time (1970-1990). It would appear then that Dwight is benefitting from an adjustment that accounts for the DH.
   55. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2004 at 08:47 PM (#1038623)
I didn't mean to sound too harsh about Dwight. I think he's a borderline candidate on the outside looking in, while I feel Doody is one of the top fifteen third basemen of all-time (which would make him HOF or HOM worthy in my book). I confess that I'm only up to 1985 in my analysis, so there's quite a few quality years ahead still for Dewey for me to look at.
   56. ronw Posted: December 23, 2004 at 09:01 PM (#1038673)
I don't mind any of the top players getting in the HOF. Of course as a HOM voter, I have to say that with the possible exception of Wade Boggs, none of the current writer's eligibles are better choices than Deacon White and Bill Dahlen, who are in my opinion the most glaring omissions from the HOF.

Below the big two, and elected by the HOM in no particular order, are:

1. Paul Hines
2. Joe Jackson
3. Sherry Magee
4. Christobal Torriente
5. Louis Santop
6. Jimmy Sheckard
7. George Gore
8. Heinie Groh
9. Pete Hill
10. Hardy Richardson
11. Jack Glasscock
12. Dickey Pearce
13. Grant Johnson
14. Harry Stovey
15. Ezra Sutton
16. Frank Grant
17. Ross Barnes
18. Joe Start
19. Bob Caruthers
20. Cal McVey
21. Lip Pike
22. Charlie Bennett

I tend to think that only Blyleven, Boggs, Gossage, Sandberg and Trammell belong with the list above.
   57. jimd Posted: December 23, 2004 at 10:14 PM (#1038769)
The positional consideration may determine the difference. Dwight is 13 years in right plus one at first and two as DH. Darrell is 9 at third plus 5 at first and two as DH. How does nine at third plus 4 at first balance with 13 in right? It may be a wash.
   58. Tango Tiger Posted: December 24, 2004 at 06:14 AM (#1039354)
The LI quoted above do include all games (starts and relief).

Lee Smith and Goose, when only looking at their relief appearances, have identical LI (1.75 or 1.76, can't remember exactly).

***

As for replacement level, you want to do:
BRARP + FRAAP
(FRAAP is the same as FRAA)

Tom
   59. PhillyBooster Posted: December 25, 2004 at 05:22 AM (#1040196)
Copied from my comments from a "Tommy John" thread in the news section.:

I think the blinding obviousness of Blyleven's right to induction is blinding everyone to the fact that, considering the current standard for induction, John is an easy and obvious pick based solely on his pitching (not any extra points as the "surgery guy").

In terms of "longevity", since 1893, John has the most wins, and is #2 in IP for pitchers eligible and not inducted (after Blyleven). That right there has to put him on the short list. His career totals are nearly identical to Robin Roberts, who is a HoFer. He was about identical to Eppa Rixey, who's a HoFer. He's better than HoFer Burleigh Grimes. And Don Sutton. And Jim Bunning. And Chief Bender. Not to mention the "bottom tier" Jesse Haines and Waite Hoyt and Jim Pennock.

His ERA+ of 111 might seem kind of "marginal" --although not the lowest by far for players with over 4000 innings -- but if you cut off his first three (age 20-22) and last eight (age 39-46) years and look at only his "middle 15" years, it was over 117.

There is an in/out line that exists down with Jack Morris and Jim Kaat and Frank Tanana. Blyleven and John are both clearly on the "in" side of it.
   60. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 27, 2004 at 01:22 AM (#1041516)
Does any one here know if the Internet Hall of Fame is up and running this year? I can't find it at BP where it usually resides. Thanks!
   61. jimd Posted: December 27, 2004 at 08:01 PM (#1042367)
As for replacement level, you want to do:
BRARP + FRAAP
(FRAAP is the same as FRAA)


BRARP is batting runs above replacement adjusted by position. Unfortunately, BRARP is no longer available on the BP pages.
   62. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 28, 2004 at 12:24 AM (#1042812)
Speaking of BP, why do they change their WARP numbers every few months? I believe they ahve chnaged twice during the offseason. What could possibly have happened since November that would have changed anything?
   63. jimd Posted: December 28, 2004 at 12:56 AM (#1042831)
It's a methodology under constant improvement.
   64. Paul Wendt Posted: December 29, 2004 at 06:12 PM (#1045026)
sunnyday2:
But Cooperstown is NOT a small Hall, and for the Coop I would vote for ten guys every year. Otherwise more recent players are being held to a totally different standard than the players of the past and that ain't fair.

There isn't and hasn't been any general, low standard for "players of the past."

Suppose that everyone adopted this liberal attitude toward "recent players." Peak voters would support every pitcher who seems greater than Early Wynn to them. Career voters would support every pitcher who seems greater than Hal Newhouser to them. (I presume that Wynn and Newhouser are "players of the past.")
   65. jimd Posted: December 29, 2004 at 07:47 PM (#1045283)
BTW. Are the new "Pennants Added" pages going to be linked from the top-level page, or are they going to slip into the archives where nobody can find them easily?
   66. Yardape Posted: December 29, 2004 at 10:12 PM (#1045547)
BRARP is batting runs above replacement adjusted by position. Unfortunately, BRARP is no longer available on the BP pages.

Actually, I just noticed today they have EqA reports apparently for every season since 1871. These include RARP for each season (which I presume is the same as BRARP). So you would have to go season-by-season, but it is there.
   67. sunnyday2 Posted: December 29, 2004 at 10:46 PM (#1045581)
Paul, two points of clarification.

1) I was speaking as if I were one of the 500+ HoF voters. I would indeed vote for 10 every year as long as the backlog looks anything like the current one. I really believe there are 10-12 players who are deserving, and given that there will not be a stampede (at least, history suggests very strongly that there will not be a stampede) to elect 10, then I just figure that if a consensus should suddenly form around Alan Trammel or Goose Gossage or even Bruce Sutter, far be it for me to be the voter who kept them out.

Second, if I were the only voter and it was up to me, well, I would divvy them up and elect 3 a year until the backlog was somewhat diminished, but I would still elect all 10-12. Once the current backlog is cut back to 1-3 players (as unlikely as that is, but if it were) then I would not continue to vote for 10-12.

Third, and to extend that point, your scenario where everybody who is not demonstrably worse than Prince Hal or Early Wynn gets elected is reduction ad absurdum. No I wouldn't go there.

But to your claim that there has never been a low, general standard...well, that is questionable. Not perhaps low AND general (i.e. continuing through all the 65 years of HoF voting). But sometimes (and repeatedly so) low. And no, not the BBWAA, and maybe that is your point. But the HoF makes no distinction between BBWAA choices and FoF (Friends of Frankie Frisch) choices. And I do believe that players who are demonstrably MUCH better than the FoF--such as Trammel and Whitaker, and Bert, etc.--should go in.

Now if the low standards of the past are all the fault of the VC, and not of the BBWAA, well, then maybe we should continue to be really tight with the BBWAA selections (which in reality is what is going to happen) and let the VC continue to induct scads of borderline candidates. But again, the HoF doesn't make that distinction and neither would I. I would go ahead and elect 10-12 players off the current ballot in the next 3-4 years if it were up to me, and make no apologies. The VC could still occupy itself with Santo and Whitaker and others who are easily better than 33 to 50 percent of all HoFers.
   68. Paul Wendt Posted: December 30, 2004 at 04:19 PM (#1046490)
But to your claim that there has never been a low, general standard...well, that is questionable. Not perhaps low AND general (i.e. continuing through all the 65 years of HoF voting). But sometimes (and repeatedly so) low.

Everyone here knows that the HOF has inducted few infielders older than Tinker to Evers to Chance and few younger than Fox and Maz. That pattern might be attributed to a low standard for players from the 1900s-1950s.

But I meant that by any standard numerous HOFers (most of them elected in the 1970s and earlier) are aberrations among their broad contemporaries. Evers, Lazzeri, and Schoendienst are in; Doyle, Gordon, and Gilliam are out.

Bill James ranks those six players #16 (Gordon) to #28 (Schoendienst). He ranks the recent 2Bmen Randolph and Lopes similarly (#17, #23); I suppose that Whitaker and Randolph (#13, #17) would be a better matching recent duo, without the "timeline" bonus for modern players.

Is it "unfair" to Whitaker and Randolph, or to Randolph and Lopes, for an elector to vote them out with Gordon, Doyle, and Gilliam rather than in with Lazzeri, Evers, and Schoendienst?

--
I have used 2B and the rankings by Bill James in order to illustrate a general point.

Others HOF-eligible 2Bmen ranked in the same range by Bill James:
in: Herman, Fox, Doerr, Mazeroski #29, McPhee #30
out: McAuliffe, Myer, Childs, White #31

Another illustration, briefly: Jim Bottomley is in the HOF by aberration, not because he passed some low standard. See Jack Fournier, Joe Judge, Dolph Camilli.
   69. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 30, 2004 at 05:11 PM (#1046547)
Another illustration, briefly: Jim Bottomley is in the HOF by aberration, not because he passed some low standard. See Jack Fournier, Joe Judge, Dolph Camilli.

How many first basemen should have gone in before George Kelly? Sixty? Your point is well taken, Paul.
   70. Patrick W Posted: December 31, 2004 at 05:47 AM (#1048069)
Due to computer failures, I’ve lost my rankings on the ’05 players I entered earlier today. I did write down my ballot while I had the numbers in front of me. Sorry for the lack of reasoning behind the rankings.

I prefer to max out the ballot, trying to offset those who would submit a ballot with 0 or 1 names (I seem to recall Reggie Jackson fell into this category two years ago). Since the danger of electing ten in a given year is practically nil, I keep with my preference of a large Hall. I would anticipate the top 7 to 9 listed below would make it in my Hall eventually.

FYI, the scoring system used last year: Top ten ballot, Elect 2 on a 20-19-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6 scale.

1.Wade Boggs – The HOM constitution says we can consider character issues in the first year of eligibility. Can I consider Boggs’ agreeing to wear a Tampa cap on the plaque?
2.Bert Blyleven – Exhibit B on the reasons for the HOM project. Exhibit A is on the Vet’s ballot.
3.Ryne Sandberg – No doubter. For the third straight year.
4.Alan Trammell – Do you think Detroit’s lack of success over the last 12 years has anything to do with the lack of HOF support of recent Tigers?
5.Rich Gossage – This high because of leverage index. I need to read more on the subject before the players it affects start showing up on the HOM ballot.
6.Tommy John – A quarter century of average manages to build an impressive resume.
7.Lee Smith – Less than the Goose, but I can’t see putting Gossage on the ballot & leaving Smith off.
8.Andre Dawson – Possibly my favorite chapter of Paths to Glory was on the late 70s / early 80s Expos. Interesting team before my time. No WS appearances in a small market, so stories have not been told about them.
9.Dale Murphy – Am slightly swayed by the arguments of the KC writer whose HOF ballot was just posted on Primer.
10.Tony Phillips – I like Keith Hernandez, but advanced metrics have no love for first base defense. I’m real interested to see how the HOM backlog looks in ’05; Tony sure doesn’t seem like a top ten, but the numbers say otherwise.

Happy New Year everybody.
   71. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 31, 2004 at 03:37 PM (#1048547)
Happy New Year everybody.

Same to you and everybody else!
   72. Brian C. Posted: December 31, 2004 at 10:12 PM (#1049068)
First off, I can't believe how closely my thinking matches Eugene's post #15...(or is the other way around:)

My list:

Boggs
Sandberg
Gossage
Trammell

Only the first two will make it this year...

Boggs will be a natural choice...I have him 4th all time among 3Baseman..

Sandberg will pass the magic 75%...again a top 10 among 2B's

I met Gossage on a Flight 5 years ago...very soft spoken...not the fearsome presence he brought to the mound...His peak was not as high as Eck's '88-'92(5), however he was almost as good for longer between '77-'85(9)...a more valuable contribution then Smith's '82-'95(14).. IMO

Trammell's career is one that traditionally gets very little recognition from the BBWAA (Long/above avg/no real peak)...caught between the dash of Yount('80-'84)...and the flash of Ozzie...Cey/Schmidt comes to mind...or Bill Dahlen between HJ's peak and George Davis's stint at SS (thanks to the HOM for rectifying that situation!)

Blyleven suffers from the 'bad timing' syndrome as well...was on par with Sutton and Niekro...falls short of Carlton and Seaver...just a lessor version of Ryan. His only chance resides with some form of the veterans committee,...
   73. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2005 at 08:53 AM (#1052598)
"How many first basemen should have gone in before George Kelly? Sixty? Your point is well taken, Paul."

Tino Martinez is the reincarnation of George Kelly. They are as similar as two players could be.

Both were good gloves, had a couple of legitimately big years and were good players. They both played for championship teams in New York.

Neither should be anywhere near the Hall of Fame without a ticket.
   74. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2005 at 08:55 AM (#1052600)
And Bottomley is a decent comp for Mattingly, IIRC, I know I looked at it awhile back don't remember the specifics . . .
   75. sunnyday2 Posted: January 04, 2005 at 04:27 AM (#1054905)
Paul (#68). Re. your comment distinguishing the HoF as having some aberrations but not low standards--boy, is that a distinction without a difference or what?

Even then, I don't agree. Taking your own (i.e. Bill James') list of 2Bs (accepting for the moment that Bill's is a reasonable list for discussion purposes).

You seem to be saying that the HoF has inducted some aberrations in the form of Schoendienst (#28), Maz (#29) and McPhee (#30). Well, that looks like a pattern to me, a pattern that suggests a standard. An aberration (assuming for the sake of example that James' list is a good list) would be, say, Hardy Richardson down at #39.

Now it's true that the HoF has not inducted (among eligibles) #7 (that's an aberration to be fixed very soon, I would hope, but note also that he is a recent player), #12 (also a recent player and not really an aberration, because:), #13 (recent), #16 (something of an aberration), #17 (recent), #20 (mistake or in other words an aberration), #22 and #23 (which I will call aberrations in James' rankings) and #24 (borderline anyway).

My point being the lower ranked players who ARE in the HoF represent a pattern. Many of the highly ranked players NOT in the HoF are recent which I would insist also represents a pattern. The only real aberrations once you draw the distinction between recent players and old-timers are the Gordons and Doyles, the old-timers who are not in.
   76. sunnyday2 Posted: January 04, 2005 at 04:30 AM (#1054913)
Also, whoever said that Trammell didn't have a high peak--I can't find the comment right now--I would have to disagree. Trammell's '87 was pretty much a dead ringer for Yount '82 and Ripken '83. G. Bell over Trammell was a much worse pick even than Andre Dawson or Mo Vaughan, IMHO.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6821 seconds
49 querie(s) executed