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

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

2007 BBTF HOF Results: Ripken, Gwynn, Blyleven, Trammell and Gossage!

In his first year of eligibility, iron-man shortstop Cal Ripken, Jr. was selected by the BBTF electorate unanimously.

San Diego legend Tony Gwynn was also picked by 100% of our voters.

Curveball specialist Bert Blyleven found his way on easily more than the required number ballots again for the third straight year with a strong 87%, though that was down from his 96% in 2005 and 2006.

Standout shortstop Alan Trammell was the fourth BBTF HOF pick with his 84%, up from 79% in 2005 and 81% in 2006.

Last but not least, intimidating fireman Goose Gossage earned 82% of the electorate’s vote, though slipping again in support (he had 93% in 2005 and 87% in 2006).

Supreme power hitter Mark McGwire missed with 69% of all ballots in his first year of eligibility. He was hurt by many protest non-votes, which cost him a near-unanimous vote.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Andre Dawson, Albert Belle, Dale Murphy and Tommy John.

New candidates Dante Bichette, Bobby Bonilla, Scott Brosius, Jay Buhner, Ken Caminiti, Eric Davis, Wally Joyner, Paul O’Neill, Devon White and Bobby Witt received no votes.

111 voters participated in our exercise, 9 more from 2006.

How will the BBWAA compare?

Thanks to everyone who submitted a ballot or joined in the discussion!

RK   LY  Player          Votes
------------------------------
1T  n/e  Tony Gwynn       111
1T  n/e  Cal Ripken, Jr.  111
 3    1  Bert Blyleven     97
 4    3  Alan Trammell     93
 5    2  Goose Gossage     91
------------------------------
 6  n/e  Mark McGwire      77
 7    6  Andre Dawson      32
8T    5  Albert Belle      24
8T   11  Dale Murphy       24
10    8  Tommy John        22
11   10  Lee Smith         17
12T  14T Jack Morris        9
12T   9  Jim Rice           9
14   14T Dave Concepcion    8
15   13  Don Mattingly      7
16   12  Dave Parker        6
------------------------------
17  n/e  Tony Fernandez     5
18  n/e  Harold Baines      4
19  n/e  Bret Saberhagen    3
20  n/e  Jose Canseco       2
21   17  Steve Garvey       1
Dropped Out: Orel Hershiser(16).
Ballots Cast: 111; 84 votes required for election.
Hall of Merit Group
RK   LY  Player          Votes
------------------------------
1T  n/e  Tony Gwynn        43
1T  n/e  Cal Ripken, Jr.   43
 3    1  Bert Blyleven     40
 4    2  Goose Gossage     39
5T  n/e  Mark McGwire      37
5T    3  Alan Trammell     37
------------------------------
 7    6  Andre Dawson      16
 8    5  Albert Belle      14
 9   11  Dale Murphy       12
10    8  Tommy John        11
11   10  Lee Smith          8
12    9  Jim Rice           7
13   12  Dave Parker        6
14   13  Don Mattingly      5
15T  14T Dave Concepcion    4
15T  14T Jack Morris        4
17T n/e  Harold Baines      3
17T n/e  Tony Fernandez     3
17T n/e  Bret Saberhagen    3
-------------------------------
20T n/e  Jose Canseco       1
20T  17  Steve Garvey       1
Ballots Cast: 43; 33 required for election.
John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 01:34 AM | 105 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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 02:16 AM (#2276579)
Congratulations to Cal, Tony, Bert, Alan and Goose!
   2. Juan V Posted: January 09, 2007 at 02:22 AM (#2276584)
Strong support for Tommy John, from both groups. I may be giving too little credit to long-career pitchers, both for this excercise and in the HOM.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 02:27 AM (#2276590)
McGwire earned 86% from the HOM group. Not as much of a hit like he receievd from the collective BBTF community, but still significant.
   4. Howie Menckel Posted: January 09, 2007 at 02:29 AM (#2276591)
Wow, I'm even the consensusmeister general on this one!
Those are the exact 5 I voted for, though I'm hardly the only one who can say that.
   5. Howie Menckel Posted: January 09, 2007 at 02:31 AM (#2276593)
Huh, I see McGwire easily got in on the HOM group.
Weren't we supposed to be having the HOF standards here?
I'll vote McGwire into the HOM on 1st ballot.
   6. jimd Posted: January 09, 2007 at 02:34 AM (#2276594)
There were 43 ballots cast by HOM voters, and a total of 337 votes.
The average was 7.84 votes per ballot by HOM voters.

There were 111 ballots cast overall, and a total of 753 votes.

There were 68 ballots cast by non-HOM voters, for a total of 416 votes.
The average was 6.12 votes per ballot by non-HOM voters.

The typical HOM voter voted for 1.72 more candidates per ballot than the typical non-HOM voter.
   7. OCF Posted: January 09, 2007 at 02:42 AM (#2276598)
I would assume that all of Blyleven's "1st place" votes are from voters who alphabetized their ballots (including me). The same applies to "1st place" votes for Belle, Concepcion, and Baines. John used a HoM template for his report (out of convenience), but I wouldn't want to read too much in to the vote "distribution" - the only columns that really matter are the (identical) "Pts" and "Bal" columns.
   8. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 02:46 AM (#2276603)
the only columns that really matter are the (identical) "Pts" and "Bal" columns.

Correct, OCF.
   9. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 09, 2007 at 03:09 AM (#2276610)
Supreme power hitter Mark McGwire missed with 69% of all ballots in his first year of eligibility. He was hurt by many protest non-votes, which cost him a near-unanimous vote.


John, what is this comment based on? Did almost all of the 31 percent of the non-McGwire voters indicate they were leaving based on McGwire's qualifications?
   10. jimd Posted: January 09, 2007 at 03:10 AM (#2276611)
How many viable HOF candidates would one expect to find on the most recent ballot?
Here's one approach to coming up with an answer to that.

The active time-period of the HOF can be estimated to run from 1847 (George Wright was born) to 1960 (Kirby Puckett was born). That is 114 years. The time span of a HOF ballot is 15 years, so the last 15 years should still have active quality candidates. Also one of the findings of the HOM is that the HOF did not adequately cover the early years. So let's just round that 114 down to about 100 years. There are about 230 players in the HOF. 230/100 yields us a working estimate of about 2.3 HOFers per year.

With 2.3 HOFers per year, then about 34 or 35 HOFers should have become eligible during the 15-year span of a ballot. The BBWAA has elected 19 of those eligibles during the previous 14 elections (plus one other who became eligible before the current 15 year span). So if the HOF had followed a fairly consistent set of standards in selecting its membership, there should be about 15 or 16 additional HOF-quality players who became eligible during the last 15 years. Of course, this assumes that there were a typical number of star players during that period, no unusual shortage or surplus.

So, it wouldn't be surprising to discover about 15 HOF or HOM quality players still available to be elected who became eligible 1993-2007. (This includes those who were dropped due to the 5% rule.)
   11. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 09, 2007 at 03:11 AM (#2276612)
Sorry, that comment got garbled.

Did almost all of the 31 percent of the non-McGwire voters indicate they were leaving him off their ballots in protest, or were you speculating that he would have been a near-unanimous choice?
   12. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 03:16 AM (#2276615)
Did almost all of the 31 percent of the non-McGwire voters indicate they were leaving him off their ballots in protest, or were you speculating that he would have been a near-unanimous choice?

It's based on my reading of the ballots, SoSHially.

I have no doubt that he would have easily made it into the 90% range had it not been for the steroid scandal surrounding him. I'm being conservative, BTW.

He wouldn't have been unaminous, though. There were a few voters who just didn't like his stats.
   13. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 09, 2007 at 03:25 AM (#2276621)
Thanks. I certainly agree he would have made it easily without the steroids scandal (and I believe he'll make it next year). But I guessed there were probably a few who either left him because they shared Marchman's take or because they thought absent the steroids he wouldn't have fashioned a HOF career (this being different, as I see it, than a protest vote for simply using steroids). That last voter could very well vote Bonds in on the first ballot.
   14. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 09, 2007 at 03:31 AM (#2276622)
Supreme power hitter Mark McGwire missed with 69% of all ballots in his first year of eligibility. He was hurt by many protest non-votes, which cost him a near-unanimous vote.
This is not a major issue, but I think the term "protest" is too broad.

Some voters, like myself, chose not to vote for anyone whom they felt they had strong suspicion of steroid use. I would consider my vote effectively a "protest."

Some voters took an X% steroid discount from McGwire's production, and didn't vote based on the stats of a theoretical "McGwire - steroids" player. I don't think that's a protest vote - it's an attempt to quantify the effects of PEDs. In some ways it's a protest against PED, but I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think many of these voters would vote for Bonds, but not McGwire.
   15. sunnyday2 Posted: January 09, 2007 at 05:06 AM (#2276640)
HoM voters supported McGwire 86 percent. Others supported McGwire only 59 percent. I guess the HoM voters through years of discussion and debate have come to a unique conclusion about making moral judgments about players. I mean, we elected Joe Jackson and Pete Rose will be next. McGwire is clearly of a piece with Shoeless and Charley.
   16. Chris Cobb Posted: January 09, 2007 at 05:45 AM (#2276651)
McGwire is clearly of a piece with Shoeless and Charley.

I expect few of the HoM voters would agree with that statement. McGwire did not throw games, bet on baseball, land on the HoF's ineligible list, or make a colossal public ass of himself. The steroid issue is a different issue, and voters will respond to it differently.

I would agree, though, that HoM voters, through the HoM process, are less inclined to give weight to "character issues" than other voters.

I expect that McGwire wll garner rather less than 59% of the vote from the BBWAA tomorrow, though, and I am curious to see whether the non-HoM BBTF voters are closer to the HoM electorate or to the BBWAA in their response to McGwire's candidacy.
   17. DavidFoss Posted: January 09, 2007 at 06:27 AM (#2276661)
Congratulations first-timers Ripken & Gwynn.

And congratulations to Blyleven, Gossage and Trammell for being inducted three years in a row! :-)
   18. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:15 AM (#2276677)
McGwire is clearly of a piece with Shoeless and Charley.

The major difference with what McGwire probably did was this: Under no circumstances did it prevent his team from winning. I'm not debating whether steroids are right, or moral, or how much they affect the game -- but they are, essentially, a method of gaining a competitive advantage, rather than a practice by which a player or team may be put at a competitive disadvantage.

I, personally, don't have the patience for the Hall of Merit (or rather am too lazy), but tend to view the Hall of Fame as already an amoral place. (For the love of God, Ty Cobb is in it.) McGwire received slight demerits from me because I'm not sure he would have been quite as good a hitter without the drkqs. It was only enough to knock him from second on my list to fifth. I dislike intensely passing moral judgement on people I don't know based on things they supposedly did in an arena in which one's actions have no inherent moral value. (Ie, to hit a home run is not an absolute good. To feed a starving child is. If that's clear.)

And, by the way, I did not vote for Zarqawi because I have absolute proof that he is on steroids.
   19. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:17 AM (#2276678)
Oh wow, I didn't realize we were supposed to rank them in order . . .
   20. Shock Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:19 AM (#2276679)
You weren't. See post 7.
   21. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:21 AM (#2276680)
Yeah, I don't think we were, I just did, and I also screwed up by switching Rich Gossage and Bert Blyleven.
   22. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:24 AM (#2276682)
Wow, Garvey only got 1 vote. And we'd drop Lee Smith off the ballot. Both of those shock me for some reason.
   23. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:25 AM (#2276685)
Oh wait - that's not what that third line means . . . I think I'm going to re-organize the results so they look like a Hall of Fame ballot instead of a Hall of Merit one . . .
   24. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:32 AM (#2276686)
You're shocked that Satan did not do well in Hall of Fame voting?
   25. fra paolo Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:38 AM (#2276696)
I would agree, though, that HoM voters, through the HoM process, are less inclined to give weight to "character issues" than other voters.

I'm not sure that's true. Certainly in my case I have set aside my feelings about character issues because the rules of the HoM require one to assess a player only on his on-field performance.
   26. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 09, 2007 at 01:09 PM (#2276716)
Wow, I'm even the consensusmeister general on this one!
Those are the exact 5 I voted for, though I'm hardly the only one who can say that.


John should post an honor roll of those of us who obviously steered the consensus to the correct five choices. It'll be one of the few times we can pretend that anyone was ever paying any attention to our opinions....
   27. DL from MN Posted: January 09, 2007 at 03:16 PM (#2276737)
I place McGwire alongside of Gaylord Perry. They both cheated to win and the baseball establishment willingly looked the other way.
   28. CrosbyBird Posted: January 09, 2007 at 03:38 PM (#2276751)
These results show exactly why it's not a problem that some people have light ballots and some people have heavy ballots. While I had Trammell and Gossage out, and McGwire in, the results are not horrifying to my small-hall ideals, and they should not be horrifying to even the big-hall voters.
   29. DanG Posted: January 09, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2276769)
the results are not horrifying to my small-hall ideals, and they should not be horrifying to even the big-hall voters.

Horrifying...trying to send thousands more to die in Iraq is horrifying. Applying this to the HoM is melodramatic.

Anyhoo, from my POV, our results easily improve on the BBWAA's performance in that we got ALL the no-brainers, rather than just a couple. Unfortunately, Blyleven, Gossage and Trammell will all be back next year for us to vote in a fourth time. This only distracts us from meaningful discussions concerning the players near the Hall's in/out line.

So I find our results neither horrifying nor satisfying.
   30. TomH Posted: January 09, 2007 at 04:23 PM (#2276774)
......I'm ..... satisifed that you're not horrified.
And I'm not horrified that you're not satisfied.
   31. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 09, 2007 at 04:41 PM (#2276780)
trying to send thousands more to die in Iraq is horrifying.

Sure, but what sending 125,000 to kill 100,000-300,000 Iraqi civilians. Now that's horrifying.
   32. DanG Posted: January 09, 2007 at 04:49 PM (#2276787)
And I'm not horrified that you're not satisfied.


And I'm sorrified you're not hatified. Whatever.
   33. ronw Posted: January 09, 2007 at 05:44 PM (#2276817)
Uh-oh, politics alert. Murphy's gonna open up a can of whoop-ass.

The horror ... The horror ...
   34. strong silence Posted: January 09, 2007 at 06:11 PM (#2276833)
These results show exactly why it's not a problem that some people have light ballots and some people have heavy ballots. While I had Trammell and Gossage out, and McGwire in, the results are not horrifying to my small-hall ideals, and they should not be horrifying to even the big-hall voters.

While not horrifying, it's significantly shocking that people don't understand park effects, and so continue to vote for Rice but not Parker. 9 votes to 6 - that means that it's possible that 3 people had Rice but not Parker, a more feared hitter and player in the late 1970s. And it could mean that 9 people had Rice but not Parker. Obviously, I haven't checked the ballots for the actual votes.
   35. Dizzypaco Posted: January 09, 2007 at 06:28 PM (#2276842)

While not horrifying, it's significantly shocking that people don't understand park effects, and so continue to vote for Rice but not Parker. 9 votes to 6 - that means that it's possible that 3 people had Rice but not Parker, a more feared hitter and player in the late 1970s.


I didn't vote for either of them, but if I had to vote for one, I'd choose Rice, not Parker. OPS+, which takes into account park effects, leans toward Rice (career of 128 to 121). More importantly, Rice had a 13 year period where he was both durable and relatively consistent, putting up an OPS+ of over 120 in 11 of those years. Parker had a five year period in the late 70's where he was very good, but other than that, he was nothing special, putting up an OPS+ of 120 or more only once outside the five year peak.

In short, they were pretty comparable in the 70's, and Rice was clearly better in the 80's, IMO.
   36. strong silence Posted: January 09, 2007 at 06:33 PM (#2276847)
That's a valid argument. I weight Peak performance a little more than you so I would vote for Parker. I think Parker didn't stay physically fit and his knees started hurting on the concrete that was known as Three Rivers field. Put Parker in Fenway, and LF in particular, and you get Rice or better.
   37. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 06:56 PM (#2276857)
Uh-oh, politics alert. Murphy's gonna open up a can of whoop-ass.

The horror ... The horror ...


No fisticuffs from me, Ron. :-) But if it becomes political to the point that I don't want to be around here anymore, then I'll bid everybody adieu.
   38. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 06:57 PM (#2276859)
I believe I, too, would have earned a unanimous vote, were it not for all the voters who did not select me.

Wiseguy. :-)
   39. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:00 PM (#2276865)
I place McGwire alongside of Gaylord Perry. They both cheated to win and the baseball establishment willingly looked the other way.

I think PEDs are a notch or two ahead of Perry-like cheating, though it's still not close to Jackson-Rose-George Hall shenanigans, IMO.
   40. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:02 PM (#2276866)
Oh wait - that's not what that third line means . . . I think I'm going to re-organize the results so they look like a Hall of Fame ballot instead of a Hall of Merit one . . .

Jeez, I did the same thing last year without any problems. Some people! ;-)
   41. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:05 PM (#2276870)
John should post an honor roll of those of us who obviously steered the consensus to the correct five choices. It'll be one of the few times we can pretend that anyone was ever paying any attention to our opinions....

Heh.

While I reluctantly voted for Big Mac, I'm not upset with him not reaching the 75% mark this year, so can I be placed on the list, too? :-)
   42. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:32 PM (#2276882)
Put Parker in Fenway, and LF in particular, and you get Rice or better.

I'm not so sure. Parker was a LHB who took full advantage of Three Rivers, with a 346/393/571 line at home and 296/359/494 on the road during his peak from 1975 to 1979. He would likely not derive the same benefit from Fenway as would a right-handed power hitter like Rice, though a switch to the AL would have bestowed the added bonus of league expansion to pad his stats a bit. It's certainly possible that Parker would have put up better stats in Boston, especially if he could have avoided some of the injury, weight, and drug problems that derailed his career in Pittsburgh, but I'm still skeptical. On the other hand, if you put Rice in Three Rivers, he'd be a lock to underperform relative to Parker.
   43. sunnyday2 Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:42 PM (#2276890)
To me, Parker and Rice are pretty close to one another AND close to the borderline. So it's not horrifying to me if somebody voted for both, neither, one or the other. The idea that Concepcion and Tony Fernandez and Harold Baines are in pretty much the same ballpark--now that's horrifying.
   44. Dan Turkenkopf Posted: January 09, 2007 at 07:51 PM (#2276894)
I didn't vote for either of them, but if I had to vote for one, I'd choose Rice, not Parker. OPS+, which takes into account park effects, leans toward Rice (career of 128 to 121). More importantly, Rice had a 13 year period where he was both durable and relatively consistent, putting up an OPS+ of over 120 in 11 of those years. Parker had a five year period in the late 70's where he was very good, but other than that, he was nothing special, putting up an OPS+ of 120 or more only once outside the five year peak.

In short, they were pretty comparable in the 70's, and Rice was clearly better in the 80's, IMO.


For whatever it's worth, over their careers (well except for Parker's half-season in 73) I have Parker leading Rice in WPA 38.88 to 27.45.
   45. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:05 PM (#2276906)
Gwynn (97.6) and Ripken (98.5) are in. No one else.
   46. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:07 PM (#2276908)
Albert Belle off the ballot. Gossage to 71.2. (!)

23.5 for McGwire.
   47. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:11 PM (#2276911)
Numbers for Blyleven? Rice?
   48. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:12 PM (#2276912)
Actually MLB.com says Rice and Dawson both lost ground.
   49. Dan Turkenkopf Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:14 PM (#2276914)
Results here.

Blyleven at 47.7% and Rice at 63.5.
   50. Adam B. Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:15 PM (#2276917)
Here's the numbers. Bly11 lost ground as well.
   51. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:16 PM (#2276918)
Only Concepcion and Goose gained ground. That's typical when so many big names enter a ballot. Actually, I'm amazed anyone gained ground. Goose goes in next year for sure.

Results

2006 Results, for comparison

All hail Harold Baines!!
   52. DanG Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:16 PM (#2276919)
2007 BBWAA Hall of Fame Voting Results
Candidate Votes
 
of Votes  
Cal Ripken Jr
.  537  98.5  
Tony Gwynn  532  97.6  
Rich Gossage 388 71.2 
Jim Rice 346 63.5 
Andre Dawson 309 56.7 
Bert Blyleven 260 47.7 
Lee Smith 217 39.8 
Jack Morris 202 37.1 
Mark McGwire 128 23.5 
Tommy John 125 22.9 
*Steve Garvey 115 21.1 
Dave Concepcion 74 13.6 
Alan Trammell 73 13.4 
Dave Parker 62 11.4 
Don Mattingly 54 9.9 
Dale Murphy 50 9.2 
Harold Baines 29 5.3 
Orel Hershiser 24 4.4 
Albert Belle 19 3.5 
Paul O
'Neill 12 2.2 
Bret Saberhagen 7 1.3 
Jose Canseco 6 1.1 
Tony Fernandez 4 0.7 
Dante Bichette 3 0.6 
Eric Davis 3 0.6 
Bobby Bonilla 2 0.4 
Ken Caminiti 2 0.4 
Jay Buhner 1 0.2 
Scott Brosius 0 0.0 
Wally Joyner 0 0.0 
Devon White 0 0.0 
Bobby Witt 0 0.0 
   53. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:16 PM (#2276920)
Jay Buhner 1 0.2%

Frank Costanza is a Hall of Fame voter?
   54. rawagman Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:19 PM (#2276924)
The anti-climax of the year
   55. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:21 PM (#2276925)
So I'm guessing Bob Klapisch was not of the 2 who voted for Bobby Bo...
   56. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:23 PM (#2276928)
Lots of stuff to mull on. First 2 jerks returned blank ballots. Second 6 other people didn't vote for the best SS since Vaughan slash great savior of the post-strike game as we know it. The six that couldn't vote for Ripken should probably have their voting credentials carefully reviewed....

McGwire 23.5% meaning that both the HOM guys and the non-HOM guys are way over the BBWAA consensus.

Good news: Gossage is now achingly close to election. 71%, 21 votes shy. Bad news: Blyleven didn't really get much traction, remaining in the 40s.

Notables falling off: Hershiser, Belle, Saberhagen, Canseco, Fernandez. And Bobby Witt. Man 460 HR don't buy much these days, huh? It does seem contradictory that Fernandez goes but Concepcion stays, they aren't that different in value.

And in his last year on the ballot, Steve Garvey polls 21%, which was better than all of these guys did:
Dave Concepcion 13.6%
Alan Trammell 13.4%
Dave Parker 11.4%
Don Mattingly 9.9%
Dale Murphy 9.2%
Harold Baines 5.3%

One trend to see is that most every backlogger lost votes, except Gossage.
Gossage +6.6%
Rice -1.3%
Morris -4.1%
Trammell -4.3%
Dawson -4.3%
Garvey -4.9%
Smith -5.2%
Bert -5.6%
John -6.7%

That's kind of interesting. Perhaps it's the presence of superior up-ballot candidates at work? Ideally, they should have no effect on the voting for lower-down guys, but who knows.
   57. Perro(s) Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:24 PM (#2276929)
OPS+ by itself is not an adequate measurement.

Too bad Goose didn't make it as well, but it looks like only a matter of time.
   58. DavidFoss Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:40 PM (#2276946)
Who didn't vote for Gwynn and Ripken again? They should publish the names.
   59. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:42 PM (#2276950)
McGwire 23.5% meaning that both the HOM guys and the non-HOM guys are way over the BBWAA consensus.

It also means 14 more years of this, unless he somehow is elected before his eligibility ends.
   60. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2007 at 08:43 PM (#2276952)
Who didn't vote for Gwynn and Ripken again? They should publish the names.

Forget their kids, they should take away their ballots.
   61. Chris Fluit Posted: January 09, 2007 at 09:13 PM (#2277010)
1. Glad to see Ripken and Gwynn get in. Both are clearly deserving candidates.

2. Disappointed, but not surprised that neither got in unanimously. There are jerks out there who will come up with any rationale to not vote for someone. We even saw some of that on this board when one poster said he wouldn't vote for Ripken before changing his mind on the ballot thread. "Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous either." "The streak hurt his team." "He's over-rated." I even know of some Detroit area people who wouldn't vote for Ripken because they feel he unfairly overshadowed Trammell. They're all reasons, though none of them are good reasons not to vote for a guy.

3. Glad to see Gossage gaining ground. He's going in in 2008 for sure.

4. Sad to see Rice lose as much ground as he did. He might not be able to make it in in 2008 after all. And responding to Eric Chalek: yeah, this happens pretty much every time that some strong new candidates enter the ballot. Most of the returning candidates lose ground. It's as if some of the voters have a self-imposed limit of 2 or 3, instead of 10. And then there are others who vote for the story. They don't want the induction of clear-cut guys like Ripken and Gwynn somehow "sullied" by having anybody else inducted at the same time. They're all reasons, though once again, not good ones.

5. Glad to see Harold Baines get the 5%. I'm not sure he's a Hall of Famer. And I didn't vote for him this year. But I'd like some more time to think about it.

6. Sad to see Orel Hershiser go. He got the 5% last year and would probably get the 5% this year. But all it took was a few guys cutting back on the number of players they voted for (see point #4) and Hershiser got squeezed out.
   62. RobertMachemer Posted: January 09, 2007 at 09:22 PM (#2277024)
To me, Parker and Rice are pretty close to one another AND close to the borderline.
Dorothy Parker >>>>>>>>>>> Anne Rice.
   63. Chris Cobb Posted: January 09, 2007 at 09:26 PM (#2277030)
So the writer's vote picks out the no-brainers and nobody else . . .
   64. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 09, 2007 at 09:45 PM (#2277058)
Belle dropping off the ballot is insane, unless you don't think Ralph Kiner is a good Hall of Famer - they are the exact same guy.

I'm glad Goose moved up, makes sense, like I said on the ballot thread - once you vote for Sutter, it's near impossible to not support Gossage.

I'll be very disappointed if Rice makes it. I can think of half a dozen better OFs (Wynn, Belle, Singleton, Dawson, Murphy, Parker) without even thinking very hard about it. Not to mention guys like Bobby Bonds and Roy White who were just as good. And that's only from the last 40 years.
   65. Paul Wendt Posted: January 09, 2007 at 09:50 PM (#2277061)
Dropped Out: Orel Hershiser(16).

What does that mean?

Gossage to 71.2. (!)
. . .
52. Dag Nabbit Posted: January 09, 2007 at 02:16 PM (#2276918)
Only Concepcion and Goose gained ground. That's typical when so many big names enter a ballot. Actually, I'm amazed anyone gained ground. Goose goes in next year for sure.</i>

It has been clear for a few years that some people have supported Rich Gossage, some even considering him superior to Bruce Sutter, but have believed that Bruce Sutter should be elected first because he was a pioneer, maybe even changed the game. (Believe me, although I can't cite anyone by name.)

I'm surprised that Lee Smith lost ground.

It has seemed to me that the relief pitchers still gain ground, not so remarkably as the old general pattern (see especially Fox, Bunning, Cepeda, who ceilinged at about 74%), but in a way that is no longer common for regular players.

A look behind Lee Smith's separation from the pack on the overall ballot shows that pitchers Smith and Morris polled relatively well from the HOM nonvoters while Rice, Parker, and Mattingly did not, supported by HOMeboys almost alone.
   66. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 09, 2007 at 09:54 PM (#2277067)
McGwire only getting 23.5% of the vote is laughable to me.

Why do baseball fans have higher standards than football fans? Why are baseball fans so annoyingly righteous about everything (maybe myself included in this post?). Merriman gets 6 of 50 possible votes for Defensive Player of the Year, in the same season he was suspended. And there wasn't any doubt, like there is with McGwire. Quoting an article from October, "Merriman's positive test was "definitely for steroids … not one of those supplement deals," " - yet McGwire gets shunned. You can't write stuff this funny.

I see no difference from McGwire to Perry. As was said above, both cheated (though with McGwire it's, 'probably' not definitely), and the establishment looked the other way. It's a product of the times. You try to flush it out going forward, for sure; but you don't retroactively penalize guys for something that was overlooked by everyone at the time.

It's times like these when I realize why I still can't buy booze on a Sunday. We still live in Puritanical Massachussetts in many ways . . .
   67. Perro(s) Posted: January 09, 2007 at 09:56 PM (#2277074)
I feel the same way as Dimino re: Rice.

It won't be a crime if he's elected, but I find both Parker and Murphy more deserving.

Don't think Dawson's great, but it won't hurt my feelings if he's elected.
   68. Dizzypaco Posted: January 09, 2007 at 10:08 PM (#2277090)
Its not at all insane to vote for Kiner and not for Belle - I'd do it myself. First of all, Kiner was more somewhat more dominant than Belle - in addition to all the home run titles, Kiner led the league in OPS three times and was in the top five five times, while Belle led the league only once, and was in the top five three times. Second, there is something special about leading the league in homeruns seven straight years. Finally, Belle was a world class jerk. When it comes to borderline players, a guy that is a world class jerk deserves some points taken off in my opinion. Cobb and Hornsby were jerks, but their accomplishments were so extreme that it didn't really matter.
   69. Paul Wendt Posted: January 09, 2007 at 10:10 PM (#2277092)
Belle dropping off the ballot is insane, unless you don't think Ralph Kiner is a good Hall of Famer - they are the exact same guy.

I think we know that many voters don't think Ralph Kiner is a good Hall of Famer. Not so many to put Belle below 5% if Belle=Kiner, but many, and Belle gave everyone reasons to cut him no slack.

I'll be very disappointed if Rice makes it. I can think of half a dozen better OFs (Wynn, Belle, Singleton, Dawson, Murphy, Parker) without even thinking very hard about it. Not to mention guys like Bobby Bonds and Roy White who were just as good. And that's only from the last 40 years.

The BBWAA vote shows extreme separation between Rice and Dawson on the one hand, Murphy and Parker on the other; Bonds with Murphy and Parker (surviving the first cut). Wynn, White and Singleton with Belle, on the third hand (who? are you kidding?).

Among all these players, Dawson is all the many things that I think I know baseball writers like, and Rice is the still-limited understanding of park effects. Meagre support for Murphy shows that pretty much all the writers understand park effects now, at long last.
   70. Paul Wendt Posted: January 09, 2007 at 10:13 PM (#2277096)
It's times like these when I realize why I still can't buy booze on a Sunday. We still live in Puritanical Massachussetts in many ways . . .

Where, in Quaker Pennsylvania?
   71. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 09, 2007 at 10:14 PM (#2277104)
McGwire only getting 23.5% of the vote is laughable to me.

scruff, that's what the HOM is for.

On the question of the NFL, perhaps the problem is with the NFL fans' standards, and not with the BBWAA's.

As for Gaylord Perry, he paid his penalties long ago, and the writers were fully cognizant of his spitballing when they voted him into the Hall. Just as the writers were fully cognizant of what McGwire did when they gave him 23.5%. It's obvious they don't equate the two forms of cheating. You're in a distinct minority if you equate them yourself.

And when you don't like what one institution does, you establish your own. Just like you did yourself, to our undying gratitude and with our sincere admiration. Long live the HOM.
   72. Dizzypaco Posted: January 09, 2007 at 10:28 PM (#2277119)
The outfielders can easily be put into three categories (this is perception, not necessarily reality): Those players who writers think were really good in their prime, but weren't productive for very long (Parker, Murphy, Mattingly); those players who were really good in their prime, and were productive for a long time (Rice, Dawson); and those players who played a while but were never that good even in their prime (White, Singleton). The guys with both the career and peak get the most votes, peak get second most, and career only get third.
   73. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 09, 2007 at 10:35 PM (#2277127)
The spitball/steroid comparison is weak, but what long-ago "penalties" did Gaylord Perry ever pay?
   74. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 09, 2007 at 10:42 PM (#2277134)
The spitball/steroid comparison is weak, but what long-ago "penalties" did Gaylord Perry ever pay?

He was constantly scolded by a minority of writers, mocked by opposing fans, harrassed by opposing managers and players, and I think once he may have been suspended for a game or two. All of which pretty much shows just how seriously baseball treated spitballs. And maybe they were onto something in their casual attitude.

But the other thing about Perry is that the effectiveness of his spitball was far more in the batters' minds than in was in the pitch, which he used more as an implied threat than anything else---which is also one of the main reasons they couldn't catch him in the act in spite of the fact that he had to load up in full public view.
   75. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 09, 2007 at 10:45 PM (#2277136)
I should have added to that last post that I've said many times that if juicing had to be done in the same public manner that spitballing is, I'd be far more forgiving of it. I'd then consider it in more or less the same light.
   76. DL from MN Posted: January 09, 2007 at 11:00 PM (#2277153)
So juicing is more like corking a bat, you have to do it in the clubhouse beforehand.
   77. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 09, 2007 at 11:04 PM (#2277156)
Ehhh, that's a pretty lame list of "penalties" (taunted on the road... NOOOO!!!!). Especially when compared with a book deal, and Perry's likely elevation to a Hall of Fame career.
   78. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 09, 2007 at 11:22 PM (#2277173)
I think it'll be real interesting to see what happens when Singleton, Rice, and Murphy are on the same HOM ballot. In essence, they are all the same player: Good peak, good prime, short overall career. None of their peaks or primes are historic, and all three lay somewhere near the borderline. I think the HOM is likely to select Murphy or Singleton before Rice (if it selects any of them), but I could be wrong. Bobby Bonds gets votes in the HOM (a few), Jimmy Wynn, a player with a similar profile, but a better peak at a more demanding position, is in the queue to go in (unless we elected him and I'm forgetting---forgive me, Jimmy, if so).

Anyway, I think that the best comp for Jim Rice is Chuck Klein. Not necessarily by the numbers absolutely. But Klein played in a park that pumped up lefty pull hitters to insane degrees, he had a pretty good (not superb) peak, a good prime, and a shortish total career. Like Rice. And he limped into the Hall via the Vets committee which probably never saw a home/road split for him. It's my belief that Fenway of the 1970s boosted offense bigtime for righty pull hitters (above the park factor because the park is psychzoid and often plays against lefties), and I think Rice did the same thing Klein did, which he ought to of course(!). I think that Jim Rice in County Stadium or Arlington Stadium or Memorial Stadium would have been an obvious HOVG member, and no one would talk much about his HOF credentials. He'd poll 10% or less and be off the ballot quickly. As it is, I'm not sure he'll get in by the BBWAA, but I have a feeling the Vets will vote him in someday. To my chagrin (and Joe's apparently).
   79. CrosbyBird Posted: January 09, 2007 at 11:29 PM (#2277177)
Tony Gwynn
Cal Ripken Jr.

That is fast.
   80. DavidFoss Posted: January 09, 2007 at 11:29 PM (#2277179)
Its not at all insane to vote for Kiner and not for Belle - I'd do it myself. First of all, Kiner was more somewhat more dominant than Belle - in addition to all the home run titles, Kiner led the league in OPS three times and was in the top five five times, while Belle led the league only once, and was in the top five three times.

I concur. They are the same type of guy, but certainly not the same guy. If they were on the same ballot together, I would certainly rank Kiner higher.
   81. DavidFoss Posted: January 09, 2007 at 11:35 PM (#2277182)
That is fast.

Yeah, I think Sean Forman does bb-ref for his "day job" now so the amount of new material there of late has been simply staggering. Three cheers for Sean!
   82. Jeff M Posted: January 10, 2007 at 12:15 AM (#2277219)
I see no difference from McGwire to Perry.

Perhaps true on the moral issue, but at least Perry's numbers warrant the HoF if you disregard the cheating. We can talk about McGwire's steroid use all day long, but I wouldn't have voted for him either way. His numbers are not impressive compared to the guys we typically elect to the HoM who played 1b, IMO. And McGwire had some DH in there.

If you trust BP at all, McGwire isn't much more impressive than Tony Fernandez, and certainly not when you take into account the other HoFers and HoMers at their positions.

While we are on that subject, Fernandez was a beauty to watch at short. He had impeccable timing. He'd lob a submarined throw over to first just in the nick of time to nab the runner by a half step. That was true whether he was throwing out Kenny Lofton or Terry Steinbach. No wasted effort...just enough to get the out.
   83. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 10, 2007 at 12:28 AM (#2277227)
I was thinking about it today and I don't think I would've voted for Ripken and Gwynn, but only because I wanted to vote for 12 guys and Ripken and Gwynn were going to make it anyhow. That's why they should be allowed to vote for more than 10.

I heard Keith Olberman on the radio today, he said it was typical, "12 hall of famers on the ballot and they only elect 2". Of course he had the wrong 12 (Concepcion in, Trammell out, Morris in).
   84. jimd Posted: January 10, 2007 at 01:16 AM (#2277256)
It's my belief that Fenway of the 1970s boosted offense bigtime for righty pull hitters (above the park factor because the park is psychzoid and often plays against lefties),

The stats you presented before on another thread did NOT demonstrate this effect (Fenway favoring Rice more than a typical teammate) but was close to what one would expect given the Fenway park factor you quoted.

The conventional wisdom of the time was that Fenway did not give Rice a huge added boost (unlike the lefties like Yaz or Boggs). Lefties could pull it around the Pesky Pole, use the huge right field for average, or inside-out the ball to get soft fly balls off the wall (Boggs' approach). Plus they got an over-abundance of right-handed pitchers. Rice was more of a line-drive hitter and would have needed to add more uppercut to loft them over the Green Monster; instead he hit rockets that dented the tin covering on the wall about 10-20 feet up, going for doubles.
   85. DavidFoss Posted: January 10, 2007 at 01:30 AM (#2277265)
His numbers are not impressive compared to the guys we typically elect to the HoM who played 1b, IMO. And McGwire had some DH in there.

Are you a career voter? McGwire's rate numbers simply staggering, but I suppose it was an injury-riddled 7600 PA.
   86. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 10, 2007 at 01:31 AM (#2277266)
I fail to see any difference between Kiner and Belle.

Belle was better in the field. Belle hit a bunch more doubles, Kiner hit a few more HR - it's a lot easier to rack up black in an 8 team league than in a 14-team league. Reason number 9,729,112 why I think ink is essentially useless.

Kiner 149 OPS+ 6256 PA (6581 if you adjust from 154 to 162 games).

Belle 143 OPS+ in 6673 PA - only that doesn't adjust for the DH, which costs Belle a few points of OPS+.

Belle has 90.0 WARP3 to Kiner's 76.4. That does adjust for the DH. I like Belle's peak better too.

I think they are basically the same player - Kiner very slightly better hitter, Belle a better fielder. There's no way one is in and the other is out.

Don't get me wrong, I felt Kiner was a mistake in the Hall of Merit - maybe he deserved eventual election, but there are others in the backlog I like a lot better. But there's no justification for honoring Kiner and not Belle - there are very few cases of more similar players out there - the two are a spitting image of each other.

I also don't buy the - being a jerk or nice guy is the tie-breaker - idea, to me it's irrelevant.
   87. BDC Posted: January 10, 2007 at 02:09 AM (#2277294)
Perry was suspended ten days in 1982 for a spitball, the only time he was ever caught doing it.
   88. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: January 10, 2007 at 03:02 AM (#2277323)
Belle dropping off the ballot is insane, unless you don't think Ralph Kiner is a good Hall of Famer - they are the exact same guy.

Hey - Kiner got below 5% once, too!

Why do baseball fans have higher standards than football fans? Why are baseball fans so annoyingly righteous about everything

Everything? Yea baseball fans have such a higher standard about signing kids out of high school than basketall fans . ..
   89. DCW3 Posted: January 10, 2007 at 07:45 AM (#2277459)
His numbers are not impressive compared to the guys we typically elect to the HoM who played 1b, IMO. And McGwire had some DH in there.

McGwire played about 2% of his career games at DH. He played nearly as many games (28) at third base and right field as he did at DH (37).
   90. kwarren Posted: January 10, 2007 at 06:54 PM (#2277712)
1T n/e Tony Gwynn 111
1T n/e Cal Ripken, Jr. 111
3 1 Bert Blyleven 97
4 3 Alan Trammell 93
5 2 Goose Gossage 91



Which one doesn't belong?

Cal Ripken........17.0, 15.0, 13.9, 12.5, 10.9 (69.3)..169.1
Bert Blyleven.....12.3, 10.0, 9.2, 8.7, 8.4 (48.6)..142.0
Tony Gwynn........12.1, 10.8, 10.2, 10.0, 9.3 (52.4)..124.3
Alan Trammell.....13.1, 10.5, 10.2, 10.2, 9.7 (53.7)..123.3
Goose Gossage.....10.5, 10.5, 7.8, 7.4, 7.1 (43.3).. 89.5


Why do we feel the need to include relief pitchers in the Hall of Fame. The # 1 requirement to become a relief pitcher is to have been a failed starter. If you're a successful starting pitcher you never get a shot as a reliever, except through age or injury late in your career. Becoming a reliever is always a back-up alternative when starting becomes impractical. In 1976 Gossage made 29 starts with a 9-17 record and 90+ ERA. It's hard to consider


In 1,809 career innings he had a 1,502/732 K/BB ratio, hardly impressive for an elite closer. For comparison Rivera is 783/226. Wagner is 934/238. Hoffman is 965/250. Francisco Rodriguez is 420/130.

Dec 10,1976 - Traded by White Sox with Terry Forster to Pirates for Silvio Martinez and Richie Zisk.

Feb 12,1988 - Traded by Padres with Ray Hayward to Cubs for Mike Brumley and Keith Moreland.

Mar 28,1989 - Released by Cubs.

Aug 10,1989 - Claimed on waivers by Yankees from Giants.


He played 21 seasons for nine different teams. What's up with this?

Gossage served up three of the more memorable and majestic home runs in major-league history. On Oct. 10, 1980, Kansas City's George Brett hit a tide-turning three-run homer off Gossage into Yankee Stadium's right-field upper deck to lead the Royals to a three-game sweep in the American League Championship Series. Almost three years later during the regular season, Brett got to the Goose again in the Bronx, blasting a go-ahead two-run home run in the top of the ninth in a game memorialized as the "Pine Tar Game." A year later as a member of the Padres, Gossage yielded Kirk Gibson's three-run blast into the third deck at Tiger Stadium, which capped off the Detroit Tigers' 8-4 win in the fifth and deciding game of the 1984 World Series.
   91. Howie Menckel Posted: January 12, 2007 at 01:57 AM (#2278985)
Wow, that could be the lamest cherry-picking argument I've seen in years - and I've seen a lot of 'em!

Mostly, I'll let my successors count the ways.

But I notice none of those 'big HRs' came in 1981, when Goose saved 6 games in three playoff series in 14.3 IP with 15 K, 4 BB, and a 0.00 ERA.

Wait, that's cherry-picking - is that fair?
Oh, I guess it is.

P.S. I'm not a big fan of relievers, in general, but geesh!
   92. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 12, 2007 at 04:35 AM (#2279079)
kwarren - those numbers are more a failing of WARP than anything else.

My system for rating pitchers, which takes leverage into account, inherited runners, etc.; shows Gossage as clearly in, without any reliever bonus.

And the number one requirement for being a reliever isn't being a failed starter, that's just a ridiculously biased comment. The number one requirement for being an ace reliever is durability (the ability to pitch multiple times per week), followed closely by having one extremely good pitch.

Ace relievers haven't been mainly 'failed starters' since before WWII. Miscast starter is a much better phrase than failed starter.

I still don't understand the reliever bias out there. Managers make a conscious decision to trade quantity for quality and leverage. If it didn't work, if it wasn't more efficient; we wouldn't have evolved to this system.
   93. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 12, 2007 at 04:39 AM (#2279081)
kwarren, take any starting pitcher from the 1970s, and compare his K/BB to a pitcher from the 2000s and they'll come up short.

If you haven't noticed, K's are at an all-time high right now. Compare Goose to some 1970s and 1980s closers please.
   94. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 12, 2007 at 04:45 AM (#2279082)
Also, the modern guys throw 50-60% of the innings Goose and his counterparts did. They make up for it with effectiveness, but overall the Goose era relief aces were more valuable than the modern closers, individually at least (although I'd guess modern set up men make up the difference, they just use two pitchers for the job now instead of one).

As an example, I've got Rivera slightly behind Rollie Fingers right now as the 4th best reliever ever. He'll pass Fingers next year, assuming nothing bad happens, but Fingers' 2560 LI innings compared to Rivera's 1475 (or so) are slighty more valuable than Rivera's 200-123 DRA+ (my stat, replaces ERA+) advantage. But it's very close.

But that tells you how good a modern guy has to be to compare to a Wilhelm, Gossage or Fingers.
   95. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 12, 2007 at 04:47 AM (#2279085)
BTW, if it wasn't clear in my post above, I'm saying that of course the modern guys are going to be better, per inning; that's because they are working less, and can go harder. You can't compare a 1970s or early 1980s relief ace to a 2000s closer without allowing for the difference in workload.
   96. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 12, 2007 at 04:52 AM (#2279087)
Richie Zisk had a 137 career OPS+ in 2000 AB through 1976. Larry Doby through 1951 and Rico Carty through 1967 are two of the comparables on his top 10 list through then. That was through his age 27 season. I'd say that means Goose was considered pretty valuable at the time.

February 25, 1972: Traded by the St. Louis Cardinals to the Philadelphia Phillies for Rick Wise.

That's on the Steve Carlton page. He must have sucked too.

Yeah, in his late 30s, Gossage moved around the league a little, he must have really sucked by then. Except that from age 39-42 his ERA+ were 113, 132, 92 and 117 - so he could still pitch a little, even then. That's why he was allowed to pitch until he was 42.
   97. OCF Posted: January 12, 2007 at 04:59 AM (#2279090)
February 25, 1972: Traded by the St. Louis Cardinals to the Philadelphia Phillies for Rick Wise.

Rub it it, why don't you? Did you have to bring that up?
   98. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 12, 2007 at 05:13 AM (#2279096)
Oh, and on a per-season level, it isn't close, the old guys were more valuable, even if they weren't as good, per inning.

Rivera's best season, 2001 scores as 6.7 WAR in my system. Gossage's 1977 scores at 10.6, Fingers' 1981 (adjusted for season length) scores at 9.3, Hiller's 1973 is 12.3.

Of course Rivera closes ground because his 7th best season (4.8) is the best anyone has ever had (Goose's was 4.7), he's been able to do it longer than anyone else at such a high level.

But that's also partially because of his relatively (compared to the 1970s guys) light workload.
   99. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 12, 2007 at 05:23 AM (#2279101)
Gossage's career post-season numbers:

19 G, 5-3, 8 SV; 31.3 IP, 29/7 K/BB, 21 H, 2.87 ERA. Using Palmer's formula, that estimated leverage of 2.87. Those are pretty good numbers if you ask me. His teams won 5 of the 8 series; in one of those he pitched great, but they lost anyway (the 1981 WS), and in the other two, he gave up the big dingers mentioned above. I guess he wasn't perfect.
   100. Raoul Duke Posted: January 12, 2007 at 05:28 AM (#2279103)
kwarren went and hid pretty fast after the lunacy he posted on #91 . . .
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JE (Jason Epstein)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.8215 seconds
68 querie(s) executed