(Should I say "bump" when I roll it over to page two?)

Did we elect any of these guys last year, or elect Sutter?
Did I vote?
Why two stars (**) for Steve Garvey? Stars in his eyes?

IN
Ripken
Gwynn
McGwire
Trammell

OUT
Dawson, Rice, Belle, Murphy, Parker, Baines, Canseco
Garvey, Mattingly,
Concepcion, Fernandez,
and others

Honorable mention to Devon White for some nice flycatching

IN THE BIG BUBBLE
pitchers

IN
Gossage
Blyleven

OUT
John, Morris, Hershiser,
Canton's Bobby Witt,
and others

ON THE BUBBLE
Smith

--
Probably my write-ins would be White, Hines, and Barnes from the 1898 election and Dahlen.
If write-ins are only for players active in 1986, Simmons (far over the hill), Grich (not far over the hill), and ??

If write-ins are only for players active in 1986, Simmons (far over the hill), Grich (not far over the hill), and ??

And Will Clark!

Why? Managers make a conscious decision - lower ERAs for fewer innings. Starters get the benefit of throwing more innings, relievers get the benefit of having fewer runs allowed per inning. In the end, pitching is pitching.

If you're saying that "pitching is pitching," then I think the argument for leverage disappears.

If you're saying that "pitching is pitching," then I think the argument for leverage disappears.

Not at all.

Managers use some pitchers for longer stints (starters). They use others more frequently, for shorter stints and fewer overall innings (relievers).

They use relievers this way for two reasons. 1) They are more effective when used in this manner (fewer runs allowed per inning) 2) they can spot these more effective pitchers into key situations that are more important.

I see no reason to penalize this second group of pitchers when comparing them to the first. The first has the advantage of pitching more innings when we add it all up. The second has the advantage of pitching better and in more important situations.

Each usage pattern has it's own advantages and disadvantages in terms of the overall tally of who did the most towards winning games - I see no reason to adjust further.

Joe,

If you really want to level the playing field I do nto understand why you wouldn't addjust a reliever's ERA. Obviously a manager makes a concious decision to pitch a certain pitcher in higher leverage situations in which it is easier to post a better ERA. If you only adjust for leverage, you are giving relievers a big advantage. You can't just say that Marino Rivera has a 190 ERA+ (or whatever it is) in 900 IP and with leverage that is a 190 ERA+ in 1650 IP. That seems to really be favoring a relief pitcher.

Preliminary HoF 2007 ballot, rank-ordered:

1) Ripken. One of the top 5 shortstops all time is good for #1 in this group.
2) Blyleven. Severely underrated.
3) Gwynn. Overrated because of the hits and batting average, but still a shoo-in.
4) Trammell. In the shadow of Ripken, but easily deserving of election.
5) McGwire. No steroid discount. Overrated before the scandal, underrated after.
6) Gossage. #2 relief pitcher all-time, pending Rivera's eligibility.
7) Concepcion. If Ozzie, why not Davey? He was brilliant defensive shortstop and a decent hitter in his prime.
8) Belle. The Kiner/Keller argument holds for Belle also. His great peak is underrated because it came during the strike years.
9) Lee Smith. Doesn't have quite the peak of Gossage, but he was an excellent relief pitcher for a dozen years, and good for longer than that.

I am considering Tony Fernandez, Andre Dawson, and Brett Saberhagen (take a look at his DERA) for the final spot.

Murphy and Mattingly are not far behind. John has outstanding career value but nothing on the peak side of his ledger. O'Neill was better than I knew.

Hershiser and Morris fall a bit short.

Parker, Rice, Canseco are similar, and all fall short.

Baines is peakless like John.

Bonilla and Caminiti had nice peaks, but were no better than average outside their peaks.

Mark,

To rate a relief pitcher by his _value_ to his team, IP X leverage X effectiveness will accurately represent that value. If you are trying to find your way to "ability" as a measure for comparing relief pitchers to starting pitchers, then you might need to make adjustments to your measure of effectiveness, but I don't see why value isn't the proper measure.

It's not like Joe's measure is showing that tons of relief pitchers were more valuable than starting pitchers. He is finding that the top relief pitchers were comparable in value to lower-tier HoM starting pitchers. That makes intuitive sense and the value calculation is rigorous. It's not clear to me what could make this finding problematic.

8) Belle. The Kiner/Keller argument holds for Belle also. His great peak is underrated because it came during the strike years.

Which K/K argument? Marc argued that Kiner deserves war credit for delayed development, at least from anyone who gives Cravath or Averill minor league credit. I don't know how many of his supporting accountants do give Kiner some extra credit. Almost everyone gives Keller war credit if not war and minor league credit, so he is treated as if 8 or 9 full seasons at peak production rather than 6++ (six and two fractions). The "problem" with that 1994-1995 strike is it sums to less than one season. Belle missed about what Schmidt, Carlton, Grich, Evans, Dawson and maybe Raines missed in 1981.

Concepcion - is Dan R's article on the web? Maybe I'll consider him as well as Smith.
Concepcion is a poster boy for the high-benchmark/ high-replacement evaluation of Pete Palmer et al. His TPR-2005 distribution is

+27.2 : 1973-82 (ten seasons, 89-156 games)
-09.3 : 1970-72, 83-88 (nine seasons, 84-154 games)
+17.9 : career

Measured by TPR-1993, that distribution was +25.4 -16.1 = +9.3 !

To rate a relief pitcher by his _value_ to his team, IP X leverage X effectiveness will accurately represent that value. If you are trying to find your way to "ability" as a measure for comparing relief pitchers to starting pitchers, then you might need to make adjustments to your measure of effectiveness, but I don't see why value isn't the proper measure.

But "value" doesn't exist in a vacuum--we're always trying to determine a player's value by comparing him to what another player would be expected to do in the same situation, whether it be an average player or a replacement-level one. Relievers don't have better ERAs than starters because they're better pitchers--they have better ERAs because of the way they're used (shorter stints, lesser opposition thanks to stars being pulled for defensive replacements and that sort of thing). Any pitcher used in relief should be expected to have a better ERA in that role than he would as a starter. I see two ways of looking at this: either "a run is a run is a run," which is how my article approaches it, or "context matters," in which case you'd adjust for leverage but also, in my opinion, have to adjust for the more favorable ERA context. But I don't think you can pick and choose.

But I don't think you can pick and choose

I don't see how using actual leverage, actual effectiveness when compared to replacement, and actual IP is picking and choosing.

Any pitcher used in relief should be expected to have a better ERA in that role than he would as a starter.

As a general rule, yes, but the good pitchers who stick in the relievers' role will be ones who turn out to have higher upsides in a relief role. I don't believe that for any individual pitcher, you can look at his ERA+ as a reliever and predict precisely what his ERA+ would be as a starter, or vice versa. You also can't predict precisely how durable a pitcher would be in a given role.

Taking the position "context matters" to its fullest implication means that a pitcher's effectiveness and his usage pattern can't be treated independently. The approach you are advocating seems to me to try to measure a pitcher's effectiveness outside of the context in which he was used.

Tracing this conversation backwards, I find that you don't support the induction of Rich Gossage into the HoF, so the conclusion your analytical approach reaches is that no relief pitchers are truly comparable in merit to the top starting pitchers or position players. I think that in itself, given the observed impact of great relief pitchers, is itself an argument against your position.

Which K/K argument? Marc argued that Kiner deserves war credit for delayed development, at least from anyone who gives Cravath or Averill minor league credit. I don't know how many of his supporting accountants do give Kiner some extra credit. Almost everyone gives Keller war credit if not war and minor league credit, so he is treated as if 8 or 9 full seasons at peak production rather than 6++ (six and two fractions). The "problem" with that 1994-1995 strike is it sums to less than one season. Belle missed about what Schmidt, Carlton, Grich, Evans, Dawson and maybe Raines missed in 1981.

The "short career, but monster batting peak" argument. With strike credit, Belle ends up having a career of greater magnitude (sans sig war credit for Kinter or MiL credit for Keller) than either of the K's, and a comparable or better peak.

I mentioned the strikes because I think many voters are intending not to adjust for them. I do, and for a player who is having his best seasons during the strike years, it makes a big difference to assessing his career. The strike is irrelevant to the cases of Schmidt, Carlton, Grich, and Raines. I agree that giving or withholding strike credit could make the difference for Dawson's, or Evans' case, and I think that it could make the difference in Belle's also. Each is a borderline candidate who lost a little under 1/2 of his best career production. That could be enough put each player over the top on our tightly packed ballots.

101. Paul Wendt Posted: December 31, 2006 at 12:08 AM:
(Should I say "bump" when I roll it over to page two?)

Did we elect any of these guys last year, or elect Sutter?

My memory is that last year's election would have inducted Blyleven, Gossage and Trammell but not Sutter.

If write-ins are only for players active in 1986....

This was mentioned earlier (#37) and I meant to comment then. HOF rules allow players on the BBWAA ballot up to 20 years after retirement. The 1986 retirees, Grich, Rose, Foster, Blue, Cedeno, et al would not be elgible for this election. Their 15 years would've stretched from 1992 to 2006. Players on this year's ballot last played 1987 to 2001.

I don't know if this really matters as far as write-ins go, but there it is.

I'm more of a "big hall" guy, so...

Albert Belle
Bert Blyleven
Tony Gwynn
Tommy John
Mark McGwire
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Alan Trammell

OK, if I had a ballot. I agree completely with sunnyday2 that, given the Hall's established standards (being as valuable as a typical selection of the VC) there are always more than ten guys on the BBWAA ballot worthy of election.

Alphabetically:

Albert Belle
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Rich Gossage
Tony Gwynn
Tommy John
Mark McGwire
Dale Murphy
Cal Ripken
Alan Trammell

As a general rule, yes, but the good pitchers who stick in the relievers' role will be ones who turn out to have higher upsides in a relief role. I don't believe that for any individual pitcher, you can look at his ERA+ as a reliever and predict precisely what his ERA+ would be as a starter, or vice versa. You also can't predict precisely how durable a pitcher would be in a given role.

I just don't believe that you can give, say, Mariano Rivera credit for pitching 75 innings at a 243 ERA+, as well as giving him credit for those innings being highly leveraged, when any average pitcher leveraged in the same fashion would be expected to have a well-above-average ERA.

Tracing this conversation backwards, I find that you don't support the induction of Rich Gossage into the HoF, so the conclusion your analytical approach reaches is that no relief pitchers are truly comparable in merit to the top starting pitchers or position players. I think that in itself, given the observed impact of great relief pitchers, is itself an argument against your position.

Gossage may well deserve to be in the Hall. But, considering how rarely relievers actually play compared to starting pitchers and position players, I don't think the position that none, or very few, relievers ought to be in the Hall of Fame is out of line at all.

I just don't believe that you can give, say, Mariano Rivera credit for pitching 75 innings at a 243 ERA+, as well as giving him credit for those innings being highly leveraged, when any average pitcher leveraged in the same fashion would be expected to have a well-above-average ERA.

Rivera is ultimately, by the trickle-down practices of staff usage, taking innings away from a replacement-level pitcher, just as a starting pitcher is. Yes, a replacement-level pitcher would have a better ERA+ if he were used according to Rivera's pattern of usage than he would being used as a starter, but a replacement-level pitcher isn't going to be used according to either of those patterns (by teams with minimally competent management): he's not good enough. He's going to be doing middle relief work and/or appearing irregularly as a 5th starter, pitching when a) the situation is most advantageous to his talents or b) in very low-leverage situations where his lack of success won't hurt the team much or c) when the team doesn't have a better option available. These pitchers are the baseline of effectiveness, and that baseline is itself influenced by usage patterns.

So one gives Rivera full credit for his ERA+ because the replacement level pitcher he keeps off the field is the same replacement pitcher the starter keeps off the field.

One gives Rivera full credit for his leverage because he is selected to pitch those innings because he is good, and it only makes sense for a team to use a pitcher of his calibre in so few innings because they can spot him in high-leverage situations. A bad pitcher, or even an average pitcher, is never going to see that kind of leverage on a long-term basis. The team is giving high leverage situations to Rivera to help the team win, not to boost his stats.

Gossage may well deserve to be in the Hall. But, considering how rarely relievers actually play compared to starting pitchers and position players, I don't think the position that none, or very few, relievers ought to be in the Hall of Fame is out of line at all.

As long as you keep the distinction between "none" or "very few," I'd agree. Beyond Wilhelm, Fingers (marginally), Gossage, and Rivera, I'd be reluctant to admit any relivers, and this would be especially so in the case of relievers whose statistics are padded by ninth inning "saves" in games where their team is two or three runs ahead, and nearly any other pitcher could be expected to "save" the game.

For such a limited role, Rivera would be the exception that proves the rule, since no other modern reliever has ever had such an unbroken series of consistently outstanding seasons (and postseasons--bye, bye, Billy Wagner) as he has. The first three on my list didn't come close to his rate stats, but they were also used far less sparingly, and you have to allow them credit for that.

This was mentioned earlier (#37) and I meant to comment then. HOF rules allow players on the BBWAA ballot up to 20 years after retirement. The 1986 retirees, Grich, Rose, Foster, Blue, Cedeno, et al would not be elgible for this election. Their 15 years would've stretched from 1992 to 2006. Players on this year's ballot last played 1987 to 2001.

I don't know if this really matters as far as write-ins go, but there it is.

If that's the case, Dan, I'll enforce it. Not that it really matters in the end, of course.

BTW, I'll set up the ballot sometime today, since I'm not feeling too bad from last night. :-)

Happy New Year!

If that's the case, Dan, I'll enforce it.

It is most definitely the case. Steve Garvey, who last played in 1987, is on the ballot for the 15th and final time in this election. He'll be elgible for the 2009 VC election.

happy new year yall!!!!

ballot #1 (ignore roids)

- tony gwynn (how to be good without hitting homers)
- alan trammell (how to be good without doing streaks)
- cal ripken - he long and he strong and he down to get the hittin on
- blylevin - AS and CY votes don't really count with me because theres too much popularity stuff
- gossage - if relief pitchers gonna be elected, he's the 3rd best ever so he's in
- mcgwire - because he saved baseball from utter ruin
- dawson - well far as i'm concerned the defense make up for the low obp

(write ins bobby grich and dewey evans. they don't get no respect because they didn't hit no home runs)

and the no ways:

- garvey - good hair, hard working penis and that's it
- murphy - if you gonna get in for basically 5 years you better be a better hitter, runner and fielder than babe ruth and rickey and ozzie all rolled into one. and i don't give no brownie points for playing a goodie 2 shoes for the media
- parker, belle - see murphy. without the goody 2 shoes
- john - long lasting without being real too particularly good
- lee smith - got lotsa saves. see john
- morris - he wasn't HOF good, he just waszn't. i don't care how many opening days he started.
- rice - see murphy. stats outside of fenway not exactly HOF. also no goody 2 shoes


as far as roids in the hall
IF we gonna convict mcgwire out because of supposed roid use WITHOUT no proof at all except for mr. felon jose canseco's book - far as i am concerned no other person who played in the steroid era can go in neither. because they CAN'T PROVE THEY DIDN'T NEITHER!!!

so lets look at all the ways we decide a guy has used roids (and i do NOT mean no andro which anyone could have got offn a grocery store shelf and when i say anyone i also mean a 10 year old FEMALE and so andro is NOT the same as deca or nandrolone or testosterone etc...)
- the player got bald
- the player has more muscle at the end of his career than he did when he started at age 22
- the player had an injury like bad knees (like barry bonds getting arthritis and infextion)
- the player hit more than like league average HR a year
- the player had some temper and was not dale murphy sugar sweet to reporters

this lets out gwynn (bald and more weight)
this lets out ripkin (bald, more weight, too many homers)
this lets out murphy (same knee injury as barry bonds so he must be guilty too)
this lets out parker (you see them arms at age 40? bald, bad temper)
this lets out rice (more muscle, bad temper)
this lets out lee smith (DEFINITELY more muscle at age 40 then age 22 and bald)
probably trammell too - i mean, he knew people who probably used and besides he hit homers and whoever heard of a SS who was a great hitter before arod
probably gossage too (bad temper, too much muscle)

so it look like in is blylevin and garvey and conception

everyone else must be a dirty cheat. until they PROVE they are not

well i guess we doing this thread all over again, so i am copying from the last one

The ballot thread is intended to include ballots and minimal discussion, with maximal discussion (and sometimes more) and in the discussion thread.

AndrewJ, can you explain Lee Smith yes, Rich Gossage no?

I don't know if I'm going to participate in this exercise - I'd have to work up a bunch of guys in my systems to feel comfortable. But here's a start - the pitchers. The following is my RA+ PythPat equivalent wins system for a whole bunch of 60's-70's-80's pitchers. In the table that follows "EFWP" is the Fibonacci Win Points calculated from the equivalent record (not the actual record); "BigYr" is the accumulated number of year-by-year EFWP above 15 per year; "IP/Dec" is the number of innings pitched per actual decision. In my system I've assigned a decision for each 9.0 IP, so pitchers with low IP/Dec will have fewer equivalent decisions than actual decision, and vice versa. Palmer has been adjusted for defensive support, but no one else - that's not systematic.



Some comments:

Yeah, I know this isn't the best way to look at relief pitchers. I considered subtracting 1976 from Gossage's numbers but discovered he looks slightly better if I leave that year in.

Blyleven = Gaylord Perry? Hoo boy. I know everyone's been looking for ways to say that Blyleven wasn't as good as his ERA+ (or RA+) makes him look, but you really have to jump through a whole lot of hoops to bring him down from there.

Note that most of this generation's ace long-career pitchers have had over 9.0 IP/decision; hence assigning equivalent decisions by IP rather than by actual decisions helps all of them. Note also that Nolan Ryan is an outlier in the other direction.

Jack Morris? No. It's the flip side from Blyleven - you have to jump through a whole lot of hoops to bring him up from where he is.

Note that Ryan = Sutton, including that they both have peaks that aren't very high (in very different styles).

It is most definitely the case. Steve Garvey, who last played in 1987, is on the ballot for the 15th and final time in this election. He'll be elgible for the 2009 VC election.

I misunderstood you, Dan. I thought you were just referring to write-ins. I thought most people knew about the 20-year HOF rule, so I didn't think you were referencing that.

I'll go with the write-in rule interpretation that we went with last year then.

Until this morning, I didn't realize that 1986 was more than 20 years ago.

Until this morning, I didn't realize that 1986 was more than 20 years ago.

Depressing, isn't it?

Here are the films made this year:

Armed Response (with Lee Van Cleef)
Blue Velvet (with Dennis Hopper)
Cobra
Gung Ho
Hoosiers (with Dennis Hopper)
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Labyrinth (with David Bowie and Jennifer Connelly)
Laputa - Castle in the Sky
Monte Carlo (with Joan Collins)
Police Academy; 3 - Back in Training
Pretty in Pink
River's Edge (with Dennis Hopper)
Star Trek; 4 - The Voyage Home
That's Life (with Julie Andrews)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (with Dennis Hopper)
Wise Guys

Guys who never should have been dropped from the ballot:
Grich
Simmons
Whitaker
Darrell Evans
Dave Stieb
Keith Hernandez
Randolph
Nettles
Dwight Evans
Cey
Lance Parrish
Buddy Bell
Will Clark

Good list (I say off the top of my head) although Grich, at least, would have died on the ballot if he hadn't been killed there. See #126-127.

Best nominee who garnered no votes - none, nil, zero, 0% share
Ken Singleton

Best player who wasn't nominated
Tony Armas

But Mike Jorgensen made it through the screen

'ey, oh,
Amos Otis
Al Oliver

My ballot:

1. Cal Ripken
2. Tony Gwynn
3. Bert Blyleven
4. Alan Trammel

Sure, Gossage is a much better choice than Sutter. But Sutter wouldn't get near my personal HOF, so I feel no obligation to vote for Goose.

Best nominee who garnered no votes - none, nil, zero, 0% share
Ken Singleton

From my recent article at Primate Studies, Hey, you! Get off of My Ballot. Singleton has some competitors for that status:

Jim Wynn
Frank Tanana
Willie Davis
Amos Otis
Roy White

Ordered by confidence that each individual deserves to be in the Hall of Fame:

1. Cal Ripken
2. Tony Gwynn
3. Alan Trammell
4. Andre Dawson
5. Bert Blyleven
6. Rich Gossage
7. Dale Murphy
8. Tommy John
9. Albert Belle
10. Lee Smith

Narrowly missed the cut:

Mark McGwire (due to extenuating circumstances)
Dave Parker
Dave Concepcion
Bret Saberhagen

I strongly believe that Andre Dawson belongs in the HOF, and I can’t understand the frequent arguments that he didn’t have a very high peak. In the 4 years from 1980 to 1983, Mike Schmidt was the only better position player in baseball. Using neutralized stats from B-Ref, Dawson’s average line was .319/.370/.551 with 37 SB (78.5% actual success rate) over that 4 year span, while also playing the best defensive CF in the league. He basically combined the offensive value of 2006 Justin Morneau with the defensive value of 1999 Andruw Jones, on average, for 4 consecutive years. He led the league in outfield putouts each year from 1981 to 1983, his last 3 of 7 full seasons as a CF (1977-83).

In 1981, Dawson had his best season at age 26, but due to the strike the season was cut short by about 1/3. For the year, he was 2nd in the majors behind Mike Schmidt in HR, SLG, and Total Bases, as well as 4th in OPS. He also led the league in outfield assists and putouts. His neutralized line of .322/.388/.594 with 40 HR and 43 SB (87% actual success rate) for a full season would make him a clear-cut MVP choice most years, but he rightfully finished 2nd in MVP balloting behind what was easily the best year of Schmidt’s career in terms of rate stats.

After 7 seasons in CF on artificial turf, Dawson moved to RF and continued to be an excellent defensive outfielder. He won 4 more gold gloves, bringing his career total to 8, and then when his knees deteriorated to the point that he was no longer more mobile than the average right fielder, he still had one of the best and most feared arms in the league. Dawson had 16 straight seasons with an OPS+ above 100, including a second, lower peak from 1986 to 1990 (his age 31 to 35 seasons) in which he averaged .296/.344/.526 neutralized.

In terms of career accomplishments, Dawson won an MVP and finished 2nd twice in addition to having been Rookie of the Year, an 8-time All-Star/Gold-Glover, and 4-time Silver Slugger. Even if you think his high SLG relative to OBP made him overrated, it’s pretty clear that he was one of the very best position players in the league at the time. Although he is 21st all-time in Outs and 38th in Ks, he’s also 45th in Hits, 35th in HR, 24th in Total Bases, and 6th in B-Ref’s Power/Speed Number. Using neutralized stats, he had 3,040 hits and 483 HR in spite of battling chronic injuries throughout the latter part of his career.

It’s looking like he won’t make it into the BTF Hall of Fame this year, having been on less than half the ballots thus far, and other than the “very small Hall” contingent, I can’t really comprehend why he hasn’t received more support. Given his defense, peak, and career numbers, I can’t justify leaving him off of a relatively full ballot. Dale Murphy, another 7-year CF, had a slightly better and longer peak, as his 1982-87 was one of the best individual stretches in MLB history, but Dawson had a much better career. He had 6 more above-average seasons and posted virtually identical neutralized rate stats despite a career that lasted 5 years longer. Some ballots without Dawson have included corner outfielders with significant DH time and very similar offensive stats. Andre played the equivalent of 2,101 complete games in his career, of which he had 44.1% CF, 49.1% RF, 0.8% LF, and 6.0% DH. If you are thinking about leaving him off the ballot while voting for any other outfield candidate not named Gwynn, please view this as my plea for you to reconsider.

Here's my ballot:

1. Bert Blyleven
2. Andre Dawson
3. Steve Garvey
4. Rich Gossage
5. Tony Gwynn
6. Tommy John
7. Jack Morris
8. Cal Ripken, Jr.
9. Lee Smith
10. Alan Trammel

Ripken, Gwynn, Blyleven, and Gossage are my favorite candidates. Nearly made my ballot: Tony Fernandez, Mark McGwire, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, and Jim Rice.

HoM style ballot for only those unelected that retired between 1987 and 1992

1) Pete Rose
2) Bert Blyleven
3) Cal Ripken

4) Tony Gwynn
5) Mark McGwire
6) Bobby Grich
7) Darrell Evans
8) Will Clark
9) Keith Hernandez
10) Ted Simmons
11) Lou Whitaker
12) Willie Randolph
13) Alan Trammell
14) Goose Gossage
15) Ron Cey

16-20) Dwight Evans, Bret Saberhagen, Tommy John, Graig Nettles, Buddy Bell
21-25) Andre Dawson, Dave Stieb, Lee Smith, Harold Baines, Albert Belle

a little bit of a prediction: the Hall of Merit + other Baseball Primer people will elect Ripken, Gwynn, Blyleven, Gossage and Trammell (the latter three also having been elected last year). The actual BBWAA will elect only Ripken and Gwynn. The Veterans Committee may actually induct somebody this year as well. I was especially impressed by Mike Schmidt's public change of heart and advocacy for enshrining more players. Still, we'll only see one or two from the VC with the most likely being Ron Santo. I have no idea what the VC will do with the executive portion of their ballot. Next year, the best new candidate is Tim Raines and as much as I think he deserves induction, I'll doubt he'll go in on his first ballot. That opens the way for one of the returnees, possibly two. I predict that Gossage and Rice will both go in in 2008.

Since we're on a prediction-making mood:

I think (hope) that Goose makes it this year along with the no brainers. Rice + Dawson or Blyleven go in 2008, with the other joining Rickey in the podium the following year. I haven't given Raines much thought in this area, but I doubt he goes in before Rickey.

Yeah, since we're being bold, I'd guess that Gwynn and Ripken make it this year, with a small chance for Blyleven or Dawson. Both of those men prolly go in 2008, and Rich Lederer turns his website into a Blyleven tribute page, including songs written by Neil Young and Bob Dylan on comission. McGwire spends a few years in down-ballot limbo and sneaks in about 2015 or so, once there are new curmudgeons with different axes to grind doing the voting.

I don't think Blyleven and Dawson will both get in next year if Gossage doesn't.

I don't think Blyleven and Dawson will both get in next year if Gossage doesn't.

Sin of omission. I think Gossage is in this year or next, and if it's next, Blyleven's out till 2009.

I think Sutter's election makes the Gossage election inevitable (though probably not this year) - there is no way a rational person can look at Sutter and conclude Gossage wasn't better. Now that he's in, I think the voters might do a little more direct comparison there and conclude they have to elect Goose.

I agree with you about Goose, Joe, but I think they'll wait 'til next year when there isn't such a strong group of new candidates at the top.

Guys; where can I find a list of the HoF veterans comittee members?

Here you go

Veteran's commitee mock ballots (alphabetical):

PLAYERS
Dick Allen
Ken Boyer
Joe Gordon
Minnie Minoso
Ron Santo
Luis Tiant
Joe Torre

COMPOSITE
Harry Dalton
Charlie Finley
Doug Harvey
Marvin Miller
Walter O'Malley
Bill White
Dick Williams

PLAYERS
Dick Allen
Ken Boyer
Joe Gordon
Minnie Minoso
Ron Santo
Luis Tiant
Joe Torre


One of these is not like the others.