Good ballot.

Agreed.

I am fairly big hall, so I would like to see more names, but the ones he has there are two thumbs up.

This is one the better ballot I've seen (although I'd to see Trammell and Schilling as well). Did not expect it to come from Cowlishaw.

Maybe he's keeping Piazza off that ballot because he's too closely associated with Lasorda.

The more I see the more I wonder if anyone will get in. No Biggio here, nor Morris - not that I mind no Morris but each ballot that misses those 2 is one more that will lead to a no one elected situation I suspect. Piazza always had a shot, depending on how seriously people took the accusations but he seems undervalued by the voters as a rule. Bagwell might have a shot as the 'evidence' is as weak for him as for anyone.

It'll be interesting to see the ballot summaries once they start coming - how many votes on how many ballots so far? Is anyone in line for the HOF? If not then oh boy will it be nuts on next years as more qualified HOF'ers will be removed due to not getting 5%. Palmeiro falling under 5% this year wouldn't shock me.

Palmeiro falling under 5% this year wouldn't shock me.

Sosa too.

The lack of Piazza is bewildering.

The lack of Piazza is bewildering.

Agreed. I think it is an interesting contrast with Morris too because during Piazza's career my recollection is he WAS viewed as a hall of famer. As criteria goes that's pretty weak but it's a pretty clear change in the general consensus I think.

I think this ballot is a good indication that the 10 man limit really doesn't cause problems. While it should be eliminated I think most voters just have a tough time saying voting for 12-13 guys as "best of the best." Human nature being what it is I can understand voters having a tough time looking at their ballot and saying "yeah, even though only one or two guys get elected every year my ballot of 13 players makes sense."

I'd like to have seen Piazza, Trammell and Schilling to fill out the 10 spots, but its nice to see Raines and Walker on a ballot.

I think Piazza's a HOF, but I wouldn't put him on the first ballot. Same thing with Biggio.

It's okay to vote for the best baseball players on the first ballot too.

I think Piazza's a HOF, but I wouldn't put him on the first ballot. Same thing with Biggio.

There is no distinction between first ballot HOFers and others.

Don't really care for it.

To have E Martinez on, and Piazza off doesn't work for me. Piazza was an equivalent hitter at C, vs. a DH.

I'd also drop McGwire and add Trammell.

There is no distinction between first ballot HOFers and others.

To you maybe.

To you maybe.

What is the distinction? The voting guidelines do not say to vote based on this. Your instructions are, if you think he's a deserving HOFer based on the criteria laid out and he fits on your 10-man, you vote for him.

Is there a special wing for first ballot HOFers? Does it say it on their plaque?

The distinction is one that has occurred over the years. Not a strong one for first ballots, but it is there. For example, while there is nothing in the HOF marking it we all know Rickey Henderson was a 1st ballot and Jim Rice was a final ballot choice.

It isn't a perfect system to tell 'real' from 'marginal' HOF'ers but the years required to get in does tell us something about how a player was viewed by the sportswriters of the day. I always find it interesting that Yogi Berra wasn't a first ballot guy - no one was voted in his first year on the ballot - as he was someone I always though of as a slam dunk by virtually all measures other than the old 'lock' numbers 500 HR/3000 hits. Some, like Dimaggio, weren't first ballot due to confusion over rules (he was voted for while on military service in WW2, then just 2 & 3 years after retirement getting in the HOF in 1955 when he retired in 1951). But anyone in the past few decades who didn't get in first ballot tells you there was some debate for whatever reason over his HOF qualities. Of course, why Stargell & Puckett were first ballot choices is beyond me but it does say something about how they were viewed too.

The problem is that the HOF is a binary thing and players are obviously worthy in degrees. Furthermore, I'm on the fence about certain players and I'd rather have more time to think about them. I'm maybe 70% sure that Piazza is a HOFer, which means I'll wait a year or two. I'm 100% sure Bonds is, so I'll vote him the first year.

Even if there was a distinction, Piazza meets all the unwritten requirements.

This is one the better ballot I've seen (although I'd to see Trammell and Schilling as well).

Not just Trammell and Schilling, but Piazza and Biggio seem like pretty big omissions, too. And if you're really, truly ignoring steroids, I don't see how you leave Palmeiro off of an un-full ballot (which his currently is, but wouldn't be if he added 3 of Trammell, Schilling, Biggio, and Piazza).

Of course, why Stargell & Puckett were first ballot choices is beyond me but it does say something about how they were viewed too.

It basically means the first-ballot standard is prone to utter capriciousness.


I'm maybe 70% sure that Piazza is a HOFer

Well, this is your error right here.

while there is nothing in the HOF marking it we all know Rickey Henderson was a 1st ballot and Jim Rice was a final ballot choice.

We, as in the people reading this, might literally know this, but that's because we're obsessed with baseball in general and the Hall of Fame in particular, and Henderson and Rice were both elected within the past 5 years. But how many of us know which of the following players were elected on their first ballot (or can name the ballot on which they were elected): Yogi Berra, Eddie Mathews, Johnny Mize, Harmon Killebrew, Kirby Puckett? Hint: one of these guys was a 1st-ballot selection, one of these guys was a Veterans' committee selection.

Voting for the best ball players - what a concept.

Even if there was a distinction, Piazza meets all the unwritten requirements.

Possibly. If you go by straight value, he's not a slam dunk. If you compare him other catchers, then he is a slam dunk. I'm not sure the second way is 100% correct.

Piazza and Biggio seem like pretty big omissions, too

I'm fine with not voting those guys first ballot, although I think Schilling is first ballot material. Obviously you could disagree with me.

Yogi Berra, Eddie Mathews, Johnny Mize, Harmon Killebrew, Kirby Puckett?

Second, Fifth, VC, Fourth, First?

I'm maybe 70% sure that Piazza is a HOFer

Well, this is your error right here.

Yes, and his specific error is this:

Possibly. If you go by straight value, he's not a slam dunk. If you compare him other catchers, then he is a slam dunk. I'm not sure the second way is 100% correct.

good comment, ray.

Second, Fifth, VC, Fourth, First?

Correct. The concept of "tiers" of the Hall of Fame is fine. The idea that Kirby Puckett is in a higher tier than Berra, Mathews, and Mize is silly. The idea that Johnny Mize - who was arguably the best 1B in NL history before Jeff Bagwell came along - is in the absolute bottom tier of the Hall of Fame (along with Ron Santo) is absurd.

Possibly. If you go by straight value, he's not a slam dunk. If you compare him other catchers, then he is a slam dunk. I'm not sure the second way is 100% correct.

WAR hates catchers. If you go by straight value, there might not be any catchers in history that are slam dunks. That doesn't seem too fair, does it?

WAR hates catchers. If you go by straight value, there might not be any catchers in history that are slam dunks. That doesn't seem too fair, does it?

Agreed, it's a flaw in WAR. I can't see why there should be fewer C's in the HOF than other positions. Every team has to field a C, and it's always been considered an important position.

If you have way more LF's in the HoF than C's, it probably means your not adjusting for defense/positional difficulty enough.

WAR hates catchers. If you go by straight value, there might not be any catchers in history that are slam dunks. That doesn't seem too fair, does it?

There are maybe 4 catchers who are slam dunks. Piazza is a tiny bit below that level. I don't think WAR hates catchers as much as catchers are typically unable to have long careers. Hell look at the WAR leaderboards for 2012:

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=2012&ind=0

3 catchers in the top 25. But it's hard for catchers to accrue a lot of career value. So for the HOF we'd have to be lowering our standards for catchers. Is that fair? Probably, but I'm not 100% on it.

Also how do you come up with a system for that? Do you take the top 20 at each position?

There are maybe 4 catchers who are slam dunks.

Berra, Bench, Gibson, Fisk, Carter, Rodriguez, Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey all seem like no brainers to me.

don't think WAR hates catchers as much as catchers are typically unable to have long careers.

Then using career WAR for HoF purposes is problematic.

Also how do you come up with a system for that? Do you take the top 20 at each position?

I'd rather do that than rely on straight career WAR.

The writers - who vote for the HoF - are the guys who keep bringing up "first-ballot" Hall of Famer when they write about players. They've created a distinction on their own and would like to perpetuate it because glittery adjectives help fill out their articles without requiring actual work.

There are maybe 4 catchers who are slam dunks. Piazza is a tiny bit below that level.

Your standards are ridiculously high if someone who by your own admission is just outside the top 4 at his position isn't an obvious choice...

Also how do you come up with a system for that? Do you take the top 20 at each position?

Maybe not, but the top 10 for sure. We're talking about 130 years worth of players to choose from.

The Hall of Fame "standards" for catchers are both far higher and far lower than the Hall of Merit standards. Bill Freehan out but Rick Ferrell in. Ted Simmons out but Ernie Lombardi in. Joe Torre out but Ray Schalk in. Mike Piazza is 4th-7th at his position all-time. He's clearly qualified by this writer's intent to "vote for the best baseball players".

So for the HOF we'd have to be lowering our standards for catchers.

I don't think it's a lowering of standards at all. It's a recognition that the "WAR" standard is insufficient for comparing catchers to other players. As noted there are reasons to be skeptical that catcher defense is being properly accounted for. It's not like catchers are closers playing 11% of the game or DHs playing half the game, the elite ones are typically playing about 90% of the time relative to other stars in any given year. They are then harmed by having shorter careers largely due to the physical demands of the position.

They are then harmed by having shorter careers largely due to the physical demands of the position.

Especially those before the advent of modern surgical techniques (e.g. arthroscopic knee surgery).

The distinction is one that has occurred over the years. Not a strong one for first ballots, but it is there. For example, while there is nothing in the HOF marking it we all know Rickey Henderson was a 1st ballot and Jim Rice was a final ballot choice.

Only if you look it up.
Lou Brock was a first balloter, Garry Carter, Carlton Fisk, Yogi Berra was not.
Kirby Pucket was a first balloter, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Mathews, Roberto Alomar were not.
Dennis Eckersley was a first balloter, Don Sutton, Bert Blyleven, Phil Niekro, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, Don Drysdale...

After about 5 or so years, the vast majority people forget who got in and when. Guys who took decades to get in, and got in by the veterans committee are as well regarded as guys who got in on the first ballot(non-immortal division of course, there is obviously a difference between Mays and Williams perception than there is between a Lou Brock and Kirby Puckett)

it's a flaw in WAR

Well WAR doesn't currently deal with the game calling aspect and as such may under (or over) rate any given catcher. Leaving that aside though I don't see any evidence that WAR gets catcher value wrong.

As a group they play fewer games per season and have generally shorter careers. And have not infrequent injury related slumps. All that makes it hard for a catcher to put up elite seasons or to sustain elite level play.

Two different issues here. WAR doesn't undervalue catchers on a seasonal level, but catching limits your ability to have a long career and takes on toll on your future performance. That's why the highest career WAR from a catcher is ~85.

Let's look at the R part of WAR. If you replaced Piazza with one singular replacement level catcher for his entire career, Piazza would be worth way more than ~60 wins above that guy because catching over an entire career would have the same negative effects on that guy as it does to Piazza. But if you replaced Piazza with a different catcher each year (which is what teams would do) than Piazza is only worth ~60 wins more than than those guys.

So yes, in effect, great catchers are less valuable than great CFers because CFers are able to hold their value more. The next question is what should be your criteria for voting. Absolute value vs. positional ranking. I'm not sure what the correct answer is. I'm guessing it's somewhere in between, heavily siding towards positional ranking.

It's not a flaw in WAR - if you add up the total WAR of catchers and left fielders you should a similar total. The difference is that the WAR will be divided among more catchers. Simply because the best LF play 160 games, and the best catchers play 130 games.

If both players are equally great, relative to their position, who does it hurt more to lose to knee surgery on opening day, your great catcher, or your great LF?

It has to hurt more to lose the LF, because now you are looking his crappy replacement for 162 games. With the catcher, you already knew you'd have to start his crappy backup 30 times. So it hurts to now have to replace him 132 more times, but not as bad as replacing your superstar LF.

That's the question WAR attempts to answer. And I don't think that's the same question that the HOF is asking, so I think for HOF purposes catchers should be judged on a different standard. A 50 WAR catcher is a better candidate than a 50 WAR LF.

In practice I think a catcher with 40+ WAR is a candidate worth consideration. This would mean Bill Freehan, Ted Simmons, and Thurman Munson should go in among semi-recents, as well as Wally Schang from long ago.

Darrell Porter, Jason Kendall, and Jim Sundberg are below the line, and these guys don't strike me as viable candidates. Jorge Posada is right in the middle. I'd probably lean toward no on him because of what has been learned of catcher defense in recent years (most of it not in the WAR calculation).

WAR hates catchers. If you go by straight value, there might not be any catchers in history that are slam dunks. That doesn't seem too fair, does it?

Unless your name is Joe Mauer, it seems to absolutely love him.

War is a useful stat for comparing guys who play 150-162 games(or prior to 1961 140-150) but it breaks down when being used to compare players with different playing time, which catchers are the primary reason, and of course it has other flaws.

Piazza is going to get the stat geek backlash, his reputation was as a poor defensive catcher, and since the stat geeks were saying (when he was playing) that catchers defense is overrated, the morons for the bbwaa are going to say "There is more to catching than hitting, and he was a poor defender and it negates a large portion his offensive numbers".

Edit: great response Arom. Agree with pretty much everything you posted there.

You sons of bitches cannot-- CANNOT-- take away or diminish the BBWAA's imaginary "first ballot" punishment distinction. Not this year of all years, oh no, no, no. Not this year.

Robbie Alomar only spit in one face. They Who Must Not Be Inducted spit in all of our faces, yours and mine, and in Hank Aaron's face, in Andy Pettitte's face, in George Mitchell's face, and in the sunny, freckled face of that dying kid Babe Ruth hit a home run for.

It would be funny if Piazza dropped off the ballot after one year because no one thought he was a first ballot HOFer. But not "ha ha" funny.

It would be funny if Piazza dropped off the ballot after one year because no one thought he was a first ballot HOFer. But not "ha ha" funny.

point taken

It would be funny if Piazza dropped off the ballot after one year because no one thought he was a first ballot HOFer. But not "ha ha" funny.

Yeah, and that's the other flaw with the first ballot/later ballot argument; guys like Ted Simmons, Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker, Will Clark, and Kevin Brown - players with legit cases - fall off the ballot after one attempt because too many people who might think they're worthy of eventual election don't think of them as "first ballot" guys.

I think an argument is flawed if you have to rely on other people to have a different opinion in order to make it work. If everyone thought that Piazza and Biggio are HOFers but not first ballot HOFers, they'd disappear from the ballot and wouldn't end up making the Hall at all.

WAR doesn't undervalue catchers on a seasonal level

We shouldn't say this with such certainty, especially considering recent development in trying to understand the value of calling games and framing pitches.

Yeah, and that's the other flaw with the first ballot/later ballot argument; guys like Ted Simmons, Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker, Will Clark, and Kevin Brown - players with legit cases - fall off the ballot after one attempt because too many people who might think they're worthy of eventual election don't think of them as "first ballot" guys.

I think the first-ballot voting penalty is vastly overstated in actual practice, and likely had nothing to do with those gents' failure at the ballot box.

We shouldn't say this with such certainty, especially considering recent development in trying to understand the value of calling games and framing pitches.

We can say it doesn't undervalue the catching position as a whole. If better metrics come about the measure framing/gamecalling, then we'll see that some catchers who are good at these things are currently underrated, while others who are not so good are now overrated.