Thursday, June 13, 2013
Posnanski: Andy Pettitte and the Van Doren Gene
(joeposnanski.blogspot.com)
600* BBWAA writers voted, but no one saw a thing.
* give or take
Read More...This, I think, was what made the Bert Blyleven-Jack Morris Hall of Fame discussion so interesting. The statistics made it abundantly clear that Blyleven was not just a better pitcher than Morris but light years better. But Blyleven just doesn’t have the Van Doren Gene … and Morris does. And so the debate over which pitcher was better raged on; in some quarters it rages on still. People don’t just see Morris as a Hall of ...
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 3 of 10 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Last ›I'll take Trammell over Mussina, Glavine or Schilling. But again, the rules don't require you to vote for the best candidates, just whether they are deserving(in your mind) or not. (which is what Ray likes to point out when people make a vote for a guy like Sele)
Of course your point stands. It's going to be an embarrasment of riches.
Maddux
Clemens
Bonds
Piazza
Glavine
Schilling
Mussina
Bagwell
Trammell
Raines
As someone who doesn't "do the math", so to speak -- I think I'd probably slot Biggio a smidge ahead of Trammell... but I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. Peak vs career, I generally tend to land on career if I have to pick one.
The case against Biggio as a top-10 ballot hopeful next year rests on a negative evaluation of his defense. I am extremely doubtful that Biggio was 100 runs below league average with the glove over his career. An overall average-defending Biggio (which better matches his 4-GG, respected defender career) is hard to drop.
Unless you make some adjustments for variance of performance / difficulty of domination that dings the sillyball guys compared to the 80s guys. That's certainly worth considering.
ther fervor is dropping because the public doesn't give a sh8t.
it's identical to the &&& marriage issue. it was hot for a brief spell and then a few years passed, folks realized 'wow, this is dumb', and now things are changing.
it will be the same. and all the folks here who were all smug back in the day will wonder what happened.
what happened is that the world calmed down and realized all this shouting was about not much.
time can be a beautiful thing
And none of the 16 Alomar ballots.
What better candidate than Bernie for the "Your regular season career fell just short but your massive postseason performance puts you in"?
And everyone agrees that Schilling was one of the best postseason performers ever.
Huh? If you had the public vote I think it's even money Clemens and Bonds get a lower percentage of the vote.
Only two of the crazy votes are listed: Jill Painter for Shawn Green and Yasushi Kikuchi for Julio Franco.
If you don't vote for Biggio, you are just helping to keep him on the ballot to block another group of candidates. At this point in time, I think that you have to vote for Biggio next year, just to clear up some ballot space. Obviously if you don't think he's deserving you don't vote for him, but if you think he's the 11th best candidate and deserving, then you go ahead and vote for him. Again the rules do not stipulate they have to be the best candidates, just worthy.
disagree. folks are already forgetting the particulars.
Precisely.
That's the problem - there were 569 ballots.
I'm betting that least 100 of them belong to guys who basically got their membership card years and year ago (well, obviously - all of them at least 10 years ago) and no longer even write about (or care about) baseball.
...Now... I'm sure that some of them are quite capable of putting some work into reading up on names on the ballot, but I'm sure plenty of them just treat it like form mail - "Oh, I remember that guy..."
They need to eliminate this... treating it like a court appointment inevitably means ballots are going to guys who simply do. not. deserve. them.
I'm not sure about that. I've ran into all types of people on the issue and for the most part it seems that the press is more concerned about it than the fans. Yes there are Bonds haters out there who wouldn't vote for him, even if god came down from the heavens and said he never used roids. But that is more about their hatred for Bonds than it is about the roids. I do think getting 75% with the public is unlikely, but lower is also probably unlikely.
sorry. folks here are the exception not the rule. memory is a tricky thing
Well there's your problem.
I think you missed the point. Harvey said things are changing and changing slowly.
Yeah, I think this helps Biggio next year. Being the top returning vote-getter* should help him if some voters want to help clear the backlog.
* I"m not sure the same phenomenon would help Jack as much (and obviously, it didn't this year), since he's been around for so long and his negatives are so widely known.
Sadly, some of these can probably be explained with two words: "Roberto Alomar."
EDIT: Coke to Guapo.
another 10 and the vehement anti-bonds attitude will be regarded as the ravings of a lunatic
granted, some of us recognized it for what it was at the beginning but never late than never
I don't think it would even take this much (and I don't think they'll do anything, yet...). I think a simpler, more direct approach would be to keep the BBWAA voters, but stipulate it's 10 years as a member and you are still actively covering baseball for a publication or internet site.
Then it's time to start the "cheater" rumor mill bandwagon rolling against him, since there's rumblings that he cut or otherwise doctored baseballs during his career (see Bill James's comment on "Clubhouse Confidential"). Certainly no "first ballot" for him since Gaylord Perry, Whitey Ford, Don Sutton, and Don Drysdale didn't get in on their initial try, either. Start early enough, and the ballot clogging can be raised to a really fine art.
And what's the current status of the idea that Jack Morris may have used PEDs at some point in his career?
I would have thought that the sort of moron who'd be impressed by milestones in isolation would have appreciated his 1,500 RBI (46th all-time).
And we're really supposed to believe a guy nicknamed the Professor didn't use Adderall to reach his goals? Take a look at the size of those spectacles!
C - Piazza
1B - Bagwell
2B - Biggio
SS - Trammell
3B - Edgar
LF - Bonds
CF - Raines
RF - Sosa
DH - Thomas
I think a team put together from the 2014 ballot could hold its own against a current HOF team.
There was a proposed fix earlier in the thread that made sense: make voters request a ballot rather than just send them out to everyone on the rolls. It might not make a big difference, but it would get rid of some of the guys who only think about baseball when they receive their HoF ballot.
But, yeah, I'd love to see some effort made to rid the electorate of guys who aren't keeping up with the game.
Precisely... and at least that would be a good excuse (relatively speaking... I mean - I'll allow some credit for guys who can at least remember that Roberto was a HoF level candidate).
I mean - it's the Hall of Fame - not a life/death decision, but seriously... people who "forget" Henderson or "confuse"/don't bother to doublecheck Sandy vs Roberto, etc... those people should. not. have. ballots.
569 ballots... I think there probably should be about 300 -- maybe even just 200 or so... there ought to be some criteria to demonstrate that 1) you actually care enough to put some time into it, 2)you actually like the thing - baseball - that you're measuring, and 3) that you've kept up with the game.
Note that nowhere in that do I think one must use dWAR or FIPs (I think you ought to understand the concepts, though - even if you think they're bunk)....
I'm fine with the PED screechers... I'm fine with the cranky Murray Chass's... I'm even OK with the, well, other sort of Chass's (calculators are ruining baseball as opposed to the "I'm grumpy and cranky!" types).
But - there ought to some criteria to ensure that you meet 1), 2), and 3) above.
I wonder how many writers out there will leave off a couple names at the top of the ballot knowing full well that someone like Maddux will easily clear the bar, and he can use his 10 votes on guys who need them more?
Edit: See 116. I'd seriously consider voting for Trammell before Maddux.
Some borderline guys will get dropped, but not someone who is currently polling at 33%.
And it looks like either one of the voters or the person who complied the list of 101 ballots wrote Todd Walker when they meant Larry Walker.
Maddux did benefit from a personal performance enhancing strike zone. And wasn't the Atlanta grounds crew caught red-handed fudging the batters box to make pitches off the plate look closer? Seems like cheating, no? Some voters have said they'd never vote for cheaters, so Maddux could have problems with those voters.
More seriously, if the ballot glut continues, we may see some voters concentrate on non-first year candidates, in a stick-to-your-guns strategy designed to counter the anti-steroid zealots. The Bagwell & Piazza tallies (among others) could be an indication that the lynch mob doesn't really care about evidence, although it may take another year or two to see the trend. That could provoke a backlash in which 1st year candidates are ignored by voters who continue to vote for their "deserving" candidates with diminishing eligibility.
On top of the fact that he's off of the ballot no matter what, you wouldn't be clearing a future backlog with his election.
Player Votes Sample Actual DifferenceBiggio 75 74.3% 68.2% +6.1%
Bagwell 73 72.3% 59.6% +12.7%
Piazza 65 64.4% 57.8% +6.6%
Raines 65 64.4% 52.2% +12.2%
Morris 60 59.4% 67.7% -8.3%
Bonds 49 48.5% 36.2% +12.3%
Clemens 49 48.5% 37.6% +10.9%
Schilling 46 45.5% 38.8% +6.7%
Martinez 41 40.6% 35.9% +4.7%
Smith 36 35.6% 47.8% -12.2%
Trammell 35 34.7% 33.6% +1.1%
L.Walker 19 18.8% 21.6% -2.8%
McGriff 15 14.9% 20.7% -5.8%
McGwire 15 14.9% 16.9% -2.0%
Murphy 15 14.9% 18.6% -3.7%
Sosa 13 12.9% 12.5% +0.4%
Palmeiro 11 10.9% 8.8% +2.1%
Mattingly 6 5.9% 13.2% -7.3%
Lofton 4 4.0% 3.2% +0.8%
B.Williams 2 2.0% 3.3% -1.3%
Alomar 0 0.0% 2.8% -2.8%
Franco 0 0.0% 1.1% -1.1%
Wells 0 0.0% 0.9% -0.9%
Finley 0 0.0% 0.7% -0.7%
Green 0 0.0% 0.4% -0.4%
Sele 0 0.0% 0.2% -0.2%
This group of candidates, and none of them are better than the worst guy in the Hall.
...Just shocked. What an awfully stupid process.
without that rose might well have been inducted at some point
there is not 'rule' keeping these players out. only willpower
willpower fades. voter population changes. new attitudes develop
i likely won't be around to see it but all these guys will get in the hof
Maddux, Mussina, Glavine and Thomas.
Shame.
Yeah, though I'm not sure if guys would think of that. I was thinking more along the lines that a) guys have had 14 years to formulate an opinion on Jack, so it makes it harder for that kind of player to make gains, and b) he didn't enjoy any top-of-the-pack bump this year when there were no 300 game winners joining the ballot.
folks, the only reason pete rose never got inducted was because they created a rule to make sure he could not be inducted
I strenuously disagree. As long as he was on the permanently ineligible list, he wasn't getting 75 percent of the vote.
It may not, but I'm hoping someone will start talking about Trammell's character and he picks up some Murhpy voters.
This is an absolutely fantastic analogy! Well done, Sir!
You're wishcasting. Maddux gets 95% of the vote next year and sails in. The debate is purely about whether anybody will join him.
Why Biggio over Bagwell & Piazza? 3000 hits
Why Walker in the non-Gizmo sample? Good question. Same thing happened last year. I'll go with 313 BA. Sure, the non-Gizmo voters might not understand park effects (the Gizmo voters do?) but Walker didn't even make it to 400 HR, 1500 runs, 1500 RBI so why would they be impressed by his raw stats? Either there are enough of them that understand overall value or they like the shiny BA (and three batting titles and 1 MVP). The BA and MVP of course owe a lot to Coors but that's hardly what it's known for.
Note the much larger drop of B/C relative to Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza. This gives us some notion of the size of the "won't deny based on rumors" crowd among the non-Gizmo. Sosa also barely dropped while McGwire actually got more support among the non-Gizmo.
But Costas also made the point that if Bonds and Clemens don't rise significantly next year
None of the backlog are making a big jump next year, too many big names joining the ballot that the blackballers will vote for. Again, what do we mean by big (Biggio has a good shot at getting across). I won't rule it out entirely for B/C given there's some chance of a large "penalize them for 1 year" contingent but if somebody is in the strange "make them wait" camp, it will be even easier to make them wait again next year ... and the year after ... and the year after.
When one of the strongest ballots since the founding of the Hall produces no inductees, it's time for a rules change of some sort: probably the simplest is to just let voters list more than ten.
That might have gotten Biggio and possibly one or two others over the threshold this year. If you honestly think Biggio was the eleventh-best candidate this year (I disagree, but it's a non-insane position), you'd leave him off, despite thinking that he was also a HOFer. That makes no sense.
The snubs to Bonds and Clemens could be seen coming a long way off, and given the crowded ballot, Sosa's low total isn't a great surprise either. Many of the high totals were garnered by worthy but middling candidates. The one really odd total, to me, is Schilling. No PEDs suspicions, a really terrific record, and 38.8% of the vote. I don't get that one. Clearly some of the logjam was created by people who had been voting for Morris and Smith and didn't feel they could drop them off their ballots even though a whole mess of better players had arrived. Also an argument for changing the rules.
We just saw Piazza, Biggio, and Bagwell fail to gain admittance.
We saw protest votes. We saw blank ballots. We saw Back To The '80s ballots. I think it's time to concede that the situation is so effed up right now that making grand proclamations about who will sail in is a bit premature.
Or they may have confused Sandy Jr. with Sandy Sr., and then confused him with Julio Franco.
A lot of us suspected Biggio might struggle to get electe, for a variety of reasons. Maddux will have no such problems. The ballot issues could knock him from the high 90s to the low 90s, but that's about all.
Keep in mind, the voters (other than the protest guys) aren't trying to keep anyone from getting in. The numbers per ballot jumped this year. They just didn't reach a consensus on this group. That won't be a problem for an inner-circle, perceived-clean guy like Maddux.
Maddux's case isn't remotely similar to Biggio's (who would have been looking at a Sandberg-like trek to Coopertown if he hadn't stumbled over the 3K mark). Trust me on this, for once. Maddux sails in.
I am pleasantly surprised that the HoF did not "cook" this election, which I strongly thought they might do. The fact that the HoF treated this fair and square, shows you that the rule of law still prevails in the U.S. (it's not exactly the same, but I wonder if the HoF results were not announced - like the Academy Awards, where you never see percentages - if the HoF would not have been tempted to play around with this election).
Other than that, I wrote last year that I had hoped Morris had gotten in to avoid this logjam. I feel the same way this year. I would like to know (but I don't think this information is public), if Biggio or even maybe Bagwell could have gotten in this year if Morris were not on the ballot because he'd already been inducted (*). I tend to think that at least with Biggio, Morris kind of cokc blocked him.
(*) My point is that with so many viable candidates, Morris getting 67% of the votes by definition is screwing other candidates which now can't get in because there's only 9 slots available for voting.
Page 3 of 10 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Last ›You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.