BBTF.org/m/hall_of_fame : Posnanski: Percentages and the Hall

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Baseball Hall of Fame: Baseball’s Talent Finders Honored at New Museum Exhibit ‘Diamond Mines’

(baseballhall.org)

posted on April 27, 2013 at 01:42 PM by bobm to hall of fame, scouting | 2 comment(s)

(COOPERSTOWN, NY) – For every Hall of Fame player, there’s a scout who started him on the road to Cooperstown. Now, those scouts will have their place at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. The Museum will unveil the new interactive exhibit Diamond Mines on May 4 with a cast of baseball luminaries on hand for the celebration. Diamond Mines, made possible with the support of the Scout of the Year Foundation, will begin a scheduled two-year run in the Museum’s second floor ...

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

1. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) posted on January 09, 2013 at 01:03 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Every player who got 50% on first ballot is in the Hall of Fame.

According to the Gizmo, that would put Biggio and Piazza in (unbelievably not Bonds or Clemens).

Why did voters vote for active players back in the day? Just as a tip of the cap?

Also, what happens now if you're on the ballot and you unretire? I assume you're ineligible for inclusion on the ballot until six years after you retire again. But do you still get the 15 full years, or is it 15 minus how ever many ballots you were on before (so, 15 total)?

2. Shooty is in the Trust Tree

posted on January 09, 2013 at 01:13 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I hope the veteran’s committee, in whatever form, will stop pontificating about Deacon White and other players who are long gone and start thinking about who were the best players of the last 40 or 50 years who have been overlooked.

I'm pretty sure they can do both. It's not that mentally taxing, really.

3. SoSH U at work posted on January 09, 2013 at 01:22 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I hope the veteran’s committee, in whatever form, will stop pontificating about Deacon White and other players who are long gone and start thinking about who were the best players of the last 40 or 50 years who have been overlooked.

I'm pretty sure they can do both. It's not that mentally taxing, really.

I'm pretty sure the Vets commmittee will meet later this year to vote on the best players of the last 40 or 50 years, just as they did three years ago. Really, Joe should know this.

4. DanG posted on January 09, 2013 at 01:41 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Why did voters vote for active players back in the day? Just as a tip of the cap?

Active players were eligible in the first election in 1936. After that you had to be inactive for a year, which led to a few guys getting votes when they were in military service. Then in 1954 they started the five years retired rule.

what happens now if you're on the ballot and you unretire? I assume you're ineligible for inclusion on the ballot until six years after you retire again. But do you still get the 15 full years, or is it 15 minus how ever many ballots you were on before (so, 15 total

It's 15 total. See Minnie Minoso and Jose Rijo for guys who retired twice.

5. Ray (RDP)

posted on January 09, 2013 at 02:27 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

... Every player who got 50% on first ballot is in the Hall of Fame.

The old analysis doesn't apply anymore.

And really we're going to now have players with like 30% who would otherwise have gotten 50% if not for the pouting by the writers and thus should have been in the 50% box.

6. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat posted on January 09, 2013 at 02:39 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

The 50% rule isn't a bright line that says that all players below it won't go in, just that all players who debuted above it will go in. Until it stops working it doesn't make any sense at all to dismiss it. Do we really think that neither Piazza nor Biggio will get in over the next 15 years? It also really isn't that relevant why a player polled under 50% in his first ballot, just that he did. Maybe the writers hated him or maybe they thought he used steroids, or maybe he's Barry Bonds and they both hate him and think he used. Doesn't matter, just the percentage.

7. Tim Wallach was my Hero posted on January 09, 2013 at 02:53 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Is BTF turning into Posnanski Think factory?

8. Swoboda is freedom posted on January 09, 2013 at 03:17 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Is BTF turning into Posnanski Think factory?

Resistance is futile. Prepare to be joe-similated.

9. The District Attorney posted on January 09, 2013 at 03:29 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Hey, I skipped on his dumb "needs more consideration HOF vote" idea ;-)

(On the opposite end, I skipped on his "HOF inner sanctum" idea because presumably all sensible people agree.)

Since we're here, he's actually chatting right now and said something that surprised me:

I hadn't thought about this, but the amazing 1990s Indians, with Albert Belle and Manny Ramirez and Kenny Lofton and Jim Thome and others ... might not get a single HOF through the BBWAA. I've been shocked at the low level of support people have for Thome. Absolutely shocked.

10. Tippecanoe posted on January 09, 2013 at 03:59 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Techically, Robbie Alomar played with all of those players on the '90's Indians (in 1999).

Also...there's Vizquel, who'll do better than Lofton.

11. The District Attorney posted on January 09, 2013 at 04:04 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Good point. I also think (and hope) that Poz is wrong on Thome. I can certainly see a lot of writers discussing Thome as a "didn't feel like a HOFer" guy, but I nonetheless think they're going to vote for him when that time comes. That type of thing happens all the time.

12. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) posted on January 09, 2013 at 04:09 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Thome has a big milestone number (600 HR) and is pretty clear of any PED chatter I would guess. He may not get in on the first ballot, but he'll get in.

13. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) posted on January 09, 2013 at 04:21 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Also...there's Vizquel, who'll do better than Lofton.

That would be bleakly hilarious, if the BBWAA put him in as the sole rep from that group. Like Morris ahead of Trammell, Whitaker, Parrish, Evans, and Lemon.

14. Tippecanoe posted on January 09, 2013 at 04:41 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Don't worry: Vizquel came into the league as a slim 160-pounder, but as he joined Joey "Roid Rage" Belle in Cleveland he bulked right up to 180, coinciding with a 100-point gain in slugging percentage. So he should get the Bagwell treatement.

15. LargeBill posted on January 09, 2013 at 05:46 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Thome is looking for a team for 2013 which should allow him to avoid the ballot until some of the backlog is cleared.

Lofton should make a tour of spring training sites and see which team needs an upgrade in LF. If he only batted against RHP he could still add value. And then re-hit the ballot in 6 years.

16. vivaelpujols posted on January 09, 2013 at 06:44 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

So who wants to have a Paterno thread?

17. Bruce Markusen posted on January 09, 2013 at 06:47 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Yes, I agree. Too much Posnanski here.

18. cardsfanboy

posted on January 09, 2013 at 07:01 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Yes, I agree. Too much Posnanski here.

Never too much Posnanski. (there is of course always too much Paterno though)

19. SavoyBG posted on January 09, 2013 at 07:12 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I hope the veteran’s committee, in whatever form, will stop pontificating about Deacon White and other players who are long gone and start thinking about who were the best players of the last 40 or 50 years who have been overlooked.

It's not a choice between one or the other. There are clearly some players from the early days of baseball (Bill Dahlen, Tony Mullane, Ross Barnes) who have been overlooked and should be hall of famers. Why should their candidacies be ignored because of when they played?

20. Ray (RDP)

posted on January 09, 2013 at 07:14 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

It's not a choice between one or the other. There are clearly some players from the early days of baseball (Bill Dahlen, Tony Mullane, Ross Barnes) who have been overlooked and should be hall of famers. Why should their candidacies be ignored because of when they played?

Because they played a thousand million years ago and if they weren't elected by now it's time to move on, already.

21. Scoriano Flitcraft posted on January 09, 2013 at 07:48 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

5% to 10%—27 players.

... I wonder when Joe Torre will get into the Hall of Fame. We KNOW he’s going in as a manager, so let’s get that done already. He was a really, really good player with a legitimate Hall of Fame case. He became, as we know, a legendary manager with four World Series rings. Let’s stop waiting and put him in already.

But, but, but some of his players used PEDs.

22. AndrewJ posted on January 09, 2013 at 08:12 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Players who got 0 votes -- 199 players.

• Has some Hall of Fame support: Jimmy Wynn, Roy White, Ken Singleton.

Singleton has 302 career Win Shares, which I believe is the most of any HOF candidate who got zero BBWAA votes.

23. Bob Meta-Meusel posted on January 09, 2013 at 08:43 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I hadn't thought about this, but the amazing 1990s Indians, with Albert Belle and Manny Ramirez and Kenny Lofton and Jim Thome and others ... might not get a single HOF through the BBWAA. I've been shocked at the low level of support people have for Thome. Absolutely shocked.

Well, if you want to get picky, Eddie Murray was there from '94-'96 and in '95 put up a .323/.375/.516 line in 113 games that was good for 2.2 WAR...
and if you want to get even pickier, Dave Winfield finished off his career in Cleveland in '95.

24. cardsfanboy

posted on January 09, 2013 at 10:42 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I can't believe he didn't list Ted Simmons in the 0-5% grouping.

The major problem with this article, is he starts off saying he's going to stick with post 1966 results, then spends a majority of the time talking about pre-1966 results.

25. cardsfanboy

posted on January 09, 2013 at 10:45 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Of course, that whole bit of handwringing is probably silly because there is almost certainly a steroid user or two or 10 in the Hall of Fame already.

This is one argument I have never really gotten. If you are a roid purist, it shouldn't matter if someone got in already. Just like you don't use Jim Rice as the baseline for determining which outfielders should go in, you don't use one mistake to justify a wave of players you don't feel deserve to go in.

26. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy posted on January 09, 2013 at 11:24 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Listen to this: Ralph Kiner in 1960 got fewer votes than Lefty Grove. You ask: What's wrong with that? Grove was perhaps the greatest left-handed pitcher of all time. True. But there's this: Lefty Grove was ALREADY IN THE HALL OF FAME, had been since 1947.

27. Walt Davis posted on January 10, 2013 at 03:42 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

Why should their candidacies be ignored because of when they played?

Ray gave the blunt and essentially correct answer. At the least they should do what they did with the Negro Leaguers -- have one final "look, just put in everybody you think has any sort of case already" committee on pre-war, maybe even pre-expansion, guys.

28. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:21 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

It's not a choice between one or the other. There are clearly some players from the early days of baseball (Bill Dahlen, Tony Mullane, Ross Barnes) who have been overlooked and should be hall of famers. Why should their candidacies be ignored because of when they played?

Hey. Ross Barnes made eight thousand one hundred dollars in his career. That should be enough for anyone.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

/m/hall_of_fame

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Baseball Hall of Fame: Baseball’s Talent Finders Honored at New Museum Exhibit ‘Diamond Mines’

Reader Comments and Retorts

Hall Of Fame Think Factory