I would write in for Rose ANY DAY over Bonds and all the drug cheaters. He never bet against his team(s) or threw games. And he certainly didn't profit from his gambling addiction (which is really what it was).

To all those who say the 'old' voters should have their rights/votes taken away... Why, because you suddenly figured out it's not a perfect system? It's been the same way for SEVENTY years... get over it.

I don't care that Clemens, Bonds et al cheated. Most of us would do the same thing if it meant making millions of dollars (I certainly would). And it was certainly great watching them play. What I care about is that it should be taken into account as far as getting into the HoF. They also did nothing to hurt their teams, and in the case of some like McGwire they weren't even technically cheating (since Bud the Scud was too chicken to put in drug testing earlier). Nonetheless, I feel like they had an advantage over other players who were "clean" and should not be eligible for entry to the HoF. They were only interested in making themselves richer, and if it helped their team win that was just a side effect. Every player faces the same moral challenges - I just don't think those who succumed to the pressure (or greed) should be rewarded.

Yes, it's a slippery slope, but I'm a damn good skier!!

Weird. Wonder if he forgot Houston was once a ML team.

He looked at the AL in 2012 and the NL in 2013.

 243. Sean Forman Posted: January 04, 2013 at 04:09 PM (#4339171)
Repoz,

When you update the post can you add a timestamp and perhaps add a note that this is through comment #242 in the thread, etc. I would also encourage you to post a google doc if you could.

I'll repeat this request.

He never bet against his team(s) or threw games.

And you know this how, exactly?

Also, as has been noted, Rose would not be eligible for the BBWAA ballot even if he were reinstated since his playing career ended more than 20 years ago. Voting for Rose is like voting for Gil Hodges.

I would write in for Rose ANY DAY over Bonds and all the drug cheaters. He never bet against his team(s) or threw games.

I would say there is more evidence that Rose bet against his team than there is Clemens used steroids/hgh.

Repoz, my utmost respect for the work you do here.

Seconded.

The last segment on Clubhouse Confidential today was all about this thread.

That's awesome.

Repoz,

When you update the post can you add a timestamp and perhaps add a note that this is through comment #242 in the thread, etc. I would also encourage you to post a google doc if you could.

Yeah, the time stamp would be good. I care less about the document. But it could be helpful.

Either way, thanks.

Speaking of Clubhouse Confidential, the SF Chronicle's Henry Schulman gave his ballot... just in case he didn't write about it (I have no idea), it was: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Morris, D. Murphy, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, L. Smith

Post-season performance wouldn't seem to belong under playing ability at all...

Which is exactly why I cited it as a driver of "narrative" distinct from playing ability. You know, to counter Dan's interpretation that playing ability = narrative.

No, Walt is right. Post-season performance is part of the playing record.

However, I disagree with Walt when he says:

"Playing ability is pretty clearly the "peak" criterion"

A player's peak is part of the playing record as well. We can see exactly when it was and we can pretty well measure it, similar to post-season performance.

"Playing ability" refers to the intangible aspects of performance. How good was he by reputation? What did people say about his play? If this runs counter to the Playing record, one must discern whether mistaken impressions of his quality are being expressed, or whether there is something meritorious that is not captured in the statistical record.

[257] He did write about it and the article was a thread here. Article

But he had Biggio, Murphy and Trammel as maybes there, so it's good to have the update.

Edit: Leokitty, at least, already had the update on Biggio, but not on Murphy.

BCI, thanks.

Re: the CF issue: It's interesting. I suppose you can't strictly say that the HOF has been unfair to the position, because all of the no-brainers (Cobb, Speaker, DiMag, Mays, Mantle, Snider, soon Griffey) naturally are in, and then there's a bunch of questionable old guys (Combs, Roush, Carey, Averill, H. Wilson, L. Waner) who are there too. But they sure haven't been generous to center fielders for a few decades now. I feel confident that Puckett would have been elected even as a corner OF -- I think they loved the shape of his stats and his narrative. If you buy that, then the most recent candidate who needed "CF credit" to get in was Richie Ashburn, who retired in 1962.

Elected: Averill 45.1 WAR, Roush 43, Combs 40, H. Wilson 37.3, L. Waner 22 (barf)
Got or will get minimal support: Lofton 64.9, W. Davis 56.8 (that'd be the highest WAR of anyone with zero HOF votes), J. Wynn 53.1 (that'd be second on that same list), C. Lemon 52, Pinson 50.2, C. Cedeno 49.7, B. Butler 47, Lynn 46.7, Burks 46.3, B. Williams 45.9, Dale Murphy 42.6

So they used to induct borderline CF, but nowadays the voters don't even notice they exist. Granted, part of the issue seems to be that CF lends itself to an "all-arounder" type of game that the voters have trouble appreciating from anyone. (I expect Carlos Beltran to be further evidence of this, unfortunately.) Still, you can address that by giving adequate positional credit, and IMO they ain't doing it. It's the same thing at 2B and 3B, BTW. They can tell that Rogers Hornsby and Mike Schmidt were great, but that's about it. Surely Ron Santo and Lou Whitaker would have gone in easily if the voters concentrated on the question "where does this guy rank all-time at his position?" But that's not how they approach it.

Re: what the HOF criteria mean: I am not buying #234 either ;-) My personal inclination would be to think that "player's record, playing ability and contributions to the team" essentially mean the same thing, and "integrity, sportsmanship and character" essentially mean the same thing. Common sense (or at least the failed candidacies of Harvard Eddie Grant, Jim Abbott, etc.) would suggest that the great-player stuff dominates and the nice-guy stuff is secondary. But anyway, it doesn't much matter what any one of us thinks, when the larger point is that this stuff is deliberately vague and designed to be interpreted individually by each voter.

W. Davis 56.8 (that'd be the highest WAR of anyone with zero HOF votes)

I don't think Willie Davis was even on the ballot when he was first eligible in 1985. His name never appeared in any of the voting results. I have no idea how he slipped through the cracks when even Jesus Alou and his -1.0 WAR made it onto the ballot (where he picked up one vote.) As far as I know he's the only 20th century player with 2,500 hits that never made it onto the ballot. (According to Baseball Reference, Jimmy Ryan, Lave Cross, George Davis, and Jim O'Rourke never made it onto the ballot either, but they were primarily 19th century players.)

Can anybody elucidate why Willie Davis wasn't on the ballot?

Up until this very moment, I had never even heard of Willie Davis. And he's not THAT far before my time either. Wow. Learn something new every day...

divine texts... are excellent parables - stories - that help guide us as to how we should try to live our life if we are lost or unsure.

This is a perfectly reasonable approach to things- not the only reasonable approach, but I certainly regard it as respectable. My concern was with the notion that religious people accept the tenets of their faith "blindly without rational thought or question as to their purpose", which is not always or even often the case (at least with the faiths I am familiar with). Perhaps I misinterpreted the thrust of your comment, and my apologies if I did so.

Without questioning the top down authority of any institution as we acquire knowledge, we would have no progress.

To a certain extent, I agree. I do, however, think it's a bit strong to say that no progress can be made absent a meta-critique of existing assumptions and authorities. To apply Thomas Kuhn's analysis of the history of science, "normal science" continues and makes progress without critiquing its foundations; a paradigm shift occurs when those foundations are questioned and replaced. More broadly, I think an open mind is open in order that it may fasten on to the truth- including truths about reliable authorities- not open merely to flutter in the breeze.

Bringing this back to baseball, the exclusion of moral issues from consideration in HoF voting is an attractive idea, and would certainly greatly simplify matters. 'Elect them all, and let God (or the Cooperstown visitor) sort them out.' But there do remain those pesky character, integrity and sportsmanship clauses in the ballot language, so it is difficult to dismiss those who want to give substantial consideration to these issues. I think we either need to change the ballot language, or accept that there's going to remain a long, complicated and messy discussion and continued disagreement about how to apply the ethical clauses to individual players.

But anyway, it doesn't much matter what any one of us thinks, when the larger point is that this stuff is deliberately vague and designed to be interpreted individually by each voter.

"Cacophony and Confusion", as the Great One said.

The HOF voters are a lesser-developed species, content to go on as they always have. When an impetus for change comes they thrash about, seeking a better path, looking for direction, trying to survive. In the normal course of things, lack of evolution leads towards extinction. (In this case, that might not be such a bad thing.)

I would say there is more evidence that Rose bet against his team than there is Clemens used steroids/hgh.

I would say there is more evidence that Rose was a steroid user than some of these guys being blackballed. A steroid dealer used to sleep on his couch.

Question. Will Morris (if not voted in) Trammell, Murphy, and Mattingly be immediately eligible for the 2017 veterans committee?

Question. Will Morris (if not voted in) Trammell, Murphy, and Mattingly be immediately eligible for the 2017 veterans committee?

Yes on Morris, Mattingly and Murphy. Trammell will not be eligible until the 2020 Vets ballot.

Yes on Morris, Mattingly and Murphy. Trammell will not be eligible until the 2020 Vets ballot.

Thank you. I was hoping Trammell could go from off the ballot in 2016 to Class of 2017 inductee.

FWIW, I always read 'player's record' and 'playing ability' as basically 'career' and 'peak'.

Has it been a given that Morris is a shoe-in on the Veterans' committee? Or no? I don't remember what the general thought was there.

No, Walt is right. Post-season performance is part of the playing record.

I said "post-season heroics" not "post-season performance." What I was trying to get at was the kind of singular moment that can drive a narrative case. For example, Curt Schilling has a stellar post-season performance record; he also has the bloody sock game. I intended to capture the latter rather than the former.

Has it been a given that Morris is a shoe-in on the Veterans' committee? Or no? I don't remember what the general thought was there.

Based on the history of guys with his performance in the BBWAA election, and what seems like his reputation within the game, I think he's a shoe-in with the Vets at some point.

FWIW, I always read 'player's record' and 'playing ability' as basically 'career' and 'peak'.

That pretty much matches my thinking as well.

Is there even a place on the ballot for a write-in? I would imagine not, since there are rules for eligibility.

270. Lassus Posted: January 05, 2013 at 12:27 PM (#4339623)
Has it been a given that Morris is a shoe-in on the Veterans' committee? Or no? I don't remember what the general thought was there.

I think some on here are pessimistically overstating the certainty of Veterans Committee acting on Morris. The only thing we know for sure about the future of the veterans committee is we have no idea what they might do. Gil Hodges has long been thought to be a lock with the vets. They have a well earned reputation for difficulty reaching consensus. Old Reds like Morgan may support Concepcion. Others may have their preferred candidate.

The only thing we know for sure about the future of the veterans committee is we have no idea what they might do. Gil Hodges has long been thought to be a lock with the vets.

I do think we can say that unlike the previous version, this incarnation of the veterans' committee will elect people on a fairly regular basis.

I haven't been convinced about Morris going in via the Vets, though he certainly could. What seems to be the thing with them is if a player is living he needs a champion, someone on the committee to be speaking up for them and talking about how great they were and how they were overlooked in the voting process because of A, B, and C. For Morris to go through he's going to need some prominent 80s guys to show up on the committee and go to bat for him, or some angry anti-saber guys (hello Joe Morgan!) to campaign for him out of vengeance. Either of which could happen.

The problem for him if he reaches the Vets he's going to be up against a couple of guys who have the same case as him (lots of wins) but with significantly better secondary stats (ERA) in Kaat and Tommy John. The Vets would have to ask themselves why Morris if not those two guys, which they might plow through anyway, or make Morris wait in line behind them.

The problem for him if he reaches the Vets he's going to be up against a couple of guys who have the same case as him (lots of wins)

But if wins are your calling card, don't you need more of them than 254?

The other guys - Kaat and John - are knocking on the door of 300. Dennis Martinez and Andy Pettitte had nearly as many as Morris (245), and even Jamie Moyer had 269.

Hell, Morris's ability to win was used as a club to beat Blyleven over the head with, but it was _Blyleven_ who had more wins, 287 to 254.

Morris with "only" 254 wins and "only" 3800 innings simply needed to be better than he was, on a rate basis. Jim Palmer is the pitcher everyone thinks Morris is.

The problem for him if he reaches the Vets he's going to be up against a couple of guys who have the same case as him (lots of wins) but with significantly better secondary stats (ERA) in Kaat and Tommy John. The Vets would have to ask themselves why Morris if not those two guys, which they might plow through anyway, or make Morris wait in line behind them.

I think the perception is that Morris was the better pitcher between those three... Better winning percentage, higher percentage of complete games etc...In an era where the relievers were becoming increasingly more important, Morris was able to pitch the way that the old timers thought they pitched.

I think it was on MLBN where someone was comparing Morris and Schilling. In favor of Morris he said that Morris had more than twice as many complete games and 8 more shutouts. You'd think that Morris having all those extra complete games, but only having 8 more shutouts would say something about their quality.

But if wins are your calling card, don't you need more of them than 254?

The other guys - Kaat and John - are knocking on the door of 300. Dennis Martinez and Andy Pettitte had nearly as many as Morris (245), and even Jamie Moyer had 269.

I would say exactly to all of this, which is why I don't think he's going to have a particularly easy path on the Vets committee. Plus after the cooling off period he wouldn't be eligible for the Vets until 2017, at which point we'll have had another 5 years for everyone to get comfortable with saber stats. The gist is that none of these guys are HOFers, and for good reasons.

I think the perception is that Morris was the better pitcher between those three... Better winning percentage, higher percentage of complete games etc...In an era where the relievers were becoming increasingly more important, Morris was able to pitch the way that the old timers thought they pitched.

I think that's all true, the question is whether it's enough. I'm not saying he's not/never going through on the Vets - I just don't think it will be a cakewalk. With the right mix of voters and an emphasis on getting some 80s guys into the Hall he could absolutely go, and maybe as soon as 2017. Or he could get a bad mix of voters with no one in the room going to bat for him specifically, plus it's 2017 now and wins have been more thoroughly discredited and everyone looks at ERA+ and he could have a tough time.

everyone looks at ERA+ and he could have a tough time.

I don't think you need to go to the + for Morris to have problems. It's a fairly well known fact that his raw ERA would be the highest in the Hall of Fame if he ever gets elected (unless Wes Ferrell sneaks in there first).

I don't think you need to go to the + for Morris to have problems. It's a fairly well known fact that his raw ERA would be the highest in the Hall of Fame if he ever gets elected (unless Wes Ferrell sneaks in there first).

The thing is that every serious Hall of Fame candidate from the Steroids Era easily bests Morris's raw ERA even without adjustments. Granted several of these pitchers didn't pitch as many innings as him (also as a result of era), but that is pretty damning to his case.

I would say exactly to all of this, which is why I don't think he's going to have a particularly easy path on the Vets committee. Plus after the cooling off period he wouldn't be eligible for the Vets until 2017, at which point we'll have had another 5 years for everyone to get comfortable with saber stats. The gist is that none of these guys are HOFers, and for good reasons.

It's four years (it's the 2016 election, 2017 enshrinement), and three years since his last turn on the ballot.

And I'll repeat what I said earlier. Jack looks like a very easy choice for the Vet's committee, which has historically taken its lead from the BBWAA (as seen by the failure of Grich to even make the Expansion ballot the first time this committee met). Guys with Jack's kind of BBWAA support but who don't make it over the hump have been ushered in to the Hall by the Vets, with the single exception of Gil Hodges. Considering the narrative and reputation* that's built around Jack in just the last 5 years, I happen to think failure with the writers will only grow his stature, rather than reduce it. I hope I'm wrong, but I'd be stunned if Jack isn't shepherded into the Hall rather quickly by a Vet's committee.

* Inaccurate as they are.

Wow, the percentages are falling as more ballots come in.

Unless there's a Nixonian "Silent Majority" lurking out there, this is going to be awesome. Nobody elected in a field with so many worthy candidates. (And I speak as a "lifetime HOF ban on Bonds/Clemens/Palmeiro/McGwire" type -- there are STILL enough names to fill a respectable ballot: Schilling/Raines/Trammell/Martinez/Bagwell/Biggio/Piazza/Walker/Smith and oh what the hell, Morris too.)

It's gonna be a trainwreck, and I can't wait to see it.

Wow, the percentages are falling as more ballots come in.

Yeah, I mean, how many of the top five candidates per Repoz's gizmo are still viable? Just Biggio and Bagwell, who still need to make up some ground? Piazza, Morris, and Raines are barely in the ballgame.

68.4 - Biggio
67.4 - Bagwell
63.2 - Piazza
62.1 - J. Morris
61.1 - Raines

It will be interesting to see what the average number of names per ballot ends up being. Seems to me we'd have a trainwreck on our hands even without the whole steroid thing, since a large majority of voters don't seem willing to entertain the possibility that there might be more than six or seven worthy candidates on the ballot at any given time.

Yeah, I mean, how many of the top five candidates per Repoz's gizmo are still viable? Just Biggio and Bagwell, who still need to make up some ground? Piazza, Morris, and Raines are barely in the ballgame.

Biggio and Bagwell are the only two with a real chance and they're hoping that "Gizmo" is undercounting.

Is anyone able to make sense of the myriad Veterans Committee bylaws and figure out what the composition of the voting board is going to be in 2016/17? In looking at the Veteran's Committee page on Wikipedia, it looks like that last open recent players election (i.e. post 1972) was in 2011. The Historical Overview Committee (11 writers) nominated 12 candidates who were then voted on by 8 HOFers (Bench, Whitey Herzog, Murray, Palmer, Perez, Frank Robinson, Sandberg, Ozzie Smith), 4 executives (Bill Giles, David Glass, Andy MacPhail, Jerry Reinsdorf), and 4 media (Bob Elliott, Tim Kurkjian, Ross Newhan, Tom Verducci). 12 out of 16 votes were required.

It's not clear from what I've been able to find, but is the post-1972 voting committee going to change (barring health of course) or is it intended to remain the same? It hardly needs mentioning that with only 16 guys voting each vote carries a lot of weight.

It's not clear from what I've been able to find, but is the post-1972 voting committee going to change (barring health of course) or is it intended to remain the same? It hardly needs mentioning that with only 16 guys voting each vote carries a lot of weight.

I've wondered that myself, as well as if the nominating committee (I believe Primate Tracy Ringolsby was one of the members of that group) would remain intact.

I've wondered that myself, as well as if the nominating committee (I believe Primate Tracy Ringolsby was one of the members of that group) would remain intact.

Ringolsby was a member of the nominating committee in 2011. I didn't include their names because we can probably be fairly certain Morris will be nominated regardless. If that voting committee doesn't change, do we have HOF ballots for any of those writers? Would be interesting to know if any of those guys are Morris voters now, as they presumably would be in 2016 again. It's a fairly NL-dominant committee - the only guy in there who would seem to have any significant career against Morris would be Eddie Murray. And indeed in one of those crazy baseball coincidences it looks like Murray had more PAs against Morris than against any other pitcher in his career: in 105 PAs Murray went .304/.381/.511 against him. Perez had 10 PAs against Morris. I'm not an expert with BBRef's search function but I imagine Palmer and Morris matched up a few times.

Back to Morris for moment. Jim Kaat and Jack Morris would not be on the same ballot. Kaat is on the 'golden' era ballot. Morris will be competing with Tommy John. Kaat was only two votes shy the last time, and could be elected in two years. Tommy John only earned 8 votes.

Biggio and Bagwell are the only two with a real chance and they're hoping that "Gizmo" is undercounting.

Earlier it was posted that maybe the HOF would "fudge" some numbers so at least one guy makes it in. As of this point, with nearly 1/6 of the votes counted there is only Biggio who you could sort fudge to make it up to 75%. No way can you fudge a guy like Morris all the way from 62% up to 75% now. All this talk of fudge is making me hungry....

It's making me want to vote for David Wells.

Or Mike Piazza...

In other news, Repoz is reporting a Julio Franco vote!

Repoz is reporting a Julio Franco vote!

Yes to Franco, Mattingly, and Morris. No to Bagwell, Piazza, Bonds, and Clemens.

The results are growing bleaker and bleaker by the update.

The positive for me Tim Raines looking like he'll pick up around 10% points. Also, not happy that Bagwell, Biggio, and Piazza didn't get in but all three are in good shape for future elections.

Julio Franco!!!???!!! One if my faves, but???!!!????

Hersch presumably refuses to vote for roiders because they would demean the Hall. But somehow his (presumably) smoochie vote for Franco isn't demeaning to the process of electing members to that very institution. Because I really cannot believe that he couldn't find a better candidate among Bernie, Lofton, McGriff, and Murphy. Nucking futs.

But at least he made his vote public. Would making all HOF ballots public improve the process? Or just be more fodder for the collective irritation.

No way can you fudge a guy like Morris all the way from 62% up to 75% now.

I don't think I follow. When all is said and done, less than 20% of the voters will have revealed their ballots and the sample is most definitely not random. They could fudge Trammel and Smith in if they really wanted to.

s 10-year members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, Newsday's David Lennon, Mark Herrmann, Bob Herzog and Steven Marcus were eligible to vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame's Class of 2013. Here's how each one voted, with their explanation of why they voted the way they did.

 

DA