User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5013 seconds
55 querie(s) executed
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.
78.8 is too close to 75 for me to feel confident.
If he falls short because Mariotti submitted a blank ballot (instead of simply not voting), that will be criminal.
The bottom of the list seems odd to me. People really think Baines was better than Mattingly? I don't agree with Mattingly versus Ventura, but at least I can see that.
Wow, MLB.com is a tough (and, one could argue, confused) crowd. McGriff one for thirteen? I mean sure he isn't a slam dunk Frank Thomas type 1B, but 1 for 13! 3 of 13 for Raines!?!
Hate to say it, but at 78% starting the day Bert ain't going in this year. I expect 74.9999% just to see our heads explode instantaneously.
If Bert makes it to 74.999, that is still a huge jump forward from last year. As long as he doesn't whine about the results and cause a backlash, he's a cinch to go in now before his eligibility is up.
Yep, I had thought that Rice's election would help Mattingly, since his better single season triple crown stats were a good match for Rice's...
but no, I think Rice's election has propelled Dawson instead.
As a Mets fan, I understand exactly what he's saying. Alomar's tenure with the Mets was infuriating in ways unparalleled in team history with the possible exception of Bobby Bo, v. 2.0. Mind you, I'm mature enough that I wouldn't let it stop me from punching his name on my HOF ballot, but I'd be sorely tempted to do it for one year as a protest. You had to watch him for every one of those 222 games to understand. Appearances can be deceiving, but he seemed to be healthy and neither to be trying nor to care that he was stinking the joint out night after night. And this started the year after he posted .336/.415/.541 in 677 PAs for Cleveland. My blood pressure is rising just thinking about it.
He also has this great quote:
"I have had a Hall of Fame vote since 2003. After years of watching the results and talking with other voters, I have arrived at the conclusion that we are nuts. I have a better chance of explaining cold fusion than explaining how we voters think."
Doesn't he belong in the Rihanna thread?
78.8 is too close to 75 for me to feel confident.
"it's quiet in here"
"yeah--TOO quiet"
Great...another mofo Partial.
Repeat after me, slowly: He. Had. Nothing. Left.
As for "not caring," repeat this slowly as well: You. Have. No. Idea.
Oh, it was much worse than that. He was reveling in your anguish, openly laughing at you. He wanted to do poorly so his team would lose, and you would suffer. He wanted to steal your joy and eventually own your soul.
It's really bizarre the way fans think sometimes.
The flip side is Ray, neither do you. You don't know that he really had nothing left in the tank, or maybe he had, for some reason, just lost some interest in playing. You're both speculating.
don't kid yourself--that happens
I rememeber this wretched little cornerback for the Browns named Walt Sumner who would DELIBERATELY ruin my Sundays. He would actually wink at me through the television when he got beat deep.
The burden of proof isn't on me or - gasp - Ray - to prove he WAS trying, we're not the ones saying he was giving up. Players age, and fall off a table. That's the norm.
Ditto on all counts.
Frankly, I don't care why he collapsed, and if I had to guess I'd say you and Ray are right. But you can't speak with such absolute certainty in one paragraph for the reason behind a player's decline, as Ray did, then declare just as certainly "You have no idea," in the next paragraph.
Jim Bunning got 74.2 percent.
Gil Hodges, 63.4 percent, got the highest percentage who hasn't gotten elected by the writer's or the Vet's committee.
Man, Nellie Fox made a huge jump the last few years (30.6%, 46.3%, 61.0%, 74.7%). There must have been a good campaign on his behalf.
Alomar
Blyleven
Dawson
Larkin
Morris
Raines
Trammell
Sumner wasn't that little for his time, and he wasn't winking at you. He was winking through you to get to me. In his first two seasons, he had eight interceptions, but fumbled five times on those INTs. The Browns moved him to safety, where he perfected waving at opponents racing to the endzone untouched.
Well, Nellie was long dead by that point. He died of cancer in 1975 at age 48.
And Jack continuing to plummet. He's barely ahead of last year's percentage, and hardly on the path to near-certain election as some have feared.
I'm really, really hoping that Tim Raines slips ahead of Morris in the final vote. Although I suspect that's not going to happen. But I'm really encouraged by the jump that Raines has apparently made this year.
Nellie was the first honest-to-goodness major leaguer that I ever met--we used to visit his sporting goods store. Very nice man
What did you expect out of Sumner? He was a seventh round draft pick. It is more surprising he had a career at all. He did okay for his first couple seasons and the Browns kept him too long. Hmmm, sounds like Derek Anderson, but I digress. Separately, I think the winking was about something else altogether. Not saying that there's anything wrong with that . . . .
almost as exciting as waiting for the actual vote is the anticipation of the primer reaction to it
That is what I'm most interested in seeing - the change year over year. Momentum swings seem to sway other voters. Other than first year guys who are moving from zero percentage, the guys looking from the sample to be increasing the most are Raines and McGwire. Could be some of the voters are done "punishing" them for whatever (cocaine, andro, taking too many pitches, etc.).
hmmmm--he DID have a cute ass, now that you mention it
Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Martinez, McGwire, Raines.
Damn right
(Gammons: Alomar, Blyleven, Dawson, Larkin, Raines, Trammell, McGwire)
As I IMed to someone regarding this earlier, I greatly look forward to the rending of garments.
25 * 30 = 750
1% of 750 is 7.5
So one would think there are between 7 and 8 HOFers now.
I'd put the number a little higher than that...
I think your math is way off for a couple reasons. There are hundreds or thousands of MLB players that have not yet been eligible, for one thing. But you also cannot do "25 * 30 = 750" because many many more than 750 players will play in the MLB this year.
Role players are in and out of the majors a lot more than regulars or potential Hall of Famers, though. I think there are usually about 1400 players in the majors during a year, not 750. And then they vary more from year to year.
EDIT : There is a frozen coke on my balcony for those who want it
If you just took the total number of players to ever appear in an MLB game (even Adam Greenberg, who was beaned in the only pitch he ever "saw") and divided by the total number of HOFers, maybe you'd get close to 1% (I think there are something like 16,000 - 17,000 players in MLB history and somewhere around 200-250 HOFers who played in MLB). Except, of course, that would include everybody who appeared in a game last season in the denominator (even Albert Pujols and Randy Johnson and Derek Jeter, et al.) but include none of them in the numerator. So, yeah, that can't be right. Probably not particularly close.
Well yeah, because most teams have a lot more than 25 guys play for them every year. I'd put it at about 40. So, 12? Still not enough.
In that case, he should have started a sabrmetrically-oriented baseball blog.
I'd put the number a little higher than that...
I'd put the denominator a bit higher too. Teams use a lot more than 25 players in any given season. Even using 40-man roster instead of 25 to define "current" players might be erring on the low side. The Mets used 53 different players last season, for instance.
Me too. And I live in southern south Florida!
(or maybe it wouldn't be easier--but it would be more informative)
Me too. And I live in southern south Florida!
Atlanta here! Temperature finally made it back to 32F today.
And Met fans will tell you that 1% of them were surefire HoFers.
What percentage of guys does this apply to? A third? Half? I have no idea.
Are you saying that 0.53 of the Mets were HOFers? I mean, yeah, they got injured alot but..
I'm so glad he doesn't get to vote.
This is really hard to figure out. So we count Brady Anderson's fluke season, Francoeur's fluke half season et al?
If you're looking at just the one career year I think that almost every player that was a regular starter for years makes it. Everyone considered HOVG is a cinch.
Joe Randa cruises in if he's a career .314 hitter.
Don't forget Don Larsen's one WS gmae in 1956!
My mom's favorite player of all-time. Needless to say, the day the Veteran's Committee put him in was a minor holiday in my house.
My dad's favorite is Dick Allen. Odd they'd both have borderline Hall-of-Famers as their favorites.
But there's no logical reason to think he would have lost interest. He was on a 3,000-hit trajectory, he probably had one more high-paying contract left in him, he was in a huge media market, playing for a team that many expected to contend for at least the Wild Card. From what I remember, he had always been known as a smart, hardworking ballplayer before that.
Nobody knows what happened, of course, but the burden of proof is on those who claim he lost interest or stopped trying, to at least come up with a plausible explanation for *why* he would have done so.
Alomar
Blyleven
Dawson
Larkin
Martinez
McGriff
Morris
Raines
Smith
Well, it applies to (for example) Norm Cash, Babe Herman, Luis Gonzalez, and Kevin Mitchell, so it's probably pretty substantial. And those guys wouldn't just be HOFers if they'd had their best season 8 or 9 times, they'd be inner circle.
Stark: Larkin deserves the Hall Posted by jfay December 30th, 2009, 2:42 pm
Reader RedsLexington sent this link a to a Jayson Stark column making a case for Barry Larkin’s election to the Hall of Fame. Stark is a numbers guy and the numbers show Larkin is deserving.
I voted for Larkin. I don’t think he’ll make it on the first ballot. My guess is he’ll get in eventually.
The BBREF Play Index tells me there were 14,519 players who debuted in 1876 or later and retired in 2003 or before. The official HOF count is 202 players from MLB. Add to this eight other major leaguers whom the Hall of Merit has elected but are not in that total (Rose, Jackson, Paige, Irvin, McGraw, Griffith, Spalding and G. Wright). So 210/14519.
Applying this to the total of 1,156 players active in 2009 indicates 17 active HOFers. Of course, this is the wrong way to go about determining the number of active player who should be enshrined.
EDIT: Slight revision. The number of payers debuting 1871 and later and retiring by 2003 is 14,846. Of these, 195 did not play after 1875 (so not "MLB"), leaving 14,651. 210/14651 = 1.43%.
More than 1% of the players in any given season will be Hall of Famers. But over the course of multiple seasons, there's a much lower turnover rate among Hall of Famers than among scrubs.
I'm not sure how substantial, let's pick a player out of thin air. Brian Schneider? I see no one season that brings him close. I think that there are a lot more players like that than not. He even has a 10-year career, and I have a hard time seeing him as a real outlier.
We agreed on voting for Barry Larkin, Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven and Lee Smith.
We differed in that he voted for Mark McGwire, Roberto Alomar and Jack Morris. I didn’t vote for those three and I voted for Edgar Martinez.
Also, I guess that makes Sean McClelland's vote Larkin, Dawson, Blyleven, Smith, McGwire, Alomar, Morris
But 2000 sounds about right. And there are how many players in the hall? 200? 250?
So that means 10-12% get elected, (which seems too high to me)
Oh, come on. You are looking at famous career years. The 1996 Mets outfield of Bernard Gilkey, Lance Johnson, and Carl Everett would be in the Hall of Fame.
I think you need to extend it to "best 3 years" for it to be at all interesting.
Huh. I would have guessed a number at least double that, but I can find no quibbles with your math here. I mean, there are a handful of guys in your 14,519 who will eventually become Hall-of-Famers (Dawson, Blyleven, probably Santo some day) and 1.45% is close enough to 1.50% that maybe that would push it up to "2%". But that's still way lower than I would have guessed. I guess there are just a ton more obscure cup-of-coffee guys than I would have expected.
And 17 active HOFers sounds way too low.
EDIT: Actually, #283 makes an excellent point about how 1% of players over, say, a 5-year period would include a bunch of HOFers who played all 5 of those years coupled with 5 separate sets of "cup-of-coffee" guys, which I think probably does explain why the 17 active HOFers number is too low.
No, he used it correctly. Correctly, that is, if you define peak as "career records held at one time and performance in World Series games".
I also like how no one mentions stolen base percentage, which really, really helps Raines's case. Posnanski should really push the "best base stealer ever" tag on Raines, that would help him immensely.
Well, yes, but in the most annoying manner imaginable! Grrrrrr!
You can't take a historical number like that and apply it to a one-year sample. Hall of Famers have longer careers than other players, so the fraction of HOFers who are active at any given time will be higher than their historical proportion of the population.
Yeah, but they were both awesome, so I have no problem with that. Bernard Gilkey wasn't awesome.
Sure - I think Daniel Murphy was that .53... at least, heading into the season.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main