Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, December 28, 2009

Hall of Fame Ballot Gathering Machine

FINAL…unless I find out that Lisa Olson’s blank ballot was sent in. Then everybody drops.

% Leaderboard after 128 Full Ballots…

87.5 - Alomar
80.5 - Blyleven
79.7 - Dawson
54.7 - Larkin
47.7 - J. Morris
42.2 - Lee Smith
41.4 - T. Raines
37.5 - Edgar
33.6 - McGwire
25.0 - Trammell
20.3 - McGriff
10.9 - D. Murphy
 9.4 - Parker
 6.3 - Baines
 6.3 - Mattingly
 0.8 - Ventura

Top Partial Ballot Leaders… (146 Full/Partials)

116 - Alomar
108 - Dawson
102 - Blyleven

And mega-tnx to Rene` on the twitter feeds.

Repoz Posted: December 28, 2009 at 08:47 PM | 418 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, history, media, site news

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 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 
   201. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:59 AM (#3429319)
So from the current tally, Alomar and Dawson look like they'll get in, and Blyleven is right on the border.
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.
   202. ajnrules Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:23 AM (#3429333)
It seems odd to me that Barry M. Bloom voted for ten people, but Tim Raines and Barry Larkin were not among them...
   203. tjm1 Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:47 AM (#3429343)
It seems odd to me that Barry M. Bloom voted for ten people, but Tim Raines and Barry Larkin were not among them...


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.
   204. LargeBill Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:16 PM (#3429405)
195. Dag Nabbit Posted: January 06, 2010 at 12:42 AM (#3429307)
Results from the 13 MLB.com guys (including TR Sullivan, who was nice enough to list his ballot earlier in this thread and since been added to repoz's tally):

11 Alomar
11 Dawson
10 Blyleven
7 Smith
6 Larkin
5 Morris
4 Trammell
4 McGwire
3 Edgar
3 Raines
2 Murphy
1 Parker
1 Mattingly
1 Ventura (!!)
1 McGriff


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.
   205. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:30 PM (#3429418)
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.
   206. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:35 PM (#3429420)
Woo, no shutout for Ventura!
   207. John DiFool2 Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:33 PM (#3429471)
It may be Love Removal Machine day for everybody on the ballot who doesn't have the initials "RA"...
   208. JPWF13 Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:50 PM (#3429484)
Mattingly appears to be in danger of falling off the ballot.


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.
   209. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:08 PM (#3429513)
Dinging Alomar for the Hirschbeck thing is silly, but at least it arguably speaks to character. WTF is the Mets thing all about? That comes out of left field. Now a player's skills abandoning him means that he has "spit on the game"?
If he had cared, he'd have used steroids.
   210. Anthony Giacalone Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:14 PM (#3429519)
Not a HOF voter, but Chad Finn is a groupthinker, if you ignore his man crush (bird crush?) on The Hawk.
   211. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:18 PM (#3429525)
Has Jayson Stark's ballot been included yet? He voted for Dawson, Blyleven, Alomar, Larkin, Martinez, McGriff, Raines, McGwire, Morris and Murphy.
   212. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:24 PM (#3429534)
WTF is the Mets thing all about?


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.
   213. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:26 PM (#3429536)
LEN3 of the Star Tribune announces that he voted for 8, including Blyleven. He didn't say who the other 7 were.

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."
   214. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:33 PM (#3429546)
LEN3 of the Star Tribune


Doesn't he belong in the Rihanna thread?
   215. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:39 PM (#3429553)
Blyleven is right on the border.
78.8 is too close to 75 for me to feel confident.


"it's quiet in here"

"yeah--TOO quiet"
   216. Repoz Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:48 PM (#3429559)
He didn't say who the other 7 were.

Great...another mofo Partial.
   217. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:54 PM (#3429567)
I don't have time but I'm pretty sure Gleeman could get the other 7 names from him.
   218. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 05:07 PM (#3429576)
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.


Repeat after me, slowly: He. Had. Nothing. Left.

As for "not caring," repeat this slowly as well: You. Have. No. Idea.
   219. bads85 Posted: January 06, 2010 at 05:17 PM (#3429581)
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
.

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.
   220. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: January 06, 2010 at 05:18 PM (#3429583)
Well, he sure seemed to have plenty left as recently as six months earlier. Public skepticism about his performance and attitude were well earned.
   221. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 05:20 PM (#3429586)
Well, he sure seemed to have plenty left as recently as six months earlier. Public skepticism about his performance and attitude were well earned.


It's really bizarre the way fans think sometimes.
   222. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2010 at 05:26 PM (#3429592)
Repeat after me, slowly: He. Had. Nothing. Left.

As for "not caring," repeat this slowly as well: You. Have. No. Idea.


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.
   223. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 05:32 PM (#3429597)
Maybe he lost interest in playing because he had nothing left in the tank
   224. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 05:35 PM (#3429598)
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.

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.
   225. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 05:41 PM (#3429604)
I'm a huge Mets fan, and lived vividly through the Alomar years, and I have to say that at no point did I think he just didn't give a ####. He simply was done. I'd say to think otherwise is pure projection and speculation.

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.
   226. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 05:47 PM (#3429608)
I'm a huge Mets fan, and lived vividly through the Alomar years, and I have to say that at no point did I think he just didn't give a ####. He simply was done. I'd say to think otherwise is pure projection and speculation.


Ditto on all counts.
   227. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2010 at 05:47 PM (#3429609)
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.


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.
   228. Curse of the Graffanino (dfan) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 05:51 PM (#3429614)
What is the highest percentage of the vote achieved by someone who was never voted in by the writers?
   229. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:00 PM (#3429617)
What is the highest percentage of the vote achieved by someone who was never voted in by the writers?


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.
   230. ajnrules Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:02 PM (#3429619)
<u>Nellie Fox</u> got 74.7% of the vote in his final year on the ballot, but had to wait until the Veteran's ballot to vote him in 1997.
   231. Curse of the Graffanino (dfan) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:07 PM (#3429626)
Thanks guys.

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.
   232. PreservedFish Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:07 PM (#3429627)
Alomar never stopped sliding headfirst into first base. That means he was trying sometimes!
   233. Juan V Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:08 PM (#3429628)
I wouldn't have liked to be a piece of furniture in the Fox household when those results were announced.
   234. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:08 PM (#3429633)
Scott Miller:

Alomar
Blyleven
Dawson
Larkin
Morris
Raines
Trammell
   235. bads85 Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:10 PM (#3429635)
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.


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.
   236. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:14 PM (#3429644)
I wouldn't have liked to be a piece of furniture in the Fox household when those results were announced.


Well, Nellie was long dead by that point. He died of cancer in 1975 at age 48.
   237. Repoz Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:33 PM (#3429659)
Blyleven back up to 80%...passes Dawson, again.
   238. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:37 PM (#3429662)
Blyleven back up to 80%...passes Dawson, again.


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.
   239. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:49 PM (#3429669)
And Jack continuing to plummet


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.
   240. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:50 PM (#3429671)
10 minutes until Mlb Network's HOF special woooo!
   241. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:53 PM (#3429674)
Well, Nellie was long dead by that point. He died of cancer in 1975 at age 48.

Nellie was the first honest-to-goodness major leaguer that I ever met--we used to visit his sporting goods store. Very nice man
   242. LargeBill Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:53 PM (#3429675)
JMAC,

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 . . . .
   243. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:55 PM (#3429677)
10 minutes until Mlb Network's HOF special woooo!

almost as exciting as waiting for the actual vote is the anticipation of the primer reaction to it
   244. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:00 PM (#3429680)
we need a seperate chatter for this
   245. LargeBill Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:01 PM (#3429682)
239. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2010 at 12:49 PM (#3429669)
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.


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.).
   246. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:02 PM (#3429685)
   247. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:03 PM (#3429686)
Separately, I think the winking was about something else altogether. Not saying that there's anything wrong with that . .

hmmmm--he DID have a cute ass, now that you mention it
   248. Mike Webber Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:04 PM (#3429688)
Stan McNeal TSN Ballot

Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Martinez, McGwire, Raines.
   249. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:07 PM (#3429690)
almost as exciting as waiting for the actual vote is the anticipation of the primer reaction to it


Damn right


(Gammons: Alomar, Blyleven, Dawson, Larkin, Raines, Trammell, McGwire)
   250. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:08 PM (#3429691)
gammons had a pretty solid ballot, trammel, raines, mcgwire, dawson, blyleven alomar
   251. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:11 PM (#3429693)
almost as exciting as waiting for the actual vote is the anticipation of the primer reaction to it

As I IMed to someone regarding this earlier, I greatly look forward to the rending of garments.
   252. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:12 PM (#3429694)
someone is going to have to volunteer to tally up the voters' "groupthink scores" as defined by DL from MN in post #144 of this thread
   253. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:12 PM (#3429695)
I do have to admit, no matter what you think about them, it is kinda nifty seeing Bob Costas and Peter Gammons on the same screen.
   254. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:14 PM (#3429698)
i think they all secretly hate each other after seeing the ballots, all were pretty different then each other and lord hee haw is the only one who didnt vote for raines and larkin
   255. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:14 PM (#3429699)
Gammo gets a 166.3 groupthink score. Anything above 150 is one of "our" guys.
   256. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:19 PM (#3429704)
BTW, at the start they gave the "1% of MLB Players have made the HOF". Going by that idea, one would think that 1% of current players (25 man roster) would be HOF.

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...
   257. PreservedFish Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:23 PM (#3429709)
BTW, at the start they gave the "1% of MLB Players have made the HOF". Going by that idea, one would think that 1% of current players (25 man roster) would be HOF.


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.
   258. JJ1986 Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:24 PM (#3429710)
I'd put the number a little higher than that...

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.
   259. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:24 PM (#3429712)
Ah, you're right, PreservedFish. I looked at the math too specifically.
   260. Honkie Kong Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:24 PM (#3429713)
Add in 100-200 for minor leaguers moved up and down..

EDIT : There is a frozen coke on my balcony for those who want it
   261. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:25 PM (#3429714)
BTW, at the start they gave the "1% of MLB Players have made the HOF".


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.
   262. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:26 PM (#3429715)
BTW, at the start they gave the "1% of MLB Players have made the HOF". Going by that idea, one would think that 1% of current players (25 man roster) would be HOF.

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...


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.
   263. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:26 PM (#3429717)
They have a camera in Alomar's house. Insert comment about his wife here.
   264. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:26 PM (#3429718)
He wanted to steal your joy and eventually own your soul.

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.
   265. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:27 PM (#3429720)
EDIT : There is a frozen coke on my balcony for those who want it


Me too. And I live in southern south Florida!
   266. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:28 PM (#3429722)
well--easier to calculate would be what % of eligible players (10 played/5 retired) have been elected

(or maybe it wouldn't be easier--but it would be more informative)
   267. Honkie Kong Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:29 PM (#3429723)


Me too. And I live in southern south Florida!


Atlanta here! Temperature finally made it back to 32F today.
   268. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:30 PM (#3429724)
pussys
   269. zonk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:31 PM (#3429726)
The Mets used 53 different players last season, for instance.



And Met fans will tell you that 1% of them were surefire HoFers.
   270. PreservedFish Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:31 PM (#3429727)
Wow, almost earned a six-pack there.
   271. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:31 PM (#3429729)
So here is something that has been bothering me: What percentage of players, roughly speaking, were a Hall of Famer at their best? For example, Robin Ventura isn't getting in, but if you look at his best year (or his best 3 years, even) he's probably in: an almost 130 OPS+ Gold Glove third baseman. If that was his average year, instead of his best year, he'd be in.

What percentage of guys does this apply to? A third? Half? I have no idea.
   272. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:33 PM (#3429732)
And Met fans will tell you that 1% of them were surefire HoFers.


Are you saying that 0.53 of the Mets were HOFers? I mean, yeah, they got injured alot but..
   273. Eugene Freedman Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:36 PM (#3429734)
Bob Costas knows nothing about baseball. He is just an everyman. I think about fame. Vizquel exemplified the position. Larkin doesn't stand out in my mind the same way.

I'm so glad he doesn't get to vote.
   274. Honkie Kong Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:38 PM (#3429736)
What percentage of guys does this apply to? A third? Half? I have no idea.

This is really hard to figure out. So we count Brady Anderson's fluke season, Francoeur's fluke half season et al?
   275. PreservedFish Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:40 PM (#3429738)
What percentage of guys does this apply to? A third? Half? I have no idea.


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.
   276. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:41 PM (#3429740)
So we count Brady Anderson's fluke season, Francoeur's fluke half season et al?


Don't forget Don Larsen's one WS gmae in 1956!
   277. Eddo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:41 PM (#3429741)
Nellie was the first honest-to-goodness major leaguer that I ever met--we used to visit his sporting goods store. Very nice man


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.
   278. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:43 PM (#3429743)
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.

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.
   279. berselius Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:43 PM (#3429744)
Not sure if this was already posted, but here's Hadricourt's ballot

Alomar
Blyleven
Dawson
Larkin
Martinez
McGriff
Morris
Raines
Smith
   280. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:45 PM (#3429746)
What percentage of guys does this apply to? A third? Half? I have no idea.

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.
   281. Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:46 PM (#3429747)
This is from John Fay's blog at Cincinnati.com

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.
   282. DanG Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:46 PM (#3429748)
BTW, at the start they gave the "1% of MLB Players have made the HOF". Going by that idea, one would think that 1% of current players (25 man roster) would be HOF.

25 * 30 = 750
1% of 750 is 7.5

So one would think there are between 7 and 8 HOFers now.
I get 1.45%.

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%.
   283. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:49 PM (#3429752)
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.

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.
   284. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:50 PM (#3429754)
Well, it applies to (for example) Norm Cash, Babe Herman, Luis Gonzalez, and Kevin Mitchell, so it's probably pretty substantial.

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.
   285. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:50 PM (#3429755)
So a "small-hall" guy would be a 1-percenter. Their minds are like an ocean.
   286. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:53 PM (#3429759)
AHH MOMENTS AWAY! AHHH! THE SUSPENSE!!
   287. Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:53 PM (#3429761)
Don't know if you already have him Repoz, but, this is Hal McCoy's vote, from his blog, where he is comparing his vote to Sean McClelland's:

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
   288. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:53 PM (#3429762)
using PI, I made a rough calculation that there have been approximately 2000 HOF-eligible players in MLB history (played 10/retired 5). Unfortunately PI doesn't allow a search by # of seasons played so I had to use PA, games, games pitched, innings pitched as surrogates).

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)
   289. PreservedFish Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:54 PM (#3429763)
Well, it applies to (for example) Norm Cash, Babe Herman, Luis Gonzalez, and Kevin Mitchell,


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.
   290. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:54 PM (#3429764)
I get 1.45%.

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.


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.
   291. catseyepub Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:54 PM (#3429767)
In this generation I agree that Ripken and Ozzy are the greatest ss's, however if there is such a strong push for Larkin than why is Trammel given such a short shrift. Is it perhaps he is not employed by the MLB Network?
   292. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:57 PM (#3429769)
Costas' argument for Brock instead of Raines seems stupid. He uses "peak" all wrong, doesn't he?
   293. catseyepub Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:58 PM (#3429770)
I award Dawson the greatest Hip to shoulder ratio in MLB history.
   294. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:58 PM (#3429772)
he still says yes to raines though
   295. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:58 PM (#3429773)
I think you need to extend it to "best 3 years" for it to be at all interesting.
That may be so. I was listening to some ESPN Radio debate and someone was talking about Ventura which is what brought it mind. Ventura meets the best 3 years category (OPS+ 129, 127, 126) but someone like Kevin Mitchell does too (his '89-91 is pretty damn good, you could extend to it '88).
   296. Eddo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:59 PM (#3429774)
Costas' argument for Brock instead of Raines seems stupid. He uses "peak" all wrong, doesn't he?


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.
   297. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:59 PM (#3429775)
he still says yes to raines though

Well, yes, but in the most annoying manner imaginable! Grrrrrr!
   298. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:59 PM (#3429776)
Applying this to the total of 1,156 players active in 2009 indicates 17 active HOFers.

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.
   299. PreservedFish Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:00 PM (#3429777)
Ventura meets the best 3 years category (OPS+ 129, 127, 126) but someone like Kevin Mitchell does too (his '89-91 is pretty damn good, you could extend to it '88).


Yeah, but they were both awesome, so I have no problem with that. Bernard Gilkey wasn't awesome.
   300. zonk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:00 PM (#3429778)

Are you saying that 0.53 of the Mets were HOFers? I mean, yeah, they got injured alot but..


Sure - I think Daniel Murphy was that .53... at least, heading into the season.
Page 3 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robinred
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNo-hitter! Four Phillies pitchers combine to blank the Braves
(11 - 5:17am, Sep 02)
Last: Steve N

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(29 - 4:12am, Sep 02)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(6 - 2:36am, Sep 02)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogTrevor Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction seems inevitable
(7 - 2:30am, Sep 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(103 - 2:27am, Sep 02)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogNitkowski: Wanted: Major League manager...sort of.
(8 - 2:07am, Sep 02)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-1-2014
(40 - 2:01am, Sep 02)
Last: MNB

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(57 - 1:54am, Sep 02)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogRobothal: Changed [Manny] Ramirez enjoyed helping Cubs prospects grow
(13 - 1:27am, Sep 02)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Ballot
(10 - 1:12am, Sep 02)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogHBT: Jorge Soler with an extra-base hit in each of his first five games
(2 - 1:02am, Sep 02)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogRon Roenicke rips into home-plate umpire
(17 - 12:18am, Sep 02)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogBlue Jays Acquire Mayberry Jr.
(7 - 12:10am, Sep 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogAthletics Acquire Adam Dunn
(43 - 11:46pm, Sep 01)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(986 - 11:25pm, Sep 01)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

Page rendered in 0.6061 seconds
52 querie(s) executed