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

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

2019 BBWAA HALL OF FAME BALLOT

Well, folk, here’s the chief topic we’ll be discussing for the next two months.

Most pertinent of the information in this official press release:

Roy Halladay, Todd Helton, Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera are among several players who will make their BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot debut in 2019.

Also debuting this year are Rick Ankiel, Jason Bay, Lance Berkman, Freddy Garcia, Jon Garland, Travis Hafner, Ted Lilly, Derek Lowe, Darren Oliver, Roy Oswalt, Juan Pierre, Placido Polanco, Miguel Tejada, Vernon Wells, Kevin Youkilis and Michael Young.

QLE Posted: November 20, 2018 at 05:57 AM | 130 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: ballot, hall of fame

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 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. The Duke Posted: November 20, 2018 at 08:02 AM (#5789495)
Pretty juicy ballot. Interested to see how Larry walker does. I project well over 50%

Could easily be four winners with Halladay, Rivera, Martinez and Mussina, but I think it’s just Rivera and Martinez this year. Halladay is not inner circle and Mussina seems to be a hard sell.

Ankiel projected to sign with Cards and make his way back as Loogy. Does that mean he comes off next year or year after and resets his clock if he dons a major league uni?
   2. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 20, 2018 at 08:10 AM (#5789496)
Mo for sure, and probably Halladay. I can't see much to distinguish Helton from Berkman, who'd both be right on the line.
   3. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 20, 2018 at 09:07 AM (#5789507)
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter, but there are usually a few head-scratchers as far as which new players make the ballot. It's not just everybody who played 10 years and last played in 2013. Baseball-Reference had a list of players eligible for this ballot. First, I'm pretty sure they missed Rick Ankiel, who kind of just barely snuck over the line: he played in 11 seasons, but played fewer than 10 games in three of them and mixed in four years where he didn't play at all (which aren't counted in the 11). His career is certainly interesting, with the pitcher / outfielder combination - kind of a homeless hobo's Babe Ruth - but I'm not sure he was a Hall-of-Famer on his best day, must less over what was essentially an 8-year career.

Among the players who didn't make this year's ballot despite being eligible are Ryan Dempster - who certainly isn't a Hall-of-Famer, but is probably closer to one than, say, Darren Oliver - and Jose Contreras. Contreras could actually have an intriguing case depending on what you think of / do with his time in Cuba (he didn't make his MLB debut until he was 31 years old).

Anyway, as The Duke says, we could have four elected. I suspect, though, we'll get two with Halladay and Mussina finishing very high and probably both making it next year.
   4. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 20, 2018 at 09:10 AM (#5789509)
Does that mean he comes off next year or year after and resets his clock if he dons a major league uni?


Jose Rijo pitched in 1995, appeared on the 2001 HOF ballot (where he got 1 vote), pitched in 2001 and 2002 (94 innings), and subsequently re-appeared on the 2008 HOF ballot - where he got no votes.

So, I think if Ankiel pitches again, he becomes eligible to make a second HOF ballot.
   5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 20, 2018 at 09:19 AM (#5789513)
Mo for sure

It's funny, he'll get 99% of the vote, but if I had a vote, and wasn't penalizing for steroids/assholery, he wouldn't even make my ballot.

On pure baseball production he's behind:

1. Bonds
2. Clemens
3. Mussina
4. Schilling
5. Walker
6. Martinez
7. Ramirez
8. Halladay
9. Rolen
10. Helton
11. Sheffield

Kent and Pettitte are roughly equivalent.

In other words, relief pitchers don't belong in the HoF.
   6. Ziggy's screen name Posted: November 20, 2018 at 09:29 AM (#5789521)
We're not quite at ballotageddon anymore, but there's a whole lot of deserving backlog there. I doubt that I'd vote for any of the newcomers.
   7. Rennie's Tenet Posted: November 20, 2018 at 09:33 AM (#5789523)
Saw "Martinez" three time and had no idea who it could be.
   8. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 20, 2018 at 09:34 AM (#5789524)

First, I'm pretty sure they missed Rick Ankiel, who kind of just barely snuck over the line

Ankiel is there (he's the first one on the list).
   9. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 20, 2018 at 09:49 AM (#5789535)

And yeah, I don't know how they distinguish between Dempster and the slightly worse Darren Oliver / Jon Garland, or the slightly better Ted Lilly / Derek Lowe.

I think Rivera, Martinez, and Halladay will go in this year, with Mussina just missing and getting in within 2-3 years. He's definitely been on that sort of trajectory.

Pretty juicy ballot. Interested to see how Larry walker does. I project well over 50%

He was at 34% last year and 22% the year before, so I'd guess somewhere in the 40s, with an outside shot at 50%. "Well over" 50% seems unlikely unless someone makes a big public campaign for him given he only has a couple of years left on the ballot.
   10. McCoy Posted: November 20, 2018 at 10:06 AM (#5789541)
Candidates should only be allowed on the ballot for 5 years and if you don't get at least 50% you should be removed from consideration. I get that the original point of voting was to give reporters column material but getting out the word on the hall of fame via newspapers is no longer important.
   11. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: November 20, 2018 at 10:13 AM (#5789546)
I think Rivera, Martinez, and Halladay will go in this year, with Mussina just missing and getting in within 2-3 years. He's definitely been on that sort of trajectory.

Edgar is going to be really close. 70% last year but I imagine most of those no votes are staunchly anti-DH. If I had to guess, he just squeaks in over 75%.
   12. Master of the Horse Posted: November 20, 2018 at 11:04 AM (#5789588)
Bonds, Clemens, Mussina, Walker, Rolen, Martinez, Jones, Halladay, Rivera, Ramirez

   13. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 20, 2018 at 11:43 AM (#5789625)

Edgar is going to be really close. 70% last year but I imagine most of those no votes are staunchly anti-DH. If I had to guess, he just squeaks in over 75%.

I'm not sure. I haven't studied the voting trends in detail but after years of languishing around 25-35%, his support went from 27 to 70 in a matter of 3 years. And one could have made the same supposition -- "He's probably close to maxed out due to anti-DH sentiment" -- each time.

I also wonder how many writers are beginning to look ahead to 2021 and anticipating when Ortiz is on the ballot as they think about the DH.
   14. Where have you gone Brady Anderson? Posted: November 20, 2018 at 12:01 PM (#5789642)
I don’t have a problem with relief pitchers making the Hall of Fame, if they are really, really good. I would vote for Rivera, but I think he is the only recent relief pitcher I would vote for. Snapper has a good point though, there are eight players I would definitely vote for ahead of Rivera, and several more who are similar. Rivera would end up competing for the last slots on my ballot, and would probably get left off due to the ballot limit.
   15. michaelplank has knowledgeable eyes Posted: November 20, 2018 at 12:14 PM (#5789652)
Does Helton rate mention in the first paragraph over Berkman?

I'm gonna assert first, look at stats later, and say Berkman was equal or better.
   16. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 20, 2018 at 12:20 PM (#5789657)
Does Helton rate mention in the first paragraph over Berkman?

I'm gonna assert first, look at stats later, and say Berkman was equal or better.


Berkman was a better player on a per season basis, but he only accumulated 7800 PA vs 9500 for Helton. That's 3 extra seasons.
   17. Master of the Horse Posted: November 20, 2018 at 12:21 PM (#5789659)
15--Helton about 10 WAR better via bbref version and higher peak values FWIW. Berkman more consistent.
   18. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 20, 2018 at 12:27 PM (#5789668)
In other words, relief pitchers don't belong in the HoF.

Relievers are already in the HoF, and Rivera was better than those guys. He'll be elected easily, with but a few stray voters omitting him because of such anti-reliever sentiments, 1st ballot phobia, or tactical voting to favor a player more in need of a vote. It would be a big surprise if Rivera doesn't top the vote this year.

It will be interesting to see what happens to Omar Vizquel. Most electees add votes as they remain on the ballot, but there are some polarizing candidates who seem to get most of their votes early and then hit a wall. My guess is that Vizquel is more in the latter category, but perhaps there were a lot of BBWAA voters who just thought he wasn't 1st ballot material.
---------------------------------------------------------
I also wonder how many writers are beginning to look ahead to 2021 and anticipating when Ortiz is on the ballot as they think about the DH.

I think much of Edgar's surge comes from voters realizing that they would be deservedly open to criticism for rejecting Edgar and then almost immediately thereafter electing Ortiz. Edgar getting toward the end of his eligibility may have helped focus voter's attention, too, and he is also probably helped by the ballot not being quite as tight.
   19. jmurph Posted: November 20, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5789671)
I think much of Edgar's surge comes from voters realizing that they would be deservedly open to criticism for rejecting Edgar and then almost immediately thereafter electing Ortiz.

I doubt very many Hall of Fame voters believe Edgar was better than Ortiz.
   20. Srul Itza Posted: November 20, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5789672)
The ballot five years hence just got more crowded with a sure-fire first balloter -- Adrian Beltre announced his retirement.
   21. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: November 20, 2018 at 12:36 PM (#5789677)
Most bWAR, 2000-2004

Bonds, 51.2
ARod, 43.5
Helton, 37.5
Edmonds, 32.1
Rolen, 30.4
Pujols, 29.3 (2001-2004)

Inducted on his 2nd-ballot, Vlad Guerrero, 26.7 (Vlad's best 5 year run looks like it was from 1998-2002, 29.7 WAR).

edit: oh, and Berkman, 2001-2005, 25.8 WAR (his first 5 full seasons)

bWAR7
Helton, 46.5
Berkman, 39.3


   22. michaelplank has knowledgeable eyes Posted: November 20, 2018 at 12:51 PM (#5789681)
Berkman was a better player on a per season basis, but he only accumulated 7800 PA vs 9500 for Helton. That's 3 extra seasons.

Helton about 10 WAR better via bbref version and higher peak values FWIW. Berkman more consistent.


I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but not sure how WAR is splitting the difference between these two. Obviously Coors is wonky. These guys are almost exact contemporaries. As noted, Helton ends up with a bit more G and PA, but it's hard to see much difference except at the tail end of each career. Berkman ends up at 144 OPS+, Helton at 133, both extremely strong on the more important OBP component. Granting Helton was a good 1B, he was playing there because he couldn't play LF. Berkman was OKish in both corners, at 1B, and even played some CF. Berkman has small edges in baserunning, GIDP, HBP, etc. But, as noted, Helton has slight but clear edges in all the WAR totals, including peak, JAWS, etc. Is Berkman getting dinged for moving around on defense, in that WAR is somehow comparing him to a stronger baseline?

Any team would've been happy to have either of these guys in the middle of the lineup for 15 years, but everything else being equal, I always thought I would have preferred Berkman.
   23. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 20, 2018 at 12:53 PM (#5789682)
I doubt very many Hall of Fame voters believe Edgar was better than Ortiz.

Maybe, but: Edgar: .312/.415/.518, 147 OPS+, 68.4 WAR, and 592 games in the field; Ortiz: 286/.380/.552, 141 OPS+, 55.3 WAR, 278 and games in the field. Seems difficult to keep Edgar out while electing Ortiz.
   24. PreservedFish Posted: November 20, 2018 at 12:58 PM (#5789683)
I'd vote for Rivera comfortably near the top of my ballot. An absolute star, every intangible factor possible in his favor, and the best ever at his position, even if it's the dumbest position.

1. Bonds
2. Clemens
3. Mussina
4. Schilling
5. Walker
6. Martinez
7. Ramirez
8. Halladay
9. Rolen
10. Helton
11. Sheffield


I'd put him up near Schilling/Mussina. I'm not super excited about Rolen and Helton and Sheffield and Walker and thus would potentially not fill in 10 names this year.
   25. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:00 PM (#5789684)
I'm not sure. I haven't studied the voting trends in detail but after years of languishing around 25-35%, his support went from 27 to 70 in a matter of 3 years. And one could have made the same supposition -- "He's probably close to maxed out due to anti-DH sentiment" -- each time.

I also haven't looked at this in any great deal, but my sense is that many voters didn't realize just how good of a hitter Edgar was because of the relatively underwhelming career totals (309 HRs, 2,247 hits) and because he played in Seattle. I think his votes ticked up once it became accepted that he was a HOF-caliber hitter. Hopefully I'm wrong and he hasn't hit a wall as far as anti-DH bias. And I agree that some of the anti-DH holdouts could be reconsidering with an eye towards Ortiz.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5789686)
I'd put him up near Schilling/Mussina.

That's crazy to me. WAR isn't everything, but we're talking two guys over 80 vs a guy with 55. That's overwhelming.
   27. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:08 PM (#5789691)
I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but not sure how WAR is splitting the difference between these two. Obviously Coors is wonky. These guys are almost exact contemporaries

Helton has 3 more Rbat (relative to average, Berkman was better over less playing time, which basically evens out)
Helton has 9 more Rbaser
Berkman has 13 more Rdp

So, on the three offensive components, they almost perfectly even out (relative to average)

Helton has 87 more Rfield
Berkman has 30 more Rpos

So, Helton gets ~5 additional WAA over Berkman for being a better overall fielder (he was a better fielder, but at a less difficult position on balance)

And then Helton has 48 more Rrep. So he basically gets another ~4 WAR relative to Berkman as credit for the extra playing time.
   28. jmurph Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:08 PM (#5789692)
Maybe, but: Edgar: .312/.415/.518, 147 OPS+, 68.4 WAR, and 592 games in the field; Ortiz: 286/.380/.552, 141 OPS+, 55.3 WAR, 278 and games in the field. Seems difficult to keep Edgar out while electing Ortiz.

Oh I understand. But crucially for my point, I am not a HOF voter.
   29. Morty Causa Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:08 PM (#5789693)
I wonder how many voters who have qualms about the DH's HOF worthiness because he is a woefully incomplete player hold similar objections to relief pitchers?
   30. PreservedFish Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:11 PM (#5789697)
I'm extremely soft on the HOF by BTF's hard statisticky standards.

I think the Hall should recognize the players that were important to the story of baseball as they played. I actually think that, as statistics like WAR have become more prevalent and accessible, the HOF becomes even more important as a storytelling device than as an excellence recognizer. To be clear, it also needs to recognize excellence, I'm not voting for Tebow or anything, but I give huge extra credit to the most exciting/memorable/unique players.
   31. jmurph Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:16 PM (#5789699)
I think the Hall should recognize the players that were important to the story of baseball as they played. I actually think that, as statistics like WAR have become more prevalent and accessible, the HOF becomes even more important as a storytelling device than as an excellence recognizer. To be clear, it also needs to recognize excellence, I'm not voting for Tebow or anything, but I give huge extra credit to the most exciting/memorable/unique players.

I vacillate between this and being pretty small hall. Like as in no Edgar.
   32. PreservedFish Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:24 PM (#5789701)
I vacillate between this and being pretty small hall. Like as in no Edgar.


I'm both. Edgar is on my border. Whereas David Ortiz seems like a no-brainer to me.

It's not easy to be internally consistent if you start considering other factors. The "rank by WAR" approach means we basically get to abandon our judgment.
   33. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:26 PM (#5789704)

It's not easy to be internally consistent if you start considering other factors.


I will quibble with this mildly. I think you can be internally consistent but that consistency can often not be clear to an outsider.
   34. jmurph Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:26 PM (#5789705)
I'm both. Edgar is on my border. Whereas David Ortiz seems like a no-brainer to me.

Ha yeah that's me but I'm also a Red Sox fan so I can't pretend to be neutral on that point. But stripping out the partisanship it's the quintessential example of your "important to the story of baseball" point.
   35. Srul Itza Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:30 PM (#5789709)
The Hall of Merit can decide to keep both Mo and Big Papi out. I imagine they will survive the snub.

The Hall of Fame will welcome these two Post-Season Superstars, and rightfully so.
   36. SoSH U at work Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5789711)
The Hall of Merit can decide to keep both Mo and Big Papi out. I imagine they will survive the snub.


The Hall of Merit elected Rollie and Goose, though that was in what HoM historians call their "What the #### Are They Thinking Phase?" So, it's not certain how Mo will fare.

   37. Master of the Horse Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:38 PM (#5789712)
32--sure because that by approach Schilling gets elected but doesn't actively spreading messages that support killing fellow citizens/human beings run up against common sense? And if elected his induction speech will be an all timer on par or greater with Jordan's where he brings up every grudge and crushes everyone who he ever thought wasn't nice to him which is like everyone, ever
   38. PreservedFish Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:46 PM (#5789718)
huh?
   39. Morty Causa Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5789719)
The "rank by WAR" approach means we basically get to abandon our judgment.

Not really. For me, the judgment mostly comes in when it's close but no cigar metrically. Then we consider the mythopoeic. Or in very special and rare cases. But you don't use that to trump what the numbers clearly tell you, or, vice versa, to substitute for the numbers. This would still give you some play. Thus, with his post-season excellence and heroics, and there's a lot of it, Ortiz makes. Thus, Martinez with 68 WAR doesn't need the extra consideration.
   40. Morty Causa Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:54 PM (#5789722)
I have never been too keen on the Liberty Valence printing the legend in the face of facts style of promoting truth or belief. That should just be one element of the HOF selection criteria. And not the most important one. Excellence on the field is by far number one. The songs and poems and stories should take care of themselves.
   41. Master of the Horse Posted: November 20, 2018 at 01:56 PM (#5789723)
38--if that is directed at me and the Schilling comment Schilling posted/retweeted/facebooked an image that advocated the killing of journalists.
   42. vortex of dissipation Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:00 PM (#5789725)
I'm both. Edgar is on my border. Whereas David Ortiz seems like a no-brainer to me.


Ha yeah that's me but I'm also a Red Sox fan so I can't pretend to be neutral on that point. But stripping out the partisanship it's the quintessential example of your "important to the story of baseball" point.


Edgar has his own huge moment that's integral to the history of baseball. Edgar Martinez's double to win the deciding Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS against the Yankees is the most important single on-field event in the history of the Seattle Mariners, and is often credited with saving baseball in Seattle. People forget that in 1995 the Mariners were a team that had never made the playoffs, and looked like they were headed to Tampa Bay. That one hit was instrumental in galvanizing public attention into believing that keeping the Mariners would be a good thing. They lost an excruciatingly close vote to build a new stadium, but it was close enough that the political entities found a way to get the stadium built anyway. It's a question mark whether that would have happened without Edgar's double. There's a reason the street outside SAFECO Field is named Edgar Martinez Drive. I think that counts as "important to the story of baseball".
   43. PreservedFish Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:05 PM (#5789728)
41 - Yes. I'm aware. I don't know what it has to do with anything else though. You mean I should deduct points from Schilling because he's a wacko? Frankly I think his wackiness makes him MORE electable.
   44. Chris Fluit Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:08 PM (#5789731)
Not really. For me, the judgment mostly comes in when it's close but no cigar metrically. Then we consider the mythopoeic. Or in very special and rare cases. But you don't use that to trump what the numbers clearly tell you, or, vice versa, to substitute for the numbers. This would still give you some play. Thus, with his post-season excellence and heroics, and there's a lot of it, Ortiz makes. Thus, Martinez with 68 WAR doesn't need the extra consideration.

This is pretty much how I see it as well. I'm a yes on both Martinez and Ortiz for the HoF and for the same reasons. In a similar vein, I'd vote for Sammy Sosa (58.6 WAR) ahead of Bobby Abreu (60.0).
   45. PreservedFish Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:15 PM (#5789740)
Morty, I don't think there's a huge difference between us. I also see excellence on the field as paramount.
   46. Baldrick Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:18 PM (#5789742)
Edgar has his own huge moment that's integral to the history of baseball. Edgar Martinez's double to win the deciding Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS against the Yankees is the most important single on-field event in the history of the Seattle Mariners, and is often credited with saving baseball in Seattle. People forget that in 1995 the Mariners were a team that had never made the playoffs, and looked like they were headed to Tampa Bay. That one hit was instrumental in galvanizing public attention into believing that keeping the Mariners would be a good thing. They lost an excruciatingly close vote to build a new stadium, but it was close enough that the political entities found a way to get the stadium built anyway. It's a question mark whether that would have happened without Edgar's double. There's a reason the street outside SAFECO Field is named Edgar Martinez Drive. I think that counts as "important to the story of baseball".

He was also the guy that stuck around after Johnson, Griffey, and A-Rod all left...and then led his team to the highest single-season win total in history. He's also one of the rare guys who played his whole career with a single team. There is literally a postseason award named after him.

I'm not saying he's got the same sort of narrative pull as Ortiz, but I think he's an above-average 'narrative' candidate.
   47. JRVJ Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:23 PM (#5789746)
Mariano, Halladay and maybe Martínez get in this time.

Mussina probably next year.

Don't really see any of the other candidates on the ballot making it, unless there's a paradigm #### in re: Bonds, Clemens and (for different reasons) Schilling.
   48. jmurph Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:27 PM (#5789749)
He was also the guy that stuck around after Johnson, Griffey, and A-Rod all left...and then led his team to the highest single-season win total in history.

I'm going to flag this for unnecessary exaggeration.
   49. Chris Fluit Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:32 PM (#5789750)
I'm fairly certain Martinez will get in this year. He finished with over 70% last year. He's the top returnee. He doesn't face direct competition from the newcomers since the best newbies are both pitchers and Edgar's better than any of the new hitters (Helton, Berkman). Rivera's presence on the ballot might even help him since it's harder to make the anti-DH case while voting for a relief pitcher (though not impossible, as demonstrated by previous BBWAA votes). Plus, he should get a final-year-on-the-ballot boost, a la Tim Raines. That should net him the 5% he needs to hurdle the line.
   50. Walt Davis Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:35 PM (#5789751)
Mo was given the easiest "regular" job in baseball. It's not his fault that was the role he was given and limited to. And of course he did it for about as long and as well as it can possibly be done. (I still want to see this first generation of guys developed as relievers from scratch finish out their careers before I'll start calling him the best ever ... the position of 1-inning reliever isn't very old.)

For me, the best argument for Mo is

Mo 1300 IP, 205 ERA+, 32.5 WAA
RH best 6: about 1300 IP, 33 WAA
PM best 6: about 1300 IP, 41 WAA
SK amazing 6: about 1600 IP, 31 WAA

It's still easier to do it one inning at a time but Mo's career is a great peak-only starter career. (No I don't know how Koufax comes out to just 31 WAA.) Koufax added 7 WAR of average pitching; Halladay added two more big seasons; Mo of course adds another 141 innings in the postseason.

That there's going to be a 'crime' here, it's that Pedro had 86 WAR, 61 WAA and "just" 91% of the vote and I'm pretty sure Mo is gonna cruise past that. Some of that is ballot strength but there's a big dose of media fetishization of the closer.
   51. QLE Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:38 PM (#5789753)
I get that the original point of voting was to give reporters column material but getting out the word on the hall of fame via newspapers is no longer important.


Is there any evidence that that was the logic in terms of giving the vote to the BBWAA? Having some group serve as a board of electors fits with the model of the Hall of Fame for Great Americans (from which the concept of a Hall of Fame in the United States ultimately descends from), and Bill James makes the argument that the BBWAA probably contained most of the people who would be suitable for this purpose in the mid-1930s.

I also wonder how many writers are beginning to look ahead to 2021 and anticipating when Ortiz is on the ballot as they think about the DH.


I've made spreadsheets of every public vote that has switched to Martinez in the last two years, and I find the idea that it has something to do with Ortiz highly suspect- the best evidence I have is that the switch to him is largely one of people who were willing to support him but who lacked room gaining it as players cleared.

The Hall of Merit elected Rollie and Goose, though that was in what HoM historians call their "What the #### Are They Thinking Phase?" So, it's not certain how Mo will fare.


I'd argue it was more that the Hall of Merit had three different issues combine:

1) More mistakes in the Hall of Fame than deserving eligible players out of it;

2) Some of those who were deserving being missed;

3) A system of voting where a lot of the inductions came in a period where, for whatever intangible reasons, there wasn't that big a flow of new retirees being deserving.

1) and 2) guaranteed some questionable inductees, while 3) made it more likely that these would be fairly recent players (had the extra slots been in the 1950s and 1960s, we'd have some dubious choices from those years; same for the 1920s and 1930s; same for the nineteenth century.
   52. Esoteric Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:39 PM (#5789754)
Rivera and Edgar are going in for sure, and I'd be surprised if Halladay didn't make it first-ballot given his sad and untimely death. I'd vote for all three.

Beyond that, I'd add Schilling, Moose, Walker (he won't make it via the writers but will be an interesting VC case), Rolen, and Kent. 8 picks, and it's actually surprising to realize that this is the first time in years I haven't been able to fill out a full 10.
   53. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:45 PM (#5789757)
First, I'm pretty sure they missed Rick Ankiel, who kind of just barely snuck over the line

Ankiel is there (he's the first one on the list).


Sorry, I meant Baseball-Reference didn't list Ankiel among their list of possible first-year guys before the ballot was announced.
   54. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:48 PM (#5789759)

He was also the guy that stuck around after Johnson, Griffey, and A-Rod all left...and then led his team to the highest single-season win total in history. He's also one of the rare guys who played his whole career with a single team. There is literally a postseason award named after him.

I agree with most of the pro-Edgar points here. I remember doing a report in HS Spanish class about the growing importance of Latino players in MLB and using the video of his 1995 ALDS hit in the report (and yes, I did it in part to annoy my Yankee fan friends).

However, I don't think he gets that much credit for the 2001 season. Two other Mariners finished ahead of him in the MVP voting that year (Ichiro, obviously, and Boone), and a third (Cameron) tied with him.
   55. TDF, trained monkey Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5789767)
Ron Santo was a cause celebre around here for years.

Ron Santo, BBRef: 286 Rbat, 20 Rfield, 36.8 WAA, 70.5 bWAR
RS, BBRef, per 650 PA: 20 Rbat, 2 Rfield, 3 WAA, 5.9 bWAR
RS, Fangraphs: 286 Rbat, 22 Rfield, 332.4 RAA, 70.9 fWAR

Scott Rolen, BBRef: 234 Rbat, 175 Rfield, 44.1 WAA, 70.2 bWAR
SR, BBref per 650 PA: 18 Rbat, 14 Rfield, 4 WAA, 5.9 bWAR
SR, Fangraphs: 241.9 Rbat, 153.1 Rfield, 432.7 RAA, 69.9 fWAR

It sure looks like Rolen was a slightly worse hitter, but much better fielder, over a slightly shorter career.
   56. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5789768)
Helton about 10 WAR better via bbref version and higher peak values FWIW.


Fangraphs has Berkman ahead in career WAR 56.0 - 55.0. Berkman also has one of the better postseason batting lines around: .317/.417/.532 in 224 PA
   57. Walt Davis Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5789769)
Berkman vs Helton: Berkman had 52 WAR, 28 WAA in his 7800 PA. From ages 24-35, Helton had 59 WAR, 36 WAA in just under 7700 PA. Outside of that, Berkman added nothing and Helton added 2 WAR, -3 WAA which is not much better than nothing. But a 7-8 win edge over their primes gives a clear bWAR edge to Helton. The only question then is whether bWAR is sufficiently adjusting for Coors ... as far as I know it does and I don't let that stop me from advocating for Walker so I'll go with Helton as the better of the two.

Both hold a special place in my fantasy heart. On one website, you could do daily lineup changes and I used to run a Coors platoon of which the young Helton was a part of that. (It was one of those silly 10-teams, all MLB type leagues, plenty of solid players available to everybody but it was a semi-saber league). The 98-99 Helton was a solid but not great player but still posted a 1000+ OPS at Coors.

Berkman was a guy I'd had my eye on for a while and grabbed him ASAP in a keeper league when he was called up. Got to enjoy him for 3 years before the league broke up.

Now if you really want to rile folks up:

Lance 52 WAR, 28 WAA
Ortiz 55 WAR, 20 WAA
Ortiz 49 WAR, 22 WAA (ages 28-40, 7900 PA ... best consecutive stretch)

Even by Rbat, that last comparison is 421 Berkman, 418 Ortiz. Ortiz only added another 37 Rbat in 2200 PA (not shabby but nothing particularly special).
   58. bachslunch Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:54 PM (#5789770)
The Hall of Merit elected Rollie and Goose, though that was in what HoM historians call their "What the #### Are They Thinking Phase?" So, it's not certain how Mo will fare.


I've seen some of the HoM preliminary ballots so far. Mo doesn't make my ballot, but he seems to make everyone else's so far. My guess is he sails in first time.
   59. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 20, 2018 at 02:58 PM (#5789773)
I've seen some of the HoM preliminary ballots so far. Mo doesn't make my ballot, but he seems to make everyone else's so far. My guess is he sails in first time.


Yeah, I'd be pretty surprised if he doesn't make it first try. Remember, there's no logjam in the Hall of Merit. They elect strong sabermetric candidates as soon as they're eligible - e.g., Larry Walker, Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds, etc. - and don't hold steroids against guys (Sosa's not in the HOM yet on pure merit, but I'm pretty sure he'll get there some day).
   60. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 20, 2018 at 06:12 PM (#5789845)
Berkman also has one of the better postseason batting lines around: .317/.417/.532 in 224 PA

I've posted about Berkman's postseason resume a few times before. By my preferred measure for postseason hitting, he is in the top 5 all time. (I haven't entered the numbers for 2018 yet, but I don't expect him to get passed by anyone.) Suffice it to say that he was an all-time great in the playoffs, only he did it in the least-noticeable way imaginable.

Also, speaking of postseason credit... do those of you who are talking about Rivera as borderline give any?
   61. bachslunch Posted: November 20, 2018 at 06:29 PM (#5789847)
@60: I give neither postseason credit nor demerit on my HoM ballot. Others do, and that’s their choice. BBRef WAR matters a lot for me on my ballot, and relievers don’t usually fare that well there — I make allowances for position, but I don’t consider closer a separate position from other pitchers. Others may feel differently.
   62. cardsfanboy Posted: November 20, 2018 at 06:48 PM (#5789850)
1. Bonds
2. Clemens
3. Mussina
4. Schilling
5. Walker
6. Martinez
7. Ramirez
8. Halladay
9. Rolen
10. Helton
11. Sheffield

Kent and Pettitte are roughly equivalent.

In other words, relief pitchers don't belong in the HoF.


Here is one of the times, that if I was a voter, I might not consider voting for simply the best candidates as they are ranked. Rivera is only going to be on the ballot one time, he's going into the hof his first time, and if I'm a voter, I would like to have voted for him. I always make the point of bad mouthing the self righteous voters who say "I refuse to vote for a first ballot guy"...and then point out that that voter can tell his grandkids that he didn't vote for Mike Schmidt, Johnny Bench, Ken Griffey Jr, Maddux, Randy Johnson etc....but did get to vote for Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter and Andre Dawson.
   63. SoSH U at work Posted: November 20, 2018 at 06:54 PM (#5789852)
I'd argue it was more that the Hall of Merit had three different issues combine:


Those might have been in play, but it was also a case that the electorate was simply overstating the value of the reliever. There were an awful lot of short relieving is now a position arguments being made, and I don't see that silliness any longer.

Billy Wagner and Trevor Hoffman are eligible now. It appears they have no support.

If you ran this exercise again, only with WAR easily available and part of regular conversation at the time of those elections, maybe the HoM still makes a mistake on Goose, but I find it impossible to believe that Rollie would have made the cut.
   64. jobu Posted: November 21, 2018 at 01:29 AM (#5789913)
I understand not over-weighting the post-season, but to not give Rivera SOME credit for post-season work is just silly: 141 IP, 0.70 ERA, 0.759 WHIP, 42 Saves. I understand that ERA is an imperfect metric for relievers..but Rivera had an ERA over 3.00 in just one post-season series (out of 32), the 1997 ALDS vs. Cleveland. He had an ERA over 2.00 in just 3 post-season series. I get that relievers don't rack up WAR the way other players do, but as far as not including them in the Hall of Fame, that ship sailed a long time ago.

   65. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2018 at 08:55 AM (#5789924)
what were the results of the Steinbrenner, Will Clark, etc vote here on BBTF?
   66. ajnrules Posted: November 21, 2018 at 09:15 AM (#5789927)
what were the results of the Steinbrenner, Will Clark, etc vote here on BBTF?

Nobody got in. Orel Hershisher got the most votes, but his 14 were only 30% of the vote, less than half of the necessary votes. There were 20 blank ballots!
   67. JRVJ Posted: November 21, 2018 at 09:15 AM (#5789928)
64, Mariano is going in and he's going to go in with a very high vote total.

The rest is just snippiness.

Also, when did "S h i f t" become a forbidden word? (see my 47).
   68. TJ Posted: November 21, 2018 at 09:21 AM (#5789930)
Also, when did "S h i f t" become a forbidden word? (see my 47).


Since Victor Martinez retired and took over as BBTF webmaster,
   69. Rusty Priske Posted: November 21, 2018 at 09:48 AM (#5789940)
My ballot would be (roughly in order):

BBonds
RClemens
MRivera
RHalladay
MMussina
CSchilling
LWalker
SRolen
MRamirez
EMartinez

My 'if I was allowed to vote for more than ten' list:

AJones
THelton
GSheffield
APettitte

The 'notable no' list:

SSosa
JKent
OVizquel
LBerkman
ROswalt
   70. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: November 21, 2018 at 10:09 AM (#5789956)
First run through the ballot. I still see like 14 guys I'd vote for if given the room (and if I had a ballot)

1) Edgar Martinez
2) Mike Mussina
3) Roger Clemens
4) Barry Bonds
5) Curt Schilling
6) Larry Walker
7) Manny Ramirez
8) Mariano Rivera
9) Roy Halladay
10) Scott Rolen
   71. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 21, 2018 at 10:16 AM (#5789957)
64, Mariano is going in and he's going to go in with a very high vote total.

Agree

The rest is just snippiness.

I simply observed that he wasn't one of the top 10 players on the ballot.

If we were drafting players for some sort of dynasty sim league, where you have the players whole career, none of us would pick him over Rolen, or Manny, or Sheffield.
   72. DL from MN Posted: November 21, 2018 at 10:40 AM (#5789972)
I will run a mock HOF ballot after the 2018 MMP voting and the 2018 HOM voting is done, just like we usually do.
   73. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 21, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5790022)
Martinez
Mussina
Bonds
Clemens
Schilling
Rolen
Rivera
Halliday
Pettitte

I'd have to think about Walker, Kent, Sheffield & Sosa deserving the 10th spot, or a vote on an unlimited ballot. I expect Edgar, Mariano & perhaps Halliday to be elected. Not certain that Bonds & Clemens will move up much, even though a majority of the voters have now rejected the criteria the minority has cited to keep them out. They need to get ~ 65% this year to be considered on track for eventual election. Schilling is similar, although for a different reason.
   74. JoeC Posted: November 21, 2018 at 02:06 PM (#5790109)
I see that Christina Kahrl just got her ballot. Are we at the edge of a number of younger, analytics-friendly voters becoming eligible? I do recall that the BBWAA held the line on admitting "online-only" writers way too long, but I don't remember if a whole lot were admitted at once around ten years ago.
   75. QLE Posted: November 21, 2018 at 03:08 PM (#5790153)
I see that Christina Kahrl just got her ballot. Are we at the edge of a number of younger, analytics-friendly voters becoming eligible? I do recall that the BBWAA held the line on admitting "online-only" writers way too long, but I don't remember if a whole lot were admitted at once around ten years ago.


According to the Jaffe work on HOF voting, the BBWAA started admitting online-only writers in 2007, and they are beginning to obtain the HOF vote- Keith Law also apparently should have his first ballot this year, and Jaffe himself should get a vote two years from now.
   76. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 21, 2018 at 03:11 PM (#5790157)
I think it was more of breaking through a barrier than a surge of numerous voters. Thibs' invaluable HoF Ballot Tracker notes first-time voters & deceased or no longer voting writers. My recollection is that there is a bit of turnover each year, ~ 8-12 new voters a year. I'd check, but although The Tracker now has sample data for this year, data for prior years won't load for me at the moment. Perhaps Thibs is tweaking the spreadsheet in anticipation of the onslaught.
   77. Ryan Thibs Posted: November 21, 2018 at 03:39 PM (#5790181)
The previous years should load fine, Clapper. If you're on mobile, there's a little button on the top right that will show tabs for past years. Let me know if you continue to have issues.
   78. PreservedFish Posted: November 21, 2018 at 03:43 PM (#5790185)
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice!
   79. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 21, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5790210)
The previous years should load fine, Clapper. If you're on mobile, there's a little button on the top right that will show tabs for past years. Let me know if you continue to have issues.

I'm on an iPad, and there are tabs for prior years at the bottom of the page, but they're coming up empty for me now. It may be my error, but it used to work just fine that way. The 2019 sample data displays OK, so I'm a bit confused.
   80. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: November 21, 2018 at 05:51 PM (#5790226)
I'm not voting for Tebow or anything

Yet.
   81. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili (TeddyF.Ballgame) Posted: November 21, 2018 at 06:17 PM (#5790231)
Posted this in the other thread for the NYT's HOF breakdown, but since there are more eyes here I'll do it again.

Interesting tidbit in the Jon Garland entry:

Garland went 18-10 for the 2005 White Sox, a World Series champion that might as well have played in the 19th century. In the regular season, four Chicago starters combined for more than 890 innings. In the five-game American League Championship Series, the White Sox got 133 of 135 outs from their rotation. In the five games of this year’s A.L.C.S., Boston Red Sox starters got 74 of 135.


Getting 133 of your 135 outs from two starters—now that would be doing it 19th century-style.
   82. JoeC Posted: November 21, 2018 at 06:34 PM (#5790234)
Thibs' invaluable HoF Ballot Tracker notes first-time voters & deceased or no longer voting writers.


Thanks for the tip, hadn't thought of that! It doesn't look like last year's first-time voters were from online publications when they got their membership (though many are now, of course, that's how the industry has gone). Here are the names listed:

- Anthony Andro, PressboxDFW (formerly Fort Worth Star-Ledger)
- Erik Boland, Newsday
- Marc Carig, The Athletic (NYY) (formerly Newsday, Newark Star-Ledger, WaPo)
- Jay Cohen, AP
- Ryan Divish, Seattle Times
- Sadiel Lebron, Telemundo/ESPN Deportes
- Katsushi Nagao, JSports
- Brendan Prunty, now working in PR (formerly NYT, SI, et al.)
- Luis Rangel, not sure now but formerly Diario Las Americas (Miami)
- Joe Smith, The Athletic (Tampa Bay Lightning) (Formerly covered baseball for TB Times)
- Jeff Wilson, Fort Worth Star-Ledger
- Larry Fine, Reuters (covers golf now but used to write about baseball)
- Marino Martinez, El Nuevo Herald (Miami)
- Ryan Lawrence, freelancer(?) now but formerly Philly Daily News
- Junko Ichimura, not sure now but formerly Tokyo Daily Sports, Sankei Sports
- Hideo Kizaki, not sure now but formerly Nikkan Sports, Jiji Press
- Naoko Sato, now freelancer, formerly Nikkan Sports

The newbies whose votes were public were much higher on Bonds/Clemens than public votes at large (85% Bonds, 92% Clemens), a little higher on Schilling & Moose (85% and 69% respectively), but not high on the canaries in the saber-coal mine (Rolen & Walker 15% each). But we're talking about a sample size of 13 here.

After a little research, I stumbled across this 2009 list of BBWAA badge holders... that's not generally public, is it? But it seems to show that the only obviously online journalist from last year's class was Amy K. Nelson, then of ESPN.com, who's left journalism (or it's left her). Also sad to see that Rob Neyer would have gotten his ballot this year if he'd maintained his card... and Will Carroll! This is becoming a weird nostalgia trip. I notice Marc Carig (who voted last year) is listed under 2009, so it doesn't seem to line up perfectly.

Anyway, no significant evidence of a glut of new analytics-based writers coming up to vote this year.
   83. Walt Davis Posted: November 22, 2018 at 05:59 PM (#5790368)
do those of you who are talking about Rivera as borderline give any?

In general I don't give any credit for postseason play. Until very recently, no player had a substantial amount of it and how much they had was pretty much just the fortune of how many good teammates you had. Even nowadays, Jeter made it to 734 PA, just over a season. It might be technically correct to give Jeter credit for an extra season of play but it's only for the most borderline players that it could possibly matter.

Which was of course your question. Also, for Rivera, this is two seasons of play. 734 PAs is about 6% of Jeter's regular season total; 141 innings is about 11% of Mo's regular season total. Mo also generally pitched more than one inning (96 appearances, 141 innings) ... though 42 saves in 96 appearances isn't amazing ... and he did have a good number of low-leverage innings ... up by 5 in a clinching game, it was still Mo on the mound; down in an elimination game, it was still Mo to keep it as close as possible, etc. But of course that ERA is staggering. In 1990, Eck got credit for 3.3 WAR in about half as many innings with a 0.61 ERA ... so it might indeed be reasonable to add 6 WAR to Mo's total ... or to add another 140 innings to the table I did comparing him to some awesome starter peaks which would probably carry it out closer to the starters' 7 best seasons.

to carry out the logic, Ortiz's postseason comes to 369 PAs ... even if you claim they're double leverage or something, you're probably adding maybe 5-6 WAR to his total. Berkman's performance is barely 1/3 of a season, adding maybe 4 WAR. Obviously in/out lines get drawn somewhere but small shifts in WAR generally still leave you borderline (unless you were top of the borderline) -- they help but don't overcome whatever the fundamental issues were that put the player on the border.

On Edgar ... I too suspect the momentum is mainly room on the ballot. I think the elections of

Piazza -- great hitter, considered a poor defensive C by most voters
Thomas -- great hitter, 1B/DH
Bagwell -- very Edgar-ish hitter, good-fielding 1B
Raines -- borderline guy with a great peak (and completely different toolset than Edgar)

probably also helped a bit since the gap between those guys and Edgar isn't huge.
   84. bachslunch Posted: November 22, 2018 at 07:23 PM (#5790373)
@82: somehow it seems appropriate that someone named Larry Fine has a ballot. Can Moe, Curley, and Shemp Howard be far behind?
   85. shoewizard Posted: November 22, 2018 at 08:50 PM (#5790381)
Mussina and Schilling probably get bypassed again, and Halladay and a reliever will get in before them. Because reasons.
   86. Master of the Horse Posted: November 22, 2018 at 09:14 PM (#5790384)
85–is it true that Schilling has bragged that when elected he is going to use his speech to crush every media person he hates which is like all of them?
   87. ajnrules Posted: November 23, 2018 at 01:32 PM (#5790446)
Mussina and Schilling probably get bypassed again, and Halladay and a reliever will get in before them. Because reasons.

Ryan Thibodaux has tracked two ballots already, one full and one partial. The full is Halladay no Mussina and the partial is Halladay no Schilling
   88. John DiFool2 Posted: November 23, 2018 at 01:43 PM (#5790448)
Mussina and Schilling probably get bypassed again, and Halladay and a reliever will get in before them. Because reasons.


I still haven't seen these reasons.

The only one routinely trotted out is that Halladay was "the best of his generation," and has his 2 Cy's to show for it.

Nevermind that 4 other pitchers that were significantly better than he peaked in the previous decade, each falling off of their peaks right as Halladay gained his ascendancy. If one or two of them are born a decade later and become his chief rivals, such that he finishes 2nd those two times, does he lose that argument? WI Schilling isn't the 2nd best in the league/on his own team, and wins himself 2 Cy's as a consequence?

Yeah, Schilling isn't in for non-baseball related reasons-still seems pretty irrelevant (even if I found said comments odious). I just would get more than a little pissed if Halladay leapfrogs 2 other pitchers whom he isn't any better than. [/grammarfail]

[Rivera's imminent induction doesn't offend me at all, note]
   89. bachslunch Posted: November 23, 2018 at 02:02 PM (#5790451)
Should say that electing Mariano Rivera isn’t something I find offensive. Given what the HoF’s history with relievers is, it’s perfectly reasonable.

However:

—given the way my thinking works for the HoM, he’s not making my top 15.

—he’s one of those players who is such a lock via the BBWAA that I’d be tempted to leave him off my ballot for the purpose of strategic voting. I’d rather keep someone like Helton or Rolen or Andruw around on the ballot, frankly.

Took a look at Thibs tracker. There are only 5 ballots in, and Halladay is the only player on all of them. Vizquel, Walker, and Schilling are on 4; Bonds, Clemens, Kent, Edgar, McGriff, and Pettitte are on 3; Mo and Moose are on 2; Helton, Andruw, Rolen, Sheffield, and Wagner are on 1. Small sample size, but interesting nonetheless. Is anybody going to top sticky a link to the tracker this year?
   90. Morty Causa Posted: November 23, 2018 at 02:07 PM (#5790453)
Yet, every player when he is inducted is always deeply honored.
   91. Master of the Horse Posted: November 23, 2018 at 02:27 PM (#5790457)
Schilling had a guy on his podcast that even Breitbart distanced itself from because of his racist views. Schilling has posted all kinds of conspiracy stuff. He has gone after the transgender community. And he joked about killing journalists. Folks can google all of this and more. Twitter feed is beyond insane. All this and voters are supposed to go “yeah, totally cool.”?
   92. Walt Davis Posted: November 23, 2018 at 03:50 PM (#5790478)
#91 ... as you likely know, the counter-argument is that the HoF honors what happens on the field. You can't write the history of American comedy without discussing the success and influence of Bill Cosby even though he is a rapist. You can of course tell the history of baseball without a single word on Schilling (but the sock stays!) but only in the sense that you can also do so without mentioning Don Sutton or Bert Blyleven.

That said, there is the character clause and I personally would rather invoke it to keep hateful, spiteful jerks like Schilling out than a Bonds or Clemens. I'd be rather pleased if the HoF threw Anson out much like I'd be pleased if all the Confederate statues were taken down.
   93. Master of the Horse Posted: November 23, 2018 at 05:56 PM (#5790498)
92– got all that. My only thing on old timers is retroactively applying today’s standards on the past. But If the stance is that Anson was an ####### in any baseball era I might get that argument. Schilling is an ####### today and being assessed today. Only diff

And I actually consider Schilling way worse than old timers because society has evolved and people like Schilling are like a case of smallpox that happened because someone got a sample and wants to infect the modern world. His #### needs to be stamped out. But that is me
   94. blueshaker Posted: November 23, 2018 at 06:30 PM (#5790501)
One of the sentiments brought up in other threads was that HOF discussion has fallen off because right away someone breaks out WAR, consensus bows, and there's not much left to say. Makes it easy. I wonder if this thread is an example of that.
Edgar Martinez has 68.4 WAR, David Ortiz has 55.3. Therefore Edgar >>> Papi. End of argument, how could it be any different?

Well...let's start with WAR as a framework, not written in stone. bWAR uses context-neutral linear weights. But I'd prefer to use REW rather than BW. I prefer to weight the single with the bases loaded higher than the one with bases empty. YMMV, but it's a valid choice. So I'll flip in REW into WAR instead. Despite the rep, Ortiz is pretty much the same hitter, but does gain 1.1 wins. So now he's at 56.4. Edgar however takes a hit. Loses 5.4 wins. That puts him at 63 War even.

Just that simple switch from BW to REW made up half the difference. Are we sure that a 63 WAR guy is 'greater' than the 56.4 WAR guy with one of the greatest postseason resumes, and some of the most iconic moments, ever seen?

But wait, there's more! Edgar had the advantage as a hitter, of peaking in the late 90s, early 2000s. For whatever reason (lets not go there), it was simply easier for hitters to put up big #s. I'm talking relative numbers, adjusted numbers, not just totals. Edgar was amazing, but didn't really stand out when there were a number of hitters breaking new standards.
Just a decade later though, things were different.

This is what I mean. Here are the top seven BWAA for each:
Edgar   Papi
6.7     5.9
5.6     5.0
5.4     5.1
4.9     5.0
4.7     4.3
4.6     4.0
4.5     3.7

It's no trouncing, but clearly Edgar comes out on top. By 3.4 wins, almost an all-star caliber season. Here is the same list, but with ordinal ranking included:
Edgar   Papi
6.7-1     5.9-2
5.6-2     5.1-2
5.4-3     5.0-2
4.9-2     5.0-2
4.7-6     4.3-4
4.6-3     4.0-5
4.5-5     3.7-5

The ordinals, their placing within the league, are the SAME. 5 WAA gets you 2nd in the mid 2000s, only around 6th in the mid 90s. Check out the difference throughout the top 10s, it's obvious.

I'll tell you what I think. I think Edgar was probably the better player anyway. But I think it's close enough that I'm quite sure Papi was a greater player. Papi would easily get my vote if I had one. Edgar might....but I'm not sure.

And that's just a couple of factors. There are different park estimates out there than what BR uses. I seem to remember MGL using much longer running span of years where parks dont change. What about peak vs prime vs career? WAA vs WAR-2? Do you even care about counting seasons below an all-star level? (I dont). How much do you trust those fielding stats, and actually, which fielding stats are you using? So much room for debate still.
   95. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 23, 2018 at 06:34 PM (#5790502)
It seems like almost no one still understands it, but the only way to root out bad ideas is to convince people that other ideas are better. Attacking ideas is different from arguing with them. It only further ingrains them in the people who hold them, and makes them less likely to ever be convinced otherwise.

We've seen it with hall of fame voting just like with everything else. Remember what got Bert Blyleven elected? Years of patient academic argument--not namecalling.

And years of patient academic argument are why "society has evolved." Why are some people seemingly de-evolving before our very eyes?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

But let's not go OT:P.
   96. cardsfanboy Posted: November 23, 2018 at 07:31 PM (#5790509)
One of the sentiments brought up in other threads was that HOF discussion has fallen off because right away someone breaks out WAR, consensus bows, and there's not much left to say. Makes it easy. I wonder if this thread is an example of that.
Edgar Martinez has 68.4 WAR, David Ortiz has 55.3. Therefore Edgar >>> Papi. End of argument, how could it be any different?


The rest of the argument you pushed after this quote was just fanboy trying to justify giving it to Ortiz while arguing that Edgar is borderline.

Pure and simple they are both professional hitters. Edgar has 8674 pa at a line of .312/.418/.515/.933/147ops+.... Ortiz has a line of 10091 pa at .286/.380/.552/.931/141(and if you break Ortiz career down to the best stretch of 8700 or so pa you get .289/.384/.566/.950/146 over 8864 pa so effectively the same hitter overall(unless you really think 1227 pa of .264/.351/.446/.797/103 is the difference between a hofer and a non-hofer---if you just do the Boston years only you get 8398 pa at .290/.386/.570/.956/148)

The argument about Ortiz's post season is always a joke, he sucked as often as he was good in the post season. He has some special series, sure, he also had some series where he was an absolute liability, overall it equals out to him being Ortiz in the post season...give him 5 more war as Walt said. Ortiz had 4 outstanding post seasons out of 18.... Edgar had 1 outstanding post seasons out of 7... minor advantage to Ortiz, but if you are going to give him a 5 war bonus for .289/ .404/.543/.947 line in 369 post season appearances it doesn't seem too out of the reality to give Edgar a 1.5 war bonus for .266/.365/.508/.873 over 148 pa...

The only differences between these guys is really that Ortiz adds longevity to make up for the fact that he wasn't actually ever useful in the field, while Edgar has 4 seasons in the field being a average to plus defender at a mid tier defensive position. And somehow Ortiz has managed to convince the fans that he showed up for the post season more often than he actually did.
   97. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 23, 2018 at 07:34 PM (#5790511)
How much do you trust those fielding stats, and actually, which fielding stats are you using?

Your overall point about WAR is well-founded, but this particular question would seem to be of limited relevance when discussing Edgar vs. Ortiz...
   98. blueshaker Posted: November 23, 2018 at 07:47 PM (#5790513)
Agree Eric, the fielding reference was a rhetorical point. Just trying to point out how many gray areas there still are.

To #96/CFB - I'm a Jays fan, can't stand Boston. Not a Papi fan at all. What part of the rest of the argument was fanboy? Forget all the rest, I flipped in REW and saw 63 vs. 56.5... whats wrong with that? Why is context-neutral written in stone? Why do I have to award Ortiz the calculated WAR amount for his postseason at-bats and nothing more for the ridiculous impact that he created in producing historically important moments? A single all-star season is 'worth' more than those in what we want to honor in the HOF?
   99. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 23, 2018 at 07:59 PM (#5790515)
The argument about Ortiz's post season is always a joke, he sucked as often as he was good in the post season. He has some special series, sure, he also had some series where he was an absolute liability, overall it equals out to him being Ortiz in the post season

This is a bit of an oversell, I think. Most players (including Edgar, who dropped 50 points of average and OBP over his career) hit worse in the postseason than they do in the regular season, because the pitching is better and the weather is colder. Ortiz hit slightly better. And to whatever extent you increase the weight of later (and therefore more important) rounds of the playoffs, Ortiz will benefit from that; he hit .455/.576/.795 in World Series play.

Ortiz had 4 outstanding post seasons out of 18

This is 18 series, not 18 seasons... anyway, Ortiz has 7 series with an OPS of 1.000 or higher. If you take his top 4 series by OPS (all 1.400 or higher), you're leaving out the '04 ALCS; I suspect Red Sox fans would argue he was fairly outstanding in that series.

Also, how many hitters had four separate playoff series with OPS over 1.400, or seven over 1.000? Looking at a couple of other great playoff hitters among Ortiz's contemporaries, Pujols had 3 and 5 (out of 16 series), and Beltran had 3 and 5 (out of 15). (Although if you rank all of their series by OPS, Ortiz has the top 3.)

Edgar had 1 outstanding post seasons out of 7... minor advantage to Ortiz, but if you are going to give him a 5 war bonus for .289/ .404/.543/.947 line in 369 post season appearances it doesn't seem too out of the reality to give Edgar a 1.5 war bonus for .266/.365/.508/.873 over 148 pa...

We can quibble over the margin between them, but sure, give Edgar (and everyone else) credit for postseason play if you're doing it for Ortiz.

I will say that on the whole, I would probably vote for both of them, and would probably pick Edgar over Ortiz if there was a ballot crunch.
   100. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 23, 2018 at 08:05 PM (#5790516)
. . . I think Edgar was probably the better player anyway. But I think it's close enough that I'm quite sure Papi was a greater player. Papi would easily get my vote if I had one. Edgar might....but I'm not sure.

I read #94 as saying that if you squint just right Edgar may not have been as much better than Ortiz as many believe, but it still seems short of justifying a HoF vote that puts Ortiz in and leaves Edgar out. The belated realization of that, along with the last-year push, should be enough to put Martinez in, IMHO.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - 2018 NFL thread
(137 - 10:59am, Dec 19)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Braves voting thread
(7 - 10:58am, Dec 19)
Last: Rusty Priske

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Atlanta Braves
(26 - 10:52am, Dec 19)
Last: SoSH U at work

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(410 - 10:49am, Dec 19)
Last: Al Peterson

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (The Berhalter Thread?)
(258 - 10:48am, Dec 19)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (December 2018)
(726 - 10:45am, Dec 19)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogESPN: Penny Marshall, director of 'A League of Their Own,' dies at 75
(7 - 10:14am, Dec 19)
Last: Swoboda is freedom

NewsblogCubs Owners Discussed Moving Team Out Of Chicago During Beef With Mayor
(4 - 10:08am, Dec 19)
Last: bfan

NewsblogReport: Mike Piazza's family was unhappy to learn he had bought the 'Pittsburgh' of Italian soccer
(13 - 10:02am, Dec 19)
Last: Thok

NewsblogChicago Cubs manager Joe Maddon reveals the book he says is helping him manage millennial players
(127 - 9:59am, Dec 19)
Last: Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-19-2018
(1 - 9:57am, Dec 19)
Last: Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee)

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(3782 - 9:47am, Dec 19)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

NewsblogThibs' Hall of Fame Tracker
(533 - 9:11am, Dec 19)
Last: JL72

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(923 - 9:06am, Dec 19)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogTwins to retire Joe Mauer's No. 7
(27 - 8:11am, Dec 19)
Last: bobm

Page rendered in 0.7066 seconds
46 querie(s) executed