So will Jack Morris. There should be an investigation about why he hasn’t gotten more support for Cooperstown. But that’s another story.

Investigator: Excuse me, BBWAA voter. Just wondering why you are not voting for Jack Morris.

BBWAA Voter: He really wasn't a great pitcher?

Investigator: Well, that wraps up our investigation. Thank you for your time.

"Alomar's the most likely of those being considered for the first time to make it, but does he really deserve to be in the select company of the 44 players chosen by the BBWAA in their first year of eligibility? ... I feel certain he'll be a Hall of Famer some day, but I'm not convinced it should happen from this ballot. ...[Larkin] doesn't get my vote this time around."

Bodley draws a false distinction between first ballot Hall of Famers and other Hall of Famers.
Rickey was a first ballot HoFer because there could be no doubt about his qualifications. Jim Rice is still a HoFer despite being elected in his 15th year of eligibility. If a voter changes his mind to vote yes after years of voting no, that's fine with me. If a voter supports a player's candidacy but doubts he'll win enough support, then there's nothing inconsistent there.
However, for a voter to write, "player X is good enough for me to vote into the HoF, but not in his first year of eligibility", well that's just crap.

Excuse me, BBWAA voter. Just wondering why you are not voting for Jack Morris.

Last year during one of those embarrassing YESshows...Murray Chass talked Bodley into voting for Jack Morris for the first time.

A true cringe-worthy moment in TV.

Barf.

I hope it is. I'm sick and tired of hearing about how Blyleven deserves to go in. I mean he does, but the constant argument on why he does and why he doesn't becomes tiresome.

So will Jack Morris. There should be an investigation about why he hasn’t gotten more support for Cooperstown. But that’s another story.

Funny; I was thinking there should be an investigation into why Morris has gotten so much support.

I hope it is. I'm sick and tired of hearing about how Blyleven deserves to go in. I mean he does, but the constant argument on why he does and why he doesn't becomes tiresome.

The faster Blyleven goes in, the better Morris's chances for induction via the BBWAA are. Right now, his chances are slim, but if he gains some support this year and Blyleven goes in, Morris emerges as not only the top pitcher but if he's over 50% - those are the guys who rapidly gain support. He might sneak over the 75% border by/in his final year of eligibility.

Jesus, that's depressing, Dag; and probably accurate.

I may be willing to sacrifice Bly to keep out Morris. It's come to that level of desperation.

Alomar’s the most likely of those being considered for the first time to make it, but does he really deserve to be in the select company of the 44 players chosen by the BBWAA in their first year of eligibility?

Dennis Eckersley -- check
Paul Molitor -- check
Ozzie Smith -- check
Kirby Puckett -- check

And I'd say that Gwynn, Winfield, Yount and Ryan are pretty close calls. Maybe Murray too. The only first-ballot electees of the last 10 years who Alomar really can't be comped to are Henderson, Ripken and Boggs.

Alert readers will note that 12 of these sainted 44 have been elected in the last decade and Ripken's the only one with a serious claim at inner-circle (OK, that depends how many 3B you allow into your circle and the Boggs/Brett/Mathews debate). Someone here has noted that the old standard that made a 1st ballot selection special (with which I have no real quarrel) seems to have shifted to where the "special" ones now get huge vote totals in the 1st ballot while "borderline" 1st ballot guys squeak over the line. You should probably blame Lou Brock. Under current "1st ballot standards", Alomar should get somewhere in the 75-85% range.

I don't think he will -- the writers have always been tough on 2B and they haven't shown signs of letting up and I expect Alomar to have to wait a year or three like Sandberg did.

Morris has slipped back two other times...so there is hope.

2000 - 22.2%
2001 - 19.6%
2002 - 20.6%
2003 - 22.8%
2004 - 26.3%
2005 - 33.3%
2005 - 41.2%
2006 - 37.1%
2007 - 42.9%
2008 - 44.0%

I have to think that Morris chances of a last-second entrance will be damaged significantly by the impending arrival of so many Hall-worthy candidates.

Geez - is Kevin Brown going to be one and done from the ballot in 2011 while at the same time Morris gets elected? Likely. The sportswriters never liked Brown in the first place. They didn't give him the 1996 NL CY, which he deserved. They didn't give him a single CY vote in 2003. Since he came to the Yankees after his prime years were done, they think he's an abject failure. Oh, and I suppose he's a roider. Show me anyone else with a career as good as a 127 ERA+ in >3000 IP that has gotten as little HoF consideration as he probably will.

Or am I wrong about this.

Alert readers will note that 12 of these sainted 44 have been elected in the last decade and Ripken's the only one with a serious claim at inner-circle

You don't think Henderson is inner circle?

Show me anyone else with a career as good as a 127 ERA+ in >3000 IP that has gotten as little HoF consideration as he probably will.

I don't think he's as clearly deserving as you and most other HOMies seem to. There seems to be evidence that it was easier to put up a high ERA+ during much of his career, so I don't think you can so easily compare that number to anyone from any era. He had an excellent 5-year stretch after coming to the NL, but surrounding that are a lot of OK seasons and injury-shortened seasons. There are a number of pitchers from his own era who are clearly superior. Certainly you've studied it more than I but my perception is that he's borderline. I don't know, I'm probably being guided too much by how his candidacy "feels."

And you're right, he's not getting in via the writers.

There are 53 pitchers since 1893 with 3000 to 3500 IP. 11 of them are in the HOF, and some of those are among the most questioned: Eckersley, Haines, Marquard, Hunter.

Brown's ERA+ is near the top of that group. But if you ding him for the UER, and then for the relative ease in achieving extreme performance, maybe his RA+ "should" only be around 120, which puts him in the area of other borderliners.

I'm just throwing out numbers, I haven't studied this.

Brown finished fewer games (as a reliever) (1) than any other pitcher in that group (random trivia).

Geez - is Kevin Brown going to be one and done from the ballot in 2011 while at the same time Morris gets elected? Likely. The sportswriters never liked Brown in the first place.

At the same time, definitely not. It's possible Morris goes in, but I don't like his chances (because he really hasn't made a whole lot of progress, and as I said above, the time he'd be making that final push is going to coincide with an absolute mess of qualified new candidates/backlogs).

Additionally, I do think ERA+ overrates Brown, who gave up a whole lot more unearned runs than his peers in a generally low era for unearned runs.

More than anything, he's hurt by the fact that his biggest successes came with smaller profile franchises, while he's seen as a failure in his two big stops (he was actually quite good in LA, but probably not worth the contract and the team wasn't, while he was pretty poor in NY).

As for the writers, the funny thing is they didn't like Morris (or Rice, for that matter) either.

There are 53 pitchers since 1893 with 3000 to 3500 IP.

I went back to the list of pitchers I've worked up for HoM use, and got about 45 - so we're mostly talking about the same people. I then added in some with just slightly over 3500 (Reuschel, Marichal) and some with slightly under 3000 (Adams, Newhouser, Vance, Walsh, Langston, Waddell.) I've got an equivalent record for each of these pitchers based on season-by-season RA+ (so I'm including the UER that you talk about). Add up the year-by-year records to get a career winning percentage; run that winning percentage back through Pythag to get a (fake) career RA+. Sort by that. Some highlights:

Ed Walsh: 133
Mordecai Brown: 132, except he had extraordinary defensive support (and some FL data) - maybe about 121 would be fairer.
Schilling: 130 (better than I would have guessed)
Whitey Ford: 127
Mussina: 127 (OK, there might be something on the "ease of domination" side.)
Smoltz: 127 (If I only included his starter innings, he'd be at 123.)
Stan Coveleski: 127
Dazzy Vance: 125
Hal Newhouser: 124 (Has already been discounted some for WWII league strength)
Rube Waddell: 124
Babe Adams: 123 (Like Mordecai Brown, should be discounted for defensive support)
Kevin Brown: 123
Joe McGinnity: 121
Billy Pierce: 121
Dennis Eckersley: 120 (If only starter innings, would be 116.)
Ed Cicotte: 118 (He's got some, uh, other issues with respect to the HoF.)
Juan Marichal: 118
Luis Tiant: 117
Clark Griffith: 116 (slops over a little into pre-1893)
Chief Bender: 116
Don Drysdale: 115 (plus upward adjustment for his hitting)
Wilbur Cooper: 115
Dolf Luque: 115
Bucky Walters: 114 (plus upward adjustment for his hitting, minus downward adjustment for his defensive support)

... and many more. The list bottoms out in the 102-105 range with the likes of Hooks Dauss, Rube Marquard, and Claude Osteen. Hunter and Haines (whom you mentioned) were at 108 and 109.

So it looks like Brown is near the top end of guys who don't (/didn't) deserve to be elected. On the other hand, Smoltz will sail in with an only slightly better ERA+. There have certainly been worse choices than Brown. I tell you what: if Jim Rice is in the HOF, there's no way I wouldn't vote for Kevin Brown. I know that's bad reasoning, but if they're putting in guys who don't deserve it, they should put in every last person who might.

OCF...can you run it for pitchers with 3500-4000 IP? About 30 guys there...what kind of "(fake) RA+"comes up for Jack Morris, and where he rank among that IP group? Thanks!

We need Snowboy commenting in the Krivsky thread.

BERT OR BUST

for a voter to write, "player X is good enough for me to vote into the HoF, but not in his first year of eligibility", well that's just crap

I sometimes think that way too, but then I also figure, with the vote being such a blunt instrument yes-or-no, what other device does a HOF voter have to add some nuance to his opinion? The HOM allows for endless small gradations in ranking, but the HOF just asks you if Andre Dawson belongs in the company of Willie Mays. So maybe you figure you'll let Dawson cool his heels for a few years. Of course if everyone thought this way, all the "second-ballot" HOFers would be one and done, but the odds are that the range of opinions among voters won't allow that to happen.

As per Snowboy's request:

Lefty Grove: 143
Randy Johnson: 130 (I think that's through either 2007 or 2008)
Carl Hubbell: 129
Bob Gibson: 126 (gets upward adjustment from there for hitting)
Bob Feller: 125
Jim Palmer: 121 (has already been adjusted down for defensive support)
(Amos Rusie: 120) (doesn't meet "after 1893" criterion)
Jim Bunning: 115
Waite Hoyt: 113
Vic Willis: 113 (has already been adjusted down for defensive support)
Jerry Koosman: 110
Jack Quinn: 109
Herb Pennock: 109
Mickey Lolich: 107
Paul Derringer: 107
Jack Morris: 107
Dennis Martinez: 107
Bobo Newsom: 106
Bob Friend: 106
Charlie Hough: 104
Sam Jones: 103
Earl Whitehill: 102
Jerry Reuss: 100
George Mullin: 100
Joe Niekro: 99

OK, you want a guy with innings in this range, equivalent RA+ of about 107, and a World Series pitching hero - I've got your man: Mickey Lolich.

IMO, the only way such an argument ("player X is good enough for me to vote into the HoF, but not in his first year of eligibility") makes sense is if there are 10 other guys you think are worth votes and at least one of them is close to either the 75% threshold or the end of his eligibility. For example, if you think Alomar is more deserving than Blyleven but you put Bert as your #10 because of the cirumstances of his eligbility and you figure that you'll get a chance to vote for Alomar next year if he needs it.

IMO, the only way such an argument ("player X is good enough for me to vote into the HoF, but not in his first year of eligibility") makes sense is if there are 10 other guys you think are worth votes and at least one of them is close to either the 75% threshold or the end of his eligibility. For example, if you think Alomar is more deserving than Blyleven but you put Bert as your #10 because of the cirumstances of his eligbility and you figure that you'll get a chance to vote for Alomar next year if he needs it.

I'm with Bob Dernier here. We talk all the time about inner-circle guys, solid HoFers and borderline HoFers, but the only way for the voters to make such a distinction is through the number of elections it takes for them to gain enshrinement. As long as enough of the voters don't automatically reject borderline first-timers (and it's pretty obvious that the number of Bodleys is on the decline, so you don't have to worry about a guy with a chance of getting elected falling off the ballot entirely), then I see the whole handwringing done over this injustice to be kind of silly.

IMO, the only way such an argument ("player X is good enough for me to vote into the HoF, but not in his first year of eligibility") makes sense is if there are 10 other guys you think are worth votes and at least one of them is close to either the 75% threshold or the end of his eligibility. For example, if you think Alomar is more deserving than Blyleven but you put Bert as your #10 because of the cirumstances of his eligbility and you figure that you'll get a chance to vote for Alomar next year if he needs it.

Bill James pointed out that while it might not have made sense at first to have a standard like that, being a first-ballot Hall of Famer has become a legitimate honor, and there's nothing wrong with being discriminating about who you give that honor to.

Any player that would be an issue for is a sure thing to make it past the first ballot anyway, so while the extreme case of "if nobody votes for him on the first ballot there won't be a second ballot" exists as a theory, enough writers don't apply the "not on the first ballot" standard to ensure that they'll be back.

being a first-ballot Hall of Famer has become a legitimate honor

But, as Walt pointed out up in #9, it's an honor that is actually becoming more common recently. It's an honor that was afforded to Kirby Puckett and Dennis Eckersley and Ozzie Smith. I'm not saying these guys don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame (although I probably wouldn't have voted for Puckett myself), but these are not "inner-circle" guys and it's hard to see how Puckett is anything but a "borderline HOFer" given that he's not yet in the Hall of Merit.

I have to go back and agree with bobm in #2: changing a vote from 'No' to 'Yes' (or 'Yes' to 'No') based on re-evaluating the data is very reasonable; changing a vote because somebody's a "2nd-ballot" HOFer instead of a "1st-ballot HOFer" seems silly given the reality of who has been elected on various ballots historically.

I have to go back and agree with bobm in #2: changing a vote from 'No' to 'Yes' (or 'Yes' to 'No') based on re-evaluating the data is very reasonable; changing a vote because somebody's a "2nd-ballot" HOFer instead of a "1st-ballot HOFer" seems silly given the reality of who has been elected on various ballots historically.

But if Bodley and a dwindling number of others like him have always believed in not electing the more debatable guys until the 2nd ballot, then I find it hard to call that consistency silly. I don't think he should have to change his standards just because the rest of the electorate has shifted.

I'm with Bob Dernier here. We talk all the time about inner-circle guys, solid HoFers and borderline HoFers, but the only way for the voters to make such a distinction is through the number of elections it takes for them to gain enshrinement.

I don't see why it's their job to make such a distinction. They're supposed to be voting on players "deemed worthy of election" (Rule 4b). There's nothing there differentiating between first ballot and later ballots.

One serious question I've had is how to read Rule 5:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Does that mean voting "shall be based" upon at least those factors, or only those factors? I read it as the former, but I concede it's not clear.

(If it's the former, of course, there's nothing in there that says that voting shall be based in part on whether it's the player's first time on the ballot.)

But if Bodley and a dwindling number of others like him have always believed in not electing the more debatable guys until the 2nd ballot, then I find it hard to call that consistency silly. I don't think he should have to change his standards just because the rest of the electorate has shifted.

He should have to change his standards because he's not allowed to have standards; it's the job of the HOF to decide what the standards are. Nothing in the instructions to the voters (a) ask them to distinguish between types of HOFers, or (b) allow them to consider the number of times the candidate has been on the ballot.

I agree with several people above that the point of this is to allow voters to make distinctions between different quality HOFers, but that's basically just self-aggrandizing. Nobody asked them to do that.

He should have to change his standards because he's not allowed to have standards; it's the job of the HOF to decide what the standards are. Nothing in the instructions to the voters (a) ask them to distinguish between types of HOFers, or (b) allow them to consider the number of times the candidate has been on the ballot.

And nothing precludes it. It asks to consider guys deemed worthy of election. If I don't deem a guy worthy of election this year, but do next year, what's the problem? It has become (or was), as Larry pointed out, an effective way of distinguishing between HoFers, as all of us do.

I find a it a lot of caterwauling over something that actually, if inadvertantly, works (worked) well. Sadly, such protests against these manufactured outrages are fairly typical around here.

And nothing precludes it. It asks to consider guys deemed worthy of election. If I don't deem a guy worthy of election this year, but do next year, what's the problem?

There's no problem, if you reconsidered his qualifications and now feel that he belongs.

But I do see a problem if your vote changed solely on the basis of this first ballot nonsense.

And, as Bodley shows, most voters doing this do think that a player is "worthy of election" when the player appears on a ballot for the first time. They refuse to vote for him despite that.

It has become (or was), as Larry pointed out, an effective way of distinguishing between HoFers, as all of us do.

Not really. I don't decide whether a HOFer is inner circle based on whether he was elected on the first ballot. That would be silly.

I find a it a lot of caterwauling over something that actually, if inadvertantly, works (worked) well. Sadly, such protests against these manufactured outrages are fairly typical around here.

If it's not a voter's job to do this, then the protests against it aren't "manufactured."

And nothing precludes it. It asks to consider guys deemed worthy of election. If I don't deem a guy worthy of election this year, but do next year, what's the problem?

If you change your mind as to whether he belongs in the HOF, there's no problem. But that's not what Bodley and some of the other writers are doing. They're not changing their mind; they agree he belongs, but they're refusing to vote for him notwithstanding that fact. I repeat: they're refusing to vote for someone that belongs in the HOF.

It has become (or was), as Larry pointed out, an effective way of distinguishing between HoFers, as all of us do.

And as Walt pointed out, and Kiko reiterated, it isn't. And it wasn't, either, because during the early years of the HOF, many elite players were not first balloters, either because of confusion over eligibility rules or because of backlogs of great players or the like. While it still remains true that a guy who waits 10 years is probably a much weaker candidate than a guy who goes in right away, it's such a crude metric, and applies to such a short time period, that it isn't effective at all.

In any case, I reiterate: who asked the writers to distinguish between HOFers?

Ray, stop plagiarizing my comments before I hit Submit.

But I do see a problem if your vote changed solely on the basis of this first ballot nonsense.

What? What exactly is the problem? Getting you and David all worked up is not a problem. It sure as hell isn't that difficult.

Ultimately, I believe, the different standards the individual BBWAA voters use (peak vs. career, small Hall vs. large, first ballot vs. wait), even if they differ from each other and from the not-quite-precise instructions (as you noted) on the ballot, combines to produce a better result. It definitely makes for a more interesting process.

I repeat: they're refusing to vote for someone that belongs in the HOF.

And they don't believe he belongs in the HoF now. Next year, they believe he does.

What? What exactly is the problem?

I explained it: refusing to vote for someone you think is worthy of election.

Ultimately, I believe, the different standards the individual BBWAA voters use (peak vs. career, small vs. large, first ballot vs. wait), even if they differ from each other and from the not-quite-precise instructions (as you noted) on the ballot, combines to produce a better result. It definitely makes for a more interesting process.

It's fine if you think that, but it doesn't address the question of whether the voters are supposed to be doing that.

Maybe years from now the Veteran's Committee will be filled with ex-Tigers...then we'll see them finally elect Morris, Whitaker, Trammell and Darrell Evans. (Plus Lance Parrish, Kirk Gibson, Dan Petry, Willie Hernandez, Chet Lemon, Aurelio Lopez, Marty Castillo and Rusty Kuntz.)

RMc: And Mickey Lolich? (See post #23 above.)

Re [22]:

"with the vote being such a blunt instrument yes-or-no, what other device does a HOF voter have to add some nuance to his opinion?"

Excluding the Veterans Committee, HoF voters are members of the BBWAA, right? So, let them write about their rationale for their vote? It's not like they don't have a forum as 10+ year veteran baseball writers.

Luis Tiant vs. Catf--- Hunter.

And they don't believe he belongs in the HoF now. Next year, they believe he does.

This is sophistry. They're not changing their assessment of him from one year to the next (which would, as noted, be fine); they're simply choosing not to vote for him, even though they do believe he's a deserving HOFer, because they want to deny him an honor that they invented.

Luis Tiant vs. Catf--- Hunter.

Hall of Merit: Hunter gone from the ballot, gets no support. Tiant not elected, but sitting in the high backlog with lots of support.

Let's get Blyleven in there and then go to work on Raines and, if needed, Larkin and Alomar. None of these guys are going to have a perfect ballot by our standards, but if they're getting it at least partially right, then that's something. At least this ballot isn't Olbermann-esque.

They're not changing their assessment of him from one year to the next (which would, as noted, be fine);

That's exactly what they are doing. Whether or not you like it doesn't change the fact that in the mind of some voters "First Ballot Hall of Famer" and "Hall of Famer" are two separate things.

That's exactly what they are doing. Whether or not you like it doesn't change the fact that in the mind of some voters "First Ballot Hall of Famer" and "Hall of Famer" are two separate things.

So one year they think he is a Hall of Famer but not a First Ballot Hall of Famer. And then the next year, they think he is a Hall of Famer but not a First Ballot Hall of Famer. This does not constitute "changing their assessment of him".

That's exactly what they are doing. Whether or not you like it doesn't change the fact that in the mind of some voters "First Ballot Hall of Famer" and "Hall of Famer" are two separate things.

No, they are not changing their assessment of him. They have "deemed him worthy of election" all along; despite that, they're refusing to vote for him.

The "is he worthy of election?" question is a Yes/No. It's not a Yes-But.

They are supposed to vote for him as soon as they deem him worthy of election, unless they have 10 more deserving candidates in front of him.

Hey, I just looked it up and John Paul II was an eighth-ballot pope. Eighth ballot! And he's inner-circle. If you timeline.

That's exactly what they are doing. Whether or not you like it doesn't change the fact that in the mind of some voters "First Ballot Hall of Famer" and "Hall of Famer" are two separate things.

That's like saying that in the mind of Pete Rose, betting on baseball was fine, so we shouldn't criticize him. The question here is whether they're right, not whether they thought they were justified.

Moreover, the issue is not whether "First Ballot Hall of Famer" and "Hall of Famer" are two separate things; the issue is what the voters were asked to decide -- which was only the latter question, not the former.

Hey, I just looked it up and John Paul II was an eighth-ballot pope. Eighth ballot! And he's inner-circle. If you timeline.

Sure, if you give him credit for time in the Polish archdiocese, but what kind of idiot would do that? Only Italian service should count for the Papal Hall of Fame. Unless you plan to put Roberto Petagine in there, too.

Thanks OCF.

Just more numbers to back up the other numbers, which confirm the non-numberian impression of Jack Morris: he was a good pitcher, but he doesn't belong in the company of Hall of Famers.

Hey, I just looked it up and John Paul II was an eighth-ballot pope. Eighth ballot! And he's inner-circle

In a Dante-esque sense?

You don't think Henderson is inner circle?

oops.

John Paul II being selected on the 8th ballot is not germane. That would be like asserting an amateur player recommended by the 8th scout to view him shouldn't later be considered for the inner circle regardless of his major league playing career or in JP II's case his pontificate. The Pope should be evaluated on his poping not his rookie league stats as a parish priest or his AAA accomplishments as a Cardinal. On the other hand, Pujols should only be evaluated on his accomplishments as a Cardinal. I understand it may seem complicated, but try to keep up.

Interviewer: So why do you think Jack Morris belongs in the HoF?

Writer: He's on a list of the greatest pitchers of all time with guys like Lefty Grove, Bob Gibson and Bob Feller.

Lefty Grove: 143
Randy Johnson: 130 (I think that's through either 2007 or 2008)
Carl Hubbell: 129
Bob Gibson: 126 (gets upward adjustment from there for hitting)
Bob Feller: 125
Jim Palmer: 121 (has already been adjusted down for defensive support)
(Amos Rusie: 120) (doesn't meet "after 1893" criterion)
Jim Bunning: 115
Waite Hoyt: 113
Vic Willis: 113 (has already been adjusted down for defensive support)
Jerry Koosman: 110
Jack Quinn: 109
Herb Pennock: 109
Mickey Lolich: 107
Paul Derringer: 107
Jack Morris: 107

Hey, I just looked it up and John Paul II was an eighth-ballot pope. Eighth ballot! And he's inner-circle

Didn't GGC ask us not to bring up child molestation?