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, January 06, 2015

Pedro, Big Unit, Smoltz, Biggio make Hall of Fame

In their first year on the Hall of Fame ballot, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz were elected to the Hall of Fame by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America on Tuesday, while Craig Biggio was elected in his third year on the ballot.

Jim Furtado Posted: January 06, 2015 at 02:10 PM | 242 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 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 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. Khrushin it bro Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:38 PM (#4874622)
Wow RJ #1 in K/9 for pitchers with > 1000IP I didn't realize that. Makes sense though.
   102. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:38 PM (#4874623)
And a superior player on this ballot (Brian Giles) didn't get a single vote.


On the one hand, Giles was a much better player than anyone outside of Pittsburgh ever noticed or appreciated.

On the other hand, he publicly beat up his girlfriend, so #### that guy. Zero votes is exactly what someone like that deserves.
   103. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:39 PM (#4874625)
The Bagwell thing really bothers me. The roid rumblings are no worse than with Piazza, and he's still stuck in the mud. It's funny how the trad counting numbers cut both ways now--500 HRs is no longer a guarantee for induction, yet Bagwell is getting hosed because of a lack of trad counting stats.


I think it's more complex than this. Bagwell's problem, despite the MVP and one RBI title, is that he is one of those broad base of skills guys. He never won a batting title or a home run title, never marched a team to a world series on his big shoulders -- he doesn't have a signature achievement. The other problem is that a fair amount of his value come from defense and baserunning, which is highly unusual for a 1B, and the kind of thing that I think a lot of voters probably ignore unless they stand out (viz, Ozzie Smith gets a lot of credit for these things, but Bobby Grich doesn't). The fact that Bagwell's secondary skills are really the things that move him from "decent" to "solid" in the HoF context means that a lot of people will look at him and think he's a fringe candidate.

He's got some other small misfortunes in there, as well, not least being that he played his most dominant seasons in the Grand Canyon. But I also think he'll get in -- eventually. He's got five years left on the ballot, and I think he's probably a strong candidate for a Blyleven-style campaign. I hold out hope.
   104. vortex of dissipation Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:46 PM (#4874629)
Randy Johnson's second career. He took the band photos for the new b-sides compilation, too...
   105. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:47 PM (#4874630)
So ~12 more people voted for each this year. Not really "momentum", but are the voters changing their minds on steroids?


They actually only gained four votes each. The electorate fell from 571 voters to 549.
   106. Rob_Wood Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:47 PM (#4874631)
Some voters (cough Jon Heyman cough) refuse to vote for anyone who have any "taint" of PEDs. So they will not ever vote for Bagwell regardless of who else is on the ballot.
   107. HGM Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:49 PM (#4874633)
Some voters (cough Jon Heyman cough) refuse to vote for anyone who have any "taint" of PEDs. So they will not ever vote for Bagwell regardless of who else is on the ballot.

Except David Ortiz.
   108. Sandlapper Spike Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:49 PM (#4874634)
there were 2,014 votes cast this year that cannot be cast again in 2016 (the four guys that got in, Mattingly, and those that failed to get 5%). Next year, Griffey will probably get 500-540 of those checkmarks. Hoffman, Edmonds, and others will likely get (I dunno) a couple hundred more, total. In theory, there are a lot of ballot slots available for holdover candidates - many of whom would have received votes this year if the 10-man limit was lifted. Who is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of this dynamic?


And of course, if the limit is raised from 10 to 12, that could also increase the likely number of "available" votes.
   109. Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:49 PM (#4874635)
That Mattingly still got over 5 percent is absurd.


I'm not sure about that. Phenomenal peak, 2153 hits. Mattingly's peak was insane. For instance, in 1986 he hit thirty one homers and struck out thirty five times, compiling a .967 .OPS while presumably playing above average defense. He deteriorated very rapidly, but to me, his '90 and '91 seasons are just extremely harmful for his case. Obviously dealing with the back issues, his power completely vanished. He bounced back pretty well in '93 and had an .OPB close to .400 in '94 before the game closed shop.

I agree with you about Delgado. His durability and consistency really jumps off the page for me. From '96 to '08, you could count on him to mash the baseball. Hopefully he gets consideration from the Veterans Committee.
   110. Baldrick Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:50 PM (#4874636)
I'm a lifelong Mariners fan who was 14 years old in 1995. Even I think Randy goes in with an Arizona cap.

My first look at the ballot for next year leaves me a lot less unhappy about the 10-vote limit. If they expand to 12, that would actually cover all the guys I am positive I would want to induct. My 10 would probably be:
Bonds
Clemens
Griffey
Piazza
Bagwell
Schilling
Mussina
Walker
Trammell
Raines

It kills me to leave Edgar off, since he's my favorite player and I think he's very close to Trammell and Raines, but I can see clear daylight between them so Edgar has to go. McGwire is my #12. Everyone below that line I remain a little bit skeptical about. I've 'voted' for Sosa and McGriff before in our yes/no votes, and I can't remember if I included Kent. But I've cooled on McGriff the more closely I've looked at his record, and it doesn't burn me up to see Sosa on the outside.

Of the newbies, Edmonds certainly deserves consideration, and I'm open to Wagner (and maybe Hoffmann) on the principle that 'closer is now a position.' But none of them leap out at me, and I won't be too sad to lack a slot for them.
   111. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:53 PM (#4874639)

I'm not sure about that. Phenomenal peak, 2153 hits. Mattingly's peak was insane.


Mattingly's in the "The Hall of this guy seemed like a sure-fire HOFer til he hit his decline" along with Darryl Strawberry, Dale Murphy, Albert Belle, Bret Saberhagen, Dwight Gooden, and Will Clark.

Jim Rice should be in that Hall.
   112. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: January 06, 2015 at 03:59 PM (#4874642)
I love Randy Johnson's BBRef page. Even if you can't read numbers for some reason it's still so obviously the page of an inner circle guy. There are a lot of years there, a ton of black ink scattered all over the place, and one little glowy bit indicating an all-time leadership. Pedro's is real good too, but the black ink is a lot more concentrated, the years are a bit fewer, and he doesn't have a glowy bit.
   113. Curse of the Graffanino (dfan) Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:01 PM (#4874643)
Mattingly's in the "The Hall of this guy seemed like a sure-fire HOFer til he hit his decline" along with Darryl Strawberry, Dale Murphy, Albert Belle, Bret Saberhagen, Dwight Gooden, and Will Clark.

Speaking of people on the ballot this year, Garciaparra's in that category for me too. Look at his career through age 26 sometime.
   114. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:04 PM (#4874645)
Troy Percival got four votes? The hell?
   115. Walt Davis Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:04 PM (#4874646)
1) How close will Griffey get to the all-time record % (I believe about 98.8%)?

No, not particularly close I don't think. The 2nd half of his career is forgettable. He won only one MVP, holds no major records, didn't break Gehrig's consecutive games streak, didn't play for a single team, no rings, one awesome ALDS performance in 1995 but not a strong postseason record.

If the election had been held after his age 30 season, sure. He'll poll extremely well but don't see how he outpolls Maddux and Johnson even. The main thing he has going is he doesn't have a lot of competition and doesn't need to worry about brilliant strategic voters.

2) Is Piazza the only returning candidate with a reasonable shot at getting to 75% in 2016? Will he do it?

Yes and probably or so close 2017 is a Biggio-esque formality. Piazza's progress over the last two years on these crowded ballots is actually rather astounding. He's destroyed Bagwell -- he was 2% behind in 2013, now 14% ahead. Unless there are 25.1% dedicated bacne-phobes in the BBWAA, he's going in.


3) Will Raines make a big enough leap in 2016 to be positioned for a final-year election in 2017? (Even if he does well in 2016, it will be a tougher ballot in 2017, with a few new holdovers from 2016 on the ballot, as well as Manny Ramirez, Ivan Rodriguez, and Vladimir Guerrero debuting in 2017 to take some votes away.)

I have a hard time seeing it. They are fairly weak ballots so he could make big progress but it's a long way to go in two years as earlier posts show. (Has anybody gone from 55ish to election in 2 years?) But the 10-year thing and his lack of major progress this year might finally get some people off the fence. I'd imagine he was #11 on a fair number of ballots this year. On the flip side though, being only at 55% makes him less attractive as a guy to add given how far away he is.

4) Is Bagwell stalling out, because there is a certain percentage of the electorate that is convinced he is a steroid guy, and will simply not vote for him (as compared to, say, Schilling or Raines, who do not have such a chunk of the electorate closed to them)?

I'm certainly more worried than I was but again, returning to 2013 levels after these two ballots is not bad performance. But if he doesn't make reasonable progress next year, I'm very worried.

<5>5) Will any of the non-Griffey debuts in 2016 make a big splash in year one? (Hoffman, Wagner, and Edmonds would seem to be the only other guys with a chance at breaking 5%.)</i>

We know Hoffman will do pretty well. Lee Smith is still at 31%, Hoffman has to do at least that well I'd think. What interests me is the Hoffman-Smith dynamic. Smith will look worse with Hoffman on the ballot so Hoffman should steal votes from Smith. But Smith is also in his 14th year and supporters tend to be pretty stubborn when a guy is reaching the end (e.g. Mattingly). Anyway, the question is more what will the total Hoffman + Smith percentage be rather than, strictly speaking, where does Hoffman debut. I expect Hoffman to stall out much like Smith did and not make the HoF but I don't have much faith in that expectation.

I'll early guesstimate that Hoffman will finish between Schilling and Mussina next year.

6) There are six guys on the ballot who have at least a few years of eligibility remaining, who are below the Clemens/Bonds line, but who are in double-digits. They are: Edgar, Jeff Kent, Mussina, Walker, McGriff, and Sheffield. With the new 10-year limit, it is more important than ever to make progress towards 75% early on, if they want to have any chance. Will any of these six players make meaningful progress in 2016, with a ballot that now has a little more breathing room? If you could only vote for one of these six, for whom would you vote?

Mussina will make good progress but am not sure he'll make it in time. Edgar's an interesting case but he was stalled before the glut so he'll keep rising back towards 35%. I don't understand the Kent votes anyway so I'm the wrong guy to ask on that one. The other guys are going nowhere.

7) If I counted this correctly, there were 2,014 votes cast this year that cannot be cast again in 2016 (the four guys that got in, Mattingly, and those that failed to get 5%). Next year, Griffey will probably get 500-540 of those checkmarks. Hoffman, Edmonds, and others will likely get (I dunno) a couple hundred more, total. In theory, there are a lot of ballot slots available for holdover candidates - many of whom would have received votes this year if the 10-man limit was lifted. Who is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of this dynamic?

Easier to think of it as names per ballot I think. The 4 inductees, Mattingly, etc. ate up 3.6 slots out of the 8.4 average so the carry-over is 4.8 which is fairly low. Dag will be more accurate but I would guess that historically, with that carry-over and Griffey and Hoffman joining (Edmonds likely won't matter much), we'd be looking at about 6 names per ballot expectation. Going substnatially abvoe that would be a sign that a lot of voters would have liked to go past 10.

The to beneficiaries will be the top backlog and the SPs. Schilling, Mussina were clearly #11-12 on a number of ballots plus it's just hard to list 5 SPs on a single ballot. Raines will also pick up a lot and Piazza maybe enough to push him over in 2016. The big question will be Bagwell.

To get more specific, we'd probably need to know how many 10-man ballots already featured Piazza, Raines, Bagwell, Schilling and Mussina. For ballots under 10, there's no clear reason to add those guys other than the natural growth of the backlog in a slow year. If Piazza's already on the vast majority if the full ballots then he can't benefit very much from that.
   116. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:05 PM (#4874647)
Mattingly's in the "The Hall of this guy seemed like a sure-fire HOFer til he hit his decline" along with Darryl Strawberry, Dale Murphy, Albert Belle, Bret Saberhagen, Dwight Gooden, and Will Clark.

Jim Rice should be in that Hall.


That hall is probably much larger than the actual one. Others OTTOMH:

Nomar
Dave Parker
Cesar Cedeno
Joe Mauer (maybe too soon)
Juan Gonzalez
Johan Santana
Vida Blue
Timmah


   117. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:06 PM (#4874649)
I'm not sure about that. Phenomenal peak, 2153 hits. Mattingly's peak was insane. For instance, in 1986 he hit thirty one homers and struck out thirty five times, compiling a .967 .OPS while presumably playing above average defense.


Yeah, a 161 OPS+ is a really good season for a corner player.

Of course, in the aforementioned Brian Giles's best season, he hit .298/.450/.622 with essentially twice as many BB as K, which was good for a 177 OPS+. And he got zero votes.
   118. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:07 PM (#4874650)
Has anybody gone from 55ish to election in 2 years?


Larkin went from 51.6 to 86.4 in two years, but it's a lot easier for a guy to do that from Years 1 to 3 than 8 to 10.

   119. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:08 PM (#4874651)
I think it would be a fair bet that at least a good 15% of the voters have "you ####### nerds kept Jack Morris out of the Hall, we will keep your darling Tim Raines out too" club memberships, and at least 10% more just won't see Raines as one of the ten best guys on the next couple ballots. He's not going to get there.
   120. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:14 PM (#4874656)
Griffey still has the backward-hat taint.

   121. Cargo Cultist Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:14 PM (#4874657)
Perfection! Well deserved by all four.
   122. Dale Sams Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:15 PM (#4874658)
re: Next years debates...

I thought "Is Edmonds a HOFer" would get more traction, but I guess not.
   123. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:15 PM (#4874659)
Has anybody gone from 55ish to election in 2 years?


After already having been on the ballot for 8 years? Probably not. But that's basically the election path of Barry Larkin (51.6% in Year 1, 86.4% in Year 3) and Ryne Sandberg (49.2% in Year 1, 76.2% in Year 3). Skimming some guys who hung around a while before election, Dawson's and Blyleven's best 2-year gains were 12% and 14%.

Tony Perez is probably the most optimistic parallel for Raines: he gained 17% in his ninth year on the ballot to go from 60.8% to 77.2% and in (and, similar to Raines, the 60.8% was down from earlier - he had peaked at 67.9% the year before).
   124. bookbook Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:15 PM (#4874660)
I think Raines will get close enough that even the idiotic veterans committee will be inclined to vote him in.

Mussina? Edgar? Not going in.
   125. Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:16 PM (#4874662)
Yeah, a 161 OPS+ is a really good season for a corner player.

Of course, in the aforementioned Brian Giles's best season, he hit .298/.450/.622, which was good for a 177 OPS+. And he got zero votes.


Mattingly's '86 .OPS led baseball by a pretty comfortable margin. I think it was better than a really good season. A player probably hadn't led the league in .OPS and struck out at such a minuscule rate in decades.

Giles was a great hitter. He was also a good hitter for longer than I remember, eyeballing his baseball reference page.
   126. Rally Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:21 PM (#4874666)
I think Griffey could get a really high percentage. He'll be the only first ballot no doubter on the ballot, and thanks to this year's class the ballot is less crowded and strategic voting won't be as much of an issue. I think the steroid crusaders view him as the true homer champ of his era, someone who was well ahead of Bonds age for age until Barry gave into his hate and embraced the dark side.
   127. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:21 PM (#4874667)
Phenomenal peak, 2153 hits. Mattingly's peak was insane.

Mattingly four-year peak WAR of 25. Giles four-year peak WAR of 23.6.

   128. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:22 PM (#4874668)
Has anybody gone from 55ish to election in 2 years?

don sutton debuted in 1994 with 56 percent and was elected in 1998
   129. Al "Battery" Kaline Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:22 PM (#4874669)
Mussina? Edgar? Not going in.

Edgar might be a lost cause, but if enough of the online community pushes Moose (a la Blyleven), it might improve his chances considerably.
   130. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:26 PM (#4874670)
After already having been on the ballot for 8 years?


Duke Snider took 3 years, which Raines doesn't have. Sutter took 3 years from 53.6 in year 10 to election in year 13. Gossage took 3 years from 55.2 in year 6 to election. Tony Perez took 5 years to go from 56 to election. haven't found any longish back loggers to do it in less than 3, though Perez went from 61 to election in one year. Hopefully Bunyon is correct and the now truncated time allotment will help concentrate the voters minds.

edit: Perez is a bit of a fluke though. In 1998 he got 68%, and then got creamed on the loaded 1999 ballot and dropped 7 points. Raines isn't in the same boat.
   131. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:27 PM (#4874672)
Has anybody gone from 55ish to election in 2 years?

duke snider debuted on the ballot in 1970 with 17 percent

hit 55.4 percent in year 8

was inducted in year 11 with 86.5 percent of the vote.

   132. Curse of the Andino Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:27 PM (#4874674)
That hall is probably much larger than the actual one. Others OTTOMH:


Fred Lynn
   133. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:30 PM (#4874675)
2) Is Piazza the only returning candidate with a reasonable shot at getting to 75% in 2016? Will he do it?


Yes. Maybe.

3) Will Raines make a big enough leap in 2016 to be positioned for a final-year election in 2017?


I hope so. If he does +9% again and Piazza gets inducted that is his best case scenario. He has to be over 75% in the Gizmo next year to make it by 2017.

6) There are six guys on the ballot who have at least a few years of eligibility remaining, who are below the Clemens/Bonds line, but who are in double-digits. They are: Edgar, Jeff Kent, Mussina, Walker, McGriff, and Sheffield. With the new 10-year limit, it is more important than ever to make progress towards 75% early on, if they want to have any chance. Will any of these six players make meaningful progress in 2016, with a ballot that now has a little more breathing room? If you could only vote for one of these six, for whom would you vote?


Mike Mussina

7) If I counted this correctly, there were 2,014 votes cast this year that cannot be cast again in 2016 (the four guys that got in, Mattingly, and those that failed to get 5%). Next year, Griffey will probably get 500-540 of those checkmarks. Hoffman, Edmonds, and others will likely get (I dunno) a couple hundred more, total. In theory, there are a lot of ballot slots available for holdover candidates - many of whom would have received votes this year if the 10-man limit was lifted. Who is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of this dynamic?


I'll go with Schilling and/or Mussina. Pretty easy to bump a pitcher when you have Johnson, Smoltz and Pedro on ballot.
   134. JRVJ Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:33 PM (#4874678)
Next year's election will be very interesting, because: 1. We'll finally be able to truly gauge the support of the Schilling's and Mussina's of the world;

2. We'll get a truer idea if the electorate is genuinely willing to vote for multiple candidates (yes, the number of candidates per ballot went up the last 2 years, but that's because you had Maddux-Thomas-Glavine-Pedro-RJ-Smoltz coming on to the ballot).


3. I hope we get 3 inductees AGAIN next year (Griffey Jr. Piazza and Bagwell), but I think it'll be two (Griffey Jr. and Piazza).
   135. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:37 PM (#4874680)
Hoffman is going in first ballot. There, I said it.
   136. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:38 PM (#4874682)
My guess on caps: Unit: Mariners (spent more time with them, came to fame with them)

Johnson would seem be well within the "close enough to let the player choose" category. He had 10 seasons in Seattle to 8 with Arizona, but was much better with the Diamondbacks: better winning percentage (.637/.656), lower ERA (3.42/2.83), far better ERA+ (128/164) and higher WAR (39.3/53.0). Given that he lives in Arizona, it seems almost certain that Johnson would prefer to be depicted as a Diamondback, and the Hall would honor the request.
   137. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:39 PM (#4874683)
Edgar might be a lost cause, but if enough of the online community pushes Moose (a la Blyleven), it might improve his chances considerably.


Mussina could be poised to make a huge jump next year as he goes from the 5th or 6th best starting pitcher on an overstuffed ballot in many voters' eyes to the 2nd or 3rd best starting pitcher and many voters find themselves with 3 or more extra ballot slots to use. I wouldn't be shocked to see Mussina push up near 50% next year, in which case I think he'd be well situated to eventually be elected. That said, I wouldn't be terribly shocked to see him remain stuck below 30%, in which case I would have serious concerns about his chances. With Smoltz having gone in this year, and with Schilling showing some bounceback this year, I think next year is the key year for Mussina - over, say, 40% and he's on his way, under 35% and he's probably not making it.
   138. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:39 PM (#4874684)
Hoffman is going in first ballot. There, I said it.


Smart thinking. That should give you enough time for everyone to have forgotten you did.
   139. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:40 PM (#4874686)
Even with electing 4 this year I still foresee a crowded ballot, I'd have some group out of the following on mine.

Piazza
Bagwell
Raines
Schilling
Clemens
Bonds
Martinez
Trammell
Mussina
Walker
McGwire
Kent
Sosa
Griffey
Edmonds

Count me in for hoping that the lack of first ballot HoFers outside of Griffey gets Bagwell or Raines over the hump to join Jr. and Piazza next season.
   140. Walt Davis Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:42 PM (#4874688)
This makes me think that Bagwell is being hurt by steroids whispers. All the others near the top of the backlog go up by 7.7% to 8.9% - and he puts up at less than half of that. (See my comments in post #86 for what that's odd).

I think this depends on how you look at it. You could also view it this way:

Bonds, Clemens, Schilling all returned to the 2013 totals, almost exactly.
Bagwell is about 3% short of his 2013 totals, Raines is about 3% ahead of his 2013 totals.

Biggio and Piazza were the main/sole beneficiaries of the "top backlog boost", the others were probably mainly just squeezed off the even tougher 2014 ballot then returned to the 2015 ballot. Raines made some real progress but not a lot.

Why Piazza over Bagwell is one I don't have an answer for but I don't see why there would be greater anti-roid sentiment against Bagwell than Piazza. Maybe it took the aged NY contingent a year or two to realize that a Met was on the ballot. :-)

In Ryan's spreadsheet, Piazza was added to 11 ballots and Bagwell to 9. Difference is that Bagwell was dropped by 4 but Piazza just by 2 -- so they were willing to vote Bagwell in the past but not now? That's not likely to be roids-related (not that there is any logical explanation for it.)

Of the 11 that added Piazza, 6 of them voted for Bagwell in 2014 and 2015; 3 of them also added Bagwell; and 2 of them didn't vote for Bagwell in 2014 or 2015. Of the other 7 Bagwell adds, 6 of them were already Piazza voters and 1 did not vote for Piazza in 2014 or 2015.

Now it's clear the published voters are more "forgiving" of PED usage than the unpublished but both fell off by about the same amount there.

Obviously being at 55% with 5 ballots to go is not great for Bagwell. But you know HoF history better than I do ... isn't not losing substantial ground after facing 6 easy first-balloters plus Biggio's expected climb to 80-ish% plus Mussina about as good as we could have expected?

Piazza's substantial progress in the face of that I think is the more unusual event but maybe I'm wrong.
   141. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:45 PM (#4874690)
Griffey still has the backward-hat taint.


You'd think he could find a surgeon to fix that by now.
   142. Walt Davis Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:52 PM (#4874694)
Following on, when I want a precedent for 2014, the 1999 ballot (Ryan, Brett, Yount, Fisk) is the one that springs to mind. That year, Perez lost 7%, Carter 8% and Rice a staggering 13%. That's reasonably similar to what we saw from 2013 to 2014 except that Piazza and Biggio actually made some progress -- Morris down 6, Bagwell down 5, Raines down 6, Smith down 18.

Morris leaving the ballot saved the day or we'd have likely have seen very little progress in the backlog.

In 2000, with nobody major entering the ballot, Fisk sailed over, Perez jumped 17% to election, Rice 22%, Carter 16%. I doubt it will be that good but hopefully we'll see something like that in 2016. I'll guess voters will go pretty heavy for one of Bagwell or Raines (10+ % climb) but not both. Trends would suggest they'll go for Raines over Bagwell but those trends aren't very strong.
   143. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 06, 2015 at 04:56 PM (#4874700)
That's just the way it crumbles, cookie-wise.

Nice work, Buddy Boy.



The BBWAA to its critics: "Shut up and deal."
   144. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:10 PM (#4874706)
Griffey still has the backward-hat taint.

Not to mention being an early user of "nerve tonic" PED's.
   145. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:10 PM (#4874707)
Hoffman is going in first ballot. There, I said it.


The support for part time pitchers is just ridiculous.
   146. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:12 PM (#4874708)
Why Piazza over Bagwell is one I don't have an answer for

I think they both should be no-brainers, but I'd also imagine that "greatest hitting catcher of all time" is a one liner that would make Piazza a more obvious selection in the eyes of more than a few voters.
   147. Walt Davis Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:14 PM (#4874709)
1. We'll finally be able to truly gauge the support of the Schilling's and Mussina's of the world;

I think we got a good gauge on Schilling in 2013. It should have been a crowded ballot but not top-heavy as it turned out, quite low names per ballot, no major SP competition other than Morris. What I think we'll start seeing is how Schilling would have progressed if not for the incredible 2014-15 SP-heavy wave. That he withstood that and is at 2013 totals already I think is very encouraging for eventual induction but it's gonna take at least 3, more likely 4 years to get him there ... and that's when you start running into some tough ballots again.

2. We'll get a truer idea if the electorate is genuinely willing to vote for multiple candidates (yes, the number of candidates per ballot went up the last 2 years, but that's because you had Maddux-Thomas-Glavine-Pedro-RJ-Smoltz coming on to the ballot).

That it went up this year amazes me although I suppose it mainly means the voters who dropped out were mainly small-ballot types. We will of course see a big drop next year but the backlog is fairly small. I'm thinking anything approaching 6.5 means reasonable to good progress for the backlog. (Hoffman-Smith wild card).

3. I hope we get 3 inductees AGAIN next year (Griffey Jr. Piazza and Bagwell), but I think it'll be two (Griffey Jr. and Piazza).

1 (with Piazza at something like 74.5%) or 2. Raines probably has a better chance than Bagwell over the next two years.

On the big gainers: I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Raines will pull a Sandbarg-Larkin ... took the BBWAA a while to get around to it, but he is that type of player and he's facing weak-ish ballots the next two years. So they're good comps despite the ballot time differences. The Sutter-Gossage pair were special cases I think -- the BBWAA hadn't really decided yet if they were gonna induct closers. Then they inducted Eck easily. Once it was established that closers were worthy, those two made rapid progress. There's of course never been a question of whether players of Raines's "type" should be elected.



   148. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:18 PM (#4874713)
The support for part time pitchers is just ridiculous.

some day all pitchers will be part-time. one of the boons of being old as dirt is that i won't be around to see larussa's fantasy world come to life where pitchers rotate in and out willy-nilly as the rules are changed to allow for numerous re-entries.

i am typically accepting of change but that is not an experience i wish to have. seeing the rick honeycutts pitch to a batter in the 1st, 4th and 9th innings.

   149. Morty Causa Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:23 PM (#4874716)
And games will go on forever like in Cricket.
   150. Tony S Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:32 PM (#4874720)

Just caught the Pedro clip on mlb. What a credit to baseball he was -- and is.

Congrats to the four inductees.

   151. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:36 PM (#4874723)
Just caught the Pedro clip on mlb. What a credit to baseball he was -- and is.

Congrats to the four inductees.


It's kind of cool knowing that a few of these guys were probably over here checking on their progress, as Pedro and Smoltz hinted at.
   152. Curse of the Andino Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:44 PM (#4874729)
Just caught the Pedro clip on mlb. What a credit to baseball he was -- and is.


It's on the website.
   153. base ball chick Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:44 PM (#4874731)
biggio is FINALLY IN!!!!!

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

now, to get bagwell in
   154. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:46 PM (#4874733)
The support for part time pitchers is just ridiculous.

I miss the days where each team had one pitcher. Men were men.
   155. Tony S Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:53 PM (#4874739)
Biggio is the first unambiguous Astro in the Hall of Fame. Astros fans have Spec Richardson to thank for it taking so long...

He still weightlifts? Cool.
   156. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:54 PM (#4874740)
Last Thomas came out and said that that's what he was doing, checking the Gizmo, that is.
   157. alilisd Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:56 PM (#4874741)
151: Yes it is!
   158. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:58 PM (#4874742)
My "feels like a HOFer" meter must work a lot differently than lots of peoples'. I suspect that's largely the basis for much of the HOF voting, and Trevor Hoffman never, ever, felt like a HOF to me. He was more like, well, Omar Vizquel. (Someone else who will probably get unreasonable HOF support some day.)
   159. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:59 PM (#4874745)
Vizquel just might get elected. I certainly think he will stick on the ballot the full ten years at the very least.
   160. Howie Menckel Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:01 PM (#4874746)

"Vizquel just might get elected. I certainly think he will stick on the ballot the full ten years at the very least."

I'll take the under on the latter.
   161. AndrewJ Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:03 PM (#4874747)
Giles challenges Jim Wynn for best 0-vote guy ever?


Ken Singleton says hi.
   162. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:07 PM (#4874748)
Rapid rises in two years:

Luis Aparicio:
41.9% to 84.6% - 1982 to 1984 (and in 1981 he was at 12.0%)

Pete Alexander:
24.3% to 80.9% (1936-38. Yeah, yeah - I know. But still, it happened)

Luke Appling:
26.8% to 70.6% - and then entered in a runoff (1960-64 - but they had elections only ever two years then, so it was over three elections)

Lou Boudreau:
51.6% to 77.3% 1968-70

Gary Carter ALMOST makes it. From 49.7% to 72.7% in two years. Raines is higher than 49.7%, so it is actually really similar. Both are backloggers in the 21st century. Carter needed another year, though.

Mickey Cochrane:
50.6% to 79.5% from 1945-7

Joe Cronin:
33.7% to 78.8% 1954-56. Look, the lesson here is that it happened A LOT back in the day. See also: Joe DiMaggio, Jimmie Foxx, Frankie Frisch, Hank Greenberg, Lefty Grove, Gabby Hartnett, Harry Heilmann, Rogers Hornsby, Carl Hubbell, Wee Willie Keeler, Ted Lyons, Rabbit Maranville, Herb Pennock is a real doozy if you want to look it up, Al Simmons, George Sisler, Pie Traynor, Dazzy Vance, Paul Waner,

Anyhow - here are more recent guys than the gaggle listed above:

Don Drysdale:
56.1% to 78.4% 1982-4

Rich Gossage is similar to Carter, but less extreme. From 55.2% to 85.8% in three years, but over two years it was just from 55.2% to 71.2%.

Catfish Hunter:
53.7% to 76.3% from 1985-7

Fergie Jenkins:
52.3% to 75.4% from 1989-91

Harmon Killebrew:
59.3% to 83.1% from 1982-84

Ralph Kiner in ONE YEAR went from 58.9% to 75.4%. And 75.4% came in his 15th year of eligibility

Barry Larkin
51.6% to 86.4% - 2010-12

Bob Lemon:
52.1% to 78.6% - 1974-76

Juan Marichal:
58.1% to 83.7% - 1981-83

Eddie Mathews:
48.7% to 79.4% - 1976-78

Not quite as much, but Phil Niekro: 62.2% to 80.3% - 1995-97

In ONE year Tony Perez went from 60.8% to 77.2% - 1999-2000. (but he was at 67.9% in 1998)

Ryne Sandberg
49.2% to 76.2% - 2003-05

Bruce Sutter:
59.5% to 76.9% - 2004-06

Billy Williams ALMOST qualifies: 50.1% to 74.1% from 1984-86. Then in via the '87 election

Early Wynn
46.7% to 76.0% - 1970-72

That's it.

Look, its mostly older guys -- even among the guys I just listed, it's mostly 1970s/80s - but you still get some recent impressive reasons, even from backloggers like Gary Carter.

The odds for Raines getting in via the VC are still long, but he's got some things going for him: 1) the last two ballots have been STACKED - as crowded as any in decades. By that, I don't mean what we think of them, but what the BBWAA thinks of them. They've had more jam-packed ballots in 2014-15 than any time in decades. Upshot: with a weaker crop of newbies arriving next year, Raines should see a serious rise.

2) Assuming that Piazza goes in 2016, Raines should be the backlogger in 2017, and that helps all the more.

3) There is no one like him on the ballot. Oh, the only serious non-slugger guy with lots of SB on the ballot is Craig Biggio. He's now in, so Raines is even more distinctive.

There is a credible reason to think Raines will reach the upper 60s in 2016. If he does that, he's a legitimate threat to make it in 2017. He might still fall short, but if he's around 70%, then the VC will have a hard time saying "no" to him.

   163. The District Attorney Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:07 PM (#4874749)
Vizquel just might get elected.
This will be a helluva interesting one. I will say this... I've seen a good number of writers discuss Vizquel as a Hall of Fame shoo-in... and I think Smoltz just showed us that that in and of itself means a lot.

Ken Singleton says hi.
You wanna give me something a little more substantial than that?
   164. Greg K Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:15 PM (#4874753)
Seriously though, Delgado is a bat only 1B with two, arguably, better bat only 1B on the ballot, McGriff and McGwire, plus an undoubtedly better 1B in Bagwell, and that's not even considering the odd voters who might say Mattingly was better. It's not a travesty at all he's one and done. Honestly, where would you place him among 1B just of his era? Would he make the top 10?

Yeah, I love Delgado, but he's not a Hall of Famer so I don't see why it's a travesty for him to not remain on the ballot. Especially when this year is so jam-packed with strong candidates.

I think he deserves to be remembered as a very good player, and historically speaking guys of that class certainly can hang around the ballot for years posing no real threat of gaining entry. But I'd have a hard time telling any of the voters this year "you should have voted for Delgado".
   165. . Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:19 PM (#4874758)
It's kind of cool knowing that a few of these guys were probably over here checking on their progress, as Pedro and Smoltz hinted at.

Very cool.
   166. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:21 PM (#4874759)
Mattingly's '86 .OPS led baseball by a pretty comfortable margin. I think it was better than a really good season. A player probably hadn't led the league in .OPS and struck out at such a minuscule rate in decades.

Giles was a great hitter. He was also a good hitter for longer than I remember, eyeballing his baseball reference page.

You would have to go back from 1986 all the way back to the ancient times of 1980, where George Brett led the AL with an OPS+ of 203, while striking out 22 times. Between then and Mattingly's 86, he led the AL in OPS+ 2 more times, striking out 39 and 49 times in those.
   167. Greg K Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:22 PM (#4874761)
You wanna give me something a little more substantial than that?

I've got them ranked Wynn, Giles, Singleton, Giles being closer to Wynn than Singleton.

Who are other guys that fell off after one year? Just guesses here but...
How did Jack Clark or Ellis Burks do in their first year?
J.D. Drew will be interesting...he's absolutely not going to survive a year on the ballot, so a lot depends on how you rank him. Though even the most generous of us would have him below Giles.
   168. toratoratora Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:23 PM (#4874762)
Bagwell has two man issues. The first is steroids. The second is position bias. I say this because he doesn't have the traditional career counting stats mainstream Hof voters look for in a 1b. No 500 HR, no 3000 hits, no mass hr titles.
Which is kind of crazy because a closer look at his stats shows something different. First, despite having a pretty short career at 15 seasons, he was durable within it,playing in over 156 games ten times. He scored 100 runs nine times, leading the league twice. He hit over 40 doubles thrice and hit thirty doubles ten times.He hit over 40 homers three times, 30 six more and 20 twice. To top it off, he drove in 100+ eight times.
Those are HoF numbers.
Guys named McCovey, Mize, Murray, Cepeda and Greenberg never reached those numbers*. Killebrew had more power but didn't score runs nearly as close and drove in 100 less times. Basically, unless your name is Pujols, Foxx, Musial or Gehrig, there are no better traditional stat guys than Bags.

* I recognize that many of these guys had factors that worked against them, WW2, the 60s deadball era, but they are pretty much the big dogs at 1b in the HoF when it comes to power hitting so I'm using them as a point of comparison
   169. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:25 PM (#4874765)
Griffey is going to be nowhere close to the all-time record. I'm 32 and I can barely remember when he wasn't a perpetually injured Cincinnati Red.
   170. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:27 PM (#4874767)
Also, I thought this announcement was going to be about six weeks from now. It seems like the last few years there was a lot more discussion about who was voting for whom.

Maybe because this year it was so obvious that it wasn't going to be a complete disaster with nobody going in, we were less interested in pointing out all the idiot writers and celebrating the writers who get it right.
   171. DanG Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:31 PM (#4874769)
Giles challenges Jim Wynn for best 0-vote guy ever?


Ken Singleton says hi.


Frank Tanana is another one for this discussion. Or Willie Davis, who wasn't even allowed on the ballot.
   172. JJ1986 Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:31 PM (#4874770)
I'm 32 and I can barely remember when he wasn't a perpetually injured Cincinnati Red.


There was also the time when he was a sleepy bench player.
   173. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:35 PM (#4874772)
Three things:

- The difference between Smoltz and Vizquel is that Smoltz is actually well qualified for the hall of fame.

- Delgado isn't an outrage. It's unfortunate for him sure, but would anyone here have put him on their ballot? He's a guy who falls short of what it takes to get into the hall of fame who happened to hit the ballot at a particularly inauspicious time.

- As for Mattingly's strikeouts: what's the big deal? In 1986 he got on base at a .396 rate while striking out 35 times. Four guys were more efficient in avoiding making outs than Mattingly was. They all struck out more than he did. But so what? They made their outs in different ways, but they were still better than he was in avoiding outs. (And one of them was Phil Bradley who...was better than I remembered.)

Also, a fourth thing: BB-R already has 2015 vote totals on player pages. Sean is amazing.

   174. Ray K Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:37 PM (#4874773)
Bagwell has two man issues. The first is steroids. The second is position bias. I say this because he doesn't have the traditional career counting stats mainstream Hof voters look for in a 1b. No 500 HR, no 3000 hits, no mass hr titles.


I agree completely.

I think there's a real 50/50-ish chance that Bagwell actually never gets in through the front door.
   175. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:38 PM (#4874775)
Luis Aparicio:
41.9% to 84.6% - 1982 to 1984 (and in 1981 he was at 12.0%)


That obvious clerical error has been fixed. BNREF now has him at 37
   176. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:39 PM (#4874776)
On Vizquel, I'll say the same thing I've said for quite a while: No position-player BBWAA selectee in the MVP-voting era has had anything resembling the utter lack of MVP voting support that Vizquel received in his career. He got 3 MVP voting points in 1999, and never received a vote in any other season. Just as a sample comparison, Biggio was chronically underrated by MVP voters throughout his prime, and still ended up with three top-10 finishes and 1.02 MVP shares overall. Ozzie Smith, the player to whom Vizquel's supporters will compare him, got votes in 6 seasons and had a second-place finish; his 0.65 MVP shares are one of the lowest totals ever for a writers' selection, and he beats Vizquel by 0.64.

Heck, look at the pitchers even. Despite the fact that they have their own award, thereby spurring some MVP voters to ignore them entirely, the only BBWAA-selected pitcher in the last 50 years of elections to have drawn as little MVP support as Vizquel is the notoriously-peakless Don Sutton, and even he got Cy Young votes 5 years in a row. Bert Blyleven got MVP votes in two seasons despite being generally ignored most of the time. And everyone else is solidly higher.

It's not necessarily impossible for Vizquel to get in via the writers - but it would be unprecedented. (The VC, on the other hand, I could easily see picking him. But nobody every has any idea what those guys are going to do.)
   177. Danny Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:43 PM (#4874781)
I've got them ranked Wynn, Giles, Singleton, Giles being closer to Wynn than Singleton.

I was wondering what this had to do with Frank Tanana.

Amos Otis was the same year as Singleton.

Mark Langston is part of the 50 WAR / 0 votes club.
   178. Baldrick Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:56 PM (#4874786)
Which is kind of crazy because a closer look at his stats shows something different. First, despite having a pretty short career at 15 seasons, he was durable within it,playing in over 156 games ten times. He scored 100 runs nine times, leading the league twice. He hit over 40 doubles thrice and hit thirty doubles ten times.He hit over 40 homers three times, 30 six more and 20 twice. To top it off, he drove in 100+ eight times.

Those arguments do a pretty good job of showing why he hasn't been elected yet. Much more than they show the opposite.

I mean, I know Bagwell was great, and if I dig into the numbers and start comparing, it's easy to understand why he accumulated so much value. But his number don't look that impressive.

I mean, thirty doubles, ten times. Is that a lot? I guess it is, but it doesn't immediately strike me as being so. It's the same number of times as Garret Anderson and John Olerud and Jeff Kent to name a few contemporaries that don't exactly scream "HOF slugger!" For comparison, Biggio did it fourteen times, Tris Speaker sixteen. And if you do look deeper, you probably also notice that Bagwell is 67th in career doubles, which is not particularly high.

Then, you have a slugging first baseman in the sluggingest era only cleared 40 homers three times? That doesn't seem impressive either. Same number of times as Andres Galarraga, Jay Buhner, Shawn Green, and Greg Vaughn.

The Runs thing is actually the most impressive to me. Regularly scoring a ton of runs as a slugger is tough. But the HOF voters just don't seem to care very much about Runs, especially if you're not a table-setter. The typical 'run-scorer' is someone like a Chuck Knoblauch or Ray Durham. That Bagwell outscored them is in fact significant, but I am not remotely surprised that the voters haven't jumped on that fact.

Again, I'm not saying Bagwell wasn't great. He definitely was. But his greatness is exactly the sort that tends to be under-recognized by the HOF voters. He was very good at every aspect of the game, including defense, but wasn't outstanding at any one thing. A guy who can hit for high average and knock a bunch of doubles and a bunch of home runs AND walk a ton is an incredibly valuable hitter. But he doesn't impress the same way a less balanced slugger might.
   179. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 06, 2015 at 07:20 PM (#4874793)
It's kind of cool knowing that a few of these guys were probably over here checking on their progress, as Pedro and Smoltz hinted at.

Very cool.


Do you think they'll come back to check on us gushing about them?
   180. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 06, 2015 at 07:23 PM (#4874794)
Then, you have a slugging first baseman in the sluggingest era only cleared 40 homers three times? That doesn't seem impressive either. Same number of times as Andres Galarraga, Jay Buhner, Shawn Green, and Greg Vaughn.


Well, he also hit 39 three times, which is 3 more times than those other 4 combined. If he hit 3 more career HR perfectly placed, would he be in the HOF today?
   181. Walt Davis Posted: January 06, 2015 at 07:28 PM (#4874797)
#178 ... the easier way to get there is to note that McGriff has more hits, HR and RBI than Bagwell. Given it's the BBWAA, I'm happy they at least recognize that Bagwell was far superior.

I was gonna mention Chet Lemon ... which I just did ... but somebody did toss him one vote. I'm kinda stunned Bando and Bell got a few.

Annoying ... there's no WAA leader board. Anybody want to concoct WAA - votes?
   182. MelOtt4 Posted: January 06, 2015 at 07:37 PM (#4874800)
It's kind of cool knowing that a few of these guys were probably over here checking on their progress, as Pedro and Smoltz hinted at.

Very cool.


Harold Reynolds won't be happy.

It wouldn't surprise me if the number of max ballot guys who lost four names declines this year. Especially the ones who won't include Bonds and Clemens.

   183. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: January 06, 2015 at 07:49 PM (#4874805)
Shoulda been 6. Bags and Piazza. Travesty. ####### holier than thou scumbag sportswriters.


The dreaded taint strikes again!
   184. Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric Posted: January 06, 2015 at 08:10 PM (#4874816)
You would have to go back from 1986 all the way back to the ancient times of 1980, where George Brett led the AL with an OPS+ of 203, while striking out 22 times. Between then and Mattingly's 86, he led the AL in OPS+ 2 more times, striking out 39 and 49 times in those.


A Hall of Famer... I rest my case! :)

Seriously though, with respect to my glib post, here's some excerpts I pulled from Sports Illustrated about mid-eighties Mattingly:

(On the '85 season) "Mattingly also became the first American League player to lead the majors in doubles two years in a row since Tris Speaker did so from 1920 to '23."

(on the '85 season) "And with only 41 strikeouts in 652 at bats, Mattingly became the first major league player since Ted Williams (1957) to homer 30 times or more while fanning 50 times or less."

Does he deserve extra credit for playing under Steinbrenner?

-- When that hit the newsstands, it unleashed this Steinbrenner tirade: "If he's tired of working out, that's too damned bad. He ought to get a real job, be a taxi driver or steelworker and find out what life and hard work are all about. I'm getting fed up with his attitude. Last year I thought he was the all-American boy, but now I'm not so sure." --

ha ha, Ok, back to stats:

(on the '86 season) That 30th homer meant that he had become the first American Leaguer ever to get 230 hits, 100 RBIs and 30 home runs. The triple has been accomplished on six occasions in the NL, but the last time -- by Stan Musial -- was 38 years ago.


I'm not arguing Mattingly is a Hall of Famer! And I do think Giles had a better overall career. But a peak vote for Mattingly isn't completely crazy. Especially if you buy into him being a strong defender. Fangraphs does not think so -- but his contemporaries raved about his defense.

I don't normally care about strikeouts either, but when a guy is combining elite contact rate with elite power, I believe that to be historically significant. Not even in terms of player value, perhaps -- just in terms of it being damn impressive.
   185. MelOtt4 Posted: January 06, 2015 at 08:12 PM (#4874817)
I'm curious how people feel about Manny Ramirez? How many pro Bonds and Clemens people would support Ramirez and how many would not?
   186. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 06, 2015 at 08:27 PM (#4874823)
I'm curious how people feel about Manny Ramirez? How many pro Bonds and Clemens people would support Ramirez and how many would not?

I'd think Manny's vote would be well below that of Bonds & Clemens. He wasn't as elite a player, and Manny failed multiple PED tests, while Bonds & Clemens alleged transgressions came during the ambiguous era before testing, and the evidence of their misdeeds is largely hearsay, rumor and sources that may have some credibility problems. Manny may get enough votes to stay on the ballot from those who regard PEDs as similar to amphetamines, but that appears to be a relatively small group of voters.
   187. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: January 06, 2015 at 08:31 PM (#4874827)
Manny was an elite player from his days in Cleveland through at least 2007.
   188. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: January 06, 2015 at 08:36 PM (#4874828)
YC, you're out of your tree. I just looked at Manny's BBREF page. His most similars are all HOFer's, except Sheffield. Griffey, Thome, Pujols and C Jones should all sail in to the Hall.

edit... the rest are already in, and most are inner circle guys.
   189. asinwreck Posted: January 06, 2015 at 08:45 PM (#4874832)

Not to mention being an early user of "nerve tonic" PED's.

I eagerly await him opening his induction speech with "there's a party in my mouth, and everyone's invited!"
   190. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 06, 2015 at 08:53 PM (#4874837)
Manny was an elite player from his days in Cleveland through at least 2007.

I said Manny wasn't as elite as Bonds & Clemens, which really shouldn't be controversial. By WAR, Bonds is #4 all-time, Clemens #8, and Manny is #105. Those numbers and the fact that Ramirez was caught in the testing ere are likely to make his vote closer to Palmeiro than Bonds & Clemens.
   191. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 06, 2015 at 08:56 PM (#4874839)
I'm curious how people feel about Manny Ramirez? How many pro Bonds and Clemens people would support Ramirez and how many would not?

Manny broke a rule. Roger and Barry did not.

I have no problem with the bright red 2006 line, the problem is the retroactive advocacy. Pete Rose deserved to take a bigger hit for gambling than King Kelly would've if he'd made the identical series of bets. Our Founding Fathers may or may not have stood tall for net neutrality or Uzi submachine guns, but either way, that's simply not how it was then, no matter how much it flatters us to pretend otherwise.
   192. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2015 at 08:58 PM (#4874840)
YC, you're out of your tree. I just looked at Manny's BBREF page. His most similars are all HOFer's, except Sheffield. Griffey, Thome, Pujols and C Jones should all sail in to the Hall.

edit... the rest are already in, and most are inner circle guys.


Manny Ramirez has "elite" raw batting statistics, compiled during the most batting-friendly era of anybody here's lifetime and he brings nothing else to the table. He has a lower career WAR than 9 of his 10 BB-Ref most similars, the exception being Gary Sheffield, who is by far the closest actual match in value - played in the same offense-friendly environment, same indifferent or worse fielding. I'm not an anti-steroid absolutist and so might be willing to put him near the bottom of my hypothetical ballot if I had room (although I actually tend to look more harshly on use since testing made it more explicitly illegal), but with the BBWAA his upside is matching Gary Sheffield.
   193. alilisd Posted: January 06, 2015 at 08:59 PM (#4874841)
And if you do look deeper, you probably also notice that Bagwell is 67th in career doubles, which is not particularly high.


Wait, what? Being in the top 100 for a significant category like career doubles, out of the approximately 9,000 or so position players to have played the game, isn't particularly high? I'd say it's exceptionally high; it's also higher than the average HOF hitter.
   194. alilisd Posted: January 06, 2015 at 09:06 PM (#4874844)
Manny Ramirez has "elite" raw batting statistics, compiled during the most batting-friendly era of anybody here's lifetime and he brings nothing else to the table.


I won't disagree he's little more than a bat, but, IMO, it was a pretty elite bat, raw or adjusted. His 5 year peak (1999 to 2003) OPS+ is 172, and an 11 year prime (1999 to 2009) of 162. How much better do you have to be to be considered elite?
   195. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 06, 2015 at 09:18 PM (#4874851)
How much better do you have to be to be considered elite?


But the question is how much better do you have to be to be considered as elite as Barry Bonds, who had a fifteen year peak OPS+ of 199.
   196. The Duke Posted: January 06, 2015 at 09:26 PM (#4874855)
I think Manny Ramirez was a great hitter. A super great hitter. Aided by steroids, however, and so indifferent to other aspects of the game (in particular) defense, that even his own teammates got on him.

Steroids keeps him out especially since it was in the post-testing period and defensive indifference will drop him below 5% on the first or second ballot.

   197. Baldrick Posted: January 06, 2015 at 09:26 PM (#4874857)
Wait, what? Being in the top 100 for a significant category like career doubles, out of the approximately 9,000 or so position players to have played the game, isn't particularly high? I'd say it's exceptionally high; it's also higher than the average HOF hitter.

For a 1B/DH type, who people are suggesting is a slam-dunk HOFer, no it's not particularly high.

Guys around Bagwell on the career doubles list include Harold Baines, Lou Brock, Hal McRae, Vada Pinson, Jimmy Rollins, Torii Hunter, John Olerud, and Mark Grace. Not bad company by any means. And you'll also find some genuinely great players there (Ruth, Rickey!, Frank Thomas). But generally speaking, 488 doubles doesn't indicate a top-level hitter.

Of course, as I said, hitting that many doubles is definitely an indicator of a very good player. And when you combine it with a bunch of other things he was also very good at, you get a slam-dunk guy. But you have to actually put all that stuff together. There isn't any clear hook for selling Bagwell. Which seems to be part of why much of the electorate is treating him more like Tony Perez than Lou Gehrig. Unfairly, but also understandably, I think.

Sidenote: did everyone else know that Luis Gonzalez was 15th all time in doubles? Wow.
   198. Jonah Keri Posted: January 06, 2015 at 09:51 PM (#4874864)
More great stuff, thanks for the intel, guys. Actually planning to link to one specific post in this thread for my piece today. Say I wanted to link to #162, what's the coding I would use for that?

Thanks!
   199. Walt Davis Posted: January 06, 2015 at 09:59 PM (#4874867)
On Vizquel, I'll say the same thing I've said for quite a while: No position-player BBWAA selectee in the MVP-voting era has had anything resembling the utter lack of MVP voting support that Vizquel received in his career.

A fair point. Countering that is that the BBWAA has always been quite kind to excellent-fielding SS and, by GG, he's nearly Ozzie's equal. Countering that is that Ozzie is the current standard and nobody thinks he was as good as Ozzie.

Concepcion is the best recent comp. He got more MVP love than Vizquel (he finished 4th once, I guess because he hit 300) but not much. Stayed on all 15 years but never a factor. My gut tells me Vizquel will do a bit better than Concepcion but also won't matter much. Depends somewhat on who's left and where they're at but, at best, Edgar-style vote is my guess.

I just looked at Manny's BBREF page. His most similars are all HOFer's, except Sheffield.

The old school sim scores often aren't very good but definitely relevantly, they are offense only. Without steroid taint, of course Manny goes in. But he wasn't Bonds equal in any sense, he wasn't as popular as McGwire, the writers didn't like him, he didn't break any records, he has perceived personality issues, etc. So given the failed tests, I don't see why I'd expect him to do better than Palmeiro, Sheff, Sosa.

And I don't have a problem with voters penalizing post-testing violators in some manner. I don't think "if you ever used, you're not going in" makes sense -- and if that was supposed to be the case, the HoF should just declare them ineligible -- but it is clearly a violation of the rules (and there clearly is an ethics clause in the HoF voting guidelines), the 2nd most severe violation next to gambling, and he cost his teams 150 games. I'd still support somebody like Bonds under those circumstances but I'm not sure I'd support Manny and, since my ballot's still crowded, I'd leave him off in 2016.

   200. toratoratora Posted: January 06, 2015 at 10:07 PM (#4874869)
bbaldrick-While I agree with your points in #178, I was trying to demonstrate that by the typical historical standards of Hof power hitting 1b, Bagwell more than passes the line when it comes to traditional stats such as 100 runs, rbi's et al that tend to sway voters.
I didn't even go bottom feeding and select examples like Perez or Sunny Jim. I tried to use medium to good power hitting 1b. Jeff is significant drop down from the big dogs of Gehrig, Foxx, Musial, and Pujols but he has to be the fourth best power hitting 1b of all time.
Heck, by the measures I used (Traditional stats runs, 2b, HR, RBI)the guy closest to him is the Big Hurt, a bat only player who made it quickly. Toss in speed and a good glove and he should be in like Flynn
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

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
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDOES DAVE STIEB DESERVE ANOTHER CHANCE AT THE HALL OF FAME?
(13 - 2:09am, Sep 15)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOT - NBA thread (Playoffs through off-season)
(6715 - 1:39am, Sep 15)
Last: Booey

Gonfalon CubsTaking the current temperature
(383 - 1:37am, Sep 15)
Last: Walks Clog Up the Bases

NewsblogAt 43, Lew Ford's Never-Ending Career Keeps Rolling as Player-Coach
(6 - 1:17am, Sep 15)
Last: Itchy Row

NewsblogRed Sox on track for $13M luxury tax despite mediocre record
(2 - 1:13am, Sep 15)
Last: Itchy Row

NewsblogJustin Upton Done For Season | MLBT
(8 - 1:11am, Sep 15)
Last: Davo

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for the weekend of September 14-15, 2019
(22 - 12:55am, Sep 15)
Last: QLE

NewsblogOT - August/September 2019 College Football thread
(318 - 12:41am, Sep 15)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogHow many bad teams would it take to beat the Astros, Dodgers or Yankees?
(7 - 10:45pm, Sep 14)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - A New Season is Upon Baldrick
(768 - 10:41pm, Sep 14)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogRookie infielder Donnie Walton was the 65th player the Mariners used this season.
(8 - 10:31pm, Sep 14)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogReport: Las Vegas also inquired about Arizona Diamondbacks
(7 - 8:22pm, Sep 14)
Last: My name is RMc and I feel extremely affected

NewsblogOMNICHATTER needs two tickets to paradise, for Sept. 13, 2019
(55 - 4:54pm, Sep 14)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogJustin Verlander, Gerrit Cole put on the greatest pitching show in baseball
(19 - 3:25pm, Sep 14)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogTheo Epstein speaks for all Cubs fans as he sums up the frustrating season to date
(44 - 12:38pm, Sep 14)
Last: Tin Angel

Page rendered in 0.8443 seconds
46 querie(s) executed