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

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Phil Rogers: Controversy accompanies Hall of Fame ballot

The complete, partial, full, something-or-another, eyeball tested, Phil Rogers HOF ballot.

The Hall of Fame ballot is out today, and the list of great players on it is so long that I honestly don’t know what I’m going to do with mine when it arrives in the brown envelope from Cooperstown, N.Y.

I could frame it. I could return it. I could throw it in the trash can and walk away defeated, as I once did with a Rubik’s Cube. 

...I voted for seven players last year, including Barry Larkin and Bert Blyleven, who got in. I will probably vote again for Morris, Raines, Bagwell, Trammell and Walker. I’ll re-examine my non-vote on Smith (he got 50.6 percent of the vote last year), and then weigh the new candidates. I’m most likely to vote for Clemens, Biggio, Schilling and Piazza.

Even throwing out Palmeiro, McGwire, Bonds and Sosa, it will be tough to narrow my list of deserving candidates to 10. Imagine how tough it will be this time next year, when Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine and Mike Mussina head the list of first-timers.

Repoz Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:04 PM | 111 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. JRVJ Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4311528)
Ballotgeddon. I, for one, had hoped that Morris would have gotten elected last year, to get him off this crazy ballot.
   2. JJ1986 Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:21 PM (#4311550)
Poor Sammy.
   3. Repoz Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4311553)
Non-voter Chet Coppock chimes in...

gee, , swell.....sosa, clemens and barry bonds are on this year's hall of fame ballot.,.i wouldn't vote for any of these cheats
   4. DanG Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4311562)
24 new candidates, a record number passed through by the screening committee.

And the man who isn't there...

FREE EL DUQUE!!
   5. LargeBill Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4311574)
This guy complains how difficult it will be picking just ten this year and then whines that next year will be even worse but he is too obtuse to realize his behavior (and that of voters like him) will play a key roll in creating the log jam he's decrying.

   6. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:43 PM (#4311576)
Poor Sammy


Does he even get to 5%? Steroid absolutists and steroid discounters will pretty much all leave him off (based on virtually no evidence), which puts him down in Palmeiro/McGwire land as an absolute ceiling (10-20%). But using Rogers' hypothetical ballot as a starting point, even if you throw Morris off his ballot and vote no on Smith, his ballot's 8 deep without any steroid users (but w/ Clemens - kind of interesting). Add Bonds and he has one free slot and Palmeiro, McGwire, and Sosa are all fighting for it (along with guys like Edgar Martinez, McGriff, Murphy, Lofton). I could see both Sosa and Palmeiro ending up under 5%.
   7. philly Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4311589)
This guy complains how difficult it will be picking just ten this year and then whines that next year will be even worse but he is too obtuse to realize his behavior (and that of voters like him) will play a key roll in creating the log jam he's decrying.


That's not really fair. He voted for 7 guys last year - and mostly good choices - and plans to vote for his 5 holdovers and a few more apparently.

He's doing what he can to get guys in. It's the voters who look at a list of high quality candidates and only vote for 0-3 players for whatever reasons that are causing the logjam.
   8. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4311629)
Yeah, I'm not really sure how the voters can get around this logjam. About the only way to do it would be for all to agree who is and isn't a HoFer and vote accordingly and if you can do that there is no point to voting. If you are a voter who thinks there is a logjam you probably aren't the problem. If you are some guy who only puts 1 or 2 names on the ballot each year, something I doubt any voter does, then you aren't going to think a logjam exists.
   9. Booey Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4311650)
They could literally vote in 5 players a year for the next six years at least without even having to make any bad Morris/Lee type of choices. Crazy sauce.

Of course, if they'd just listened to me and voted in Bagwell, Trammell, Raines, McGwire, Palmeiro, McGriff, Walker, and Martinez when they first became eligible, they wouldn't have so big of a problem now...
   10. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4311651)
some guy who only puts 1 or 2 names on the ballot each year, something I doubt any voter does


If I did my math right there were an average of 5.1 names per ballot last year (2,921 votes/573 ballots). Just thinking of it from a bell curve standpoint I wouldn't be surprised if 20-30 people had 2 or fewer names on their ballots.
   11. LargeBill Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4311676)
7. philly Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4311589)

That's not really fair. He voted for 7 guys last year - and mostly good choices - and plans to vote for his 5 holdovers and a few more apparently.


You're right he probably isn't the worst or the biggest cause of the problem. I wasn't focusing on how many names of his ballot and was more focused on not going with most qualified. Those who leave a Sosa, Bagwell, Palmiero, Schilling, etc off (not to mention Bonds or Clemens who should be near unanimous) and include a Morris or Bernie Williams will create a situation where none are elected making a crowded ballot even worse the following year. Any ballot returned with less than five names this year is almost criminal.
   12. Booey Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4311680)
So who does everyone think actually WILL get elected in January? I'm guessing Morris (sigh), Bagwell, and Biggio.

Jack is a terrible choice obviously, but he's gained too much momentum to expect him to stop now, plus the majority of his votes seem to be a deliberate F.U. to the statheads and steroid era in the first place, so I don't see how a bunch of worthy new candidates is going to change that much.

Biggio seems to have the best shot of the new guys to make it first ballot with his 3000 hits, 1 team career, and most importantly, the fact that he's not a hulking slugger who hit tons of homers and thus won't get the automatic no evidence steroid penalty like Bags, Sosa, and Piazza.

Bagwell has been gaining momentum and seems to be waiting out the unofficial "possible steroid user" discount voters seem to be giving him. I also think there's gonna be more than a few voters who think the chance to vote Bags and Bigs in together will be too cute to ignore.
   13. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4311690)
Morris and Biggio I think go in. I think Bagwell suffers a bit of a PED penalty still with comparisons to Sosa, Bonds, etc...out there.
   14. Matthew E Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4311699)
Isn't it bad timing for Morris? And Raines, too, I guess. Might not their candidacies be swamped by all the new faces on the ballot?
   15. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4311701)
Isn't it bad timing for Morris? And Raines, too, I guess. Might not their candidacies be swamped by all the new faces on the ballot?


As far as Morris is concerned, I certainly hope so.
   16. Booey Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4311710)
Isn't it bad timing for Morris? And Raines, too, I guess. Might not their candidacies be swamped by all the new faces on the ballot?


Normally I would say yes WRT players like Morris, but I suspect he's different than most the other holdovers. I honestly don't think even the majority of his supporters really think he's genuinely HOF worthy. They're voting for him cuz they WANT him to be in there, plain and simple. And I don't see that changing now just because he'd be an even worse choice compared to his ballot competition than he would have been in earlier years.

But yes for Raines. And Trammell, McGwire, McGriff, Edgar, and Walker. I suspect they may barely survive the ballot. And Mattingly, Murphy, Palmeiro, and Bernie Williams might not even do that.
   17. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4311723)
I just looked up Sosa's stats and was shocked at how low a lot of his numbers are despite the 609 homers. I honestly don't know if I'd vote for him or not. His case is quite unique. After his age 28 season, he was sitting on .257 .308 .469 with a 107 OPS+ in almost 4400 PA and no seasons higher than 127, and never leading the league in anything except Ks. Then he somehow hits 292 homers over the next five seasons, averaging 58 a year with a .306 .397 .649 line and a 167 OPS+, leading the league in runs, homers, total bases and RBI a combined 10 times. Then he had two more decent seasons and was washed up by age 36.

It almost seems wrong not to discount that five year run of video game stats, but even with them, his career OPS+ is only 128. I know the conventional wisdom is that steroids can't all of a sudden make you a Hall of Famer, but that doesn't seem to fit Sosa. I realize he was a valuable defensive player for at least the first half of his career, but never a game changer. I'd vote for Palmeiro before him, who's OPS+ is 132 in 2150 more PA. I would certainly vote for Bonds, Piazza, Bagwell, and Clemens, so I'm not strictly anti-steroid by any means, but Sosa's case just seems so weird.
   18. Dale Sams Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4311727)
So who does everyone think actually WILL get elected in January? I'm guessing Morris (sigh), Bagwell, and Biggio.


I'm predicting Morris goes in alone with a '#### we gotta elect SOMEBODY' vote.
   19. SoSH U at work Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4311728)
Normally I would say yes WRT players like Morris, but I suspect he's different than most the other holdovers. I honestly don't think even the majority of his supporters really think he's genuinely HOF worthy. They're voting for him cuz they WANT him to be in there, plain and simple. And I don't see that changing now just because he'd be an even worse choice compared to his ballot competition than he would have been in earlier years.


If that's the reason, and I kind of doubt that his surge has much to do with us or any sinister motives, it doesn't really help him get the new voters who have been resistant to Jack's charms thus far.

Ordinarily, he would slip back down this year with the onslaught. His strong gains last year may help him, in that he got close to the point where voters may see him "on the cusp." He needs to either make it this year or make more significant gains where he's truly on the brink (because next year's ballot is more pitcher heavy). If he stalls or slips back, it's on to the Vet's Committtee (which will usher him in almost immediately).

Two years ago I thought he had no chance. Now, I'd peg him at 50-50.

   20. DanG Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4311729)
it will be tough to narrow my list of deserving candidates to 10
The 10-vote limit needs to be doubled, or eliminated altogether. It no longer serves any useful purpose.
there were an average of 5.1 names per ballot last year
Which established a new all-time low. The HOF should set a minimum of five names on a ballot.
   21. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4311733)

So who does everyone think actually WILL get elected in January? I'm guessing Morris (sigh), Bagwell, and Biggio.

Just Biggio and Morris. None of the 58 other qualified candidates are pitchers so I don't see Morris suffering from the glut.
   22. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4311744)
I'm going to say just Biggio gets elected, because I don't want to take the chance that Morris getting in can ever be attributed to anything I've ever said!
   23. Booey Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4311752)
If that's the reason, and I kind of doubt that his surge has much to do with us or any sinister motives, it doesn't really help him get the new voters who have been resistant to Jack's charms thus far.


Well, it's not really anything to do with US, per se. Nor would I consider the motives 'sinister.' But I think Rice benefitted from the same kind of mindset that's going to get Morris in. Supporters come up with words like "feared" and "gamer" to describe them, then they handwave away all the more recent candidates who were clearly better, cuz you know, they were all evil cheaters and such and these guys deserve a bonus for beaing "clean" (never mind all the other dozens of better clean candidates from earlier decades), and all of a sudden a snowball rolling down a hill type of support starts building and the momentum carries the player into the hall despite everyone knowing that they really don't belong. At least according to those pesky statistics everyone keeps bringing up.

Just Biggio and Morris. None of the 58 other qualified candidates are pitchers so I don't see Morris suffering from the glut.


Clemens and Schilling?
   24. Booey Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4311760)
It almost seems wrong not to discount that five year run of video game stats, but even with them, his career OPS+ is only 128. I know the conventional wisdom is that steroids can't all of a sudden make you a Hall of Famer, but that doesn't seem to fit Sosa.


Sosa is definitely a peak candidate (which does seem weird considering his 609 homers). But posting three 60 homer seasons and averaging 58 homers a year for 5 years is enough for me to push his otherwise borderline candidacy over the "yes" line. I agree that Palmeiro (and Walker, Edgar, etc) were probably more valuable players overall, but this is the HOF, not the HoM. I'd vote Sosa into the real hall before those 3 any day of the week (but only if I had to pick between them - I'd put all of them in personally). If I voted for the HoM it would be a different story. I have no problem with the actual HOF giving bonus points for historic achievements (but only if the player is already on the cusp without the bonus - no Maris, Don Larsen, or Jack Morris type selections).
   25. Repoz Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4311763)
I'm predicting Morris goes in alone with a '#### we gotta elect SOMEBODY' vote.

Of the 9 promised full ballots I have...Morris is on 7 of them.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4311770)
I think Biggio goes in, Morris just misses, and Bagwell gets quite a bit close.
   27. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4311773)
I notice that he' ayes on Clemens and a no on Bonds

does that mean that Clemens acquittal actual means something to him?
Does that mean he actually paid attention to the trial and was surprised (as I was) by the utter lack of evidence the Feds actually had?
   28. DL from MN Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4311774)
If they elect just Morris they should have the privilege taken away. Leave it to the BBWAA to have 15+ solid candidates and elect the one guy who doesn't belong.
   29. SoSH U at work Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4311776)

Well, it's not really anything to do with US, per se. Nor would I consider the motives 'sinister.' But I think Rice benefitted from the same kind of mindset that's going to get Morris in. Supporters come up with words like "feared" and "gamer" to describe them, then they handwave away all the more recent candidates who were clearly better, cuz you know, they were all evil cheaters and such and these guys deserve a bonus for beaing "clean" (never mind all the other dozens of better clean candidates from earlier decades), and all of a sudden a snowball rolling down a hill type of support starts building and the momentum carries the player into the hall despite everyone knowing that they really don't belong. At least according to those pesky statistics everyone keeps bringing up


And I think this is mostly projection from folks who didn't want to see him elected. Rice started at about 30 percent of the vote, the kind of starting place that often (but not always) results in a slow slog to election. He climbed fairly steady and unspectacularly, kind of like Morris, but also like some other guys who had better cases. His election (and Jack's, if it happens), wasn't in respone to something, a protest against something. It was just a mistake.

Blyleven's trajectory was far more of an outlier than Rice's.
   30. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4311779)

So who does everyone think actually WILL get elected in January? I'm guessing Morris (sigh), Bagwell, and Biggio.


Morris is much, much too close not to vote for at this point. There's a human element here. I do think Biggio will go in, but I don't think Bagwell will. I think he'll land somewhere around 70%, and be an obvious choice next year. 20% would be a very, very big jump to get in.

I wonder how Bagwell's supposed/rumored steroid use will play out this year when Barry Bonds and his smoking gun PED use is on the ballot.
   31. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4311781)
Morris is much, much too close not to vote for at this point. There's a human element here.

Yeah, but there's got to be a reasonable core of people who know he's just a terrible choice. You only need 25.1% of rational voters to keep him out. I don't think it's inevitable.

For a deserving candidate (even borderline) I'd agree that getting this close would make it inevitable.
   32. Repoz Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4311783)
BBWAA voter, Phil Hersh tweeting on vote...

Oh, the joy I will have snubbing Sosa, Bonds and Clemens (plus McGwire and Palmeiro, natch) on my HoF ballot.

...

I have a ballot because I covered baseball for nearly 20 years. And I'm keeping it just to vote against the druggies.
   33. Booey Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4311785)
And I think this is mostly projection from folks who didn't want to see him elected. Rice started at about 30 percent of the vote, the kind of starting place that often (but not always) results in a slow slog to election. He climbed fairly steady and unspectacularly, kind of like Morris, but also like some other guys who had better cases.


Possibly. Though I do think Rice had a better case than Morris. He was one of the best hitters in the game for at least a few years. Jack was never one of the truly elite pitchers, even for a short stretch of seasons.

Blyleven's trajectory was far more of an outlier than Rice's.

Yeah. He was one of the few where it seems the stathead arguments actually might have made a difference (maybe that's just wishful thinking, though). Santo is another. Before I got into the SABR stats and this site, I sure didn't see either of them as HOFers. Now I have a hard time seeing how they were left out for so long.

   34. SoSH U at work Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4311786)
Yeah, but there's got to be a reasonable core of people who know he's just a terrible choice. You only need 25.1% of rational voters to keep him out. I don't think it's inevitable.


I thought that factor might be enough to keep Rice out when he was on his last ballot, but it wasn't. Of course, Rice was closer at the time to election (72 percent to Jack's 66), and he still barely made it (and, as Booey notes, he was a slightly better candidate).

Last year helped his cause tremendously, but Jack's certainly not a given.

   35. DL from MN Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4311789)
The full ballot will work against Morris as will Curt Schilling. Even Jack Morris supporters don't think he was a better pitcher than Schilling.
   36. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4311792)
If they elect just Morris they should have the privilege taken away. Leave it to the BBWAA to have 15+ solid candidates and elect the one guy who doesn't belong.

To be fair, they are only electing one of the many guys who don't belong. I haven't seen a ballot with Jeff Cirillo on it yet, for example.
   37. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4311799)
35 comments and no one's made a case for Todd Walker?

I find the release of the ballot to be a much more exciting time of year than the actual vote. It's a great time to stop and remember some of the good (and sometimes not so good) players that enriched my life through their baseball play, without necessarily being stars. Nostalgia is fun!

Some notable down-ballot or non-ballot players...

John Mabry - who could forget?
Desi Relaford - best 2B to come out of Georgia in my lifetime? Or is Gordon Beckham better?
Neifi Perez - who could forget?
Antonio Alfonseca - most fingers in MLB history?
Rick White - OK, I don't remember anything about him
Shea Hillenbrand - World class jerk with a heart of gold (when it comes to adopting kids anyway)
Preston Wilson - I remember him being a lot better than he was in retrospect.
Scott Spiezio - the man with the beard
Mark Bellhorn - my favourite of the idiots.
Joe Kennedy - May he rest in peace
Jose Mesa - is he hated or pitied in Cleveland?
Noah Lowry - tragic tale, though I suppose not as tragic as Kennedy's
Tony Batista - the only player I ever heckled. I still feel bad about it
Byung-Hyun Kim - A rude introduction to the MLB playoffs, but he had some good years
Sandy Alomar - why did he win the Gold Glove? Seems odd for a rookie to take the award and his defensive stats don't jump out at you
Mike Lieberthal - of Dunder-Miflin fame.
Morgan Ensberg - the brightest flames burn out the the quickest
Woody Williams - a true gent with a cool name.
   38. Hello Rusty Kuntz, Goodbye Rusty Cars Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4311807)
But yes for Raines. And Trammell, McGwire, McGriff, Edgar, and Walker. I suspect they may barely survive the ballot. And Mattingly, Murphy, Palmeiro, and Bernie Williams might not even do that.


Murphy definitely won't.
   39. Sweatpants Posted: November 28, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4311814)
Tony Batista - the only player I ever heckled. I still feel bad about it
What did you say to him? "Hey, Batista, you look like you've never played baseball before!"? Because it really did look like he'd just been introduced to the game, which makes his forty-homer season (albeit the worst forty-homer season in history) and several other productive years even more impressive.
   40. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: November 28, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4311816)
That's not really fair. He voted for 7 guys last year - and mostly good choices - and plans to vote for his 5 holdovers and a few more apparently.


Not the worst thing in the world, but a guy voting for Morris and McGriff while leaving off Bonds and maybe a couple of other no brainers isn't all that admirable either.
   41. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: November 28, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4311823)
Sandy Alomar - why did he win the Gold Glove? Seems odd for a rookie to take the award and his defensive stats don't jump out at you


Hype. Same reason he was voted onto the All Star Team while hitting .241 with 4 RBI his second season.
   42. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: November 28, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4311826)
Not the worst thing in the world, but a guy voting for Morris and McGriff while leaving off Bonds and maybe a couple of other no brainers isn't all that admirable either.
I would leave Bonds off my ballot. A lot of people would.

I sincerely hope he never gets into the Hall of Fame.
   43. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4311827)
What did you say to him? "Hey, Batista, you look like you've never played baseball before!"?

Nothing that pithy. I just told him he sucked when he struck out to end a game. He actually looked up in my direction so I think he may have heard me. I really should write him a letter.
   44. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 28, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4311832)
I have a ballot because I covered baseball for nearly 20 years. And I'm keeping it just to vote against the druggies.

Not a fan of BBWAA voters making up their own criteria beyond basic eligibility and Hall-worthiness. However, if it is done, those voters should do it publicly, so others can evaluate the process. The Absolutists seem too close to those opposed to MLB integration vowing to never vote for a Black player, IMHO. The downside of the BBWAA vote is that in a declining industry it is one of the increasingly fewer ways that a writer can call attention to his or her work, and I worry that the grandstanding may go beyond the steroids issue if there isn't some push back from MLB & the Hall.
   45. LargeBill Posted: November 28, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4311842)
32. Repoz Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4311783)
BBWAA voter, Phil Hersh tweeting on vote...

Oh, the joy I will have snubbing Sosa, Bonds and Clemens (plus McGwire and Palmeiro, natch) on my HoF ballot.

...

I have a ballot because I covered baseball for nearly 20 years. And I'm keeping it just to vote against the druggies.


What a sad little man.
   46. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: November 28, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4311871)
Rick White - OK, I don't remember anything about him

Rick White was in the Pirates bullpen for a little while. He had a giant beard and wore number 00.
   47. DL from MN Posted: November 28, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4311882)
one of the many guys who don't belong


Wasn't really considering the one-and-done guys. Of all the carryovers Morris is the worst player with the possible exception of Lee Smith who placed 3rd with 50.6%.
   48. Booey Posted: November 28, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4311909)
Murphy definitely won't.


Ah, last year on the ballot. Didn't notice that before. Nice catch.
   49. BDC Posted: November 28, 2012 at 08:35 PM (#4311938)
Batista had an almost impossible batting stance, but still got some hits with it. Good for him.

On the main topic, I am in favor of a much smaller Hall than the current one, and I usually return 2 or 3 names at most per "mock ballot" here every year. And this year, even I would go to ten names.
   50. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 28, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4311942)
I notice that he' ayes on Clemens and a no on Bonds

does that mean that Clemens acquittal actual means something to him?
Does that mean he actually paid attention to the trial and was surprised (as I was) by the utter lack of evidence the Feds actually had?


I'd sure like to think so, though when I offered that possibility after the acquittal I think I had maybe one person here who agreed with me.
   51. Repoz Posted: November 28, 2012 at 08:47 PM (#4311946)
I notice that he' ayes on Clemens and a no on Bonds

And then there's Bud Geracie...

Barry Bonds will get Hall of Fame vote, but Roger Clemens can wait
   52. Guapo Posted: November 28, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4311952)
I predict nobody gets in this year, and it's gonna be awesome.
   53. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:03 PM (#4311958)
Barry Bonds will get Hall of Fame vote, but Roger Clemens can wait.

Yeah, that's a blue ribbon argument. Bonds is a known juicer whose best years came at an advanced age, after he was known to have juiced. Clemens is an accused juicer whose sole witnesses against him were either discredited or equivocal, and during his alleged juicing years, he did nothing more than match his previous best years, and even there in rate stats only.

I can see voting for both of them, I can see voting for Clemens only (which I would), and I can even see some people voting for neither of them. But voting for Bonds but not Clemens is just screwy by any sort of coherent standard.
   54. zack Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4311988)
I find the release of the ballot to be a much more exciting time of year than the actual vote. It's a great time to stop and remember some of the good (and sometimes not so good) players that enriched my life through their baseball play, without necessarily being stars. Nostalgia is fun!


High Heat 2001 is my second most-played baseball videogame, so it's fun now that guys who's video-game careers I remember better than their actual careers are coming up for election. Batista was a monster in that game (since it's based on 2000 stats), and they bothered to make him a custom stance. Preston Wilson somehow ended up on way too many of my teams even though I rarely tried to acquire him. Rondell White was great although I seem to recall him getting injured almost as often as in real life.

Rick White - OK, I don't remember anything about him


He either had an unusually tall head or he wore his hat up too high. I remember him as being really fat, but looking up pictures he wasn't that fat. I think he may have been traded to the Mets either with or for Bubba Trammel.

   55. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:20 PM (#4311997)
I’m most likely to vote for Clemens, Biggio, Schilling and Piazza.

Even throwing out Palmeiro, McGwire, Bonds and Sosa


It sounds like he's voting no on Sosa because of steroids, but then I don't understand the yes on Clemens.
   56. BurlyBuehrle Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4312024)
Saying no on Jeff Bagwell is darn near criminal, too.

Serious question: consensus here is that Bagwell is a lot better (total value) than Frank Thomas? They're about the same? (I can't imagine that Thomas had more overall value, but I guess it is an option.)
   57. J.R. Wolf Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:57 PM (#4312060)
This is just gutless.

Criteria #5 for the Hall of Fame: "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." Yes, it comes right out and says integrity, sportsmanship and character.

Given those formal established criteria, only a fool or an idiot could cast a vote for a known PED user.
   58. J.R. Wolf Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:00 AM (#4312061)
Curt Schilling is certainly a Hall of Fame pitcher. Morris? Really?
   59. John Northey Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:57 AM (#4312089)
So for 60+ WAR players we have...
PED Accused: Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, Palmeiro

'Clean': Schilling, Walker, Trammell, Raines, Lofton, Edgar Martinez, Biggio

For 50+ you can add...
PED Accused: McGwire, Piazza, Sosa
'Clean': None

For 40+...
PED Accused: None
'Clean': David Wells, Fred McGriff, Bernie Williams, Dale Murphy, Steve Finley

Others likely to get votes...
PED Accused: None.
'Clean': Mattingly ('leader' who only got into playoffs once with the Yankees somehow), Julio Franco (for long career), Jack Morris (sigh), Reggie Sanders (300 HR & 300 SB...never noticed), Shawn Green (300+ HR), Lee Smith (had saves record for a long time)

How bizarre that a guy who is ranked between Julio Franco & Reggie Sanders for WAR is the most likely to get in outside of Biggio who is 11th in WAR this year. That's right - if you did a ballot based on B-R WAR Biggio wouldn't make your ballot. Now _that_ is a crowded ballot and next year you add Maddux, Mussina, Glavine, and Frank Thomas plus all-time HR king for 2B Jeff Kent thus unless 3 or 4 get in this year next years will be more crowded. Then Randy Johnson & Pedro Martinez get added. Then Griffey Jr. Then Manny, I-Rod, and Vladimir Guerrero (assuming none get to play again). Then Chipper Jones and whoever else retired after last year (is Jim Thome still kicking?). It'll be a long time before this mess is cleaned up.
   60. Cooper Nielson Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:45 AM (#4312116)
Sandy Alomar - why did he win the Gold Glove? Seems odd for a rookie to take the award and his defensive stats don't jump out at you

Hype. Same reason he was voted onto the All Star Team while hitting .241 with 4 RBI his second season.


Tell me about it. Sandy Alomar Jr. somehow made it to 6 All-Star Games, starting 3. My theory is that he was an entirely Beckett (baseball card price guide) driven "star."

He was a rookie in 1990, which is right about when the baseball card industry had its broadest reach. Lots of people who had never paid attention to baseball before thought they could get rich by investing in rookie cards. Alomar was named Rookie of the Year, therefore his rookie card was sought after, therefore people thought he was a star, therefore people voted him to All-Star Game after All-Star Game.
   61. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 29, 2012 at 03:51 AM (#4312124)
I am pretty sure J R wolf is a troll. not nearly the level of Mark Garber though.
   62. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: November 29, 2012 at 06:37 AM (#4312133)
(Batista had) the worst forty-homer season in history

Adam Dunn (and others) say hi.

Morris doesn't belong in the HOF, but I'm rooting for him anyway because the '84 Tigers are so criminally under-represented. Whitaker and Trammell belong in, certainly, and probably Darrel Evans, too. And Parrish and Gibson are HoVG'ers, at least.
   63. Cooper Nielson Posted: November 29, 2012 at 07:24 AM (#4312138)
Morris doesn't belong in the HOF, but I'm rooting for him anyway because the '84 Tigers are so criminally under-represented. Whitaker and Trammell belong in, certainly, and probably Darrel Evans, too. And Parrish and Gibson are HoVG'ers, at least.

That's sorta where I stand. I was a 12-year-old Tiger fan in 1984 and I wish that team got more respect. Trammell and Whitaker are clearly deserving HOFers. The other guys named probably aren't, but all of them -- even Morris -- have some positive arguments.

Parrish has a surprisingly good case, when you compare him to other catchers. I can't quite convince myself he's a Hall of Famer, but he's not that far away. He was an 8-time All-Star, 6-time Silver Slugger winner, and 3-time Gold Glove winner. He ended up with 324 home runs, quite impressive for a catcher (technically only 299 of those were as a catcher -- but that trails only Piazza, Fisk, Bench, Rodriguez, and Berra). He threw out base-stealers at a 39% rate over his career, and I believe he had a reputation as a good plate-blocker.

So he was clearly one of the better offensive catchers of his era, and one of the better defensive catchers of his era. And even though his career "seems" short to me -- he only really had one good year after leaving the Tigers -- he managed to spend 19 years in the majors and ranks 11th in games played at catcher.

He finished with 36 career WAR and a 106 career OPS+, which compares favorably only to a few of the lower-end (mistake?) HOFers like Rick Ferrell and Ray Schalk, but looks OK among the "next tier" of guys who have been left out (not a complete list):

Ted Simmons: 46.7 WAR, 118 OPS+
Thurman Munson: 43.3 WAR, 116 OPS+
Wally Schang: 41.4 WAR, 117 OPS+
Bill Freehan: 41.3 WAR, 112 OPS+
Jorge Posada: 39 WAR, 121 OPS+
Jason Kendall: 38.3 WAR, 95 OPS+
Darrell Porter: 37.8 WAR, 113 OPS+
Javy Lopez: 27.2 WAR, 112 OPS+
Benito Santiago: 24.5 WAR, 93 OPS+
Bob Boone: 24.4 WAR, 82 OPS+
   64. BDC Posted: November 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM (#4312212)
I was still living in the Northeast and following the Phillies when Lance Parrish arrived, and I remember thinking it was one of the best signings ever, just an invaluable piece of the puzzle. But then Parrish just wasn't a very good player for most of his 30s: an OK player, a starting catcher for sure, but making no progress toward any Hall.
   65. ThisElevatorIsDrivingMeUpTheWall Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4312239)
Yeah, I'm rooting for Trammell. I think everyone who watched baseball in their era just assumed he and Whitaker would go in like 2/3 of a Tinker to Evers to Chance.
   66. ThisElevatorIsDrivingMeUpTheWall Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM (#4312240)
I'm surprised Munson is that high up on the list given his short career and middling home run and walk numbers.
   67. Cooper Nielson Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:16 AM (#4312249)
I'm surprised Munson is that high up on the list given his short career and middling home run and walk numbers.

WAR likes his defense, and he did bat .292 over his career, which helped him put up a not-bad .346 OBP even with midding walk numbers.
   68. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:16 AM (#4312250)
Darrell Evans is a strange case; 55 WAR (and 414 pre-Sillyball HR) would seem to put him at least in the conversation, but his HOF Monitor is a sickly 42, and of course he was dismissed on the first ballot. Then again, Dwight Evans is at 62 WAR (my personal in/out number), and he never got more than 10% of the vote. What is it about Evanses, anyway?

"From now on, Darrell, the Hall of Fame will be the NO EVANSES CLUB!"
"But you have Dwight in there!"
"No EvanSES, plural. We're allowed to have one!"
"*sigh*"
   69. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM (#4312260)
I'm surprised Munson is that high up on the list given his short career and middling home run and walk numbers.


Munson's life was tragically short, but his career actually wasn't all that short for a catcher. He was 32 when he died. As noted above by Cooper and Bob, Parrish only had 1 or 2 seasons worth a damn after age 30. From age 33 on, Parrish accumulated only 6.9 career WAR. Ted Simmons was even worse, 0.8 career WAR from age 33 on (his very good age-33 season (1983) was almost entirely wiped out by his horrific age-34 season (1984)). Bill Freehan last played at age 34 (1.9 career WAR from age 33 on). And so on; Munson's HOF case was very unlikely to change if he survived that plane ride.
   70. Suff Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4312289)
The thing about Morris and the '84 Tigers is that, yes, they are underrepresented, but he has, at best, the 3rd-best case (behind (1) Whitaker and (2) Trammell). Parrish and Darrell Evans probably have better cases than Morris, and Chet Lemon and Kirk Gibson are close, too.
   71. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4312297)
Rick White was in the Pirates bullpen for a little while. He had a giant beard and wore number 00.


White actually did two tours of duty with the Pirates - one as a young guy, and one as a grizzled vet.

My one big Rick White memory is actually from when he was with Tampa. He and Jim Mecir were in the outfield shagging flies during BP, and they ran into each other and Mecir broke his elbow and was out for the year.
   72. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4312298)
the '84 Tigers are so criminally under-represented.


What's interesting about this is that the Tigers always seemed to be a very well liked team by the press both during their heyday in the mid-80s and after retirement. I don't recall reading a lot of negative stuff about any of those guys back when.
   73. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM (#4312305)
Darrell Evans is a strange case; 55 WAR (and 414 pre-Sillyball HR) would seem to put him at least in the conversation, but his HOF Monitor is a sickly 42, and of course he was dismissed on the first ballot. Then again, Dwight Evans is at 62 WAR (my personal in/out number), and he never got more than 10% of the vote. What is it about Evanses, anyway?


I think both guys fail on the "did they seem like Hall of Famers when they played" test. Not arguing whether they were or were not but Dwight was always 3rd/4th on the Sox superstar list in terms of perception with some combinations of Yaz, Rice, Lynn, Boggs, Clemens ahead of him. Darrell seems to have the same issue and I think in his case he also suffers from having played for multiple teams. I have the very unscientific opinion that players who aren't clearly identified with one team are at a bit of a disadvantage. It's not fatal but I think it explains a little bit of the totals for guys like Cone and Brown and I think will be an issue for Sheffield in a couple of years.
   74. bachslunch Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4312314)
Morris doesn't belong in the HOF, but I'm rooting for him anyway because the '84 Tigers are so criminally under-represented.

And here I thought being elected to the HoF was an individual honor, not a team honor. Silly me.
   75. Cooper Nielson Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4312316)
Darrell seems to have the same issue and I think in his case he also suffers from having played for multiple teams.

I think you're right, and the "at that time" case against Darrell is pretty obvious. When he played, the three holy numbers were average, HR, and RBI. He was lousy in the first one (career .248), pretty good in the second but not a consistent threat (two 40 HR seasons 12 years apart, but only two more with 30 or more), and not so good in the last (only one 100 RBI season).

The things he did particularly well were not highly regarded or were barely noticed when he played: he got a ton of walks, he avoided double plays, and he had some defensive flexibility. (Evans played 22 games at shortstop -- all of them at age 35 and 36!) He also had an oddly shaped career, with a late start, a brief peak at 26-27, a lot of meh years in his "prime" from 28 to 35, then a second extended peak in his late 30s and into his 40s. But by that time, everyone already thought of him as "just another guy."
   76. Cooper Nielson Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4312324)
Quoting myself:

He also had an oddly shaped career, with a late start, a brief peak at 26-27, a lot of meh years in his "prime" from 28 to 35, then a second extended peak in his late 30s and into his 40s.

Darrell Evans' best WAR seasons by age:

1. 26
2. 27
3. 40
4. 38
5. 33
6. 36
7. 25
8. 31
9. 39

Weird, right?
   77. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4312332)
Normally I would say yes WRT players like Morris, but I suspect he's different than most the other holdovers. I honestly don't think even the majority of his supporters really think he's genuinely HOF worthy. They're voting for him cuz they WANT him to be in there, plain and simple.
I think you're in denial :)

Voters really are this dumb. Voters really think Morris was a winner, and That Game Seven proves it.

I am pretty sure J R wolf is a troll. not nearly the level of Mark Garber though.
Because you disagree with him?
   78. SoSH U at work Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4312333)

What's interesting about this is that the Tigers always seemed to be a very well liked team by the press both during their heyday in the mid-80s and after retirement. I don't recall reading a lot of negative stuff about any of those guys back when.


Except Morris, whose relationship with the press could most generously be described as "testy." Another trait he shares with Rice.
   79. bachslunch Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4312364)
Voters really are this dumb. Voters really think Morris was a winner, and That Game Seven proves it.

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

It also wouldn't surprise me if there's an anti-sabermetric backlash element among at least a few of the voters.
   80. Booey Posted: November 29, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4312420)
Normally I would say yes WRT players like Morris, but I suspect he's different than most the other holdovers. I honestly don't think even the majority of his supporters really think he's genuinely HOF worthy. They're voting for him cuz they WANT him to be in there, plain and simple.


I think you're in denial :)


I don't know. Someone here (I don't remember who to give credit to, sorry) once posted that you know someone doesn't have a legit HOF case when their supporters have to rely on unique arguments that they'd never use for anyone else. The main points of one of the most prominent (only?) Morris suporters here is that he made lots of opening day starts and he was one of the highest paid pitchers in the game. Or basically, that management thought he was much better than he actually was. Really? That's a HOF argument?

Jim Rice was the most feared slugger in the league! (How could you possibly know this?) Jack Morris pitched to the score! He was a winner and a gamer! Sorry, but valid HOF cases are built using stats, not adjectives. When the latter is all you have, I think you must know deep down that you're basing your vote on fanboyism rather than facts.
   81. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 29, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4312428)
Morris suporters here is that he made lots of opening day starts and he was one of the highest paid pitchers in the game. Or basically, that management thought he was much better than he actually was. Really? That's a HOF argument?

Yep. It evinces "playing ability," an HOF voting criterion expresssly counterposed to "playing record."
   82. SoSH U at work Posted: November 29, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4312430)
Jim Rice was the most feared slugger in the league! (How could you possibly know this?)


This was said rather frequently about him when he was playing (and, referred to the American League, rather than baseball as a whole). It doesn't make him any more qualified for the Hall of Fame than if they said he was the most dainty, but the idea that the voters in the mid-2000s conjured up this out of nowhere is patently false.

   83. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 29, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4312438)
Someone here (I don't remember who to give credit to, sorry) once posted that you know someone doesn't have a legit HOF case when their supporters have to rely on unique arguments that they'd never use for anyone else. The main points of one of the most prominent (only?) Morris suporters here is that he made lots of opening day starts and he was one of the highest paid pitchers in the game.


The argument of Jack Morris's BBWAA supporters is very straightforward and traditional. He was the best pitcher of the 1980s and one of the finest postseason pitchers of all-time. Their evidence in support of these two positions is, again, very straightforward and traditional. Jack Morris had more pitching wins than anybody else in the 1980s and Jack Morris won one of the best pitchers' duels in World Series history. These are poor arguments that rely on weak and cherry-picked stats, but they're not particularly unique.
   84. bachslunch Posted: November 29, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4312443)
Really? That's a HOF argument?

If you're a troll, I guess it can be.
   85. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 29, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4312445)
If you're a troll, I guess it can be.

"Troll" -- what a fresh and exciting term!!!! You must be so proud.
   86. Booey Posted: November 29, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4312450)
This was said rather frequently about him when he was playing (and, referred to the American League, rather than baseball as a whole). It doesn't make him any more qualified for the Hall of Fame than if they said he was the most dainty, but the idea that the voters in the mid-2000s conjured up this out of nowhere is patently false.


I didn't mean to imply that it was made up post-career or that it might not have even been true. I just meant that it's an irrelevant adjective that has nothing to do with his HOF worthiness, and that it's an argument you just don't see made with anyone else (at least I haven't).
   87. SoSH U at work Posted: November 29, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4312458)
I didn't mean to imply that it was made up post-career or that it might not have even been true. I just meant that it's an irrelevant adjective that has nothing to do with his HOF worthiness, and that it's an argument you just don't see made with anyone else (at least I haven't).


And that I agree with. I just thought, and still do, that the attempts to disprove the contention when Rice was on the ballot were counterproductive (and poorly executed). "So what?" was the proper response, not "No he wasn't."
   88. Booey Posted: November 29, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4312460)
Their evidence in support of these two positions is, again, very straightforward and traditional. Jack Morris had more pitching wins than anybody else in the 1980s and Jack Morris won one of the best pitchers' duels in World Series history. These are poor arguments that rely on weak and cherry-picked stats, but they're not particularly unique.


Eh. I don't remember much "most hits in the 90's!" support for Mark Grace and there's been plenty of other postseason heroes who never got a sniff at the hall. Like Morris, Joe Carter had some pretty good counting stats in a few categories due to his longevity and he produced an all time great postseason moment as well (yes, I know Morris was better than Carter).

It does seem like a fairly unique argument to me.
   89. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 29, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4312472)
Eh. I don't remember much "most hits in the 90's!" support for Mark Grace and there's been plenty of other postseason heroes who never got a sniff at the hall. Like Morris, Joe Carter had some pretty good counting stats in a few categories due to his longevity and he produced an all time great postseason moment as well (yes, I know Morris was better than Carter).

It does seem like a fairly unique argument to me.


I think you're too far onto the sabermetric side of things to understand how ingrained, traditional, and utterly non-unique is the idea that pitcher wins are THE measure of how good a pitcher is. There are probably dozens of pitchers who are in the Hall of Fame - deservedly and undeservedly so - because of how many pitcher wins they accumulated, either in their career (Sutton, Spahn, Niekro, Wynn, et al.) or in some particular subset of seasons (Hunter, Gomez, Palmer, Ruffing, et al.). Among traditional stats, pitcher wins are not merely a "counting stat" like hits or RBIs; for pitchers, they are THE counting stat.
   90. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4312485)
I'm convinced that a not insignificant part of Morris' appeal with the voters is his name. As in, the name "Jack Morris" just sounds bad ass. Being a big, mustachioed, and surly dude with Game 7 on his resume seals the deal.
   91. Booey Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4312488)
#89 - I do understand that, and Morris's 254 is a lot. But it's not SO many that to a traditional voter it can't be ignored, like say, Don Sutton's 320 something. Other pitchers have won more than Morris without getting elected (or even coming close, in some cases). Tommy John had what, like 288? Never came close. Jim Kaat had something like 283. Jamie Moyer has 260 something and I doubt he'll see a second ballot. 250 wins is probably similar to 400 or 450 homers. It will usually get you in, but when that's pretty much all you have, it's certainly not a lock.

Morris pitched to the score, thus he was actually more valuable than his mediocre ERA would lead you to believe! Have you heard this argument made for anyone else? I haven't.
   92. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4312493)
But it's not SO many that to a traditional voter it can't be ignored

Except it far outstripped his contemporaries. That's why it isn't being ignored (rightly or wrongly).
   93. Ron J2 Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:22 PM (#4312508)
#57 As mentioned in the other threads, the character clause has never been applied to a no doubter. It's been at most a deal breaker or marginal candidates.
   94. Booey Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4312510)
Except it far outstripped his contemporaries.


Depends on where you put the line as far as contemporaries go. And it doesn't far outstrip similar pitchers like Denny Martinez. It barely surpasses him.
   95. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4312521)
Depends on where you put the line as far as contemporaries go. And it doesn't far outstrip similar pitchers like Denny Martinez. It barely surpasses him.

It crushes him between 1979 and 1992. 233 to 162.
   96. Booey Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4312523)
It crushes him between 1979 and 1992. 233 to 162.


I'm sure you've heard all the arguments against selective endpoints...
   97. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4312525)

I'm sure you've heard all the arguments against selective endpoints...


You're obviously new to the experience of arguing with SugarBear.
   98. SoSH U at work Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4312528)
One thing that distinguishes Morris' decade thing from Grace's (though not necessarily in the eyes of voters, who may not be aware of it) is that Jack's wasn't a case of selective end points. He had the most wins in a decade for six straight 10-year periods.

Depends on where you put the line as far as contemporaries go. And it doesn't far outstrip similar pitchers like Denny Martinez. It barely surpasses him.


Where he really outstrips his contemporaries is his CG total. He really dwarfs the guys who came up at the same time or later.*

Neither the wins nor the CG make him a Hall of Famer.

* In large part, obviously, due to changing usage patterns. Even so, his lead is pretty damn huge.
   99. DL from MN Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4312535)
He had the most wins in a decade for six straight 10-year periods.


Yeah, the Tigers were a pretty good team in the 80s. Elect Whitaker and Trammell.
   100. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4312537)
Neither the wins nor the CG make him a Hall of Famer.

But, as you say, they are things at which he outstripped his contemporaries. His wins and CG advantages aren't the product of "selective endpoints," "cherry-picking," "data mining" or any such thing. They're real.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(13 - 3:04am, Oct 23)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(347 - 2:21am, Oct 23)
Last: steagles

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3206 - 2:12am, Oct 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(10 - 2:11am, Oct 23)
Last: boteman

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(14 - 1:39am, Oct 23)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogAd Week: What Is Madeleine Albright Doing on the Wheaties Box?
(8 - 1:13am, Oct 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(182 - 12:31am, Oct 23)
Last: Sunday silence

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(534 - 12:25am, Oct 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(854 - 12:25am, Oct 23)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(30 - 12:08am, Oct 23)
Last: rlc

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(14 - 11:25pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(65 - 10:38pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(5 - 9:58pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(54 - 7:50pm, Oct 22)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(43 - 7:45pm, Oct 22)
Last: catomi01

Page rendered in 0.5627 seconds
52 querie(s) executed