Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Ryan Thibs has his 2017 HOF Tracker Up and Running

7 Ballots in as of 11/29/16, and Schilling has already lost 2 votes from last year.

reech Posted: November 29, 2016 at 02:29 PM | 932 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, 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 10 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 29, 2016 at 03:28 PM (#5359548)
Just on the off chance that anyone might be unfamiliar with Thibs' spreadsheet, it's the best tool for tracking the HoF vote, before and after the announcement. Lots of improvements over the years - now much easier to see who a voter drops or adds. Thibs Nobel Prize is overdue.
   2. Baldrick Posted: November 29, 2016 at 03:41 PM (#5359562)
George Willis removed Bonds, Clemens, Hoffman, and Schilling in order to vote for Vlad, Posada, Raines, Kent, McGriff, and Sheffield. That is weird. Anyone have a link to his explanation?
   3. Mark Armour Posted: November 29, 2016 at 04:56 PM (#5359628)
So what are we realistically hoping for in 2016?

1. Bagwell and Raines making it is top priority. Either missing out and the exercise failed IMO.
2. Strong showing for Pudge (who might make it this year, though I doubt it) and Vlad.
3. Hoffman. I am ambivalent, but since he's going to make it eventually let's get it done.
4. Improvements for Schilling/Mussina, who are likely on track if Schilling will shut his pie hole for a few years.
5. Improvements for Bonds/Clemens, who are NOT on track but could use a strong statement for later committee.
6. No one else has any shot with the BBWAA ever.

I expect the votes per ballot to go way down this year. You would think the smaller pool of slam dunks would have coalesce the voters, but everyone is still paying for the Bonds/Clemens debacle.

   4. Walt Davis Posted: November 29, 2016 at 04:57 PM (#5359629)
"Strategic" voting? Wants to push Raines over, wants Posada and Vlad to get off to good starts, wants to keep Kent, McGriff and Sheff alive? Let his 2-year-old grandkid fill out the ballot this year? Auctioned off his ballot as a charity fundraiser?

For those new to this ... since Ryan tracks the same voter over time, what you want to keep track of are the number of gained and lost votes, not the overall %age or # of votes. By tracking changes, you can see who is gaining or losing ground. Also, given you need 75% to get across the line, returning candidates need more than 3 gained votes for every lost vote to make substantial progress towards 75%.**

So, for example, Trevor Hoffman has 5 of 7 votes right now which looks like a pretty good start for him. But this same set of voters gave him 6 votes last year. So he's already lost 1 vote and gained none. That's a bad start.

It's also a good idea to keep an eye on the average votes per ballot. The key thing there is that last year there were 8.23 votes per public ballot and 7.28 per non-public. Two guys were elected last year and Trammell has been dropped so the question is the extent to which those guys are "replaced" with different candidates (i.e. if average votes per ballot stays about the same, then those votes are going somewhere and either Vlad/Pudge will do pretty well or there will be substantial advance for some other players).

But, even after they've all been counted, the pre-announcement public ballots are not a great indicator of final vote percentages. The stingier voters don't publish their ballots although many are later released through the BBWAA (maybe they all are now, I don't recall). Noted above, the non-public ballots had nearly 1 fewer name per ballot. Bagwell, Raines, Edgar, Moose and Schilling all did much worse among the private ballots last year while Lee Smith does much better among the BBWAA-released and private ballots. (Previous year's results are tabs in the main file.)

I'm uncertain enough that I'm not boldly predicting much this time around. Bagwell is pretty much guaranteed and I think 2 of Raines, Hoffman, Pudge make it but I don't know which 2. (If Raines misses, he'll be an early VC selection.) Vlad will have a high debut that virtually guarantees eventual induction and I won't rule out that he makes it on the first ballot. (That said, I don't have a handle yet on what effect the 10-year rule might have on anybody who debuts in the 30s or 40s. Used to be you could figure most of them would pick up a couple of percentage points every year and at least be knocking on the door by ballot 15 ... so maybe not with 10 ballots.)

Other than possibly Raines, I think the big gainer will be Edgar. The Papi retirement has reminded some voters how good he was. Also the election of Piazza and Bagwell -- similar types of hitters -- will help. His main threat is probably Vlad. I don't think Edgar will get to 75% in time but I get the sense he might reach 50% this year which should put him in good shape for 60%+ in year 10 which makes him pretty much a shoo-in by the VC.

The guy I'm most worried about is probably Moose (Walker has no shot, no point worrying about him). Schilling too but I'm probably the person around here who is least impressed by Schilling plus Schilling's vote gets all mixed up with Schilling running his mouth so who knows what's going to happen. Anyway, Moose has 7 ballots to make up 32%. That's perfectly doable and there aren't many good SP candidates coming to take votes away (Halladay) so he should make it. But I expect it will be close.

** For somebody as low down as Larry Walker, he can advance "substantially" if he can have a net gain of 20+ votes whether the ratio is 21/1 or 50/30 (not going to happen). But for candidates with a shot at eventually getting to 75%, the ratio of gained/lost is important.
   5. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 29, 2016 at 05:04 PM (#5359637)
Matt Stairs = no votes
   6. Ithaca2323 Posted: November 29, 2016 at 05:17 PM (#5359651)

But, even after they've all been counted, the pre-announcement public ballots are not a great indicator of final vote percentages.


Yeah, but last season we eventually got 70% of the ballots (though some didn't come until after.) I suspect more and more writers will do this, as I'm sure it drives clicks. While differences will still exist, they'll decrease.
   7. Walt Davis Posted: November 29, 2016 at 05:29 PM (#5359657)
Regarding #3:

1. Bagwell is almost guaranteed to make it this year but even if he doesn't, he's got 3 more ballots. He's in, stop worrying.

1a. Even if Raines doesn't make it this year, he will come so close that he'll be put in by the first VC to consider him. (Unless maybe he's on a ballot with 3 HoF managers and Pat Gillick or something.)

2. I don't consider Vlad to be deserving of the HoF (it's close) so I can't exactly hope he has a good debut. But I also don't want to be overwhelmed by sour grapes over Walker, Sosa, etc.

5. I'm not expecting any improvement. They probably benefited more from the purge and the decreased crowding than anybody. And although there will of course be some who will, there's no rational reason for anybody to change their mind on Bonds and Clemens at this point. Also their final %age won't have anything to do with whether a VC puts them in or not -- the VC will make the same decision of whether their "character" bars them from the HoF or not. I suppose if they could get to 70% or something, a VC would simply relent on that point figuring that attitudes have changed enough. I simply don't see that happening.

HoF voting will soon be very dull. There aren't a lot of serious candidates in the pipeline, not even many borderline candidates. The 10-year limit is likely to make another Blyleven that much more difficult and anybody who debuts around 20% will have no chance. Names per ballot is likely to plummet but, if historical patterns remained, we may see some quite unqualified folks get inducted.
   8. cardsfanboy Posted: November 29, 2016 at 05:32 PM (#5359660)
(maybe they all are now, I don't recall)


I thought they were, but apparently not the case, but it is funny that the BBWAA voters page, actually thanks Ryan Thibodaux for collecting the public ballots.

   9. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 29, 2016 at 05:53 PM (#5359680)
The Massarotti ballot suggests a pretty small hall guy. He's got Bonds, Clemens, Manny, I-rod and....Edgar.

Now I support Edgar probably more then most here, but geez, if you're picking a 5th vote only and not choosing Bagwell or Raines then I'm not quite sure what you are doing.
   10. The Duke Posted: November 29, 2016 at 07:24 PM (#5359735)
I had to laugh at walts comment about things getting boring. Weren't we just talking about the log jam for the last three years? I think the voters have done a passable job.

My personal hope is that Raines gets in. I really hope Big Lee Smith gets above 50% so the VC takes him seriously. I'd like to see mussina and schilling get more traction. For the life of me I can't understand why these two aren't doing well.

Can we waive whatever wait rules we have and put Mr Scully in now? I'd like him to be able to be here for induction and he's getting up there.
   11. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: November 29, 2016 at 07:56 PM (#5359759)
Can we waive whatever wait rules we have and put Mr Scully in now? I'd like him to be able to be here for induction and he's getting up there.


Vin Scully won the Ford c. Frick Award which is awarded to broadcasters for "major contributions to baseball" in 1982.
   12. Cargo Cultist Posted: November 29, 2016 at 08:03 PM (#5359761)
I think Bags, Raines, Schilling and Mussina should all get in. I don't think that Schilling will get in because of his unpopular-with-the-Media politics. Mussina has been overlooked for his entire career, it would nice to see him finally get recognize for the great pitcher that he was.
   13. cardsfanboy Posted: November 29, 2016 at 08:07 PM (#5359763)
Is there any real reason to think that Schilling's politics will matter? He's 10% ahead of Mussina, it seems like a weird point for the writers to get fixated upon.
   14. PreservedFish Posted: November 29, 2016 at 08:21 PM (#5359772)
His politics make him a better candidate in my book! I like goofy characters.
   15. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 29, 2016 at 08:45 PM (#5359784)
Is there any real reason to think that Schilling's politics will matter? He's 10% ahead of Mussina, it seems like a weird point for the writers to get fixated upon.

Well, in the first 6 public ballots, 2 dropped Schilling. Might be just a quirk, and I don't know if any explanations were provided. However, if that became a trend, it'd be disturbing. Do we really want the BBWAA to consider players' political opinions, and inject their own, in the voting process?
   16. bookbook Posted: November 29, 2016 at 09:38 PM (#5359800)
In a world where Kevin Brown was one and done, and Mussina has done exactly as (not) well as he has, there is thus far not even a whiff of evidence that Schilling's politics have hurt him. Do I find his politics reprehensible? Certainly. Would I vote for him for City Council? Absolutely not. Would I vote for him for the Hall of Fame? As often, and as enthusiastically as possible.
   17. JPWF1313 Posted: November 29, 2016 at 09:50 PM (#5359806)
What bookbook said, Schilling has gotten far fewer votes than he should have- but he's not the only SP of recent vintage that applies to.
   18. The Duke Posted: November 29, 2016 at 09:52 PM (#5359807)
Can't they put Vin in again for the next 34 years of his career
   19. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 29, 2016 at 10:45 PM (#5359835)
Is there any real reason to think that Schilling's politics will matter?


This would be why his politics may cost him some votes this year.
   20. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: November 29, 2016 at 10:46 PM (#5359837)
Have to say: As frustrating as some of the individual ballots and accompanying columns have been over the years, the voting process has dealt with the backlog better than I ever anticipated:

Bagwell, Raines, and Hoffman are all getting in very quickly, so they'll be off the decks. Lee Smith is off the ballot this year, too,and that's a third of the ballots that will drop a name because of it.

There are only about 15 people on this ballot that will ever get more than 10% of the vote, including several of the new candidates (Ramirez, IRod, Posada, Vlad) and the four guys above. If you are an anti-steroids voters, that number drops to about 10. Several of those 15 or so players may well be off the ballot next year because they age out or get elected. In other words, there are very few voters who feel they have more than 10 candidates for whom they would like to vote. This is something most of us did not anticipate would be true in December 2016.

2018: Chipper Jones, Jim Thome, Omar Vizquel, maybe Scott Rolen sticks around?
2019: Mariano Rivera, and then a bunch of guys that could go a lot of ways: Pettitte, Halladay, Berkman, and Helton
2020: Jeter, and nobody else who would get 5% (Abreu is maybe the 2nd best new candidate that year?)

You've got four guys who will likely get in immediately (Jones, Thome, Rivera, and Jeter), so they don't hurt the backlog much. There's maybe another six guys from those three classes who will get stuck between 5% and 75% for a while.

By 2020, Edgar and McGriff are off the ballot. By 2021, Walker is off the ballot. And in 2023, Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling are off the ballot, if they aren't in yet. All of this is to say - we appear to be totally past the worst of the Glutastrophe.
   21. Skloot Insurance Posted: November 29, 2016 at 11:46 PM (#5359850)
HoF voting will soon be very dull. There aren't a lot of serious candidates in the pipeline, not even many borderline candidates.


Roy Halladay to me is the most interesting test case on the horizon. I didn't take him seriously as a Hall of Fame candidate when he retired, but I have since reconsidered. As more and more pitchers break, and as it becomes more and more apparent that shorter outings by starters, fewer decisions, lower innings totals and shorter careers are the norm, I think the HOF standards must evolve -- just as they have evolved from the Deadball Era to the Integrated Era to the Expansion Era to the ?Post-Strike Era?.

The post-strike WAR leaders among pitchers:

1. Randy Johnson, 84.4 (HOF)
2. Pedro Martinez, 80.2 (HOF)
3. Curt Schilling, 70.8 (ballot)
4. Roger Clemens, 67.7 (ballot)
5. Roy Halladay, 65.6
6. Mike Mussina, 65.4 (ballot)
7. Greg Maddux, 63.9 (HOF)
8. Andy Pettitte, 60.9
9. Mark Buehrle, 59.2
10. C.C. Sabathia, 57.9
...
13. Clayton Kershaw, 52.7
...
15. Felix Hernandez, 51.4
16. Zack Greinke, 50.9
17. Johan Santana, 50.7
...
19. Justin Verlander, 50.5
...
21. Cole Hamels, 49.8
   22. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 30, 2016 at 12:10 AM (#5359858)
Roy Halladay to me is the most interesting test case on the horizon


Roy has some real nice narrative also. He was seen as the best pitcher for a few years there, he's got the perfecto, another no-no, a couple of Cy's and a couple of 2nds. He also does well on the HOF black and grey ink measurements, but I think being considered one of the 2-3 best pitchers in the league for 6-7 years will really help his case. I'd put him in. I like peak candidates.
   23. Walt Davis Posted: November 30, 2016 at 12:34 AM (#5359865)
shorter outings by starters, fewer decisions, lower innings totals and shorter careers are the norm

The first 2 are certainly true. The third and fourth are not necessarily true, especially the fourth. Teams are pretty desperate for adequate starting pitching. Colon (44) and Dickey (42) had not problem finding jobs this year. The Cubs paid $32 M for Lackey's age 37-38 seasons. Rich Hill will be 37, interesting to see how many years he gets. Even Ryan Vogelsong got 14 starts at age 38. Colon missed nearly 4 full seasons and is still closing in on 3200 innings despite not debuting until age 24.
   24. cardsfanboy Posted: November 30, 2016 at 12:38 AM (#5359866)
I'd put Roy in, in a heartbeat, but I think the writers as a general rule have some serious mental deficiencies and don't see them putting him in.
   25. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: November 30, 2016 at 06:51 AM (#5359894)
?Post-Strike Era?


Just call it the wild card era. It sounds nicer and covers the exact same time frame.
   26. bachslunch Posted: November 30, 2016 at 07:18 AM (#5359897)
Can this thread be pinned to the top?

Also didn't realize Schilling had praised a t-shirt advocating for lynching media members. Not surprised he's losing votes. It certainly can be seen as speaking very ill of his character.
   27. bachslunch Posted: November 30, 2016 at 09:11 AM (#5359921)
Really small sample size (8 ballots), but IRod, Raines, and Bagwell have appeared on 7 of them. Hope that's a good sign especially for the last two. Vlad and Hoffman are on 6, as are surprisingly Edgar and Lee Smith. Not expecting that to hold up for the last two, but they may do better than expected.

Re 20: my guess is Halliday gets elected, though not first ballot. Thome as well. Jeter, Chipper, and Mariano will be first ballot. The rest probably hang around the bottom of the ballot without getting in.
   28. TDF, situational idiot Posted: November 30, 2016 at 10:03 AM (#5359939)
This would be why his politics may cost him some votes this year.
I read yesterday that one voter (I think it was George Willis, but I can't find the article now) switched his vote specifically because of Shilling's tweet about that shirt.

EDIT: It wasn't Willis. It was Dan Shaughnessy.
   29. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: November 30, 2016 at 10:26 AM (#5359948)
I'd put Roy in, in a heartbeat, but I think the writers as a general rule have some serious mental deficiencies and don't see them putting him in.


If they don't put Halladay in, and they don't put in Schilling and Mussina, that would likely mean no starting pitchers inducted until Kershaw becomes eligible, maybe Verlander*. Johnson and Pedro went in in 2015. Kershaw won't be eligible until about 2030 at the earliest.

*But Verlander has a ways to go just to catch Halladay. He's 33 and just had his first good year in the last 3.
   30. SoSH U at work Posted: November 30, 2016 at 10:53 AM (#5359957)
I don't think Halladay has anything to worry about. He's going to enjoy at least five years as the best starting pitcher on the ballot, which was a key factor in Blyleven rising from a really low starting point and Jack getting close in Bert's wake.

   31. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: November 30, 2016 at 12:24 PM (#5360034)
I don't know if Halladay is going to get in, but if he does, it will represent a meaningful shift in voters' requirements for induction. Two of the most common names mentioned when the idea of "short career, worthy inductee" comes up are Koufax and Pedro. But I would say that if this is the standard, virtually nobody under 400 career starts should ever get elected, given the breathtaking peaks of those two careers. And, BTW, Pedro actually started more games than Halladay (409 vs 390). THe others with fewer starts than Halladay to get in the HOF for their pitching accomplishments?:

Dizzy Dean
Addie Joss
John Ward
Sandy Koufax
John Ward
Lefty Gomez
Jack Chesbro
Mordecai Brown
Chief Bender
Rube Waddell
Dazzy Vance
Bob Lemon
Hal Newhouser
Joe McGinnity
Stan Coveleski
Jesse Haines

If you go innings pitched among HOF starters, it's even worse: Dean, Koufax,Joss, Ward, Gomez. THat's it - five HOF starters have pitched fewer innings than Halladay, and one of them (Koufax) is the ultimate peak candidate of all time. Ward was a 19th century infielder who also pitched for parts of 7 seasons, leading the league in wins (with 47) in 1879. This is not a relevant example.

Dizzy Dean pitched 100+ innings exactly six times. Addie Joss pitched less than 8 1/2 years, and shouldn't have even been eligible. Lefty Gomez actually seems like one of the better comps for Halladay.

All of this is to say - With Clemens in exile, Morris off the ballot, and Blyleven, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, and Pedro in, we're just about cleaned out of candidates who could make it based on the historic norms of the last 30+ years. Schilling, Mussina, maybe Pettitte are the last ones that even make the traditional standards of a marginal HOFer. The standards are going to have to change, who there will be one HOF starter elected by the writers per decade or something.
   32. SoSH U at work Posted: November 30, 2016 at 12:34 PM (#5360045)
Morris off the ballot, and Blyleven, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, and Pedro in, we're just about cleaned out of candidates who could make it based on the historic norms of the last 30+ years.


But Morris and Blyleven didn't make it up the ballot based on the historic norms of the previous 30 years. They climbed in part because there wasn't anyone coming on the ballot behind them that were as good (perceived in Jack's case) as they were. The norms changed for them, and they will change again

I did forget, as I often do, that Pettitte would be running with Halladay at pretty much the exact same time, so Roy won't be the only starter getting votes.
   33. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 30, 2016 at 12:41 PM (#5360050)
THat's it - five HOF starters have pitched fewer innings than Halladay, and one of them (Koufax) is the ultimate peak candidate of all time. Ward was a 19th century infielder who also pitched for parts of 7 seasons, leading the league in wins (with 47) in 1879. This is not a relevant example.

Dizzy Dean pitched 100+ innings exactly six times. Addie Joss pitched less than 8 1/2 years, and shouldn't have even been eligible. Lefty Gomez actually seems like one of the better comps for Halladay.


But Dean and Gomez and Joss were all elected. What pitchers with similar cases to Halladay (multiple Cy Youngs, best pitcher in baseball for a time, hung around long enough to pick up 200 pitcher wins) haven't made the Hall of Fame?

And how did a discussion of the 2017 Hall-of-Fame ballot turn into a discussion of a guy who won't debut on the ballot for two more years?
   34. TR_Sullivan Posted: November 30, 2016 at 01:34 PM (#5360094)
All right boys and girls...

In keeping with tradition and out of respect for the group's passion about the Hall of Fame...

I am announcing my ballot on the BBTF site.. here on this thread.... Just filled it out...

1. Ivan Rodriguez - Good reason to vote for Pudge... I get a free trip to Cooperstown. Bad reason: if Pudge gets elected...I am going to feel really really old and that's no joke.

2. Mike Mussina - I feel very strongly about this guy. Very strong. Whatever you think of his numbers, he pitched his entire career in the A.L. East. I feel as strongly about him as I do about Catfish Hunter.

3. Jeff Bagwell - You guys know all the arguments pro and con.

4. Barry Bonds - I decline the honor of sitting in judgment of the steroids era.

5. Roger Clemens - yada yada yada

6. Trevor Hoffman - I am not actually fired up about relievers but he did get 67 percent last year. My rule is if I guy gets over 60 percent, I vote for him. I have a real fear of a guy falling one short and I didn't vote for him. But he is deserving for a reliever.

7. Fred McGriff - I jumped on him last year and am staying on it. If people are going to vote against suspected users...then guys like McGriff deserve more consideration.

8. Tim Raines - JAWS has him rated No. 8 left fielder ahead of many LFers. But that same ranking has Lou Brock 36th behind Roy White, Brian Downing et. al

9. Manny Ramirez - Be interesting to see how he compares to Sammy Sosa. This could easily turn into short-term support

10. Vladimir Guerrero - I weighed him hard against Kent,Martinez and Sheffield. Not sure what to make of Guerrero's defense. All of them could hit.

Sorry about Sammy Sosa... but it's a wasted vote

Schilling? 1. Ran out of room; 2. Rather see Mussina; 3. He can always follow the Jim Bunning route to Cooperstown through the United States Senate

Nothing personal

I really hope Pudge gets in. He wants it badly. I am sure they all do.

tr.sullivan@mlb.com




   35. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: November 30, 2016 at 01:51 PM (#5360106)
five HOF starters have pitched fewer innings than Halladay, and one of them (Koufax) is the ultimate peak candidate of all time.


Just one metric:

Koufax peak WAR:

10.3
10.1
8.1
7.4
5.7

Halladay:

8.9
8.3
8.1
7.4
6.9


No, it's not the same, but if Koufax is the ultimate peak candidate, then Halladay is the penultimate.

   36. SoSH U at work Posted: November 30, 2016 at 02:00 PM (#5360112)
Schilling? 1. Ran out of room;


It would be amusing to see names per ballot defy expectations and hit record levels as BBWAA members use all 10 spots to justify keeping "String 'em Up" Curt on the outside. Sorry, Schill, no room left.

And, as always, thanks for your ballot TR.
   37. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: November 30, 2016 at 02:01 PM (#5360114)
Lefty Gomez actually seems like one of the better comps for Halladay.


Superficially yes, but Halladay had far more value than Gomez. their top 2 seasons are comparable, but Halladay has 5 other seasons as good or better (or much better) than Gomez 3rd best.
   38. TJ Posted: November 30, 2016 at 02:25 PM (#5360152)
In keeping with tradition and out of respect for the group's passion about the Hall of Fame...


Mr. Sullivan, if more BBWAA members recognized and expressed this same sentiment, I feel there would be a lot less acrimony about and a lot more support for their role in the process. Thank you for both revealing your ballot and the way in which you chose to do so...

But your ballot still sucks! (Just kidding- didn't want you to feel left out or anything...)
   39. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 30, 2016 at 02:33 PM (#5360163)
Thank you for sharing your ballot and your reasoning. I'm curious about this:

My rule is if I guy gets over 60 percent, I vote for him. I have a real fear of a guy falling one short and I didn't vote for him.

Even for players you don't think are worthy? Do you not think your colleagues have just been wrong about any of their previous selections?
   40. Baldrick Posted: November 30, 2016 at 02:39 PM (#5360175)
Thanks as always TR! It's always one of the tiny joys of hanging out here to get to see your ballot.

I'm curious about your 60% thing. While I wouldn't vote that way, I do think there's something kind of noble about self-effacing about not wanting to make yourself the center of the story. But I'm curious how far it goes. Is it only for guys you were already kind of on the fence about, or potentially for anyone? Or has it just never been an issue? You seem like a reasonably big hall guy, who sees more harm in keeping a guy out than in policing the lines. So it presumably anyone capable of getting 60% would probably by definition end up being tolerable for you.
   41. TR_Sullivan Posted: November 30, 2016 at 02:39 PM (#5360178)
I think the BBWAA -right or wrong - has really high standards for the Hall of Fame and most of our errors are of omission like Ron Santo and now Mike Mussina. My biggest disagreements with my colleagues are who they leave off.

But seriously, what did Billy Ripken have against Elroy Face?
   42. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 30, 2016 at 02:48 PM (#5360189)
34. TR_Sullivan Posted: November 30, 2016 at 01:34 PM (#5360094)
All right boys and girls... In keeping with tradition and out of respect for the group's passion about the Hall of Fame... I am announcing my ballot on the BBTF site.. here on this thread.... Just filled it out...

It looks like Thibs had this ballot at 11:30 AM. The guy is good.
   43. AROM Posted: November 30, 2016 at 02:49 PM (#5360190)
No, it's not the same, but if Koufax is the ultimate peak candidate, then Halladay is the penultimate.


I'd say Johan Santana. Halladay is great on peak but also good enough to be in on career value.

Santana only had 5 seasons with 200+ innings, but in those 5 consecutive years he had 35 WAR, and finished top 5 for Cy Young each time.
   44. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 30, 2016 at 02:50 PM (#5360191)
But seriously, what did Billy Ripken have against Elroy Face?

I dunno, but if Ripken's 1989 Fleer card is any indication, ol' ElRoy must have seriously pissed him off.
   45. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 30, 2016 at 03:02 PM (#5360201)
8. Tim Raines - JAWS has him rated No. 8 left fielder ahead of many LFers. But that same ranking has Lou Brock 36th behind Roy White, Brian Downing et. al


ummm--what's wrong with that?
   46. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: November 30, 2016 at 03:29 PM (#5360222)
I dunno, but if Ripken's 1989 Fleer card is any indication,

Best line from the link:

After the season was over, in early January, I got a call from our PR guy Rick Vaughn.

Explains a lot....
   47. Danny Posted: November 30, 2016 at 03:41 PM (#5360226)
I'd say Johan Santana. Halladay is great on peak but also good enough to be in on career value.

Santana only had 5 seasons with 200+ innings, but in those 5 consecutive years he had 35 WAR, and finished top 5 for Cy Young each time.

Wilbur Wood only had 5 seasons with 200+ innings, but in those 5 consecutive years he had 39 WAR.
   48. SoSH U at work Posted: November 30, 2016 at 03:50 PM (#5360233)
Wilbur Wood only had 5 seasons with 200+ innings, but in those 5 consecutive years he had 39 WAR.


In '72, Wilbur made a push for consecutive half-seasons of 200 innings.
   49. Danny Posted: November 30, 2016 at 03:56 PM (#5360240)
Most pre-break innings (1947-now)
1. Wood, 1973, 247.2 IP
2. Wood, 1972, 220.1 IP

Most post-break innings (1947-now)
1. Wood, 1971, 185 IP
2. Roberts, 1952, 171.1 IP
   50. dlf Posted: November 30, 2016 at 04:02 PM (#5360254)
Thanks TR! I'm thrilled that our weird little community gets acknowledged the way you do.
   51. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 30, 2016 at 04:35 PM (#5360282)
I'm thrilled that our weird little community


Hey, who you calling weird, nerd?
   52. alilisd Posted: November 30, 2016 at 06:45 PM (#5360349)
Thanks Mr. Sullivan! Love not only that you share your ballots here, but that you clearly put thought and effort into them! Still, give me Walker over McGriff eight days a week! :-)
   53. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: November 30, 2016 at 07:04 PM (#5360360)
five HOF starters have pitched fewer innings than Halladay, and one of them (Koufax) is the ultimate peak candidate of all time.


Just one metric:

Koufax peak WAR:

10.3
10.1
8.1
7.4
5.7

Halladay:

8.9
8.3
8.1
7.4
6.9


No, it's not the same, but if Koufax is the ultimate peak candidate, then Halladay is the penultimate.


I hear you, but I am saying that Koufax is often cited as the ultimate peak candidate. He was wonderful, but because of the unique environment in which he peaked (the low-offense era, in the ultimate low-offense home park, often in the World Series, to boot), his peak is perceived as even greater than it was. Pedro, in contrast, was arguably even greater than he was perceived, because he worked his magic in a high-offense era, in Fenway Park.
   54. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili (TeddyF.Ballgame) Posted: November 30, 2016 at 07:25 PM (#5360368)
Thanks, TR. Not exactly the ballot I'd submit (I'd put Edgar ahead of McGriff, for one thing) but it's a thoughtful, reasonable one, which is all any of us can ask for.
   55. Rennie's Tenet Posted: November 30, 2016 at 08:23 PM (#5360391)
It looks like everyone has been left off at least one of the first ten ballots? Griffey reached at least 152-0 last year.
   56. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 30, 2016 at 08:45 PM (#5360395)
Would like to echo the thanks to Mr. Sullivan for posting his ballot here.

Just for the record:

Koufax full career: 165-87, 131 ERA+, 2324 IP, 53.2 WAR (12 seasons)
Halladay '99--'10: 168-86, 136 ERA+, 2283 IP, 56.4 WAR (12 seasons)

I remember being struck by the similarities at the time and even posting about it here, although I can't find it now. Halladay added one more peak season after that (arguably the best of his career, 8.9 WAR) and a couple of partial seasons before retiring.

EDIT: And of course, that 12-year stretch for Halladay included 67 innings of 48 ERA+ pitching in 2000. A better comparison that really captured the quality of Halladay's peak would be:

Koufax full career: 165-87, 131 ERA+, 2324 IP, 53.2 WAR (12 seasons)
Halladay '01--'11: 175-78, 148 ERA+, 2300 IP, 65.4 WAR (11 seasons)
   57. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 30, 2016 at 09:08 PM (#5360404)
it is beyond silly to compare anyone to Koufax based on an entire career (at least, how his career is judged). Sandy bunched all his bad/mediocre years at the beginning of his career and saved up his best for last. No one else has ever come close to doing that
   58. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 30, 2016 at 09:29 PM (#5360414)
2 cents: AROM is right on the money with the Koufax/Santana comp. Makes sense on many, many levels. Halladay feels more to me like Dazzy Vance. Similar number of seasons with a full starter's load and a few ⅔ to ¾ years, and really high-level performance on the order of best-in-league. That's ignoring that a) Vance got going at age 31 and b) they were very different kinds of pitchers. Dazzy was K god, and Halladay wasn't.

Halladay's generation of pitchers includes Santana, Oswalt, Hudson, Sabathia, Colon, Buehrle, Zambrano, Vasquez, Carpenter, Zito, Cliff Lee, Pettitte, and Radke. They all pitched in the shadows of one or two active prior generations that had several 300 game winners plus Pedro, Moose, Schilling, Smoltz, and Brown. Kind of feels like it might be the 1980s all over again in terms of the Hall vote for early 2000s aces. The game has just changed that fast for starting pitchers.
   59. Danny Posted: November 30, 2016 at 09:51 PM (#5360426)
A better comparison that really captured the quality of Halladay's peak would be:

Koufax full career: 165-87, 131 ERA+, 2324 IP, 53.2 WAR (12 seasons)
Halladay '01--'11: 175-78, 148 ERA+, 2300 IP, 65.4 WAR (11 seasons)


This is a great example of where the peak/prime distinction is helpful.
   60. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 30, 2016 at 10:17 PM (#5360445)

it is beyond silly to compare anyone to Koufax based on an entire career (at least, how his career is judged). Sandy bunched all his bad/mediocre years at the beginning of his career and saved up his best for last. No one else has ever come close to doing that

Koufax is also a legend for his postseason pitching. Halladay would stack up well against almost anyone else in that category, but not against Koufax.
   61. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 30, 2016 at 10:42 PM (#5360453)
9. Mark Buehrle, 59.2


He should be elected based solely on 2 things. His insane ability to control the running game and the efficiency in which he worked. Bring back the 2:20 start Mark Buehrle a nation turns is bored eyes to you.
   62. Lassus Posted: December 01, 2016 at 07:35 AM (#5360501)
Is it just me or is the early no-unanimous tally a bit foreboding?
   63. zack Posted: December 01, 2016 at 09:04 AM (#5360531)
I have to think that Koufax is getting a ton of "injury credit" applied to his legend, similar to war credit, because his career was over suddenly and extremely early while still in his peak. So despite the fact that Halladay actually provided more value, he's not considered in the same tier.

Halladay was done at 35, which is early-ish for a modern superstar, but he had 2 partial seasons of marginal effectiveness after that. Getting injured after 35 is routine and so he is "blamed" for that, and "we" feel content in considering his career justifiably over.

Koufax, however, was finished "suddenly" (from the public's view), in a way that coincided with the end of a season, and at a young age by any standard. So when we imagine his career, we see a whole half of a bell curve missing. He is not "blamed" for his injury in the same way that most are, because we never saw the decline associated with it. A less extreme version of the same thing explains Kirby Puckett, and others have argued that Tim Raines might have a better perception if his career had ended suddenly due to his lupus.
   64. Booey Posted: December 01, 2016 at 11:01 AM (#5360605)
Is it just me or is the early no-unanimous tally a bit foreboding?


Eh. We already knew there were no Griffey/Jeter types on this ballot that were going to get 99%. The top returnees - Bagwell, Raines, and Hoffman - aren't going to go from 70% to 90%. And no one thought either Pudge or Vlad was a first ballot lock. From the beginning it was looking like one of those years where the electees squeak in with 75-80%. So no, I don't think there's cause for concern yet.
   65. Rennie's Tenet Posted: December 01, 2016 at 01:30 PM (#5360807)
I have to think that Koufax is getting a ton of "injury credit" applied to his legend, similar to war credit, because his career was over suddenly and extremely early while still in his peak. So despite the fact that Halladay actually provided more value, he's not considered in the same tier.


Maybe I have a distorted view because Koufax's last season was the first year that I followed baseball, and he went straight to legend from there, but I don't think Koufax got credit for anything in Hall of Fame terms. I think his vote was mostly esthetic - a vote for Koufax was a vote the Platonic ideal of pitching.

More succinctly: Sandy Koufax? Fuggedaboutit.
   66. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 01, 2016 at 04:37 PM (#5361006)
Raines has picked up 2 votes on the first 13 ballots tallied on the spreadsheet, without losing any. Way too early to say for sure, but I'm cautiously optimistic that the voters are giving him a close look, which should be all it takes.
   67. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 01, 2016 at 06:28 PM (#5361074)
6. Trevor Hoffman - I am not actually fired up about relievers but he did get 67 percent last year. My rule is if I guy gets over 60 percent, I vote for him. I have a real fear of a guy falling one short and I didn't vote for him. But he is deserving for a reliever.

3. Hoffman. I am ambivalent, but since he's going to make it eventually let's get it done.

Bagwell, Raines, and Hoffman are all getting in very quickly, so they'll be off the decks. Lee Smith is off the ballot this year, too,and that's a third of the ballots that will drop a name because of it.


This is something that I'm actually kind of baffled about- Hoffman got far more votes his first year on the ballot than Lee Smith did his high water mark, he got nearly twice as many votes as Smith, how can that many people think Hoffman in/Smith out?

I wouldn't pick either, but if I had to choose, I'd pick Smith-
what does/did Hoffman have that Smith didn't? Sure he had more saves, but in the context of their respective eras Smith's total was just as (if not more) impressive, WAR has them very close, slight edge for Smith, which surprises me, I would have guessed that Smith would have at least a 5 WAR edge. Smith has slightly more black and gray ink.
So Smith was never really seen as THE GUY, the best reliever in Baseball, neither was Hoffman, both me got CY Young/MVP votes in five seasons, both were named all stars 7 times
By similarity scores Smith is Hoffman's best comp.
I just don't see any appreciable separation between them whether you look at traditional stats or advanced metrics- and yet 296 BBWAA members voted for Hoffman versus just 150 for Smith, how could 146 make the call that Hoffman deserves induction and Smith doesn't?
   68. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: December 01, 2016 at 06:36 PM (#5361077)
how could 146 make the call that Hoffman deserves induction and Smith doesn't?
Sure he [Hoffman] had more saves

There you have it.
   69. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 01, 2016 at 07:08 PM (#5361094)
a vote for Koufax was a vote the Platonic ideal of pitching.


Well I think at the time during his amazing run and his subsequent election, I would imagine for many voters, for the period he was extraordinary, that he was quite simply the best pitcher that ever lived. And that's why he's in the hall of fame. Many voters just thought, well there's never been anyone better at this even if that stretch was just 4 years. I would think a lot voters just thought, holy smokes, this cat K'd 382 guys in one season and only gave up 6 hits per 9 innings. They didn't really think about k/9 or BB/SO(which of course were awesome-but there are other guys who have had better seasons).
At the time he must have just seemed unhittable...and people remember that.

   70. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: December 01, 2016 at 09:36 PM (#5361137)
[At the time he must have just seemed unhittable


he was
   71. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 01, 2016 at 10:01 PM (#5361149)
I'm not trying to take a HOF thread away from the HOF, but as somebody who watched all of Pedros' starts in the late 90s/early 00s, and never saw Koufax pitch, I ask those who saw both: It seems based on the numbers that Pedro's peak (probably 1999 and 2000) aren't just a lot better than Koufax's peak,but arguably the greatest couple of peak seasons in modern baseball history. Would this be the consensus view? Koufax's best ERA+ was 190...Pedro's was 291.

I know we were talking about some of the starting pitchers coming onto the HOF ballot in the next few years, including Halladay. Most of them have shorter careers, fewer wins, fewer innings, than most inductees of the past 30-40 years. It is possibly also not helpful to any of these guys that any "peak" argument is going to get compared to the only real "peak" inductee in a long time - and arguably the greatest peak performance of all time.

   72. cardsfanboy Posted: December 01, 2016 at 10:36 PM (#5361162)
I'm not trying to take a HOF thread away from the HOF, but as somebody who watched all of Pedros' starts in the late 90s/early 00s, and never saw Koufax pitch, I ask those who saw both: It seems based on the numbers that Pedro's peak (probably 1999 and 2000) aren't just a lot better than Koufax's peak,but arguably the greatest couple of peak seasons in modern baseball history. Would this be the consensus view? Koufax's best ERA+ was 190...Pedro's was 291.


So you are comparing a Pedro year, in which he had 29 starts, while the best starters in baseball that year had 33-35 starts against a guy who led the league with 41 starts.. You are arguing to compare a guy with 7 complete games vs a guy who had 27 complete games including 5 shutouts... really? Pedro threw 217 innings in his great year, Koufax threw 323...ip.... Seriously you cannot compare seasons from Pedro to Koufax.
   73. LargeBill Posted: December 01, 2016 at 10:39 PM (#5361164)
39. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 30, 2016 at 02:33 PM (#5360163)
Thank you for sharing your ballot and your reasoning. I'm curious about this:

My rule is if I guy gets over 60 percent, I vote for him. I have a real fear of a guy falling one short and I didn't vote for him.


Even for players you don't think are worthy? Do you not think your colleagues have just been wrong about any of their previous selections?


Not to speak for TR, but don't think that is what he is saying. I think he means that he'd hate to be the one vote missing for a deserving player just because he had him 11th out of 14 deserving choices.
   74. cardsfanboy Posted: December 01, 2016 at 10:40 PM (#5361165)
Pedro is great, Koufax was great....it's ridiculous to compare the two, because there is no way in hell Pedro would have survived in the Koufax Era.... Pedro existed as the ultimate example of what a great pitcher could be in the reliever era.
   75. cardsfanboy Posted: December 01, 2016 at 10:43 PM (#5361167)
Not to speak for TR, but don't think that is what he is saying. I think he means that he'd hate to be the one vote missing for a deserving player just because he had him 11th out of 14 deserving choices.


That is the way I took it. I didn't think he was saying he was voting for a guy who he didn't think deserve the spot, but instead that he was voting for a guy who his electorate has decided was probably worthy, and who he thought was borderline.
   76. Howie Menckel Posted: December 01, 2016 at 10:52 PM (#5361169)
One of my favorite threads because I know a lot of the voters and yet you guys not only tend to be fair markers, but you also have probably influenced some of the votes over time and in a good way. I feel like a double agent.
:)

and yes, glorifying Pedro peak over Koufax peak is getting stuck on rate stats, which is silly.
   77. DanG Posted: December 01, 2016 at 11:31 PM (#5361183)
At the time he must have just seemed unhittable
A lot of guys were "unhittable" in the 60's.

SP with ERA+ of >155 and OPS+-allowed of <66

Rk               Player ERAOPS+  ERA SHO  W  L    IP Year
1            Bob Gibson  258   47 1.12  13 22  9 304.2 1968
2           Dean Chance  200   53 1.65  11 20  9 278.1 1964
3          Sandy Koufax  190   62 1.73   5 27  9 323.0 1966
4          Sandy Koufax  186   55 1.74   7 19  5 223.0 1964
5            Luis Tiant  186   56 1.60   9 21  9 258.1 1968
6          Hank Aguirre  185   52 2.21   2 16  8 216.0 1962
7            Joe Horlen  184   49 1.88   2 13  9 210.2 1964
8           Whitey Ford  170   64 2.13   8 17  6 244.2 1964
9         Juan Marichal  169   59 2.13  10 22 13 295.1 1965
10        Juan Marichal  168   61 2.10   8 21 11 299.2 1969
11        Juan Marichal  167   51 2.23   4 25  6 307.1 1966
12       Dick Ellsworth  167   58 2.11   4 22 10 290.2 1963
13         Sam McDowell  161   56 2.18   3 17 11 273.0 1965
14         Sandy Koufax  160   52 2.04   8 26  8 335.2 1965
15         Sandy Koufax  159   54 1.88  11 25  5 311.0 1963 
   78. TomH Posted: December 02, 2016 at 05:38 PM (#5361633)
Bill Deane has published his annual forecast; which he makes back in Sept-Oct.

https://dizzydeane.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/the-2017-hall-of-fame-election-forecast/
   79. alilisd Posted: December 02, 2016 at 05:48 PM (#5361636)
A lot of guys were "unhittable" in the 60's.


That's not a lot; it's only 15, and 7 of them are Koufax, or Marichal. ;-)
   80. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 02, 2016 at 06:11 PM (#5361649)
Pedro is great, Koufax was great....it's ridiculous to compare the two, because there is no way in hell Pedro would have survived in the Koufax Era....

Koufax didn't really survive in the Koufax Era, either. I agree you can't compare the two--they are both completely unique careers, great in different ways. Koufax gave you three or four years of maximum usage at one of the highest levels of pitching anyone has ever seen. Pedro put together a 7-season stretch of more limited usage, at a similar level, plus another four or five seasons of above average work.

Randy Johnson with the D-Backs is probably the most comparable stretch we've seen to Koufax in recent years. Maddux with the Braves as well.
   81. cardsfanboy Posted: December 02, 2016 at 08:07 PM (#5361690)

Koufax didn't really survive in the Koufax Era, either.


Good point. (I agree with the rest of your comment, especially the Randy Johnson part, it just seemed like they were willing to pitch Randy until his arm fell off. I remember Prospectus used to have a thing called pitchers abuse points and Randy lapped the field in that stat)
   82. JPWF1313 Posted: December 02, 2016 at 10:18 PM (#5361724)
Randy Johnson would have been interesting in the 1960s, and given some of the pitch counts he ran up in his actual career I'm pretty confident he would have handled 1960s/70s usage... OTOH Pedro's arm would have come flying off.
   83. cardsfanboy Posted: December 02, 2016 at 10:36 PM (#5361731)
OTOH Pedro's arm would have come flying off.


To be fair to Pedro, we don't know... he was quite possibly the first pitcher in history to be handled with kid's gloves that had a hof career. We honestly do not know what would have happened to him if he was challenged, sure he routinely missed starts during his peak, but some of that was people trying their best to protect him and not really about his actual health...
   84. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 06, 2016 at 06:37 PM (#5363853)
Latest ballot up is another guy who voted for Schilling last year but not this year, if this keeps up I'd have to think that the bloody shirt is outweighing the bloody sock...
   85. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 07, 2016 at 04:05 PM (#5364475)
Votes seem to be coming in at a snail's pace this year. Is Thibs no longer camping out on the voters' doorsteps? What a slacker.

Only 22 votes in: Bagwell (+1), Raines (+2) & Rodriguez all leading with 19 votes (86%). Small sample, but best case scenario it holds up. Hoffman on the cusp at 77%, but he did better in the non-public ballots last year, so he might make it.
   86. Sleepless in Munich Posted: December 07, 2016 at 05:27 PM (#5364563)
Interesting(?) trivia: Out of 20 ballots, two are full ballots which dropped Curt Schilling and added Edgar Martinez.
   87. reech Posted: December 07, 2016 at 05:50 PM (#5364575)
I think Curt Schilling deserves to be in the Hall Of Fame (due to his career).
I also am glad that he will fall short in the voting (due to his mouth).
   88. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 07, 2016 at 07:18 PM (#5364635)

I think Curt Schilling deserves to be in the Hall Of Fame (due to his career).
I also am glad that he will fall short in the voting (due to his mouth).


Yeah, normally I would say that a player's political and other statements, especially post-playing career, shouldn't have an impact on his case. But when you joke about killing members of the very profession who do the voting, I really have a hard time mustering any sympathy for you.
   89. Adam Starblind Posted: December 08, 2016 at 12:25 PM (#5364975)
A huge number of professional athletes are Republicans. Curt is an a**hole.
   90. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 08, 2016 at 01:23 PM (#5365034)
Over-crowded ballots still an issue. Politi says he dropped McGriff for that reason, Jose de Jesus Ortiz says ballot crowding was why he couldn't get to Mussina. More than half of ballots still using all 10 spots

It's looking good for Bagwell and Pudge to come off the ballot, but getting Hoffman off would clear five names off for next year, which might finally give voters enough breathing room.
   91. AROM Posted: December 08, 2016 at 01:31 PM (#5365042)
To be fair to Pedro, we don't know... he was quite possibly the first pitcher in history to be handled with kid's gloves that had a hof career. We honestly do not know what would have happened to him if he was challenged, sure he routinely missed starts during his peak, but some of that was people trying their best to protect him and not really about his actual health...


That's true by the standards of just 20 years ago. But looking back at Pedro's usage, he was worked pretty hard compared to pitchers of 2010+.

Rookie year - 107 innings. He made 2 starts with a total of 7.1 innings, which means 99.2 out of the pen. No reliever topped 100 innings last year, only a small handful even threw 80. It's been a decade since anyone threw 100+ innings without making a start.

In 1996 Pedro threw 120+ pitches 7 times. In 2016, that was done only 22 times in all of MLB, and only one of those was over 130.

The next year he threw a career high 241 innings. Pitch counts over 120: 11 Over 130: 4 (high of 139).

For his time Pedro was used carefully. If any manager today used a pitcher in his early 20's like Pedro, heads would asplode.
   92. AROM Posted: December 08, 2016 at 01:47 PM (#5365054)
After the trade to the Red Sox:

1998: innings were down but 15 starts of 120+, including 2 of 140.
1999: 13 more
2000: 7 starts of 120+. I think this is due to his extreme dominance in avoiding baserunners, and a reversal of his BABIP (.237) luck. His innings were slightly up from 199, but pitch counts were down because the low BABIP meant fewer hits and fewer strikeouts as innings ended quicker.
2001: The injury year. 3 120+ outings before the injury, none after his return.
2002: Now they are actually being careful - only one 120+ pitch game. He had 4 in 2003 (+2 more in the playoffs), none in 2004.

Last year among all the 120+ pitch games, Chris Sale (3) is the only one to do it more than once. He threw exactly 120 3 times.
   93. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 08, 2016 at 02:02 PM (#5365066)
Thibs deserves big props for his work on this over the last few years. Is it fair to say his increasingly-public, increasingly-effective tallying of the votes played a significant role in the HOF making this policy change for the 2018 class?

Also, Manny Ramirez is doing better than I thought he would. I am happy about this - my vote would not be significantly impacted by the PED factor, even with more recent players. In terms of the art of hitting a baseball, there are few players in my lifetime who were better at hitting than Manny Ramirez. He was a savant at hitting, and that was true with PEDs, without them, or whatever. One of the greatest pure hitters in history, and his career and peak numbers are among the best in history. Eight straight years in the top nine in the MVP voting. 12-time all-star. His top-10 comps are 5 HOFers, three or four more who likely will be (Thome, Pujols, Ortiz, and Cabrera) and Gary Sheffield. I guess the same things that conspire to doom to Sheffield will doom Ramirez, but whatever...Ramirez was unbelievable for a long, long time.
   94. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 08, 2016 at 02:31 PM (#5365101)
93-

Given that Bonds/Clemens are sitting at 75%, compared to just 45% last year, but have only made a net gain of one voter thus far, it appears that these first 24 ballots have a larger percentage of voters who are okay with PEDs than we might see in the overall tally. Considering that Manny's going to miss out on a decent number of Bonds/Clemens voters, even if those guys improve to 50%, Manny's numbers should drop considerably.
   95. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 09, 2016 at 03:32 PM (#5365860)
Perhaps my memory is off, but votes seem to be coming in very slowly this year. Possibly an anti-Thibs conspiracy?

In any event, there are some positives for Tim Raines beyond the raw numbers. Even Bob Padecky, who only voted for 3 players this year, had the sense to include Raines, dropping Kent - seemingly an indication that even the stingiest voters may be giving Raines final year on the ballot appropriate consideration. More good news - scrolling down to the bottom of the spreadsheet reveals that Thibs also has 5 partial ballots, all of which include Raines, making it 26 of 29, or 89.65% thus far. A good sign.
   96. Lassus Posted: December 09, 2016 at 03:46 PM (#5365869)
I wish someone would update the header. How many votes are we at?
   97. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: December 09, 2016 at 04:30 PM (#5365890)
Why would there be an anti-Thibs conspiracy? You know what's good for sports writers? People talking about the hall of fame (and so clicking on articles about it).
   98. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 09, 2016 at 04:42 PM (#5365903)
Perhaps my memory is off, but votes seem to be coming in very slowly this year. Possibly an anti-Thibs conspiracy?


The spreadsheet includes tabs for previous years and one of the columns is "Date Added". On the 2016 tab, sorting by date, there were 21 ballots added through 12/9/2015. There's a HUGE surge in ballots in the last week before the announcement and one-third of the ballots shown for last year were released AFTER the final results were announced.

EDIT: Apparently trying to just copy one column of the spreadsheet didn't work. Downloading the entire spreadsheet, Thibs had 36 ballots as of the end of 12/9/2015 vs. 23 as I type this.
   99. Baldrick Posted: December 09, 2016 at 05:00 PM (#5365917)
With 25 ballots in, the biggest net improver is...Edgar Martinez? He's up 4 votes compared to last year. Which is kind of odd. My best guess is all the Ortiz HOF talk made some people look twice and realize that if they're planning to vote for one Papi, they should probably vote for the other.

It seems extremely unlikely for that improvement to hold across the whole electorate. But if he does make a modest surge this year (maybe clearly 50%) that would put him a trajectory where induction would start to look more likely than not. That said, he's only got two ballots left after this once, so that route looks pretty unlikely even if he does get a big jump this year.

Raines is up 3 votes. Which means, from the pool of reported voters, half of the folks who didn't vote for Raines last year checked his box this year. Raines only needs to convert about 1/5 to make it, so that's a good sign.
   100. Rennie's Tenet Posted: December 09, 2016 at 05:17 PM (#5365931)
votes seem to be coming in very slowly this year


One factor: ballots went out on November 9 last year, returned by December 21, announcement on January 6. This year it's November 21, December 31, and January 18.
Page 1 of 10 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAbsence makes OMNICHATTER grow fonder, for June 24, 2017
(31 - 8:10pm, Jun 24)
Last: Davoice of Dapeople

NewsblogOTP 19 June 2017: Bipartisan baseball: Dems best GOP, give trophy to wounded Scalise
(993 - 8:02pm, Jun 24)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogColumn | Freddie Freeman Shouldn't Play 3B To Accommodate Adams
(17 - 7:39pm, Jun 24)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogBeyond the Box Score: On the lack of interest in Albert Pujols’s 600 HR and Adrián Beltré’s pursuit of 3,000 hits
(90 - 7:30pm, Jun 24)
Last: puck

NewsblogCENTRAL PARK - JULY 1, 2017 10 AM - BBTF ANNUAL SOFTBALL EXTRAVAGANZA
(268 - 7:23pm, Jun 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogDodgers' Julio Urias to have shoulder surgery; he's out for the season
(15 - 7:15pm, Jun 24)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogOT - March 2017 NBA thread
(7179 - 6:26pm, Jun 24)
Last: maccoach57

NewsblogAsdrubal Cabrera to Mets: Trade me
(11 - 5:54pm, Jun 24)
Last: Captain Supporter

NewsblogRoyals sign former Brewers closer Neftalí Feliz and drop Chris Young
(2 - 5:24pm, Jun 24)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogYour 2017 MLB local broadcaster rankings
(60 - 4:46pm, Jun 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogAaron Judge More Than Halfway To Rookie HR Record
(17 - 3:04pm, Jun 24)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogAP source: Jeter doesn’t have money needed to buy Marlins
(32 - 2:38pm, Jun 24)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogAnalytics haven’t ruined baseball, but that doesn’t mean they won’t
(15 - 2:29pm, Jun 24)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 6-24-17
(1 - 2:24pm, Jun 24)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogRecounting the many ways baseball has changed in 20 years
(66 - 2:15pm, Jun 24)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

Page rendered in 0.9673 seconds
47 querie(s) executed