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 3 of 10 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
   201. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: December 20, 2016 at 12:56 AM (#5371222)
Those aren't really stories any more than Hoffman recording nine 40-save seasons is.

Walker did have that season when he was over .400 past the halfway point.


How is Hoffman recording 40 save a story a grandfather would tell his grandchild? And how is Walker hitting .400 at mid-season?
   202. Sweatpants Posted: December 20, 2016 at 01:50 AM (#5371224)
How is Hoffman recording 40 save a story a grandfather would tell his grandchild?
It isn't really, but then neither is the story of Walker having three three-homer games.
And how is Walker hitting .400 at mid-season?
Checking the newspaper each day to see if Walker was still above .400, all the excitement that goes with that. That's something that I imagine a lot of baseball fans remember from then, certainly more than some random game with six RBI.
   203. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 20, 2016 at 07:39 AM (#5371242)
1) The more you think about Hoffman as a candidate, the worse he looks. I mean, if you are a voter who takes a second, thinks about taking your grandkid to Cooperstown, and gazing at the Hoffman plaque. "Grandpa, tell me a story about Trevor Hoffman..." "Um..."

How is this any different from Larry Walker? What Larry Walker stories are there besides "One time Larry Walker forget how many outs there were"?


I wouldn't vote for Walker, either, so there's that...

I'm not saying you have to be Babe Ruth to get in the Hall of Fame, or unique like Nolan Ryan, either, but there are a lot of guys below those big five (Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, IRod, and Raines) that don't hurt my head a whole lot if they get in vs don't get in. Which of those other players were the kind of guys that I would tell my grandson about?

- Vlad Guerrero. Isn't he obviously a one-of-a-kind player? I'd talk about his arm, about how he could hit a ball off the ground or at his eyes, about how vicious his swing was, bare-handed, and just violent. I've never seen a player like him, and he was wonderful to watch.
- Curt Schilling. Forget the a-hole stuff he says. He took the 2004 Red Sox (remember, by then Pedro was on the decline) and willed them to victory. He did almost the same thing with the 2001 D'Backs. Again, one-of-a-kind stuff. These voters who almost got Morris elected because he was a bulldog who also had a great WS moment? They better all vote for Schilling, because he was a much better pitcher who had an arguably even greater moment. The Bloody Sock game is off the charts - 86-year curse, comes back from 3-0 against the Yankees, wins multiple WS, etc.
- Manny Ramirez. Possibly the best natural right-handed hitter I've ever seen. He would work a pitcher, foul off the nastiest pitches, and when he connected, the ball moved differently than the other players. He also was a complete goof ball in the outfield - not lazy, just not very good at it, and yet once in a while he would stumble into a great play or a great throw. Again, one-of-a-kind player who was great.
- I'd also vote for Mussina (sort of the Don Sutton of his generation) and Edgar Martinez (another wonderful natural hitter). I know Edgar fans point to his game-ending double in 1995, and it was a great moment, but it won an ALDS for a team that didn't even make it to the WS that year, so I don't want to overstate the wow factor.

The Hall of Fame is about more than just the 100 most famous, most "wow" ballplayers, which is how I add Mussina and Martinez...but you have to be able to put in the occasional Sutton, too.
   204. Lassus Posted: December 20, 2016 at 08:02 AM (#5371244)
I can see (sans steroid yapping) a reason for keeping Manny out of the HOF. I want him IN the HOF, and I wouldn't agree, but squint a bit and I can understand him being out.

I see absolutely, positively zero reasons for keeping Vlad Guererro out. The HOF was made for a dude like Guererro.
   205. Rally Posted: December 20, 2016 at 09:39 AM (#5371279)
I mean, if you are a voter who takes a second, thinks about taking your grandkid to Cooperstown, and gazing at the Hoffman plaque. "Grandpa, tell me a story about Trevor Hoffman..." "Um..."


It makes me sad to be reminded that my grandfathers died and I never asked them for stories about Firpo Marberry.
   206. JJ1986 Posted: December 20, 2016 at 09:45 AM (#5371286)
My main memory of Hoffman is that he got a bunch of Cy Young votes in 1998 and cost Kevin Brown the award.
   207. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 20, 2016 at 11:23 AM (#5371353)
Some more ballots in now
Bagwell stuck at +2
Bonds +7
Clemens +8
Hoffman +1
Edgar +10
Moose +5
Raines +11
Schilling -9
Walker +7

So... I'm starting to think maybe neither Bagwell or Hoffman gets in this year (sure Bagwell is currently at 90%- but virtually all that is from guys who voted for him last year- he's not seeing a sufficient net gain yet) which is bad news if you want to unclog the ballot- Raines is looking good, but he was gonna be off anyway.
We could have Hoffman, and Bagwell return next year with Bonds, Clemens, Edgar adn Moose all pulling 50%+ returning as well- and what about Vlad? What if he doesn't make it in?

Then next year we add Chipper, Thome, Rolen [who is gonna get hosed], Andruw, Santana, Moyer....

RE: Schilling, a one year boycott or is this gonna stick a major monkey wrench in his BBWAA candidacy?
   208. Baldrick Posted: December 20, 2016 at 11:27 AM (#5371357)
So... I'm starting to think maybe neither Bagwell or Hoffman gets in this year (sure Bagwell is currently at 90%- but virtually all that is from guys who voted for him last year- he's not seeing a sufficient net gain yet) which is bad news if you want to unclog the ballot- Raines is looking good, but he was gonna be off anyway.

Bagwell has converted 2/9 votes so far (the other 61 were already voting for him). A 22% conversion rate is well above what he needs to get in. Not to say that he's guaranteed or anything, but the results so far are entirely consistent with him being inducted.
   209. Rally Posted: December 20, 2016 at 11:32 AM (#5371367)
Bagwell has converted 2/9 votes so far (the other 61 were already voting for him). A 22% conversion rate is well above what he needs to get in. Not to say that he's guaranteed or anything, but the results so far are entirely consistent with him being inducted.


That's a good way to look at it. Last year 125 voters did not vote for him, he needs 15 of them to change their minds (12%).

Small sample size but no reason yet to be negative on his chances.
   210. SoSH U at work Posted: December 20, 2016 at 11:45 AM (#5371380)
RE: Schilling, a one year boycott or is this gonna stick a major monkey wrench in his BBWAA candidacy?


Even if it's just a one-year boycott, it's going to hurt as this was a year he likely needed to make some progress. Mussina may very well stay ahead of him from here forward, and Curt has got one fewer year on the ballot than Moose.

   211. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 20, 2016 at 11:48 AM (#5371384)
That's a good way to look at it. Last year 125 voters did not vote for him, he needs 15 of them to change their minds (12%). Small sample size but no reason yet to be negative on his chances.

Bagwell also picked up votes from both of the first-time voters listed thus far. Thibs expects 20 1st time voters this year, according to the assumptions at the bottom of the spreadsheet, so there is a large enough pool to put Bagwell over the top if he maintains his pace.
   212. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 20, 2016 at 11:59 AM (#5371390)
It's kind of astounding watching Raines' +/- number get bigger and bigger
   213. Booey Posted: December 20, 2016 at 12:09 PM (#5371403)
Then next year we add Chipper, Thome, Rolen [who is gonna get hosed], Andruw, Santana, Moyer....


Those last 4 won't suck up many votes. In fact, I doubt any of the 2018 debuts are still around for the 2019 vote (Chipper and Thome go first ballot, everyone else is one and done).
   214. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 20, 2016 at 12:14 PM (#5371408)
Those last 4 won't suck up many votes. In fact, I doubt any of the 2018 debuts are still around for the 2019 vote (Chipper and Thome go first ballot, everyone else is one and done).


I think it all depends on Vlad and Hoffman. Opening six spots on the ballot instead of four might give Rolen/Andruw enough room to squeak out 5%.
   215. MHS Posted: December 20, 2016 at 12:26 PM (#5371413)
Raines +11


How many does he need to get in?
   216. Baldrick Posted: December 20, 2016 at 12:34 PM (#5371421)
How many does he need to get in?

Depends on how many ballots are actually submitted, but ~20. He's also up to 13 just in the last hour. So...things are looking very good.

Oh, and Bagwell just went to +3 with Claire Smith's ballot. He's now converting at 30%
   217. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 20, 2016 at 12:36 PM (#5371422)
I may be unduly negative on Bagwell's chances...
   218. DanG Posted: December 20, 2016 at 12:48 PM (#5371429)
Then next year we add Chipper, Thome, Rolen [who is gonna get hosed], Andruw, Santana, Moyer....
...Vizquel, Damon and Matsui. It's a strong class. Plus, nobody is in their tenth year on the ballot.

The year after that we add Rivera, Halladay, Pettitte, Helton, Berkman, Tejada, Oswalt and Polanco.

Chipper and Rivera are the slam dunks, of course. But there are enough good candidates in the pipeline to maintain the number of deserving candidates above the ten-vote limit.
   219. Booey Posted: December 20, 2016 at 12:49 PM (#5371431)
I think it all depends on Vlad and Hoffman. Opening six spots on the ballot instead of four might give Rolen/Andruw enough room to squeak out 5%.


Possibly, but even if they hang around for a few years at 5-10%, they're not taking a lot of votes away from Edgar, Moose, Schilling, etc (the guys who will need them the most for future election).
   220. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 20, 2016 at 12:56 PM (#5371436)
...Vizquel, Damon and Matsui. It's a strong class.


Vizquel is gonna be a killer, because you just know he is gonna be bumping some far more deserving players off ballots
   221. Booey Posted: December 20, 2016 at 12:56 PM (#5371437)
I doubt any of the 2018 debuts are still around for the 2019 vote (Chipper and Thome go first ballot, everyone else is one and done).


To dispute myself, I forgot that Vizquel also appears on the 2018 ballot. He sticks around for sure.
   222. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: December 20, 2016 at 01:09 PM (#5371446)
I am astounded that such a nondescript player like Vizquel is not only a favorite to make it to a second ballot but also to draw a not-insignificant number of votes the first time around.
   223. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 20, 2016 at 01:13 PM (#5371448)
Then next year we add Chipper, Thome, Rolen [who is gonna get hosed], Andruw, Santana, Moyer....
...Vizquel, Damon and Matsui. It's a strong class. Plus, nobody is in their tenth year on the ballot.


Is it really though?

I mean, Santana's got 139 wins and 50 WAR. Yeah, he had a great peak, but it wasn't Pedro/Koufax-like, and you've got to have tunnel vision on that peak to even think about voting for him, because his career numbers leave him woefully short
Moyer's got a lot of wins, but like Santana, you have to essentially focus on that one thing only, because nothing else even comes close.
As for Matsui, credit for Japan or no, he's a corner outfielder with 21 WAR who garnered next to no accolades during his career.
Damon's moderately intriguing as essentially a more famous Kenny Lofton-lite sort of candidate. Maybe that gets him votes, but I doubt it.

I just don't see these guys really moving the needle
   224. DanG Posted: December 20, 2016 at 01:33 PM (#5371458)
Yeah, to have names like that down-ballot, that's a strong class.

Santana, Moyer, Matsui, Damon, etc., none are going to be elected by the BBWAA and they don't deserve to be. But they're going to draw focus, and votes, away from the truly deserving candidates.
   225. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 20, 2016 at 01:37 PM (#5371463)
But they're going to draw focus, and votes, away from the truly deserving candidates.


Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree, at least on the first three names. I'd suspect the other three will be one and done. If Moyer got more than 5 votes, I'd be stunned
   226. Rally Posted: December 20, 2016 at 01:42 PM (#5371466)
Santana is on the ballot because he hasn't pitched since 2012. He went to spring training with the Orioles in 2014 and Blue Jays in 2015, though he never made it to a minor league season game. I'm not sure if he's officially retired. It's a long shot but he might be a rare case of a guy who is on the HOF ballot and then makes a comeback. Theoretically, he could do that before he turns 40 in 2019.
   227. Baldrick Posted: December 20, 2016 at 01:48 PM (#5371472)
I don't think Santana will get many votes, but it wouldn't shock me if he did. For a six year period, he was easily the best pitcher in baseball (from 2003-2008, Santa had a 7+ WAR season four times. No other pitcher did it more than once). His career numbers are obviously weak, but they actually match up pretty closely to Koufax's. I don't think people will think he was as good as Koufax, but I could see a fair number of folks thinking that's close enough to justify rewarding his extraordinary peak.

That said, 139 wins will obviously be a deal-breaker for the vast majority of the electorate.
   228. Rally Posted: December 20, 2016 at 01:58 PM (#5371477)
If Santana had pitched in a 4 man rotation without losing any effectiveness (until his arm gives out at the end of his peak years) he would be Koufax.
   229. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 20, 2016 at 02:03 PM (#5371481)
It's a long shot but he might be a rare case of a guy who is on the HOF ballot and then makes a comeback.


There was a story a month ago about Santana trying a comeback. If he gets invited to somebody's spring training and makes it north with them, I assume he's off next year's ballot and his eligibility resets.
   230. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 20, 2016 at 02:18 PM (#5371491)
Then next year we add Chipper, Thome, Rolen [who is gonna get hosed], Andruw, Santana, Moyer....

Those last 4 won't suck up many votes. In fact, I doubt any of the 2018 debuts are still around for the 2019 vote (Chipper and Thome go first ballot, everyone else is one and done).

Andruw Jones could get some votes, although probably not my hypothetical one, depending on what part of his career was focused on.
   231. Fred Flintstone, Premier NL Save Leader Posted: December 20, 2016 at 02:23 PM (#5371493)
From the @NotMrTibbs Twitter feed:

A very boring thread coming, if you'll allow me... It's become clear to me that my initial estimate of 450 ballots cast is too high. (1/7)

475 ballots were sent out last year, 440 were cast. Many reasons: ballots lost in the mail, voter gets busy/ill and doesn't vote, etc. (2/7)

We don't know how many were sent out this year (yet). I'm working on it. But it's become clear that it's not more than about 460. (3/7)

That makes my 450 cast estimate too high. If 460 mailed, I'd guess 430-435 cast. I'll pick a number in the coming days as I know more. (4/7)

But the number will be less than 450. This has ramifications: votes needed for 75% will be less than 338. For >5%? Less than 23. (5/7)

The net gains needed as shown on the sheet will also drop slightly. For example, Bagwell would go from 14 to 13 changed minds needed. (6/7)

Something to keep an eye out for. Explaining now so you know what's up when I change the sheet later on. End wickedly boring thread! (7/7)

Ryan Thibodaux ?@NotMrTibbs Dec 12



Good news for Bagwell, as Ryan actually changed the number of votes Baggs needs to convert to 12.
   232. Booey Posted: December 20, 2016 at 03:04 PM (#5371525)
Andruw Jones could get some votes, although probably not my hypothetical one, depending on what part of his career was focused on.


Andruw needs a historical amount of defensive credit - like, best CF ever, level of credit - to even get UP to the borderline 62-ish WAR that he has. That could make even a hardcore WAR disciple leery.

And for the average voter who doesn't seem to give any extra defensive credit to a CF over a corner OF (see the vote totals for Lofton and Edmonds), Jones is a .254 career hitter with just 1933 hits and 1289 rbi. Even the 434 HR seems like a disappointment for someone that debuted so young and looked like such a lock for 500+.

I think he's one and done. I don't see what's going to separate him from Edmonds in the voters eyes. The extra 50 or so homers will be cancelled out by a batting average that's 30 pts lower.
   233. alilisd Posted: December 20, 2016 at 03:59 PM (#5371583)
Hoffman stories should be easy: Hells Bells, the whole closer walk in thing, Bugs Bunny changeup, first guy to 600 saves. Those don't make him a HOF necessarily, but they ought to be easy stories to recall from his career. YMMV
   234. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 20, 2016 at 08:15 PM (#5371718)
Chipper and Thome go first ballot, everyone else is one and done)


Chipper will get over 90%, I'm not so sure about Thome. One dimensional sluggers have had to wait a few years in the past. Even members of what was once the exclusive 500 club have had to wait. I think it'll take Thome 3-4 years to get in.
   235. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 20, 2016 at 08:27 PM (#5371720)
One dimensional sluggers have had to wait a few years in the past.


Has there been a more one-dimensional slugger of recent vintage than Frank Thomas? He sailed right in first ballot.

Even members of what was once the exclusive 500 club have had to wait.


Barry, Raffy, Sammy, Manny, and Gary have steroid associations holding them down. For non-steroid guys, it's gotten easier to get in first ballot on the strength of 500 home runs - Junior, Big Hurt, Murray, Reggie, Mike Schmidt. You actually have to go back a couple of decades to the time when the BBWAA was skeptical of home-run hitters (Killebrew, Mathews). And Thome isn't just in the 500 home-run club; he's in the 600 home-run club. Chipper beats him, no doubt, but I expect Thome to go in first ballot - near-miss, easy second ballot worst case.
   236. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 20, 2016 at 08:43 PM (#5371731)
Raines is at +13 votes (as in 13 people who voted against him last year are voting for him this year) now through 73 ballots. That is a 17.8 point gain over last year. I don't expect him to keep up that pace, but since he get by with just a 6 point gain, things are looking good for him.
   237. Booey Posted: December 20, 2016 at 10:21 PM (#5371768)
Despite their similarities in name, size, and WAR, I actually don't think Thomas is a very telling bar for Thome. Frank won a batting title (and had two other even higher seasons), and hit .301 lifetime (about 30 pts higher than Thome). No one could consider Frank Thomas a one dimensional HR hitter. He also crushed Thome in MVP voting -

Top 10 finishes:

Thomas - 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 8th, 8th
Thome - 4th, 6th, 7th, 7th

That said, like #235 mentioned, Thome didn't just hit 500 homers - he hit 612, without PED rumors. That's 7th all time and 2nd to Griffey amongst "clean" sluggers from his era. I think that'll be enough to squeak him in on the first ballot.
   238. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 20, 2016 at 10:26 PM (#5371769)
One dimensional sluggers have had to wait a few years in the past.

Has there been a more one-dimensional slugger of recent vintage than Frank Thomas? He sailed right in first ballot.


I don't think the voters will see them as being quite as comparable as they actually are. Thome's career AVG is 25 points lower than Thomas's (.301 to .276); he only had three full-season averages as high as Thomas's career mark. Probably in part as a result of that, Thomas did significantly better in MVP voting during their careers (2 wins, 6 top-5 finishes, 13th all-time in MVP shares, vs. 0 wins, 1 top-5 finish, 200th all-time in MVP shares). Also, here's an interesting one - Thome had over 10000 PA and a career OPS+ of 147, and won only one Silver Slugger in his career (1996 3B). He lost to Giambi, Delgado, and Ortiz quite a bit. (His loss to Giambi in 2002 is particularly odd.)

Anyway, while I would vote for Thome in a heartbeat, I could see him waiting a couple of years. Harmon Killebrew is a fairly comparable player, had much better luck in the MVP voting during his career (1 win, 6 top-5, 28th in MVP shares), and still spent 4 years on the ballot.
   239. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 20, 2016 at 10:30 PM (#5371771)
the BBWAA was skeptical of home-run hitters (Killebrew, Mathews).


Those are the guys I was thinking of when I thought of Thome's chances at first ballot induction.

Junior, Big Hurt, Murray, Reggie, Mike Schmidt.


Well Junior, Schmidt and Murray played some pretty good D at times in their career.

Reggie was, well Reggie was a Superduper(I remember the SI cover) star at the time. Frank was just a monster from the start and a pretty big personality to boot.

I've read that Thome is a real nice bloke and always had a good relationship with the press so hopefully he'll get the 75% the first go around.
   240. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 21, 2016 at 08:49 PM (#5372338)
82 votes accounted for, and it continues to look very good for Tim Raines, who is at 89%, +15 from returning voters, with the support of all 3 1st-time voters posted thus far, too. Bagwell still leads at 90%, +4 from returning voters, and the 3 1st-timers. I-Rod at 83% & Hoffman at 76%. If the current trend holds, there'd be 4 players inducted, and 5 returning on next year's ballot with at least 60% (Vlad, Bonds, Clemens, Edgar & Mussina). Don't think many predictions had that, and it's a surprise to me, too. Still time for things to change a bit.
   241. Greg Pope Posted: December 21, 2016 at 09:02 PM (#5372348)
475 ballots were sent out last year, 440 were cast. Many reasons: ballots lost in the mail, voter gets busy/ill and doesn't vote, etc. (2/7)


Good news for Bagwell, as Ryan actually changed the number of votes Baggs needs to convert to 12.

I don't think you can assume it's good news. All it does is throw some uncertainty into the mix. If 35 ballots were not cast, and most are due to things like "lost in the mail" and "voter gets busy/ill" then you can't assume that it's the same 35 (or whatever number) that won't get cast this year. Maybe last year 5 people decided not to vote, 20 ballots got lost, and 10 people forgot. What if the breakdown of the lost ballots was 2 for Bagwell and 18 not for Bagwell? If this year only 18 get lost but they're 13 for Bagwell and 3 lost then there's a huge change.
   242. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 21, 2016 at 09:05 PM (#5372350)
Don't think many predictions had that, and it's a surprise to me, too. Still time for things to change a bit.


Agree. But I don't think it'll be dramatic. If I'm just spitballing the maths, Raines and Bagwell only need about 71-72% of the remaining votes and they're in due to their good starts. I'll be stunned if either doesn't make it from here. I-Rod should get over the line also. Failed starter Trevor Hoffman is going to be right on the cusp.
Who actually thinks that a part timer like Hoffman had a career that is more hall worthy then Mussina or Schilling? It's ludicrous.

   243. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 21, 2016 at 09:42 PM (#5372369)
Who actually thinks that a part timer like Hoffman had a career that is more hall worthy then Mussina or Schilling? It's ludicrous.

Perhaps, but if a voter has a general interest in reducing the ballot glut, and/or specifically electing Mussina or Schilling, all those goals might be best served by electing Hoffman now rather than having him soak up 250-300 votes in future years.
   244. John DiFool2 Posted: December 22, 2016 at 08:34 AM (#5372452)
One dimensional sluggers have had to wait a few years in the past.


Has there been a more one-dimensional slugger of recent vintage than Frank Thomas? He sailed right in first ballot.



I keep seeing this "one-dimensional" thang w.r.t. guys like them who draw 100 walks in a season.

Once again folks, the truly 1D sluggers (Kong, Joe Carter) never make it, and never will make it, unless one hits 700+ of them.
   245. Greg Pope Posted: December 22, 2016 at 09:40 AM (#5372494)
Has there been a more one-dimensional slugger of recent vintage than Frank Thomas?

This is a guy who hit .321 over 4 years before sillyball and then in his prime 4 years hit .339 in sillyball. While at the same time averaging 119 walks. He was not one dimensional.
   246. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 22, 2016 at 09:40 AM (#5372495)
Has there been a more one-dimensional slugger of recent vintage than Frank Thomas? He sailed right in first ballot.


A truly odd argument to make about a player who, during a seven-year stretch of his prime, batted .330 with a .452 OBP.

EDIT: Coke to Greg
   247. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 10:56 AM (#5372599)
I keep seeing this "one-dimensional" thang w.r.t. guys like them who draw 100 walks in a season


MSM writers refer anyone who fits this profile as being a"one dimensional" slugger

1. Hits Hrs
2. Has a batting average under .280
3. Does not play c/2b/ss/cf
4. Is not an elite defensive 3b
5. Doesn't steal bases

under those "rules" Thome is a one dimensional slugger but FT is not
   248. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM (#5372613)
84 ballots in
Raines + 16
Edgar + 12
Clemens +9
Bonds +8
Walker +7
Mussina +6
Bagwell +4
Hoffman +1

Schilling -10

Pudge 83%
Vlad 71%


Vlad and Hoffman seem to be the ones to watch- Hoffman's at 75%, but that's misleading he's only picked up 1 net vote, he needs to do better than that.
   249. John DiFool2 Posted: December 22, 2016 at 11:35 AM (#5372657)
A truly odd argument to make about a player who, during a seven-year stretch of his prime, batted .330 with a .452 OBP.

EDIT: Coke to Greg


Can I get a root beer, pretty please?
   250. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 22, 2016 at 11:51 AM (#5372679)
Hoffman's at 75%, but that's misleading he's only picked up 1 net vote, he needs to do better than that.


Voter reaction to Trevor Hoffman is bizarre: 16% of public voters have changed their mind about Hoffman relative to last year, but it's almost perfectly split - 7 gained votes vs. 6 lost votes. I guess a lot of voters can't figure out what to do with relief pitchers (which seems fair; I'm not entirely sure what to do w/ the Hoffman-level relief pitchers).
   251. SoSH U at work Posted: December 22, 2016 at 11:58 AM (#5372688)
I'm not entirely sure what to do w/ the Hoffman-level relief pitchers


I prefer: apologize profusely for allowing previous Hoffman-level relief pitchers in, and promise never to do it again.

   252. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 22, 2016 at 12:00 PM (#5372689)
Can I get a root beer, pretty please?


Ithaca Root Beer is amazing, if you can find it
   253. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 22, 2016 at 12:13 PM (#5372702)
85 votes in, and Tim Raines has picked up 16 votes from returning voters, as well as all 4 votes posted so far from 1st-time voters. That's 20 new votes, exactly what Thibs projects Raines would need to be elected. If this were a political campaign, there'd be a check mark by Raines' name and he'd be declared the winner. While there is the theoretical possibility that other returning voters could drop Raines from their ballot, it would be a truly aberrational act to drop someone in their last year of eligibility who you previously voted for, and even then, there are many remaining voters who could add Raines, so I think he's safe.
   254. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: December 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM (#5372710)
The guys who dropped Hoffman are all over the place. I figured for most if no all it would be a ballot crunch, and it is for a couple, but not all.

Pat Caputo added Bonds and Clemens, but voted for only 9. He did not explain why he dropped Hoffman.

Mike Vaccaro dropped Hoffman, added Wagner

Juan Vene is a crazy old coot, annually has among the worst ballots

George Willis dropped Hoffman, added Smith. He also dropped Bonds and Clemens, and voted for Posada but not Rodriguez.
   255. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 12:29 PM (#5372717)
I second #251

Here's a merged list of the top 20 in WAA and WAR, ranked by WAA:
Player WAR WAA
Mariano Rivera 56.6 32.7
Hoyt Wilhelm 50.1 26.9
Billy Wagner 27.7 16.5
Rich Gossage 41.8 16.3
John Hiller 31.2 14.3
Joe Nathan 26.6 14.2
Lee Smith 29.4 13.7
Trevor Hoffman 28 13.7
Francisco Rodriguez 25 13.3
Jonathan Papelbon 23.7 13.3
Dan Quisenberry 24.9 11.9
Tom Henke 23.1 11.9
Keith Foulke 20.7 10.9
Bruce Sutter 24.5 10.8
Don McMahon 22.7 10.8
Kent Tekulve 26.2 10.6
John Franco 23.7 10.4
Steve Reed 17.7 9.9
Mark Eichhorn 19.3 9.6
Jesse Orosco 22.9 9.3
Stu Miller 27.3 9.2
Rollie Fingers 25 7
Bob Stanley 23.8 6.9
Lindy McDaniel 28.7 5.3

At 32.7 Mariano's WAA is at a level where an SP's HOF chance is about one in three
I could live with a HOF with just Wilhelm and Mo in as relievers (or Eck, 30.6 WAA and 62.5 WAR if you count him)

Hoffman's just not special [enough] why him and not Wagner, Hiller, Nathan, Smith, K-rod, Papelbon, Franco, etc. You have to shut the barn door sooner or later, this is a case where the horses have not all escaped yet, close the damn door. They closed the door after Frisch's vets committee went nuts, they didn't put in every SP as good as Jesse Haines, they didn't put in every hitter as good as Jim Bottomley, close the damn door already, just say that Sutter was in due to popularizing the Split Finger Fastball, admit Fingers was a mistake, and close the door.
   256. cardsfanboy Posted: December 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM (#5372734)
I am astounded that such a nondescript player like Vizquel is not only a favorite to make it to a second ballot but also to draw a not-insignificant number of votes the first time around.


What do you mean by non-descript? Excellent fielding shortstop, once considered to be as good as Ozzie Smith defensively, and was quite possibly the best shortstop ever at fielding a ball bare handed. Just because our opinion on his defense has changed over the years by the numbers, doesn't mean he's non-descript. I think he's as unique as Vlad (and I don't think either deserve the hof)
   257. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 12:54 PM (#5372740)
once considered to be as good as Ozzie Smith defensively


cite needed
seriously I have no recollection of this, was this ever a thing, beyond maybe one or two outlier writers?
   258. SoSH U at work Posted: December 22, 2016 at 12:57 PM (#5372743)
seriously I have no recollection of this, was this ever a thing, beyond maybe one or two outlier writers?


My recollection of his reputation, at least at the front of his career, is similar to CFB's, but we seem to be outliers among Primates.

And, though he's no Vlad, who positively exudes Vladdiness, I definitely wouldn't call him nondescript.
   259. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 12:57 PM (#5372744)
I think he's as unique as Vlad


other than the unusual length of his career I just don't see this at all

Edit: I understand that there are those in the MSM who have a hard-on for Viquel- I'm just so completely baffled by it I don't even know how to address it- I knew where people had gone wrong with Jack Morris and Jim Rice and what they thought they saw in those guys- I even know Hoffman supporters are fixated on saves- but the Vizquel love looks like the crazy guy a few years ago who kept trying to claim that Mark Grace was the greatest overall 1B of all time- only it's not one lone fixated nutjob, it's a bunch of people who ought to know better
   260. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:06 PM (#5372754)
My recollection of his reputation


My hazy recollection is that his defensive rep was very much in dispute, there were folks who said he was great, and just as many who said he was nothing special- which is very much at odds with my recollection as to how Ozzie's defense was perceived, it was pretty unanimous, "holy crap this guy is GOOD"
   261. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:08 PM (#5372756)
"admit Fingers was a mistake"

That mustache can never be a mistake.

"as unique as Vlad"

Oh great, you just added three hundred more posts to this thread. I'll start: Omar was pretty unique, but Vlad was uniquer.* Have at it.

*True fact: the Primer spell-check doesn't complain about 'uniquer'.
   262. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:09 PM (#5372757)
I definitely wouldn't call him nondescript.


Don't take my quasi-rant in 259 the wrong way, I think Vizquel was a very good player for a long time, definite member of the HOVG, he's just a HOVG member that I have a hard time fathoming why anyone would think is HOF-worthy.
   263. DanG Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:10 PM (#5372759)
If he played the most games at his position he must be among the greats, right?

1. Omar Vizquel (24)   2709
2. Derek Jeter 
(20)    2674
3. Luis Aparicio
+ (182581
4. Ozzie Smith
+ (19)   2511
5. Cal Ripken
+ (21)    2302 
   264. cardsfanboy Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:13 PM (#5372761)

My hazy recollection is that his defensive rep was very much in dispute, there were folks who said he was great, and just as many who said he was nothing special- which is very much at odds with my recollection as to how Ozzie's defense was perceived, it was pretty unanimous, "holy crap this guy is GOOD"


I remember people talking about how Vizquel has supplanted Ozzie as the best defensive shortstop in the game(which was in regards to an aging Ozzie) and that he might even replace Ozzie as the best defender in the game history. It wasn't until Prospectus started to get a hard on against Jeter and pushing their defensive stats that the MSM started to downgrade Vizquel defensively. Up until then, Vizquel was seen as, at the worse a better hitter than Ozzie and an equal glove (then ops+ became popular and that ended the hitting talk)

Vizquel's defense was never in dispute other than "was he the greatest of all time, or just one of the greats." he was not like Jeter where people argued he was plus or poor.

I think he's as unique as Vlad


other than the unusual length of his career I just don't see this at all


Vizquel's bare handed fielding was as unusual and as reliable as Vlad's ability to hit a pitch outside of the strike zone.
   265. cardsfanboy Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:18 PM (#5372765)
Don't take my quasi-rant in 259 the wrong way, I think Vizquel was a very good player for a long time, definite member of the HOVG, he's just a HOVG member that I have a hard time fathoming why anyone would think is HOF-worthy.


I think that the delay in the vote has been great in reducing his reputation a bit, more metrics have come out with more 'certainty' than there were when he retired, that it is going to be tough to justify voting for him on a crowded ballot. But people will. As pointed out just above, most games played at short, and was a very good defender(12th all time by rField---Simmons has pulled ahead of him in only 4 years playing) Add in 2877 career base hits, and there will be plenty of writers voting for him.
   266. DanG Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:20 PM (#5372766)
Most gold gloves won at shortstop:

13 Ozzie Smith
11 Omar Vizquel
9 Luis Aparicio
8 Mark Belanger
5 Dave Concepcion
5 Derek Jeter

Together with #263 you now have the totality of Vizquel's argument for the HOF.
   267. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:21 PM (#5372767)
That mustache can never be a mistake.


How about these sideburns?

Or this afro under the helmet?

That was team with style, not just Fingers, Catfish had the pornstache paradigm even Sal Bando had some facial hair action going on... but Vida Blue was boring
   268. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:22 PM (#5372769)
Again, the thing about Hoffman is that he's not falling off the ballot at all. The only way to get him off the ballot is to *induct* him.

So realistically, the question isn't whether Hoffman should be in or not, but whether you think Hoffman is so underqualified that not inducting him is worth the cost of making it harder to induct Larry Walker or Mike Mussina or Edgar Martinez.

37 of the 49 10-player ballots have Trevor Hoffman on them. Unless those guys all think there are *exactly* 10 Hall of Famers, there are votes there that would have gone to other players if not Hoffman. And we know this because many of the people have said it publicly (and I've heard it personally from several of them). And net losses are heavily in 10-man ballots.
   269. Baldrick Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:22 PM (#5372770)
Don't take my quasi-rant in 259 the wrong way, I think Vizquel was a very good player for a long time, definite member of the HOVG, he's just a HOVG member that I have a hard time fathoming why anyone would think is HOF-worthy.

He played forever, was widely regarded as good defensively, and basically hit like Ozzie. Six of his ten comps on BB-Ref are HOFers. A glove-first SS who still hit .272 and drove in almost 1000 runs, etc.

I think a lot of people put him into the same basket that they put Raines into: a clearly inferior version of a player who was so good that even the knockoff brand still deserves HOF consideration. In the case of Raines that happened to be correct. In the case of Vizquel, it's not. But I totally get why people might think that way.
   270. Baldrick Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:26 PM (#5372775)
So realistically, the question isn't whether Hoffman should be in or not, but whether you think Hoffman is so underqualified that not inducting him is worth the cost of making it harder to induct Larry Walker or Mike Mussina or Edgar Martinez.

I absolutely think that.
   271. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:29 PM (#5372779)
. Up until then, Vizquel was seen as, at the worse a better hitter than Ozzie and an equal glove


Ozzie made 15 all star teams and received MVP votes in 6 seasons, finishing as high as 2nd once, Vizquel made 2 all star teams and received MVP votes one year (when he hit .333 out of the blue)- I have no doubt you read some one or two who thought Vizquel was "at the worse a better hitter than Ozzie and an equal glove"- but I still don't think it was ever a prevalent thing.
   272. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:34 PM (#5372785)
but whether you think Hoffman is so underqualified


I'd vote for Vizquel over Hoffman, no brainer, yes keeping him out is easily worth the cost of making it harder to induct Larry Walker or Edgar Martinez, the Mussina one is tougher, but one reason SPs have been getting screwed lately is because votes have been siphoning off to far less deserving RPs, it needs to stop.
   273. Rally Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:39 PM (#5372790)
Omar was a great defensive shortstop. He just wasn't Ozzie. He's actually about as far off from Ozzie with the bat as he is with the glove. Their numbers look similar, same career OBP and Omar has a bit more SLG. But comparing them in context Ozzie is ahead by 127 runs by rbat. OPS+ is closer, with Ozzie ahead 87-82. Omar had 2 seasons where he was league average or better as a hitter, Ozzie had 4.

Defense is 111 runs apart. If Omar had been either Ozzie's equal with the bat or the glove, he'd be in the 55-60 WAR range and deserve the votes he'll get.

Going by gold gloves, Ozzie had 13 and Omar 11, first and second all time. So we probably will have voters believing that while Ozzie is the best defender, Omar was reasonably close.
   274. Booey Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:46 PM (#5372794)
I'm with Johnny wrt Vizquel. His early HOF support from the MSM, and his, well, not HOF support, but HOF understanding from primates that were adamantly opposed to Morris and Rice blows my mind. Omar is a worse candidate than either, IMO. MVP voting is flawed, obviously, but in Vizquel's case it pretty much captures his career perfectly; at no point in his career was he ever considered more than just a pretty good player (he got what, like one 8th place vote in one season?). Yeah, he was considered elite defensively, but my recollection is that with all the great hitting shortstops of his era, it was well understood that just having a fancy glove wasn't enough to make someone a truly great player anymore.

I think of Vizquel as just a hair above Harold Baines as a HOF candidate (and WAR/WAA agree). Both racked up some impressive counting stats in a couple of categories by just being pretty good for a really long time. The voters didn't buy into it for Baines. It'll be disappointing if they do with Vizquel.
   275. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:47 PM (#5372795)

I'd vote for Vizquel over Hoffman, no brainer, yes keeping him out is easily worth the cost of making it harder to induct Larry Walker or Edgar Martinez, the Mussina one is tougher, but one reason SPs have been getting screwed lately is because votes have been siphoning off to far less deserving RPs, it needs to stop.


I'm anti-closer for the Hall, except Rivera, and I would absolutely vote for Hoffman if it would help him avoid a Lee-Smith like fate. I'd rather have a Hall of Fame with Hoffman and Mussina (or Walker, or Edgar) than neither.
   276. Rally Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:48 PM (#5372796)
Ozzie made 15 all star teams and received MVP votes in 6 seasons, finishing as high as 2nd once, Vizquel made 2 all star teams and received MVP votes one year


The MVP thing comes down to one year where Ozzie finished second, the other years he got ballots he was not in the top 10. I'm not sure how much that will matter. The all star thing actually does a good job of describing their place in the game - Ozzie was an elite player, Vizquel was very good but never elite.

Their salaries also show how they were valued at the time. Omar's top salary was 6 million in 2004, this is far from elite being 3 years after A-Rod signed his 25 million per year deal, and plenty of others were making 15-20 million.

Ozzie made 1.9 million in 1986, passed the 2 million mark in 1988. He was among the highest paid players during his prime.
   277. Rally Posted: December 22, 2016 at 01:55 PM (#5372803)
Ozzie was the 5th highest paid in 1986, 7th in 1987, and #1 in 1988.

Other guys at the top of the salary list in the late 80's were aces like Gooden, Viola, Hershiser, and run producers like Schmidt, Brett, Murphy, and Carter. It's pretty easy to see guys like that getting paid 30 million today. The Cardinals paid Ozzie in the same ballpark.
   278. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:02 PM (#5372810)
Omar is a worse candidate than either Jack or Jim, IMO,


I see him more or less on a par with Morris, both a little behind Rice who almost has a peak argument if you squint hard enough (30 WAR in 5 years, high enough if he had more outside it, not high enough considering that he doesn't)...
Baines is a good comp for Vizquel
   279. cardsfanboy Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:05 PM (#5372815)
Ozzie made 15 all star teams and received MVP votes in 6 seasons, finishing as high as 2nd once, Vizquel made 2 all star teams and received MVP votes one year (when he hit .333 out of the blue)- I have no doubt you read some one or two who thought Vizquel was "at the worse a better hitter than Ozzie and an equal glove"- but I still don't think it was ever a prevalent thing.


Vizquel had to deal with Nomar, Jeter, Arod and Tejada in the same league as him. Most of the voters know this. Yet he was the one who stuck around the longest(as far as games played at short), he's a throwback which is something that writers generally like.

I don't follow the AL, and he was a much bigger name than guys like Thome, Lofton, or other hof worthy players to me. He was featured nearly every night on baseball tonight/ESPN.

Just a few articles one from Bill Livingston- a bbwaa voter in 2011.

Vizquel is a wonder, still playing in the big leagues at the age of 44, a certifiable future Hall of Famer and the best defensive shortstop, along with the St. Louis Cardinals' Ozzie Smith, that most of us ever saw.


Another hof voter.

Future Hall of Fame SS Omar Vizquel, Wally Joyner, Mick Billmeyer join #Tigers staff

— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) November 18, 2013



Randy Miller, another hof voter.

He's listing his future ballots, as of January 8th, 2015.
2018
Top first-ballot candidates: OF Johnny Damon, CF Andruw Jones, 3B Chipper Jones, OF Hideki Matsui, LHP Jamie Moyer, 3B Scott Rolen, LHP Johan Santana, DH Jim Thome and SS Omar Vizquel.

My ballot: Chipper Jones, Jim Thome and Omar Vizquel.


From a Sports Illustrated (Kids) article(written by Patrick Andres--not a hof voter or bbwaa)
Predicting Future Inductees into the Baseball Hall of Fame

-------------------

SHOULD BE IN EVENTUALLY: The greatest defender of all-time, Cleveland shortstop Omar Vizquel will head to Cooperstown soon enough, if not right away. He captured 11 Gold Gloves and dazzled on defense right up until the very end. He also was a prolific base stealer, with 404 thefts lifetime.



Baseball-Reference had a poll and Vizquel got 43% of the votes for he deserves it and will get in, 21% of the votes said he deserved it but won't get in, and another 13% says he doesn't deserve it, but he will get in.

From a random article at Azsnakepit (affiliated with SB Nation)
When Colon made his debut for the Indians in 1997, his teammates included future Hall of Famers Jim Thome and Omar Vizquel. Manny Ramirez and David Justice were also on the team


From mlbreports written by Jonathan Hacohen(who is not a bbwaa hof voter)


I watched both players for the majority of their careers and I am at a loss for words. By no means do I want to take anything away from Ozzie Smith. Far from it. But when I start to compare the two shortstops, I see many similarities. Similar bats. Similar gloves. The numbers are there. You can argue that Ozzie was a better base stealer, or that Omar had more power. The difference in their offensive numbers are negligible. Watching both players, I would tell you that they were at similar levels with a bat in their hands. With a glove, the numbers again are not far off. Ozzie was flashier and made more errors- but then he took more chances than Omar. But to argue that either one was a better defensive shortstop would be a difficult argument to make.



   280. cardsfanboy Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:09 PM (#5372821)
I'm with Johnny wrt Vizquel. His early HOF support from the MSM, and his, well, not HOF support, but HOF understanding from primates that were adamantly opposed to Morris and Rice blows my mind.


I'm as much against Vizquel for the hof as I was against Rice or Morris, and it's why I try to understand the argument. All three have mainstream arguments that is clearly disproved by the numbers, and the writers like to vote for these guys. Vizquel is the Morris of the next ten years or so.
   281. alilisd Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:10 PM (#5372824)
@ 255: Bravo!
   282. SoSH U at work Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:17 PM (#5372837)
The MVP thing comes down to one year where Ozzie finished second, the other years he got ballots he was not in the top 10. I'm not sure how much that will matter. The all star thing actually does a good job of describing their place in the game - Ozzie was an elite player, Vizquel was very good but never elite.


As CFB says, it better describes their competition. Ozzie had none until Larkin, at which point he was already entrenched. Omar played at a time when SS was stacked. It's not meaningless (due in part because the Hall simply isn't a value-accumulation institution), but it's really easy to overstate its significance.

If you flipped them, it's possible Omar is a Hall of Famer (in that case, he's the multi-time all-star, he's possibly perceived as the greatest defensive shortstop ever at the time*, and I've always wondered if his, and Ozzie's, league-relative offensive numbers would flip flop given their complete absence of pop).

I wouldn't vote for him, but his likely election won't bother me too much either. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some future rejiggering of defensive numbers tells us he was actually closer in value to his reputation than we believe now.

* Until Ozzie, though I also wonder how their careers play out given the fact so much of Ozzie's took place on turf.


   283. cardsfanboy Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:21 PM (#5372846)
Just one more. From Chris Assenheimer A hof voter.

He’s already got my vote — and as a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America since 1998, it’s one that counts.

To me, Vizquel is the greatest defensive shortstop ever, and that, my friends, should be good enough to get you into the Hall of Fame.

Nobody in the history of the game played the most magnified position on the field better than the 47-year-old from Caracas, Venezuela. He was better barehanded than many of today’s middle infielders are with their gloves — and way more advanced than the ones I’ve seen from ancient times in the 1920s through 1960s.

The only other shortstop in the game that Vizquel is justifiably compared to defensively is St. Louis Cardinals great Ozzie Smith, who just happens to be in the Hall — inducted in 2002.

Many say Smith was more acrobatic and had more range — I disagree — but his lifetime fielding percentage (.978) pales in comparison to the .985 posted by Vizquel, which still ranks first among all those who have played his position.


   284. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:27 PM (#5372858)
Vizquel is the Morris of the next ten years or so.

his likely election won't bother me too much either.


All I know is that Vizquel is gonna get some votes, I don't know if hes' getting in, if he gets Jack Morris level support, or Lee Smith level support.

Hoffman had an identical argument to what Lee Smith had when Lee Smith got on the ballot, and last year Hoffman got more votes than Smith ever did- so I really don't know what level of support Viz is gonna get.

   285. Rally Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:28 PM (#5372861)
and I've always wondered if his, and Ozzie's, league-relative offensive numbers would flip flop given their complete absence of pop).


That's a good question. Perhaps their numbers stay the same since they were similar slap hitters, but there were just so many more muscle bound freaks during Omar's time. But maybe it really was easier to hit during Omar's time, maybe a reduced strike zone or a livelier ball that may not make him a homerun hitter, but turns soft line outs into singles. Maybe Omar in the Ozzie's time is a .240 hitter with OBP and SLG barely over .300. If that's the case then glove or not he's not going in.
   286. Baldrick Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:29 PM (#5372862)
Again, saying "Vizquel was nowhere near as good as Ozzie" just isn't that useful. Of course he wasn't as good as Ozzie. No one with even two marbles rolling around in their head thinks he was. If you want to convince people that Vizquel isn't a HOFer, you need to draw different comparisons. And the problem is that there just aren't really any particularly comparable players. Everyone else within 400 games of him as a shortstop is in the HOF...but that's because they were all way better than him.

That said, the 'never was paid like a star, only made a few All Star games, never got any meaningful MVP support' arguments are probably reasonably sticky - and the Baines comparison is a good one. It won't convince the true believers, but I'd be surprised if those are more than 20% of the electorate.
   287. TJ Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:30 PM (#5372863)
Vizquel outperforming Alan Trammell in HOF voting would be enough reason to strip the BBWAA of the ballot.
   288. SoSH U at work Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:42 PM (#5372880)
That's a good question. Perhaps their numbers stay the same since they were similar slap hitters, but there were just so many more muscle bound freaks during Omar's time. But maybe it really was easier to hit during Omar's time, maybe a reduced strike zone or a livelier ball that may not make him a homerun hitter, but turns soft line outs into singles. Maybe Omar in the Ozzie's time is a .240 hitter with OBP and SLG barely over .300. If that's the case then glove or not he's not going in.


Yeah, I don't know. I've just always wondered, particularly as it relates to these two, if guys at the extreme enjoy the same era boosts as other players do.

The one real wild card is turf. Ozzie was a much better hitter on turf over his career* (.273/.352/.344) vs. grass (.244/.303/.313). How would his offensive game translate to the grassier 90s-aughts, and would Omar's game have enjoyed a similar boost on turf as Oz did.

* Keeping in mind, that some of that disparity is likely due to the fact that he simply was a much better hitter during the time his home games were played on turf than he was when he played his home games in San Diego. But certainly not all of it.
   289. DanG Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:44 PM (#5372884)
Here are the game's top fielding shortstops during Omar's fielding prime, 1990-99:

Player       Rfield dWAR   PA From   To   Age
Cal Ripken    105.6 18.1 6348 1990 1999 29
-38
Omar Vizquel   84.3 16.4 5457 1990 1999 23
-32
John Valentin  80.1 11.7 4161 1992 1999 25
-32
Mike Benjamin  68.0  9.1 1733 1990 1999 24
-33
Rey Sanchez    67.0 10.6 3002 1991 1999 23
-31
Royce Clayton  66.4 12.6 4244 1991 1999 21
-29
Greg Gagne     65.1 12.7 3855 1990 1997 28
-35
Gary Disarcina 61.3 12.3 3990 1990 1999 22
-31
Rey Ordonez    59.7  8.7 2057 1996 1999 25
-28
Mike Bordick   56.7 12.7 4791 1990 1999 24
-33
Ozzie Smith    49.1 10.1 3302 1990 1996 35
-41 
   290. cardsfanboy Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:45 PM (#5372886)

Hoffman had an identical argument to what Lee Smith had when Lee Smith got on the ballot, and last year Hoffman got more votes than Smith ever did- so I really don't know what level of support Viz is gonna get.


Hoffman was a better reliever, had better seasons and had more of them. They might be similar (in that both at one point in time was the all time saves leader) but Hoffman did his role better than Smith did and more often. By war and waa they look identical, but breaking it down into how they performed in their role in their era, and Hoffman was better in the role above both average and even among the stars than Smith was. (not to mention being the best reliever in history at preventing inherited runners from scoring--excluding loogies, who often would come in with someone on base, get an out, or not, but not stick around long enough to finish the inning, so any inherited runners that eventually scored are charged to someone else)

Of course Lee Smith supporters would argue that Smith pitched more innings per season/appearance in an era where reliever specialists was not as prevalent, so it was actually harder to be more above average since many of the innings being pitched late were often by starting pitchers having good games. Etc... Which is also kinda the point I'm trying to make, they have what superficially seems like an identical argument, but they reached it in different ways, ways in which either could be argued.
   291. Booey Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:49 PM (#5372899)
The MVP thing comes down to one year where Ozzie finished second, the other years he got ballots he was not in the top 10. I'm not sure how much that will matter.


That kinda just seems like how voters treated SS in the pre-sillyball era. You either were a serious candidate to win the award, or you didn't finish in the top 10 at all. Ripken had only 3 top 10 finishes, including his 2 wins. Yount's 2 MVP's were his only top 10 finishes. Trammell's 2nd place finish in 1987 was his only top 10 finish.

Voters started to do better acknowledging SS in the late 90's and 2000's with the likes of Jeter, Nomar, and of course ARod repeatedly cracking the top 10. Never Vizquel, though. ;-)
   292. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: December 22, 2016 at 02:52 PM (#5372901)
The middle infielders who have gone in primarily for their defense -- Ozzie, Maz, Aparicio, Maranville, any others? -- were the guys who got press as the best fielders ever at their position while they were playing, not "great fielders" or "one of the best ever", but "THE best ever," a claim no one was making about Vizquel except for perhaps "maybe one or two outlier writers" cited in [257].
   293. DanG Posted: December 22, 2016 at 03:03 PM (#5372924)
Here are the game's top fielding shortstops during Ozzie's fielding prime, 1980-89:

Player        Rfield dWAR   PA From   To   Age
Ozzie Smith    171.9 29.2 6159 1980 1989 25
-34
Ozzie Guillen   93.6 14.6 2926 1985 1989 21
-25
Alan Trammell   76.3 16.8 5906 1980 1989 22
-31
Cal Ripken      71.3 15.9 5680 1981 1989 20
-28
Scott Fletcher  51.3 11.2 3747 1981 1989 22
-30
Tony Fernandez  46.7 10.4 3600 1983 1989 21
-27
Garry Templeton 36.1 12.4 5134 1980 1989 24
-33
Bucky Dent      29.4  6.1 1608 1980 1984 28
-32
Dick Schofield  26.9  8.1 3005 1983 1989 20
-26
Jose Uribe      26.2  7.2 2422 1984 1989 25
-30 
   294. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 03:25 PM (#5372971)
Again, saying "Vizquel was nowhere near as good as Ozzie" just isn't that useful. Of course he wasn't as good as Ozzie.


I can't see how Viz is any better than Davey Concepcion or Bert Campanaris.

Hoffman was a better reliever, had better seasons and had more of them.


Looking at their respective player cards at BBREF, not seeing it

also they made the same number of all star teams, got Cy Young votes in the same number of seasons, ok Hoffman got MVP votes in one extra season-

Maybe this is because I never watch ESPN/Baseball tonight, but I always thought that the MSM's main argument AGAINST Smith- never saw him as THE GUY, the ELITE GUY, was equally applicable to Hoffman, I never saw him as THE BEST reliever in baseball, wasn't aware that anyone did, there was always Mariano or Gagne or Smoltz or k-Rod or Wagner or Percival, always someone burning brighter.

Maybe I completely missed something going on in the media, but I can't see that Hoffman in 2015 had a better HOF case than Lee Smith did in 2002, not by advanced metrics, not by traditional stats, not by how they were perceived while playing. It's not a huge difference in support- Smith got a lot of support too afterall, but getting more than Smith pretty much fast tracks you for Cooperstown.


   295. cardsfanboy Posted: December 22, 2016 at 03:45 PM (#5372994)
Maybe I completely missed something going on in the media, but I can't see that Hoffman in 2015 had a better HOF case than Lee Smith did in 2002, not by advanced metrics, not by traditional stats, not by how they were perceived while playing. It's not a huge difference in support- Smith got a lot of support too afterall, but getting more than Smith pretty much fast tracks you for Cooperstown.


I wasn't arguing for or against either of them, was pointing out that they weren't identical.

Number of seasons over 200 era+.
Smith 1(229), Hoffman 2(265, 226)

Number of seasons over 150 era+
Smith 4 (188, 158, 153) Hoffman 7(198, 190, 177, 170, 162)

Hoffman was better relative to his peers, while Smith has the innings pitched per season advantage, they are similarly valued players, but they reached the value in different ways. And again, Hoffman was by far one of the best relievers in history at not allowing inherited runners to score, Smith is right around league average 28% (league average is 29% roughly) Hoffman is at 20%. Among pitchers with over 300 inherited runners, Hoffman is 4th all time, and the three ahead of him are all loogies.
   296. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 03:48 PM (#5373000)
Hoffman is at 20%. Among pitchers with over 300 inherited runners, Hoffman is 4th all time, and the three ahead of him are all loogies.


That's the best case I've ever heard for Hoffman over Smith, and I have literally never seen a BBWAA voter make it... Statheads who don't actually think Hoffman is a HOFer mention it.
   297. Booey Posted: December 22, 2016 at 03:50 PM (#5373004)
The middle infielders who have gone in primarily for their defense -- Ozzie, Maz, Aparicio, Maranville, any others? -- were the guys who got press as the best fielders ever at their position while they were playing, not "great fielders" or "one of the best ever", but "THE best ever," a claim no one was making about Vizquel except for perhaps "maybe one or two outlier writers" cited in [257].


And even so, some of them - Maz and Rabbit - are widely viewed as mistakes.
   298. cardsfanboy Posted: December 22, 2016 at 04:02 PM (#5373023)
That's the best case I've ever heard for Hoffman over Smith, and I have literally never seen a BBWAA voter make it... Statheads who don't actually think Hoffman is a HOFer mention it.


To me, it's similar to the Schilling unearned runs argument, it's something people don't generally know, and there is flaws with the argument of course, but it's something that needs to be considered (and again, I wouldn't put Hoffman into the hof, but I do think he's a better candidate than Smith.....it still just makes him a C- candidate instead of a D candidate---an A is what I consider a hofer, although Ortiz has moved up to a B+ candidate and might get my vote because of esoteric crap)
   299. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 22, 2016 at 04:33 PM (#5373065)
89 ballots in
Raines + 16
Edgar + 13
Clemens +9
Bonds +8
Walker +7
Mussina +6
Bagwell +4
Hoffman +1
Schilling -9

Pudge 84%
Vlad 73%

some improvement for Vlad, and Schilling netted one
   300. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 22, 2016 at 05:23 PM (#5373092)
And again, Hoffman was by far one of the best relievers in history at not allowing inherited runners to score, Smith is right around league average 28% (league average is 29% roughly) Hoffman is at 20%. Among pitchers with over 300 inherited runners, Hoffman is 4th all time, and the three ahead of him are all loogies.

I wonder if some of this is due to different usage - in particular, if Hoffman was more likely to enter the game with two outs and runners on than Smith (among appearances in which he entered with runners on at all), it would be easier for him to strand his inherited runners.

just say that Sutter was in due to popularizing the Split Finger Fastball, admit Fingers was a mistake, and close the door.

If you want to make a case for Fingers vs. modern closers, center it on the postseason. Fingers is #3 all time in championship probability added among pitchers (postseason only), and the two pitchers ahead of him both played after Fingers was inducted (so he was the all-time leader when he retired, even if nobody knew it at the time).
Page 3 of 10 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  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
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 18 September 2017: Ex-Baseball Star Darryl Strawberry Criticizes Jemele Hill, Praises POTUS: Trump is ‘A Great Man’
(244 - 1:09pm, Sep 19)
Last: Hot Wheeling American

Newsblog‘Friends,’ the Sitcom That’s Still a Hit in Major League Baseball
(98 - 1:09pm, Sep 19)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-19-2017
(18 - 1:05pm, Sep 19)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

Gonfalon Cubs15 To Go
(40 - 1:00pm, Sep 19)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogSafest Bet in Sports: Men Complaining About a Female Announcer’s Voice
(32 - 12:52pm, Sep 19)
Last: Booey

NewsblogA’s preferred stadium site criticized for causing gentrification, killing waterfowl | Field of Schemes
(7 - 12:50pm, Sep 19)
Last: The importance of being Ernest Riles

NewsblogOT-NBA off season thread
(2390 - 12:36pm, Sep 19)
Last: jmurph

Sox TherapyGrind On
(21 - 12:31pm, Sep 19)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogMatt Harvey Out Of Answers For Rough Season
(7 - 12:31pm, Sep 19)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogBrad Ausmus' tirade about 'negativity' a bad response to reasonable question | MLive.com
(8 - 12:17pm, Sep 19)
Last: Tim D

NewsblogTechnology Threatens Scouts, Could Also Set Them Free | FanGraphs Baseball
(4 - 12:02pm, Sep 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogChase Utley on Hall of Fame: 'Something that I don’t really focus much on'
(100 - 11:53am, Sep 19)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogRed Sox outlast Orioles in 11 innings, 10-8
(10 - 11:32am, Sep 19)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Washington Nationals
(95 - 11:23am, Sep 19)
Last: MNB

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Nationals voting thread
(37 - 11:19am, Sep 19)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Page rendered in 1.3243 seconds
47 querie(s) executed