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 7 of 10 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
   601. JPWF1313 Posted: January 07, 2017 at 09:17 PM (#5379607)
Flip
   602. EddieA Posted: January 07, 2017 at 10:45 PM (#5379629)
I think the same people who vote for Hoffman in unannounced ballots (Saves!) would tend to vote for a .318 career batting average acclaimed 5-tool player.
   603. MelOtt4 Posted: January 08, 2017 at 03:26 AM (#5379663)
Honestly, Pudge's progress to me is screaming of a guy who will just miss. He reminds me too much of Biggio. I wouldn't be surprised if Pudge just misses and Hoffman just makes it tbh.


You very well could be correct. The updated numbers continue to show a decline for Pudge. This is before the group ballots are released and than the privates which usually hurt a players chances. It would be nice to get at least three players even if the third is Hoffman.
   604. QLE Posted: January 08, 2017 at 07:35 AM (#5379667)
I think the same people who vote for Hoffman in unannounced ballots (Saves!) would tend to vote for a .318 career batting average acclaimed 5-tool player.


The item that might have promise in that regard:

Looking at the public ballots that have already been cast, Vlad has been on 80% of the 55 ballots that voted against Bonds and Clemens, but only 73% of the 119 ballots that include both. If this pattern holds, it means that either Vlad gets inducted or that Bonds and Clemens have done far better than any of us could have ever expected.
   605. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 08, 2017 at 11:41 AM (#5379690)
I took a little time this morning to try to quantify how historic next week's HOF results may be. As wacky as some of the early years of the balloting were (talk about a backlog of candidates - just look at the first 15 years of balloting, where some of the greatest of all time were taking 5-10 years to get in...) - this one is shaping up to be unlike any other. Consider:

This will be the 73rd time there is an election akin to a BBWAA election (non-Veterans). In the prior 72 times,:
- 5 players have been reached 75%or more once (the first time, in 1936)
- 4 of been elected 3 times (1947, 1955, and 2015)
- 3 have been elected 8 times (only recent ones are 2014 and 1998)
- 2 have been elected 28 times
- 1 has been elected 23 times
- nobody was elected 10 times

The thing that makes 2017 so unusual is the high number of candidates who will likely reach 60% or more, but will not get in. In the 72 prior elections:
- 1 time there were 5 players who got between 60% and 74.9% (1983; Gil Hodges was one of them, and he dropped off the ballot after that year, so it doesn't quite count, because his voting slots came open the next year, anyway...)
- 2 times 4 players were in this range (1946 and 1951)
- 13 times 3 players were in this range (it's happened a little more often recently, including '16, '14, '08, and '06; in '14 Morris' votes dropped off because he reached the 15-year limit)
- 21 times 2 players were in this range
- 24 times 1 player fell in this range
- 11 times zero players fell in this range, though this doesn't happen much anymore (It's only happened 3 times since 1972, last time in 2003)

Only five times has a player reached 60%+, but not gotten to 75% before dropping off the ballot: Morris, Cepeda, Bunning, Nellie Fox, and Gil Hodges. Eventually, Fox, Bunning and Cepeda got in, anyway, and Morris may well soon. Hodges is truly a unique case in history.

In fact, pretty much everybody who has gotten to 60% eventually got to the Hall of Fame, one way or another. The only eligible candidates who have hit 60%, but are not in, are Bagwell, Raines, and Hoffman - and they will all be in very soon.

So, this takes us to 2017...Bagwell and Raines are getting in, and IRod has a good chance. Vlad and Hoffman will be close. Clemens and Bonds appear likely to get to 60%. Mussina and Martinez may, also. The most likely outcome (I guess?) is something like this:

75+: Bagwell, Raines
70-75: IRod, Hoffman, Vlad
60-70: Bonds, Clemens, Mussina, Martinez

The only time more than 6 players got 60% was 1983, when Brooksie and Marichal got in, Killebrew got 72%, and Aparicio, Wilhelm, Drysdale, and Hodges all got 60-68 percent. But Hodges fell off the ballot that year, opening his slots. Also, the 1984 class was really weak - no new candidate got 5%. Consequently, Aparicio, Killebrew, and Drysdale all got in in 1984, and Wilhelm missed by a hair. It cleared out the ballot quickly.

Next year, we have Chipper Jones and Jim Thome, plus a few others (Vizquel, maybe Rolen) getting votes. They will join, possibly, seven returning candidate who got 60%+ this year - it would be by far the most "stacked" ballot ever, and it is very conceivable that a majority of voters will begin their process with nine slots already accounted for (the seven who got 60-74%, plus Thome and Chipper Jones). And this is not even counting Schilling, who will likely get 50%+ this year.

Unless two or three of IRod, Hoffman, and Vlad get in this year, 2018 is going to be arguably the most fascinating ballot ever, and perhaps the biggest class since the first class in 1936.
   606. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 08, 2017 at 12:16 PM (#5379700)
Apparently there were some problems, see #589. The Tracker website has a link that works.

Danke!
   607. alsep73 Posted: January 08, 2017 at 12:58 PM (#5379717)
Murray Chass submitted a blank ballot, because of course he did.
   608. John DiFool2 Posted: January 08, 2017 at 12:59 PM (#5379718)
In the Not The Least Bit Surprising Dept.: Murray Chass turns in a ballot only containing the words "This ballot intentionally left blank"...
   609. bachslunch Posted: January 08, 2017 at 01:38 PM (#5379728)
No surprise at The Evil One's blank ballot. I called it on the thread on his article, saying it would be "vindictive suckitude." It was.
   610. JJ1986 Posted: January 08, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5379735)
Did Chass vote for Griffey? I know he once had a policy about voting for anyone from the steroid era, but I thought he cast ballots for Ken (and maybe Maddux).
   611. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 08, 2017 at 01:52 PM (#5379738)
In fact, pretty much everybody who has gotten to 60% eventually got to the Hall of Fame, one way or another. The only eligible candidates who have hit 60%, but are not in, are Bagwell, Raines, and Hoffman - and they will all be in very soon.

The real "victims" of the ballot glut aren't so much the players whose induction is delayed or even theoretically relegated to the Veterans Committee, but the borderline candidates who drop off quickly or never get any real traction. Those guys are never evaluated comparably to the vast majority of players who were considered in the non-glut years. Of course, the real problem is that the ballot glut coincides with the Veterans Committee's abandonment of its mission to elect players, in favor of enshrining managers & executives, closing off both paths for all but the strongest candidates.
   612. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 08, 2017 at 02:03 PM (#5379747)
Did Chass vote for Griffey? I know he once had a policy about voting for anyone from the steroid era, but I thought he cast ballots for Ken (and maybe Maddux).


He voted for Griffey in 2016, didn't vote in 2015, Maddux, Glavine, Thomas and Jack in 2014 and Jack alone in 2013.

After his 2013 vote, he wrote this:

Though I don’t believe there is a more qualified set of electors, certainly not the new-age stats guys who are envious of the writers and believe they should determine Hall of Famers, I don’t think reporters and columnists who cover and comment on baseball news should be making baseball news.

He said that 2013 vote for Jack would be his last one.

If you ever thought it wasn't possible for man to survive on spite alone, Murray is determined to prove you wrong.
   613. bachslunch Posted: January 08, 2017 at 02:21 PM (#5379759)
Besides, didn't Chass say in his article that he wasn't going to reveal his ballot to keep everyone wondering or some such? That sure didn't last long, did it?
   614. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 08, 2017 at 02:41 PM (#5379765)
In fact, pretty much everybody who has gotten to 60% eventually got to the Hall of Fame, one way or another. The only eligible candidates who have hit 60%, but are not in, are Bagwell, Raines, and Hoffman - and they will all be in very soon.

The real "victims" of the ballot glut aren't so much the players whose induction is delayed or even theoretically relegated to the Veterans Committee, but the borderline candidates who drop off quickly or never get any real traction. Those guys are never evaluated comparably to the vast majority of players who were considered in the non-glut years. Of course, the real problem is that the ballot glut coincides with the Veterans Committee's abandonment of its mission to elect players, in favor of enshrining managers & executives, closing off both paths for all but the strongest candidates.


If 2018's ballot includes Chipper, Thome, Hoffman,Vlad,IRod,Mussina, Edgar, Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling, then you've got 10 candidates who all come in either likely to get elected in their 1st year (2 of them) or returning with between 50%-74% of the vote (the other 8). How do Walker, Sheffield, Manny, Wagner, McGriff, Kent, Vizquel, Rolen, or Sosa (the remaining returnees, plus a few new candidates) find any spots?
   615. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:43 AM (#5380101)
For anyone poking around here in a subsequent year, back on post 368. (December 26), I listed Mussina with 69.8% of the vote as of 112 ballots. That was almost certainly supposed to be 60.8%.

At 183 votes, Raines has caught Bagwell again.
   616. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 09, 2017 at 07:25 PM (#5380697)
BREAKING NEWS: At 185 votes, Raines (91.4%) has passed Bagwell (90.8%), apparently due to anti-PED (no-evidence-needed) zealots. I-Rod at 80.5%, close enough that his election may be uncertain. Vlad (74.6%) & Hoffman (73.5%) will also likely depend on the non-public votes, so the ballot glut could be eased considerably, worse than ever, or something in between, depending on a few votes.
   617. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 09, 2017 at 07:42 PM (#5380699)
All of a sudden, I can't view the tracker. I now have to log in, which a) never had to do before, and 2) have no idea how to.
   618. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:21 PM (#5380713)
All of a sudden, I can't view the tracker. I now have to log in, which a) never had to do before, and 2) have no idea how to.

Something went wrong with the original link apparently. New link (or link to the new link) was posted on the last page. Here it is again.
   619. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:31 PM (#5380767)
Seriously even if the BBWAA elects three the ballot glut doesn't improve much. They need to knock out at least four to have a real impact. Preferably five....

Because the thing is that 2018 is just a prelude to 2019. If Bonds, Clemens, Edgar, Moose, I-Rod, and Schilling are still soaking up votes after 2018, which is entirely likely, that puts Halladay, Helton, Pettitte in nearly the same boat as the 2018 debutantes because Mo will be near unanimous, and if Thome doesn't make it in 2018, he too will soak up votes in 2019. Ain't no room at the inn. Especially with Omar also a narrative-driven candidate sure to get some support. It's not just Rolen or the three 2019s who should worry. Everyone below the 50% mark has some potential for huge losses. Candidates like Sheffield, Sosa, McGriff, Walker, Wagner, and Manny could drop below 5%.

Unless the ballot is expanded to 12 or more, of course.
   620. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:32 PM (#5380808)
Because the thing is that 2018 is just a prelude to 2019. If Bonds, Clemens, Edgar, Moose, I-Rod, and Schilling are still soaking up votes after 2018, which is entirely likely, that puts Halladay, Helton, Pettitte in nearly the same boat as the 2018 debutantes because Mo will be near unanimous, and if Thome doesn't make it in 2018, he too will soak up votes in 2019.

Outside of Rivera and Halladay, I don't see the 2019 newbies as being much of a factor. If Walker is struggling, I can't see how Helton gets any traction at all; ditto for Mussina/Schilling and Pettitte.
   621. AROM Posted: January 10, 2017 at 08:20 AM (#5380861)
By 2021 there won't be a ballot glut. These guys will be in already: Chipper Jones, Derek Jeter, Ivan Rodriguez, Mariano Rivera.

This next group will almost certainly be in, if not on first ballot: Thome, Vlad, Halladay. Maybe Bonds, Clemens, Mussina, but if not the SABR-approved ballot could be:

Bonds
Clemens
Schilling
Mussina
Rolen
Manny

Then some combination of Andruw, Helton, Pettitte, Sheffield, Sosa, Kent

Possibly some people will vote for Abreu, Hudson, Buerhle. And a bunch will vote for Omar.

Once Bonds/Clemens get in or drop off we may be back to the days without so many overwhelming candidates that enabled Sutter/Dawson/Gossage to get in.
   622. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 09:06 AM (#5380867)
Candidates like Sheffield, Sosa, McGriff, Walker, Wagner, and Manny could drop below 5%.


Most of those candidacies are dead in the water anyway.
   623. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 10, 2017 at 09:21 AM (#5380874)
Dead because of the glut to some degree. Walker is def damaged by the glut and is just off the end of many full ballots. Rolen, Andruw likely swallowed up by it before a full vetting. Then Helton. And I'm not terribly confident that Halladay will move as quickly as others suggest. I think he will stay on, but the wins aren't there, and he will have a lot of competition in Moose, Pettitte, and Schilling. I hope AROM is right with his crystal ball, but I'd rather get there with no needless 5% casualties.
   624. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 10, 2017 at 09:38 AM (#5380880)
BTW: I emailed Murray Chass on Sunday, and asked him (very politely) where the "in/out" line was for him, because his recent votes so strongly suggest that he is a Small Hall guy to the point of being an outlier. I asked him for examples of players that were already in the HOF that would fall clearly below the in/out line for him, just to get an idea. This is what he wrote, in response:

"There are a few players in the HOF whom I didn't vote for. I can't be held responsible for players who got in before my time.

Murray Chass"

I'll give him credit - he got back to me...
   625. AROM Posted: January 10, 2017 at 09:49 AM (#5380886)
I don't think I'm climbing out on any limbs here. Jeter, Jones, and Rivera will be first ballot HOFers with at least 95% of the vote. Pudge might get in this year, but even if he doesn't the tracker is showing him start at such a high level that 2-3 years will put him in. Vlad will be right with him or just behind him. I suspect Thome and Halladay will have similar experiences, getting in on their first 3 ballots, but there's less evidence to go on there.

The main casualties of the ballot glut will be Walker, McGriff, Edmonds, and Lofton. These guys never got a fair chance and will have to wait for a veteran's committee that may or may not ever be functional. And maybe Edgar Martinez, though he's making a strong late push and hopefully will avoid that fate.

I don't see McGwire as a victim of ballot glut. He had 6 years on the ballot before that was a big factor.
   626. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM (#5380891)
Bagwell 90.9 (+14, looks in)
Raines 91.4 (+25, looks in)
Pudge 80.6 (? looks likely to fall short at this point, slightly under 50/50)
Vlad 74.2 (very likely to fall short at this point)
Hoffman 73.7 (very likely in at this point, "private" voters very pro closer for whatever reason)
Edgar 67.2 (gonna drop some, but very strong improvement from 2016, perhaps 15%+, bodes well)
Bonds 65.1 (gonna drop some, but strong improvement from 2016, perhaps 10%+)
Clemens 64.5 (gonna drop some, but strong improvement from 2016, perhaps 10%+)
Mussina 60.8 (gonna drop - private voters hate SPs, but improvement from 2016, perhaps 5 to 10%)
Schilling 52.2 (gonna drop - private voters really hated schilling in 2016, don't see that changing now, already lost some 5 to 10% from 2016, will end up under 50%)
Lee Smith 29.6 (done)
Manny 24.7 (may be getting the McGwire/Sosa/Palmeiro treatment, will be interesting to see next year)
Walker 23.7 (showed some improvement, too little too late, if it's any consolation is a cinch to stay on the ballot til the end)
Everyone else, meh... Posada will drop off. Wagner- has a tiny window for significant improvement next year- no Hoffman, no Lee Smith... how many votes can he gain until Rivera is on the ballot?


   627. AROM Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:02 AM (#5380892)
Halladay is kind of like Schilling with barely 200+ wins, great peak seasons, WAR total appropriate for the HOF, and incredible K-W ratios. His playoff record is excellent, but short through no fault of his own. He's got a playoff no-hitter, he lost his last playoff game 1-0.

Pros: 2 Cy Youngs, perfect game, off the field he is not Curt Schilling, .659 W-L%
Cons: No rings, limited playoff opportunities

It will be interesting to see how the voters handle that. The W-L% would be the highest for a pitcher with 200+ wins not in the HOF, at least for the last 2 centuries, just ahead of Clemens.
   628. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:15 AM (#5380897)
[quoteDead because of the glut to some degree.

Not really. McGriff and Walker were both on the ballot well before the glut. From 2011 to 2012, the average number of players per ballot fell from 5.98 to 5.10. Walker earned 22.9% of the vote in 2012, McGriff 23.9%. It's pretty hard to separate the glut and PEDs with Sosa and Sheffield (and in Sheffield's case his general jerkishness) Wagner's got an inherently contradictory case. You have to be pro-closer and appreciate advanced stats like ERA+ and WAR, which say he's as good/better than Hoffman/Smith despite fewer saves.

   629. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:25 AM (#5380905)
[quoteDead because of the glut to some degree.

Not really. McGriff and Walker were both on the ballot well before the glut. From 2011 to 2012, the average number of players per ballot fell from 5.98 to 5.10. Walker earned 22.9% of the vote in 2012, McGriff 23.9%


Historically guys at 20-25% may sometimes build from there- but recently doesn't seem to happen much anymore- but it did happen for Raines, Blyleven and almost for Jack Morris.

[edit: Rice started at 29, and it took him forever to build- he simply doesn't get in if only given 10 years]
   630. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:30 AM (#5380910)
The main casualties of the ballot glut will be Walker, McGriff...


The 2012 ballot featured the second fewest names per ballot in history (5.10) and neither Walker, in his second year, or McGriff, in his 3rd, even cracked 25%. Voters had ample room to vote for them that season and chose not to. They've been hurt by the glut relative to their numbers that year, but if you can't crack 25% when ballots are half empty, you're not being held back from 75% because they're now full. (especially if you're McGriff, who has a weak Saber case)

   631. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:33 AM (#5380914)
Historically guys at 20-25% may sometimes build from there- but recently doesn't seem to happen much anymore- but it did happen for Raines, Blyleven and almost for Jack Morris.


The glut clearly prevents that kind of climb. Blyleven doesn't get elected, and Morris doesn't climb as high as he did, if more qualified (in the eyes of the BBWAA) pitchers came on the ballot between their arrival and final years. And Morris makes the final leap if not for the 2013-14 wave, particularly the final year arrival of Maddux and Glavine.

If you just look at their yearly percentages, and Rice's, you can see when a strong new class debuted and when one didn't based on their gains/setbacks.
   632. AROM Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:34 AM (#5380916)
True, Walker and McGriff had their chances before the glut. They started at 20%, which is worse than Rice, Dawson, Gossage, or Sutter. Only Blyleven recently started near 20% and eventually got in. Took him more than 10 years. Morris started near the same level and almost made it, but not quite. Raines started at 24%.

Edmonds and Lofton are < 5% victims of the glut, but if Walker wasn't going to make it, they weren't either. Sosa and Sheffield (and Kent) have certainly lost some votes to the glut, but they will outlast it. It remains to be seen if they will get improved support on soon to be less crowded ballots.
   633. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:37 AM (#5380918)
The 2012 ballot featured the second fewest names per ballot in history (5.10) and neither Walker, in his second year, or McGriff, in his 3rd, even cracked 25%. Voters had ample room to vote for them that season and chose not to. They've been hurt by the glut relative to their numbers that year, but if you can't crack 25% when ballots are half empty, you're not being held back from 75% because they're now full. (especially if you're McGriff, who has a weak Saber case)


Probably true with McGriff, less so with Walker. Yes, Walker started from a very low spot from which to build a case (really only Blyleven was down that low and got up to election). Not likely at all, but not impossible if he's looking at a Rice-like landscape ahead of him. But with the group that came on the ballot after, it was impossible (particularly given the eligibility reduction, though that may not happen without 2013).

Offsetting the glut, to a large extent, and making it possible for Raines to move into position, and for Edgar to make a late push, is the decided change in voting habits. So many writers are now filling their ballots, which never happened before the shutout.
Many of us here expected chaos starting in 2013, but I don't think anyone anticipated such a change in voter behavior.
   634. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:50 AM (#5380924)
Historically guys at 20-25% may sometimes build from there- but recently doesn't seem to happen much anymore- but it did happen for Raines, Blyleven and almost for Jack Morris.


Right, but look what happened from 2011 to 2012, when the average number of votes per ballot dropped from 5.98 to 5.10:

Larkin: Went up 26.3 percentage points
Bagwell: Went up 14.3 percentage points
Morris: Went up 13.2 percentage points
Trammell: Went up 12.5 percentage points
Raines: Went up 11.2 percentage points
Walker: Went up 2.6 percentage points

Voters had responded to a lot of guys. Not Walker. I just don't think we can say that the election of Walker, who spent three years on the ballot drawing below 25% before the glut, is being held back by it now. Raines and Bagwell powered through the glut. Edgar and Mussina are. Schilling was before he opened his mouth. Walker seems to be the only guy who isn't and has a case (McGriff would likely not do well among the Saber crowd)
   635. Booey Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:07 AM (#5380931)
When are the results announced anyway?
   636. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:08 AM (#5380932)
re: Halladay - Cons: No rings, limited playoff opportunities


He threw a no-hitter in the playoffs (2010 NLDS, Game 1). If it matters at all, I'd guess that alone makes his playoff resume a net plus.

Vlad 74.2 (very likely to fall short at this point)


I would expect him to do better on private than public ballots and based on what I've seen, I'd probably give him better than even odds of making it. He's a great narrative case - five-tool player, could hit anything, got base hits on balls that bounced and on balls over his head - and his statistical case is pretty much the Triple Crown stats - .318/449/1496, which BB-Ref says rank 56th/37th/57th in MLB history.
   637. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:10 AM (#5380935)
Voters had responded to a lot of guys. Not Walker. I just don't think we can say that the election of Walker, who spent three years on the ballot drawing below 25% before the glut,


2014 is when things went really haywire because of the shutout, but the glut really starts in 2013, when seven first-ballot Hall of Famers (in ordinary times) hit the ballot at once. Any deep backlogger would see his progress retarded). But I do agree that the odds were severely stacked against Walker even if he had a much clearer path. It's possible to build a case from that starting point, but exceedingly unlikely even with light ballots to follow.

   638. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:10 AM (#5380936)
When are the results announced anyway?


January 18th. They pushed the whole schedule back about two weeks this year.
   639. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:14 AM (#5380938)
But with the group that came on the ballot after, it was impossible (particularly given the eligibility reduction, though that may not happen without 2013).


No it wasn't. Edgar dropped as a result of the glut and was at 25.2% in year 5 in 2014. Like Walker, he's a Saber-friendly candidate trying to overcome a bias. Like Walker, he's still being left off of full ballots (six voters list him as being someone they'd vote for if they had room on the tracker)

But last year, Edgar gained a net +51 among returning voters. Walker was just +14. This year, Edgar is +30, and Walker is +11. He's flipping voters at something like three times the rate of Walker.

   640. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:20 AM (#5380945)
No it wasn't. Edgar dropped as a result of the glut and was at 25.2% in year 5 in 2014. Like Walker, he's a Saber-friendly candidate trying to overcome a bias. Like Walker, he's still being left off of full ballots (six voters list him as being someone they'd vote for if they had room on the tracker)

But last year, Edgar gained a net +51 among returning voters. Walker was just +14. This year, Edgar is +30, and Walker is +11. He's flipping voters at something like three times the rate of Walker.


I think the difference between Edgar and Walker is that Edgar has a constituency advocating for him. I remember reading something on Twitter a few weeks ago noting that every time a writer released his ballot on Twitter, the first few comments tended to be about Edgar - either "good job voting for Edgar" or "how could you leave off Edgar!?" And I think there was an article here noting that the Mariners were mounting a campaign this year to elect Edgar.

In contrast, even here, Walker ends up 11th or 12th on a fair number of hypothetical ballots and I haven't seen the sort of organized push to convince people that Larry Walker is a Hall-of-Famer that we've seen with Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, and, as I said, more recently, Edgar Martinez (and from the "non-saber" side what we saw with Jim Rice and Jack Morris).
   641. Greg Pope Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM (#5380948)
when seven first-ballot Hall of Famers (in ordinary times) hit the ballot at once.

Biggio, Piazza, Schilling, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and ?
   642. Booey Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM (#5380949)
January 18th. They pushed the whole schedule back about two weeks this year.


Thanks. Have they announced a time?
   643. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:24 AM (#5380950)
No it wasn't. Edgar dropped as a result of the glut and was at 25.2% in year 5 in 2014. Like Walker, he's a Saber-friendly candidate trying to overcome a bias. Like Walker, he's still being left off of full ballots (six voters list him as being someone they'd vote for if they had room on the tracker)


But Edgar had a much higher baseline level of support (36.5 percent) than Walker did (who fell all the way to 10.2 percent). He was clearly getting left off ballots by people who previously supported him, and thus should be willing to support him again (as was Walker). Edgar's starting spot was decent one for a long Hall build. Walker's was not.

So yes, it was impossible for someone with baseline support in the 20 percent range to navigate through that. It was unlikely for someone with Edgar's baseline support to as well, and probably still is. Only the change in voting patterns made it possible for him.
   644. Booey Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:31 AM (#5380958)
when seven first-ballot Hall of Famers (in ordinary times) hit the ballot at once.

Biggio, Piazza, Schilling, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and ?


Yeah, I'm struggling to come up with the 7th one too. And I don't think Schill goes first ballot in any era. With his low win total (and without Pedro's peak or Smoltz's saves), he always seemed like a "work his way up the ladder" type of HOFer.

Overall point stands, though.
   645. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:37 AM (#5380968)
Yeah, I'm struggling to come up with the 7th one too.


Could he have just meant that the 2013 ballot had 7 guys on it with "first-ballot" credentials? That would include McGwire (583 HR) and Palmeiro (3000/500) as returning candidates plus the debuts of Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Piazza, and Sosa.
   646. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:52 AM (#5380982)
I would expect him to do better on private than public ballots


why?

The only guys who do better in the real vote than the Tracker are the closers- and Fred McGriff (but McGriff's vote total is so low anyway it could be sample size variation in play)

At 74.2% the range of Vlad's likely outcomes is something like 68% to 76%
   647. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2017 at 11:53 AM (#5380983)
Biggio, Piazza, Schilling, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and ?


That's right, six. I was thinking seven because of a previous conversation that Kenny Lofton was the seventh-best candidate (by BBWAA standards) on the ballot.

Sorry about making you guys work.

   648. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM (#5380992)
why?


I didn't say that, but I understand the sentiment. Vlad is a "feels like a Hall of Famer," type guy, and the non-publics more often use that kind of criteria. But your point is valid. The non-publics are also more small-hall, in general.
   649. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 12:09 PM (#5380995)
I guess my question is this: Why are the Saber-friendly voters pushing every other saber-friendly candidate but Walker through this glut?

From 2014 to right now on the tracker:

Raines: 46.1 to 91.4 (+45)
Edgar: 25.2 to 67.4 (+42)
Mussina: 20.3 to 61 (+41)
Bagwell: 54.2 to 90.9 (+37)
Walker 10.2 to 23.5 (+13)

I don't buy that this is all about the base level. Walker simply doesn't have the underlying support. That's evident from his inability to move pre-glut from 2011-2012, and it's evident in the fact that all the other saber-friendly candidates* are moving much, much, quicker through the glut now. Every one of those players is likely to be elected except for Walker, who probably won't even come close.

*Non self-sabotaging division. But prior to opening his mouth, Schilling had moved from 29 to 52, so also much faster than Walker.
   650. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 10, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5381002)
The only guys who do better in the real vote than the Tracker are the closers- and Fred McGriff (but McGriff's vote total is so low anyway it could be sample size variation in play)


Before last year, Larry Walker actually did better privately (in 2015, Walker got 8.8% public vs. 16.5% private; in 2016, Walker's public support rose to meet his private). Other non-pitchers who did better privately recently were Nomar (2.4% public, 10.1% private in 2015) and Don Mattingly (6.6% public, 12.8% private). What do those guys have in common? Their lifetime batting averages were .313, .313, and .307, respectively. Private voters like batting averages over .300 and Vlad Guerrero has the highest career batting average of anybody on the 2017 Hall-of-Fame ballot.
   651. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 10, 2017 at 12:24 PM (#5381003)
Vlad is a "feels like a Hall of Famer," type guy, and the non-publics more often use that kind of criteria. But your point is valid. The non-publics are also more small-hall, in general


Actually, I don't think he'll drop going from public to private ballots as much as some other guys do- the private ballot types do tend to be older/ less Sabr friendly and more apt to look at "traditional" criteria (except their weird fascination with closers)- but the small hall issue is the big one, these guys simply put fewer names on the ballot.

Vlad's got the career batting average these guys drool over, plus the MVP voting- but he doesn't have 500 Hr, he doesn't have 1500 ribbies

His bbref Comps are HOF heavy, but it's all* guys who had to wait a few years: Bagwell, Rice, Stargell, Billy Williams, Duke Snider...

*He's got 2 comps who are still compiling, Cabrera and Beltran, Cabrera in particular looks likely to leave Vlad's numbers in the dust.
   652. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2017 at 12:32 PM (#5381008)
I don't buy that this is all about the base level. Walker simply doesn't have the underlying support.


Those are the same things.

He doesn't have as much support as any of those guys, and never has. That is a big factor in keeping him from building future support,* just as it's prevented non-stathead favorites like Fred McGriff and others from doing the same.

Raines and Edgar and Bagwell were well ahead of Walker in 2012, when they were on the ballot together. Bagwell and Raines were were on their way to induction (Bagwell more so). Edgar debuted with a healthy 35 percent of the ballot.

Mussina started so low because he joined the ballot in 2014, the height of the glut. If he comes on the ballot on a normal year, he's probably starting close to 40 percent.

These things don't move in unison. Larry Walker has gained some ground (primarily due to the larger ballots being submitted), but no one was going to push through that glut from his starting spot. Edgar had a little better chance, but even his late push is quite surprising. Maybe it's the aforementioned vocal constituency, but I don't think anyone was talking about him as a potential selection even a year ago. Everyone else's path was pretty predictable.


   653. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2017 at 12:58 PM (#5381017)
I agree that Vlad does not look like a "first ballot" guy to people who care about that sort of thing.
   654. RJ in TO Posted: January 10, 2017 at 01:12 PM (#5381027)
His bbref Comps are HOF heavy, but it's all* guys who had to wait a few years: Bagwell, Rice, Stargell, Billy Williams, Duke Snider...
I get your overall point, but Stargell was elected in his first year.
   655. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 01:48 PM (#5381044)
Ultimately, I guess I'm just saying, it's not like Walker's at 55% and there's 60-70 voters out there who are saying they don't have room for him. He's at 23% and the tracker has a dozen voters who said they'd vote for him if they had more space. That's not the full list, I know, but his non-election isn't about ballot glut. It's about his perceived weaknesses as a candidate
   656. DanG Posted: January 10, 2017 at 02:01 PM (#5381054)
Walker is a unique candidate and his candidacy is in the toilet for the same reason as the PED guys: his numbers are bogus, or so goes the general belief among the electorate. The voters "know" that, like PED's, Coors inflates a guy's numbers to a cartoonish degree. Those three batting titles? Bogus. 49 homers? Bogus.

Walker's support is an indication of just how un-sabermetric the electorate is. You take a slice out of his borderline-HOF traditional career totals (383 HR, 1311 RBI, 2160 hits) and he's hardly worth a second thought. To the voters, the Coors stain is almost as bad as the PED stain.
   657. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2017 at 02:16 PM (#5381065)
Ultimately, I guess I'm just saying, it's not like Walker's at 55% and there's 60-70 voters out there who are saying they don't have room for him. He's at 23% and the tracker has a dozen voters who said they'd vote for him if they had more space. That's not the full list, I know, but his non-election isn't about ballot glut. It's about his perceived weaknesses as a candidate


I wouldn't disagree with that. Is it possible he could have made a push without the glut - yes? But it was very unlikely.

But it's important to remember that momentum plays a big role in BBWAA elections. A lot of voters simply follow the lead of other voters, for a variety of reasons. So it's not simply a case of reviewing and revisiting a candidate, but seeing support among your peers for a guy grow, and then hopping on board.
   658. Danny Posted: January 10, 2017 at 02:40 PM (#5381086)
Walker's support is an indication of just how un-sabermetric the electorate is.

Isn't Walker's support about equal between the pre-vote public voters (more saber-friendly) and the other voters (less saber-friendly)?
   659. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 10, 2017 at 02:54 PM (#5381094)
Isn't Walker's support about equal between the pre-vote public voters (more saber-friendly) and the other voters (less saber-friendly)?


Yes (see #650), but while "pre-vote public voters" are more "saber-friendly" than other voters, they probably don't rise to the level of outright "saber-friendly". A lot of them, in particular, I think fall into a somewhat gray area of understanding some of your more basic sabermetric "truths": "batting average is overrated" and "things need to be put in context", but, in the case of Walker, that just translates into "you need to let the air out of Larry Walker's .313 career batting average because he did it in the 'steroid era' and in Coors Field". Walker actually looks like a damn good candidate to somebody who might be inclined to vote on raw Triple Crown stats with no contextual adjustments.
   660. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 10, 2017 at 02:58 PM (#5381096)
I get your overall point, but Stargell was elected in his first year.


And so he was....
1988, that was the year Bunning got up to 74.2%

8 guys on that ballot had more WAR than Stargell, BBWAA didn't let a one of them in (vets later let in Bunning and Santo)
top 10 by WAR:
Ron Santo HOF 70.4
Luis Tiant 66.7
X-Reggie Smith 64.5
Ken Boyer 62.8
Jim Bunning HOF 59.4
Dick Allen 58.7
Bobby Bonds 57.7
Joe Torre HOF 57.6
Willie Stargell 57.5
Vada Pinson 54.1
top 10 by vote:

   661. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 03:00 PM (#5381100)
But it's important to remember that momentum plays a big role in BBWAA elections. A lot of voters simply follow the lead of other voters, for a variety of reasons. So it's not simply a case of reviewing and revisiting a candidate, but seeing support among your peers for a guy grow, and then hopping on board.


Right.

The thing is, ultimately, I think these last few years have shown us that the electorate will provide that initial momentum to the candidates they consider deserving. That no group of voters has done that with Walker says something to me about their belief in him as a candidate.
   662. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2017 at 03:11 PM (#5381110)
That no group of voters has done that with Walker says something to me about their belief in him as a candidate.


Or, their belief in his chances. It's simply harder to build a case when you're starting in the low 20s than when you're starting in the mid-30s. In Walker's case, given what came immediately after he joined the ballot, it was impossible.

There's nothing unusual about the ballot paths of Walker, Mussina, Bagwell and Raines. They're all quite predictable.

The real question is how Edgar has seen this push late in his eligibility. He's the outlier.
   663. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 03:58 PM (#5381157)
According to the tracker, Walker has appeared on 15 of the 80 ballots that have fewer than 10 votes. That's 18.7%. It'd be a little easier to claim he's a victim of a ballot glut if he was actually getting high levels of support on non-maxed out ballots. But even when voters have room for him, they don't vote for him.
   664. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 04:09 PM (#5381163)
I guess SoSH, what I'm saying is, Walker seems to be the only Saber-friendly player not to be making significant progress on the ballot that's supposed to be getting more Saber-friendly. To me, the biggest reason for that is simply that the voters don't think he's the strong candidate WAR says he is, not that there's a unique to him combination of ballot glut/10 vote limits/his initial starting point/lack of momentum all conspiring to artificially deflate his totals*

*By this, I mean significantly.
   665. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2017 at 04:20 PM (#5381169)
I guess SoSH, what I'm saying is, Walker seems to be the only Saber-friendly player not to be making significant progress on the ballot that's supposed to be getting more Saber-friendly. To me, the biggest reason for that is simply that the voters don't think he's the strong candidate WAR says he is, not that there's a unique to him combination of ballot glut/10 vote limits/his initial starting point/lack of momentum all conspiring to artificially deflate his totals*.


And what I'm saying is that the other factors that play into a player's ballot progression are still going to be at work, and likely are. Voters could very easily see Walker as worthy but a lost cause, doing nothing but soaking up votes that could go elsewhere.

Moreover, it's not something unique to him, but where you would most likely find any candidate like him who had that starting spot, friend or foe of statheads. Fred McGriff and Gary Sheffield and Jeff Kent, all of varying degree of SABR-friendly and different years on the ballot, are also stuck in neutral. And that's what often happens to players with that low baseline support. It takes many factors working in your favor to build a meaningful campaign from that low level.
   666. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 10, 2017 at 04:51 PM (#5381203)

Walker's support is an indication of just how un-sabermetric the electorate is.


There's also his lack of durability. His top three seasons by WAR are 9.8, 7.8, 6.1. The 9.8 is pretty but it's a big dropoff after that. Edgar Martinez has five years of 6.1 WAR or better. Wade Boggs has eight. Andrew Dawson has four.
   667. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 05:03 PM (#5381212)
And what I'm saying is that the other factors that play into a player's ballot progression are still going to be at work, and likely are. Voters could very easily see Walker as worthy but a lost cause, doing nothing ]but soaking up votes that could go elsewhere.



Again, his performance on non-maxed ballot refutes this idea. They're not not voting for Walker so they can vote for Mussina or Raines or Edgar and get them in. 82% of those voters are looking at a ballot with room for Larry Walker and saying "Nope, not for me". The idea that this is based on anything but their actual feelings towards his worthiness seems pretty silly
   668. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 10, 2017 at 05:18 PM (#5381219)
There's also his lack of durability.


This. Along with the "Coors effect" as spelled out above.

Walker really suffers from only 8000PA and playing at Coors. In order to garner support with 2 outliers like that you need to be otherworldly in your perceived short time frame, almost Troutian if you will. People look at Walker's road stats and are not seeing a HOFer.

Edgar also suffers from only 8600PA. Many voters see the terrific rate stats, then knock him down for modest traditional stats(300HRS, 1200rbi) AND then say, well he was only a DH anyway.

Add 700PA to either of these guys resumes, with maybe an additional 25HRS, 120rbi and maybe 4-5 additional WAR and they sail in easily.

I don't care who is currently in, I judge each guy on his merits. Personally I think they both belong because I think the HOF should tell the story of each era of baseball and both these guys are good enough stats wise and contribute nicely to the narrative.
   669. Danny Posted: January 10, 2017 at 05:45 PM (#5381229)
Walker suffers (fairly or unfairly) by "peak" being judged by seasonal WAR.

Walker had 1 WAR per 111 PA for his career, which is the 33rd best rate in MLB history (min. 5000 PA). The only players to debut since 1960 with more WAR/PA are Bonds, A-Rod, Pujols, and Schmidt. The only other players to debut post-WAR who had more WAR/PA are Aaron, Robinson (Frank and Jackie), Mays, Clemente, Mantle, and Matthews.
   670. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 10, 2017 at 05:59 PM (#5381232)
Walker had 1 WAR per 111 PA for his career, which is the 33rd best rate in MLB history (min. 5000 PA). The only players to debut since 1960 with more WAR/PA are Bonds, A-Rod, Pujols, and Schmidt. The only other players to debut post-WAR who had more WAR/PA are Aaron, Robinson (Frank and Jackie), Mays, Clemente, Mantle, and Matthews.


Wow, ok, I hadn't considered that when I posted in 668 about needing to be Troutian level of play. The players listed above are your no-doubters, that's for sure; elite company indeed. Of course all of those guys had significantly longer careers which goes back to Walker only having 8000PA worth of overall value and this hurting him with many voters.
   671. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 10, 2017 at 06:06 PM (#5381236)
Again, his performance on non-maxed ballot refutes this idea. They're not not voting for Walker so they can vote for Mussina or Raines or Edgar and get them in. 82% of those voters are looking at a ballot with room for Larry Walker and saying "Nope, not for me". The idea that this is based on anything but their actual feelings towards his worthiness seems pretty silly


No, it doesn't, because voting just isn't that simple, something that the rest of your posts indicate you're aware of.

Nine years ago, only 24 percent of the voters thought Tim Raines was qualified . This year, somewhere around 85 percent think that. They all didn't review his case and come to a new position independently.

It's certainly possible the onslaught of so many Coop-worthy players in 2013-14 had no effect on Larry Walker's candidacy, and that he would be in the same place he is now under a normal wave. But we don't know that, and simply pointing to the gains made by others in entirely different circumstances (initial support, years on ballot, direct comparables ahead of them, etc.) does not prove it.



   672. John DiFool2 Posted: January 10, 2017 at 06:49 PM (#5381273)
To the voters, the Coors stain is almost as bad as the PED stain.


What's deeply ironic about that is that here, we've had many many players who have gotten MVPs/HoF/or even Cy's thanks to park illusions, which for decades the voters completely ignored (even as they grasped on some surface level that Wrigley or Fenway were "bandboxes"). Jim Rice doesn't get anywhere close to sniffing the Hall if they properly adjust for things there...

Then Mile High/Coors come along, and all of a sudden nothing a Rockies player does there can impress, at all. Black and white thinking.
   673. bachslunch Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:17 AM (#5381491)
Couple other ballots.

Jon Heyman has a really strange 10-name one: Bonds, Vlad, Hoffman, Edgar, McGriff, Mussina, Posada, Raines, IRod, Smith (Schilling dropped from last time).

It's always fun to see what the Golfers West folk did -- Jim Street: Bagwell, Hoffman, Edgar, Raines, IRod, Smith (also dropped Schilling). To be fair, it's not too bad for a 6 name ballot.
   674. AROM Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:26 AM (#5381493)
Fenway Park certainly didn't hurt Rice, but even taking his numbers at face value he shouldn't be in. Compare his OPS+ to a teammate, Dwight Evans. It's one point higher, but Evans had the superior glove, far superior arm, and played longer. The Rice candidacy was a perfect storm of narrative, anti-steroid, and anti-stathead sentiment, with BS topped over the whole mess. Lack of understanding park effects is just a small portion of that.

His 1978 MVP award was deserved, Fenway or not, as long as you limit your candidacy to hitters as some sets of voters do. Guidry should have won, but then so should have Pedro for 99-00 and Gooden for 1985 among others.

You've got different sets of voters every year for those awards. some of them follow the written guideline that pitchers are eligible, some take it upon themselves to disqualify since pitchers have their own award. I think it's just luck of the draw of voting pool that determines why Gooden, Pedro, and Guidry do not have MVPs but Clemens, Kershaw, and Verlander do.
   675. SoSH U at work Posted: January 11, 2017 at 09:49 AM (#5381527)
The Rice candidacy was a perfect storm of narrative, anti-steroid, and anti-stathead sentiment,


Speaking of narratives...
   676. Booey Posted: January 11, 2017 at 11:48 AM (#5381614)
The Rice candidacy was a perfect storm of narrative, anti-steroid, and anti-stathead sentiment, with BS topped over the whole mess.


Possibly, but I've always thought this theory might be overthinking it a bit. Rice hit .298, Evans .272. Rice has 3 HR titles, and 4 seasons higher than Evans career high. He's got 5 of the top 6 rbi seasons between them. He had 200 hits 4 times, and led the league in total bases 4 times. He won an MVP and had 5 other top 5 finishes (Evans had 2). He was putting up .320, 40 homer, 125 rbi seasons at his peak during a time when no one did that for more than one fluke season or so (Foster 1977, Lynn 1979, etc).

Rice was a big star in his prime, and he really does have quite a bit of black ink. You don't need to be protesting advanced stats or PED's to see him as worthy; you just need to overvalue certain stats like voters have done countless other times. For traditionalists (who make up the majority of the BBWAA, especially back in 2009), Jim Rice is your basic "peak" candidate, nothing more. IMO.
   677. SoSH U at work Posted: January 11, 2017 at 12:11 PM (#5381641)
You don't need to be protesting advanced stats or PED's to see him as worthy; you just need to overvalue certain stats like voters have done countless other times. For traditionalists (who make up the majority of the BBWAA, especially back in 2009), Jim Rice is your basic "peak" candidate, nothing more. IMO.


And there's nothing particularly striking about his rise up the ballot. He started with just under 30 percent - a decent total from which to make a long slog, and obviously the writers back in 1995 considered him the best of the sluggish OF types of that generation. They were wrong about him, but they were wrong from the get-go.

He moved up slowly, dipping when a good group of newcomers debuted (1999), gaining ground on light ballots. His biggest single year-over-year gain, and when he crossed 50 percent for the first time, was in 2000, not a big year on either the anti-steroid or anti-stathead front, but one that was very light on obvious HoFers (Goose was the only one who made it, Jack the only other player to hang around for 15 years). His other big push came when he had elevated to near the top of the backlogger status, and with another light first-year class (just Raines) hitting the ballot. His climb was also aided by the continued absence of any of his types joining him (in the same way Jack and Bert benefited from the absence of quality SP hitting the ballot for a decade). His Hall path is really kind of boring.
   678. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:04 PM (#5381700)
He was putting up .320, 40 homer, 125 rbi seasons at his peak during a time when no one did that for more than one fluke season or so (Foster 1977, Lynn 1979, etc).


Strictly speaking, Rice never had a 320/40/125 season. Even with rounding, he was only that player from 1977-1979 (and 1983). If he really was your basic peak candidate, then the HOF would be a whole lot bigger than it is. I do think the BA was a big part of his appeal to traditional voters. Turn 100 of his singles into walks and he probably doesn't get in. Foster had as good a three-year peak, but only hit .274 for his career.
   679. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:27 PM (#5381717)
If he really was your basic peak candidate, then the HOF would be a whole lot bigger than it is. I do think the BA was a big part of his appeal to traditional voters.


He was your basic peak candidate evaluated using traditional statistics. He had a 10-year stretch (1977-86) where his average Triple Crown stats were .305/30/109 - .300/30/100 has a lot of appeal as a "great" season (I think there's a guy on the SABR e-mail list who still posts a list of guys who hit .300/30/100 at the end of every season): averaging a "great" season for a decade is pretty much the peak/prime standard for the Hall of Fame. But yes, the .300 is a key part of that (.305 in Rice's case).
   680. Booey Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:39 PM (#5381726)
Strictly speaking, Rice never had a 320/40/125 season. Even with rounding, he was only that player from 1977-1979 (and 1983).


Yes, I was averaging. But even if he "only" had 4 big seasons - and according to MVP voting he actually had 6 big (top 5) seasons - how many other guys at the time had more than one or two seasons like that? I'm at work so I can't look it up (and I'm lazy), but it wouldn't surprise me if Rice's "big 4" seasons made up half of all the monster years in the triple crown stats from the mid 70's to the mid 80's.

And yes, I suspect the .274 to .298 avg difference between Foster and Rice was huge with the voters. I think Murphy probably gets elected too if his avg was 30 pts higher.
   681. Booey Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:57 PM (#5381740)
Rice averaged .320/41/128 from 1977-1979:

1977 - .320/39/114, .593 slg
1978 - .315/46/139, .600 slg
1979 - .325/39/130, .596 slg

And then added a .305/39/126 (.550 slg) in 1983. Again, how many other seasons from the mid 70's to the mid 80's approach those 4 in the triple crown stats? Foster once. Lynn once. Luzinski once. Parker, Mattingly, and Murray a couple times, but their HR totals were never as high. There just weren't that many. Rice then followed his big 1983 by averaging .298/25/112 for the next 3 years. That's not huge, but it's not nothing, either.

Look, I agree; it shouldn't have been enough. I'm just saying that it's at least understandable why voters with a history of being distracted by shiny things were once again, well, distracted by shiny things.
   682. DanG Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:58 PM (#5381741)
how many other guys at the time had more than one or two seasons like that?
From 1968-94 there were 26 times a player had at least 35 HR, 110 RBI and .300 BA in a season. Three guys did it more than once:

Name           Yrs From   To
Jim Rice         4 1977 1983
Billy Williams   2 1970 1972
Dale Murphy      2 1983 1985 

I guess the common thread is they all had hitter-friendly home parks.
   683. SoSH U at work Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:02 PM (#5381746)
it wouldn't surprise me if Rice's "big 4" seasons made up half of all the monster years in the triple crown stats from the mid 70's to the mid 80's.


He really was the only guy who consistently combined a high average and lots of homers in that era (Foster's the only other guy who's close, though he didn't do it for as long). If you look at the Top 10 in BA during most of his prime, it's entirely different from the HR list outside Lynn's monster 1979 season (when Rice was just behind him in BA, and tied in HR), besides frequent appearances by Rice in each. It's what created that impression of him that carried onto the ballot.

   684. GregD Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:05 PM (#5381748)
Walker had 1 WAR per 111 PA for his career, which is the 33rd best rate in MLB history (min. 5000 PA). The only players to debut since 1960 with more WAR/PA are Bonds, A-Rod, Pujols, and Schmidt. The only other players to debut post-WAR who had more WAR/PA are Aaron, Robinson (Frank and Jackie), Mays, Clemente, Mantle, and Matthews.
This is interesting. How much of this is because of other players' late-career declines? How does Walker's WAR/PA compare to other players' top (or first) 8000 PAs?
   685. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:18 PM (#5381755)
how many other guys at the time had more than one or two seasons like that? I'm at work so I can't look it up (and I'm lazy), but it wouldn't surprise me if Rice's "big 4" seasons made up half of all the monster years in the triple crown stats from the mid 70's to the mid 80's.


what DanG said

also to lower the bar slightly, 1975-1986

Rice .304-350-1276
Parker .302-239-1050
Cooper .303-224-1030
Brett: .317-207-1004
Murray .299-275-1015
Garvey .297-225-1076
Lynn: .291-239-916
Reggie: .261-330-1030
Foster: .279-321-1114
Baylor: .261-283-1026
Winfield: .288-282-1147
Dewey: .269-270-1147
Murphy: .277-266-822
Cey: .263-278-948
Kong: .239-365-993
Schmidt: .271-440-1221
Carew: .331-60-622

Folks loved them some triple crown stats back in the day, and Rice year in year out gave the triple crown lovers what they were looking for
   686. Danny Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:21 PM (#5381758)
This is interesting. How much of this is because of other players' late-career declines? How does Walker's WAR/PA compare to other players' top (or first) 8000 PAs?

It definitely helps Walker that he didn't come up super young or play into his 40s. Just looking at players from age 22-38 (matching Walker's career), he drops from 33rd to 38th in WAR/PA. Boggs, Rickey, and Morgan move ahead of him among players who debuted post-war.
   687. Booey Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:43 PM (#5381788)
He really was the only guy who consistently combined a high average and lots of homers in that era


Yeah. The '70's and '80's were short on Triple Crown candidates. Seems like more than any other era, the best hitters were either sluggers with .270 averages (Reggie, Schmidt, Murphy, etc), or high average singles and doubles hitters without HR power (Carew, Rose, Boggs, Gwynn). Rice was probably the best at combining both.

Parker and Mattingly won batting titles, but were only averaging 30 homers a year. Rice averaged 41 over his big 4 seasons. Murray was a .300/30 guy in his prime, but barely in both categories; he was never significantly higher in either (in the '80's - he did put up .330 and .323 seasons in the '90's, but he was no longer a 30 homer guy by then).
   688. GregD Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:50 PM (#5381794)
It definitely helps Walker that he didn't come up super young or play into his 40s. Just looking at players from age 22-38 (matching Walker's career), he drops from 33rd to 38th in WAR/PA. Boggs, Rickey, and Morgan move ahead of him among players who debuted post-war.
Thanks! Interesting that he doesn't drop that much.
   689. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:51 PM (#5381796)
Walker's case also isn't helped by the fact that he generates a fair bit of value through defense. Defense for right fielders really doesn't get considered by hall voters. Walker is 9th all-time in Total Zone Runs in RF. (And by this measure Clemente is amazing. Yoiks.)
   690. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:58 PM (#5381803)
eah. The '70's and '80's were short on Triple Crown candidates


Yes, sometimes Baseball just seems to have dry spells with respect to something or the other.
After Catfish's perfect game there was a long dry spell, no particular reason- the 70s weren't even a high offense era.
HOF caliber pitchers almost universally flamed out mid-70s to Clemens...

Bill James wrote in the mid 80s that we'd probably never see another triple crown winner, 2 reasons, 1 was that it was harder to lead a 12-14 tam league in all three categories than an 8 team league, the second was that it was harder" to lead one's own team in all 3 categories...
He was right that more teams makes it harder to lead a league in all three categories, but the second idea is where I think he mistook a random anomaly for a trend.
   691. Booey Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:06 PM (#5381814)
Bill James wrote in the mid 80s that we'd probably never see another triple crown winner, 2 reasons, 1 was that it was harder to lead a 12-14 tam league in all three categories than an 8 team league, the second was that it was harder" to lead one's own team in all 3 categories...
He was right that more teams makes it harder to lead a league in all three categories, but the second idea is where I think he mistook a random anomaly for a trend.


Yeah. I don't think it's a coincidence though that we didn't see a Triple Crown winner until after sillyball was over. There were TOO many high average/high power guys in the 90's and 2000's for any of them to lead the league in all 3 categories at the same time. 5 different players led in all 3 categories at least once (Barry, Galarraga, ARod, Manny, Pujols).
   692. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:11 PM (#5381822)
Bill James wrote in the mid 80s that we'd probably never see another triple crown winner,


I was never a fan of these type of predictions, as long as baseball lasts, you can only be proven wrong on a prediction like that, and you could never be right.

I could see a .400 hitter, a 57 game hitting streak, 74 hr, 300 game winner, 30 game winner all happening sometime in the future. Of course there are a few that will never happen again...20 complete games in a season is probably never going to happen again,


note: I think the 30 game winner might happen when the game evolves to the point that starting pitchers are relieving on their "throw days." Something I don't see happening within the next 10 years, but it seems as a potential future, especially if they start limiting roster makeup.

   693. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:17 PM (#5381832)
Walker's case also isn't helped by the fact that he generates a fair bit of value through defense. Defense for right fielders really doesn't get considered by hall voters. Walker is 9th all-time in Total Zone Runs in RF. (And by this measure Clemente is amazing. Yoiks.)


Walker has so many things going against him, that I guess I should be happy for the little support he does get.

Just going from memory and maybe forgetting some of the things said in this thread.
1. Coors effect.
2. Durability issues.
3. Low career totals.
4. All around player, not a one dimensional player that is easier to nail.
5. (4a....maybe) excellent defender at a position where defense is often overlooked. (to be fair though, Ichiro, and Clemente helped their cases by great defense----I didn't know that Brian Jordan is 3rd all time in rField among right fielders, ahead of Ichiro who has 1000 more games than him)
6. Sillyball era.
7. relatively short career for a hof corner(perception)
8. Labor issues in two of the years he was healthy (he played 103 out of 114 games in 1994, and 131 out of 144 in 1995)
   694. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:34 PM (#5381854)
I think the 30 game winner might happen when the game evolves to the point that starting pitchers are relieving on their "throw days."


As I'm sure most here know, Grove won 31 on 30 starts, Dean won 30 on 33 starts.
   695. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:41 PM (#5381863)
Ichiro, and Clemente helped their cases by great defense


Ichiro and Clemente got 3,000 hits, Ichiro was a trans-Pacific pioneer, and Roberto Clemente died heroically and tragically. Their defense added to their legends in both cases, but they're both first-ballot Hall-of-Famers if they play like Greg Luzinski out there (assuming, of course, that their terrible defense didn't cost them playing time and, hence, hits).
   696. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:42 PM (#5381865)
I could see a .400 hitter, a 57 game hitting streak, 74 hr, 300 game winner, 30 game winner all happening sometime in the future. Of course there are a few that will never happen again...20 complete games in a season is probably never going to happen again,


Hell there was a pretty good .400 window during sillyball, we needed the right hitter to play in Coors...

We'll get 300 game winners again

note: I think the 30 game winner might happen when the game evolves to the point that starting pitchers are relieving on their "throw days."

When McLain won 31 in 1968 he did it in 41 starts
When Dean won 30 in 1934 he was 26-5 as a starter- 4 of his wins came in relief (17 relief appearances total)
When Grove won 31 in 1931 he started only 30 games (he picked up 4 relief wins)

Starters relieving on their "throw" days actually used to be pretty common
   697. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:51 PM (#5381873)
Ichiro and Clemente got 3,000 hits, Ichiro was a trans-Pacific pioneer, and Roberto Clemente died heroically and tragically. Their defense added to their legends in both cases, but they're both first-ballot Hall-of-Famers if they play like Greg Luzinski out there (assuming, of course, that their terrible defense didn't cost them playing time and, hence, hits).


People still talk about their defense (not saying that Ichiro is "in the past") and yes they did other things well of course, but their defense is always mentioned when talking about them, compared to other right fielders, where defense is often times limited to just the arm(see vlad)
   698. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:54 PM (#5381881)
Starters relieving on their "throw" days actually used to be pretty common


yes and no, it wasn't throw days, it was on their off days, but yes I knew that a few of these guys reached their 30 wins by relieving, something that starting pitchers rarely do nowadays, even though many people seem to think it would be safe for them to do it. At some point in the future the league is probably going to expand roster size, is also going to limit number of "pitchers" on a team, and teams will respond by maximizing their starting pitchers. (note: none of that will happen before the next CBA of course---so I'm still talking about a decade plus in the future, either way, the point I was making is that 30 wins may look like an impossibility today by current usage patterns, but isn't something that won't happen in the future.)

Edit: just to clarify, I was listing things OTHER people have said in the past that will never happen going forward, and I was saying that I think it will happen. For many of the reasons that other people on here have posted in response to my comment.
   699. Booey Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:56 PM (#5381883)
I could see a .400 hitter, a 57 game hitting streak, 74 hr, 300 game winner, 30 game winner all happening sometime in the future.


See, I'm the opposite. I'd be extremely surprised if I saw any of those things happen in my lifetime, other than the 300 game winner. We will see some of those again.
   700. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 11, 2017 at 04:01 PM (#5381890)

People still talk about their defense (not saying that Ichiro is "in the past") and yes they did other things well of course, but their defense is always mentioned when talking about them, compared to other right fielders, where defense is often times limited to just the arm(see vlad)


Yes, but what precedent is there to think that a guy with 3,000 hits, 4 batting titles, 12 all-star appearances, an MVP, and a World Series MVP would need defense to get into the Hall of Fame, even if he hadn't died while on a humanitarian trip while still an elite player?
Page 7 of 10 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  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
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogIan Kinsler Performs Damage Control After Racially-Infused Comments
(125 - 1:55pm, Mar 24)
Last: GGC for Sale

NewsblogPirates' Jung Ho Kang reportedly denied visa to enter U.S. after DUI conviction
(12 - 1:54pm, Mar 24)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogOTP 20 March 2017: This fighter for civil rights has baseball in her DNA
(1670 - 1:54pm, Mar 24)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogWhy DFA is the WTF of baseball and how one player fought back
(15 - 1:38pm, Mar 24)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 3-24-2017
(16 - 1:37pm, Mar 24)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT: NCAA March Madness 2017
(229 - 1:37pm, Mar 24)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 3-23-2017
(13 - 1:35pm, Mar 24)
Last: donlock

NewsblogReport: Former Bulls GM Jerry Krause dies at 77
(60 - 1:27pm, Mar 24)
Last: AROM

NewsblogHeyman: 30 Potential Breakout Players For 2017
(12 - 1:22pm, Mar 24)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogJake Arrieta Jacks Longest-Ever Measured Dinger By A Pitcher
(16 - 12:58pm, Mar 24)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens

NewsblogSouthern hospitality: Braves unveil new SunTrust Park food | FOX Sports
(5 - 12:57pm, Mar 24)
Last: Rickey! No. You move.

NewsblogYankees' Didi Gregorius will miss Opening Day | MLB.com
(16 - 12:55pm, Mar 24)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogOT - March 2017 NBA thread
(781 - 12:48pm, Mar 24)
Last: extremism in defense of STIGGLES is no vice

NewsblogMLB Has a Massive Diversity Problem in the Local Broadcast Booth
(105 - 12:38pm, Mar 24)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogYadier Molina demands apology for Adam Jones' comments about WBC party plans
(23 - 12:27pm, Mar 24)
Last: Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili (TeddyF.Ballgame)

Page rendered in 1.2965 seconds
47 querie(s) executed