Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Ryan Thibs has his HOF Ballot Tracker Up and Running!

Ryan has received his first official ballot, courtesy of Adam Rubib. Ten votes, including Vizquel.

So who gets a higher percentage of vote this year, Trammell with the VC or Vizquel with the BBWAA? (Only partly a tongue-in-cheek question…)

TJ Posted: November 22, 2017 at 02:48 PM | 1774 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 5 of 18 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   401. Booey Posted: December 13, 2017 at 02:46 PM (#5591962)
flip
   402. Booey Posted: December 13, 2017 at 02:56 PM (#5591974)
Also stop comparing him to INNER CIRCLE 1st BALLOT HALL OF FAMERS. Yes, almost ANY Hall of Fame pitcher looks bad compared to those guys.


Problem is, when your entire case rests on a brief peak period, that peak damn well better be inner circle to make up for the lack of longevity. See Koufax, or hypothetical hit-by-bus versions of Kershaw or Trout. Just being amongst the best for a handful of years generally isn't enough if that's all you've got (Mattingly, Murphy, Nomar).

Now, I do think Santana was closer to being the very best at this peak than Mattingly/Murphy/Nomar, so he's a better candidate then they are, but I'm still not sure he was SO dominant that a 5 year stretch of greatness is enough.

I am not arguing that he's a first ballot hall of famer. I am arguing that he deserves 5%. He deserves to have his candidacy looked at and inspected.


I agree, but unfortunately that's not the way HOF voting process works. See #387. If he's not in the top 10 on THIS ballot, it doesn't matter if he would have been on many others.
   403. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 13, 2017 at 02:59 PM (#5591977)
Also four of those years you pick on his stats he was ONE OF THE TWO OR THREE BEST PITCHERS.


But that's my point. Being one of the two or three best pitchers is much different than being the clear cut best pitcher in baseball. Especially when you're dealing with a guy who has nothing else going for him, HOF wise. He has no career bulk, he has next to no postseason resume.

   404. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 13, 2017 at 03:06 PM (#5591982)
Also stop comparing him to INNER CIRCLE 1st BALLOT HALL OF FAMERS.


I wasn't comparing him to inner circle HOFers. I was comparing his best seasons to those of inner circle Hall of Famers.

Again, for a guy whose entire case rests on how good he was for four to five years, I see nothing wrong with asking for those seasons to blow me away.

EDIT: Coke to Booey in 402. He wouldn't need an inner circle Hall peak if his other credentials hit standard Hall territory.


   405. gabrielthursday Posted: December 13, 2017 at 03:08 PM (#5591986)
I don't believe they were banned in 1991. The Commissioner said they were, but he doesn't have the right to impose such a ban. It had to be collectively bargained.


This would only be the case if the commissioner was prohibited from such action under the collectively-bargained contract. I would be quite surprised if that were the case, and I have never heard it suggested before - if there's a reference, I'd be happy to see it. Imposing penalties might be tougher, but I would imagine the commissioner's office had some powers to discipline players - it had, after all, recently imposed a lifetime ban on Pete Rose.

The argument that the ban on PEDs wasn't really a ban seems implausible to me - the Commissioner clearly indicated that players caught with banned substances risked punishment from MLB. edit: The problem with the ban was that it didn't have teeth - players didn't have any reason to think they would get caught.
   406. bachslunch Posted: December 13, 2017 at 03:28 PM (#5592003)
Took another look at the spreadsheet. The ballots that have been added are all pretty good, no Vene/Livingston head-scratcher types. We’re at 46 so far. A few interesting things:

-currently Edgar and Hoffman have the same number of votes. Don’t expect that will last.

-Bonds and Clemens are holding steady, no new yes votes and only Ortiz’s lost Bonds vote.

-Biggest net gainer is Walker at 10, a little shy of a quarter of the vote. Edgar and Vlad are net up 6. The only net negatives so far are Wagner at -2, Kent at -3, and Hoffman and Bonds at -1.

   407. gabrielthursday Posted: December 13, 2017 at 03:34 PM (#5592008)
Two more points on Vizquel - according to TangoTiger's wowy numbers, Vizquel ranks even lower as a defender - at roughly just +17 runs for 1993-2007 (the bulk of his career). Secondly, let me quote an illuminating passage from Jay Jaffe's assessment of Vizquel's candidacy:
While it’s an oversimplification to say that the difference between Smith and Vizquel can be boiled down to range factor (putouts plus assists per nine innings) relative to their league averages, such a comparison gets the point across. The Wizard averaged 5.22 plays per nine while the league’s shortstops were at 4.78, a difference of 0.44 per nine. Vizquel averaged 4.62 per nine for his time at shortstop while the league was at 4.61—a difference of just 0.01. Aparicio and Rabbit Maranville, who are both enshrined for the way their glove work offset similarly light sticks, both have larger gaps as well; the former was 0.16 above his leagues, the latter 0.28 above.
While range factor is a very poor basis for analyzing defensive value over a small sample, over a long career it tells a convincing tale. There is good reason to think that the Total Zone/UZR/Defensive Runs Saved measures have actually overestimated his defensive ability.
   408. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 13, 2017 at 03:41 PM (#5592013)
-currently Edgar and Hoffman have the same number of votes. Don’t expect that will last.


I expect they'll wind up within 5 percentage points of each other, honestly. Edgar's shot up the ballot the last two years, and still appears to be moving. Hoffman's probably going to gain a few points and get in.
   409. QLE Posted: December 13, 2017 at 03:49 PM (#5592018)
#402 and #404-

Quite, and it doesn't help him with one factor:

Even if we assume the pure accuracy of WAR for pitchers, his ten-year peak is at 50.4, which is borderline.

Bonds, Clemens, Chipper Jones, Schilling, Mussina, Martinez, Walker, Andruw Jones, Rolen, Thome, Sosa, Ramirez, and Guerrero all do better by this metric than he does, and most of them also have substantial career claims that Santana does not.

Among this group, which four would you keep off the ballot to put Santana on it?
   410. Rally Posted: December 13, 2017 at 03:51 PM (#5592021)
While range factor is a very poor basis for analyzing defensive value over a small sample, over a long career it tells a convincing tale. There is good reason to think that the Total Zone/UZR/Defensive Runs Saved measures have actually overestimated his defensive ability.


Maybe, but I'd like to see range factor using balls in play as the denominator instead of innings before I buy it.
   411. bachslunch Posted: December 13, 2017 at 03:52 PM (#5592022)
@405: I think a “ban” with no testing or penalties is meaningless. As has been pointed out above, nothing had been negotiated/codified with the Players Union, and that was a necessary component here.

And that’s a major difference with Rose — there was a meaningful policy in place with prescribed punishment on gambling at the time he was barred.
   412. dlf Posted: December 13, 2017 at 04:03 PM (#5592029)
The argument that the ban on PEDs wasn't really a ban seems implausible to me - the Commissioner clearly indicated that players caught with banned substances risked punishment from MLB.


The problem with that theory is it contradicts Selig's testimony where he claimed that he was powerless to punish players absent MLBPA agreement. The '91 memo, as everyone inside the game has agreed, did not apply to members of the players association.

...

Just to keep a record of this, through 45 ballots (listing those over 10%):

Bonds 71.7
Clemens 73.9
Vlad 91.3
Hoffman 82.6
Andruw 10.9
Chipper 95.7
Edgar 82.6
Crime Dog 19.6
Moose 73.9
MannyBManny 28.3
Rolen 15.2
Schilling 67.4
Sosa 17.4
Thome 97.8
Vizquel 39.1
Walker 39.1
   413. DL from MN Posted: December 13, 2017 at 04:06 PM (#5592032)
Bonds, Clemens, Chipper Jones, Schilling, Mussina, Martinez, Walker, Andruw Jones, Rolen, Thome, Sosa, Ramirez, and Guerrero all do better by this metric than he does, and most of them also have substantial career claims that Santana does not.

Among this group, which four would you keep off the ballot to put Santana on it?


Andruw Jones, Vlad Guerrero, Sammy Sosa, Edgar (in reverse order)
   414. Booey Posted: December 13, 2017 at 04:06 PM (#5592033)
@405: I think a “ban” with no testing or penalties is meaningless.


Agreed. If you tell your teen they have a midnight curfew, but he/she comes home at 2:00 or 3:00 am every morning and you never say or do anything about it, do they really have a midnight curfew? It's just empty words without a legit attempt at enforcement.
   415. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 13, 2017 at 04:10 PM (#5592037)
409-

I mean, if I wanted to vote for Johan to keep him alive (I don't, but I'll play along), it's pretty easy to not vote for the PED-tainted guys under the logic of "They have no shot at election so there's no harm in passing on them." Those guys are just going to sit on the ballot, unable to be elected due to PED hardliners, but not dropping off because enough will vote for them—except maybe Sosa.
   416. Downing Almost Deserves It Posted: December 13, 2017 at 04:22 PM (#5592043)
The argument that the ban on PEDs wasn't really a ban seems implausible to me

Yes, there was a "ban" in 1991, but testing wasn't allowed. I should have been more precise in my wording. A ban without testing is like a law without any chance for consequence. Jaywalking, for example, is illegal, but if there's a 0% chance of punishment, pedestrians will only choose not to jaywalk if it jeopardizes their safety or, perhaps, the safety of those around them. Or maybe there's a social contract? If that's the case, there had been decades of using the best drugs available to enhance performance. The social contract was to use drugs, not to refrain from doing so.

As someone else posted, it makes no sense that we would want to punish steroid users when they didn't break an enforceable rule of the game, yet we're happy to celebrate amphetamine users. If you want to "punish" Manny because he failed two tests, I disagree, but I absolutely see your point. But for someone who never failed a test, or someone who used before collectively bargained (2004, I think), I won't judge them. It's inconsistent to do so unless you want to pluck Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Mickey Mantle, for example, out of the Hall. I like the Hall better with them in.
   417. gabrielthursday Posted: December 13, 2017 at 06:07 PM (#5592126)
A ban without testing is like a law without any chance for consequence.
Fair enough - I think there's a very reasonable argument that the blame we should assign to PED users in the pre-testing, post-1991 era should be less than the post-testing period.
The problem with that theory is it contradicts Selig's testimony where he claimed that he was powerless to punish players absent MLBPA agreement.
This, of course, was quite a very self-serving claim. Selig didn't attempt to impose any penalties (or seek to find steroid use outside of a testing regime), and so needed to come up with a justification for his inaction. When Alex Rodriguez was caught, he was punished outside of the negotiated terms for steroid use by Selig - and it was upheld by an arbitrator. I see no basis for thinking that a similar mechanism couldn't have been used or at least attempted in the pre-testing era.

Just to be clear, I don't want to get into the question of how we ought to regard PED users in any era, or their relative blameworthiness. I just saw what I believe to be a fairly common false premise, and wanted to correct the record.
   418. Srul Itza Posted: December 13, 2017 at 08:04 PM (#5592183)
Took another look at the spreadsheet. The ballots that have been added are all pretty good, no Vene/Livingston head-scratcher types. We’re at 46 so far. A few interesting things:


Thing I'm trying to figure out is why Thome has 45 votes, and Chipper only 44.

Thome is deserving and should be elected handily this year, but Chipper is so clearly the superior player.

I understand there may be some animus to things Chipper has said and done OFF the field that are affecting the vote. But I am still surprised that Thome is outpolling.

Probably won't last, though, when the bulk of the votes show up.
   419. QLE Posted: December 13, 2017 at 08:50 PM (#5592210)
#418-

That actually is simple- one guy who objected to some of Chipper's tweets, one guy who only voted for a couple of members of the mid-1990s Cleveland Indians, and so far only one person who chose not to support Thome.

Essentially, we're still at the point where the number of votes in is small enough that a handful of weird ones have weight that they shouldn't have once the 410-420 or so votes that are expected to be cast get counted.
   420. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 13, 2017 at 09:22 PM (#5592232)
The BBWAA vote does a reasonable (not perfect) job of deciding who gets in, but we shouldn't really expect it to precisely reflect the pecking order among who gets in, or even more so, those who don't get voted in. It's never been good at that, since so much depends on who you share the ballot with and a few fluky votes.
   421. cardsfanboy Posted: December 13, 2017 at 09:33 PM (#5592240)
Yes, there was a "ban" in 1991, but testing wasn't allowed. I should have been more precise in my wording. A ban without testing is like a law without any chance for consequence. Jaywalking, for example, is illegal, but if there's a 0% chance of punishment, pedestrians will only choose not to jaywalk if it jeopardizes their safety or, perhaps, the safety of those around them. Or maybe there's a social contract?


Just don't do it in Seattle apparently. (I still can't believe people actually get fined for that "crime")
   422. reech Posted: December 13, 2017 at 11:14 PM (#5592286)
Jaywalking, for example, is illegal, but if there's a 0% chance of punishment

Years ago, my girlfriend and I (both of us NYers) got popped on Melrose in L.A. for Jaywalking. We got tickets and then almost got run in to jail because we laughed at the pig and told him NY cops have better things to do than waste their time harassing citizens.

I ignored the ticket and found out months later there was a warrant out for my arrest.

For ignoring a $25 jaywalking ticket.


   423. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 14, 2017 at 12:11 AM (#5592304)
Years ago, my girlfriend and I (both of us NYers) got popped on Melrose in L.A. for Jaywalking.


That's harsh. As a product of the LA punk scene from 1978-1983 I sort of recall staggering across both Melrose and Sunset on a number of occasions in which drugs and alcohol may or may not have been a factor. Plenty of the local constabulary about and never had an issue. However I think they were more concerned about my continuing to stay alive then the pedantic pursuit of a jaywalking ticket at 3:15am. Maybe the cops got tougher from the mid-80's?

As a regular visitor to NY I would suggest that the city sort of has it's own self governing system against jaywalking anyway. If you step off the curb when it isn't your turn to walk it seems to me that you are fair game to anyone in a vehicle so you're not really inclined to take any chances.
   424. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 14, 2017 at 12:25 AM (#5592305)
[418] It’s because one writer submitted a “fuck everyone who didn’t play for Cleveland” ballot.
   425. bachslunch Posted: December 14, 2017 at 04:13 AM (#5592318)
Re jaywalking, LA and Seattle are notorious for aggressive enforcement of this law. Saw an article not long ago about this in Downtown LA especially, where people were complaining about it — which apparently didn’t seem to phase the police much. Didn’t run into any issues when I visited the city not long ago, but then again, I wasn’t tempted to jaywalk given the amount and speed of traffic.

Haven’t run into this in east coast cities and have never heard of its enforcement in that region. Have heard of enforcement occasionally occurring in the Midwest (Milwaukee, Cincinnati) and in western cities other than the two mentioned (Honolulu, Portland).
   426. John DiFool2 Posted: December 14, 2017 at 08:41 AM (#5592334)
Faze. The police aren't shifting to another dimension or something.
   427. Rally Posted: December 14, 2017 at 08:52 AM (#5592338)
Vizquel 39.1
Walker 39.1


Both players debuted in 1989, Walker only for a few games but he was a highly regarded prospect. Is there any point between then and 2005 where Vizquel and Walker would have been viewed as equals? Vizquel had a big year in 1999, but Walker that season hit 379/458/710. If you put aside salary, is there any chance you could have offered a straight up trade without Walker's team breaking into hysterical laughter?

Granted, Omar had a very good year in 2006 while Walker retired, and then stuck around for 6 more years, one as a below average regular and 5 as a utility infielder.
   428. reech Posted: December 14, 2017 at 10:53 AM (#5592422)

That's harsh. As a product of the LA punk scene from 1978-1983


Hugh:
We should compare notes at some point- I'm a product of the early 80's NYC Punk scene.
But I have alot of "experience" with the West Coast scene too.
   429. Srul Itza At Home Posted: December 14, 2017 at 12:18 PM (#5592561)
Have heard of enforcement occasionally occurring in the Midwest (Milwaukee, Cincinnati) and in western cities other than the two mentioned (Honolulu, Portland).


They go through phases (not fazes) out here when police suddenly decide to enforce jay-walking, and then they skulk at certain down town intersections and write tons of tickets. Then they disappear for months from that.
   430. Peter Farted Again Posted: December 14, 2017 at 12:26 PM (#5592571)
Effective 1/1, in L.A. (or any part of CA) it is no longer a violation to cross if you can finish before the timer reaches zero. Wonder how many BS ticket attempts there will be anyway.
   431. bachslunch Posted: December 14, 2017 at 12:42 PM (#5592591)
@431: it's good they changed the law this way. Until now, in LA you could reportedly get a ticket just for stepping into the intersection after the red hand started flashing, regardless of whether you had ample time to make it across or not. Like with driving speed traps, it sounds as if police in some communities use this as a periodic dodge to meet a financial quota.
   432. Srul Itza At Home Posted: December 14, 2017 at 05:41 PM (#5592913)
48 votes in, and Edgar has one more vote than Trevor.

Won't last, but given the choice between electing the transcendent 68 WAR DH and the 28 WAR CL, I would take the DH.
   433. toratoratora Posted: December 14, 2017 at 06:33 PM (#5592934)
As a product of the LA punk scene from 1978-1983

Much props there...and I say this as a guy that spent way too much time from about 81-88 involved in the DC hardcore scene
   434. John DiFool2 Posted: December 14, 2017 at 08:03 PM (#5592982)
@431: it's good they changed the law this way. Until now, in LA you could reportedly get a ticket just for stepping into the intersection after the red hand started flashing, regardless of whether you had ample time to make it across or not. Like with driving speed traps, it sounds as if police in some communities use this as a periodic dodge to meet a financial quota.


The irony for me (here in Florida) is that the timers (yes, they actually are visible here, useful if I am trying to time a light as a driver) are typically set to a speed equivalent to an 180 year old Galapagos tortoise-usually the skateboarder or young mother in question is long gone before the light finally changes for everyone else.
   435. cardsfanboy Posted: December 14, 2017 at 08:06 PM (#5592984)

The irony for me (here in Florida) is that the timers (yes, they actually are visible here, useful if I am trying to time a light as a driver) are typically set to a speed equivalent to an 180 year old Galapagos tortoise-usually the skateboarder or young mother in question is long gone before the light finally changes for everyone else.


quite the opposite everywhere else I've ever been.... the light to walk is usually less than 3 seconds long(I know of one that is 19 seconds long as it counts down, and that is barely sufficient)
   436. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 14, 2017 at 09:11 PM (#5593013)
We should compare notes at some point- I'm a product of the early 80's NYC Punk scene.
But I have alot of "experience" with the West Coast scene too.


My best friend is still going to see X as they did a 40th anniversary concert and city hall actually made a big deal of it a few weeks back. Plenty of Black Flag(with both Reyes and Rollins), the Germs, Fear, Circle Jerks, Angry Samoans, Agent Orange, the Vandals and the worst band of all time, the Flesheaters

Good times.
   437. reech Posted: December 14, 2017 at 09:48 PM (#5593023)
I'm still going to shows back here in NY. And playing in a band.
   438. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM (#5593254)
I am hoping that the writers put the election of T-Hoff on the back burner until 2020.
I would prefer to see Mr. Mariano Rivera go in first.
   439. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 15, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5593270)
I am hoping that the writers put the election of T-Hoff on the back burner until 2020.
I would prefer to see Mr. Mariano Rivera go in first.


Just clear the ballot at this point, IMO. We've already got Bonds and Clemens taking up two spots on half the ballots.

This could be a big year for ballot clearing if we can get five guys in. The 2019 class is sort of intriguing, but not super strong. Rivera's an easy yes, and Halladay probably gets in too, especially because, as bad as it sounds, he might have some borderline voters feeling sympathetic. But Pettitte's not a great candidate when you compare him to Mussina, Schilling, and even Halladay—he's basically Jack Morris 2.0 with a PED taint—and I can't see what Helton brings to the table that Larry Walker doesn't. We might finally gain some ground, and not have voters lamenting needing 14 spots if by some miracle we can sneak Edgar in with Thome, Chipper, Vlad, and Hoffman this year
   440. Random Transaction Generator Posted: December 15, 2017 at 12:32 PM (#5593280)
Jaywalking, for example, is illegal, but if there's a 0% chance of punishment


If you attempt to cross one of the busy intersections on the Las Vegas strip at road level (instead of using the provided bridges or marked/signaled crosswalks), cops there will definitely slap you with a jaywalking ticket.

Too many drunk bastards stumble into traffic and get killed, and so they crackdown on that.
   441. John DiFool2 Posted: December 15, 2017 at 12:48 PM (#5593301)
OK, Halladay vs. Moose vs. Schill.

Does anybody really think a 203 game winner will leapfrog two guys with more wins, one of which has a very comparable peak, who have been waiting longer? [much less Rocket tho we know his reason]
   442. dlf Posted: December 15, 2017 at 01:12 PM (#5593340)
Does anybody really think a 203 game winner will leapfrog two guys with more wins, one of which has a very comparable peak, who have been waiting longer?


I think the writers will believe a two-time CYA winner has a better peak. I also think his death will give him a ratings boost. I think that new candidates get a fresh look where those who've been on the ballot a few years already have folks with their minds a little set so there won't be a 1:1 comparison. And I think that personalities are important when looking at the votes: Halladay was beloved by writers, Moose tolerated, and Schilling actively disliked.
   443. Booey Posted: December 15, 2017 at 01:26 PM (#5593351)
Does anybody really think a 203 game winner will leapfrog two guys with more wins, one of which has a very comparable peak, who have been waiting longer?


Yes. Halladay's peak will be seen as better than Schilling's even if it really wasn't, and Moose is being (inaccurately) viewed as a bit compiler-ish.

Halladay has more black ink and did better in CYA voting than either. I think he'll be considered the "bigger star." Perfect game, postseason no hitter, etc. Plus maybe some RIP sympathy, and his universal adoration as a great guy rather than a jerkwad like Schilling or an unknown like Mussina (I honestly remember nothing about Moose's personality; he had to be one of the most unmemorable 80 WAR players ever).
   444. dlf Posted: December 15, 2017 at 02:22 PM (#5593392)
(I honestly remember nothing about Moose's personality; he had to be one of the most unmemorable 80 WAR players ever).


He wasn't hostile to the fans or media, but aloof might be a good description. Seemed like he would have preferred to pitch in an empty stadium - not that he was frightened by big moments, just that he wanted to perform and be left alone.
   445. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 15, 2017 at 02:27 PM (#5593399)
I'll echo 442 and 443. Halladay to me seems to be a slam dunk. He's got a slightly better peak than Santana, plus 100 extra starts and a iconic postseason moment, and possibly the sympathy/adoration angle.

I think his election, like Morris' can only help Schilling and Mussina. The more guys like them we get in, the more likely it is voters wake up and realize that 80 WAR starting pitchers are incredibly rare.

   446. Adam S Posted: December 15, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5593403)
Moose was a pretty cerebral guy. He was one of the main celebrities featured in Wordplay, a surprisingly fun documentary about the New York Times Crossword Puzzle and competitive crossword solving.
   447. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 15, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5593410)
He wasn't hostile to the fans or media, but aloof might be a good description. Seemed like he would have preferred to pitch in an empty stadium - not that he was frightened by big moments, just that he wanted to perform and be left alone.


I've always believed this to be true. He was gifted the ability to be a HOF-caliber pitcher, and he took advantage, but he went out on his terms, and ever since then, he's gone back to his hometown to live a quiet life coaching HS sports. I suspect this probably irked some reporters/fans who wanted him to be singularly baseball-driven and appreciate every pitch he got to throw and the millions he made to throw them.

   448. GuyM Posted: December 15, 2017 at 04:04 PM (#5593463)
I'd like to see range factor using balls in play as the denominator instead of innings before I buy it.

According to B-Ref, 32% of PA with Vizquel in the field resulted in a ground ball in play, and the league average over those seasons was also 32%. And 58% of opposing hitters were RHH, again the same as league average. So it appears that Vizquel had almost a perfectly average number of fielding opportunities for a SS playing at that time. (And he also recorded an average number of assists.)
   449. John DiFool2 Posted: December 15, 2017 at 04:22 PM (#5593473)
Schill's got an iconic postseason moment too.

Can you really downvote a guy solely because he was not only "merely" the 2nd best pitcher in the league, but 2nd best on his own team? That seems rather disingenuous to me. Most of those high peak 90's guys were strongly on the downslope of their careers by the time Halladay hit his own peak.

Can we REALLY blame most of his voting shortfall on him being an ass? [No, I don't favor his politics at all, leaving it at that, but I for one honestly don't care. Just stick the ball in his hands and help end a curse.]

IOW I STILL don't really get why he isn't already in.

Just seems odd to me to then see people being so sanguine about the chances of a 203 game winner.
   450. homerwannabee Posted: December 15, 2017 at 04:42 PM (#5593484)
I see Johnny Damon doesn't have a single vote either. What's funny is I swear the guy thought he was going to go to the Hall of Fame when he retired. This vote is going to a big time rude awakening for the dude.
   451. Booey Posted: December 15, 2017 at 05:00 PM (#5593502)
Just seems odd to me to then see people being so sanguine about the chances of a 203 game winner.


I think the voters will see Halladay as being from a different era than Schilling or Moose. Great as the latter two were, they were clearly below The Big 4 sillyball pitchers, and they're apparently (and incorrectly) being viewed as a notch or two below Glavine and Smoltz too, so they're essentially battling each other for 7th and 8th place amongst 1990's era starters. Whereas just 10 years later, Halladay had a half decade stretch as possibly the best pitcher in the game; he's Johan Santana with an extra 65 wins. It's all about timing.

I do think the CYA's are huge. If Randy Johnson didn't exist and Schilling won back to back CY's in 2001/2002, I think his vote total is much higher than it is now. If Glavine retired a few years earlier with 270 wins instead of 300, I think he still easily outpolls Moose with the writers thanks to the CY's (also the 20 win seasons and WS MVP, of course). If Kevin Brown won the CYA in 1996 and 1998, he's probably still on the ballot (not on pace to ever be elected though, thanks to his personality and the Mitchell Report).

So yeah, I'd be willing to place a BBTF bet that Halladay outpolls both Schilling and Mussina next season. It's not fair, of course, but HOF voting rarely is.
   452. Baldrick Posted: December 15, 2017 at 06:06 PM (#5593537)
I think Halladay could debut anywhere from about 35% to induction. I lean toward thinking that he'll probably go in, or get very close, for all the reasons discussed here. He's just viewed differently--for some reasons that are fair and others that are less so.

I certainly wouldn't be shocked to see him in the 40s, but I don't think that's the likeliest scenario.
   453. Peter Farted Again Posted: December 15, 2017 at 07:28 PM (#5593549)
Can we REALLY blame most of his voting shortfall on him being an ass?

I would. As someone on Posnanski's blog mentioned, Schilling's personality not only makes voters not want to vote for him, but probably also makes them not want to investigate further to see if they're missing anything - such as his 3,116 strikeouts, which seems to be one of his lesser-known selling points.
   454. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 15, 2017 at 08:09 PM (#5593557)
I think the voters will see Halladay as being from a different era than Schilling or Moose.

Hard to say how the BBWAA voters will perceive things, and there will likely be many different views, but Schilling & Mussina largely overlapped Halliday. Both Mussina & Schilling had long careers ending after the 2008 season; Halladay retired after 2013, and that last season was all of 62 innings. Four or five years seems a little short for an era, so I suspect voters inclined to vote for Halliday may take another look at Mussina & Schilling, if they haven't been voting for them, much as the impending eligibility of David Ortiz is believed to have caused some voters to add Edgar Martinez to their HoF ballot.
   455. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 15, 2017 at 08:32 PM (#5593563)
It would have been very interesting to see how Johnny Damon's HOF quest would have played out if he
reached 3,000 hits. It would have kept him on the ballot, but would it have been enough to get elected?
He had a pretty solid 2011 season with Tampa Bay at age 37, and it was looking like he needed only a couple
more seasons as a regular to hit the magic number. But the Rays didn't want him back, and he couldn't get a
gig until after the 2012 already started. He never got going and his career was over.
   456. Srul Itza Posted: December 15, 2017 at 08:52 PM (#5593570)
It would have been very interesting to see how Johnny Damon's HOF quest would have played out if he
reached 3,000 hits. It would have kept him on the ballot, but would it have been enough to get elected?


If he'd been good enough to hang on for two more years that were as good as 2011, to get to 3,000, he would probably have had well over 1,700 Runs Scored as well, maybe enough to squeeze into the top 20. He might also have gotten up to 60 WAR.

That would have been enough to keep him on the ballot until things cleared out a bit, and he would have had a good shot at it.
   457. SoSH U at work Posted: December 15, 2017 at 09:03 PM (#5593573)
It would have been very interesting to see how Johnny Damon's HOF quest would have played out if he
reached 3,000 hits. It would have kept him on the ballot, but would it have been enough to get elected?


As his current level of support through 50 votes suggests, no, he wouldn't have (at least not through the BBWAA). He was never perceived as a Hall-caliber player, and hanging around for a couple hundred more hits wasn't going to change that.

There are no magic numbers.


He had a pretty solid 2011 season with Tampa Bay at age 37, and it was looking like he needed only a couple
more seasons as a regular to hit the magic number. But the Rays didn't want him back, and he couldn't get a
gig until after the 2012 already started.


It was obvious that Damon was just interested in chasing 3,000, and teams didn't want to commit the kind of at bats he was looking for.
   458. homerwannabee Posted: December 15, 2017 at 09:37 PM (#5593580)
I'm not joking about Damon thinking he deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. Here he argues his case for being in the Hall of Fame. I'm a big hall guy, and even I was skeptical of his argument.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/sports/baseball/statistics-say-cooperstown-and-johnny-damon-agrees.html
   459. Ziggy's screen name Posted: December 15, 2017 at 10:21 PM (#5593591)
Schilling's trouble is somewhat surprising. When I saw blood seeping through his sock, I think the first thing that I thought was "this guy is going to the hall of fame".
   460. Rennie's Tenet Posted: December 15, 2017 at 10:36 PM (#5593598)
I think a guy with 1,668 career runs scored is presumptively a Hall of Famer. Obviously, someone on that list has to be the first one not to be in the Hall, but Damon's 32nd on the list and everyone above him is either a Hall of Famer, not eligible yet, or effectively banned. A few spots after him, some guys who played over 100 years ago and aren't in the Hall start filtering in. Kenny Lofton, 140 runs down at No. 63, is the first guy on the list who's an effective comparison. Then comes Dwight Evans at No. 79. Career runs scored is a very important number that reflects a lot of diverse abilities, and Damon sits right in the middle of a long line of Hall of Famers on that list.
   461. Booey Posted: December 15, 2017 at 10:41 PM (#5593603)
Hard to say how the BBWAA voters will perceive things, and there will likely be many different views, but Schilling & Mussina largely overlapped Halliday.


Yeah, it seems a bit silly that the 7 year debut difference between Moose and Doc could put them in different eras in anyone's mind, but unfortunately for Mussina that difference put his peak years right at the same time as those of Clemens/Maddux/Johnson/Pedro, whereas most of Halladay's peak came in the interval between those guys and Kershaw's.

Four or five years seems a little short for an era, so I suspect voters inclined to vote for Halliday may take another look at Mussina & Schilling, if they haven't been voting for them, much as the impending eligibility of David Ortiz is believed to have caused some voters to add Edgar Martinez to their HoF ballot.


I think (and hope) this might be true, though. Voters who were planning on voting for Halladay cuz he "felt like a HOFer" might re-examine the cases of the other pitchers on the ballot and notice that Curt and Mike were just as good (or better). And new HOFer Morris being clearly worse might help, too.
   462. Booey Posted: December 15, 2017 at 10:45 PM (#5593605)
As his current level of support through 50 votes suggests, no, he wouldn't have (at least not through the BBWAA). He was never perceived as a Hall-caliber player, and hanging around for a couple hundred more hits wasn't going to change that.

There are no magic numbers.


Eh, you don't think Vizquel with 3000 hits gets elected fairly easily? Gold gloves or not, he was never perceived as a Hall-caliber player during his prime either, but now even getting almost 3000 hits has given him a sizable amount of retroactive support.

As long as people talk about you as a HOFer at the very end of your career, I guess it doesn't matter if no one - including your own mother - thought of you that way at your peak.
   463. SoSH U at work Posted: December 15, 2017 at 11:14 PM (#5593614)
Eh, you don't think Vizquel with 3000 hits gets elected fairly easily? Gold gloves or not, he was never perceived as a Hall-caliber player during his prime either, but now even getting almost 3000 hits has given him a sizable amount of retroactive support.


So wait, now 3,000 hits isn't just magical for those who reach it, but those who come close? Except for Johnny Damon, who has zero votes.

Omar Vizquel is going to get elected with fewer than 3,000 hits, so yes I do think an Omar Vizquel who was a better player is likely to get in even easier. But it's not getting close to 3,000 hits that's giving him this support - it's a group of voters who are seeing him in the Maranville-Aparacio-Smith mode of great defenders, adequte offensive shortstops (which, superficially, he is. He's got lots of Gold Gloves and better slash numbers than Oz).

But there are no magic numbers. They can grease the skids of the deserving. Attainment of one absolutely boosts the borderliner. But it can't turn Johnny Damon or Edgar Renteria from first-ballot exits to Cooperstown-bound material. Hell, Eddie Mathews reached the magical 500 homers and retired as possibly the best third baseman in history, and it took him five damn votes to get in.

   464. QLE Posted: December 15, 2017 at 11:35 PM (#5593619)
#445 and #451-

Since the comparisons are flowing, a comparison of the ten best seasons by pitching WAR of Mussina, Schilling, Halladay, and Santana:

MM: 8.2/7.1/6.6/6.1/5.6/5.5/5.4/5.2/5.0/5.0
CS: 8.8/8.7/7.9/6.3/6.2/6.0/5.9/5.5/5.1/4.9
RH: 8.9/8.3/8.1/7.4/6.9/6.2/5.5/5.3/3.5/3.0
JS: 8.6/7.5/7.2/7.1/5.0/4.6/4.2/3.3/2.6/0.3

First, it is clear that Halladay's case is a lot stronger than Santana's- note that his four peak years are better than the same years for Santana, that he had one more season on basically that level than Santana did, and then managed to have three more 5+ WAR seasons and was able to produce a bit more value at a point when Santana was basically cooked.

It also demonstrates a reason why the relative performance of Mussina and Schilling might not matter with Halladay- Halladay clearly has a peak case over Mussina and was able to be at rough parity with Schilling for their best eight seasons. The two of them being better than him ultimately rests on their careers overall- even in Mussina's case, this may be a difficult argument for many of the more traditional voters, but Schilling especially will have this as an issue, given, firstly, that his win-loss record compared to Halladay is 13-41, and, secondly, the fact that a considerable number of the electorate seems to want the excuse not to vote for him.

Finally, as for the number of wins: the fact that Pedro Martinez got in on the first ballots suggests that that might not be as big an issue as it once was, and I cannot rule out the possibility that many of the voters think Halladay to be closer to Pedro than he actually was.

Ultimately, I make no predictions on how the BBWAA will act (note that even the VCs aren't quite as predictable as we'd think, much to our delight at the start of the week)- just to note potential elements to their relative statistical records that may (especially when converted to the things the BBWAA members, by and large, tend to actually care about) affect how these four candidates are viewed relative to each other.
   465. Howie Menckel Posted: December 15, 2017 at 11:48 PM (#5593622)
Career runs scored is a very important number that reflects a lot of diverse abilities, and Damon sits right in the middle of a long line of Hall of Famers on that list.

while also having the advantage over most of them of a DH-only AL and batting leadoff for the vast majority of his career.

durability is important, but when your best-ever OPS+ is 118 and your throwing arm is..... not a rocket, then no. and 1298 CF, 684 LF, 147 RF plus 372 DH

   466. Booey Posted: December 15, 2017 at 11:50 PM (#5593623)
So wait, now 3,000 hits isn't just magical for those who reach it, but those who come close? Except for Johnny Damon, who has zero votes.


Sorta, sometimes? Getting merely relatively close to 3000 for Damon didn't help, cuz he doesn't have much else going for him. But with 3000 I think he at least hangs around on the ballot, even if it's with Sheffield/Kent level support.

Omar Vizquel is going to get elected with fewer than 3,000 hits, so yes I do think an Omar Vizquel who was a better player is likely to get in even easier. But it's not getting close to 3,000 hits that's giving him this support


I don't agree with this, though. I think being close to 3000 hits is the sole reason why people started re-evaluating Omar at the end of his career. It makes people see him as an adequate offensive shortstop (like you said), whereas for most his career he was a slick fielding, no hit shortstop. The gold gloves were always there; what changed was his offensive reputation, and that's almost entirely due to the hits. If he retired after 2007, the rest of his case would be exactly the same - same # of gold gloves, same WAR - except that now he'd have 300 fewer hits, and I think he'd be getting significantly less support (yes, he also wouldn't have the SS games played record anymore, which is a legitimate point in his favor).

But it can't turn Johnny Damon or Edgar Renteria from first-ballot exits to Cooperstown-bound material.


Agree on those examples; it's not going to make the difference between being one and done and getting elected. But I think it could be the difference sometimes between hanging around on the ballot for 10 years with middling support vs squeaking in (which is kinda what you're saying, it sounds like). If Early Wynn finishes with 285 wins and Tommy John/Jim Kaat win 300, do they switch sides of the HOF in/out line? Doesn't Blyleven with 300 wins get in much easier? So yeah, it's not exactly "magic numbers", but I do think it can matter a lot depending on the player and circumstances.

It sounds like we're mostly in agreement, actually...
   467. Howie Menckel Posted: December 15, 2017 at 11:54 PM (#5593625)
Omar Vizquel is going to get elected with fewer than 3,000 hits

this year?

he currently ranks 11th with 36.5 pct of 52 votes
   468. SoSH U at work Posted: December 16, 2017 at 12:01 AM (#5593627)
But with 3000 I think he at least hangs around on the ballot, even if it's with Sheffield/Kent level support.


Yeah, I suspect he would. Of course, that guy's also better player.

I don't agree with this, though. I think being close to 3000 hits is the sole reason why people started re-evaluating Omar at the end of his career.


Honestly, I think that's more than a little nutty.


this year?


Why would you think I meant this year?

But with what looks like he's going to have as his initial level of support, my guess is that he's eventually elected.

3,000 hits or 500 homers or 300 wins are great figures, and historically have only been accomplished by Hall-caliber players. It's absolutely a great thing to have on one's Hall resume. It's just not enough, by itself, to get one in. And never has been.
   469. SoSH U at work Posted: December 16, 2017 at 12:06 AM (#5593628)
If Early Wynn finishes with 285 wins and Tommy John/Jim Kaat win 300, do they switch sides of the HOF in/out line?


The best example I can point to is this: If Don Sutton had earliwinned his way over the 300 line, instead of getting one-quarter of the way to 400, he wouldn't have been elected by the BBWAA. As it was, it still took him five votes for 75 percent of the electorate to be convinced he was worthy.
   470. Booey Posted: December 16, 2017 at 12:07 AM (#5593629)
#468 - Yeah I think Omar's getting in. There's been a few posts about our "nightmare" being over now that he's dropped below 50%, but I think that so called nightmare is really just postponed, cuz he's still at a debut level that will likely lead to eventual election, especially with the backlog clearing significantly in the next few years.
   471. Booey Posted: December 16, 2017 at 12:14 AM (#5593630)
Honestly, I think that's more than a little nutty.


Really? Why? I don't remember anyone talking about Vizquel's offense as a positive to his case until the very end of his career when it looked like he might reach 3000 (one poster here has pointed out a couple times that he finished with more hits than Babe Ruth). Now his supporters see him as a guy that won 13 (or whatever) gold gloves at a premium position AND racked up almost 3000 hits. Does a 13 time gold glover with "only" 2500 hits sound/feel the same? Eh. I kinda doubt it. The hits are making people remember Omar's offense as being more adequate than it really was. And he added zero actual value (or gold gloves) his last several years, so it's not a better version of the same player, like you mentioned. It's the same player that's just closer to a major milestone.
   472. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2017 at 12:27 AM (#5593632)
I think Omar's getting in. There's been a few posts about our "nightmare" being over now that he's dropped below 50%, but I think that so called nightmare is really just postponed, cuz he's still at a debut level that will likely lead to eventual election, especially with the backlog clearing significantly in the next few years.

Too early to tell on Vizquel. He's now at 36.5% with just 52 votes in. That's a level that some have built on until elected, while others stalled out and never made it. Obviously, the higher the start the better for Omar, but you really need to see where he is after year 2, too. The resistance to adding him to one's ballot might be higher than some think. For all we know he could end up around 30% this year and drop next. Or not.
   473. SoSH U at work Posted: December 16, 2017 at 12:28 AM (#5593633)
Really? Why? I don't remember anyone talking about Vizquel's offense as a positive to his case until the very end of his career when it looked like he might reach 3000 (one poster here has pointed out a couple times that he finished with more hits than Babe Ruth). Now his supporters see him as a guy that won 13 (or whatever) gold gloves at a premium position AND racked up almost 3000 hits. Does a 13 time gold glover with "only" 2500 hits sound/feel the same? Eh. I kinda doubt it. The hits are making people remember Omar's offense as being more adequate than it really was. And he added zero actual value (or gold gloves) his last several years, so it's not a better version of the same player, like you mentioned. It's the same player that's just closer to a major milestone.


And that summary doesn't come close to how I would describe things. I just don't see how getting 123 hits away from 3,000 hits was a crucial element in the evaluation of Omar's career.

Then again, I think the opinion of him during his career was much higher than others do (and yes, I know it wasn't reflected in MVP voting, but for that matter, other than 87, Ozzie didn't generate much MVP support either). But I recall him being called the next Oz from the very start of his career. And his offense is, quite superficially, better than Ozzie's. I think his case is nothing more than what I said - he's been seen as the premier defensive shortstop of his day, from pretty much the start, and a guy who also happened to have a decent bat for a SS (with his looking even better, possibly*, due to the era he played in).

* I say possibly because I don't really know whether he would have been a worse hitter than Ozzie if they both played at the same time.

   474. Booey Posted: December 16, 2017 at 12:45 AM (#5593635)
other than 87, Ozzie didn't generate much MVP support either


Well, not much compared to most HOFers, but a lot compared to Vizquel; votes in 6 seasons rather than 1. And 16 all star appearances vs 3. Ozzie was considered a much bigger star. People seemed to understand WRT Omar that with shortstops now hitting .300 with 30+ homers, it took more than a fancy glove to be a major star anymore.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't personally remember anyone suggesting Vizquel as a possible future HOFer in the first 20 or so years of his career, and if you'd asked a bunch of baseball fans (outside of maybe Cleveland) any year during the 90's or 2000's to name all the best players in the game, I doubt Vizquel would have been one of the first 30 they rattled off in any season (I suppose maaaybe his fluke year in 1999).
   475. Howie Menckel Posted: December 16, 2017 at 01:30 AM (#5593640)
I don't see even this rapidly fading Vizquel support as getting him into HOF down the road.

the more support he gets this year, the more backlash he gets next year from saner voters. I don't see a needle to be threaded there.

he kind of sucked as a hitter and he was a graceful, not-that-dominant defender. meh
   476. Booey Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:05 AM (#5593643)
I don't see even this rapidly fading Vizquel support as getting him into HOF down the road.

the more support he gets this year, the more backlash he gets next year from saner voters. I don't see a needle to be threaded there.


The stathead revolution is kinda having a weird effect on the voting; we're seeing more SABR guys getting in that probably wouldn't have before (Blyleven, Raines, Trammell), but we're also still seeing bad picks happen just as frequently as before (Rice, Morris, Hoffman). I'm not sure sure what to make of that...
   477. vortex of dissipation Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:27 AM (#5593644)
My best friend is still going to see X as they did a 40th anniversary concert and city hall actually made a big deal of it a few weeks back. Plenty of Black Flag(with both Reyes and Rollins), the Germs, Fear, Circle Jerks, Angry Samoans, Agent Orange, the Vandals and the worst band of all time, the Flesheaters

Good times.


Saw a lot of the touring bands that came through Seattle in the early to mid-1980s - Black Flag twice (both with Rollins), Meat Puppets, Husker Du twice (once with an unknown band named Soundgarden opening, their second ever show), Dead Kennedys, T.S.O.L., D.O.A....
   478. Tony S Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:53 AM (#5593662)
I don't recall Omar Vizquel being perceived as anything special early on. He was just another generic good-field no-hit shortstop. He was traded for the immortal Felix Fermin five years into his career, and while he improved offensively a bit after joining Cleveland, the recognition he eventually achieved was more attributable to his being part of an oustanding, playoff-perennial team than anything else. He did have unusual longevity, and if he had a Mazeroski/Morris postseason moment the support he's getting from Hall voters would be much more understandable, but as it stands now the amount of votes he's getting is puzzling.
   479. TomH Posted: December 16, 2017 at 08:11 AM (#5593663)
Hey HOF voter:

In a dream, you're a GM, with the wonderful benefit of perfect foresight. I give you choice to draft a guy with his whole career ahead of him. You can have Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Fred McGriff, Bobby Grich, Jamie Moyer, or Omar Vizquel.

Don't ruin your dream by choosing Omar. Or Moyer.
   480. ajnrules Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:19 AM (#5593678)
Don't ruin your dream by choosing Omar. Or Moyer.

Moyer's still 0 for 53 on the Tracker. He's well on his way to being the first 250-game winner that's played in the last 120 years to go one and done.
   481. Booey Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:32 AM (#5593679)
Moyer's still 0 for 53 on the Tracker. He's well on his way to being the first 250-game winner that's played in the last 120 years to go one and done.


Yet in several ways he's basically the pitching version of Vizquel. It's interesting how differently comparable players are treated sometimes.

He's not terribly far off from Morris, either, actually.
   482. bachslunch Posted: December 16, 2017 at 11:34 AM (#5593688)
Morris. 3824.0 IP, 44.1 WAR, 38.4 JAWS, 32.8 WAR7, 105 ERA+
Moyer. 4074.0 IP, 50.4 WAR, 41.8 JAWS, 33.4 WAR7, 103 ERA+,

WAR numbers from BBRef. Yup, not far off from each other, with Moyer arguably a little bit better.
   483. Peter Farted Again Posted: December 16, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5593696)
Jeff Jacobs: voted for the most common 9. Did not add a 10th.
Held his nose and voted for Bonds/Clemens, but will resign as a voter if they are voted in without some explicit PED designation.
   484. Peter Farted Again Posted: December 16, 2017 at 12:06 PM (#5593697)
Re Mor/Moy, the latter has his own share of high(?)lights - oldest pitcher to do a few things, most HR's given up, etc.

Morris has a lot more narrative: Game 7, 175 CG's, horse, opening days, winning-est, mustache, nakedness, etc. Not sure if the perception of pitching the score lives on or not. Obviously most of it has no real value, but it is indeed narrative that Moyer mostly lacks. If Steve "Psycho" Lyons were seen as a borderline candidate, perhaps some of his own escapades would push him over the top as well.
   485. cardsfanboy Posted: December 16, 2017 at 12:43 PM (#5593701)
The stathead revolution is kinda having a weird effect on the voting; we're seeing more SABR guys getting in that probably wouldn't have before (Blyleven, Raines, Trammell), but we're also still seeing bad picks happen just as frequently as before (Rice, Morris, Hoffman). I'm not sure sure what to make of that...


Not sure I lump Hoffman with Rice and Morris, if you assume relief pitchers is an actual position, and you are going to put in 8 of them(when Rivera becomes eligible) then it's not hard to see Hoffman as a legit candidate among that group. Of course the problem is separating relief pitchers from starting pitchers, and Hoffman really doesn't separate himself from the crowd when you look at the stats, but he's a different animal for the hof than Rice or Morris.
   486. Srul Itza Posted: December 16, 2017 at 03:05 PM (#5593774)
while also having the advantage over most of them of a DH-only AL and batting leadoff for the vast majority of his career.

durability is important, but when your best-ever OPS+ is 118 and your throwing arm is..... not a rocket, then no. and 1298 CF, 684 LF, 147 RF plus 372 DH


I don't think Damon is anywhere near a Hall of Famer, but I also think this is selling him short.

You don't normally pick sluggers to lead off; you pick guys who can get on base, get in scoring position, and get in.

That was his role, and with 3,822 times on base, 500+ doubles, and 400 stolen bases at nearly 80% clip, leading to 1,668 runs scored, he did a a damn fine job at it. This is short of HOF territory (EDIT: Especially since he had nothing even vaguely resembling a "peak"), but still a career to be very proud of.
   487. homerwannabee Posted: December 17, 2017 at 09:03 AM (#5593948)
So it looks like we will have at least 3 people elected this year.
Sure things
Vlad Guerrero
Jim Thome
Chipper Jones

borderline
Trevor Hoffman
Edgar Martinez
   488. DanG Posted: December 17, 2017 at 09:17 AM (#5593949)
In a Vizquel thread here in 2010, Harvey's offered this summation:
Not an advocate. Appreciate the defense. Appreciate the longevity.

But at his best he wasn't a Hall of Famer so what value is there in not being a Hall of Fame quality player for a long time?
   489. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2017 at 11:30 AM (#5593973)
If you wanted to bend over backwards to be fair to Vizquel, you could say that his best season (singular) would fit nicely into a HOF career. If he'd had three or four more of those, especially if they had been consecutive, then his impending election would be something other than a tragishamockery.
   490. DanG Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:36 PM (#5594009)
I don't think Damon is anywhere near a Hall of Famer
Earlier this year, in a discussion about limiting the BBWAA ballot to twenty players, I had this take on Damon:

"Johnny Damon was a fine player. He compiled over 50 WAR, had more than 2700 hits, 1600 runs, 1100 RBI. A good leadoff hitter for a long time, in his prime he consistently had over a .350 OBP with 25+ SB, and he scored more than a hundred runs in ten seasons. He even won a couple rings, with the Red Sox and Yankees.

Despite all that, Damon was never a top-tier player and he clearly falls short of the Hall of Fame. He was named to the all-star team just twice, he never finished in the top ten in MVP voting and he never won a gold glove. In his career year in 2000 he had 6.1 WAR, good for 9th in the AL that year, and 25.6 Win Shares, 11th in the AL. The HOF Monitor has Damon with 90 points, meaning he does not have many of the accomplishments that the voters typically look for in a hall of famer. The HOF voters have quickly dismissed similar or better center fielders from Damon’s era (Kenny Lofton, Jim Edmonds, and Bernie Williams). Andruw Jones was also better and is a new candidate at the same time as Johnny; he may be another one and done.

What is the point to putting Johnny Damon on the ballot for the Hall of Fame? Oh, he’ll get a few votes, maybe ten or twenty, but he’s almost certain to be one and done.

“But, but, but, Damon was better than some guys in the hall of fame. Doesn’t he deserve his day in court?” OK, maybe we don’t draw the line at Johnny Damon; most of the new candidates on the 2018 ballot won’t even be as good as him. But they’re all in the same boat: the BBWAA doesn’t vote for guys like that, they’re off the ballot quickly."

And, like 500 others, he was a better player than Omar Vizquel.
   491. bachslunch Posted: December 17, 2017 at 09:17 PM (#5594145)
And we’re back to a couple less than optimal ballots:

Art Davidson: Vlad, Hoffman, Andruw, Chipper, Schilling, Thome, Vizquel

Jimmy Golen: Hoffman, Chipper, Edgar, Thome, Vizquel

Any ballot with Vizquel, especially a smaller sized one, merits a black mark. Davidson at least went for the big four likelies and gave a vote to Andruw, though why Schilling and not Moose is a question if the ballot isn’t full. Golen gets a positive for Edgar, but Hoffman and no Vlad is odd and not the most helpful. Several respectable options ignored on both ballots even if you’re anti-PED.
   492. The Duke Posted: December 17, 2017 at 09:36 PM (#5594154)
I’m dumbfounded that Santana and A Jones are doing so poorly. It appears there will be a number of players with decent hall cases that are simply going to go off the ballots quickly. As we have seen with Grich and Simmons, if the writers don’t throw you a bone, the Vet committees simply won’t put you in.

Also surprising to see Moyer do so badly while Vizquel is doing so well.
   493. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 17, 2017 at 09:44 PM (#5594158)
Andruw had 58 WAR before his age 30 season. Did he just get fat and lazy ?
   494. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: December 17, 2017 at 10:04 PM (#5594164)
No, the memo couldn't ban steroids. Not even Fay Vincent thought it actually banned steroids. As Vincent said in an interview with Miklasz:


"I sent it out because I believed it was important to take the position that steroids were dangerous, as were other illegal drugs," Vincent said. "As you know, the union would not bargain with us, would not discuss, would not agree to any form of a coherent drug plan. So my memo really applied to all the people who were not players."


It was symbolic. That's it. I can write a memo stating that the US Treasury has to give me 1/10th of all new bills printed and it has just as much authority.
   495. Sweatpants Posted: December 18, 2017 at 12:21 AM (#5594192)
Andruw had 58 WAR before his age 30 season. Did he just get fat and lazy ?
Eh, by the time he turned 30 he'd already been fat for a couple of years, and he never had the reputation of a guy who was constantly trying to get better. He was so naturally talented that it took a while for his shortcomings to catch up to him.
   496. bachslunch Posted: December 18, 2017 at 07:23 AM (#5594210)
Jorge Ebro's ballot is about midway between the two cited in post 491: Vlad, Hoffman, Andruw, Chipper, Edgar, Vizquel. Three of the four big likelies, good with Andruw and Edgar, but again includes Vizquel with a small ballot.

The new voters so far, and these are generally encouraging outings:

Anthony Andro: Bonds, Clemens, Vlad, Hoffman, Chipper, Edgar, Mussina, Schilling, Thome, Walker
Jay Cohen: Bonds, Clemens, Vlad, Hoffman, Chipper, Edgar, Mussina, Rolen, Schilling, Thome
Sadiel Lebron: Clemens, Vlad, Hoffman, Andruw, Chipper, McGriff, Manny, Sosa, Thome, Vizquel
Luis Rangel: Bonds, Clemens, Vlad, Hoffman, Chipper, Edgar, Manny, Schilling, Sosa, Thome

By and large good to excellent ballots. All used 10 slots, a plus. Andro and Cohen are the best and virtually identical, with one preferring Rolen and the other Walker. Rangel's is just about as good; he omitted Moose while voting for Schilling and his wild card choices were Manny and Sosa.

Lebron's ballot is more eccentric: no on Bonds or Edgar or Moose or Schilling, yes on Andruw and Manny and McGriff and Sosa and Vizquel -- looks like some strategic thinking to retain some borderline folks, plus a negative for including Vizquel. Could be worse, though, and we've seen lots worse.
   497. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 18, 2017 at 07:39 AM (#5594213)
This would only be the case if the commissioner was prohibited from such action under the collectively-bargained contract. I would be quite surprised if that were the case, and I have never heard it suggested before - if there's a reference, I'd be happy to see it. Imposing penalties might be tougher, but I would imagine the commissioner's office had some powers to discipline players - it had, after all, recently imposed a lifetime ban on Pete Rose.
First, Pete Rose wasn't a player at the time. The commissioner has plenary power to discipline non-players. Second, when Miller first negotiated a CBA, and continuing to the present, MLB insisted on retaining unrestricted disciplinary power relating to gambling. Not for anything else, but gambling was deemed a dealbreaker.
   498. Lassus Posted: December 18, 2017 at 08:46 AM (#5594224)
I can write a memo stating that the US Treasury has to give me 1/10th of all new bills printed and it has just as much authority.

Yes, the memo wasn't any kind of rule at all, but there's no need to oversell to this ridiculous degree. Vincent was actually the Commissioner of Baseball at the time, a position of some authority and influence in regards to baseball, unlike you and the Treasury.
   499. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 18, 2017 at 08:49 AM (#5594225)

Have Bonds and Clemens hit their ceiling?

Last year, they were both +27 among returning voters. This year, they are -1 and 0. Granted, they've had a favorable group of voters so far, which means fewer chances to flip voters, but by my count, they're both 0-for-16 among voters who didn't vote for them last year.
   500. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 18, 2017 at 08:50 AM (#5594226)
Re: #498--
Even acknowledging it is overselling it. Not only did MLB completely ignore Fay Vincent's memo, but steroid use soared dramatically. That's what I call an ineffectual memo.
Page 5 of 18 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for the weekend of July 21-22, 2018
(106 - 3:57am, Jul 22)
Last: GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag)

NewsblogOTP 2018 July 16: Why Does President Trump Balk At Attending Baseball Games?
(1355 - 2:03am, Jul 22)
Last: Jess Franco

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-20-2018
(24 - 12:46am, Jul 22)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (let's call it July 2018)
(616 - 12:24am, Jul 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogAgent: Mets should trade Jacob deGrom if not interested in long-term deal
(12 - 11:58pm, Jul 21)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

NewsblogBaseball Is The Most Listened To Sport On Radio
(28 - 11:10pm, Jul 21)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(129 - 9:44pm, Jul 21)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Summer Potpourri (finals, draft, free agency, Colangelo dragging)
(3555 - 9:25pm, Jul 21)
Last: SPICEY WITH A SIDE OF BEER ON A BABYYYYYYY

NewsblogJack White’s Bat Inducted Into Baseball Hall Of Fame
(6 - 8:37pm, Jul 21)
Last: QLE

Gonfalon CubsLooking Forward
(45 - 7:45pm, Jul 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (World Cup)
(3268 - 7:32pm, Jul 21)
Last: The_Ex

NewsblogNow in Living Color: Ted Williams’s Last Game
(30 - 2:40pm, Jul 21)
Last: Morty Causa

Newsblog14 minutes of sound footage from the April 1931 Yankees-Red Sox season opener (YouTube)
(27 - 8:24am, Jul 21)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogStop! Collaborate and OMNICHATTER! for Friday, July 20, 2018.
(66 - 1:47am, Jul 21)
Last: Perry

NewsblogRob Manfred: Mike Trout limits his popularity because he won't market himself
(95 - 10:52pm, Jul 20)
Last: NJ in NY (Now with Baby!)

Page rendered in 0.7520 seconds
46 querie(s) executed