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 6 of 18 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
   501. Swoboda is freedom Posted: December 18, 2017 at 09:13 AM (#5594233)

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.


It may have seemed like Moyer pitched in all of those 120 years but he only played 25 seasons.
   502. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: December 18, 2017 at 09:19 AM (#5594235)
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.

No, oversell, he had absolutely *zero* authority to do so. Whatever authority and influence he had to do other things to make steroid policy happen where other things than the memo, which in itself, was absolutely worthless.

In fact, I may have undersold it rather than oversold. Vincent had already been explicitly *told* by arbitrators that he couldn't unilaterally institute drug policy. The government never explicitly told me I don't have the right to collect 10% of government revenues.
   503. John DiFool2 Posted: December 18, 2017 at 09:28 AM (#5594236)
"I’m dumbfounded that Santana and A Jones are doing so poorly."

I'm not. I forgot the former only had 137 wins until I went and checked it the other day (a number mysteriously missing from all of the discussions here). As for the latter, I can't really blame the voters for not thinking his D can offset his O and relatively short career. Add in crowded ballots, and it's really no surprise.
   504. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 18, 2017 at 10:50 AM (#5594277)
Jones really isn't doing poorly.

The voters just one and done'd Lofton and Edmonds, both who were arguably as good or better. Jones is going to probably live to see a second ballot
   505. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 18, 2017 at 10:53 AM (#5594282)
I'm not. I forgot the former only had 137 wins until I went and checked it the other day (a number mysteriously missing from all of the discussions here)


I mean, many of us have moved past wins as a point of value. What his 139 wins represent on the other hand (a drastically short career by HOF SP standards) is sort of obvious, and is, I'm guessing, the #1 reason very few people here would vote for him
   506. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 18, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5594356)
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.

Bonds & Clemens are doing pretty well with first-time voters, 75% & 100% respectively, although there are only 4 such voters so far.
   507. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 18, 2017 at 12:03 PM (#5594362)
Bonds & Clemens are doing pretty well with first-time voters, 75% & 100% respectively, although there are only 4 such voters so far.


Yeah, but that's only going to move them at the margins. A real move is going to require flipping no voters to yes.
   508. Rennie's Tenet Posted: December 18, 2017 at 01:18 PM (#5594455)
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.


I think they have a weird dynamic that lurches from battle line to battle line. I think Selig's election led to a big lurch last year. No idea where the "never ever" line is.
   509. SoSH U at work Posted: December 18, 2017 at 01:19 PM (#5594459)
Schilling seems to have regained a lot of his lost support from last year (+6, with 7 gained and 1 lost). Probably a one-year penalty from a lot of voters, based on his stated desire for them to die.

He's still behind Mussina, who continues his pattern of gains mixed with losses (+2 overall, +4 and -2).
   510. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 18, 2017 at 01:33 PM (#5594474)
Schilling seems to have regained a lot of his lost support from last year (+6, with 7 gained and 1 lost). Probably a one-year penalty from a lot of voters, based on his stated desire for them to die.

He's still behind Mussina, who continues his pattern of gains mixed with losses (+2 overall, +4 and -2).


I wondered if the mentality was just to move Schilling to the back of an 11- or 12-person ballots, and now he's back on. It'd be useful to know if he's gained any voters from two years ago.

Mussina's lukewarm growth is puzzling. I know he's had a pretty favorable crop of voters, so not many chances to flip them, but Edgar is +9 (11/2) and Vlad is as well (9/0), so I think he's just lagging. He's also just 2-for-4 with first timers, after going 21-for-25 the past two years.
   511. SoSH U at work Posted: December 18, 2017 at 01:39 PM (#5594481)

Mussina's lukewarm growth is puzzling.


Mussina must be a lot of guys No. 10/11. Every year he loses a lot more votes than you'd expect for someone consistently gaining ground.
   512. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 18, 2017 at 01:46 PM (#5594487)
. . . but Edgar is +9 (11/2) . . .

I do find it strange that 2 voters (at least) would abandon Edgar in his 9th year, when he's finally gaining ground and needs every vote he can get. Some voters don't seem to give any weight to who actually has a chance for election and how much time they have remaining on the ballot.
   513. SoSH U at work Posted: December 18, 2017 at 02:07 PM (#5594513)
Some voters don't seem to give any weight to who actually has a chance for election and how much time they have remaining on the ballot.


No kidding. But there are people here who have said they'd vote the same way (basically, voting the Top 10 on your PHOFB).
   514. homerwannabee Posted: December 18, 2017 at 02:39 PM (#5594539)
So far Edgar Renteria from last year with his 2 votes has more votes than Johan Santana, Jamie Moyer, and Johnny Damon combined. Unbelievable!
   515. Booey Posted: December 18, 2017 at 02:53 PM (#5594564)
Some voters don't seem to give any weight to who actually has a chance for election and how much time they have remaining on the ballot.


I'd employ a little bit of strategic voting and take these things into consideration, but with a couple of caveats:

1) Bonds/Clemens (and ARod when he's eligible) - These are the 3 best players I've ever seen. Even if it was clear that they had no chance with the writers, I'm never dropping them for anybody.

2) I wouldn't give my vote to anyone I don't think is worthy, even if they're on the cusp and clearing them off the ballot would be beneficial to more deserving players down the road (see Hoffman, Trevor).
   516. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 18, 2017 at 03:15 PM (#5594584)
Mussina must be a lot of guys No. 10/11. Every year he loses a lot more votes than you'd expect for someone consistently gaining ground.


Yeah, and it's why I'm hoping we get 5 in the Hall this year. I think we'd finally have it so next year, even big Hall voters might be able to vote everyone they want in.

   517. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 18, 2017 at 03:57 PM (#5594624)
I think Schilling is hurt by the many times he didn't pitch a full season :

1. 1994 - A full season this year would have been 22 starts, he was limited to 13 (96+ adjusted ERA).
2. 1995 - 17 starts (118+)
3. 1996 - 26 starts (134+) Very unlucky 9-10 W/L record. 1998 full season also a bit unlucky (134+ , 15-14 record).
4. 1999 - 24 starts (136+)
5. 2003 - 24 starts (159+) Another unlucky record of 8-9.
6. 2005 - 11 starts, then to the bullpen, hurt (with a resulting poor 80+ adjusted ERA.)
7. 2007 - 24 starts (123+) Final season, still put up good numbers.

I know injuries are part of the game, but Schilling missed about two seasons worth of starts due to injury.
In those three unlucky years I mentioned, he had a 32-33 record over 85 starts with very good ERAs.

He was a huge part of the Philly, Arizona, and Boston pennant-winning teams, and would have been a world
champion for all three, save for Mitch Williams.

And to fault him for not winning a Cy Young, come on. That is totally dependent on what kind of competition
exists in a particular season. This is such a no-brainer to me.


   518. The Duke Posted: December 18, 2017 at 03:59 PM (#5594628)
There’s 20 some voters not using the full ballot. I would assume after this year with 4-5 more dropping off that the 10 man ballot won’t really be a big deal. The voters are putting in a lot of people over the last five years - the backlog problem turned out to be a myth of sorts
   519. SoSH U at work Posted: December 18, 2017 at 04:09 PM (#5594636)
I would assume after this year with 4-5 more dropping off that the 10 man ballot won’t really be a big deal.


It's still a problem. It allows some voters to choose the Hall canidates they deem worthy, while preventing others from doing the same. For no particular reason.

The voters are putting in a lot of people over the last five years - the backlog turned out to be a myth of sorts.


Hardly. It required and, surprisingly, resulted in a completely different voting pattern from the BBWAA, one we haven't seen before.
   520. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 18, 2017 at 04:19 PM (#5594651)
The voters are putting in a lot of people over the last five years - the backlog turned out to be a myth of sorts.


In the sense that it hasn't really cost anyone election, sure (I mean, maybe Jack Morris, but he's in now anyway). But that's a pretty black and white way of looking at things. It's costing players votes every year
   521. Booey Posted: December 18, 2017 at 04:35 PM (#5594660)
In the sense that it hasn't really cost anyone election, sure

I don't think we can even conclude that for sure. Maybe someone like Walker or McGriff or Kent would have started to work their way up towards election had they not been crowded off so many ballots for at least half their run.

Other guys like Lofton and Edmonds might have at least had a chance to stick around for a while.
   522. cardsfanboy Posted: December 18, 2017 at 04:42 PM (#5594667)
In the sense that it hasn't really cost anyone election, sure (I mean, maybe Jack Morris, but he's in now anyway). But that's a pretty black and white way of looking at things. It's costing players votes every year


There is also the sense that it's caused multiple people to drop off the ballot who really do deserve more of a look. (and I know there are naysayers who says that nobody in the history of voting starts as low as 7% or whatever, and eventually made it in, and my response is just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it's not going to happen.) An unlimited sized ballot probably keeps Edmonds, Posada, Nomar, Delgado, Palmiero, Lofton, Bernie Williams...and what is looking like Andruw Jones, Santana and Moyer on the ballot for a little while longer
   523. gabrielthursday Posted: December 18, 2017 at 04:52 PM (#5594679)
the backlog turned out to be a myth of sorts.
In the sense that it hasn't really cost anyone election, sure
The real effect of the backlog is yet to be determined, but I think the problem is that it has meant that more marginal candidates have had difficulty getting traction and real consideration from the writers.

Larry Walker is perhaps the best case - he was pummelled down from 23% to 11% over 2013 and 2014. Walker seems to be gaining significant support this year, but if he'd seen more consistent momentum, he might be where Edgar Martinez is now. Edgar might be elected next year, but it's still far from a certainty - and if he misses out, he would be a clear victim of the backlog. Fred McGriff and Jeff Kent are two other players (neither of whom I would elect) who probably haven't had the opportunity to generate any momentum and attention to their cases for induction.

While not exactly a victim of the backlog, I think Kenny Lofton would have made the 5% level and stayed on the ballot had he not retired the same year as Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Biggio, Schilling and Sosa. While I doubt he could have been elected by the BBWAA, he might have set himself up for a VC induction.
   524. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 18, 2017 at 05:06 PM (#5594692)
The 2021 election should be very interesting. Nothing close to a first-ballot newcomer, Buehrle & Hudson probably
lead the way with 15-20%. Whoever's still on the ballot amongst Bonds/Clemens/Schilling/ Mussina will really get
the full consideration of the voters. Good times.
   525. soc40 Posted: December 18, 2017 at 05:45 PM (#5594716)
This time 2021 will be interesting, no doubt. If not yet elected, it'll be the last year for Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Sosa. After that the backlog will officially be over. With not a single no brainers debuting, any new to 5 year candidates will get real consideration going forward.
   526. QLE Posted: December 18, 2017 at 06:43 PM (#5594742)
To address various points that have come up:

I'd employ a little bit of strategic voting and take these things into consideration, but with a couple of caveats:

1) Bonds/Clemens (and ARod when he's eligible) - These are the 3 best players I've ever seen. Even if it was clear that they had no chance with the writers, I'm never dropping them for anybody.

2) I wouldn't give my vote to anyone I don't think is worthy, even if they're on the cusp and clearing them off the ballot would be beneficial to more deserving players down the road (see Hoffman, Trevor).


Agreed, as I noted in #284- strategic voting among a pool of people I'd already back are fine, but I cannot bring myself to either vote for people I'd never back with an unlimited ballot, and my preference is to drop the people who are towards the bottom of my list.

So far Edgar Renteria from last year with his 2 votes has more votes than Johan Santana, Jamie Moyer, and Johnny Damon combined. Unbelievable!


One of the Renteria votes was cast by a private ballot- I don't think we can rule out any of the three of them getting some support from those votes, though probably not on the levels that saved Nomar in 2015 or Mattingly in 2014.

Hardly. It required and, surprisingly, resulted in a completely different voting pattern from the BBWAA, one we haven't seen before.


Not quite- the BBWAA voters in the first decades of their vote (up to 1960 or so) consistently averaged over eight players per ballot, and there have been times when there was a short-term surge to a similar number (1973 and 1974; 1982 and 1983). I'd say the difference is more how big a break it has been from the recent trend (the voters of the 1990s and 2000s were less generous with their ballots than in any other point in BBHOF history) and in how long it has lasted (four years so far, and almost certainly going to be five unless the later ballots are something unexpected).

And I agree with the general sentiment about the backlog- there have been inductions at a rapid clip, but there also clearly have been quite a few players who have either fallen off the ballot or who have been in second gear with the voters who probably would be in better shape if they had retired at a different time.

   527. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 18, 2017 at 08:33 PM (#5594780)
There is absolutely no question that the 10-name limit is costing players votes, and creating outcomes that are not comparable to what we've seen historically. The best example is only a few dozen posts back in this thread - we're looking at Johan Santana, the likelihood that he drops off his first ballot, and the maybe-injustice of that result through the lens of what we're used to seeing over time.

I think [522] almost but not quite gets there - I think the visceral reaction we're seeing from Santana fans (for example) dismayed at their guy's poor performance isn't because they thought he could debut at <10% and eventually work his way up to election; it's that garnering more than 5% of the HOF vote is seen as an honor in itself. And I think, historically, that's a fair perspective, for a number of reasons. That's an honor that Santana (for example) may be denied due solely to balloting considerations. It puts him in the same HOF category as, say, Renteria, as opposed to, I don't know, Don Mattingly, who got a handful of votes for a handful of years. The latter is a guy who was conceivably on a HOF ballot; the former is a face in the crowd.
   528. The Duke Posted: December 18, 2017 at 09:35 PM (#5594804)
I didn’t mean to say that the 10 man ballot isn’t costing someone votes. It most definitely is. But it’s not really having an impact on results. Let’s face it, if you can’t get 5% of the vote, you aren’t going to end up in the hall of fame no matter how many players people can vote for.

Who’s being aced out by the ten vote rule? Raines was not a 10 vote issue and neither is Martinez or schilling. You could make a case for Mussina but it’s still early and I think he will go in. Walker is an interesting case but I think there are legit issues about him too that have kept his vote down.

I think the writers by and large have gotten it right.
   529. John Northey Posted: December 18, 2017 at 10:06 PM (#5594814)
I think the 10 year rule (vs the old 15 year one) is certain to cost a few players. Ones like Walker, McGriff, Kent, Edgar Martinez, and maybe Manny (in a decade voters might stop putting tons of weight on PED rumours & convictions). The Clemens/Bonds rule nearly cost Tim Raines so it'll be interesting to see who comes close but no cigar in upcoming years (missing out on the method that gave us HOF'ers Jim Rice, Bert Blyleven (OK, a good one), Bruce Sutter, Duke Snider (1980), Bob Lemon (1976), and Ralph Kiner (1975). Earlier we hit oddities like 1960 seeing Edd Roush getting the most votes on his 19th year on the ballot (didn't get in that year), Dazzy Vance (1955, 16th ballot), Gabby Hartnett (1955, 12th), Rabbit Maranville (1954), Bill Terry (1954), Harry Heilmann (1952). That's it for guys in years 11+.

Horrid choices (WAR sub 50): Rice (47.4), Sutter (24.6 - poor even for a closer), Rabbit Maranville (42.8 - got MVP votes 5 of his last 7 seasons despite very poor play - 69 OPS+), Ralph Kiner (49.3, just 10 years on the nose, back injuries ended him early), Bob Lemon (48.8, lost time due to WWII, won 20 a lot)
Meh choices (WAR sub 60): Bill Terry (54.2 - late start, played in NY), Gabby Hartnett (53.4), Dazzy Vance (59.9 - only 11 years playing regularly, rest minor barely over 200 IP),
Good choices (WAR over 60): Duke Snider (66.5)
Great choices (WAR over 70): Harry Heilmann (72.1 - forgotten due to being in Detroit during the 20's vs Ruth & Gehrig), Blyleven (95.3 - didn't get 300 wins)

So we see 3 voted in who really deserved it (Snider, Heilmann, Blyleven) and 3 who were arguable (Vance, Hartnett and Terry) and 5 poor choices (Rice, Sutter, Maranville, Kiner, Lemon although I could be sold on Kiner as a special case). I'm sure the 6 who really deserved it or were close would've got in regardless by vets (Blyleven having the hardest time despite being the most overqualified) while of the 5 poor Kiner would've got in and probably Maranville. I suspect Sutter would not have made it while Rice might still have snuck in. So in exchange for delaying qualified guys I'm willing to write off the 15 year shift to 10 year as it likely would've kept the worst recent selection out.
   530. kwarren Posted: December 18, 2017 at 10:14 PM (#5594817)
Some voters don't seem to give any weight to who actually has a chance for election and how much time they have remaining on the ballot.

Are they supposed to. Next thing we know somebody will have to be an expert at "game theory" to properly fill out a ballot. A voter is supposed to use his ballot to reflect his feelings and evaluations, not to try to rig the process to help out his guys on future ballots.

I see Paul White snubs both Clemens & Bonds, to vote for Hoffman & Wagner (two part time players). Really don't know what to say to that, other than the understanding of the actual role of a relief pitcher is not well understood by the vast majority of voters. Its that damn "save" statistic that has changed everything. And the silly votes for relief pitchers are also a major factor in what is causing deserving candidates to drop of the ballot prematurely.
   531. SoSH U at work Posted: December 18, 2017 at 10:26 PM (#5594823)
Are they supposed to. Next thing we know somebody will have to be an expert at "game theory" to properly fill out a ballot. I voter is supposed to use his ballot to reflect his feelings and evaluations, not to try to rig the process to help out his guys on future ballots.


It doesnt' really take game theory to figure out which guys are close to election. It just involves paying attention. If you think Edgar Martinez is deserving, even if he's No. 11 on your list behind Larry Walker at No. 10, there's nothing in the rules that requires you to vote for Walker. It's fine if you choose to, but the idea that voting for your 11th ranked guy, provided you see him as worthy, is a perfectly legitimate way to cast a vote.

   532. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 18, 2017 at 11:07 PM (#5594838)
You want to talk backlog, that's what you had in the first quarter-century of voting, for obvious reasons.
   533. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 19, 2017 at 12:38 AM (#5594869)
Yeah, the one-inning closer strategy that took off in the 1990s drives me nuts. When Hoffman got his 600th save,
some folks were saying that # should be considered the same as 300 wins. Huh? It's tougher to average 15 wins
for 20 years than it is to average 30 saves for 20 years. The top closers every season rack up saves in the
upper forties. Hoffman started off his career with some decent innings totals, but from 2001-02 and 2004-10 he
averaged 55 innings a year. Yipee. Mariano is the only one-inning guy I would want in. Maybe Kimbrel someday.
I'm not saying Lee Smith deserves the HOF, but his prime years took place in a whole different era. It's fun
to look at the Cubs teams in the 1980's. Probably 1/4 - 1/3 of the saves every season went to relievers other than
the big fella. That's because nobody gave a rat's buttocks how many saves a particular pitcher accumulated.
One more thing, GET OFF OF MY LAWN !!!



   534. QLE Posted: December 19, 2017 at 02:05 AM (#5594883)
#529- Some of these assessments aren't fair- Kiner missed time due to WWII as well, and probably lost a season or two in MLB that would make his HOF case better; Hartnett was a catcher and shouldn't be compared to those in other positions; Vance had a monstrous peak, especially for someone who didn't stick in MLB until he was past 30. Also, the point #532 notes is of relevance: into the 1950s, the BBWAA was considering players from a longer duration of baseball history than has been the case since the 1960s, and the rule involving five years between retirement and eligibility wasn't codified until the 1950s- as a result, ballot time pre-1960 cannot be compared to ballot time before then.

#530- As #531 notes, this sort of analysis really takes only studying a ballot to see, firstly, how large a percentage of the vote a player received the year before, and, secondly, knowing who are first-timers and therefore might need the support to get 5% and consideration for next time. My understanding is that both are included in the ballot materials, and it only takes a few minutes to consider these elements. In any event, there are many ways the system is gamed (hello there, Joe Morgan) that are far more offensive than, say, wanting to make sure Scott Rolen and Andruw Jones get to a second ballot, or voting for Vladimir Guerrero when you think he deserves HOF induction to begin with.
   535. homerwannabee Posted: December 19, 2017 at 06:48 AM (#5594892)
One thing #533 doesn't take into account is this. There are 5 starters per team. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th best starters on a team have just as much of a chance as the number 1 and number two guys to rack up wins. In regards to the bullpen, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th guys are lucky to get more than one or two saves. Even the 2nd guy is lucky to get more than 5 saves. So in order to get all those saves, you have to be the number one guy on your team. Almost no reliever can even make it 15 years as the number one guy on the team. Moriano Rivera was the number one guy for 17 years. Hoffman was the number one guy for 16 years. FRod has been the number one guy on some team for 10 years. Eckersly was the number one guy for 10 years. Papelbon for 10 years.
There really hasn't been a pitcher that's been the number one guy for 20 years. Even the best of the best are lucky if they go 15 years.
   536. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 19, 2017 at 07:18 AM (#5594895)
I probably should have used 15 years of 20 wins being more difficult than 15 years of 40 saves.
   537. Lassus Posted: December 19, 2017 at 08:35 AM (#5594905)
but the idea that voting for your 11th ranked guy, provided you see him as worthy, is a perfectly legitimate way to cast a vote.

I don't think anyone pushes back on that; it's more the idea that a vote that doesn't do so is actually illegitimate.
   538. PreservedFish Posted: December 19, 2017 at 09:50 AM (#5594933)
Moriano Rivera was the number one guy for 17 years. Hoffman was the number one guy for 16 years. FRod has been the number one guy on some team for 10 years. Eckersly was the number one guy for 10 years. Papelbon for 10 years.
There really hasn't been a pitcher that's been the number one guy for 20 years.


Well, first of all, relief pitching is just easier.

But also this is partly just by convention/inertia. Even Mariano Rivera's performance was exceeded by his setup men from time to time (eg David Robertson in 2011), and Hoffman's probably was many times, but to drop either from the closer role, even temporarily, would have been seen as an extraordinary insult. Was Trevor Hoffman really the #1 guy in 2005, when Scott Linebrink threw 20 more innings with an ERA a full run lower?

Opening Day starter is a better analogue, but not a perfect one, because it's just one game and the honor can be bestowed on someone else than the top guy for any number of reasons: minor injuries, scheduling quirks, variety, whatever. Greg Maddux had 7 opening day starts in his 11 years with the Braves. Smoltz had one, Glavine had two, and even John Burkett had one during that time. Who knows why? But if starters were treated like closers, and minor injuries didn't matter, Maddux would have had exactly 11 opening day starts with the Braves, and Glavine and Smoltz would have long ago left for other teams in order to maximize their earnings.
   539. SoSH U at work Posted: December 19, 2017 at 09:56 AM (#5594935)
I don't think anyone pushes back on that;


Actually, there's quite a bit of push back on that.
   540. Rally Posted: December 19, 2017 at 10:26 AM (#5594951)
So far the effect of the 10 year rule is that McGwire is not on the ballot. He wasn't going to get in anyway, that's 10-20% of the ballots having a spot for someone else.
   541. Rusty Priske Posted: December 19, 2017 at 11:11 AM (#5594967)
Some voters don't seem to give any weight to who actually has a chance for election and how much time they have remaining on the ballot.


Good.

Vote for the people you believe are deserving of the Hall. If you have more than 10, vote for the 10 most deserving.

Doing anything else is not doing the job of a voter.
   542. dlf Posted: December 19, 2017 at 11:27 AM (#5594978)
but the idea that voting for your 11th ranked guy, provided you see him as worthy, is a perfectly legitimate way to cast a vote.

I don't think anyone pushes back on that;


versus

Vote for the people you believe are deserving of the Hall. If you have more than 10, vote for the 10 most deserving.

Doing anything else is not doing the job of a voter.


Personally, I'm on the side of the former rather than the latter. This is in part because I think it is false precision to believe that you can definitively state that of 11 fully qualified candidates, one is 11th and another is 10th. And also, in part, I think that there is zero wrong in utilizing game theory in marking your ballot.
   543. Srul Itza Posted: December 19, 2017 at 11:51 AM (#5594997)
Meh choices (WAR sub 60): ... Dazzy Vance


If you don't understand why Dazzy Vance most definitely belongs in the Hall of Fame, you are just another SDCN who does not understand the Hall of Fame.


AND he is only sub 60 if you use the BS Fangraphs Pitcher WAR, I assume, since he is at 62.5 at BBREF
   544. PreservedFish Posted: December 19, 2017 at 11:55 AM (#5595000)
I, personally, would not game theory my ballot. But I don't think it's a dereliction of duty or anything.
   545. Peter Farted Again Posted: December 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5595003)
Another fun ballot (Mr. Borges): No Thome
Also chose to flip-flop to no on Sosa. Other ix-nays: Edgar, Hoffman, Mussina, and...Santana.

As much as I disagree with him, I sure enjoy his style of writing.
   546. Peter Farted Again Posted: December 19, 2017 at 12:03 PM (#5595010)
As for game theory. Posnanski once quoted...Bill James, I think it is? Something to the effect of, goosing the ballot hurts more than it helps in the long run. I don't know if I agree, but I also trust that BJ knows a lot more than I do.
   547. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: December 19, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5595021)
From the Borges article:

Be honest: Did you ever stop what you were doing to watch Jim Thome bat?


#### yes. What was he watching?

Also an interesting ballot in that he doesn't vote for Edgar, even though "the DH thing doesn't bother me." He also says he'll vote for Ortiz when he becomes available.
   548. Booey Posted: December 19, 2017 at 12:39 PM (#5595036)
Be honest: Did you ever stop what you were doing to watch Jim Thome bat?

#### yes. What was he watching?


Seriously. The menacing bat point...the Indians tribal drums playing in the background (I know it's not PC, but I didn't think of that at the time)...and then that violent, all-or-nothing swing that would launch the ball 450 feet whenever it connected and looked like he'd tear a muscle in his back whenever it didn't. Thome's AB's were always "must see" TV. Easily one of the most exciting batters of his era.
   549. SoSH U at work Posted: December 19, 2017 at 12:56 PM (#5595050)
AND he is only sub 60 if you use the BS Fangraphs Pitcher WAR, I assume, since he is at 62.5 at BBREF


Dazzy had -2.6 oWAR. That takes his career mark down to the "sub 60" level, if barely.


As for game theory. Posnanski once quoted...Bill James, I think it is? Something to the effect of, goosing the ballot hurts more than it helps in the long run. I don't know if I agree, but I also trust that BJ knows a lot more than I do.


I guess it depends on what is being "hurt." But Bill is wrong a lot, too.
   550. DanG Posted: December 19, 2017 at 01:09 PM (#5595060)
#516
Yeah, and it's why I'm hoping we get 5 in the Hall this year.
And the hall of fame just had a stroke; "Aw, hell no!" Your name is being cursed in Cooperstown.

The VC has already given the Hall two living players, so they would be perfectly happy if the writers elect one, or at most two. It's because the HOF doesn't want to see too many players elected at once. They want to spread out the elections; three is their ideal number. It's why they were so adamant about maintaining the 10-vote limit. They can see the lean ballots coming in the 2020's, so they're in no rush to see Mussina or Schilling or Hoffman elected.

Things might even get bad enough that they'll resort to reinstating eligibility for some 5% victims. That's my hope anyway.
   551. dlf Posted: December 19, 2017 at 01:28 PM (#5595068)
Placeholder through 65 ballots as of 12/18 at 10pm PST with net change in parenthesis for notable players:

Vlad 90.9 (+10)
Hoffman 75.8
Chipper 97.0
Edgar 83.3 (+10)
Thome 97.0

Bonds 69.7
Clemens 71.2
Mussina 66.7
Schilling 66.7 (+6)

MannyBManny 31.8
Vizquel 36.4
Walker 36.4 (+11)

Andruw 10.6
Kent 4.5 (-4)
McGriff 16.7
Rolen 15.2
Santana 0.0
Sheffield 9.1
Sosa 12.1
Wagner 9.1 (-3)
   552. PreservedFish Posted: December 19, 2017 at 01:32 PM (#5595072)
From the Borges article:

Be honest: Did you ever stop what you were doing to watch Jim Thome bat?


Depends. Was I pondering a set of universal orthographic symbols, whose recombinations and repetitions encompass everything possible to express in all languages?
   553. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 19, 2017 at 02:05 PM (#5595086)
68 votes in, and Hoffman is at exactly 75%, having gained 3 & lost 3 from returning voters, although he did get the 4 1st-time voters tabulated so far. Not the usual pattern for someone on the cusp of election the previous year, which would normally produce a surge of votes putting you fairly easily over the top. Granted, he isn't a strong candidate, but the voters seemed to overlook that the last two ballots. Despite the unexpected resistance (to me, at least), Hoffman probably makes it, although with less than 80%.
   554. John Northey Posted: December 19, 2017 at 02:54 PM (#5595124)
As to the WAR method of measuring players for the HOF - I was just using broad categories to try to get an idea if guys elected in years 11+ were good candidates, great candidate, or Bruce Sutter types. WAR was a simple, no emotion, method. I tried to toss in notes for guys to give an idea as to extenuating circumstances. Vance is clearly one of those so I listed why his WAR was so low, assuming most here have heard of him and know he was a super-high peak candidate. Obviously I was mistaken and should've listed pluses and minuses for each.

I won't go into detail on each but for Vance here it is - 3 times got MVP votes (pre-Cy Young), led in K's 7 years straight from age 31-37 (started regularly at age 31 with just 32 IP in majors before that). Tiny ML time at age 24 then back to minors for a long time. Seems insane now but back then during his time in the minors there is no record of how many K's he had. His walks were bad at times (age 23 121 walks in 134 IP) but by his 2nd shot at the majors (with the Yankees at age 27) he should've been up to stay but W-L record was still king and he often had losing records thus was left down. Today he'd have been up for good much earlier and might have been moved to the pen. He took a long time to get in due to sub 200 wins and only cracking 20 3 times in an era when that was expected of starters. 4 times he led in pitchers WAR, 3 times in ERA, but just twice in Wins (remember, he played about 50 years before Bill James was writing abstracts). 7 times FIP leader, 10 times in top 10 (missing only in his last full season 1932 at age 41 with a 3.58). Twice over 10 for WAR, 4 more over 5.

Dazzy Vance is a HOF'er with good reason. However, he is a pure peak guy much like Kiner. It is easy in both cases to keep them out as each had 10 years and that was it really. I think both did a lot of broadcasting post-career (as back then you made much less than today in relative terms). However, the HOF would've been fine without them and is fine with them. Both are reasons for a long term ballot but if we cut them in order to avoid HOF'ers Rice & Sutter I'd have been happy.
   555. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: December 19, 2017 at 03:20 PM (#5595142)
Dazzy Vance could throw a cream puff through a battleship. - Johnny Frederick.

Had never heard about this quote before. I like it.
   556. Rally Posted: December 19, 2017 at 03:26 PM (#5595148)
Vance has one of the most improbable careers on record. He pitched a few innings in the bigs, but did not win a game until he was 31, and still ended up with almost 200. His strikeout rates look nothing special compared to 2017 pitchers, but at least his rates would fit in. For example in 1924 he struck out 7.6 per 9, the second best in the NL was 3.9.

He and Rube Waddell are the pitchers whose strikeout rates look not just dominant, but completely out of place.
   557. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 19, 2017 at 03:37 PM (#5595153)
I love Rube Waddell. That's the trouble with modern players, they never chase fire engines.
   558. ajnrules Posted: December 19, 2017 at 03:39 PM (#5595156)
I love Rube Waddell. That's the trouble with modern players, they never chase fire engines.

They never eat animal crackers in bed on road trips
   559. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 19, 2017 at 04:50 PM (#5595200)
From way back on page 1 (comment #65):

Only seven ballots in, and there five players who have appeared on all seven ballots:

...

and...


Vizquel


Now, per #551:

Placeholder through [66] ballots as of 12/18 at 10pm PST with net change in parenthesis for notable players:

...

Vizquel 36.4[%]


There are five more ballots as I type this - of which Vizquel appeared on one. Vizquel is at 25/71 (35.2%) after starting 7/7, which means he's gone 18 for his last 64 (28.1%). If his "true support" is 35%, the odds of the first seven voters all being Vizquel voters was a bit less than 1-in-1,500.

[EDIT: I had the number of current ballots off by one. There are 70 PUBLIC ballots plus 1 anonymous ballot = 71 total ballots.]
   560. homerwannabee Posted: December 19, 2017 at 07:05 PM (#5595256)
With 72 votes in, something interesting has happened. Vlad Guerrero was 15 votes sort of election last year, and Hoffman was 5 votes short. Already Vlad has gained 11 votes, and is now only 4 votes away from +/- to election, and Hoffman is at 0 still 5 votes away. Personally I'm a Vlad fan, and this is very good news, but still surprising how Hoffman stalled so close to the finish line.
   561. Srul Itza Posted: December 19, 2017 at 07:27 PM (#5595260)
still surprising how Hoffman stalled so close to the finish line.


Tied into that surprise: Edgar is doing much better than Hoffman. He has gained 11 votes.

It is still earl, but if it turns out to be Chipper, Thome, Vlad and Edgar, that will be quite the surprise result for a lot of people.

   562. taxandbeerguy Posted: December 19, 2017 at 07:47 PM (#5595271)
These type of ballots give me hope for Edgar (and possibly Walker one day) not to mention Mussina and Schilling. Definitely not the ballot I'd submit, but pretty damn respectable.

Joe Haakenson. 2017 votes for Bagwell, Vlad, Hoffman, Edgar, McGriff, Raines, Ramirez, Pudge, Schilling and Lee Smith.

2018 still votes 10, but noticing Bagwell, Pudge and Raines all got in and Lee Smith is no longer on the ballot, adds Thome and Chipper, drops Ramirez presumably (possibly) because it's not consistent with his stance on Bonds and Clemens, then adds Mussina, Kent and Walker. Would love to know whether he would support Rolen or Andruw, but I at least get the feeling that he's thought considerably about his ballot.
   563. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 19, 2017 at 07:48 PM (#5595273)
With 72 votes in, something interesting has happened. Vlad Guerrero was 15 votes sort of election last year, and Hoffman was 5 votes short. Already Vlad has gained 11 votes, and is now only 4 votes away from +/- to election, and Hoffman is at 0 still 5 votes away.

They both picked up all 4 of the 1st-time voters currently listed, so depending on how the folks whose eligibility lapsed voted, and how many folks vote this year, they both might already be in (or close), if they can hold their remaining 2017 voters.
   564. bachslunch Posted: December 19, 2017 at 07:48 PM (#5595274)
Didn’t Hoffman do reasonably well on anonymous ballots? Seem to remember that was the case.

Agreed, it would be a pleasant surprise if Edgar is elected this year. And if he just misses, he looks to be in pretty good shape for next year.
   565. gabrielthursday Posted: December 19, 2017 at 07:56 PM (#5595279)
How high can Walker go?

Walker is now +16, with significantly more gains than retentions (11). He has two more years after this one, and it will be interesting to see how high he goes. This year it looks like he'll be the biggest gainer going into next year, but he'll still be buried behind Bonds, Clemens, Mussina, Schilling and Martinez. Martinez will probably get a significant push at the 10-year mark to get him into the hall, and Walker has some similarities - an elite hitter with some characteristics that voters don't love (DH for Martinez, Coors Field and injuries for Walker). It may be that the more credit Martinez receives, the easier it will be for Walker to gain traction. With the ballots opening up somewhat next year (Hoffman and Guerrero probably elected, and Halladay and Rivera replacing Thome and Chipper Jones), Walker should be able to continue to make progress. If Walker goes up to the mid-30s this year (he's at 40% currently), he should probably move into the 40s next year. The 2020 ballot only has Jeter as a major new candidate, and Martinez will have dropped off one way or another, so it seems likely that Walker will have good circumstances to make a final-year push, and I bet he finishes over 50%.

It would be hard to see Walker actually get elected, as it would require nearly 20% increases in three straight years. However, if he finishes about 50%, I think there's a strong probability that the Veteran's Committee eventually inducts him.

   566. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 19, 2017 at 08:11 PM (#5595282)
still surprising how Hoffman stalled so close to the finish line


I suspect that the problem is that Hoffman has a lower natural ceiling than Vlad. There's some portion of the electorate who don't believe relief pitchers (possibly except for Mariano Rivera) belong in the Hall of Fame. The question is, how large is that bloc. Historically, that bloc has obviously been under 25% as several relief pitchers are, in fact, in the Hall of Fame, although the highest vote percentage ever by a reliever was 85.8% by Goose Gossage. But it's one thing for somebody to look at Vlad Guerrero and say, "Eh, he's maybe a tick below my personal borderline" or "Eh, he's a HOFer, but he's only the 12th best guy on the ballot", see how close he is to induction, and decide, "Ah, what the hell; I'll vote for Vlad". Whereas, I suspect a large number of the no votes for Hoffman are more adamant, "Nobody's a Hall-of-Famer who pitched fewer than 1,100 innings in his career and never even pitched 100 innings in a single season".

I'm actually surprised we're not seeing a similar issue with Edgar Martinez and people who hate the DH.

I suspect we'll see a similar phenomenon with Bonds and Clemens. We kind of already are this year. It could be that they already picked up all of the persuadable voters on the steroid issue last year and they'll now stall out short of the 75%. I hope not, both because I think they should both be in the Hall of Fame, but also because having two (or three, counting Hoffman) guys stuck at 60-70% for multiple ballots really clogs up the ballot for other players to make headway.
   567. Random Transaction Generator Posted: December 19, 2017 at 08:21 PM (#5595285)
Be honest: Did you ever stop what you were doing to watch Jim Thome bat?



Delmon Young was DEFINITELY watching Jim Thome's plate appearances.
   568. QLE Posted: December 19, 2017 at 08:22 PM (#5595286)
Didn’t Hoffman do reasonably well on anonymous ballots?


Last year, he received 74.2% on the private ballots, compared to 73.9% on the public ones. The year before, he received 69% on the private ballots, compared to 66.6% on the public ballots.

In general, he has basically done only about as well on the private ballots as he has on the public ones- if he was considerably more popular among them, he would have been inducted last year, and this discussion would be moot.
   569. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 19, 2017 at 08:24 PM (#5595287)
It would be hard to see Walker actually get elected, as it would require nearly 20% increases in three straight years. However, if he finishes about 50%, I think there's a strong probability that the Veteran's Committee eventually inducts him.

It's a lot easier to rationalize voting for someone supported by a BBWAA majority. If Walker can get to ~ 40% this year - almost doubling his vote - that should create a buzz that, along with having just 2 years of eligibility left, might prompt many to give him a 2nd look. Gaining significant ground the last 3 years might also suggest he just ran out of time rather than being deemed unworthy.
   570. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 19, 2017 at 08:24 PM (#5595288)
There's some portion of the electorate who don't believe relief pitchers (possibly except for Mariano Rivera) belong in the Hall of Fame.


Aka, the sane voters.
Why does everyone treat relief pitching as a unique skill yet DH is not? Martinez and Ortiz get compared to guys like Walker and Sheffield, but we aren't comparing Hoffman to Jim Kaat or Ron Guidry, why?
You can't have it both ways. You either recognise relief pitching and DH as it's own position/skill set or you recognise all pitchers the same and all non-pitchers the same.

It's dumb. Every year teams find no-name guys to pitch relief and they put up extraordinary numbers, it's one of the least difficult things to fullfil on your roster. Well that and an above average 1B if you are the Red Sox.
   571. Booey Posted: December 19, 2017 at 08:39 PM (#5595292)
I'm actually surprised we're not seeing a similar issue with Edgar Martinez and people who hate the DH.


I really suspect that typically anti-DH voters deciding in advance that they're going to make an exception for Ortiz is also helping Edgar.

I suspect we'll see a similar phenomenon with Bonds and Clemens. We kind of already are this year. It could be that they already picked up all of the persuadable voters on the steroid issue last year and they'll now stall out short of the 75%.


That's my guess. So many of the "no" voters will never change their mind (how many primates here have changed their mind one way or the other since B/C hit the ballot?) that I doubt they'll ever make it to 75% with the writers.
   572. SoSH U at work Posted: December 19, 2017 at 09:38 PM (#5595316)
I'm actually surprised we're not seeing a similar issue with Edgar Martinez and people who hate the DH.


How do you know we aren't?

   573. DL from MN Posted: December 19, 2017 at 09:42 PM (#5595319)
The hard part for me to swallow is Hoffman 75% and Johan Santana < 5%. Johan Santana has twice as many innings at basically the same rate production.
   574. SoSH U at work Posted: December 19, 2017 at 09:42 PM (#5595320)
That's my guess. So many of the "no" voters will never change their mind (how many primates here have changed their mind one way or the other since B/C hit the ballot?) that I doubt they'll ever make it to 75% with the writers.


It seems the big opportunity for such a change has already happened - the elections of LaRussa (and to a lesser extent Torre) and, particularly, Selig. I think we might have seen some writers switch from no to yes when the steroid enablers went in, but whatever push that had should be passed.


   575. Booey Posted: December 19, 2017 at 10:27 PM (#5595344)
#574 - Yep. Suspected PED users getting in (Piazza, Bagwell, Pudge) may have given them a small bump. PED enabling managers getting in (LaRussa, Torre) may have given them a small bump. The steroid enabling commissioner himself (Selig, obviously) getting in almost surely gave them a bit of a bump. But if all that still wasn't enough to put Bonds/Clemens over the top, I don't know what's left that could do it. Current HOFers admitting to PED use, maybe?
   576. kwarren Posted: December 19, 2017 at 11:06 PM (#5595364)
The hard part for me to swallow is Hoffman 75% and Johan Santana < 5%. Johan Santana has twice as many innings at basically the same rate production.


It's obviously Santana's lack of saves that's the problem. Just when the electorate starts to realize that pitching wins is not the holy grail of pitching greatness, we are gifted with the "save", where true greatness apparently reveals itself. We all know that Santana was a hell of a better pitcher than Hoffman could ever hope to be, but he didn't get any saves. Clearly he couldn't get it done when it really mattered. Like protecting a 4-1 9th inning lead for the 46-80 Padres in early August. That's what makes a Hall of Famer in today's world.
   577. PreservedFish Posted: December 19, 2017 at 11:48 PM (#5595379)
The hard part for me to swallow is Hoffman 75% and Johan Santana < 5%. Johan Santana has twice as many innings at basically the same rate production.


I would absolutely vote for Santana ahead of Hoffman.
   578. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 20, 2017 at 12:32 AM (#5595391)
I would absolutely vote for Santana ahead of Hoffman.


As any sane person would. 2000+ innings at nearly the same rate and going through the line up at least 2-3 times in most cases has an enormous amount of value. It's not just the metrics that support this, but if you ran a team or asked a GM which would they rather have everyone is taking double the innings.

This admiration for relievers is ridiculous. As Smoltz and Eck proved, you can be a pretty darn good starter and then be an otherwordly reliever. Could you imagine Pedro or Unit as a reliever? The ERA+ would've been like 300+ and the K/9 in Kimbrel territory or better every year for 15 years. The WHiP would've been like .700 or less. Relieving is substantially easier. Always has been, always will be.
   579. SoSH U at work Posted: December 20, 2017 at 12:41 AM (#5595394)
I wouldn't vote for either of them, but obviously Santana was much, much better.

More stunning than the Hall's fondness for relievers is the HoM's flirtation with the species.
   580. gabrielthursday Posted: December 20, 2017 at 12:53 AM (#5595395)
The question of relievers is interesting. I think it's very clear that relief pitching is now a clearly defined role (just like the DH in the American League) that shouldn't be ignored. Since even high-leverage relievers can't add as much value as a starter, I can understand if people think that they shouldn't be admitted at all (or that Mariano Rivera is a borderline candidate). That's clearly not what the Hall or the BBWAA has chosen to do, however. I think it makes perfect sense to elect the one or two best relievers in each generation. Since the usage pattern for top relievers has changed, I don't see any reason to put all that much weight on total innings - I think if a reliever has had a career that fits the length of hall-of-famers generally (as Wagner certainly had), they shouldn't be penalized because their innings don't match those thrown by earlier closers used in a different manner (in the same way, the standard for starters will have to go down a little as the number of innings top starters throw continues to decline).

My preference is to look at which relievers were the most dominant in their era providing they had a sufficiently long career. Wagner had the misfortune of debuting at the same time as Rivera, because while he was the 2nd-best reliever of his era, he is also the second-best reliever ever: 2nd in ERA-, 2nd in FIP-. If you're going to have one reliever in the Hall, let it be Rivera. If you're going to have two, let it be Rivera and Wagner. And if you're going to have 5 or 6 or 7, I don't see how you can justify keeping Wagner out.
   581. QLE Posted: December 20, 2017 at 12:59 AM (#5595397)
It further doesn't help matters that, even if we just look at relievers, Hoffman isn't dazzling in any regard- certainly the trio of Rivera, Gossage, and Wilhelm are leaps and bounds better, but so are John Hiller and Stu Miller, while Joe Nathan and Dan Quisenberry are similarly substantially better, and folk like Bob Stanley and Kent Tekulve (who aren't going to enter the HOF unless they pay like everyone else) are equal, and there are a load of relievers (Sparkly Lyle and Tug McGraw say hello) who are only marginally worse.

In all, it isn't just that there are forces trying to stampede a reliever in- it's that it's a reliever who is no more deserving (and, in quite a few cases, less deserving) than something like two dozen of his peers. That is something like twenty-and-a-half more than I believe would deserve it.
   582. SoSH U at work Posted: December 20, 2017 at 01:16 AM (#5595398)
The question of relievers is interesting. I think it's very clear that relief pitching is now a clearly defined role (just like the DH in the American League) that shouldn't be ignored.


Except the BBWAA is not treating them like DHs. The DH position has been around just about as long as the closer role, but the BBWAA has not decided to put the best 1 or 2 of each generation in. They're comparing them to all the other players, and the very best one, a player who contributed more to his teams than the best reliever of all time, is only just now making a push for induction.

The BBWAA screwed up with Fingers, Sutter and, to a lesser extent, Gossage (Hoyt's passable, and I've got no problem with Mo).
   583. gabrielthursday Posted: December 20, 2017 at 02:50 AM (#5595405)
#582

I agree - are there people here who think that DHs shouldn't be considered? The fact that the BBWAA has treated relievers more generously than DHs isn't an argument against relievers being admitted at all, it might be an argument that they should be treated similarly (one factor, however, is that there are a lot more relievers than DHs). I agree that Fingers and Sutter weren't particularly good picks. Gossage was definitely the best reliever of the pre-90s era and I think deserves induction. Eckersley is a reasonable candidate as a blended starter/reliever.

I think the main reason we don't have many DH hall-of-famers is that there haven't been many good candidates. Now, Frank Thomas actually did spend the majority of his career as a DH, but for some reason was thought of primarily as a 1B. Paul Molitor spent a majority of his career in the field, but spent more time at DH than any single position. There really weren't any other compelling candidates who were arguably DHs until Edgar Martinez became eligible.
   584. cardsfanboy Posted: December 20, 2017 at 04:48 AM (#5595411)
I agree - are there people here who think that DHs shouldn't be considered?


No but there are people arguing that the DH should get no positional(or less than they do now even) penalty for being a DH. It's a dumb argument based upon the argument that "Dh'ing is harder than playing the field and hitting, see how this particular group of players perform less as a hitter when they dh than when they play the field."
   585. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 20, 2017 at 06:15 AM (#5595417)
I think that the 2021-2027 election years will only have about six top players to consider.
2021-Nobody
2022-Big Papi / A-Rod
2023-Ichiro / Beltran
2024-Nobody
2025-Beltre (if he retires after his age 40 season) He is showing no signs of slowing down, so might be 2026.
2026-Pujols (if the Angels buy out the final year of his contract) If they buy out the 2 final years, would be 2025.
2027-Nobody

2028-Verlander (if he retires after age 39 season) / Greinke (if he retires after age 38 season) Maybe 2029?
2029-Cabrera / Cano (if they retire when their current contracts expire after their age 40 seasons)

   586. bachslunch Posted: December 20, 2017 at 06:37 AM (#5595419)
Joe Mauer, Yadier Molina, Joey Votto, Dustin Pedroia, and Troy Tulowitzki might be in this mix during the latter part of the 20s. Not that I’d vote for all of them necessarily.
   587. gabrielthursday Posted: December 20, 2017 at 06:56 AM (#5595420)
King Felix and someone like Scherzer or Hamels or Lester - someone is going to have a nice end to their career. Also Chase Utley should get some serious consideration.
   588. homerwannabee Posted: December 20, 2017 at 07:09 AM (#5595423)
One thing that gets overlooked with Edgar is that despite playing over 70% of his career at DH, his 2nd main position was 3B. He has four years worth of experience (564 games) at third base. Third base is definitely much tougher than first base. So while Thomas may have a lower percentage at DH 57%, his 2nd main position was first base 971 games. For me, I have more respect for a person who spent 564 games at third base than a guy who played 971 games at first base. Frank Thomas never had a single positive WAR year of defense. Edgar on the other hand had four different years where his defensive WAR is positive.
   589. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 20, 2017 at 08:09 AM (#5595433)
(comment 586) I forgot about Votto, I think he will be in the HOF for sure.
Cabrera, Cano, and Votto all have six years remaining on their contracts, so that could
potentially be a really strong class. Scherzer and King Felix (comment 587) might also
hang around long enough to be considered in '28 or '29. I think Tulowitzki will be hurt
by all of the injuries. I love Cole Hamels, but he might have to finish with 230-240 wins
to make up for his lack of Cy Young respect. I can't predict how Molina and Mauer will do.
   590. PreservedFish Posted: December 20, 2017 at 08:23 AM (#5595439)
It's not just the metrics that support this, but if you ran a team or asked a GM which would they rather have everyone is taking double the innings.


Wouldn't be surprised if someone out there would prefer Hoffman. That's 15 or 16 years that you get to lock down the closer position, which can be a particularly vexing one, subject to extra media scrutiny. It's the stupid decision, but someone might make it.
   591. John DiFool2 Posted: December 20, 2017 at 08:52 AM (#5595451)
No but there are people arguing that the DH should get no positional(or less than they do now even) penalty for being a DH. It's a dumb argument based upon the argument that "Dh'ing is harder than playing the field and hitting, see how this particular group of players perform less as a hitter when they dh than when they play the field."


If that is a demonstratable fact, then it isn't dumb if it affects, you know, actual player value (i.e. without the little assumption up there that said group of players has been cherry-picked). To deny it dogmatically might be tho.
   592. SoSH U at work Posted: December 20, 2017 at 10:04 AM (#5595488)
Gossage was definitely the best reliever of the pre-90s era and I think deserves induction.


That's the problem. The only way he merits induction is if you are looking to find the best reliever of a specific time frame and honor that guy. But no one ever says Hal McRae was the best DH of the pre-90s era, and thus deserves election.

Goose was the best reliever of his era. He wasn't good enough to be elected into the Hall, as every metric demonstrates (by WAR, which gives him a leverage boost, he was a slightly less valuable player than Jim Rice, everyone here's idea of a terrible selection).
   593. Adam S Posted: December 20, 2017 at 10:57 AM (#5595545)
I forgot about Votto, I think he will be in the HOF for sure. Cabrera, Cano, and Votto all have six years remaining on their contracts, so that could potentially be a really strong class.


Buster Posey is also potentially a strong candidate in the second half of the 2020s.
   594. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: December 20, 2017 at 10:58 AM (#5595548)
I'm in the camp that has reluctantly accepted that relievers are part of the HOF, so the task becomes identifying the best 1 or 2 per generation. Many good points here raised about Hoffman versus Wagner and others, but this comment from the awful Borges ballot discussed above struck a chord with me:

Trevor Hoffman: After Mariano, the preeminent closer of his era. Unlike some, I’m not prejudiced against closers. I just don’t like the fact that in the three or four “big spots” in Hoffman’s career, he came up small.

Granted that Hoffman has only 13 postseason innings, but he didn't exactly shine: 3.46 ERA/1.23 WHIP versus 2.87 ERA/1.05 WHIP in the regular season. In his only WS appearance, he gave up the big HR to Brosius in game 3 in '98. That effectively ended the series, though he did pitch well in the preceding LDS and LCS. Hoffman got the loss to end the '96 LDS. And in '07, he lost the tiebreaker game against Colorado in the Holliday slide game (which isn't reflected in his postseason numbers).

I wouldn't normally go this granular with October appearances but the clutch god narrative is such a big part of the case for relievers. And I think Hoffman falls short if you use his postseason performance as a tiebreaker.
   595. SoSH U at work Posted: December 20, 2017 at 11:02 AM (#5595553)

I wouldn't normally go this granular with October appearances but the clutch god narrative is such a big part of the case for relievers. And I think Hoffman falls short if you use his postseason performance as a tiebreaker.


It was not quite Wagnerian* in its awfulness, but it was not good.

* Billy managed to allow more earned runs in 11.2 postseason innings than Rivera did in 141, which is really quite a feat.

   596. Austin Kearns: The Spy Who Shagged Flies Posted: December 20, 2017 at 11:06 AM (#5595556)
Granted that Hoffman has only 13 postseason innings, but he didn't exactly shine: 3.46 ERA/1.23 WHIP versus 2.87 ERA/1.05 WHIP in the regular season. In his only WS appearance, he gave up the big HR to Brosius in game 3 in '98. That effectively ended the series, though he did pitch well in the preceding LDS and LCS. Hoffman got the loss to end the '96 LDS. And in '07, he lost the tiebreaker game against Colorado in the Holliday slide game (which isn't reflected in his postseason numbers).


The clutch factor is (at least in the minds of a lot of voters) the major difference between DHs and closers. A closer would have a lot more in common with a bench player that routinely is brought up to pinch hit in late game scenarios than someone who plays the entire game, but not in the field. I'm somewhat agnostic on the whole clutch thing, but I definitely agree with the above that if you define the importance of your role based on it, then lesser success during the higher pressure postseason would and should undercut that.

Of course, it does even more harm to Wagner's case.

EDIT: Coke to 595 on the last part.
   597. soc40 Posted: December 20, 2017 at 11:35 AM (#5595580)
Like protecting a 4-1 9th inning lead for the 46-80 Padres in early August. That's what makes a Hall of Famer in today's world.


Even more impressive how he was able to rack up 600 plus saves on those awful Padre teams.
   598. The Ghost of Logan Schafer Posted: December 20, 2017 at 11:57 AM (#5595604)
(comment 593) I think Buster is such a good hitter that he will hang on as a LF or DH
at least through age 38, so he might be in the class of 2030 or 2031.
   599. Howie Menckel Posted: December 20, 2017 at 12:22 PM (#5595635)
for those who like the "big spots" meme, Hoffman in 2007 also blew a save in Game 162 that forced the tiebreaker game. and he also lost the 2006 All-Star Game.
   600. Peter Farted Again Posted: December 20, 2017 at 12:23 PM (#5595638)
At the 74 ballot mark there's a gigantic chasm between the haves and the have-nots. Moose and Schill are at 70%, Walker is at 42%, and there is NOBODY in between.

Among the haves, I think everyone will get in via the writers at some point, except for Bonds/Clemens. I think Posnanski is right, that there will be too many (>25%) voters who refuse to vote them in. Schilling's election is dependent on good behavior...we'll see. If Twitter somehow goes out of business, he's in.
Page 6 of 18 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  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 0.7764 seconds
46 querie(s) executed