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

Thursday, January 09, 2014

Sporting News supports Dan Le Batard

Will they turn their ballots over to Deadspink?

[Dan] Le Batard is right. Reform is needed. At minimum, a redefinition of what the Hall of Fame should represent to baseball fans.

The fact his vote was turned over to Deadspin misses the point.

The best thing the BBWAA and the Hall can do is announce a plan to turn the vote over to the public or something similar on its own next year.

Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio, Edgar Martínez, Jeff Bagwell, Curt Schilling, Bonds, Clemens and Piazza. Give Deadspin’s readers credit, feels like they got it mostly right.

The District Attorney Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:12 PM | 53 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: bbwaa, dan le batard, deadspin, hall of fame, media, sporting news

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.

   1. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:08 AM (#4635407)
Dan] Le Batard is right. Reform is needed. At minimum, a redefinition of what the Hall of Fame should represent to baseball fans.


We've seen a few years of this now and unless I'm mistaken no steroids candidate has made any real progress in the voting from his initial totals, and in fact they seem to get a lower percentage as they go. McGwire and Palmeiro dropped.

Bonds and Clemens stayed basically the same this year.

What seems reasonable to observe at this point is that the voters are not applying a "one year penalty" for even overqualified candidates such as Bonds and Clemens.

At this point it seems that no steroids player will ever get in unless the HOF guidelines change -- or at least not until 20-30 or more years pass.
   2. JE (Jason) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM (#4635418)
Olbermann just now:
The Baseball Writers Association, punishing the only guy who did something about the Hall of Fame's banana-republic electoral system: Today's Worst Persons in the Sports World.
[flings papers]
   3. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM (#4635419)
Bill James's view as expressed on Clubhouse Confidential, paraphrased by me:

There are two extreme positions here: steroids players should go in; and steroids players should not go in because it doesn't matter. History doesn't coalesce around a compromise position, and so it will coalesce around one extreme or the other. In this case it will coalesce around letting steroids players in, because it's impossible for history to coalesce around the position that steroids players cant go in, for two reasons. One, "frankly there are already steroids users in there," and two, as time goes on more and more of us will be using steroids for more and more things. In time people will forget about this and steroids players will be in. It will take a generation.
   4. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:01 AM (#4635428)
But we've also seen that the whisper-whisper-whisper guys are basically getting a long-term pass. Piazza looks set to go in in the next couple of years, Bagwell is well up from his first year totals (though he's sort of stalled the last couple of years, compared to other backloggers his vote totals have been pretty good).

I also find the idea that history doesn't coalesce around the middle ground to be an entirely-too-sweeping assertion.
   5. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:07 AM (#4635431)
The Sporting News still exists?
   6. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:22 AM (#4635434)
So it looks like 5 players of note got moved off the ballot, including one steroids player: Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Morris, Palmeiro.

And 6 players of note are coming on, including one steroids player: Pedro, Johnson, Smoltz, Sheffield, Nomar, and Delgado. (Giles too, but I simply don't see him getting 5% and thus I don't see him being a factor.)

That leaves these 22 players dividing votes, including 8 steroids players: Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell, Raines, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Mussina, Edgar, LSmith, Trammell, Kent, McGriff, McGwire, Walker, Sosa, Pedro, Johnson, Smoltz, Sheffield, Nomar, Delgado.

Of those 22, 19 have reasonable HOF cases: all except Nomar, Delgado, and LSmith. (Well, Smith may have a case depending on your flavor of relief standards.)

How has the "backlog" been cleared? 17 players had reasonable cases this year. 19 will have reasonable cases next year. There were 8 steroids players last year. There will be 8 steroids players this year.

My guess is that Smoltz, Pedro, and Johnson go in, with Biggio perhaps short. As long as the steroids players remain in limbo it may prevent anyone except overqualified "clean" players from going in.

   7. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:32 AM (#4635437)

How has the "backlog" been cleared? 17 players had reasonable cases this year. 19 will have reasonable cases next year. There were 8 steroids players last year. There will be 8 steroids players this year.


This doesn't add up (or subtract down, to be more specific). If five came off (all presumably reasonable, unless you don't want to put The Jack in the reasonable file), and four with reasonable cases come on, how are you left with more reasonable cases next year then this year?

   8. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 10, 2014 at 04:41 AM (#4635466)
This doesn't add up (or subtract down, to be more specific). If five came off (all presumably reasonable, unless you don't want to put The Jack in the reasonable file), and four with reasonable cases come on, how are you left with more reasonable cases next year then this year?

I don't think any of Sheff, Nomar or Delgado will draw significant votes. Definitely under 20%, probably under 10. So that leaves 3. Of course Raffy wasn't drawing enough votes to affect anyone else either, so by my score 3 on, 4 off.
   9. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 10, 2014 at 05:36 AM (#4635467)
And 6 players of note are coming on, including one steroids player: Pedro, Johnson, Smoltz, Sheffield, Nomar, and Delgado.

Presumably Sheffield is the steroids player, but didn't Nomar have some fairly loud "whispers" about him? Or am I mis-remembering?

Wow, Nomar finished with a 124 OPS+. That's pretty impressive. (Jeter is currently at 117, and was at 121 through age 35, Nomar's retirement age.) Six years with 6.0 WAR or better too. Too bad his counting stats are so ho-hum.
   10. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: January 10, 2014 at 07:48 AM (#4635473)
Looks like you pro steroid peanuts have permanently lost one of your own from the voting rolls thanks to this stupid idiot. Very well done Dan, you're a real genius.

The best thing the BBWAA and the Hall can do is announce a plan to turn the vote over to the public or something similar on its own next year.

There is zero chance that the process is going to be completely overhauled because the childish, hissy fit throwing, impotent little peanuts demand it. It didn't happen last year when nobody get elected, and it won't happen now.
   11. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 10, 2014 at 08:23 AM (#4635477)
   12. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 10, 2014 at 08:59 AM (#4635481)
If Palmeiro cannot get 5% in this environment, why would we think Nomar or Sheffield are going to do much better. If you are a voter who doesn't vote for a guy like Bagwell because he just "seems" like a 'roider, how on Earth are they going to take a look at Sheffield (who, in addition to PED rumors, had the affability of Dick Allen, or Nomar, who has one of the most disconcerting Sports Illustrated covers of the whole PED era?
   13. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:06 AM (#4635486)
Joey's new "peanuts" catch phrase

How many peanuts can he hold in his patented brown stained diaper?
   14. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:13 AM (#4635490)
And 6 players of note are coming on, including one steroids player: Pedro, Johnson, Smoltz, Sheffield, Nomar, and Delgado.

Sheffield, Nomar and Delagado have no chance. Except for Sheffield, they'd have no chance even w/o steroids, and Sheffield probably still wouldn't get in.

The important analysis is the ballot slots being freed up. The 5 exiting players totaled 428.7 %-points of votes, or 4.3 votes per ballot.

If RJ gets 95%, Pedro gets 90%, and Smoltz debuts at 30% (a bit better than Mussina), that's 215%, or 2.15 votes per ballot.

That still leaves 2.15 ballot slots available for everyone else, and I doubt Sheffield/Nomar/Delgado combine for even 50% (0.5 ballot slots).

Biggio will go in easily with the 2 SPs. Piazza likely should too. And, I think Bagwell, Raines, Schilling and Mussina will start gaining ground.
   15. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:14 AM (#4635492)
I do like post #1 though. This is probably the closest we'll ever come to seeing Ray admit that he was wrong about something.
   16. SouthSideRyan Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:29 AM (#4635500)
I think your RJ and Pedro numbers are high snapper.

It's obviously all speculation, but I don't think Johnson has the same revered status that Maddux does, and that's barely lower than his totals. And has been addressed previously, Pedro's going to be dinged for lack of counting stats. I still think he makes it first ballot, but I'd expect more around 80%
   17. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:37 AM (#4635505)
I think your RJ and Pedro numbers are high snapper.

It's obviously all speculation, but I don't think Johnson has the same revered status that Maddux does, and that's barely lower than his totals. And has been addressed previously, Pedro's going to be dinged for lack of counting stats. I still think he makes it first ballot, but I'd expect more around 80%


OK, but that makes my point stronger; even more votes to give to the backlog.
   18. Sandlapper Spike Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:49 AM (#4635513)
Hmm...actually, I could see both RJ and Pedro clearing 90%, particularly Johnson. I also believe Smoltz is going to do a lot better than 30%. He's going to be compared favorably to Eckersley, a first-ballot Hall of Famer (admittedly on a less-loaded ballot).

It's a year away, but I would be surprised if Smoltz got less than 55%-60% of the vote, and I think he's got a shot at making it on his first try.
   19. Publius Publicola Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4635514)
I realize Ray's paraphrase may not represent James' actual views but let's deconstruct anyway

There are two extreme positions here: steroids players should go in; and steroids players should not go in because it doesn't matter.


What?? The opposite (not extreme) position is that steroids players should not go in because it DOES matter.

History doesn't coalesce around a compromise position, and so it will coalesce around one extreme or the other.


This isn't true either. Just look at the abortion debate in this country. It has remained divisive because neither pole has enjoyed a coalescion.

In this case it will coalesce around letting steroids players in, because it's impossible for history to coalesce around the position that steroids players cant go in, for two reasons. One, "frankly there are already steroids users in there," and two, as time goes on more and more of us will be using steroids for more and more things. In time people will forget about this and steroids players will be in. It will take a generation.


And good luck with that prediction. All of the steroids users lost ground this year. Palmeiro was pushed off the ballot altogether and McGwire nearly was. Bonds and Clemens, two inner circles otherwise, failed to even get 40%, either this year or last. That's just "alternative universe" thinking there. If this is actually what he meant, it's just another indication that James is really losing his way, becoming detached from reality, which I find disheartening in the extreme.
   20. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4635520)
I posted the following on the Gizmo thread:

Hall of Fame balloting, 2013: 569 ballots, 6.6 names per ballot = 3,755 slots filled
Hall of Fame balloting, 2014: 571 ballots, 8.39 names per ballot = 4,791 slots filled
Increase in overall slots filled = 1,036
Votes for Maddux, Glavine and Thomas = 1,558


There weren't enough "extra" votes to handle this year's ballot, which is why nearly everyone went down, and is why Mussina's and Kent's debuts were lower than Mark McGwire's. Why does 2015 look any better, either in available candidates of BBWAA temperament?
   21. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 10, 2014 at 10:12 AM (#4635533)
So far Olbermann, TSN, Richard Justice, and Bob Costas! have all come out in support of Le Batard. Any other notable writers or media entities publicly express support yet?
   22. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 10, 2014 at 10:15 AM (#4635538)
And good luck with that prediction. All of the steroids users lost ground this year.


There's a reasonable chance that the "steroids users" lost votes from previous voters who will add them back once they back log is cleared. It's pretty easy to justify "the asshats will not vote in Clemens this year, so I might as well bump him for Curt Schilling."
   23. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM (#4635562)
My guess is that Smoltz, Pedro, and Johnson go in, with Biggio perhaps short.


I think Biggio goes in. I think it is a near mortal lock being only two votes short this year. Smoltz is a maybe in my mind, but I think Pedro, Unit, and Biggio go in. If Smoltz goes in then that helps the back log a bit, especially if Piazza makes good progress or even goes in.
   24. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: January 10, 2014 at 10:50 AM (#4635569)
That still leaves 2.15 ballot slots available for everyone else

We have no idea on the likely number of votes per ballot next year, though. Right or wrong, the Johnson/Pedro combo will not be viewed as nearly as good as Maddux/Glavine.
   25. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4635590)
Smoltz is a maybe in my mind, but I think Pedro, Unit, and Biggio go in. If Smoltz goes in then that helps the back log a bit, especially if Piazza makes good progress or even goes in.


Smoltz will be an interesting case study. If he sails in on the first ballot it will lend credence to the idea that people are voting for "the 1990s Atlanta Braves" rather than a particular candidate. It would explain Tom Glavine's high percentages this year. If he gets 30-40% and lines up in the Schilling range of support we'll have a point against that idea.
   26. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4635596)
Smoltz will be an interesting case study. If he sails in on the first ballot it will lend credence to the idea that people are voting for "the 1990s Atlanta Braves" rather than a particular candidate.


For every playoff series they choked in, they will get a Hall of Famer to compensate. Get ready, Keith Lockhart!
   27. toratoratora Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4635598)
but didn't Nomar have some fairly loud "whispers" about him? Or am I mis-remembering?

Yep.In Feeding the Monster, they do everything but come flat out and accuse Nomar. And,IIRC, they strongly imply that Sox management knew and it was a factor in their internal discussions re his contract.
   28. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4635615)
For every playoff series they choked in, they will get a Hall of Famer to compensate.


They already have triple representation for the one playoff series they "choked." I guess you could make an argument for 1993 as well as 1996. The 96 WS was the only playoff series where they really should have won on the raw merits but they didn't. I can see losing to the 'roided up Phils in 93 I guess. Maybe the 97 NLCS, but there was no getting around Eric Gregg in that one.

The primary drive of the lack of WS titles for the Braves' 1990 dynasty is that they lost a playoffs sequence entirely to the strike at the height of their prowess as a team (1995) and lost to an inferior Yankees team in the '96 WS.
   29. BDC Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4635625)
My gosh, Nomar stuck around several years longer than I remember. He fell off my radar after about 2006 – not without reason.
   30. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4635637)
All of the steroids users lost ground this year. Palmeiro was pushed off the ballot altogether and McGwire nearly was. Bonds and Clemens, two inner circles otherwise, failed to even get 40%, either this year or last.


There weren't enough "extra" votes to handle this year's ballot, which is why nearly everyone went down,


Too bad Kevin couldn't wait another 8 minutes before posting and having his statement countered so quickly.
   31. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4635639)
I remember Nomar being traded to the Cubs, then getting hurt for the rest of his career, except one year as the 1B for the Dodgers. I share your surprise that he lasted until 2009.
   32. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4635693)
I agree with James here.
   33. Sweatpants Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4635700)
The Braves should have smoked the '98 Padres.
   34. Brian Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:24 PM (#4635708)
but there was no getting around Eric Gregg in that one.


Fish, meet barrel.
   35. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:29 PM (#4635718)
The Braves should have smoked the '98 Padres.


1991 - Out of nowhere; should have lost to the Pirates; not notably better than the Twins
1992 - Not notably better than the Pirates; obviously weaker than the Jays
1993 - Probably should have beaten the Phils; not notably better than the Jays
1994 - Probably equal with the Expos; no one knows what teams were decent in the AL that year
1995 - Won all series
1996 - Should have beaten the up and coming Yankees
1997 - Eric Gregg
1998 - Should have beaten the Padres; not notably stronger than the Yankees
1999 - Shouldn't have made it past the NLCS; clearly weaker than the Yankees
2000-05: Rarely the strongest team in the tournament
   36. Anonymous Observer Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:40 PM (#4635732)
Sheffield, Nomar and Delagado have no chance.


If y'all thought Jack Morris was bad about ######## and moaning about not getting into the Hall of Fame, just wait. Gary Sheffield will make him look like a monk who has taken a vow of silence.
   37. Davo Dozier Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4635745)
DID YOU KNOW

that Gary Sheffield currently works as a sports agent? Jason Grilli is one of his clients.
   38. Walt Davis Posted: January 10, 2014 at 04:45 PM (#4635934)
#14 ... your numbers are off. The 5 exiting players total about 340% not 430%.

In 2013, there were 6.6 names per ballot, only about .2 cleared, so a carryover of 6.4

Adding Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Mussina, Kent to the ballot added only an average of 2 names per ballot. That is partly due to the 10-man limit (all who had ballots of 9-10 in 2013 essentially had to drop at least 2 candidates).

With 3.4 slots cleared, the carryover is 5. That's a good thing although the only real clearing of the backlog is due to Morris leaving the ballot. But Johnson, Pedro, etc. aren't likely to add as many names due to being slightly less impressive. The main advantage is that the full ballots kinda gain a slot back -- i.e. I assume that nearly all full ballots had MGT and that next year they only "have to" add Unit and Pedro. Of course some will add Smoltz but many will view him in a group with Schilling and Mussina and so might add back a Biggio or Trammell or whoever. I'm guesstimating next year's names per ballot will be around 7 but the newbies will eat up all of that gain and the backlog will stagnate (Biggio will go over of course).

Smoltz I think is the wild card but I don't think it's a Braves thing, I think it's an Eck thing. If he's viewed as a top starter (better than Eck) and a dominant reliever, he will probably get in. My guess is that 3 years as a closer isn't enough to get the Eck treatment and he'll be viewed as Schilling/Mussina (maybe at the top, probably ahead of Mussina). But I'm a bad person to ask about how relievers are viewed since I don't hold them in particularly high regard.

Also he'll be at best the #3 pitcher on the ballot and that's rarely a good thing for getting elected
   39. Danko Posted: January 10, 2014 at 07:23 PM (#4636033)
I'm astonished that folks are writing off Delgado and Sheffield in such an off-hand way. I suppose Delgado is basically Fred McGriff v2.0 -- just with a career shifted to the peak of the Sillyball era -- but Sheffield was an impact bat for so many teams for so long that it's hard to conceive that not only is he not a HoF, he's not even a consideration. He certainly felt like a HoFamer in the making during his career. And it wasn't an illusion, either -- the man has 11,000 PA at an 140 OPS+.

But that's the steroid taint. If Clemens and Bonds are having a hard time getting in, Sheffield has no hope.
   40. Bhaakon Posted: January 10, 2014 at 08:26 PM (#4636047)
There are two extreme positions here: steroids players should go in; and steroids players should not go in because it doesn't matter. History doesn't coalesce around a compromise position, and so it will coalesce around one extreme or the other.


Please. History coalesces at both extremes, plus a few other extremes we haven't thought of yet, and bickers endlessly. The judgement of history on contentious subjects tends to look exactly like the judgement of the BBWAA on suspected steroids users.
   41. Zach Posted: January 10, 2014 at 08:54 PM (#4636053)
Please. History coalesces at both extremes, plus a few other extremes we haven't thought of yet, and bickers endlessly.

Quoted for truth. James has always, in my opinion, had a bit of a blind spot when it came to steroids. He was never quite willing to admit anyone was using, or that they helped anybody, or that they might be objectionable. Now he's not quite willing to admit that anybody cares about whether players were using back in the day.

I agree that in the very long run, Bonds might be able to squeeze in on the "guys already in the Hall used, too!" argument. But there's nothing that says the long run is going to happen today.
   42. Foghorn Leghorn Posted: January 10, 2014 at 08:57 PM (#4636054)
1997 - Eric Gregg
Did he ump home in all 7 games?
   43. Esoteric Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:32 PM (#4636061)
At this point it seems that no steroids player will ever get in unless the HOF guidelines change -- or at least not until 20-30 or more years pass.
If nothing else, this suggests to me that we not throw the baby out with the bathwater; whatever other mistakes the BBWAA voters are making, they're getting this one (the most crucial one, really) right.

I'm more than willing to tolerate a few deserving HOF'ers having to wait a couple of years (or having to go in via the VC) in exchange for Bonds et al. never sniffing Cooperstown. May his post-1998 numbers be treated with the chemically-induced contempt they so justly deserve.
   44. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:04 PM (#4636082)
The Braves should have smoked the '98 Padres.


1998 - Should have beaten the Padres; not notably stronger than the [125-49]Yankees

Don't ever change, Sam.
   45. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:34 PM (#4636087)
I do like post #1 though. This is probably the closest we'll ever come to seeing Ray admit that he was wrong about something.


Huh? I don't recall saying that the voters would have voted the steroids players in by now. I recall saying that until we had a few years of voting under our belts we couldn't be sure -- e.g., how they would treat McGwire initially, and in his second year; how they would treat Bonds and Clemens initially, and in their second year.

Now we know. But I'm not seeing how I was wrong about anything.
   46. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:37 PM (#4636089)
I have Smoltz deserving and roughly in the Schilling/Mussina class (and Brown too though he's a lost cause), but I think Smoltz will sail in unlike the others, for being linked to Maddux and Glavine and the 90s Braves teams.
   47. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:44 PM (#4636091)
I'm astonished that folks are writing off Delgado and Sheffield in such an off-hand way


I have Sheffield as deserving -- I ignore his bWAR defensive penalty because it's ridiculous to think a RF was that bad or could cost his team that many runs -- but I have Delgado as just short. Outstanding hitter, very good peak, but burned out a bit too early. I could be convinced on him, though.

The problem is that I don't see the BBWAA supporting Delgado at all, and I see them with at best lukewarm support for Sheffield, who they underrate, didn't much care for, and see him as steroids tainted.
   48. JE (Jason) Posted: January 11, 2014 at 12:15 AM (#4636104)
I think Smoltz will sail in unlike the others, for being linked to Maddux and Glavine and the 90s Braves teams.

Not to mention TBS telecasts and MLB Network analysis duty.
   49. Walt Davis Posted: January 11, 2014 at 01:11 AM (#4636127)
The Sheff case:

ages 23-36: 8150 PA, 304/411/551, 153 OPS+, 546 Rbat, 71 oWAR

comp: Edgar 8700 PA, 312/418/515, 147 OPS+, 529 Rbat, 66 oWAR

Edgar gets whacked about 13 wins for his DH years but, due to be a good 3B for a while, only 11 wins for his career.

To reiterate Ray's point, Sheff gets whacked 22 wins during the comparison above and 28 wins for his career. He's whacked 20 wins in Rfield alone. During the comp period he'd have been whacked only 19-20 wins as a pure DH.

You get essentially the same thing with Manny of course: 23-36, 8615 PA, 317/414/598, 157 OPS+, 609 Rbat, 75 oWAR, loses 20 wins to Rfield + Rpos. That 20 wins is about the same, maybe 1 win more, than he'd have been penalized as a pure DH.

However if we treat those two as pure DH, their oWAR shifts down (basically shifting the penalty from Rfield, which doesn't count in oWAR, to Rpos, which does). This pushes Sheff down to about 58 oWAR/WAR and Manny to 66. Sheff gains some of that back due to extra playing time so Sheff, the career DH, I think ends on around 64 WAR. Manny also gains from extra playing time and moves up to about 72.

So, close and not too surprising, Manny > Edgar > Sheffield. That's also how it goes by WAR but the Manny - Edgar gap is larger and the Edgar - Sheff gap is smaller.*

Now season to taste using PEDs, time at 3B, feelings about Rfield.

* To make sure it's clear, Edgar is given credit for his time at 3B in the WAR numbers above, there's no reason to pretend he was a full-time DH. I'm just pointing out that Manny and Sheff's WAR looks a bit better when they are treated as full-time DH. I think this sort of thing suggests the DH penalty isn't large enough but that's a different debate.
   50. bobm Posted: January 11, 2014 at 02:00 AM (#4636137)
The Braves should have smoked the '98 Padres.

1991 - Out of nowhere; should have lost to the Pirates; not notably better than the Twins
1992 - Not notably better than the Pirates; obviously weaker than the Jays
1993 - Probably should have beaten the Phils; not notably better than the Jays
1994 - Probably equal with the Expos; no one knows what teams were decent in the AL that year
1995 - Won all series
1996 - Should have beaten the up and coming Yankees
1997 - Eric Gregg
1998 - Should have beaten the Padres; not notably stronger than the Yankees
1999 - Shouldn't have made it past the NLCS; clearly weaker than the Yankees
2000-05: Rarely the strongest team in the tournament


Does this summary scream out "dynasty" to you?
   51. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 11, 2014 at 02:11 AM (#4636140)
Johnson over 90%, Pedro over 85%, Biggio squeaks in. No way Smoltz gets over 50%, not with unit and Pedro on the ballot. Pedro to only get mid 80's% due to low win total. Sure it's dumb, but that's what will happen; nevermind the otherworldly peak.

Sheffield, Delgado and Nomar will be lucky to get 15% each.

Piazza should climb again as his numbers so exceed any other catchers that they are impossible to completely discount.
Bagwell's issues are two-fold. He's got the steroid rumours, and some traditional voters don't see his totals as deserving anyway, nevermind the newfangled stats. I think Raines starts to move up from here.

Other Steroid guys +\- 4%.

This is what I think will happen, not what I want to happen.

   52. GregD Posted: January 11, 2014 at 02:50 AM (#4636146)
No way Smoltz gets over 50%, not with unit and Pedro on the ballot.
I agree. How many pitchers will people put on their ballot? You have Mussina and Schilling plus Johnson and Pedro, leaving aside Clemens for now.

What percentage of voters will put 5 starting pitchers?
What percentage of those who choose 4 will keep Smoltz?
What percentage of those who choose 3 will keep Smoltz?

I could be wrong but think Schilling will come in 3rd among the pitchers.
   53. Baldrick Posted: January 11, 2014 at 04:14 AM (#4636157)
* To make sure it's clear, Edgar is given credit for his time at 3B in the WAR numbers above, there's no reason to pretend he was a full-time DH. I'm just pointing out that Manny and Sheff's WAR looks a bit better when they are treated as full-time DH. I think this sort of thing suggests the DH penalty isn't large enough but that's a different debate.

I think the DH penalty is fine where it is. But I also think that it makes sense to say that for this sort of evaluative purposes, no player should be punished more on defense than they would be if they had been a full-time DH.

Basically: it's nice to keep track of bad defense that costs a team 3 wins or whatever, but in comparing value for MVP or HOF or such purposes, I'm perfectly happy establishing a lower-bound of defensive value and stripping away any further negative effects.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-2-2014
(27 - 10:16pm, Sep 02)
Last: Roger McDowell spit on me!

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(317 - 10:13pm, Sep 02)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogGleeman: Twins ask fans which brand of luxury car they are
(13 - 10:10pm, Sep 02)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogExpanded Rosters Exacerbate Baseball’s Biggest Issue
(29 - 10:09pm, Sep 02)
Last: flournoy

NewsblogGiants to promote Brett Bochy
(1 - 10:08pm, Sep 02)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(126 - 10:08pm, Sep 02)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogBrewers prospect plays every position, all in one game
(20 - 10:03pm, Sep 02)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMets call up Dilson Herrera, have "talked about" d'Arnaud to LF
(52 - 10:01pm, Sep 02)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogThe indisputable selfishness of Derek Jeter
(34 - 10:00pm, Sep 02)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogBPP: Why do people still think Jack Morris pitched to the score?
(37 - 9:52pm, Sep 02)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogNewsweek: Can Baseball Get More Interesting to Watch With Big Data?
(14 - 9:43pm, Sep 02)
Last: BDC

NewsblogAdam Jones says he was joking about 'airport' comment at social media event
(23 - 9:37pm, Sep 02)
Last: Esoteric

NewsblogPassan: 10 Degrees: Cole Hamels' trade value might be Phillies' lone bright spot
(5 - 9:34pm, Sep 02)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogSpector: Negative run differential doesn't tell whole story for first-place Cardinals
(8 - 8:21pm, Sep 02)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-2-2014
(40 - 8:14pm, Sep 02)
Last: The Robby Hammock District (Dan Lee)

Page rendered in 0.3954 seconds
52 querie(s) executed