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, December 26, 2013

Tangotiger: Perfect Hall of Fame ballot

A regular Christgauge! (once tried to knock Bob off his bike for dikhead reason)

16 points for each of: Bonds, Maddux, Clemens

8 point for each of: Fr Thomas, Piazza, Bagwell

7 points for each of: Raines, Biggio, Glavine, Trammell

That’s 100 for the perfect ballot.

6 points for: Schilling, Mussina, Edgar, McGwire

5 points for: La Walker, Sosa, Kent

4 points for: Palmeiro, McGriff

3 points for: Mattingly, Morris

2 points for: Alou, Lee Smith, Lu Gonzalez

1 point for: Kenny Rogers

Negative one point for: anyone else

Negative two points for every open spot on the ballot

Repoz Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:27 AM | 199 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 07:33 AM (#4624001)
Why is Glavine always ahead of Schilling/Mussina? Is it the Cy Young awards? Giving an a award for an award that "you" gave him seems like a self-fulfilling prophesy so to speak. I also don't really see Edgar > Walker or Kent/Sosa > Palmeiro. It's hard to find much fault with the 16 & 8 pointers.
   2. Bhaakon Posted: December 26, 2013 at 07:39 AM (#4624002)
Hopefully the dearth of perfection continues, or else several deserving players will get dropped.

In the alternate reality where I actually had a vote, I'd be inclined to write in the top 5-7 players available, and spend the rest of my slot trying to boost borderline candidates in danger of getting the boot.
   3. Blackadder Posted: December 26, 2013 at 08:02 AM (#4624003)
It's hard to find much fault with the 16 & 8 pointers.


I don't think Biggio should be an 8 pointer, at least on the merits. There are perhaps good strategic reasons for voting for him, since he was close last year, but I am not even convinced he is one of the ten best players on the ballot.
   4. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 26, 2013 at 08:03 AM (#4624004)
I love TT, but this reeks of arrogance and hubris. It;s made worse by the fact, that I think there is some stuff that is unequivocally wrong, not to mention the things that are at minimum arguable.

On top of the stuff mentioned in #1:
A vote for Morris, Smith, Alou, Mattingly, LuGo,or Kenny Rodgers is worse than a vote for nobody. Period. Not voting for a deserving player is bad. Not voting for a deserving player, and voting for an undeserving one is worse.

Maddux and Thomas should be the 1a and 1b on this ballot. There is no rational reason for not voting for them. You may disagree with the argument against Bonds/Clemens, but it is a rational one. Pretending there is no valid argument against them, and capping anybody who refuses to vote for them at 80%, just makes you look petty and small-minded.
   5. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 26, 2013 at 08:14 AM (#4624006)
Not that I'd disagree with the rankings if I didn't care about steroids, but this is still Sabermatic Correctness run amok. I'll never be able to live down my lowly score of 90.
   6. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 08:25 AM (#4624008)

I don't think Biggio should be an 8 pointer, at least on the merits. There are perhaps good strategic reasons for voting for him, since he was close last year, but I am not even convinced he is one of the ten best players on the ballot.


TT and I agree.
   7. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:04 AM (#4624052)
If the ballot's score for perfection is plotted along the horizontal of a graph, and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the ballot yields the measure of its greatness, which allows us to rank the best and the worst ballots.

From "Understanding HOF Ballots" by Dr. J. Evans TangoTiger.
   8. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:06 AM (#4624053)
My personal ballot has 77 points
   9. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:18 AM (#4624060)
I love TT, but this reeks of arrogance and hubris.
Hoo boy, you said it!

This is, at minimum, trolling. It's poking the bear that is personified in Maury Chass. At worse, it's "arrogance and hubris". There's no discussion, no explanation, just "vote this way, or you're stupid".

Either way, it does nothing to further the "cause" of sabermetrics, and if anything will harden the battle lines. If it shocks the people who visit this site, imagine what it does to those who don't.
   10. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:21 AM (#4624062)
This is, at minimum, trolling. It's poking the bear that is personified in Maury Chass. At worse, it's "arrogance and hubris". There's no discussion, no explanation, just "vote this way, or you're stupid".


Essentially, he's determining that the ballot he'd turn in is the perfect one, and then grading downward from there.
   11. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4624065)
Essentially, he's determining that the ballot he'd turn in is the perfect one, and then grading downward from there.


Kind of like everybody here, albeit not quite so transparently.
   12. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:36 AM (#4624070)
You may disagree with the argument against Bonds/Clemens, but it is a rational one. Pretending there is no valid argument against them, and capping anybody who refuses to vote for them at 80%, just makes you look petty and small-minded.


I would happen to have the same top 10 as Tango, but there are obviously good arguments for several of the candidates beyond those ten (indeed, many others). However, unlike McGwire, Sosa, or Palmeiro, is there any question that even a heavy discount on the numbers for Clemens or Bonds would still result in an obvious Hall of Famer? Neither Bonds nor Clemens seem like terribly likable people, but - along with Maddux - these are three of the most obviously inner-circle Hall of Famers we've had on the ballot in a long time. Here are the players voted in by the writers recently:

Larkin
Blyleven
Alomar
Dawson
Rickey
Rice
Gossage
Gwynn
Ripken
Sutter
Boggs
Sandberg
Eckersley
Carter
Murray
Ozzie
Puckett
Winfield
Fisk
Perez

Wonderful players, all, but c'mon - this is the entire list of BBWAA inductees since 2000. If you had to vote for 10 players this week for the HOF, and you included this list in with the current candidates, how many of these guys would make your ballot? I would vote:

Maddux
Clemens
Bonds
Henderson
Ripken
Thomas
Gwynn
Piazza
Murray
Glavine

My point is twofold:
1) Going back to the turn of the 21st century, for a variety of reasons, the inductees have been pretty weak, as a group. The fact that you could reasonably construct a ten-person ballot, using all of the inductees since 2000 as additional candidates, and possibly have the majority of your ballot be current candidates, is both a statement of the strength of the current group, and the weakness of the past several years.

2) Is there any doubt when you go through such a process, that Bonds and Clemens aren't just uniquely strong candidates for 2014...but in history? They are such overwhelmingly overqualified candidates that you can discount them as much as you want for whatever it is you think they did, and they still should be easy picks.

I don't know if that is exactly how Tango would argue his logic for having them in the "eight point" category, but it is why I think they do belong there.


   13. BDC Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4624074)
Why all the ragging on Tango? He's just throwing some rankings up for comparison, not writing a treatise.

I got a 95, so I'm clearly feeling good about the whole thing. I fell short of the Tangonic ideal by voting for Schilling, McGwire, and Sosa; I omitted Bagwell, Raines, and Trammell. Given that all these guys are deserving, and will be (or already are) easy HOMers, there's room for some subjectivity. Schilling, McGwire, and Sosa seem to me to have some very gaudy extreme-peak moments, seasons, or short career stretches that the other three don't quite reach (not that they're lousy peak candidates, of course). I am won over by the Bloody Sock and the 70 HR and the 3 x 60. I am so shallow :)
   14. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4624075)

Kind of like everybody here, albeit not quite so transparently.


Not really. I think most of the threads show that posters have demonstrated pretty good latitude on what constitutes a perfect ballot (basically, any that uses the full 10 and doesn't include Smith or Morris). But whether one rounds out his ballot with Schilling-Biggio-Mussina or Raines-Palmeiro-Trammell isn't quibbled over.
   15. AROM Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:42 AM (#4624078)
I'd move all of the mentioned 6 pointers into 7 pointers, and also Larry Walker. That way one can earn a perfect score by voting for 10 highly qualified HOFers without necessarily matching Tom Tango's ballot.
   16. BDC Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4624081)
5 points for: La Walker

I know the guy missed a lot of games, but there's no reason to feminize him.
   17. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM (#4624086)


Not really. I think most of the threads show that posters have shown pretty good latitude on what constitutes a perfect ballot (basically, any that uses the full 10 and doesn't include Smith or Morris). But whether one rounds out his ballot with Schilling-Biggio-Mussina or Raines-Palmeiro-Trammell isn't quibbled over.


Would it have been better if he prefaced his system with the qualifier, IMHO. I'm certainly no fan boy, in fact other then peripherally, I'm not really familiar with him.
   18. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:56 AM (#4624088)
Would it have been better if he prefaced his system with the qualifier, IMHO. I'm certainly no fan boy, in fact other then peripherally, I'm not really familiar with him.


No, it would have been better had he done what AROM suggested in 15. Allowed for more 100-point scores than just the Tango ideal. A system that allows each person to see how close he comes to Complete Tangoness is asking to be mocked.

   19. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4624090)

No, it would have been better had he done what AROM suggested in 15. Allowed for more 100-point scores than just the Tango ideal. A system that allows each person to see how close he comes to Complete Tangoness is asking to be mocked.


Maybe we need to grade on a curve then.
   20. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4624091)
Not that I'd disagree with the rankings if I didn't care about steroids, but this is still Sabermatic Correctness run amok. I'll never be able to live down my lowly score of 90.


Heck, my score was 59!

-- MWE
   21. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:05 AM (#4624092)
Why all the ragging on Tango? He's just throwing some rankings up for comparison, not writing a treatise.
You've answered your own question.

Why is Raines/Biggio** and not Schilling/Mussina? Why would you "earn" points for he gives 3 or fewer points to - none of those guys are anywhere close to the 10 most deserving on this ballot. And who is he to determine "the" (or even "a") "perfect ballot"?

You could make a compelling argument for 10 or 11 guys for the final 2 spots on the ballot; he should have made those arguments, or argued why those people don't belong.

**You could make the case that Raines was shafted when Rice was elected and not him; you could make the case that Biggio deserves induction. But this year, with such a full ballot, I don't see either as top-10 and would explain my reasons if I had the bully pulpit Tango has.
   22. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4624094)
#12 You are missing the forest for the trees. Nobody, absolutely nobody, doubts Bonds/Clemens numbers would put them in inner circle lockness. The reason for not voting for them has nothing to do with their numbers, the same way that not voting for Rose or Shoeless Joe Jackson has anything to do with their numbers.
   23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4624101)
Even if I supported Bonds and Clemens at this point, it's silly to vote for them. Vote for the guys who have a chance, or who might fall off the ballot. The big steroid guys are going to have to wait for the VC anyway.
   24. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4624109)
BTW,I mostly agree with his selections; I scored a 98. But that's not the point.

And the mistakes in #21 are a function of the stupid ads running on the site. Flash is an abomination.
   25. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4624113)
I try to judge ballots on three things.

How many slots did they use? There are many more than 10 HOF players available, use your slots.
Is it consistent? I would vote for Bonds et al, but if you don't be as consistent as you can in who you vote for and against.
How is the bottom of the ballot? Since there are so many worthy HOF choices, you find enough to fill out your ballot. Silly choices are fine some years, but not with the current glut.

That's it. Arguing Raines versus Mussina seems a bit silly to me, especially since there is no rule on voting for the MOST qualified candidates. I am also up in the air on strategic voting. I get the idea for keeping guys around who deserve it, but having deserving candidates fall off is one way to relieve the congestion. It is not fair, but some dropping off so others can get in seems better than a mess where no one gets in and no one drops off either.
   26. PreservedFish Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:47 AM (#4624123)
Kind of like everybody here, albeit not quite so transparently.


Tone matters. Of course everyone has a ballot in their brains that they consider perfect. Not everyone is a dick about it.
   27. Flynn Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4624126)
Even if I supported Bonds and Clemens at this point, it's silly to vote for them. Vote for the guys who have a chance, or who might fall off the ballot.


Disagree. Trammell - that's a wasted vote. He's not doubling his vote tally in the three years he has left, so give that spot to somebody with a chance. McGwire and Sosa look equally unlikely, and I wouldn't be surprised if Palmiero falls off the ballot.

I wouldn't vote for Maddux either. He's about as strong a lock as conceivably imaginable, if he fails to get in then the uproar will almost certainly change the way the Hall elections take place. So give his spot to someone else and if carnage ensues then all the better.

So with that in mind, I've cleared out quite a bit of the backlog, and I have: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Kent, Edgar, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling. That's one too many, so I would drop Glavine under the Maddux corollary. I would be fascinated if somebody with an actual vote thinks to do this.
   28. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:55 AM (#4624131)
I wouldn't vote for Maddux either.


I get the reason and would not criticize, but personally I would have to vote for him. One of my favorite players and an inner circle great. I would want to be able to say I voted for him. I get the strategy, but would have to vote for him.
   29. PreservedFish Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4624132)
I would just vote for my top 10. Other voters can play games.
   30. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4624133)
It seems like we got his attention.


UPDATE (Thu, 10AM). In response to this thread at Primer: nowhere do I say that this is MY preferred ballot. It is simply a list that shows a point system, with the idea that you get 100 points for the perfect ballot. It’s based on a poll of Straight Arrow readers here. As I’ve noted elsewhere, Larry Walker is extremely underappreciated, and there’s really no difference between Mussina and Glavine.

You will also find fascinating results here. To take one pairing: 16% of the voters thought that Jack Morris’ career was more outstanding than Larry Walker’s. MY opinion is that Larry Walker is a well-qualified HOF, and that Jack Morris would be if we doubled or tripled the size of the HOF. But, this isn’t about advancing my opinion, but rather, showing how the readers of my site view them.

Yes, it would have been nice if I said all this upfront. But, I’m posting as the idea comes to my head, and two minutes before I walk the dog, all I had time for was a list. And when I came back, I updated the point system slightly. And, I made more changes in the comments. This is meant as a starting point for a discussion.

If someone wants to make an argument that the “perfect ballot” could potentially leave out Raines, Biggio, Glavine, Trammell, and include Schilling, Mussina, Edgar, McGwire, then feel free to make that argument. I’m not against the idea that this could be true.

I’m laying out a framework to analyze ballots, making things as transparent as possible. The implementation can be tweaked if you would like to offer some constructive criticisms.
   31. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4624136)
I would just vote for my top 10. Other voters can play games.


The only strategic voting I'd do is for the four possibles (Maddux, Glavine, Biggio and Thomas), provided I found all of them truly worthy of the Hall. I'd do it for no other reason than their elections make things easier for me in subsequent years.

Like Bitter, I'm not opposed to having those guys who aren't going to ever get the support fall off the ballot, even if they're deserving.

   32. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4624138)
Hubris? Huh. This strikes me as a lot of fun.

The only complaint I'd have is he should make the blank spots penalty heavier. Maybe 5 points off for every blank spot. That way a person with 1-2 blanks wouldn't be too heavily dinged, but the people still putting 3-4 names on the ballot would get the clobbering they deserve.

EDITED to add - he's apparently altered this. In the comments section he's proposed making it so that it's -1 for the first blank spot, an additional -3 for the second, -5 for the 3rd. .. to an additional -19 if the 10th spot is also blank. So a blank ballot would be worth -100 points, the perfectly imperfect ballot score. I like that.
   33. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4624139)
I'd move all of the mentioned 6 pointers into 7 pointers, and also Larry Walker. That way one can earn a perfect score by voting for 10 highly qualified HOFers without necessarily matching Tom Tango's ballot.


That's what mine is. I scored a 98 by voting for 6 pointers Schilling and Mussina rather than 7 pointers Biggio and Raines.
   34. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:15 PM (#4624143)
Like Bitter, I'm not opposed to having those guys who aren't going to ever get the support fall off the ballot, even if they're deserving.

But, none of Maddux, Thomas, Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Piazza, Mussina, Raines, and Schilling fall into that category. All should get elected if they're able to follow the normal ballot progression. That's 9 guys I just couldn't leave off.

That's means one of Bonds/Clemens has to go. I'd drop 'em both and add Trammell, but I agree he can be legitimately dropped as a "no hoper".
   35. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4624148)
But, none of Maddux, Thomas, Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Piazza, Mussina, Raines, and Schilling fall into that category. All should get elected if they're able to follow the normal ballot progression. That's 9 guys I just couldn't leave off.


No, but people have proposed voting for Sosa or Kent or Palmeiro to keep them on the ballot, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they don't have a chance of getting elected, then leaving them hanging around at the bottom only makes things more difficult for the guys with legitimate potential.

I'd drop 'em both and add Trammell.


And that's a guy I that strikes me as a place to sacrifice. He's got three ballots left and he's never topped 40 percent. He's not getting in through the BBWAA, and he's not going to fall all the way off. A vote for him doesn't really go anywhere.
   36. toratoratora Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM (#4624153)
My ballot would have received a 98. I dropped Trammell and Raines from my personal ballot after years of supporting their causes, Trammell more so than Raines.Instead, I replaced them with Moose and McGwire.
McGgwire was simply the greatest power hitter I've ever seen-to me he's a can't miss. Moose I wrestled with, and, despite my living in Baltimore most of his career, is a guy I never really saw as a HoF while pitching, but in the end he had accumulated too much WAR to ignore.
Truth be told, neither was my final choice. My last vote was conflicted between Raines, Trammel and Biggio and in the end Biggio's counting stats put him over the others for me
   37. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4624154)
... I got 99...

Of course I'm not near;y as sure of my ballot at Tango is of his.
   38. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4624157)
And that's a guy I that strikes me as a place to sacrifice. He's got three ballots left and he's never topped 40 percent. He's not getting in through the BBWAA, and he's not going to fall all the way off. A vote for him doesn't really go anywhere.

That's a fair decision. I just don't have a 10th player I feel strongly about.
   39. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4624167)
Yes, it would have been nice if I said all this upfront. But, I’m posting as the idea comes to my head, and two minutes before I walk the dog, all I had time for was a list. And when I came back, I updated the point system slightly. And, I made more changes in the comments. This is meant as a starting point for a discussion....I’m laying out a framework to analyze ballots, making things as transparent as possible. The implementation can be tweaked if you would like to offer some constructive criticisms.
1. Don't call it "Perfect".
2. This isn't brain surgery. If you don't have time to do a good job before walking the dog, the world won't end if the post is delayed 15 or 20 minutes (or even, if it's a long walk, an hour or 2).
   40. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:03 PM (#4624175)
1. Don't call it "Perfect".
2. This isn't brain surgery. If you don't have time to do a good job before walking the dog, the world won't end if the post is delayed 15 or 20 minutes (or even, if it's a long walk, an hour or 2).


3. Recognize and respect that not everyone is as indifferent to steroids as you are. If you can't do that, then don't complain if those people treat your opinions with the same indifference.
   41. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4624189)
... I got 99...


You got 99 points, and Morris ain't one.
   42. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4624199)
Murray Chass's ballot:

Of the 36 names on it, three have the boxes next to their names marked with an X: Jack Morris, of course; Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine.


is worth 8 points. I'm gonna assume that's the lowest score of anyone who is not just submitting a blank ballot.
   43. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:54 PM (#4624202)
This isn't brain surgery. If you don't have time to do a good job before walking the dog, the world won't end if the post is delayed 15 or 20 minutes (or even, if it's a long walk, an hour or 2).

Why would he need to give a full explanation to his readers who would have been fully aware of the ongoing conversation on his blog? So shrieking dumbasses elsewhere wouldn't have an excuse to be their shrieking-dumbass selves if and when it got linked elsewhere?
   44. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4624206)
If you don't have time to do a good job before walking the dog, the world won't end if the post is delayed 15 or 20 minutes (or even, if it's a long walk, an hour or 2).


Sure up until you have a heart attack walking the dog (reference to event today in my real life, if you care see the OT-P thread).

Anyway blogs posts can be thrown together just fine, though they should come with a caveat to minimize needing to go back and explain I think.
   45. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 02:04 PM (#4624211)
I haven't spent a ton of time thinking about the Hall of Fame vote this year--the BBWAA's actions of the past couple years have made me sour on the whole topic, which really sucks, because this should be fun, getting to do this for the first time with players whom I actually got to watch play during their peak (I'm 28)--but I just got a list of the names and drew up a ballot, and scored a 96.

I was surprised to learn that Bagwell was that strong of a candidate.
   46. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 02:10 PM (#4624219)
Murray Chass's ballot:


Of the 36 names on it, three have the boxes next to their names marked with an X: Jack Morris, of course; Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine.


is worth 8 points. I'm gonna assume that's the lowest score of anyone who is not just submitting a blank ballot.


The more updated version would result in a ballot worth -31 points, which seems about right.


Why would he need to give a full explanation to his readers who would have been fully aware of the ongoing conversation on his blog?


Reading the comments, it doesn't seem like all of his readers were fully aware of what he was going for either.

That said, with his explanation, I've got no problem with his post.
   47. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 26, 2013 at 02:10 PM (#4624220)
and Of course now that I've read post 30 it is too late to edit 37...
   48. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4624249)

I was surprised to learn that Bagwell was that strong of a candidate.


Maybe it isn't roid stench that's holding him back if you're representative of the average passive fan, which is really the category the majority of sportswriters fall into.
   49. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4624263)
I mean, WAR says that Jeff Bagwell and Sammy Sosa were roughly equal players from 1998 through 2001. (Sosa had 27 WAR, Bagwell 25.)

Sammy Sosa hit .310 and averaged 60 homers and 150 RBI a year during that stretch. Jeff Bagwell hit .300 and averaged 40 homers and 120 RBI during that stretch.

Defense and base-running and walks are important and all, but, ya know, ####. 243 homers in 4 seasons!!! A .660 slugging percentage!!!

Bagwell looks like a typical Hall of Fame first baseman. Sammy Sosa looks like a legendarily great player.

I kind of know what the Murray Chasses of the world are going through: This is just one of those spots where WAR is painting a completely different picture from what most people watching baseball at the time were thinking...and the traditional stats support our view too!
   50. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 26, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4624269)
Here's Tango's response on his blog to a comment I made in #40 above:

Here’s a comment that misses the forest for the syringes:

Recognize and respect that not everyone is as indifferent to steroids as you are. If you can’t do that, then don’t complain if those people treat your opinions with the same indifference.

I earlier said:

You can do more, like having two different types of scoring, one that has Bonds/Clemens getting 16 points, and one that has Bonds/Clemens getting negative one point. So, do something, anything, that advances the discussion.

So, do something, anything, that advances the discussion. Do we really want to have Groundhog Day every December?


The only problem with that response is that this "earlier" clarification was posted only on the Comments page of the blog site. It wasn't even made on the blog page itself, let alone here. So we're now expected not only to read the blog itself---fair enough---but also to read "earlier" comments on the blog's "Comments" page that were made all of ten minutes before I posted #40 on the BTF thread. I'm flattered that Tangotiger thinks that I'm that diligent, but this is a bit like complaining that someone hasn't read the 2-pt. fine print on a 30-day warranty contract.
   51. DA Baracus is a "bloodthirsty fan of Atlanta." Posted: December 26, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4624284)
Look, he doesn't have time for your complaints, he's busy walking the dog.
   52. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 26, 2013 at 03:49 PM (#4624301)
Since I can't respond in Tango's forum (he's not accepting new members) to his high-and-mightiness, I'll do so here since it's evident he's reading:


1. Don’t call it “Perfect”.

This is funny, because several times I’ve seen in many forums, someone say something like “that’s as perfect a ballot as I’ve seen”.

That’s the whole idea behind this! To take those ballots, and give it a score. And whatever maximum score you get, well… what else am I supposed to call it when you nail everything?

Maybe instead of “perfect”, I should have said:
“having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be”

Is that better? Well, uh, duh, that’s what Google gives me when I type:
define:perfect

So, now, it’s not good enough that I use a single word to describe the above quote. I actually have to put that entire quote in the headline? The word perfect… uh, perfectly conveys what I wanted to say
.
Which, of course, shows the hubris. Who are you to decide who has "all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be”? If you'd named the post "MY Perfect HOF Ballot", I wouldn't have a problem with it. But by not qualifying it, and then assigning points (with the idea that only someone who agrees with you is "perfect") is arrogance beyond belief. I'll repeat, as others have: There are many right answers after Maddux: Big Hall or small Hall? PED absolutist, agnostic, or somewhere in between? Does post-season count a lot, a little, or not at all? But even someone who believes the general "rules" as you do could swap out any among 7 or 8 guys for the last 2 spots on the ballot and not be wrong - as is generally pointed out by anyone who proclaims that a writer's ballot is "perfect".

The trolls keep on coming. While I’m advancing a structure to have a discussion, here’s helpful advice given to me as to how to blog:


2. This isn’t brain surgery. If you don’t have time to do a good job before walking the dog, the world won’t end if the post is delayed 15 or 20 minutes (or even, if it’s a long walk, an hour or 2).

Good job? I’m blogging. The day I think of this as a job is the day I quit. I have an idea in my head, I post it. Sometimes, I’ll edit it. But, I’m not spending one second more than I have to, to make sure that people are getting the full scope of what I’m trying to do.
Had I waited, the chance of me making this post is about 10%. I don’t think seriously enough about this stuff to actually prioritize and develop.

You are walking in the middle of whatever I’m thinking.

It’s ok if you don’t get it. Just say that you can’t interpret a 100-word 3-verb thread, and walk away.

More insightful commentary. You post a list to your blog with the title "Perfect HOF Ballot" with zero explanation, then get pissy with people who interpret it as, well, the perfect HOF ballot.

Specifically, you said "But, I’m not spending one second more than I have to, to make sure that people are getting the full scope of what I’m trying to do" then updated the post when it's obvious people misunderstood what you goal was, then started making snarky remarks about those same people.

You must be a pleasure to live with.
   53. Baldrick Posted: December 26, 2013 at 04:12 PM (#4624310)
I think both Biggio and Raines are deserving HOFers, absolutely. But I really do not get why they would be better candidates than the guys below them on this list. In fact, not only are Biggio/Raines not in a higher tier, I think it's pretty clear that (at the very least) Trammell and Walker are superior candidates.

Is there anyone who'd rank Biggio ahead of those guys that can lay out the case for why he's better?

Biggio was an above-average player from 1989-2001. Walker had his cup of coffee in 89 and was a full-time player after that. Over that period, he was basically just as valuable. Fewer games, but higher quality. They're within a couple wins of each other over that period (both by WAR and WAA). I suppose that requires you believing his defensive numbers - but he certainly LOOKED like an excellent fielder and his numbers aren't crazy or anything (saving 6 or 7 runs a year on average).

After 2001, Biggio churned out six years of extremely marginal work. I'm not interested in DEDUCTING credit from him, but those six years add very little to his case. Meanwhile, Walker was excellent in 2002 and 2003, and was a high quality player in limited PA for his final two years. Again, fewer games than Biggio. But Walker's 2002 by itself is probably more valuable than the final six years of Biggio's career combined.
   54. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 26, 2013 at 04:29 PM (#4624315)
99.
As posted many times already though, a 'perfect' ballot could be anything from approximately 65-100 depending on who you like on the ballot. Fill in all ten slots, whether you go Schilling or Mussina, Trammel or Raines is irrelevant, they are all qualified.
If you are making a PED stand then I can see that, but you can still fill in all 10 spots. If you are not holding back Maddux for some first ballot penalty craziness then Thomas has to be included; there is no excuse to omit him whatsoever.
   55. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 04:31 PM (#4624316)
I got a perfect ballot! What do I win?
   56. bobm Posted: December 26, 2013 at 04:41 PM (#4624321)
I got a perfect ballot! What do I win?

An opportunity for dialogue and education
   57. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 26, 2013 at 04:45 PM (#4624324)
For me a "perfect ballot" is any ten people from the 5 pointers (Kent, Walker, Sosa) on up. That's 17 qualified candidates and only the staunchest "vote for no one from this era" voter can't get a ten person ballot. You don't want Roger and Barry? Fine, take Walker, take Edgar, take Moose.

But get ten and get them from that group and as far as I'm concerned you have a "perfect ballot." It may not be my 10 but I can respect it. If you can't get to ten from that group or you vote for Kenny Rogers over Mike Mussina or something like that then I am going to need a LOT of convincing.

EDITED for clarity.
   58. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: December 26, 2013 at 05:02 PM (#4624334)
Wow, I got 64 for my eight person ballot that excludes Bonds and Clemens. I guess I suck. It's funny that I would have gotten more points for filling it out with Kenny Rogers and Luis Gonzalez. Interesting, and by interesting I mean stupid, methodology.

You don't want Roger and Barry? Fine, take Walker, take Edgar, take Moose.

I guess the problem with this is that I don't consider Walker, Edgar or Mussina HOFers. Everybody from six points down is on the wrong side of the fence for me. The club by it's nature is exclusive, 17 is waaaay too many.
   59. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 05:11 PM (#4624338)
I guess the problem with this is that I don't consider Walker, Edgar or Mussina HOFers.

What's keeping Mussina out?

I mean, 270 wins, .638 W%, 3.68 ERA, 123 ERA+, 3560 IP, 83 WAR.

He's got the goods from either a stathead or a traditional perspective.
   60. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: December 26, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4624344)

What's keeping Mussina out?


More of a compiler, I don't really go for those guys. Five all-star games, one top-3 Cy finish for a HOFer is pretty weak. I'm looking for guys who were considered the best of the best when they were playing.

Although, if I had to list a ninth man, it would likely be Mussina.
   61. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4624348)
What's keeping Mussina out?


How good could he have been if he wasn't even called on to pitch in the All-Star Game in his own home ballpark?
   62. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 05:25 PM (#4624349)
How good could he have been if he wasn't even called on to pitch in the All-Star Game in his own home ballpark?

I really think All-Star games is a terrible way to look at SPs.
   63. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4624359)
Tone matters. Of course everyone has a ballot in their brains that they consider perfect. Not everyone is a dick about it.


Please explain to me how Tango was being a dick about it. I'll quote his entire original post for ease:


16 points for each of: Bonds, Maddux, Clemens

8 point for each of: Fr Thomas, Piazza, Bagwell

7 points for each of: Raines, Biggio, Glavine, Trammell

That’s 100 for the perfect ballot.

6 points for: Schilling, Mussina, Edgar, McGwire

5 points for: La Walker, Sosa, Kent

4 points for: Palmeiro, McGriff

3 points for: Mattingly, Morris

2 points for: Alou, Lee Smith, Lu Gonzalez

1 point for: Kenny Rogers

Negative one point for: anyone else

Negative two points for every open spot on the ballot

I’m interested to see which HOF voter has the best ballot and the worst ballot.


The audacity! I think maybe it's you who's being a presumptious dick about it.
   64. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4624363)
Murray Chass's ballot:


Of the 36 names on it, three have the boxes next to their names marked with an X: Jack Morris, of course; Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine.


What an #######
   65. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4624365)

More of a compiler, I don't really go for those guys. Five all-star games, one top-3 Cy finish for a HOFer is pretty weak. I'm looking for guys who were considered the best of the best when they were playing.


Do you have Curt Schilling in your ballot? How about Tom Glavine? What's the difference between Mussina and Glavine?
   66. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4624366)
Yeah, the "of course" after Morris's name is simply "Hi, my name is Murray Chass, and I'm a troll."
   67. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4624367)
The audacity! I think maybe it's you who's being a presumptious dick about it.


What would you expect from the stridently dumb?
   68. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4624369)
What would you expect from the stridently dumb?


Exactly that!
   69. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:04 PM (#4624370)
I have everyone seven points and above save Bonds and Clemens. So yes Glavine, no Schilling.

What's the difference between Mussina and Glavine?

Glav made 10 all-star teams and had six top-3 Cys, winning two. There is every indication he was considered one of the greats of his time. So, yeah, there is a difference.
   70. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:08 PM (#4624371)

Do you have Curt Schilling in your ballot? How about Tom Glavine? What's the difference between Mussina and Glavine?


Moose was better.
   71. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:14 PM (#4624373)
Glav made 10 all-star teams and had six top-3 Cys, winning two. There is every indication he was considered one of the greats of his time. So, yeah, there is a difference.


Mussina's top 5 season by bWAR (based on runs allowed, innings, ballpark and team defense):

8.2
7.1
6.6
6.1
5.6

sum 33.6

Glavine's top 5 seasons:

8.5
6.1
5.8
5.5
4.9

sum 30.8

Schilling's top 5 seasons:

8.8
8.7
7.9
6.3
6.2

sum 37.9

Seems to me like you have this ass backwards, Schilling easily has the highest peak of the three, but there's little distinguishing Mussian from Glavine. Glavine was treated better by the voters, but that's not the same as actually being better.
   72. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:17 PM (#4624374)
Yay WAR! Yawn.
   73. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4624376)
Schilling > Mussina > Glavine.
   74. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:22 PM (#4624377)
I guess you don't think runs allowed and innings pitched are valid ways to judge pitchers. Nah, All Star appearances are clearly the only way. I guess Dave Conception is a clear HOFer in your mind.
   75. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:23 PM (#4624378)
Schilling > Mussina > Glavine.


They're equal in my book. I don't get at all why anyone would say Glavine is far superior though. Schilling's the only one I could see that case for as he has the highest peak. Glavine had the longest and most mediocre career out of those three, career 86 ERA- vs. 80 for Schilling and 82 for Moose.
   76. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:26 PM (#4624379)
The audacity! I think maybe it's you who's being a presumptious dick about it.
First, the title of the post. There is nothing "perfect" about this list.

Second, the presumption that the only proper view of PEDs is his and his readers'.

Third, the presumption that Raines, Biggio, and Glavine are clearly better choices than the next 8 or 9 guys on the list (after all, you only get a "perfect ballot" if you choose them.

Fourth, the presumption that every voter thinks there are 10 worthy HOFers - many people think the hall is too big (I've seen the opinion that it's about double the size it should be).

Of course, I'm just one "of the dumbest and most strident on the entire internet", so what do I know?
   77. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:29 PM (#4624380)

Glav made 10 all-star teams and had six top-3 Cys, winning two. There is every indication he was considered one of the greats of his time. So, yeah, there is a difference.


Moose was clearly the best pitcher in the AL in 2001 and Glavine wasn't even the best pitcher on his team in 1998 . Either way, Kevin Brown probably got jobbed again.
   78. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:33 PM (#4624382)
Ignoring the fact that this was based on a roll of his readers and that its only intended as a framework where anyone could substitute there own point system, you're basically saying that anyone who has their own opinion on who is HOF worthy and who is not is a dick. Admit if it weren't Tango who posted this, nobody here would have a problem with it.
   79. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:35 PM (#4624383)
WAR is an extremely poor way to evaluate Glavine because it ignores the fact that he consistently outperformed his peripherals. That's hardly news and I'm sure that you've heard that before. If you compare best seasons RA+ and innings, Glavine's and Schilling's peaks are much closer and Glavine kills him on durability.

I'd vote for Glavine over Schilling.

Also, I think people often forget that peripherals are good predictors of future performance but they aren't better than ERA+ or RA+ about telling us what actually happened.
   80. Baldrick Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:35 PM (#4624384)
Yay WAR! Yawn

If choosing between metrics, I'll happily side with the one using WAR rather than the one using 'all star game appearances.'

Of course, it's not just WAR that says Schilling/Mussina are equivalent to (or maybe better than) Glavine. It's basically every form of statistical analysis. You're the one defending the peculiar position; do you have any justification for it beyond "Glavine received more plaudits at the time"? And if not, are you willing to defend that this really is a useful model for assessing who was better?

Glavine CYA in 98 was not a terrible choice, but he was almost certainly not the most deserving candidate. He won that award because his teammates scored a few extra runs and got him 20 wins. Maddux was on the same team, threw more innings with a better ERA, had a MUCH better K/BB ratio, etc. Brown was also quite likely better.

If Schilling had not been competing against Randy Johnson, Pedro, etc. he very easily could have won multiple CYAs. That Glavine won two CYAs is a great feather in his cap, but those years weren't any better than Schilling in the early 2000s. They just happened to produce silverware.
   81. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:37 PM (#4624385)
WAR is an extremely poor way to evaluate Glavine because it ignores the fact that he consistently outperformed his peripherals. That's hardly news and I'm sure that you've heard that before. If you compare best seasons RA+ and innings, Glavine's and Schilling's peaks are much closer and Glavine kills him on durability.


Baseball Reference WAR, unlike FanGraphs, uses runs allowed as its main component. I was quoting Baseball Reference WAR earlier in this thread, it has nothing to do with peripherals.
   82. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:42 PM (#4624386)
you're basically saying that anyone who has their own opinion on who is HOF worthy and who is not is a dick.


No one's said anything close to that (and you're insulting others' intelligence).
   83. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:44 PM (#4624387)
Mussina has 10 yrs. 5+ WAR vs. 4 yrs. for Glavine. How about WAA 48.6- 39.1 ERA+ 123-118 Glavine was at 121 when he had Mussina's IP. Moose has him 82.7-74 in WAR in 900 less IP. The only way Glavine gets into his neighborhood is through his hitting which Mussina never got to do.
The edge for Moose is small but clearly measurable.
   84. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:46 PM (#4624389)
You're right SoSH. Still there was absolutely nothing in the language of the post that would imply that Tango was being a dick, you have to dig deep into his implied motives and at that point you're just looking for #### to get angry about.
   85. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:47 PM (#4624390)
Tom Glavine averaged 5.3 K/9 during his career.

Among pitchers with 162 innings pitched last year, that total would have ranked...4th to last. Only Jeremy Guthrie, Kevin Correia, and Joe Saunders were worse.

Crazy how quickly the game has changed in that regard since his retirement.
   86. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:48 PM (#4624391)
Glavine also gets bonus points for having this unusual bit of trivia:

His very first season was in 1987. Pitching for the Braves, he went 2 and 4 with a 5.54 ERA.

His very last season was in 2008. Pitching for the Braves, he went 2 and 4 with a 5.54 ERA.
   87. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:49 PM (#4624392)
Baseball Reference WAR, unlike FanGraphs, uses runs allowed as its main component. I was quoting Baseball Reference WAR earlier in this thread, it has nothing to do with peripherals.

Did not know that, thanks.
   88. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:54 PM (#4624394)
Ignoring the fact that this was based on a roll of his readers and that its only intended as a framework where anyone could substitute there own point system, you're basically saying that anyone who has their own opinion on who is HOF worthy and who is not is a dick. Admit if it weren't Tango who posted this, nobody here would have a problem with it.
Read what I've posted.

Tango didn't add his disclaimers about it being "a framework" until after he was questioned. He gives no reason for this being "perfect" other than a reader's poll (a poll, I'd guess, of a bunch of people who largely share his biases). He takes the position that he's right (or, his readers as a group are) and anyone who disagrees is "wrong".

Where is his reasoning for the 7-point guys over the 5- or 6-point guys? If he has none, don't call me names; if he does, and doesn't state it, don't blame me if I disagree.

The original post comes off dickish. The update starts off even worse: "In response to this thread at Primer: nowhere do I say that this is MY preferred ballot." because nowhere did he even hint that it wasn't; we were left to our own interpretation, and when we interpreted differently he and you started throwing rocks.
   89. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 26, 2013 at 07:02 PM (#4624396)
Still there was absolutely nothing in the language of the post that would imply that Tango was being a dick, you have to dig deep into his implied motives and at that point you're just looking for #### to get angry about.
I'll give you 4 lines:

That’s 100 for the perfect ballot.
Bad. Only the ballots that include those 10 players are "perfect".

Negative one point for: anyone else. Worse. Only the players I've listed deserve a vote on the current ballot.

Negative two points for every open spot on the ballot. Worsser. Only ballots that agree with me and my readers that there are 10 HOF players on the current ballot should be considered.

I’m interested to see which HOF voter has the best ballot and the worst ballot. Worstest. I'm going to grade your papers (in the "Update", he tells you to make sure to show your work, even though he didn't).
   90. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 07:03 PM (#4624398)
The original post comes off dickish. The update starts off even worse: "In response to this thread at Primer: nowhere do I say that this is MY preferred ballot." because nowhere did he even hint that it wasn't; we were left to our own interpretation, and when we interpreted differently he and you started throwing rocks.


No one started throwing rocks until people started calling Tango a dick and complained about his tone for the 50th time. Read Tango's original post, there's nothing even close to "dickish" about it. There's one sentence of commentary after the ranking system. The only complaint you could levy against it is that the ranking system itself is not flexible enough (and indeed I did that in the comments of his blog).
   91. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4624400)
TDF, I'm guessing you get very offended quite often throughout each and every day if this is your standard for calling someone a dick.

"Dude try this coffee, it's the best"
"You're such an #######, how can you presume that this coffee is the best when there are many other candidates for the best coffee? Also don't tell me to try anything."
   92. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 26, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4624401)
Mussina has 10 yrs. 5+ WAR vs. 4 yrs. for Glavine. How about WAA 48.6- 39.1 ERA+ 123-118 Glavine was at 121 when he had Mussina's IP. Moose has him 82.7-74 in WAR in 900 less IP. The only way Glavine gets into his neighborhood is through his hitting which Mussina never got to do.
The edge for Moose is small but clearly measurable.


1991 to 2009
Moose, 3563 IP 123 ERA+
Glavine 3767 IP 124 ERA+

:-)

but Moose had much better peripherals...
   93. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 26, 2013 at 09:17 PM (#4624429)
1991 to 2009
Moose, 3563 IP 123 ERA+
Glavine 3767 IP 124 ERA+

:-)

but Moose had much better peripherals...

Unearned runs
Moose 101
Glavine 166

Oh, and of course: Curt Shilling 65
   94. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 26, 2013 at 09:20 PM (#4624430)
"Dude try this coffee, it's the best"
"You're such an #######, how can you presume that this coffee is the best when there are many other candidates for the best coffee? Also don't tell me to try anything."
Well, if you said "My coffee is the best, if you don't agree with me you're wrong, and if you think a kind of coffee I don't like is better than mine I can't even talk to you" then I think I'd be right to call you a dick.

But none of this even started until Tango's very condescending "Update", at least 3 1/2 hours after discussion started here. Read the comments here before (30), and especially starting with his reply to Andy's post, which Andy posted here at (50) - THAT'S when things started to get personal. Before, it was mostly "Perfect? Really?"

On a side note, the fact that he couldn't stoop to respond to either Andy or I here, but in his blog where he knew new users couldn't register and reply, subtracts more from my opinion of him in this instance.
   95. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 09:23 PM (#4624431)
We'll just ignore Mussina's 12 pt. lead in WAR, his .38 pt. lead in FIP, and 10 pt. lead in WAA because of 1 point of ERA+. I think the differences would be much clearer if they switched leagues.
   96. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 09:33 PM (#4624435)
Unearned runs
Moose 101
Glavine 166


In JSLF's time frame, it was just a 130-101, with Glavine throwing 202 extra innings. Not insignificant, but not the oft-cited Brown v. Bore of Ostentation case either.

   97. bobm Posted: December 26, 2013 at 09:48 PM (#4624438)
I think the differenes would be much clearer if they switched leagues.

BB REF PI Split Finder - For cumulative seasons, vs. Non-P (within Opposition Defensive Position)

                                                                                                                       
Player             Split From   To   G  OPS OPStot  ERA        IP    H    R   ER  HR   BB IBB   SO    PA   BA  OBP  SLG
Tom Glavine    vs. Non-P 1987 2008 682 .726   .697 3.79 4023.3332 4162 1705 1693 352 1467 145 2160 17276 .268 .331 .395
Mike Mussina   vs. Non-P 1991 2008 537 .697   .696 3.69    3548.2 3458 1482 1455 376  785  29 2793 14548 .256 .298 .400


   98. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:47 PM (#4624451)
Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I've read much of Tango's work here and found it quite valuable, and even without his belated qualification I'd still get a 90 on his little test. But like Sheehan and Law, he needs to brush up on his social skills, not to mention his honesty of discourse as documented in #50.
   99. Booey Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:59 PM (#4624456)
I guess the problem with this is that I don't consider Walker, Edgar or Mussina HOFers. Everybody from six points down is on the wrong side of the fence for me. The club by it's nature is exclusive, 17 is waaaay too many.


It's not that exclusive, though. Plenty of people think it should be, but it never has been and it seems kinda unfair to modern players to raise the bar that high only now.

And there's 17 (at least) qualified candidates now because:

A) writers haven't been electing enough people to begin with

B) steroid hysteria has created an even larger backlog, and

C) a lot of qualified players are hitting the ballot at the same time, but that's following a period where there were relatively few worthies hitting the ballot for the first time, creating an appearance of too many candidates that isn't really accurate. If two worthy newbies debuted each year for 3 years, no one would have a problem with that. But if 6 debuted in one season sandwiched between two seasons of none, people say that it's too many and we need to raise our standards, even though it's really the exact same amount of players overall. There's typically about 20 HOFers per decade, and that hasn't changed with the 90's or 2000's. By pure coincidence many of those 20 just happen to be hitting the ballot within a 7 year span or so.
   100. vivaelpujols Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:01 PM (#4624458)
I agree that Tango can be arrogant and even rude at times. This is not one of those times.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Downtown Bookie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 17, 2014
(7 - 11:33am, Apr 17)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1437 - 11:30am, Apr 17)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogHartlaub: For the love of the snot rocket: Why Bumgarner’s Farmer John is good for baseball
(4 - 11:30am, Apr 17)
Last: just plain joe

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(265 - 11:28am, Apr 17)
Last: Spivey

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(196 - 11:27am, Apr 17)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogPaine: Advanced Stats Love Jackie Robinson
(13 - 11:26am, Apr 17)
Last: SoCalDemon

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(78 - 11:25am, Apr 17)
Last: Gonfalon B.

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-17-2014
(8 - 11:23am, Apr 17)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(879 - 11:09am, Apr 17)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogChris Resop - The Most Interesting Reliever in the World
(2 - 10:57am, Apr 17)
Last: salvomania

NewsblogExposition:The Jonah Keri Mega Q&A
(9 - 10:32am, Apr 17)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogNightengale: Pujols nears 500 home runs...and no one seems to care
(72 - 10:01am, Apr 17)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(62 - 9:44am, Apr 17)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogVerducci: Overuse of young pitchers fueling MLB's Tommy John surgery problem
(44 - 9:39am, Apr 17)
Last: Arbitol Dijaler

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(54 - 9:03am, Apr 17)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7069 seconds
52 querie(s) executed