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 27, 2012

The 2013 Hall Of Fame Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

The 2013 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

Updated 1:55 ~ 194 Full Ballots ~ (33.9% of vote ~ based on last year)

70.1 - Biggio
60.3 - Piazza
59.8 - Raines
59.3 - Bagwell
59.3 - J. Morris
45.4 - Bonds
44.3 - Clemens
39.2 - Schilling
38.1 - L. Smith
37.6 - Trammell
35.6 - E. Martinez
20.1 - McGriff
18.6 - D. Murphy
16.5 - L. Walker
14.4 - McGwire
13.4 - S. Sosa
12.9 - Raffy
  8.8 - Mattingly
———————————
  3.1 - Lofton
  2.1 - Bernie Williams
  1.7 - P. Rose (goofy write-in’s)
  0.5 - D. Wells
  0.5 - J. Franco
  0.5 - S. Alomar Jr.
  0.5 - S. Green

Repoz Posted: December 27, 2012 at 01:08 PM | 832 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 6 of 9 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > 
   501. Repoz Posted: January 08, 2013 at 11:03 AM (#4341865)
David Borges beat writer for the New Haven Register is member BBWAA?

Yes...but I don't believe his vote counts yet. Not enough time in.
   502. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 08, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4341879)
Have you added Marc Topkin (Tampa Bay Times)?

Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Piazza. His remarks on McGriff and Smith are cryptic; Smith "can't be ignored," but I can't tell whether he got Topkin's vote.

   503. bobm Posted: January 08, 2013 at 11:14 AM (#4341882)
The case against Griffey, which is going to have a ton of partisans, is that he was so disappointing in his 30s that you have to wonder if he really cared about baseball enough, if he was gritty and grindery enough, and so on.

Obviously, if he really cared, Griffey should have taken steroids. For health purposes.

   504. Repoz Posted: January 08, 2013 at 11:17 AM (#4341885)
Have you added Marc Topkin (Tampa Bay Times)?

Yeah, have that.

One biggie still missing is Verducci...and after last night's appearance on MLB, I'm not sure I want it.
   505. zonk Posted: January 08, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4341890)
Our long, seasonal nightmare is over tomorrow, yes?
   506. icho1977 Posted: January 08, 2013 at 11:42 AM (#4341916)
The Mike Shalin hall of fame ballot (10):Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, Piazza, Morris, Raines, Martinez, Bagwell, Schilling and Mattingly
   507. Adam S Posted: January 08, 2013 at 01:26 PM (#4342027)
MLB.com votes are in. 14/16 for Biggio. 2 more Chass ballots, listing Morris alone.
   508. Poulanc Posted: January 08, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4342082)
I think the Griffey of the 2000s will be stuck in voters minds,


I can't imagine any other image that would be in voters' minds than Griffey finishing off one of his homerun swings. I'd think the voters are going to have images of Griffey participating in HR derbies with his hat on backwards.
   509. JJ1986 Posted: January 08, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4342086)
2 more Chass ballots, listing Morris alone.


Even if you don't want to vote for someone who played after 1998 or so, why not Trammell?
   510. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 02:36 PM (#4342089)
I think the Griffey of the 2000s will be stuck in voters minds,


No, the Griffey of the 1990s will.

The 2000s Griffey has already faded from memory.
   511. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 08, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4342093)
Nate Silver has an interesting article up that looks at HOF voting (and cites this thread). He looks at how players do with voters who support Bonds vs. those who don't. Among Bonds supporters, he finds Piazza, Bagwell, and Biggio all getting over 75% of the vote, but they all get fewer votes from those voting against Bonds. Which could imply that broad-brush steroid suspicions might keep all 3 of these guys out of the Hall (or not, but it's an interesting analysis).
   512. Danny Posted: January 08, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4342097)
The worst:
Ken Gurnick

Ballot: Morris

Like Bert Blyleven, Morris has flaws (a 3.90 ERA for example). But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and MVP votes in five. As for players from the Steroid Era, I won't vote for any of them.

The best(?), though the absence of Schilling is weird.
Tracy Ringolsby

Ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Morris, Murphy, Piazza, Raines, Trammell, Larry Walker

Sad part of this year's Hall of Fame voting is it doesn't seem likely that any of the votes are going to really matter, because there is a segment of the voters with an axe to grind. They want to turn this year's vote into the baseball version of the Salem Witch Hunt. And they have not only indicted and convicted Bonds and Clemens of wrongdoing in their minds, but are so intent on their anger toward Bonds and Clemens they will take it out on others and turn in blank ballots. Election to the Hall of Fame requires a player to be listed on 75 percent of the ballots cast. A blank ballot is a vote for no one but has to be counted if it is submitted. Each voter who turns in a blank ballot is not only expressing displeasure toward Clemens and Bonds, but also hurting the candidacy of every other eligible player. Nobody ever questioned Murphy's character, but he will suffer more than anyone else from the blank ballots because this is his 15th and final year of eligibility. There is no next year for him, like there is for the other candidates. The outrage over PEDs is the in-thing, but it is so inconsistent. My biggest challenge this year was trimming my list of candidates to 10 players, with apologies to Smith.
   513. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 02:46 PM (#4342107)
Like Bert Blyleven, Morris


...wasn't?

has flaws (a 3.90 ERA for example). But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and MVP votes in five. As for players from the Steroid Era, I won't vote for any of them.


"Cy Young Award votes." Hilarious.
   514. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 08, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4342112)
Among Bonds supporters, he finds Piazza, Bagwell, and Biggio all getting over 75% of the vote, but they all get fewer votes from those voting against Bonds. Which could imply that broad-brush steroid suspicions might keep all 3 of these guys out of the Hall (or not, but it's an interesting analysis).


This isn't a surprising result for a couple of reasons:

-- There are more than a few voters who have indicated that they won't vote for anyone from the "steroid era"

-- Piazza, Bagwell, and Biggio can all be linked at least superficially to possible PED usage (Piazza via Chass, Bagwell/Biggio via Pearlman and the Houston connection) and that's given another group of voters reasons to say "Wait a minute here" even if they aren't doing a full "keep 'em all out" approach.

Nate should probably do a similar analysis next year when Maddux comes on the ballot.

-- MWE
   515. Pat D Posted: January 08, 2013 at 02:49 PM (#4342115)
Marty Noble
Ballot: Morris

I'm not comfortable with the suspicions I have, so I'm voting for only Morris and hoping for a bolt of wisdom from Kenesaw Mountain Landis or Lee MacPhail. Perhaps a trip to Cooperstown will provide guidance. This is my first vote for Morris. I've been swayed by evidence presented this year about his complete games and innings. Moreover, the Giants' postseason pitching last year reminded me of Morris' brilliant performance against the Braves in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.


Because any time you're asking for wisdom from a man who kept African-Americans out of the game for close to 30 years, you obviously deserve to have a HOF vote.
   516. JJ1986 Posted: January 08, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4342117)
Roy Oswalt - CYA votes in six seasons
Doc Gooden - CYA votes in five seasons
Kevin Brown - CYA votes in five seasons
Ron Guidry - CYA votes in six seasons
David Cone - CYA votes in five seasons

And a player who might have a tough time getting in:

Mike Mussina - CYA votes in nine seasons
   517. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4342127)
Nate Silver has an interesting article up that looks at HOF voting


This was odd from Silver's article:

Some voters have sought to apply a standard in which players are given full credit for statistics they compiled during seasons in which they were not suspected of steroid use, while discarding or discounting those in which they were. But Bonds and Clemens would probably have qualified for the Hall of Fame even by this rule. News accounts suggest that Bonds began using steroids after the 1998 season. By that time, he had already won three M.V.P. awards and eight Gold Gloves and had hit 411 home runs and stolen 445 bases. On the basis of Wins Above Replacement, he would have ranked as roughly the 30th best player in baseball history had he retired then. The same sort of reasoning does not work for McGwire, whose signature seasons were associated with steroid use, or for Palmeiro, who was found to have used banned substances late in his career and whose Hall of Fame case rests largely upon his longevity.


Why not for Palmeiro? He didn't test positive until there were about 20 minutes left to his career.
   518. AROM Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4342138)
Because any time you're asking for wisdom from a man who kept African-Americans out of the game for close to 30 years


That's over the top. At worst Landis might have delayed integration by a few years. It's not like teams were signing any black players before 1920 (well, at least after Walker and the implementation of the ban). And had the White Sox not thrown the world series, or at least never been caught, it's not like teams were on the verge of signing black players only to be thwarted by that despicable old man.
   519. Don Malcolm Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4342143)
Among Bonds supporters, he finds Piazza, Bagwell, and Biggio all getting over 75% of the vote, but they all get fewer votes from those voting against Bonds.

Why just Bonds for this? Why not Clemens? Haven't RTFA, so I don't know if Nate linked them together or not.

Clearly ballots with Bonds and Clemens on them have more votes/ballot than others, and that might also factor into what Mike was saying.

Why not for Palmeiro? He didn't test positive until there were about 20 minutes left to his career.

Now that Nate's a Big Deal, Ray, he's not earning his salary unless he splits a few obligatory hairs--even if he needs to haul out an electron microscope to make it look complicated.

BTW, there was a rumor floating around somewhere (I cannot recall its source...) that some maneuvering has been going on behind the scenes in terms of blank ballots and that if a candidate would meet or exceed 75% with the blanks removed from the chamber (so to speak...) that a judgment call might be made to adjust for them. I suspect it's just a false rumor, but it's intriguing nonetheless. The blank ballot clause is the rule that most needs to be changed, as it allows for an overtly punitive cast to come into play in the voting process.
   520. John Northey Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4342147)
For all you need to know about Cy voting in the 80's - Dave Stieb got votes only 4 times in his career, including none in 1981 (got MVP votes but not Cy, ERA+ of 123 in 183 IP during strike year vs Morris coming in 3rd with a 124 ERA+), and none in 1983 (Morris 3rd with a 117 ERA+, Hoyt wins with a 115, Stieb 0 votes with a 142 over 278 IP). Voters in the 80's were addicted to Won-Lost record and ignored all else. To use that as a measuring stick you might as well just say 'Morris most wins in 80's give it to him'
   521. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4342155)
The Gizmo has apparently gone Philly ward politics on us -- the count nearly stops as Biggio inches up to 70%....
   522. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4342158)
Roy Oswalt - CYA votes in six seasons
Doc Gooden - CYA votes in five seasons
Kevin Brown - CYA votes in five seasons
Ron Guidry - CYA votes in six seasons
David Cone - CYA votes in five seasons

And a player who might have a tough time getting in:

Mike Mussina - CYA votes in nine seasons


Note that these guys were competing for Cy Youngs with some of the all-time greatest pitchers, i.e., Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Pedro. Morris doesn't have that kind of excuse, though he compete with Clemens the last 6 or 7 years of his career.
   523. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:19 PM (#4342160)
The Gizmo has apparently gone Philly ward politics on us -- the count nearly stops as Biggio inches up to 70%....


It's Biggio or bust.
   524. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:20 PM (#4342162)
Why just Bonds for this? Why not Clemens? Haven't RTFA, so I don't know if Nate linked them together or not.


There's virtually no difference. Of the voters he checked (I think it was 82 total), of those who voted for Bonds, 97% also voted for Clemens. Of those who voted against Bonds, 0% voted for Clemens.

Clearly ballots with Bonds and Clemens on them have more votes/ballot than others, and that might also factor into what Mike was saying.


On the other hand, ballots with Bonds and Clemens on them have less room for other people. So, all other things being equal, you'd expect fewer pro-Bonds voters to vote for Biggio (or Bagwell or Piazza) just because some small handful of them run out of room on their ballots (or don't like to fill their ballot).
   525. Sandlapper Spike Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4342164)
Palmeiro doesn't really have an obvious "spike" to his career, so there is no way to really guess when he would have (presumably) started taking steroids. It could lead one to suspect that he took them throughout his career to maintain his steady pace.
   526. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4342169)
Roger Clemens could be on his way back to Major League Baseball with the Houston Astros, though his role is still to be determined.

According to Brian T. Smith of the Houston Chronicle, the Astros will meet with Clemens next Monday and are willing to let him participate in team activities as much as he wants during the 2013 season.

The Astros plan to open their 2013 schedule to Clemens, allowing him to participate as much as he wants during spring training and the regular season. Owner Jim Crane and pitching coach Doug Brocail are onboard with the move, which would see Clemens take a role he’s often hinted at since retiring in 2007.

In the same report, Smith notes that Astros owner Jim Crane is talking like he wants Clemens to pitch again.

However, general manager Jeff Luhnow is quoted as saying that he is excited about having Clemens around as a teacher for the Astros pitchers.
   527. AROM Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:48 PM (#4342188)
The blank ballot clause is the rule that most needs to be changed, as it allows for an overtly punitive cast to come into play in the voting process.


I am on board with removing blanks from consideration. But it only works once to stop the punishers. They turned in blank ballots for a reason (a dumb one, but that's beside the point). If you change the rules, then next year they'll either go Chass, or if they don't even want to contribute to a Morris win, they'll vote for Jose Mesa, or Todd Walker, or whoever is at the bottom of the ballot with no chance to get it.
   528. AROM Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:52 PM (#4342191)
Palmeiro doesn't really have an obvious "spike" to his career, so there is no way to really guess when he would have (presumably) started taking steroids. It could lead one to suspect that he took them throughout his career to maintain his steady pace.


Or you could conclude he started using in his early to mid 30's to avoid/delay the typical decline phase of his career.

Palmeiro:
To age 30: 133 OPS+
Age 31+: 132

McGriff:
To age 30: 153 OPS+
Age 31+: 119

   529. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4342194)
The blank ballot clause is the rule that most needs to be changed, as it allows for an overtly punitive cast to come into play in the voting process.

I am on board with removing blanks from consideration.


I am absolutely, 100% against this. A blank ballot is a completely legitimate ballot, petty and childish as it may be. There is no justification for removing them.
   530. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4342195)
It could lead one to suspect that he took them throughout his career to maintain his steady pace.


Yes, which just means what we've seen: anyone can claim anything about the effects of steroids use.
   531. JJ1986 Posted: January 08, 2013 at 03:59 PM (#4342203)
Or you could conclude he started using in his early to mid 30's to avoid/delay the typical decline phase of his career.


I think that was the viagra.
   532. icho1977 Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:02 PM (#4342208)
The Tom Haudricourt hall of fame ballot.


http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/bonds-clemens-sosa-piazza--the-thinking-behind-one-baseball-writers-hall-of-fame-ballot-cs89dor-186052761.html
   533. brutus Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:02 PM (#4342209)
I'm not sure if this would help or hurt the best candidates this year, but would including Pete Rose as a write-in warrant disqualification of the ballot? The rules specifically state that write-ins are not allowed on the ballot, yet some still do it and the rest of their votes are counted just like anyone else's.
   534. EddieA Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4342219)
"received more Hall of Fame votes than Roger Clemens" is a better HOF qualifier than "received Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons"
   535. SoSH U at work Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:15 PM (#4342228)
"received more Hall of Fame votes than Roger Clemens" is a better HOF qualifier than "received Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons"


This is just an educated guess, but by this time next year, No. 1 and 2 on the list of most lifetime Hall of Fame votes received will be Jim Rice and Jack Morris.
   536. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:21 PM (#4342234)
Just a note to remind that Lee Smith held the career saves record for 13 years, just about the same as Wilhelm or Fingers. At some point, we have to be able to recognize that a ballplayer's main job is to do what his manager asks of him.


Lenny Harris for the hof.

Lenny Harris deserves to be in the hof by that reasoning, and probably more so than Lee Smith.

Edit:dangit, I have to quit posting before I finish my catch up reading. post 495 had a post for Manny Mota.
   537. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:22 PM (#4342237)
I'm not sure if this would help or hurt the best candidates this year, but would including Pete Rose as a write-in warrant disqualification of the ballot? The rules specifically state that write-ins are not allowed on the ballot, yet some still do it and the rest of their votes are counted just like anyone else's.


As far as I know, the Hall has shown zero interest in disciplining writers or stripping voting privileges for not following the rules, at least not in a long time, if ever.

I'm happy to be corrected. But the Hall simply won't stand up for itself. It gives writers a special privilege, but will not see that the privilege is honored. The Hall simply will not lead, and is about to pay a price for that.
   538. bunyon Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:28 PM (#4342241)
Palmeiro doesn't really have an obvious "spike" to his career, so there is no way to really guess when he would have (presumably) started taking steroids. It could lead one to suspect that he took them throughout his career to maintain his steady pace.

...

Yes, which just means what we've seen: anyone can claim anything about the effects of steroids use.


Except that we KNOW Palmeiro failed a MLB sanctioned test. I wouldn't refuse to vote for PED users. But, if one does wish to not vote for PED users, Palmeiro is an easy one. He failed a test. Failing a test after it became public that tests would be done is not good evidence that he didn't use before testing started.

With most of these guys, we're guessing. Palmeiro is one of the few for whom we aren't. I don't know when he started, or how much he used, or if it helped him. But I don't have to guess that he used. Thus, if it matters to me, he won't get my vote.
   539. jobu Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:34 PM (#4342251)
This is just an educated guess, but by this time next year, No. 1 and 2 on the list of most lifetime Hall of Fame votes received will be Jim Rice and Jack Morris.

I have voting from 1995 to 2012 handy. That includes the entire voting period for "the Most Feared Hitter" and "the Workhorse."

From 1995 through 2012, top vote accumulators were:
- Rice, 3974. He had a long run of 50%+ years
- Blyleven, 3094
- Dawson, 2750
- Sutter, 2658
- Morris, 2588
- Gossage, 2487
- L. Smith, 2329

Obviously, all guys who logged a lot of years on the ballot. And just as obviously, it takes the Hall a long time to sort out relievers.
   540. GuyM Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:38 PM (#4342255)
This is just an educated guess, but by this time next year, No. 1 and 2 on the list of most lifetime Hall of Fame votes received will be Jim Rice and Jack Morris.

Assuming Morris falls short this year, does that mean he's done? Is it plausible he can pick up the additional votes he will need next year with Maddux and Glavine joining an increasingly crowded ballot?
   541. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:39 PM (#4342256)
Even if you don't want to vote for someone who played after 1998 or so, why not Trammell?


The lack of support for Trammell bothers me more than it should. Intuitively I know why he isn't getting support, but mentally he's a no brainer and it just irks me that he is getting left out for his massively inferior teammate.

I like to look at players who are relatively equally as valuable but got there through different ways. Trammell = Ozzie; (note I don't consider them to be equal to Larkin as I think Larkin was the better player than either of them, and it's not really particulary close in my mind) Sandberg = Whitaker; Gwynn = Raines. I always think that if you look at it in proper context, you can't really distinguish those players from each other.

No, the Griffey of the 1990s will.

The 2000s Griffey has already faded from memory.


Absolutely agree. A great start to his career and he was a hofer and referred to as "future" hofer from 2000 on. It's on everyones mind. Griffey is about as big of a lock for first ballot as Maddux.


The best(?), though the absence of Schilling is weird.

He had to include Morris. I think that is defensible(not the vote for Morris, but his ballot) there is significant reason to argue that once you start voting for a player, that you continue voting for him until he's off the ballot, if he voted for Morris last year then it's reasonable to keep him on the ballot...the rules don't say you have to vote for the 10 best candidates, the rules say you vote for deserving candidates(as Ray likes to point out)


Roy Oswalt - CYA votes in six seasons
Doc Gooden - CYA votes in five seasons
Kevin Brown - CYA votes in five seasons
Ron Guidry - CYA votes in six seasons
David Cone - CYA votes in five seasons

And a player who might have a tough time getting in:

Mike Mussina - CYA votes in nine seasons


I tried to look for something similar to this last night but kept coming up empty. It was tougher than I thought to find guys who aren't in the hof (and who probably won't be) who got votes in 7 seasons.


I am absolutely, 100% against this. A blank ballot is a completely legitimate ballot, petty and childish as it may be. There is no justification for removing them.


I find myself agreeing with Ray again. A blank ballot is and should always be considered a legitimate ballot.
   542. Poulanc Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:45 PM (#4342267)

Lenny Harris for the hof.

Lenny Harris deserves to be in the hof by that reasoning, and probably more so than Lee Smith.



Why?

And, more generally, why can't the Hall of Fame acknowledge closers?
   543. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:47 PM (#4342270)
I find myself agreeing with Ray again. A blank ballot is and should always be considered a legitimate ballot.

That's fine, but no one should pretend for one instant it's any more valid than the members of the House casting a vote for Donald Duck for Speaker. It deserves the same amount of respect and no more - as well as any and all mockery that comes as a result.
   544. SoSH U at work Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:47 PM (#4342272)
Assuming Morris falls short this year, does that mean he's done? Is it plausible he can pick up the additional votes he will need next year with Maddux and Glavine joining an increasingly crowded ballot?


I think it depends on how close he comes. Above 70-72 percent, and he's got a chance based on being seen as being on the verge. If he's still in the 60s, then I think he gets swamped by Maddux and Glavine and others.

   545. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 04:49 PM (#4342275)
That's fine, but no one should pretend for one instant it's any more valid than the members of the House casting a vote for Donald Duck for Speaker. It deserves the same amount of respect and no more.


Why does a ballot with one or two names out of this field of candidates deserve any more respect?

Why should a ballot with zero names be tossed, but one with one name not be? That makes no sense.
   546. AROM Posted: January 08, 2013 at 05:10 PM (#4342296)
Why should a ballot with zero names be tossed, but one with one name not be? That makes no sense.


A one name ballot this year deserves no respect. But the problem is where to draw the line. Start tossing them and then next year you'll get Jose Mesa (or his equivalent) and nobody else from the people who would turn in blank ballots. So arguing about blank ballots is a pointless debate.

That's fine, but no one should pretend for one instant it's any more valid than the members of the House casting a vote for Donald Duck for Speaker. It deserves the same amount of respect and no more.


I would prefer to pass a rule requiring whoever is the speaker to only address his fellow representatives in duck voice.

Yes, which just means what we've seen: anyone can claim anything about the effects of steroids use.


Let's see:

Hit better in the ages where most player's talents fade (Bonds, McGwire): Steroids
Start fast to your career and fade quickly due to injuries (Juan Gone): Steroids
Maintain the same steady level of performance from age 25-40 (Palmeiro): Steroids
Age in an almost perfectly typical progression for a superstar hitter (Bagwell, Piazza): Steroids

Yup, I think you've got it.
   547. AROM Posted: January 08, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4342300)
Repoz, of the 136 (and counting) ballots, how many are completely blank? I recall just one being discussed.

With Biggio at 69.8% of 136, he would need to discard 10 blank ballots to get over 75%. Are there 10 blanks in there? It may be a really, really moo* point.

*Like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter.
   548. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 05:20 PM (#4342305)
A one name ballot this year deserves no respect. But the problem is where to draw the line. Start tossing them and then next year you'll get Jose Mesa (or his equivalent) and nobody else from the people who would turn in blank ballots. So arguing about blank ballots is a pointless debate.


I agree. I don't want to see any ballots tossed, blank or no. That would be fairly outrageous and would queer an already snafu'd situation.

Unlike a number of the acts the writers engage in which are against the rules, submitting a blank ballot is simply not against the rules.
   549. EddieA Posted: January 08, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4342308)
What time zone is Repoz in?
   550. A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats Posted: January 08, 2013 at 05:26 PM (#4342313)
he's in the danger zone, iirc
   551. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 08, 2013 at 05:35 PM (#4342321)
I remember two blank ones in the count. There may have been one more.

-- MWE
   552. bunyon Posted: January 08, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4342330)
Agreed that blank ballots are valid. If you're going to toss out blank ballots because they're ridiculous, then what stops throwing out ballots that are otherwise ridiculous? Elections simply don't work if you post hoc change the electorate based on the desired outcome. If the HOF thinks they have bad voters, they should change the electorate ahead of the election, not after.
   553. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4342332)
Why?

And, more generally, why can't the Hall of Fame acknowledge closers?


Lenny Harris is the all time pinch hits leader and he was doing what he was asked. That was the argument someone put forth for Lee Smith. The difference is that Lenny Harris also frequently played in other roles besides a pinch hitter.

As to why can't the hof acknowledge closers? They already do. But even among the guys they have put in, there is a narrative with the guys or the standards are higher. You have Sutter the progenitor of the split fingered fastball; you have Hoyt Wilhelm, Gossage and Eckersley who it would be silly to pretend that Lee Smith is comparable to. You have Rollie Fingers the lowest common denominator argument helps Lee Smith...but I wouldn't advocate for people to argue if Jim Rice, then so and so. There are already 5 relievers in the hof.... in comparison you have 12 catchers in the hof. Relievers are already overrepresented in the hall, and they will be adding Rivera and possibly Hoffman in the future.

Lee Smith really doesn't What is the difference between him and John Franco? Dan Quisenberry(obviously Quiz was much better) ? Heck Doug Jones?
   554. Danny Posted: January 08, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4342336)
The spreadsheet Nate Silver linked to has 3 blank ballots: Jorge Ebro, Mark Faller, and Chris Jenkins.

Jenkins seems to be quite the small hall guy. And an awful writer.

With the exception of those who'd use their stats and vote as a vendatta against a candidate because they simply don't like a candidates-- presumably, a rare occurence -- I value their opinions and admire their dedication greatly.

My voting system, not unpredictably, is a little less complicated and highly unscientific:

Is the player in question a baseball legend?

Was he unquestionably best of the best in his era, if not one of the best of all time? Did he take your breath away? Did he cause you to go "Wow?" Did his play fill you with wonder, but not the wonder of how he got so strong?

If you insist on this being a comparative exercise, OK, how does he compare to the incomparables? Give me a guy not with one or even two league batting titles, but eight, and a pitcher with four Cy Young Awards in a row.

There were only two names on the 2013 ballot whose careers warranted a place among the gods of the game. Barry Bonds. Roger Clemens. Neither, I’m hoping, will be allowed into Cooperstown.
   555. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4342352)
There were only two names on the 2013 ballot whose careers warranted a place among the gods of the game. Barry Bonds. Roger Clemens. Neither, I’m hoping, will be allowed into Cooperstown.


So even absent steroids he would like to see a Hall about 5 players deep.
   556. AROM Posted: January 08, 2013 at 06:05 PM (#4342357)
It would be really funny if this Jenkins character voted for Jim Rice.
   557. Repoz Posted: January 08, 2013 at 06:11 PM (#4342363)
The Thomas Kinkade of Ballots...Jill Painter HOF Ballot: Bernie Williams, Mattingly, Lofton, E. Martinez, Biggio, Shawn Green.
   558. Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" Posted: January 08, 2013 at 06:11 PM (#4342364)
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it here, but Larry Stone has had one of the best ballots. I first noticed his ballot on the spreadsheet from the Nate Silver piece. He voted for Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Trammell, and Walker. He even mentioned that he would have added three or four more names if he was allowed.

Stone's tweet
   559. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 08, 2013 at 06:12 PM (#4342365)
What time zone is Repoz in?


The Gizmo is nocturnal.
   560. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2013 at 06:14 PM (#4342371)
Why should a ballot with zero names be tossed, but one with one name not be? That makes no sense.

When I said "that's fine", I was being literal.
   561. A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats Posted: January 08, 2013 at 06:14 PM (#4342372)
Tram's slow ride to Cooperstown picks up steam - Chris Jenkins, January 19, 2012

Also for the record, “Tram” is Alan Trammell, the San Diego product and resident and Diamondbacks coach whom many people think ought to be in Cooperstown.

Just not enough people. Or not the right people. Yet.

It’s a very strange process, the election of candidates into the Hall of Fame, one that seems to get stranger with every year. In the most recent vote, the selection of shortstop Barry Larkin as the lone inductee of 2012 might be interpreted as a boost for Trammell, who’s been a sort of forgotten (or ignored) man over fully 11 years of eligibility.

“My personal thought on this is, I’m happy for Lark,” said Trammell between bites of breakfast at a Kearny Mesa diner. “That’s what a lot of people are thinking about this, and that’s good. I think I got a little more play this year because (of Larkin’s candidacy). Some are looking at his numbers and looking at my numbers and saying “Why not Tram?’

“That’s the argument. That’s ok. That sounds good to me. The numbers aren’t that far off.”

The numbers on the Hall of Fame ballot, however, are way off. Larkin made it with 86.4 percent, easily surpassing the required 75 percent for enshrinement in his third year of eligibility. Trammell, who had not garnered more than 24.3 percent before the 2012 vote, jumped to 36.8.

Still, the difference in those percentages is fairly preposterous when taking into account the similar statistics they posted over marathon careers, and therein is something else they had in common. Each played his entire career for one team, Trammell as the the Detroit Tigers’ shortstop for 20 years, Larkin manning that position for the Cincinnati Reds for 19 seasons.
   562. A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats Posted: January 08, 2013 at 06:21 PM (#4342377)
Together in Hall of Shame? - Chris Jenkins, Januay 20, 2008

If it all ended today, if both their baseball careers and the controversies consuming them went no further, if enough Hall of Fame voters were giving the maximum benefit of the doubt, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds could be the Cooperstown Class of '13.

The perfect number for a couple of allegedly imperfect fellows.

To this point, nearly a month before pitchers and catchers report to spring training for the 2008 season, neither Clemens nor Bonds has a job in baseball. What they do have are a lot more important matters on their minds than that next paycheck or major league game.

Such matters are now in the hands of legal representation, aka, the high-powered firm of Liar, Liar, Pants 'n Fire, Esq.

Free agents both, still free citizens both, Bonds and Clemens have yet to announce their retirements from the game that probably would be much better served if they did (or could) follow Mark McGwire's lead and simply vanish into some gated, golf-course community.

...

Just think of this: As things stand today, there is the very real possibility that Clemens and Bonds would share the honors as first-year inductees into Cooperstown in July 2013. Not so far away, really. Not nearly far enough away.

You might want to buy your tickets to that particular circus right now. That, or buy a plane ticket to somewhere where there's no television, a place where you wouldn't risk having to accidentally see replays of that Cooperstown ceremony. Depends on your appetite for the distasteful.

Bonds, for defensive purposes, would be the one wearing his body armor up to the podium. (He'd go in wearing a Giants cap, naturally, provided the artist can forge a hat big enough to fit Bonds' head on the plaque.) Clemens, of course, would make his induction speech while holding the barrel end of a sheared-off bat to fend off the tomatoes.

Speaking of which, while we're paying this visit to Futureworld, consider that the 39-year-old, broken-bodied Mike Piazza is also unsigned for 2008. He already may have played his farewell game. Class of '13, perhaps? Oh, lovely.

Now more certain of enshrinement than Bonds or Clemens, Piazza will be forever remembered as the target of both beanballs and the broken bat thrown by Clemens. Picture the two of them seated next to each other through the press conference and ceremonies, to say nothing of the juxtaposition of their plaques, together on the wall in perpetuity.

Putting aside the mistreatment Clemens would get from Mets fans who would make the short trip from New York to applaud Piazza – not to mention the many Red Sox Nationals who would go to the moon to boo the Rocket Man – the specter of steroids would cast a huge and depressing pall over baseball's annual lovefest in upstate New York.

Just as an appreciation for the ethos of Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. drew the largest assembly ever to last summer's festivities, the general disdain and distrust attached to Bonds likely would supersede any signs of grudging or genuine respect that he would receive in Cooperstown. Seated behind Bonds and/or Clemens on the dais would be the Hall of Famers they'd be joining, some of whom already have decried the way their game has been denigrated by drugs, their records devalued.

Among them would be Rich “Goose” Gossage, Class of '08. On the day and day after Gossage learned of his election to Cooperstown, questions about his feat were laced heavily with those focused on the Mitchell Report and steroids.

“Yes, I think they are on the same level,” said Gossage, asked specifically about Bonds and Clemens. “I don't think there's any question about it. It's kind of weird these guys had some of their most productive years when (other) guys in the history of the game, their talents were diminishing as they got older, and these guys it didn't happen that way.

“So we'll just have to wait and see if these guys come clean and finally put an end to this.”

Please. Before it's five years too late.
   563. Poulanc Posted: January 08, 2013 at 06:36 PM (#4342389)
Relievers are already overrepresented in the hall, and they will be adding Rivera and possibly Hoffman in the future.



How do we know that relievers are already overrepresented in the hall? Why is five an overrepresentation?

Granted, I'm a 'big hall' type of guy, but I am of the opinion (that I think a few folks around here agree with) that 'closer' was viewed as an important role on a baseball team when Lee Smith played. It still is today. It was certainly viewed with much more respect than pinch hitter or pinch runner or whatever. I have no real problem with the Hall of Fame recognizing the best players at a position that folks for a long time, and currently, think is pretty important.
   564. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 08, 2013 at 06:51 PM (#4342401)
How do we know that relievers are already overrepresented in the hall? Why is five an overrepresentation?


Any group that includes Gossage is overrepresented by at least one.
   565. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2013 at 06:53 PM (#4342402)
How do we know that relievers are already overrepresented in the hall? Why is five an overrepresentation?


Can an Angel dance on the top of a pin?

You can't know they are overrepresented, but the way I look at it, there is no demarcation between Lee Smith and a handful of other relievers. He doesn't represent the best player not in the hof at his position. Again, there are 11 catchers in the 120 years of playing mlb and yet we have 5 pitchers representing 40 years and Rivera is going to also go in.

Closer is viewed as an important role, so is bench coach, pitching coach or hitting coach...currently none of those are in the hof either.


Why Lee Smith and not Franco? Why Lee Smith and not an obviously superior reliever like Quiz? Lee Smith is in a handful of relievers who went out and tossed 1000 or so innings. If you include Lee Smith, you massively lower the standards that the hof has established, even among closers.
   566. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 08, 2013 at 07:02 PM (#4342409)
[Griffey's] the HR-slugging superstar who fell apart as he got older

A sure sign of steroid use.
   567. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 08, 2013 at 07:10 PM (#4342413)
“So we'll just have to wait and see if these guys come clean and finally put an end to this.”

Wow, people are still beating THAT drum? I'd have thought McGwire's experience would pretty much kill this idea.
   568. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 08, 2013 at 07:24 PM (#4342415)
Why Lee Smith and not Franco? Why Lee Smith and not an obviously superior reliever like Quiz?


Why Sutter and not Quiz? They had basically the same career value, but Quiz packed it into a few less seasons


If you include Lee Smith, you massively lower the standards that the hof has established, even among closers.
'

sadly that's not quite true
Smith is as good a choice as Fingers and Sutter

of course there are a large number of other pitchers who were as good as Fingers, Sutter and Lee- that's the problem- the "established" HOF standard for "closers" is waaaay too low.

When Sutter coughed up a 2.22 ERA 37 save season, people went "wowee"- however, with the right usage that kind of season is not as astounding a feat as it seemed at the time, and then later he went 1.54 with 45 and people went "YOWZA!"
But 31 different pitchers have now posted years of 40+ saves and ERAs under 2.00

Sutter was a good pitcher, but he was simply not as special as he was perceived at the time, his feats were easily reachable by other good (not great) pitchers with the "right" usage- Jose Effing Mesa has a reasonably comparable carer if you lop off his years as a sub-mediocre starter.

The trouble with "closers" is that the established "line" is way too low




   569. The Buddy Biancalana Hit Counter Posted: January 08, 2013 at 07:27 PM (#4342417)
Gotta hand it to Ken Gurnick, "Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons" sounds a whole lot more convincing than "almost half as many Cy Young shares as Dan Quisenberry."
   570. ursus arctos Posted: January 08, 2013 at 07:31 PM (#4342421)
That Jill Painter ballot in 557 marks a new kind of crazy.
   571. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: January 08, 2013 at 07:37 PM (#4342425)
[558] Yes, Larry Stone posted the best ballot I've seen by anyone I'd never heard of before - I sent him a congratulatory tweet myself (he said he'd 'work on' his colleagues). I believe there was a thread here when his ballot was first posted but of course I'm sure it just blended in with the rest of 'em.
   572. Rob_Wood Posted: January 08, 2013 at 07:43 PM (#4342427)
Yes, Larry Stone's ballot was one of the best (IIRC didn't Ken Davidoff have a really good one too?)
   573. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2013 at 07:51 PM (#4342430)

Why Sutter and not Quiz? They had basically the same career value, but Quiz packed it into a few less seasons


Sutter has the narrative as the popularizer of the split finger fastball. That has as much to do with why he is in there, as his numbers. We'll call it the Candy Cummings narrative.

The trouble with "closers" is that the established "line" is way too low


Not really, not if you look at it in a different light. There are five relievers. Wilhelm, Eckersley, Fingers, Sutter, and Gossage. Eckersley and Wilhelm have a ton of innings and aren't really comparable to what today's closers do. Gossage has 1700 innings, while the best relievers after him are putting up 1200 or less innings, again he exceeds their standards by longevity. Sutter as mentioned is in there not solely because of his numbers, but by the narrative. So you basically have Fingers as the lone closer in there to set a low standard. He's your Jim Rice, your Rube Marquand of closers. If your case relies on you being better than Fingers, you have a weak case. Going by that viewpoint, you see that the standard for closers is actually pretty high, it's Goose Gossage. If you can't make a case as being arguably as good of a reliever as Goose Gossage, then you don't belong in the hof. (note...this is assuming that relievers have any case for the hof.)

   574. Don Malcolm Posted: January 08, 2013 at 07:53 PM (#4342431)
Agreed that blank ballots are valid. If you're going to toss out blank ballots because they're ridiculous, then what stops throwing out ballots that are otherwise ridiculous? Elections simply don't work if you post hoc change the electorate based on the desired outcome. If the HOF thinks they have bad voters, they should change the electorate ahead of the election, not after.

Half agree. But there is not a single HOF election year I can think of where a reasonable voter would not have at least one vote to cast unless they were involved in a punitive state of mind. Since we cannot adopt an "electoral college" approach to a HOF election (even though a plurality of you will instantly profess to hating that construct) where "none of the above" is a valid statement of opinion without affecting the outcome, then it's worth considering making those votes not count as part of the election process when the admission standards are so high. That kind of negative power hasn't come into play previously, and it shouldn't be encouraged just because a couple of our libertarians are going to get bent over having their "freedom to be intransigent whenever they feel like it" curtailed, even in theory.

I believe that Repoz had noted four blanks earlier; it may be up to 5-7 at this point. And that's with just 25% of the vote. If 6% of the electorate takes such a tack, you've got a malicious situation on your hands. Anyone want to venture a guess exactly how many blank ballots there will be? Were there any blank ballots in 2012? 2011? Further back in time??

Repoz--can you reconstruct what the 2013 blank balloters did in 2012?
   575. Moe Greene Posted: January 08, 2013 at 07:55 PM (#4342432)
It may be a really, really moo* point.

*Like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter.

Is that a Joey Tribbiani reference?
   576. John Northey Posted: January 08, 2013 at 08:16 PM (#4342441)
I think Fingers method to the Hall was similar to what Smith is going for, namely career leader in saves for a number of years.
Going back in time...
1910-1925: Mordecai Brown from 26 saves to 49, HOF due to starting job
1926-1945: Firpo Marberry grew it to 101
1946-1961: Johnny Murphy grew it to 107
1962-1963: Roy Face grew it to 136
1964-1979: Hoyt Wilhelm grew it to 227 and made the HOF
1980-1991: Rollie Fingers grew it to 341 and made the HOF
1992: Jeff Reardon got to be a trivia answer (got to 357 before losing title)
1993-2005: Lee Smith moved the bar up to 478
2006-2010: Trevor Hoffman reached 601 but was expected to lose it to...
2011-now: Mariano Rivera who is at 608

Guys between Fingers & Smith: Franco, Wagner, Eckersley, Reardon (finished at 367), Percival, Myers. Francisco Cordero is just 12 shy of Fingers (2nd highest active to Rivera).
Guys between Smith & Rivera: Hoffman

That is why Fingers got in - he held it long enough to get voted in. That is why Smith still gets votes - just 2 guys passed him so far and no one else will for a few years as Francisco Rodriguez is over 180+ away as is anyone else who has any realistic shot at it thus at least 4 more years before anyone else gets up there so Smith shouldn't be passed by anyone else before his 15 years are up.

Edit: Note how Wilhelm moved the bar by 91 saves, Fingers by 114, Smith by 121, and Hoffman by 123. Moving a record that much will always get attention, but I do wonder if Hoffman might get the Reardon treatment as the ballot should still be crowded when he hits it and Rivera will be thought of as the better closer. If he's lucky he gets the Tim Raines treatment (overshadowed by another but eventually voters decide they like him), or he gets what Reardon got, one and done.
   577. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 08, 2013 at 08:19 PM (#4342445)
Did Jill Painter write anything to go with her ballot?
   578. Repoz Posted: January 08, 2013 at 08:24 PM (#4342447)
Painter only tweeted some goofy stuff, but no column...here's where her picks are from.

Survey: Hall of Fame unlikely to welcome new players this year
   579. Pat D Posted: January 08, 2013 at 08:26 PM (#4342450)
Did everyone see Wallace Matthews' ballot? Not that I recommend reading his drivel, but at least he voted for Biggio and Piazza.
   580. Danny Posted: January 08, 2013 at 08:34 PM (#4342457)
That is why Fingers got in - he held it long enough to get voted in. That is why Smith still gets votes

Fingers also had a lot going for him--the MVP/CYA, 3 WS titles, a 1.35 ERA in 33 WS IP, a cool name, a sweet 'stache--that Smith doesn't.
   581. MelOtt4 Posted: January 08, 2013 at 08:35 PM (#4342458)
It's discouraging to see Bagwell and Piazza's numbers both decline. More so Bagwell who may not even improve from last years totals.
   582. John Northey Posted: January 08, 2013 at 08:37 PM (#4342461)
That is a weird group of votes from Digital First Media. More voting for Bernie Williams (2) than for Larry Walker (1) or Rafael Palmeiro (1). Tom Powers going for a trio in Morris, Bagwell and Smith. Bud Geracie voting for Bonds & Morris only. Just weird combos where you wonder what thought process would lead one to vote for those combos. I guess Geracie might be a 'vote for the best pitcher and best hitter and I hate Clemens', Powers...er...um...how do you get those 3 - I could see a dumb voters going Morris & Smith (esp an anti-PED guy) but mixing Bagwell in there? Weird.
   583. ajnrules Posted: January 08, 2013 at 08:54 PM (#4342470)
Weird. Another Bonds-no-Clemens vote in that last update. I wonder who it was.

EDIT: I guess it was Bud Geracie?
   584. alav25 Posted: January 08, 2013 at 09:07 PM (#4342476)
Any ballot you missed on this doc? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqc4QTMoPrdtdDQxaDYzd1lLOGpOdUdrcnNNNWNXa2c&authkey=CPyuwqIJ&hl=en_US#gid=6
   585. jobu Posted: January 08, 2013 at 09:33 PM (#4342493)
@ Don Malcolm
But there is not a single HOF election year I can think of where a reasonable voter would not have at least one vote to cast unless they were involved in a punitive state of mind.

What about 1996 (i.e., the last time no one went in)? The only eventual Hall of Famers on the ballot at that time were:
Niekro
Perez
Rice
Sutter
Sutton

Right there, you've got Niekro, who IMHO clearly belongs in, but does have just a 115 ERA+ (hampered by a long decline phase) and can be viewed as a compiler--plus four other guys who are pretty clearly near the HOF cutoff in my view. Among others on the ballot that year were Ron Santo and Dick Allen--who may belong in the HOF, but are not no-doubters.

It's not hard for me to see how a reasonable voter could have sent in a blank ballot that year. That, of course, is not THIS year.

   586. Squash Posted: January 08, 2013 at 09:33 PM (#4342494)
Sutter as mentioned is in there not solely because of his numbers, but by the narrative.

Sutter is really only in there because he squeaked through in a very down ballot. This year excepted the writers always want to put in someone, so the narrative became that he invented the split finger which then changed to he popularized the split finger (as he didn't actually invent the split finger) and dammit they had to elect someone. He was in his 13th year of eligibility and got 76.9%.
   587. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: January 08, 2013 at 09:37 PM (#4342498)
This is a minor thing but ..... I'm amazed Mattingly is scoring as highly as he is so far. The Gizmo typically puts him at around 5-6%, and then he gets 15%. Now he's at 9%. Huh.
   588. JJ1986 Posted: January 08, 2013 at 09:40 PM (#4342499)
What about 1996 (i.e., the last time no one went in)?


I think Santo should have been a no-doubter.
   589. Howie Menckel Posted: January 08, 2013 at 09:48 PM (#4342502)

I believe Dimino found in HOM research that Fingers stranded a crazy amount of runners - a real 'fireman,' entering in tough spots and saving the day.

We should never get too comfy with the idea that we've mined all the ways to analyze players. These 1-inning, enter at the start of the 9th guys aren't as complicated as earlier top relievers...


   590. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 08, 2013 at 09:54 PM (#4342506)
I believe Dimino found in HOM research that Fingers stranded a crazy amount of runners - a real 'fireman,' entering in tough spots and saving the day.

Fingers also has an excellent postseason resume - he has the second highest "championship probability added" (WPA*impact of game on championship odds) of any player, trailing only Rivera.

How much weight you assign that, of course, is an open question.
   591. Danny Posted: January 08, 2013 at 10:07 PM (#4342512)
Bud Geracie voting for Bonds & Morris only. Just weird combos where you wonder what thought process would lead one to vote for those combos. I guess Geracie might be a 'vote for the best pitcher and best hitter and I hate Clemens'

Geracie's argument is that Bonds was a HOFer before he used PEDs, while Clemens was not.

With Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens, I have the same problem I have with Mark McGwire. The numbers that made McGwire a candidate -- 70 home runs in a season and 583 for a career -- would not have happened without chemistry. I believe that to be true of Sosa as well....Clemens is tougher. He was a star from the start. Won a Cy Young and an MVP at age 24, won another Cy the next year and then a third before he began to fade. When he left Boston, at age 34, he had 192 wins -- hardly a Hall of Fame number. Then he found the "fountain" of youth, won four more Cy Youngs, including one at 42 years old. I'm not buying it.
   592. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 08, 2013 at 10:10 PM (#4342515)
The mustache put Fingers in the Hall.
   593. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2013 at 10:13 PM (#4342516)
We should never get too comfy with the idea that we've mined all the ways to analyze players. These 1-inning, enter at the start of the 9th guys aren't as complicated as earlier top relievers...


Relief pitcher research still needs to be improved upon dramatically. Now that we have play by play data for most of them, it shouldn't be long before we eventually see some legitimate leaps in relief pitcher research.
   594. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2013 at 10:18 PM (#4342519)
When he left Boston, at age 34, he had 192 wins -- hardly a Hall of Fame number.


Some people are just too stupid to have a job. He had 3 Cy Youngs, 4 era titles, 192-111 record for .658 winning percentage. Led the league in shutouts 5 times, complete games twice. Even assuming a normal career progression, you are talking about a guy who had a lock on 250 wins and 3 Cy Youngs, how many multiple Cy Young winners have missed the hall?
   595. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 08, 2013 at 10:19 PM (#4342520)
Clemens is tougher. He was a star from the start. Won a Cy Young and an MVP at age 24, won another Cy the next year and then a third before he began to fade. When he left Boston, at age 34, he had 192 wins -- hardly a Hall of Fame number.

Clemens in Boston: 192-111 (.634), 3.06 ERA (144 ERA+) in 2776 innings, 2590 Ks and 856 walks (almost exactly 3:1), 78 WAR with a peak of 10.3, 9.1, 8.6

Sandy Koufax: 165-87 (.655), 2.76 ERA (131 ERA+) in 2324.1 innings, 2396 Ks and 817 walks (very, very close to 3:1), 50 WAR with a peak of 10.3, 10.0, 7.6

That's if you ignore Roger's absurd 1997, even though his alleged steroid use started after that year.

Edit: Boston Clemens also matches Koufax in both Cy Youngs and MVPs won, and only misses by one ERA title; if you switch to ERA+ (which you should, because there's a marked park disparity), Clemens leads the league five times, Koufax twice.
   596. Adam S Posted: January 08, 2013 at 11:25 PM (#4342544)
On Mattingly going up, there are already a lot more votes counted in the Repoz sample this year rather than last. Therefore, you'd expect it would probably become more representative of the electorate as a whole. May explain part of it.
   597. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2013 at 11:26 PM (#4342545)
Piazza falling to under 60% is ridiculous.
   598. phatj Posted: January 08, 2013 at 11:26 PM (#4342546)
The mustache put Fingers in the Hall.

Good news for Morris.
   599. Howie Menckel Posted: January 08, 2013 at 11:58 PM (#4342557)
Koufax is an eternally fascinating career, per his mystique.

He peaked at the very end - yet he was only 31 and done.

Always go out on the absolute top, and leave 'em begging for more.

Spectacular 4-5-6 year peak, even with the proper enormous adjustments. Correctly seen as the best pitcher in baseball for a modest stretch - and didn't leave any other evidence against it afterwards.

Even better is that Koufax never is/was one of those blowhards talking about much harder it was to pitch back then. A very private man. He must drive 'talent agents' crazy, in that you couldn't create a better template for legendary status - and it didn't happen for that reason.

Just a truly private person who was epically great in the right place at the right time - and not welcoming the adulation only has added to it.

A Hall of Famer if there ever was one, yet Eric J in 595 has valid points as well...

   600. Kruger23 Posted: January 08, 2013 at 11:58 PM (#4342558)
Has anyone included Jeff Blair's ballot (Toronto Globe and Mail): Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Raines, Walker

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/video-columnist-jeff-blair-discusses-his-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot/article7066050/
Page 6 of 9 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJohn Thorn: Fame & Fandom
(21 - 8:20am, Sep 22)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(206 - 8:08am, Sep 22)
Last: Rowland Office Supplies

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(106 - 7:49am, Sep 22)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-21-2014
(103 - 6:35am, Sep 22)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(297 - 6:25am, Sep 22)
Last: Mirabelli Dictu (Chris McClinch)

NewsblogRoyals encounter problem with online sale of playoff tickets
(33 - 3:48am, Sep 22)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(353 - 2:01am, Sep 22)
Last: Swedish Chef

NewsblogCameron: The Stealth MVP Candidacy of Hunter Pence
(48 - 1:07am, Sep 22)
Last: shoewizard

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(92 - 12:40am, Sep 22)
Last: Toothless

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8037 - 12:34am, Sep 22)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogEn Banc Court May Call Foul on Bonds Conviction
(42 - 11:50pm, Sep 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJames Shields is the perfect pitcher at the perfect time
(47 - 11:03pm, Sep 21)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(834 - 10:57pm, Sep 21)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3429 - 10:56pm, Sep 21)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogAthletics out of top wild-card spot, Texas sweeps
(18 - 10:30pm, Sep 21)
Last: Spahn Insane

Page rendered in 0.9105 seconds
52 querie(s) executed