Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

The 2013 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

The 2014 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

Final: Jan.9 - 11:30 ~ 209* Full Ballots ~ (36.7%* of vote ~ based on last year) (*new ballot/pct. record!)

99.5 - Maddux
95.7 - Glavine
89.0 - F. Thomas
79.4 - Biggio
———————————
67.9 - Piazza
61.7 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
56.5 - Bagwell
54.5 - Raines
42.1 - Bonds
40.7 - Clemens
36.8 - Schilling
26.8 - Mussina
25.4 - E. Martinez
24.4 - L. Smith
22.0 - Trammell
15.8 - Kent
12.0 - McGriff
10.5 - McGwire
  8.1 - L. Walker
  7.2 - S. Sosa
  5.7 - R. Palmeiro
———————————
4.8 - Mattingly
0.5 - P. Rose (Write-In)

Thanks to Butch, Ilychs Morales, leokitty & Barnald for their help.

As usual…send them in if you come across any ballots!

Repoz Posted: December 25, 2013 at 03:56 PM | 2002 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history, 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 8 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›
   701. Srul Itza Posted: January 03, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4629131)
The whole problem with WAR and catchers, which has been alluded to here, is that catching defense is not well understood at all.

We only just began getting stats on pitch framing, which we will never have for the earlier catchers, and which does not appear to be included yet in WAR.

The catcher's contribution to the pitching game has been wholly denigrated by early studies of "catcher ERA", but those studies are hardly the last word on the subject.

Throwing out baserunners, as noted, can be highly situational, can be strongly affected by the pitcher, and we really don't have that good of a feel of the value of throwing a guy out vs. the value of intimidating him not to run, over the long haul.

We are reasonably good at passed ball/wild pitch accounting (an area where Piazza apparently did well), but the issue of how much is the catcher's fault and how much is the pitcher's is still problematic.

Even for position players, we accept that dWAR has larger error bars than oWAR. With catchers, the problem is much larger. So I think we have to take accept that WAR does not, and cannot, capture what the catcher brings to the team as well as it does (or doesn't) for the other positions.
   702. Srul Itza Posted: January 03, 2014 at 01:19 PM (#4629133)
Bagwell is going to need a little more additional voting support in 2015.


He's on pace to get in. He may have to wait a little longer than some would like, but he is going in eventually.
   703. Moeball Posted: January 03, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4629141)
There is literally no doubt that from 1991-1997 Frank Thomas was the single best offensive force in baseball.


CFB - not arguing that Frank was a monster at the plate and a deserving first-ballot HOFer.

But Barry Bonds, due to his ego-driven argumentative nature, disagrees with your comment about 1991-1997 as follows:

1)Barry played 9 more games than Frank during the 7-year period in question, yet had 156 fewer PA due to being in both the lower-scoring league and a more difficult home park to hit in.
2)Despite this, Barry scored more runs and hit more HRs. He walked more than Frank and struck out less. He was half as likely to hit into a GIDP. Frank has a 10-point edge in OBP but Barry has a (very) slight edge in SLG. Barry's speed also gives him a huge edge in triples and stolen bases, of course. These are also part of "offense".
3)Frank does have the higher OPS at 1.056 to 1.047 but when you take the park and league factors into context Barry actually has a slightly higher OPS+ at 183 to Frank's 182. Barry says he got these numbers from doing a B-Ref player index search. He likes looking up his own stats.

But that's just Barry being his usual belligerent self.

I, on the other hand, completely agree with your comment that Frank was numero uno.
   704. Srul Itza Posted: January 03, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4629160)
As regards base running by itself, Barry outguns Frank from 1991-1997: 22 rbaser vs. -5.
   705. alilisd Posted: January 03, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4629163)
I am shocked by this revelation that Barry was a better baserunner than Frank. Shocked, I say!
   706. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 03, 2014 at 01:57 PM (#4629168)
For Future Gizmo Comparison Purposes:

Updated: Jan.3 - 12:15 ~ 107 Full Ballots ~ (18.8% of vote ~ based on last year)

100 - Maddux
97.2 - Glavine
90.7 - F. Thomas
80.4 - Biggio
———————————
72.9 - Piazza
66.4 - Bagwell
60.7 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
56.1 - Raines
45.8 - Bonds
44.9 - Clemens
39.3 - Schilling
34.9 - Mussina
22.4 - Trammell
20.6 - E. Martinez
18.7 - L. Smith
15.0 - McGriff
14.0 - Kent
11.2 - L. Walker
10.3 - McGwire
8.4 - S. Sosa
7.5 - R. Palmeiro
———————————
4.7 - Mattingly
0.9 - P. Rose (Write-In)
   707. brutus Posted: January 03, 2014 at 02:19 PM (#4629200)
#700: "Bagwell is going to need a little more additional voting support in 2015. To me, this is an example of targeting a pro-Bagwell message to Massarotti, and express appreciation for him putting together a ballot of Bonds, Clemens, Pedro, Johnson, Bagwell, and Edgar.

This is an example, to me, of how a forum like BBTF could realistically, diplomatically, and surgically have a positive impact on getting certain candidates the support they need to get over the top."

See my post #648, Massaratti is a guy I was specifically thinking of for this argument because he cites his drastic increase in power from minor leagues to the majors as one of his reasons for suspecting steroid use. I think we can target this and get the voter over the hump for Bagwell at least.
   708. LargeBill Posted: January 03, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4629212)
See my post #648, Massaratti is a guy I was specifically thinking of for this argument because he cites his drastic increase in power from minor leagues to the majors as one of his reasons for suspecting steroid use. I think we can target this and get the voter over the hump for Bagwell at least.


Maybe it would influence him if he found out that Ruth hit only hit one minor league home run?
   709. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 03, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4629232)
Scoggins, if he's not already posted:

For the record, I voted for Glavine, Maddux, Thomas, Roger Clemens, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, Barry Bonds, Craig Biggio, Curt Schilling, and Mark McGwire.

   710. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 03, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4629233)
that scoggins ballot is d8mn good
   711. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 03, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4629234)
18.7 - L. Smith
15.0 - McGriff
14.0 - Kent
11.2 - L. Walker
10.3 - McGwire
8.4 - S. Sosa
7.5 - R. Palmeiro
——————————
4.7 - Mattingly


So who do we think is in danger of dropping off the ballot? McGriff and below? Walker and below? Sosa and below? Just Mattingly?



   712. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2014 at 03:08 PM (#4629255)
the problem is that rField doesn't include everything for defense for a catcher


I agree completely with this. Pitch framing just showed up recently as measurable. The other problem might be with where "replacement" level is set. In reality there is a catching rotation. We may have a situation like shortstop where available replacements are worse offensively AND defensively.
   713. Swedish Chef Posted: January 03, 2014 at 03:56 PM (#4629344)
Piazza inching closer again.

Just Mattingly?


For what it's worth: Mattingly did hugely better on non-public ballots last year.
   714. Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world Posted: January 03, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4629367)
For what it's worth: Mattingly did hugely better on non-public ballots last year.

And every other year Repoz has been doing this. Too lazy to look it up, but I think in 2011 and 2012 the Gizmo had him around 5-6% and he finished with about 15-16%.
   715. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 03, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4629373)
People don't really think Maddux will get 100%, do they?
   716. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 03, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4629376)
715

highly unlikely

traditions, however stupid, last a long time
   717. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 03, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4629377)
Maybe it would influence him if he found out that Ruth hit only hit one minor league home run?


Or that Kirby Puckett went from 13 career minor league HR (in 996 PAs) to 4 HR combined in his first two full seasons to 31 HR in his third full season in the bigs?
   718. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 03, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4629378)
not voting for an absurdly overqualified hof player out of tradition to me is similar to the Norwegians eating that lutefisk sh8t for xmas

nobody actually LIKES lutefisk. it's a bleached fish for cr8ssakes. stinks. tastes worse. it's just disgusting

but they have been doing it to celebrate the holiday forever so some keep doing it
   719. ursus arctos Posted: January 03, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4629379)
I think the better question is whether Maddux will beat Seaver's percentage.

I think he has a real shot, unless there is a rump of blank ballots out there.
   720. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4629392)
a forum like BBTF could realistically, diplomatically, and surgically have a positive impact


I sent out a few e-mails to Rickey Henderson supporters asking them to consider Raines. You really need a champion (Lederer on Blyleven) to make an effort like this successful.
   721. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: January 03, 2014 at 04:52 PM (#4629414)
I rather eat a whole bucket of Lutefisk than eat Brunost. How does one make cheese that I dislike?
   722. cardsfanboy Posted: January 03, 2014 at 04:58 PM (#4629417)
I agree completely with this. Pitch framing just showed up recently as measurable. The other problem might be with where "replacement" level is set. In reality there is a catching rotation. We may have a situation like shortstop where available replacements are worse offensively AND defensively.


Catcher replacement level is set pretty low from what I remember, an average catcher by war is more valuable than an average position player (with equal playing time). It may not be enough, but there is some acknowledgement in the system, that catchers are worth more.

not voting for an absurdly overqualified hof player out of tradition to me is similar to the Norwegians eating that lutefisk sh8t for xmas


I've always said that I think it's funny that these guys with the privilege of voting are going to be able to tell their kids and grandkids.... "I helped put Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter and Andre Dawson in the hall, but I never voted for Ripken, Seaver or Aaron.".... It just seems like such a shame, to be a guy who can point at players in the hof, and those who are elite and acknowledged that you didn't participate in honoring them when given a chance.



   723. maven of all things baseball Posted: January 03, 2014 at 05:02 PM (#4629420)
I think the better question is whether Maddux will beat Seaver's percentage.

I think he has a real shot, unless there is a rump of blank ballots out there.


I believe that we have a couple of published ballots which support Maddux's chances at getting to 98.9+% IIRC, Chass hasn't been voting for any 1st year eligible guys, but stated that he was voting for Maddux (and Glavine as well - but strangely enough NOT Thomas) and I think Ken Rosenthal stated in his HoF ballot column that he was ending his "no first ballot" protest because Maddux/Glavine/Thomas were so obviously untainted by the PED scandal. I have a feeling that most of the PED protest votes will similarly melt away when it comes to Maddux, and to a lesser degree to Glavine and Thomas as well.
   724. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 03, 2014 at 05:21 PM (#4629440)
Catcher replacement level is set pretty low from what I remember, an average catcher by war is more valuable than an average position player (with equal playing time). It may not be enough, but there is some acknowledgement in the system, that catchers are worth more.
I rmember many discussions about catcher replacement level being too low, and I have a question/thought:

Is catcher career WAR too low because "replacement level" or "positional adjustment (Rpos)" are calculated annually? IOW, going back over the past 10 years, it looks like ~10 players/yr get 450+ PA as a catcher. Now that in itself (1) is quite low but (2) is reflected, I think, in Rpos. But we also know that it's tough to catch a lot of games over a career; is that also captured?

The oft-injured Barry Larkin (who also lost time to the strike/lockout) had 9056 PA in his career; only 2 catchers (min. 75% of G at C) have passed him - IRod and Fisk. Even if you drop the cut-off to 50% of G at C, you only add Simmons.

   725. Walt Davis Posted: January 03, 2014 at 06:22 PM (#4629493)
not sure what you mean by "too low."

For HoF purposes, my argument is fairly simple.

1. due to the demands of the position, it is essentially impossible for a human being to amass 10-12,000 PA as a catcher.

2. The HoF is about greatness, not about value. They are highly correlated but not the same. WAR is a measure of value.

3. Due to (1), the only way to assess C greatness is to compare with other Cs. (I essentially extend the same courtesy to SS)

3a. There are, as always, challenges in assessing a player like Torre.

Career WAR for Cs is "low" because of the lack of playing time. But starting Cs should be lower than starters at other positions due to lack of playing time.

I'm not arguing that Piazza should have more career WAR than he does. I am saying that "greatness" on C is measured on a different scale. Piazza was the greatest hitting C of all time, he's one of the more valuable Cs of all time and he's got one of the best C peaks. For Cs that's not only all we need to know it's pretty much all that it's useful for us to know.

I wouldn't object out of hand to a comparison of Piazza's WAR in his 7300 PA vs. another candidate's WAR in 7300 PA as I did with Carter vs. Puckett although I suspect such comparisons would still understate things.

On WAR/dWAR, etc. You don't need the dWAR concept to get to WAR as is subtly noted by the fact that WAR does not equal oWAR + dWAR. oWAR is offense relative to position, add defense relative to position and, voila, you have WAR without comparing Cs to LFs. The sole purpose of dWAR (which should be dWAA IMO) is to put all defensive positions on the same scale to allow the direct comparison of the defensive contribution of players from different positions. I think that is a pointless exercise when it comes to C and close enough to pointless for SS. It is also obviously pointless when it comes to LH throwers compared that would never be allowed to play C/2B/SS/3B.

The question then becomes how to measure positional differences and the non-dWAR way to do that is to look at the differences in average offense across positions.

They all still end up essentially equivalent to "how good was your offense relative to others at your position; how good was your defense relative to others at your position." You only need to go beyond that if you (a) want to answer usually pointless but fun questions like "who was better, Biggio or Jeter or Smoltz or Pudge Rodriguez?" or (b) you're a GM and you've got to decide whether you should sign McCann or Choo or Garza.

Fair enough, the current and upcoming HoF ballots require answering those pointless but fun questions and WAR (whatever the finer points of its calculations) provides us with the best quantitative info we can have for answering it. But such ballots are rare.
   726. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 03, 2014 at 06:31 PM (#4629503)
A couple thoughts on catchers, but first #703 and #705 made me laugh. Thanks!

If you assume that each position is roughly as valuable as every other position then you could perhaps back into what the defensive contribution (in aggregate) for catchers is, as a check against our current measurements, in an effort to see what those intangibles might be.

Now of course that is a very large assumption, that every position is roughly equally valuable (presumably over a large enough time period). Still it might be a fun exercise for someone less lazy than I am.

Secondly there is the possibility that the wear and tear on catchers means they are not as valuable and don't deserve to be in the Hall. In other words for specific games they are valuable but over a career they are rarely able to provide enough value and as such don't merit inclusion (who said life was fair?).
   727. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: January 03, 2014 at 06:36 PM (#4629507)
Secondly there is the possibility that the wear and tear on catchers means they are not as valuable and don't deserve to be in the Hall. In other words for specific games they are valuable but over a career they are rarely able to provide enough value and as such don't merit inclusion (who said life was fair?).


Glad to see someone else pounding on this drum! Welcome aboard, friend.
   728. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 03, 2014 at 06:43 PM (#4629510)
In other words for specific games they are valuable but over a career they are rarely able to provide enough value and as such don't merit inclusion (who said life was fair?).


And I would think Walt offers the perfect rebuttal to this: The HoF is about greatness, not about value. They are highly correlated but not the same.
   729. brutus Posted: January 03, 2014 at 06:49 PM (#4629514)
John Canzano ballot:
Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Biggio, Raines, Smith, Morris, Trammell
   730. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 03, 2014 at 07:02 PM (#4629521)
And I would think Walt offers the perfect rebuttal to this: The HoF is about greatness, not about value. They are highly correlated but not the same.


Well I presented it as a possibility, not something I was advocating, but it is the internet so I feel compelled to argue :)

Explain greatness without value. What is greatness without value? Can someone be so great that they merit inclusion without any value at all? (We are talking players here, not pioneers or executives or the like which are a different animal)

And when I say value I am not referring to WAR or other defined metrics I am talking about value towards winning games, defined and undefined by metrics. If a pitcher could pitch every inning of a season and win every game, but would never be able to pitch ever again (like some of the dead ball pitchers, but even more extreme) that is both greatness and value, but should it merit entrance to the Hall of Fame?

This pitcher only wins 162 games (they don't even get post season credit, poor souls). They have a great win loss record and one presumes a great ERA and so on, but is it enough bulk, enough career value for the peak to get them in (I am ignoring the 10 year rule, if you must they are on a roster the other nine years, maybe pitching a single batter each year or something).

This is a ridiculous example, but it gets to what I am saying about catchers. Maybe they are super valuable, maybe even more so then other position players, but maybe most of them are prevented in accumulating enough total career bulk value to be worth going into the Hall. Sure some are and do, but maybe it is OK as a position they get hosed, because of the wear and tear of the position, and they should not get an additional bonus.

Note: For the record I think Catchers probably do contribute more value than other position players and our current metrics under value them. I think more catchers should be in the Hall than currently are. But I think an argument can be made (likely better than I made it) that I am wrong and the right number is in the hall.
   731. bunyon Posted: January 03, 2014 at 07:02 PM (#4629522)
Yeah, a Hall of Value would suck. You have to have catchers. Great catchers, like great pitchers, second basemen etc. belong in the Hall. If you tell me that great catchers are rare, I'd say that makes it more important to put them in rather than less.
   732. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: January 03, 2014 at 07:05 PM (#4629524)
John Canzano ballot:
Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Biggio, Raines, Smith, Morris, Trammell

In his column from last year, he states that his votes against Bonds/Clemens/Sosa/McGwire are due to their PED usage.

His votes against Piazza/Bagwell/Schilling/Martinez were apparently because he felt they just weren't good enough players.
   733. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: January 03, 2014 at 07:14 PM (#4629529)
This Jack Morris-over-Mike Mussina nonsense strikes me as the craziest thing on any of these ballots.

I mean, screw WAR, let's just look at the traditional numbers: Mike Mussina had more wins, more strikeouts, fewer losses, fewer walks, fewer home runs, and a lower ERA than Jack Morris. He beats him on literally every single category anyone has devised to compare pitchers.

As for the postseason: I'll put Mike Mussina's run in 1997 up against just about anyone else's in history: 4 starts, 29 innings, 41 strikeouts, 7 walks, 1.24 ERA.
   734. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 03, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4629534)
He beats him on literally every single category anyone has devised to compare pitchers.


Seventh game of World Series pitching? That counts too right?

I kid, Mussina is better and Jack doesn't deserve to be in the hall. BBTF received wisdom is correct in this case.
   735. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 03, 2014 at 07:25 PM (#4629538)
Maybe they are super valuable, maybe even more so then other position players, but maybe most of them are prevented in accumulating enough total career bulk value


They are. That's undeniable.


to be worth going into the Hall.


That's only because you've summarily decided that's what the Hall is entirely about. That's the position Walt was challenging.

And you can still use your value stick for measuring catchers' greatness. You just have to be willing to measure catchers against other catchers in determining their greatness, which not only seems perfectly reasonable, but I really don't see why anyone would do it the other way.
   736. shoewizard Posted: January 03, 2014 at 08:22 PM (#4629561)
Who among active players would you predict to be the biggest future HOF snub.

I nominate:

Chase Utley
Carlos Beltran
Adrian Beltre
Joe Mauer
Lance Berkman

Among Pitchers

Roy Halladay
Johan Santana
Roy Oswalt
CC Sabathia

But I bet Verlander goes in if he has a reasonable decline phase and 2013 was just a blip.
   737. maven of all things baseball Posted: January 03, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4629564)
Dave Krieger's ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Martinez, Morris, Piazza, Raines, Thomas, Trammell. His "Jack" vote troubles me, as he could have easily replaced him with a better pitcher (Schilling) or hitter (Walker). That said, his defense/explanation of his choices is well-crafted - whether one agrees or not: http://blitzkrieg13.com/2014/01/03/my-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot/

EDIT: BOTH Mussina and Schilling would represent better choices than Morris...
   738. Baldrick Posted: January 03, 2014 at 08:36 PM (#4629567)
He beats him on literally every single category anyone has devised to compare pitchers.

I've said this before:

- Game 7
- Tons of opening day starts
- He was the 'ace' for three World Series winning teams
- He started three All-Star games
- Most wins of the 80s

None of those are 'value' categories, but I completely get why all of them would matter to people. Morris combines a BUNCH of narrative elements that make him seem like a HOFer, none of which Mussina has got. Obviously that doesn't make him a better candidate for us, but it certainly explains how someone could rationalize the difference.

I do think that the long-term case for Mussina is certainly strengthened by people saying 'you voted for Morris all those years - well let me show you how Mussina is actually better on every account.' So this is definitely a useful comparison.
   739. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 03, 2014 at 08:38 PM (#4629570)
Dave Krieger's ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Martinez, Morris, Piazza, Raines, Thomas, Trammell. His "Jack" vote troubles me, as he could have easily replaced him with a better pitcher (Schilling) or hitter (Walker). That said, his defense/explanation of his choices is well-crafted - whether one agrees or not: http://blitzkrieg13.com/2014/01/03/my-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot/


Yeah, that's a pretty solid ballot. He has the six deserving guys with the best chance to be elected. And Trammell's a favorite of mine, so I always like to see guys find room for him at the end of the ballot. Morris is off the ballot next year anyway. If Biggio's Gizmo number holds and Piazza can gain a couple of points, that'll clear out over half of Krieger's ballot going into next season.
   740. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 08:39 PM (#4629572)
isnt it also difficult to quantify the value of a SB because unlike most stats, these are more likely in high leverage situations.


Only because runner-on-base situations are, by definition, higher in leverage, and you can't have SBs without runners on base.

Looking only at high leverage situations (LI >= 1.5) over the last 10 years, with a runner on first and no runner on second:

Average leverage of all situations: 2.35
Average leverage of situations in which there was an SB attempt (not counting hit-and-run plays): 2.33
Average leverage of situations in which there was a bunt: 2.46

This is what I've found to be generally true when I've looked at this - stolen base attempts tend to occur early in games, sacrifice attempts by non-pitchers tend to occur late in games in similar situations.

-- MWE
   741. bobm Posted: January 03, 2014 at 08:41 PM (#4629573)
And I would think Walt offers the perfect rebuttal to this: The HoF is about greatness, not about value. They are highly correlated but not the same.

Well I presented it as a possibility, not something I was advocating, but it is the internet so I feel compelled to argue :)

Explain greatness without value. What is greatness without value? Can someone be so great that they merit inclusion without any value at all?


Your question is based on a false premise. "Highly correlated but not the same" does not mean "without."

With respect to greatness vs value, Mariano Rivera has 33 WAA and 57 WAR (regular season). Compared to any starting pitcher with the same WAR, Mariano is likely going to be perceived by most fans as "greater".
   742. Scott Ross Posted: January 03, 2014 at 08:45 PM (#4629577)
the biggest future HoF snub

Beltre will have the most trouble relative to his qualifications, unless he sticks around for 3000.
   743. Scott Ross Posted: January 03, 2014 at 08:50 PM (#4629579)
Mariano is likely going to be perceived by most fans as "greater".

Given that he compiled that value in about 40% of the innings it takes most SP to do it, it's not such a crazy idea.
   744. Srul Itza Posted: January 03, 2014 at 08:51 PM (#4629580)
Biggio trending up, still over 80%. It is looking good for him, vis-a-vis any reasonably anticipated drop off in the un-publicized ballots

Big Hurt still over 90% and looking like a lock.

I don't think Piazza will get over the hump this time, but if the four ahead of him are cleared, and the only sure things on the next ballot are pitchers, I think he's a shoo-in for next year.
   745. shoewizard Posted: January 03, 2014 at 08:59 PM (#4629582)
I think over 70% chance Beltre gets to 3000 hits. He has averaged 182 over the last 3 years. If he averages just 150 over the next 3.5 years he will reach 3000 hits right around the all star break of 2017. If he gets hurt and misses a bunch of games, it could take to 2018 or 2019. But I think he gets there.

Although a long death march to 3000 that drags down his batting average and leaves people with a lasting impression will hurt him more than falling just short of 3000 I would think.

Spitballing it , he has about a 95% chance to get over 400 HR, and 75% chance he gets over 1500 RBI.

He needs to be a big contributor to a world series winner to seal the deal perhaps.

amazing how good he has been the last 10 years. Hardly a compiler

Rk           Player WAR/pos
1     Albert Pujols    72.2
2       Chase Utley    57.8
3     Adrian Beltre    56.9
4    Miguel Cabrera    54.1
5    Alex Rodriguez    52.5
6      David Wright    46.7
7    Carlos Beltran    45.2
8     Robinson Cano    45.1
9     Mark Teixeira    44.9
10        Joe Mauer    44.3
11    Ichiro Suzuki    41.7
12    Matt Holliday    40.4 


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 1/4/2014.

   746. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:01 PM (#4629584)
Here's an interesting trivia question:

Between 1914 and 2013, 16 pitchers have had at least 10 Opening Day starts. Two of them - CC Sabathia and Roy Halladay, each with 10 Opening Day starts - were active in 2013. Of the 14 pitchers in this group who were not active in 2013, Clemens and Morris are on the ballot now, and Randy Johnson becomes eligible next year. Of the 11 other pitchers, 10 are in the Hall of Fame. Who is the only pitcher in the group of 11 who is not in the Hall of Fame?

-- MWE
   747. Scott Ross Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:03 PM (#4629585)
Blasted double post.
   748. Srul Itza Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:05 PM (#4629587)
Beltre will have the most trouble relative to his qualifications, unless he sticks around for 3000.


I don't know if "sticks around" is the right phrase. He has over 2,400 hits, will turn 35 at the start of the season, has been quite durable and effective the last 4 years, still has room to slide down the defensive spectrum (to first and DH), is signed for two more years, with an option for a third, and is playing in an offense-friendly park.

Barring injury or sudden collapse, I think he has a very fine shot at 3,000 without having to limp over the line a la Biggio, and is also likely to be well north of 400 HRS. If his play holds up, we are likely to find find more and more writers appreciating what he has done.


Given that he compiled that value in about 40% of the innings it takes most SP to do it, it's not such a crazy idea.


Assuming you accept the assumptions about leverage that play into creating that value.
   749. cardsfanboy Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:10 PM (#4629592)
Who is the only pitcher in the group of 11 who is not in the Hall of Fame?


Everyone on this board should know that answer, it's one of the things trotted out there all the time when people try to make his case....1. Most wins in the 80's 2. His world series game 3. 14 opening day starts proves he was an ace for all that time(not that his team didn't have a deep pitching staff) 4. pitched to the score.

Edit:Oops I missed the disclaimer on the initial question about Morris..
   750. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:10 PM (#4629593)
I think over 70% chance Beltre gets to 3000 hits. He has averaged 182 over the last 3 years. If he averages just 150 over the next 3.5 years he will reach 3000 hits right around the all star break of 2017. If he gets hurt and misses a bunch of games, it could take to 2018 or 2019. But I think he gets there.


Nice to see I'm not the only one who thinks Beltre looks like he'll clear 3,000 hits easily. He's less than 600 away, hitting better than ever (a career-high 199 hits in 2013), doesn't walk a lot, remains a good defensive player at third and is only 34. Injury is really the only thing that should be standing in his way.

Who is the only pitcher in the group of 11 who is not in the Hall of Fame?


Steve Rogers?

   751. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:11 PM (#4629595)
Given that he compiled that value in about 40% of the innings it takes most SP to do it, it's not such a crazy idea.

Assuming you accept the assumptions about leverage that play into creating that value.


If you don't make some sort of assumption like that going forward, you're basically saying that you're not going to consider relievers for the Hall of Fame. FWIW, I think that those in the analytical community who dismiss Lee Smith's HoF qualifications out of hand are saying just that, albeit not explicitly.

-- MWE
   752. cardsfanboy Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:11 PM (#4629596)
I do think that the long-term case for Mussina is certainly strengthened by people saying 'you voted for Morris all those years - well let me show you how Mussina is actually better on every account.' So this is definitely a useful comparison


What makes you think that anybody who is voting for Morris is capable of being reasoned too?
   753. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:12 PM (#4629598)
Utley will be the shaftee among hitters. Falls right into the "sweet" spot
-late start, so counting totals are nothing special
-walks are a big part of his game
-derives a lot of value from high-percentage baserunning but not a Raines/Rickey burner
-strong glove
-batting average is meh
-trouble staying healthy
-plays the same position as Whitaker, Grich, and Randolph, who got bounced fast.

Beltran is getting a lot of a Hall talk this year, and Beltre is starting to get a bit of recognition for his totals. Berkman won't deserve the Hall because he won't stand out from other corner OFs. Utley will rank higher among 2B than Berkman among OFs. Utley is kind of the Jim Edmonds of 2Bs.
   754. TJ Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:12 PM (#4629599)
Dave Krieger's ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Martinez, Morris, Piazza, Raines, Thomas, Trammell. His "Jack" vote troubles me, as he could have easily replaced him with a better pitcher (Schilling) or hitter (Walker). That said, his defense/explanation of his choices is well-crafted - whether one agrees or not: http://blitzkrieg13.com/2014/01/03/my-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot/


I concur, and is the sort of piece that is a credit to a BBWAA voter- nothing about living in mom's basement, envy of not getting to vote, spite, highhandedness, etc. Just wish Krieger had given us his reasons for voting for who he did. That would have been interesting based on the thought he put into the rest of his post...
   755. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:13 PM (#4629600)
Steve Rogers?


Rogers had only nine Opening Day starts, so no.

-- MWE
   756. bobm Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4629601)
Given that he compiled that value in about 40% of the innings it takes most SP to do it, it's not such a crazy idea.

Agreed - but SPs with the same WAR are not likely to be HoFers.

Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1901 to 2013, (requiring WAR_pitch>=55 and WAR_pitch<=60), sorted by smallest Innings Pitched

                                                                              
Rk            Player     IP  WAR    G  GS   W   L  SV   BB   SO ERA+  HR    BF
1     Mariano Rivera 1283.2 56.5 1115  10  82  60 652  286 1173  205  71  5103
2    Bret Saberhagen 2562.2 59.2  399 371 167 117   1  471 1715  126 218 10421
3       Kevin Appier 2595.1 55.0  414 402 169 137   0  933 1994  121 232 10958
4       Rube Waddell 2659.2 55.2  366 308 178 127   4  728 2137  133  30 10499
5         Tim Hudson 2813.2 55.4  427 426 205 111   0  846 1896  124 220 11691
6         Dave Stieb 2895.1 56.8  443 412 176 137   3 1034 1669  122 225 12072
7     Mordecai Brown 3172.1 55.0  481 332 239 130  49  673 1375  139  43 12422
8       Chuck Finley 3197.1 58.4  524 467 200 173   0 1332 2610  115 304 13638
9      Eddie Cicotte 3226.0 56.9  502 361 209 148  24  827 1374  123  32 12731
10     Jerry Koosman 3839.1 57.2  612 527 222 209  17 1198 2556  110 290 15996
11        Jack Quinn 3920.1 58.9  756 443 247 218  57  860 1329  114 103 16356
12      Frank Tanana 4188.1 57.6  638 616 240 236   1 1255 2773  106 448 17641
13       Red Ruffing 4344.0 55.4  624 538 273 225  16 1541 1987  109 254 18546
14        Eppa Rixey 4494.2 56.8  692 554 266 251  14 1082 1350  115  93 18754


   757. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4629602)
@ 746: Stieb.

EDIT for clarity.
   758. cardsfanboy Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:17 PM (#4629603)
And you can still use your value stick for measuring catchers' greatness. You just have to be willing to measure catchers against other catchers in determining their greatness, which not only seems perfectly reasonable, but I really don't see why anyone would do it the other way.


You can still measure catchers against other positions on a seasonal basis(although again, I'm fairly certain every War type of system out there, underrates catchers value significantly that it's not really practical to trust them without some hedging) it's just that when you are trying to talk about the hof, that you need to pull them out of the general population. Hof only requires a 10 year minimum career, so I don't see any reason that a voter should expect a catcher to have a career length comparable to a first baseman in order to gain enshrinement/vote.
   759. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:20 PM (#4629605)
Stieb had only four Opening Day starts. Early in his career Clancy was the #1 guy on the staff; later in his career he was behind Key.

-- MWE
   760. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:21 PM (#4629606)
Orel?

   761. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:23 PM (#4629609)
EDIT: Responded to a comment that was deleted.
   762. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:25 PM (#4629610)
Not Hershiser. Hershiser was behind Fernando for a chunk of his career.

-- MWE

EDIT: Stieb and Rogers were in the right country; the pitcher involved pitched a chunk of his career in Canada.
   763. Baldrick Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:25 PM (#4629611)
What makes you think that anybody who is voting for Morris is capable of being reasoned too?

There are TONS of ballots this year with 9 good candidates and Morris. Those people absolutely seem like they're open to reason - since they have pretty obviously been persuaded over the last 12 months that they need to fill their ballots.

I mean, Morris is going to get 70ish% of the vote. Do you think that 3/4 of the voters literally are incapable of listening to reason?
   764. cardsfanboy Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:28 PM (#4629614)
I had to cheat for the answer...not sure I would have ever thought of him. He did it for three different teams(and got at least 2 for each of them)...I think him and Randy are the only ones on that list to be able to say that.
   765. Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:28 PM (#4629615)
Mike,

Bobo Newsom?
Rick Reuschel?
Mickey Lolich?
   766. gabrielthursday Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:29 PM (#4629617)
Utley might have as much difficulty getting into Cooperstown as Beltre. Second basemen and third basemen seem to have an unreasonable standard for induction, and while I expect Utley to compile enough value in the next 3-5 years to merit induction, I suspect he will be seen as a guy who was a star for too short a time before injuries struck.

I'm actually optimistic that saber evaluation of candidates will have a far stronger influence in ten years, and if that's right Beltre and Utley (presuming they continue to age relatively gracefully) won't have much difficulty at all.
   767. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:30 PM (#4629618)
Dag/765: See the clue in 762.

-- MWE
   768. cardsfanboy Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:30 PM (#4629619)
I mean, Morris is going to get 70ish% of the vote. Do you think that 3/4 of the voters literally are incapable of listening to reason?


They are baseball writers...... Not really one of those professions that I put a lot of faith in having the ability to reason. :)

   769. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:32 PM (#4629621)
He did it for three different teams(and got at least 2 for each of them)...I think him and Randy are the only ones on that list to be able to say that.


Grover Cleveland Alexander did it for three different teams, also.

-- MWE

EDIT: And Blyleven did it for all five of his teams, three of them more than once.
   770. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:36 PM (#4629625)

I think him and Randy are the only ones on that list to be able to say that.


Surely Clemens must have.
   771. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:38 PM (#4629626)
Utley might be very close to the end of his career; he hasn't played a full season in four years and has played more than 140 games only four times. He's not going to make the HoF unless he has a late-career resurgence.

-- MWE
   772. cardsfanboy Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:40 PM (#4629628)
Grover Cleveland Alexander did it for three different teams, also.


He didn't pop up on my list... (search went from 1916-present...Alexander only had 9 starts in that time frame...)

But it was more common than I thought...Seaver did it for Mets/Reds/White Sox.
Morris did it for three teams(only one time for Minnesota though)(same with Clemens only one time for Toronto and never for the Astros)
Blyleven did it for three different teams... (and five different teams in total)
Even Fergie Jenkins did it for three different teams...

In fact it's weird for the Gibson and Cartlton types to have done it strictly for one team...I was thinking that would have been the norm.(or at least a split)
   773. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:40 PM (#4629629)
Dennis Martinez?
   774. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:41 PM (#4629630)
Surely Clemens must have.


Nope. All but one of Clemens's Opening Day starts were for Boston and New York.

-- MWE
   775. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:41 PM (#4629631)
EDIT: Stieb and Rogers were in the right country; the pitcher involved pitched a chunk of his career in Canada.

David Cone? Pat Hentgen?

I assume it's not Pedro due to the phrasing of the question...
   776. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:43 PM (#4629633)
773 nails it. El Presidente had 11 Opening Day starts; two for the Orioles, six for the Expos, and three for Cleveland.

His HoF case isn't a lot worse than Morris's, if at all.

-- MWE
   777. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:44 PM (#4629634)
I assume it's not Pedro due to the phrasing of the question...


Pedro only had 8 Opening Day starts.

-- MWE
   778. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4629636)
MWE: The Canada clue and the three teams clue is leading me to El Presidente or Cone. Since Cone was behind Gooden and didn't stay long in KC and TOR, I'll go with Martinez....

Edit: Balboni beat me to it!
   779. rawagman Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4629637)
I think Utley's role on a quasi "dynasty" with the Phillies may help him gain some BBWAA love. Maybe not enough for an easy election, but I would be surprised if he doesn't have a long run on the ballot. I think his worst case scenario is Alan Trammell. Best case is Larkin.
   780. rawagman Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:47 PM (#4629638)
The candidate I am most concerned about getting the shaft is Scott Rolen. Coincidentally (or not), one of his top ten comps via BB-Ref is Ron Santo.
   781. cardsfanboy Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:48 PM (#4629639)
Surprisingly Morris isn't the worst performer on the list(opening day starts...went to 8 total to include Pedro.)

Niekro just wasn't a good choice apparently.

Rk            Player        #Matching W L W-L%  ERA GS CG SHO    IP   H ER  SO WHIP
                                                                                   
1         Tom Seaver    16 IndGames 7 2 .778 3.13 16  2   0 100.2  96 35  81 1.15
                                                                                   
2        Jack Morris    14 Ind
Games 8 6 .571 3.39 14  5   0 106.1  99 40  75 1.30
3      Randy Johnson    14 Ind
Games 7 2 .778 2.49 14  1   1  97.2  75 27 107 1.16
4      Steve Carlton    14 Ind
Games 3 9 .250 4.30 14  2   0  92.0  92 44  66 1.32
                                                                                   
5      Robin Roberts    13 Ind
Games 5 7 .417 4.03 13  8   0 105.0 101 47  37 1.18
6      Roger Clemens    13 Ind
Games 6 3 .667 4.08 13  1   0  88.1  71 40  72 1.22
                                                                                   
7      Bert Blyleven    12 Ind
Games 3 3 .500 3.21 12  2   0  87.0  73 31  57 1.14
                                                                                   
8    Dennis Martinez    11 Ind
Games 2 5 .286 3.65 11  0   0  69.0  61 28  48 1.26
9     Fergie Jenkins    11 Ind
Games 3 4 .429 2.58 11  4   0  80.1  65 23  47 0.95
                                                                                   
10      Warren Spahn    10 Ind
Games 4 4 .500 3.10 10  5   1  81.1  78 28  38 1.22
11       CC Sabathia    10 Ind
Games 1 2 .333 5.80 10  0   0  54.1  63 35  47 1.64
12     Juan Marichal    10 Ind
Games 6 2 .750 1.73 10  6   2  83.0  65 16  57 1.02
13      Roy Halladay    10 Ind
Games 5 3 .625 3.31 10  0   0  68.0  63 25  51 1.10
14        Bob Gibson    10 Ind
Games 2 2 .500 3.00 10  2   1  75.0  61 25  61 1.12
                                                                                   
15        Don Sutton     9 Ind
Games 4 3 .571 2.63  9  3   1  65.0  47 19  44 1.03
16    Rick Sutcliffe     9 Ind
Games 5 3 .625 4.71  9  2   1  57.1  53 30  33 1.38
17        Nolan Ryan     9 Ind
Games 5 3 .625 3.84  9  2   0  58.2  44 25  59 1.23
18      Steve Rogers     9 Ind
Games 2 4 .333 3.43  9  2   2  57.2  54 22  37 1.16
19        Brad Radke     9 Ind
Games 4 2 .667 4.25  9  0   0  55.0  62 26  36 1.25
20     Gaylord Perry     9 Ind
Games 4 3 .571 3.82  9  3   0  68.1  61 29  44 1.08
21       Phil Niekro     9 Ind
Games 0 7 .000 7.31  9  1   0  44.1  53 36  27 1.56
22    Walter Johnson     9 Ind
Games 5 4 .556 1.91  9  7   4  80.0  58 17  52 0.99
23   Livan Hernandez     9 Ind
Games 4 4 .500 4.45  9  0   0  56.2  58 28  36 1.29
24      Mark Buehrle     9 Ind
Games 4 1 .800 3.68  9  0   0  51.1  46 21  20 1.17
25    Pete Alexander     9 Ind
Games 6 3 .667 3.38  9  7   0  72.0  70 27  32 1.15
Rk            Player        
#Matching W L W-L%  ERA GS CG SHO    IP   H ER  SO WHIP
26        Roy Oswalt     8 IndGames 2 4 .333 3.48  8  0   0  54.1  55 21  29 1.20
27    Pedro Martinez     8 Ind
Games 3 1 .750 2.76  8  0   0  49.0  37 15  64 1.00
28       Greg Maddux     8 Ind
Games 6 1 .857 2.10  8  0   0  55.2  48 13  44 1.06
29     Charlie Hough     8 Ind
Games 4 1 .800 3.08  8  2   1  52.2  40 18  28 1.20
30     Dwight Gooden     8 Ind
Games 6 1 .857 3.81  8  2   1  54.1  56 23  42 1.25
31       Tom Glavine     8 Ind
Games 5 3 .625 3.70  8  1   1  48.2  44 20  31 1.25
32      Kevin Appier     8 Ind
Games 1 5 .167 3.80  8  0   0  45.0  45 19  37 1.53 
   782. Srul Itza Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:50 PM (#4629640)
If you don't make some sort of assumption like that going forward, you're basically saying that you're not going to consider relievers for the Hall of Fame.


Not necessarily. I support the very best relievers for the Hall of Fame, without having to fall back on WAR, FIP, xFIP, BABIP and LSMFT. Hoyt Wilhelm, Goose Gossage, Mariano Rivera and Dennis Eckersley were all part of the lore and legend of the game, and belong in the Hall of Fame, which is not now, and never was, the Hall of Statistical Measurement to Two Illusory Decimal Places.

Yes, there is a certain amount of "I know it when I see it" involved. So be it. If that means that there are some people in the Hall who I do not believe belong, and some people outside of it who I think should be in, well, it's an imperfect world, and I [alone among all Primates, apparently :-)] do not claim omniscience.
   783. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:50 PM (#4629641)
776--He's in my personal Hall of Fame!

Then again, so are Al Leiter and Kenny Rogers, so that's not really saying all that much.
   784. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:54 PM (#4629644)
I think Utley's role on a quasi "dynasty" with the Phillies may help him gain some BBWAA love.

I would say that there are at least decent odds that Utley doesn't even get the most Hall votes in that infield. (It's not impossible that he wouldn't get the second-most either.)
   785. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:55 PM (#4629645)
I think Utley's role on a quasi "dynasty" with the Phillies may help him gain some BBWAA love.


Not without more playing time. Utley through 2013 has only 5671 PA; he will probably need at least 3000 more. Other than Kirby Puckett, who's a special case, no position player with fewer than 8500 PA has been voted into the HoF by the BBWAA since Duke Snider in 1980. I don't see Utley playing long enough to get there.

-- MWE

   786. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: January 03, 2014 at 09:59 PM (#4629649)
I think Utley's role on a quasi "dynasty" with the Phillies may help him gain some BBWAA love.

784. I would say that there are at least decent odds that Utley doesn't even get the most Hall votes in that infield. (It's not impossible that he wouldn't get the second-most either.)

I pointed out in an earlier thread that Chase Utley never led any Phillies team in MVP votes--he was always behind Howard/Rollins/Burrell.
   787. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2014 at 10:14 PM (#4629655)
Hoyt Wilhelm, Goose Gossage, Mariano Rivera and Dennis Eckersley were all part of the lore and legend of the game, and belong in the Hall of Fame


Hoyt Wilhelm, for most of his career, wasn't even the go-to reliever on his own teams. He pitched behind Marv Grissom, Stu Miller, Eddie Fisher, and Bob Locker. Kent Tekulve has about the same HoF case as Wilhelm, in terms of performance in context of usage.

Goose Gossage was Lee Smith, 10 years earlier (and Mariano Rivera, 20 years earlier). The main difference between Goose and Smith was the rapid change in how relief aces were being used that almost perfectly spans Smith's career, which makes it hard for people to understand how good Smith really was in context; he tends to be compared to latter-day one-inning relievers when he really is more like a throwback to the Gossage/Fingers era. The role was much less in flux during both Gossage's career and Rivera's, which makes it easier to evaluate them.

I get why the relievers who are in the HoF are there (including Fingers and Sutter), and I get why Rivera will go; it's almost all about the narrative. Lee Smith doesn't have the narrative but he was every bit the equal of Gossage and Fingers in terms of performance in context of usage, and significantly better than Wilhelm and Sutter (replace Wilhelm and Sutter with Tekulve and Quisenberry and I don't think you diminish the HoF one little bit). It will be interesting to see how the BBWAA treats Trevor Hoffman and Joe Nathan (when they are eligible), both of whom are close to the Gossage/Fingers/Smith tier of relievers.

-- MWE
   788. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 03, 2014 at 10:23 PM (#4629657)
Goose Gossage was Lee Smith, 10 years earlier (and Mariano Rivera, 20 years earlier). The main difference between Goose and Smith was the rapid change in how relief aces were being used that almost perfectly spans Smith's career, which makes it hard for people to understand how good Smith really was in context;

Disagree.

Gossage has a 10-year peak as a reliever (excluding 1976) where he logged 974 IP and a 187 ERA+. Smith's 10 year peak is 903 IP, with a 142 ERA+.

That's not really close.
   789. Srul Itza Posted: January 03, 2014 at 10:53 PM (#4629671)
I also think Mike is giving very short shrift to Hoyt Wilhelm, who got his start at age 29, after WWII, and pitched until he was 49, racking up 2,254 IP at a 147 ERA+, in a then record 1070 appearances.

   790. Srul Itza Posted: January 03, 2014 at 10:54 PM (#4629673)
And as much as I love Goose, he was not Mariano 20 years earlier. Mo's Post Season work, by itself, is enough to distinguish him from just about any other reliever.
   791. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: January 03, 2014 at 11:01 PM (#4629680)
I think over 70% chance Beltre gets to 3000 hits.

Presently 54%, per the Favorite Toy. And 33% for 500 HR.
   792. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: January 03, 2014 at 11:03 PM (#4629682)
I also think Mike is giving very short shrift to Hoyt Wilhelm, who got his start at age 29, after WWII, and pitched until he was 49, racking up 2,254 IP at a 147 ERA+, in a then record 1070 appearances.


Also, Wilhelm's one season as a starter he won an ERA title. Gossage's one season as a starter he lost 17 games with an ERA near 4.
   793. DL from MN Posted: January 04, 2014 at 12:10 AM (#4629689)
I will agree with Lee Smith as the equal of Fingers. Just not the equal when it comes to facial hair.
   794. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 04, 2014 at 12:18 AM (#4629694)
[791] I'm getting 81% of 3000 hits (mean 3178)and 54% chance of 500 home runs (mean 504)

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/billjames/_/age/34/careertotal/376/yearone/30/yeartwo/36/yearthree/32/goal/500
   795. ajnrules Posted: January 04, 2014 at 12:23 AM (#4629696)
Niekro's opening day stats sure stand out like a sore thumb.
   796. Booey Posted: January 04, 2014 at 01:12 AM (#4629720)
I think Beltre makes the HOF fairly easily. Even if he doesn't get 3000, he'll end up with 2700-2800, plus 450ish homers and 1500-1600 rbi's for a gold glove 3B. Those are Chipper power numbers, and that should be enough to set him apart from the Rolen/Utley types.
   797. alilisd Posted: January 04, 2014 at 02:42 AM (#4629742)
Ya. While Smith's usage may have been similar to Gossage's, his performance was not.
   798. vlad4hof Posted: January 04, 2014 at 02:56 AM (#4629747)
John Erardi:

Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Schilling, Mussina, Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza, Raines and Trammell.

Unclear from his piece if he didn't vote for someone this year that he previously had, though he starts the article suggested an expectation to.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20140103/SPT04/301030123/Erardi-Hall-Fame-vote-has-never-been-harder
   799. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 04, 2014 at 03:21 AM (#4629749)
Well, Erardi's ballot from last year is also unclear. The year before, he'd voted for Edgar, Palmeiro, Smith and Walker, but not Trammell.

Erardi 2012: Bagwell, Larkin, Martinez, Palmeiro, Raines, Smith, Walker.
Erardi 2013: Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza (only names mentioned).
   800. Longshort1 Posted: January 04, 2014 at 04:17 AM (#4629753)
So who do we think is in danger of dropping off the ballot? McGriff and below? Walker and below? Sosa and below? Just Mattingly?


I believe Mattingly will actually get the 5%. He's just below the line, and he seems to have heavier support among the non-public voters. Yet I believe that Palmeiro and Sosa, both sitting a couple percentage points above the line might very well fall below five percent when those non-public voters are counted. I suspect they're more anti-steroids than some of the public voters.

So my prediction: Mattingly stays, Palmeiro and Sosa fall off.
Page 8 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4216 - 10:49pm, Nov 23)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(26 - 10:48pm, Nov 23)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(994 - 10:39pm, Nov 23)
Last: Howling John Shade

NewsblogAstros interested in Robertson: source | New York Post
(17 - 10:37pm, Nov 23)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(35 - 10:34pm, Nov 23)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8649 - 10:26pm, Nov 23)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(23 - 10:15pm, Nov 23)
Last: Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(21 - 10:13pm, Nov 23)
Last: zonk

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(13 - 9:45pm, Nov 23)
Last: DCA

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Ballot
(10 - 9:09pm, Nov 23)
Last: MrC

NewsblogPablo Sandoval leaning toward Red Sox, to decide next week — Padres have highest offer, all offers on table (including SF Giants’) - John Shea
(32 - 9:04pm, Nov 23)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(31 - 6:53pm, Nov 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(451 - 6:43pm, Nov 23)
Last: JuanGone..except1game

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(22 - 6:14pm, Nov 23)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogSunday Notes: Arroyo’s Rehab, Clark & the MLBPA, Doc Gooden, AFL Arms, ChiSox, more
(16 - 5:53pm, Nov 23)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

Page rendered in 0.9324 seconds
52 querie(s) executed