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

Monday, November 26, 2018

Thibs’ Hall of Fame Tracker

Primate Thibs’ indispensable Hall of Fame tool is back for another year.

SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2018 at 03:02 PM | 1365 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, son of gizmo

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 5 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   401. bbmck Posted: December 10, 2018 at 07:21 PM (#5796362)
"The closers and their records are a farce, a story. How many games did Mariano Rivera save doing just one out of the 27, how many saves was credited receiving the board with an advantage of up to three races and only three outs? "

One out regular season saves: 26 for Mariano, trailing Rollie Fingers 39 (37 are 1 of 27), Jeff Reardon 34, Todd Worrell 33, Sparky Lyle 31, Trevor Hoffman 30, tied with Lee Smith and Francisco Rodriguez 26. Rollie is the only person with 2 (or more) one out saves in the post season, 26 players with 1 including only Reardon among the listed players.

Four or more out saves: Rollie Fingers 201 (6 in post-season T3rd all-time), Goose Gossage 193 (7, 2nd), Bruce Sutter 188 (3), Lee Smith 169 (0), Dan Quisenberry 160 (1), Jeff Reardon 152 (2), Hoyt Wilhelm 148 (1), Sparky Lyle 134 (0), Mike Marshall 127 (0), Gene Garber 127 (0), Mariano Rivera 119 (31, 1st)... T16th Dennis Eckersley 106 (6, T3rd)... T70th Trevor Hoffman 55 (1)

Four or more WS only: Mariano Rivera 9 (1st), Rollie Fingers 4 (2nd), Goose Gossage 2 (T7th), Bruce Sutter 2 (T7th), Dan Quisenberry 1, Hoyt Wilhelm 1
Four or more LCS or WS: Mariano Rivera 18 (1st), Rollie Fingers 6 (2nd), Dennis Eckersley 5 (3rd), Goose Gossage 4 (T4th), Bruce Sutter 3, Dan Quisenberry 1, Jeff Reardon 1, Hoyt Wilhelm 1, Trevor Hoffman 1
   402. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 10, 2018 at 07:49 PM (#5796373)
We should keep an eye on Larry Walker. He's added 6 of 17 possible returning voters, which, if continued, implies a gain of over 23%, leaving aside new voters and the loss of ineligible voters. That would take him to 57%, and more than half-way to induction by the BBWAA from last year. For what it's worth, he also gained Adam Rubin since 2017 (Rubin's 2018 ballot is unknown).

Walker received votes from both 1st-time voters tallied so far, and is now at 65.6%. If the BBWAA voters elect 4 players this year, which is looking quite possible, Walker will have a lot less competition in his final year on the ballot, and might make it, or at least come close enough to give him the "almost made it" gloss that seems to appeal to the Veterans Committee.
   403. cardsfanboy Posted: December 10, 2018 at 08:27 PM (#5796385)

If Baines really is a one-off, then he's a massive mistake but okay whatever. But 'it's only ONE big mistake' is a pretty bad way to go about determining who receives the highest honor in the game.


Between Baines, Rice, Morris and Smith,(and not including the eventual Vizquel induction) we have had four really crappy selections to the hof in the past few years. It kinda puts a damper on the concept that the writers/voters are getting smarter type of arguments, when it's clear that they are totally clueless.
   404. gabrielthursday Posted: December 10, 2018 at 09:50 PM (#5796426)
Between Baines, Rice, Morris and Smith,(and not including the eventual Vizquel induction) we have had four really crappy selections to the hof in the past few years. It kinda puts a damper on the concept that the writers/voters are getting smarter type of arguments, when it's clear that they are totally clueless.
Well, three of those were the Hall's committees, not the writers, so you're really only looking at Rice as an anomalous selection - and Rice at least is prototypical of the kind of player that has historically been inducted - a star in his own time, a big power hitter who led the league in significant categories (HRs thrice, RBIs twice) and got the important hardware (MVP once, top 5 five more times, 8-time All-Star). I still think he falls short, but Rice is exactly the kind of player you expect the writers to make a mistake on. He had the same kind of appeal as Vladdy Guerrero, who was on the numbers, a marginal pick.

The writers are getting better - the oversights are less egregious now (even with an unprecedented glut on the ballot) and there are fewer weak candidacies making their way into the hall. Rice was elected 10 years ago - I doubt he gets in now via the BBWAA.
   405. Booey Posted: December 10, 2018 at 10:05 PM (#5796430)
The writers are getting better - the oversights are less egregious now (even with an unprecedented glut on the ballot) and there are fewer weak candidacies making their way into the hall


Except with relievers. Hoffman was as bad a choice as Smith is. And as others have pointed out, it seems likely that Vizquel gets in. And the oversights are more egregious than they've ever been if you count the PED gang.

   406. gabrielthursday Posted: December 10, 2018 at 11:38 PM (#5796447)
Except with relievers. Hoffman was as bad a choice as Smith is. And as others have pointed out, it seems likely that Vizquel gets in. And the oversights are more egregious than they've ever been if you count the PED gang.
Relievers have no clear standard, and the writers haven't been good at developing one. The emerging standard appears to be: lots of saves, long career, with no attention paid to per-inning dominance. It's not ridiculous, although I'd much rather have a much larger emphasis on dominance (elect Wagner!).

I'm optimistic Vizquel will be stymied by the writers: he underperformed with the new voters last year, and overperformed among the "private ballots". I think there's a decent chance he stalls out around 50%, but I'm prepared to be wrong.

On another note, Baines' induction lowers the JAWS level for Right Field significantly from 72.7/42.9/57.8 to 71.4/42.1/56.7; there are now three more players above the standard (Paul Waner, Sam Crawford and Shoeless Joe Jackson), and making Larry Walker significantly above the average.
   407. bobm Posted: December 11, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5796559)
Relievers have no clear standard, and the writers haven't been good at developing one. The emerging standard appears to be: lots of saves, long career, with no attention paid to per-inning dominance. It's not ridiculous, although I'd much rather have a much larger emphasis on dominance (elect Wagner!).

1. Writers seem to be largely ignorant of leverage, inherited runners, the tendency for the 9th inning to feature the bottom of the batting order, etc.

2. But who can really blame them, since over time, most managers run their bullpens seemingly ignorant of leverage, inherited runners, the tendency for the 9th inning to feature the bottom of the batting order, etc. Is it fair to penalize relievers for their situational (mis)use by managers?

   408. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: December 11, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5796613)
Edgar Martinez no longer unanimous. The world continues to rotate.
   409. Rally Posted: December 11, 2018 at 12:09 PM (#5796618)
Between Baines, Rice, Morris and Smith,(and not including the eventual Vizquel induction) we have had four really crappy selections to the hof in the past few years. It kinda puts a damper on the concept that the writers/voters are getting smarter type of arguments, when it's clear that they are totally clueless.


They have responded to pressure to be a bit less stingy with the ballots after the embarrassment of no inductees a few years back. Good for Raines and Trammell getting in, good for guys like Smoltz and Pudge getting in first ballot instead of taking up ballot space for several years. But the by-product is we have some other guys getting in who are not up to the same statistical standards.
   410. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 11, 2018 at 12:13 PM (#5796623)
1. Writers seem to be largely ignorant ... inherited runners ... etc.


What makes you say this? Trevor Hoffman was historically great at stranding inherited runners and it's one of the things that puts him ahead of Billy Wagner, for example. With respect to relief pitchers, the writers are ultimate-outcome based, i.e., saves. Which, in some sense, is the job of relief pitchers. If you accept that the number of relief pitchers in the Hall of Fame is about right, the voters have mostly put in the right ones (Sutter's the obvious outlier).
   411. Srul Itza Posted: December 11, 2018 at 12:33 PM (#5796636)
Edgar Martinez no longer unanimous. The world continues to rotate.


David Maril, who did not vote for Edgar, voted for all of the Peds Pariahs, and Halladay and Mussina -- AND Michael Young(??).

And still had a slot open on his ballot.

But not for Edgar.
   412. soc40 Posted: December 11, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5796674)
David Maril, who did not vote for Edgar, voted for all of the Peds Pariahs, and Halladay and Mussina -- AND Michael Young(??).


Shame he didn't clarify his weird choices and simply emailed it to Ryan directly.
   413. homerwannabee Posted: December 11, 2018 at 03:29 PM (#5796782)
Edgar Martinez no longer unanimous. The world continues to rotate.


Mo deserved to be the last man standing in regards to having a perfect 100%. I think Edgar should be in the Hall, but Mo deserves to be the last to have a perfect 100%. :)
   414. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 11, 2018 at 03:47 PM (#5796803)
The problem with the narrative on Walker and the crowded ballot is that it's not true. Haven't worked my way all the way through, but of the first 101 ballots with fewer than 10 players on them last year, Walker appeared on 20. That's a whole lot of writers with room, who simply aren't voting for Walker.
   415. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 11, 2018 at 04:06 PM (#5796813)
The problem with the narrative on Walker and the crowded ballot is that it's not true. Haven't worked my way all the way through, but of the first 101 ballots with fewer than 10 players on them last year, Walker appeared on 20. That's a whole lot of writers with room, who simply aren't voting for Walker.

That may be looking at the wrong group. Many of those who voted for less than 10, when many were voting for 10, may be unrepresentative of the more inclusive group. Guys like Walker & Rolen will have an opportunity to be considered without much regard for ballot constraints if 4 players are elected this year. That's a best-case scenario for them, although it's uncertain it will be enough. Just getting to a voting environment that encourages the electorate to give them a 2nd look seems like a necessary 1st step for any eventual election.
   416. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 11, 2018 at 05:30 PM (#5796874)
#415, yeah the bigger issue is that of all the writers last year who indicated which players they would have voted for if they had more than 10 slots available, only 3 (out of over 60) listed Walker.
   417. The Duke Posted: December 11, 2018 at 06:12 PM (#5796887)
There’s a bit of a herd instinct with the writers. Some have a rule of thumb to simply vote for people who get past X% and some don’t really consider marginal cases until they see the percentage rising. If Walker lands well above 50% AND mussina and Halliday get in this year, I think he has a good shot. The baines vote really helps him.
   418. bachslunch Posted: December 11, 2018 at 07:20 PM (#5796901)
33 ballots in now, and one interesting thing: Walker and Edgar both are net additions on 6 returning ballots. Knew Edgar was doing well here, but happy to see the same for Walker. Still might not be enough for the latter, though.

Moose and McGriff have added 5 net, Vizquel has added 4, Schilling 3, Kent and Rolen 2, Bonds and Clemens and Sheffield 1. Andruw is -1, Manny is -3.
   419. Sunday silence Posted: December 11, 2018 at 07:37 PM (#5796907)
the tendency for the 9th inning to feature the bottom of the batting order


LOL, no.
   420. The Duke Posted: December 11, 2018 at 09:34 PM (#5796944)
<https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/re-examining-wars-defensive-spectrum>

So this old hardball Times article argues that a guy like Baines should not be adjusted nearly as much - half of what a 1B adjustment should be based on him being a full time DH. If that premise is right where does that put Baines?
   421. bobm Posted: December 11, 2018 at 09:37 PM (#5796946)
the tendency for the 9th inning to feature the bottom of the batting order

LOL, no.


LOL, yes.

All of MLB: 4921 Plate Appearances Allowed in 2018, during 9th Inning and Up 3 Runs, Up 1 Runs or Up 2 Runs

OrderPos  PA
     6th 619
     7th 605
     8th 599
     5th 587
     9th 529
     4th 529
     1st 491
     3rd 489
     2nd 473
   422. bobm Posted: December 11, 2018 at 10:05 PM (#5796952)
What makes you say this? Trevor Hoffman was historically great at stranding inherited runners and it's one of the things that puts him ahead of Billy Wagner, for example.

I agree that voters may be drawing these inferences, but I've seen very little mention of stats like this in articles to differentiate among relievers, whether of the same era or different eras, to show how they were used differently.

That said, here's one of the few interesting pieces in this regard (albeit from last year):

How do you put Trevor Hoffman in the Hall of Fame after passing on Lee Smith?
By Dayn Perry

[...]

Hoffman has the edge in ERA+, K%, saves and save percentage. Smith, meantime, leads in innings, WAR and JAWS, which is Jay Jaffe's system that compares a candidate to the existing Hall standards for his position/role by blending a player's career WAR with the WAR from his peak seasons. The limited precision of both notwithstanding, WAR and JAWS suggest that Smith had the better career. Hoffman's narrow edge in K% is largely a function of era, and you'll note that he had almost 100 more save opportunities than Smith did.

It's also worth pointing out some other differences in how these two pitchers were used [in similar amounts of games pitched and games finished]:

*Smith made 377 multi-inning relief appearances in his career. Hoffman made 152.

*Smith entered the game with runners on base 318 times in his career. Hoffman did so just 188 times.

*Stated another way, Smith in his career inherited 510 base-runners, whereas Hoffman inherited 346.

*Eleven times in his career, Smith most commonly entered the game before the ninth inning. Just three times was this the case for Hoffman.

There's not (sic) doubt that Hoffman's success at converting save opportunities is a strong part of his case, but he worked a much higher percentage of clean innings than Smith did. As well, he was asked to get more than three outs much less often than Smith was.


Hoffman did strand runners at a greater rate than Smith (IS of 20% vs 28%), but context partly offsets that IMO.

Link
   423. bobm Posted: December 11, 2018 at 10:23 PM (#5796955)
Another interesting article IMO about reliever context from last year (this one by Jay Jaffe)

Hoffman's save totals and longevity no doubt owe something to his workload, which was relatively minimal compared to his game-closing predecessors—particularly the enshrined relievers—and is a product of the evolution of the closer's role. Wilhelm, Fingers and Gossage were all multi-inning firemen who could work extended stints if need be. Sutter worked multiple innings as well, though generally only when his team had a lead narrow enough to produce a save opportunity. Eckersley, who spent the first half of his career as a starter, became the model for the one-inning save machine we know today.

The difference is stark when comparing Hoffman to the enshrined quintet in terms of the length of their saves. For comparison's sake, I'll include fellow Hall of Fame candidates Smith and Billy Wagner, plus Rivera as well.

  PITCHER SAVES      1 IP    <1 IP     >1 IP
  Wilhelm   228  45 (20%) 35 (15%) 148 (65%)
   Sutter   300  82 (27%) 30 (10%) 188 (63%)
  Gossage   310  70 (23%) 47 (15%) 193 (62%)
  Fingers   341  81 (24%) 59 (17%) 201 (59%)
    Smith   478 260 (54%) 49 (10%) 169 (35%)
Eckersley   390 231 (59%) 53 (14%) 106 (27%)
   Rivera   652 491 (75%) 42 (6%) 119 (18%)
  Hoffman   601 498 (83%) 48 (8%)  55  (9%)
   Wagner   422 369 (87%) 17 (4%) 36 (9%)


Long saves account for the great majority for Wilhelm, Sutter, Gossage, and Fingers, but form increasingly smaller shares for the others, including less than 10% for both Hoffman and Wagner.

[...]

but even limiting the field to relief innings, 27 pitchers have compiled more out of the bullpen than Hoffman, including Smith (1,252 1/3) and Rivera (1,233 2/3).


Link
   424. bbmck Posted: December 11, 2018 at 11:31 PM (#5796964)
Inherited Runners(min 200)/% that scored: Ricardo Rincon 422/18.96, Javier Lopez 607/19.6, Randy Choate 527/19.92, Trevor Hoffman 346/20.23, Luis Avilan 264/20.83, Joe Thatcher 345/21.16, Zach Duke 212/21.7, Scott Eyre 437/21.97, Oliver Perez 277/22.02, Brendan Donnelly 204/22.06

Runners not scoring is clearly a good thing but it then begs the question using the above quote of those 346 runners happening in 188 appearances, why does this elite pitcher at preventing runners from scoring enter the game with the bases empty 82% of the time? Next question, how much is Hoffman better/luckier than Mariano Rivera 367/29.16 vs how much is it because NL West teams playing in San Diego score less often than AL East teams playing in Yankee Stadium? Next question is what situation, how often is it 2 outs in the 8th with a 4 run lead so come in now because if the setup man retires the next matter you won't get a precious save.

Trevor Hoffman has 54 appearances of 4 outs which account for 85 of his inherited runners and only 2 score, a really impressive rate since a runner on first and 2 outs scores about 1 time in 8 and that's 1 time in 42.5 and since it's 85 runners in 54 appearances they don't all fit on first so Hoffman was an elite ROOGY who then stayed to pitch the 9th. That means in non 4 out appearances 68 of 261 runners score or 26% of the time so he's really good at coming in with 2 outs and getting an out before allowing a hit, 5 of those times it's bases loaded so before even allowing a Walk.

4 outs is biased in that it means pitching well as opposed to being pulled or being on the mound when a walk-off run scores and certainly isn't only limited to the last 4 outs of the game but it's something that is easily searched and a reasonable proxy. The one time Hoffman had a 4 out appearance and allowed an inherited runner to score he got the Save and wasn't charged with a Run, the legendary Ed Taubensee and Chris Stynes hit back-to-back RBI singles.

End result an article on MLB.com or similar site might mention the 20.23% being really good but as a stat without adjusting for situation, ballpark and opponent it's pretty useless so it's not likely to appear on fangraphs or a similar site as any kind of serious analysis. If someone with the database and resources creates IR+ it would certainly be something but keep in mind the oddities, Jay Witasick comes in for 1 batter and allows a single that loads the bases and he's credited with 2 IR that didn't score because Hoffman gets John Vander Wal to pop out with the bases loaded. That's an example of Hoffman being an elite ROOGY, an example of getting a Save in a 6-1 game and an example of how Witasick vultured some stats.
   425. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 11, 2018 at 11:56 PM (#5796966)
Hoffman did strand runners at a greater rate than Smith (IS of 20% vs 28%), but context partly offsets that IMO.


What do you mean by "context" here?

You can put all of this together, go play by play and put things in context and compare players. Here - I've done it for the top relief pitchers. Nobody touches Mariano Rivera (duh!). And, frankly, you can make a pretty strong sabermetric argument that he's the only guy who belongs in the Hall of Fame. But below that level, Hoffman's right there with the best of the rest - as is Lee Smith (and Gossage, Wilhelm, and Frankie Rodriguez looks like an interesting case - again, with the caveat, if you like to have multiple relief pitchers in your Hall of Fame).
   426. homerwannabee Posted: December 12, 2018 at 06:51 AM (#5796981)
You know inning for inning Wagner is probably the 2nd best pitcher behind Mariano Rivera that's eligible for the Hall of Fame. Yes, when Kimbrel retires he'll probably be better than Wagner, but that's in the future. Still, for someone who was hands down WAY better than Hoffman, it's sad to see his lack of support while Hoffman easily got in.

I guess it goes to show that if you don't have over 500 saves in the modern era that you can forget about going in no matter how good of a pitcher you are.
   427. bobm Posted: December 12, 2018 at 07:39 AM (#5796983)
Hoffman did strand runners at a greater rate than Smith (IS of 20% vs 28%), but context partly offsets that IMO.


What do you mean by "context" here?


To quote [424]:

Runners not scoring is clearly a good thing but it then begs the question using the above quote of those 346 runners happening in 188 appearances, why does this elite pitcher at preventing runners from scoring enter the game with the bases empty 82% of the time? 
   428. bobm Posted: December 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM (#5797026)
[426] Cross-posting from the Bill James thread, on Billy Wagner:

FTFA: Interesting notion on evaluating relievers / closers:

The seventh player in this group, however, would be Billy Wagner, the hard-throwing reliever with phenomenal consistency. Wagner is credited with 182 Win Shares and 27.7 WAR, numbers that would put him about even with baseball/football star Brian Jordan (1-367. Jordan actually was 1-368.)

Wagner was better than that, better than the math shows him to be, and let me explain the problem. Baseball men believe that there is so much value in pitching the “save inning”, the ninth inning with a lead, that a reliever who works 70 innings a year in that role is. . . .well, many people believe he is the most valuable man on the staff, if he is good. It’s leverage, what Tango calls Leverage Index. Although MLB field staff don’t usually think in these terms, they act as if they believe that the Leverage Index for a closer is about four to five, meaning that an inning pitched under those circumstances has four times as much impact on the won-loss record as an inning pitched at some random moment.

The problem is that there is no evidence that this is true, which is an understatement; mathematically it isn’t true. Although we approach it in different ways, Win Shares and WAR both use Leverage Indexes for closers around 2.00. Let’s say Billy Wagner works 70 innings a year. With a Leverage Index of 2.00 his impact is more as it would be if he was pitching 140 innings a year at the same level of effectiveness. But even making that adjustment, Wagner appears to have much less impact on his team than a good starting pitcher, and consequently shows up with “only” 182 Win Shares and “only” 27.7 WAR for his career.

But is this fair to Billy Wagner? It really is not, because Wagner’s 70-inning role is defined by the assumptions of other people, what we could call The Assumptions of the Game. Wagner’s value is in essence kept in a cage because other people are acting on false assumptions. It’s not his fault. His value does not reflect his performance level.

I believe that Wagner deserves to be evaluated based on his performance level, rather than just his value, and I think that if you do that, Wagner ranks higher. I suspect that both Tom Tango and Sean Forman, representing the “WAR” point of view, would probably agree with me about that. What I am saying is that I don’t believe the number. We have a value for Billy Wagner, and it is accurately calculated as much as I can tell, but I don’t think that we should use it to evaluate him as a Hall of Fame candidate.
   429. homerwannabee Posted: December 12, 2018 at 10:40 AM (#5797040)
The argument against Billy Wagner is that he's a reliever. I get that, but what I am trying to say is he's better than the two recent Hall of Famers in Trevor Hoffman, and Lee Smith.

So my point is to compare him with other relievers. Not other starting pitchers or position players. So Wagner's biggest problem is that although statistically he does much better than most Hall of Fame relievers most sabermetric people have absolutely no interest in bringing up his cause simply because he's a reliever.
   430. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2018 at 10:44 AM (#5797043)
And he was an Astro. Astros are douches.
   431. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5797047)
Wagner also allowed 13 ER on 21 H in 11.3 IP while his teams went 1-7 in postseason series.

small sample size, but of a player whose whole career is small sample size relative to players who had other roles.
   432. SandyRiver Posted: December 12, 2018 at 12:16 PM (#5797088)

All of MLB: 4921 Plate Appearances Allowed in 2018, during 9th Inning and Up 3 Runs, Up 1 Runs or Up 2 Runs

OrderPos PA
6th 619
7th 605
8th 599
5th 587
9th 529
4th 529
1st 491
3rd 489
2nd 473

LOL, maybe. Not the top, yes.

1-3: 1,453 PA
4-6: 1,735 PA
7-9: 1,733 PA
   433. bobm Posted: December 12, 2018 at 12:31 PM (#5797096)
[432] compare that to the batting order distribution in the 8th inning.

All of MLB: 5404 Plate Appearances Allowed in 2018, during 8th Inning and Up 3 Runs, Up 1 Runs or Up 2 Runs

OrderPos PA
2nd 697
3rd 695
1st 648
4th 644
9th 587
5th 575
8th 532
7th 518
6th 508

1-3: 2,040 PA
4-6: 1,727 PA
7-9: 1,637 PA
   434. bobm Posted: December 12, 2018 at 12:31 PM (#5797097)
Inn 8th PA 9th PA
1-3:   38%    30%
4-6:   32%    35%
7-9:   30%    35%
   435. bobm Posted: December 12, 2018 at 12:33 PM (#5797099)
Triple post
   436. Srul Itza Posted: December 12, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5797133)
All of MLB: 4921 Plate Appearances Allowed in 2018, during 9th Inning and Up 3 Runs, Up 1 Runs or Up 2 Runs


For the bottom of the order, you need to factor in pinch hitters. Of course, IIRC, pinch hitters don't do as well as other hitters.
   437. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 12, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5797172)
So this old hardball Times article argues that a guy like Baines should not be adjusted nearly as much - half of what a 1B adjustment should be based on him being a full time DH. If that premise is right where does that put Baines?

I don't think that's the argument made in the article. As I read it, he is advocating that the DH should be adjusted in line with 1B, not half as much as 1B, and that the 1B adjustment should not be as punitive:

Final Defensive Adjustments
Position(s) Runs/162 Games
C 7.75
SS 4.75
CF, 3B, 2B 1.75
RF, LF -4.25
1B, DH -9.25


That is versus a current positional adjustment being used by Fangraphs of:

Catcher: +12.5 runs (all are per 162 defensive games)
Shortstop: +7.5 runs
Second Base: +2.5 runs
Third Base: +2.5 runs
Center Field: +2.5 runs
Left Field: -7.5 runs
Right Field: -7.5 runs
First Base: -12.5 runs
Designated Hitter: -17.5 runs


I think that's a reasonable conclusion about the DH penalty, which I have usually thought was too severe, even though I don't agree with everything else in the article. However, it should be noted that his data was based on the 2002-2014 time period, while Baines retired in 2001, so I don't think the conclusions are applicable to Baines' career.

If you did apply them, however: Fangraphs has Baines at -223 positional adjustment for his career (which is pretty close to the -227 I get when I apply the standard adjustments to his career games by position). If you used the revised positional adjustments, he would gain about 105 runs, or about 10-11 WAR. He'd a ~50 WAR guy rather than a ~40 WAR guy. (Baseball Reference has a less severe positional adjustment than Fangraphs does for Baines, so the adjustment would presumably be a bit less.) It doesn't raise his peak very much since his best seasons by WAR came when he was an outfielder, not a DH.

In summary, I don't think it would change anyone's conclusions about him.
   438. The Duke Posted: December 12, 2018 at 04:36 PM (#5797213)
The article suggests full time DH should be half of 1B but that all DHs should be same as 1B. So in general it is same as 1B but applied to Baines would be even less of a penalty.

Starts to close the gap from second worst to borderline
   439. gabrielthursday Posted: December 12, 2018 at 05:07 PM (#5797230)
The article suggests full time DH should be half of 1B but that all DHs should be same as 1B. So in general it is same as 1B but applied to Baines would be even less of a penalty.


This is misreading the piece. It suggests that for full-time DHs, the "DH penalty", meaning the loss in hitting ability due to serving as DH is about half of what it generally is. This means that the positional penalty would not be set off by as large an amount. If applied to Baines, then he would gain substantially less than the 105 runs Never Give An Inge estimated.
   440. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 12, 2018 at 05:17 PM (#5797233)
The article suggests full time DH should be half of 1B but that all DHs should be same as 1B. So in general it is same as 1B but applied to Baines would be even less of a penalty.

I think you may be misreading the article (or maybe I am). First off, at the end of the article he clearly recommends the same positional adjustment for 1B and DH:

In the end, I recommend the following scale:

Final Defensive Adjustments
Position(s) Runs/162 Games
C 7.75
SS 4.75
CF, 3B, 2B 1.75
RF, LF -4.25
1B, DH -9.25


To your point that "DH penalty" for a full-time DH is half of that for DHs overall -- what he means there is that DHs overall hit 8.4 runs worse as a DH than they do when playing the field. However, guys who normally play DH only hit 4.8 runs worse, while guys who normally play the field hit 9.2 runs worse.

The conclusion one could draw from this is that whatever the positional adjustment is for DH overall, it should actually be *worse* for a full-time DH like Baines. It certainly shouldn't be better. I would argue that you should give Baines the same adjustment as any other DH, full-time or not, since the replacement player at DH would likely be some combination of "full time" DH and fielders getting a rest, rather than 100% full-time DH.

EDIT: Coke to gabrielthursday.
   441. The Duke Posted: December 12, 2018 at 05:42 PM (#5797239)
“Looking at players who hit as DHs from 2002 to 2014, I found the DH penalty to be 8.4 runs per year. Now, the spread depends on whether the player is normally a DH or normally in the field. For the players who are normally a DH, the penalty is only 4.8, “

I thought what he was saying was that guys who DH because they are getting a day off or avoiding DL etc get a harsher adjustment but that guys who DH everyday are good at it and get a lesser adj. overall, it averages out to same as 1B adjust. But for a guy like Baines it’s less than 1B.

I’m not an expert at this stuff but that’s it how it read to me which to some degree make sense intuitively.

   442. Al "Battery" Kaline Posted: December 12, 2018 at 06:12 PM (#5797248)
I don't think I'll be buying Adidas again. Ever.

After a few million page reloads, finally able to access this. Interesting thing happening at 35 ballots: Vizquel now IS the dividing line. While he's near 50%, everyone else is either at mid-60's upward, or mid-30's downward. No one else near him.
   443. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 12, 2018 at 06:22 PM (#5797250)
To your point that "DH penalty" for a full-time DH is half of that for DHs overall -- what he means there is that DHs overall hit 8.4 runs worse as a DH than they do when playing the field. However, guys who normally play DH only hit 4.8 runs worse, while guys who normally play the field hit 9.2 runs worse.

The argument I've heard about this and never really seen addressed is that players who normally play the field tend to DH when they have a nagging injury that keeps them out of the field (or in other unfavorable circumstances - day game after a night game, etc.). This might also have a negative effect on their hitting, which would give the appearance of a DH penalty without actually being caused by DHing.
   444. cardsfanboy Posted: December 12, 2018 at 06:25 PM (#5797251)
Well, three of those were the Hall's committees, not the writers, so you're really only looking at Rice as an anomalous selection


Morris barely missed, and his vote total by the writer had to have influenced the committee. Same with Smith, which is why I listed them... the writers vote influences the vets vote.
   445. SoSH U at work Posted: December 12, 2018 at 06:27 PM (#5797253)
I don't think I'll be buying Adidas again. Ever.


No kidding.
   446. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 12, 2018 at 07:13 PM (#5797261)

Taking a step back, when we calculate WAR we are calculating a player's value relative to a replacement player (i.e. a guy you could readily acquire at league minimum salary). We use a positional adjustment because certain positions are harder to field than others and therefore the replacement level player at those positions (C, SS, 2B) hits worse than at other positions (LF, RF, 1B).

Hence we get the following adjustments:

Catcher: +12.5 runs (all are per 162 defensive games)
Shortstop: +7.5 runs
Second Base: +2.5 runs
Third Base: +2.5 runs
Center Field: +2.5 runs
Left Field: -7.5 runs
Right Field: -7.5 runs
First Base: -12.5 runs


In other words, the average 1B hits 12.5 runs above the average overall player, so you apply a deduction of 12.5 runs to your 1B's WAR. The average C hits 12.5 runs below the average overall player, so you give your C a 12.5 run positive boost to his WAR.

For DH, the thinking is that there's no fielding requirement, so the replacement level player at that position would just be the best replacement level hitter out there -- in other words, the best replacement level 1B. However, if you don't apply an additional deduction beyond 12.5 runs, then you're penalizing a bad-fielding 1B more than a DH -- this is unfair to the 1B because you're just penalizing him for his manager's personnel decision. Hence you get a deduction for DH of 17.5 runs vs. 12.5 runs at 1B.

In reality, however, when a player DHs, he hits worse than he would if he were playing the field (this is the "DH penalty" Zimmerman refers to in the article. So the best hitter available at the DH slot is really a bit worse than a replacement level 1B. A regular DH hits 4.8 runs better when playing the field (and a regular 1B hits 9.2 runs worse when DHing). This would argue for a lower replacement level at DH and less of a positional deduction. Taking the 4.8 run "DH penalty", it basically cancels out the 5-run adjustment noted in the previous paragraph, leading one to conclude that the positional adjustment for a DH should be the same as that for a 1B, not better.
   447. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 12, 2018 at 07:19 PM (#5797262)

The argument I've heard about this and never really seen addressed is that players who normally play the field tend to DH when they have a nagging injury that keeps them out of the field (or in other unfavorable circumstances - day game after a night game, etc.). This might also have a negative effect on their hitting, which would give the appearance of a DH penalty without actually being caused by DHing.

The Fangraphs article tries to address this by looking at the difference in "DH penalty" for players who spent some time on the DL that season vs. players who did not. The penalty was about 7 runs for those who were healthy and 12.4 runs for those who spent some time on the DL. Now, that almost certainly understates the difference, as guys who never went on the DL could still be using the DH spot to rest a minor injury that does not require time on the DL. But it is instructive.
   448. cardsfanboy Posted: December 12, 2018 at 07:38 PM (#5797265)
leading one to conclude that the positional adjustment for a DH should be the same as that for a 1B, not better.


All of the rest of your comment in 446 I agree with, but the conclusion I reach is almost what you reached, with a minor caveat.... all negative rField first baseman (or left fielders if it's enough negative) should not have a rpos penalty that moves them below an inferior hitter in a comparison. I have no problem with a dh having no greater penalty than a first baseman (for the most part) but when you decide to compare 1b to a dh, that negative rfield should not be held against him...in that comparison.

I am somewhat of a compiler/career/health fan when it comes to hof type of arguments also though, so I think that when you are looking at a dh type of player, many factors involved in why he was the dh matter, and that it's not a slam dunk to look at war or whatever equivalent you like, you need to factor in "was he on the same team as Manny Ramirez" (meaning one of them had to be the dh type of thinking process) was his health helped by being a dh(Edgar and Molitor issues) was his career prolonged by being a dh(Baines) etc... and then have to figure out what that means in the scheme of things.

Straight up war doesn't do justice for DH, injury prone superstars, catchers, etc.... and it's never going to be perfect on that, there is no way, which is why there is a vote for hof, and why you hope to have experts doing the voting.
   449. cardsfanboy Posted: December 12, 2018 at 07:40 PM (#5797266)
The Fangraphs article tries to address this by looking at the difference in "DH penalty" for players who spent some time on the DL that season vs. players who did not. The penalty was about 7 runs for those who were healthy and 12.4 runs for those who spent some time on the DL. Now, that almost certainly understates the difference, as guys who never went on the DL could still be using the DH spot to rest a minor injury that does not require time on the DL. But it is instructive.


That is actually quite cool.
   450. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 12, 2018 at 07:55 PM (#5797271)
The Fangraphs article tries to address this by looking at the difference in "DH penalty" for players who spent some time on the DL that season vs. players who did not. The penalty was about 7 runs for those who were healthy and 12.4 runs for those who spent some time on the DL. Now, that almost certainly understates the difference, as guys who never went on the DL could still be using the DH spot to rest a minor injury that does not require time on the DL. But it is instructive.

This is a good idea.

I wonder what would happen if you looked at people who normally play the field when they spend more than one game (in a row) at DH (presumably due to an injury) as compared to single games (hopefully just for rest or matchup/other reasons).

I have no intention of finding out, but I'd be curious to see the result.
   451. bachslunch Posted: December 13, 2018 at 07:29 AM (#5797318)
Slightly off-topic. The thread for submitting Hall of Merit ballots is now up and active. For some reason, it's not showing under the Hot Topics headings as it usually does.

The ballot discussion thread is here:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/hall_of_merit/discussion/2019_hall_of_merit_ballot_discussion/

and the ballot thread is here:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/hall_of_merit/discussion/2019_hall_of_merit_ballot/
   452. bachslunch Posted: December 13, 2018 at 08:15 AM (#5797323)
And Juan Vene posted up his usual dog crap level ballot: Helton, McGriff, Moose, Pettitte, Mo.

Small hall and weird. Adds Moose for the first time, maintains Crime Dog for his final year, only the second ballot without Edgar on it. Hopefully, Edgar won't need his help.

Rene Cardenas made his ballot public for the first time according to Thibs, and it's full but really, really strange: Berkman, Clemens, Kent, Edgar, Oswalt, Mo, Schilling, Vizquel, Wagner, Walker. A mix of excellent and not, leaves off Bonds and Moose while including Clemens and Schilling. I sense strategic voting and Astros homerism is likely.
   453. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 13, 2018 at 12:28 PM (#5797442)
And Juan Vene posted up his usual dog crap level ballot: Helton, McGriff, Moose, Pettitte, Mo.

Followed by another 5-player ballot from Rob Biertempfel (pronounced Beer Temple, I would hope) for Halladay, Mussina, Rivera, Schilling & Walker. Walker is an add. Stingy vote, but he got 3 of the 4 likely electees.

EDIT: Walker now tied with Edgar for most votes gained from returning voters, with 7.
   454. Scott Ross Posted: December 13, 2018 at 01:10 PM (#5797464)
David Maril, who did not vote for Edgar, voted for all of the Peds Pariahs, and Halladay and Mussina -- AND Michael Young(??).


Shame he didn't clarify his weird choices and simply emailed it to Ryan directly.


I emailed Maril yesterday and asked if he would "do me the favor of explaining (his) thought process in voting for Michael Young, but not Edgar Martinez." He responded thusly: "I will take the time to answer you if you take the time to tell me who you voted for in the 2016 presidential election and why." I of course wrote and explained my 2016 ballot and told him I was eager to hear back from him; I haven't as yet.

Weird that a guy would be willing to make his ballot public but not talk about it, especially given that in the past he's discussed his thoughts on voting for PED users.
   455. Al "Battery" Kaline Posted: December 13, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5797475)
I sense strategic voting and Astros homerism is likely.

I sense the latter but not the former...

At the 37 ballot mark there really isn't a "most popular ballot" yet, I only counted two that had any duplicates. Both pairs have Bonds, Clemens, Halladay, Edgar, Mussina, Mo, Schilling, Walker. One pair adds Helton and Rolen, while the other pair adds Yusmeiro Petit-4 and Manny.

Edit: Lynn Henning's ballot is exactly those first 8. With Vizquel dropping below 50%, this is now the perfect ballot from a "majority rules" standpoint. (No one has yet submitted a 9-name ballot with the big 8 + Vizquel.)
   456. soc40 Posted: December 13, 2018 at 02:41 PM (#5797525)
"I will take the time to answer you if you take the time to tell me who you voted for in the 2016 presidential election and why." I of course wrote and explained my 2016 ballot and told him I was eager to hear back from him; I haven't as yet.


This is awesome! Can't wait to hear the end of this
   457. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: December 13, 2018 at 03:03 PM (#5797540)
At the 37 ballot mark there really isn't a "most popular ballot" yet, I only counted two that had any duplicates. Both pairs have Bonds, Clemens, Halladay, Edgar, Mussina, Mo, Schilling, Walker. One pair adds Helton and Rolen, while the other pair adds Yusmeiro Petit-4 and Manny.

Most gloriously random auto-correct in history?
   458. Al "Battery" Kaline Posted: December 13, 2018 at 03:16 PM (#5797547)
Most gloriously random auto-correct in history?

I wish. No, that was just me being bored.
   459. soc40 Posted: December 13, 2018 at 04:53 PM (#5797607)
After 37 ballots my thoughts:
Mariano and Edgar: getting in easily.
Halladay: strong start. May sneak in first try.
Mussina: picking up steam and converting voters. May come down to how Florida falls.
Schilling: shut his mouth and seeing a rise. Not gonna make it but showing some life for stretch run.
Walker: huge climber. Will fall short but makes for a Jack Morris type cliffhanger in final try.
Bonds and Clemens: same HOF purgatory from last year.
Omar: gaining a few but still far from the promised land.
Crime Dog: last year bump will drop him off nicely for VC to elect.
Helton: surprising strong start for me. Could be benefiting from Walker love?
Manny: 2xPED is the death of him
Rolen: gaining a few. sticking around
Pettite: soft start. Should see movement up once pitchers above him are off the ballot.
Everybody else: hanging around for dear life.

   460. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 13, 2018 at 04:57 PM (#5797609)
The 1st anonymous ballot: Halladay, Helton, Edgar, Mussina, Rivera, Schilling, Vizquel & Walker. The Vizquel vote probably triggered the desire for anonymity.
   461. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 13, 2018 at 06:08 PM (#5797633)

I wish. No, that was just me being bored.

Sorry Al, but I need to understand this. You were bored so you decided to replace "Andy Pettitte" with "Yusmeiro Petit-4"?
   462. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 13, 2018 at 08:38 PM (#5797668)
At 40 votes, Rivera is still at 100%, with Edgar (92.5%), Halladay (90%) & Mussina (85%) also looking quite electable. Walker continues to surprise, now at 67.5% with 8 votes gained from returning voters, 1 more than Edgar. Last year, Walker dropped 4.4% in the final count compared to the public ballots. If his present support holds - it's still early - he'd likely finish over 60%, enough to give him a legitimate shot in his final time on the ballot next year.
   463. gabrielthursday Posted: December 13, 2018 at 08:55 PM (#5797670)
Walker continues to surprise, now at 67.5% with 8 votes gained from returning voters, 1 more than Edgar.
Walker is now 8 out of a possible 21 pickups, which is a huge rate of increase for him, and he's also 5 for 5 among non-returning voters. By my rough calculations, if he maintains this, he should have an increase of over 25%. The largest single-season increase in the last ten years was Larkin the year he was elected, just over 24%.
   464. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 13, 2018 at 09:17 PM (#5797673)
soft start. Should see movement up
If I had a dollar...er, nevermind.
   465. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: December 14, 2018 at 08:26 AM (#5797717)
Is that David Lennon ballot legit? Bonds, Clemens, Rivera, and dropped his votes for Martinez, Mussina, and Schilling?
   466. Al "Battery" Kaline Posted: December 14, 2018 at 09:14 AM (#5797731)
Well, that's one way to say XXXX-you back to the Hall for "voting" in Baines...

Sorry Al, but I need to understand this. You were bored so you decided to replace "Andy Pettitte" with "Yusmeiro Petit-4"?

I'm not sure I understand either. My mind and logic do not always go hand in hand.
   467. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 14, 2018 at 09:34 AM (#5797737)
Well, that's one way to say XXXX-you back to the Hall for "voting" in Baines...

Better yet, the BBWA could get together and say: "Get rid of these stupid VCs or we're voting in Yusmeiro Petit-4".
   468. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 14, 2018 at 09:45 AM (#5797738)

I'm not sure I understand either. My mind and logic do not always go hand in hand.

You've come to the right website :)
   469. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 14, 2018 at 10:17 AM (#5797760)
Is that David Lennon ballot legit? Bonds, Clemens, Rivera, and dropped his votes for Martinez, Mussina, and Schilling?

That's still 1 more than his Newsday colleague Steven Marcus, who only voted for Edgar & Rivera. Thibs "ballot link" goes to an article entitled "Dave Lennon's 2019 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot", but there is no explanation, analysis or justification, only the briefest of biographical blurbs on those he voted for. Newsday should be ashamed that they short-changed their readers to this degree.
   470. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 14, 2018 at 10:19 AM (#5797761)
I find it so weird that people who write for a living, when given the opportunity to write about something as interesting as who they would put in the HOF, don't actually do so. And it will probably generate more hits than most of the other articles they write!
   471. JL72 Posted: December 14, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5797764)
Newsday should be ashamed that they short-changed their readers to this degree.


I have always assumed that part of having the writers make the selection was the free publicity to the HoF as well as the free content for the papers. Why a paper like Newsday would ignore this opportunity makes no sense.
   472. catomi01 Posted: December 14, 2018 at 12:45 PM (#5797846)
I always like reading the newsday sports section when I was in high school and younger - used to get a copy and read at lunch...I am not sorry I no longer do so.
   473. gabrielthursday Posted: December 14, 2018 at 02:13 PM (#5797889)
Jason Sardell has done a projection based on the first 41 ballots - I'll post the medians here, but be awarer there's pretty broad ranges for most of these guys:

Rivera - 99%
Halladay - 83%
Martinez - 80%
Mussina - 78%
Clemens - 60%
Schilling - 59%
Bonds - 59%
Walker - 56%
Vizquel - 49%
McGriff - 36%
Helton -33%
Pettitte - 18%
Manny - 18%
Rolen - 18%
Kent - 16%
Sheffield - 14%
Wagner - 10%
Sosa - 9%
Andruw - 8%
Berkman - 4%

This would be, of course, a 4-player election, which used to be pretty rare, but would be the third in the last 6 years.

I'm surprised that Edgar doesn't have a stronger advantage over Mussina, given that he started with 7% more voters and has gained more votes.

There is a huge amount of movement in the middle and top of the ballot: Walker +22, Mussina +15, McGriff +13 on his last ballot, Vizquel +12, Edgar +10, Schilling +8, Rolen +8. Bonds and Clemens nudge up a little, but not significantly.
   474. Chris Fluit Posted: December 14, 2018 at 02:25 PM (#5797894)
I hate to be the pessimist but I still think Mussina is going to fall a little bit shy of 75%. There's always a drop from the early vote to the late vote, and then another drop from the revealed ballots to the actual total. That means a player needs to be hovering around 85% or better at this point in the process. Mussina is close (83% at the current count), better than I expected to tell the truth, but not at a spot where I would feel comfortable predicting his election this year. I'd say that Moose ends up around 72 to 73% this year and sails in easily for 2020.
   475. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 14, 2018 at 02:43 PM (#5797902)
Mussina dropped 6.5% last year from the public ballots to the final result. He could do better this year, since it appears he's on an upward trend, but he needs to be at ~82% on the public ballots to make it on last year's voting pattern. Could happen, but might be close.
   476. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 14, 2018 at 03:00 PM (#5797905)

Mussina obviously deserves to be in, but I don't get up in arms that it's taking him a little bit longer than it should. The guy retired with 270 wins, coming off a 20-win season. At the very least, he could have made a good run at 300 and surefire first ballot status, but he didn't. I have no doubt that he wants to be in the HOF, but this stuff just never seemed like it was that important to him.
   477. gabrielthursday Posted: December 14, 2018 at 03:11 PM (#5797911)
It's more important to look at Mussina's conversion rate on voters who didn't put him down last year - and he's 6 for 12 among those guys. He needs to convert about ~30% of those who didn't vote for him last time. He's lost one vote he had last year, so on balance he's right at the margin he needs. He should benefit from the new voters entering this year: he's pulled 90% of new voters over the past four years.
   478. The Duke Posted: December 14, 2018 at 04:57 PM (#5797972)
If four guys get in and McGriff drops off ballot and you lose a couple 5%ers then there are a lot of votes to re-allocate next year. Makes walker and schilling near locks and probably vaults vizquel into 50+ range. Allows guys like helton, rolen, lent, Wagner and Jones to get some traction. Or people just stop voting for 10.

Be interesting to see if the PED guys move upward next year.
   479. cardsfanboy Posted: December 14, 2018 at 07:42 PM (#5798015)
I find it so weird that people who write for a living, when given the opportunity to write about something as interesting as who they would put in the HOF, don't actually do so. And it will probably generate more hits than most of the other articles they write!


Agree, It's a privilege and an honor (and maybe a chore and a thankless task all in one) to vote, and it creates one of the easiest, more than likely highest read article you will write in the off season. I would love to be a writer and not only have the vote, but I would publish my vote with reasons, and maybe even write an individual article on each (legit) player on the ballot in the weeks preceding the vote. I like writing, not good at it of course, but have the creativity of creating topics, so it would be a fun exercise to talk about not only about whoever I'm covering locally that might be on the ballot but to cement to my readers what I look for in a hofer.. sure I might just cut and paste an article for a guy like Bonds/Clemens who are on their 7th ballot..... but I would definitely want to write articles for guys in their first year, and guys in their second year to acknowledge the movement or lack of movement that they had on the ballot and maybe re-evaluate my position or double down... etc.


This year if I was a Cardinal beat writer with a ballot.... I definitely would have written articles on my final ballot, a summary on the snubs, along with individual short articles on Walker, Rolen, Manny, Edgar, Halladay, Andruw, Helton, Pettitte, Sosa, Rivera, Berkman, Oswalt, Tejada, Vizquel, Polanco, Wagner, Ankiel, Darren Oliver...assuming I had already written articles in previous years on Bonds, Clemens, Mussina, Schilling, Sheffield, Kent, etc.

   480. cardsfanboy Posted: December 14, 2018 at 07:48 PM (#5798016)
Mussina obviously deserves to be in, but I don't get up in arms that it's taking him a little bit longer than it should. The guy retired with 270 wins, coming off a 20-win season. At the very least, he could have made a good run at 300 and surefire first ballot status, but he didn't. I have no doubt that he wants to be in the HOF, but this stuff just never seemed like it was that important to him.


Agree, heck it's not like 300 is a surefire first ballot thing anyway.

Early Wynn - 4 ballots.
Gaylord Perry - 3 ballots.
Phil Niekro - 5 ballots.
Don Sutton - 5 ballots.
(note: just going by bb-ref for that data, it's possible one of those ballots might have been when the player was 'eligible' for the hof type of thing)



   481. cardsfanboy Posted: December 14, 2018 at 07:51 PM (#5798017)
Rivera - 99%


I don't see it, there are just too many saber friendly a-hole writers out there who do have a vote to prevent that high of a number. I mean Maddux was at 97.2%... I do not think there is any way that Rivera gets better than Maddux, even with all the clearing of the voters who were clearly incompetent.
   482. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 14, 2018 at 08:04 PM (#5798018)
I mean Maddux was at 97.2%

Maddux was on the most crowded ballot (by votes per ballot) since 1960. (Since surpassed in 2015 and last year by small margins.) I imagine a few people pulled the "leave him off to help people who need it more." This year's group seems like it will be (a little) less crowded, as there aren't multiple 90%+ first-ballot candidates. (Technically Thome was "only" 89.8% last year, but Vlad cleared 90.)

Which isn't necessarily to say that Rivera won't fall short of 97% anyway. But if Maddux was on this ballot, I think he gets a higher percentage than he did in 2014 just through different context.
   483. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 14, 2018 at 10:12 PM (#5798032)
Nolan Ryan received the 2nd highest percentage of HoF votes of any pitcher (98.79%), trailing only Tom Seaver, but few would consider him the 2nd best pitcher in MLB history. The vote does an OK job on who is in or out, but for all the reasons noted in #482 it isn't a precise ranking of players. The best of the best do get more votes, but a lot depends on who else is on the ballot, and the whims of few sometimes eccentric voters.
   484. homerwannabee Posted: December 15, 2018 at 11:28 AM (#5798088)
I did a top 10 vote getter of relievers. Mariano Rivera is going to destroy the highest percentage gotten. Surprisingly it's Goose Gossage who has the highest percentage at 85.8%. This is rather pathetic since it came on his 8th year on the ballot. I only counted relievers who had more saves than wins. So John Smoltz and his 82.9% vote in 2015 didn't count.

1. 85.8% Goose Gossage 2008
2. 83.8% Hoyt Wilhelm 1985
3. 83.2% Dennis Eckersley 2004
4. 81.2% Rollie Fingers 1992
5. 79.9% Trevor Hoffman 2018
6. 76.9% Bruce Sutter 20006
7. 74.0% Trevor Hoffman 2017
8. 72.0% Hoyt Wilhelm 1984
9. 71.2% Goose Gossage 2007
10. 67.3% Trevor Hoffman 2016
   485. The Duke Posted: December 15, 2018 at 02:52 PM (#5798122)
Amazing how many relievers are in
   486. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 15, 2018 at 04:47 PM (#5798133)
re: that David Lennon ballot criticized in #s 469-472. I e-mailed Lennon (Newday's comment function is unavailable while being "improved") chastising him for not providing any explanation, justification or analysis for what appeared to be a controversial ballot, and noting that he could still do so. He replied that he did write an explanation but it won't appear until the Sunday paper, and in retrospect he shouldn't have made his his ballot public until that column ran. I doubt many will find his explanation persuasive, but he is being more accountable that I (and others) initially credited him for, so I want to note that.
   487. Al "Battery" Kaline Posted: December 15, 2018 at 04:49 PM (#5798134)
Clapper, thanks for the report back. It can be easy on social media and message boards to think the worst of people (and I admit I did my unfair share) but it's good to hear there's some semblance of method to the madness. Looking forward to reading the article.
   488. Al "Battery" Kaline Posted: December 15, 2018 at 05:23 PM (#5798136)
The Lennon article is out. I disagree with it so strongly that I will not be providing a link. If you think that is childish, suffice it to say that I think Lennon's explanation is equally childish. Disappointing.
   489. John DiFool2 Posted: December 15, 2018 at 05:41 PM (#5798137)
Before the site got all uppity about my ad-blocker, he seemed to imply that the Baines vote must needs influence current & future voting patterns.
   490. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 15, 2018 at 07:11 PM (#5798141)
Here's the link to the Dave Lennon article. Basically, he says the Baines selection was the final nudge toward voting for only the obvious candidates, since there's always a stat case for marginal candidates with so much information now available. To me, that's an abdication of responsibility for making tough decisions, and using the abundance of info correctly. Baines is hardly the 1st controversial selection by some incarnation of the Veterans Committee.
   491. cardsfanboy Posted: December 15, 2018 at 07:31 PM (#5798144)
Here's the link to the Dave Lennon article. Basically, he says the Baines selection was the final nudge toward voting for only the obvious candidates, since there's always a stat case for marginal candidates with so much information now available. To me, that's an abdication of responsibility for making tough decisions, and using the abundance of info correctly. Baines is hardly the 1st controversial selection by some incarnation of the Veterans Committee.


Sounds like a typical "look at me" response to a situation that happened that the person doesn't agree with.

I get it, but c'mon you have a responsibility and for you to (as 490 put it) abdicate that responsibility to make an argument/point about how wrong the vc was and then just as idiotically stop from supporting people who potentially need your help that you have agreed with in the past is just silly mustache twirling 'it's all about me and my viewpoint' grandstanding.

This guy is a clear ####### idiot, with no concept of the big picture, and is all about himself. He knows that his name is going to get brought up as one of the dumbest ballots out there and he is preparing for his grandstanding. Or he has been a functioning moron for all these years and has finally been exposed.

   492. John Northey Posted: December 15, 2018 at 09:11 PM (#5798148)
So over 10% in so we should be getting a good feel now for how voters are feeling.
90s+: locks: Martinez, Rivera (still perfect)
80s: should make it: Halladay (at 89%), Mussina at 82%
70s: close but need lots of help from the hidden voters: Curt Schilling 73.9%
60s: good luck next year: Clemens, Bonds, Walker
50s: need at least 2 more years: none
40s: keep campaigning or you could move down: Vizquel
30s: long way to go: Helton, McGriff
20s: keep dreaming: ManRam, Rolen
10s: not getting into the HOF for free anytime soon: Kent, Pettitte, Sheffield, Sosa
1+ vote: at least someone loves you: Berkman, Jones, Oswalt, Wager, Young, Tejada
no votes: enjoy your one moment on the ballot: Youkillis, Wells, Polanco, Pierre, Oliver, Lowe, Lilly, Hafner, Garland, Garcia, Bay, Ankiel

Always fun to dig into.I hope a St Louis voter tosses a vote Ankiel's way as I love two way players. As a Canadian I hope Bay gets 1 vote as well. Was hoping McGriff would get near 50% to up his odds with the vets someday too, Walker getting over 60% would be fantastic.
   493. Al "Battery" Kaline Posted: December 15, 2018 at 10:30 PM (#5798160)
Mussina now "polling" at 81%, roughly 6-7% above where he was last year at this point. Not bad, but the gap to induction is about 12%, so I'm thinking he will end up around 70% and get in next year.

We do know Polanco will get at least one vote, he is listed on one partial ballot.
   494. DanG Posted: December 16, 2018 at 09:17 AM (#5798184)
Amazing how many relievers are in
WAR leaders among pitchers with Saves at least 1.5xWins:

Rk             Player  WAR WAAERAWPA/LI  SV     IP From   To    G  GS
1    Dennis Eckersley 62.6 30.6  116 25.716 390 3285.2 1975 1998 1071 361 H
2      Mariano Rivera 56.3 32.5  205 33.629 652 1283.2 1995 2013 1115  10 H
3        Hoyt Wilhelm 50.1 26.9  147 27.004 228 2254.1 1952 1972 1070  52 H
4        Rich Gossage 41.9 16.4  126 14.894 310 1809.1 1972 1994 1002  37 H
5           Lee Smith 29.4 13.8  132 12.806 478 1289.1 1980 1997 1022   6 H
6      Trevor Hoffman 28.1 13.9  141 19.332 601 1089.1 1993 2010 1035   0 H
7        Billy Wagner 27.8 16.5  187 17.887 422  903.0 1995 2010  853   0
8          Joe Nathan 26.3 14.0  151 15.675 377  923.1 1999 2016  787  29
9        Kent Tekulve 26.2 10.6  132 14.005 184 1436.2 1974 1989 1050   0
10     Rollie Fingers 25.1  7.0  120 15.172 341 1701.1 1968 1985  944  37 H
11    Dan Quisenberry 24.8 11.9  146 12.385 244 1043.1 1979 1990  674   0
12       Bruce Sutter 24.6 10.9  136 11.867 300 1042.0 1976 1988  661   0 H
13Francisco Rodriguez 23.9 12.2  148 14.685 437  976.0 2002 2017  948   0
14        John Franco 23.6 10.4  138 10.346 424 1245.2 1984 2005 1119   0
15  Jonathan Papelbon 23.5 13.1  177 13.412 368  725.2 2005 2016  689   3 
   495. bobm Posted: December 16, 2018 at 12:31 PM (#5798203)
[494]

Looking at only their relief seasons:

Eckersley's WAR and WAA from 1987-1998 is 16.8 and 7.6

Smoltz's WAR and WAA from 2001-2004 is 7.4 and 4.1

Tom Gordon's WAR and WAA from 1997-2009 is 16.9 and 8.5
   496. The Duke Posted: December 16, 2018 at 01:29 PM (#5798227)
Rollie fingers started 37 games? Rivera and smith started games?
   497. bobm Posted: December 16, 2018 at 01:50 PM (#5798239)
Fingers as SP:

                                                                        
Rk            Date  Tm Opp   Rslt AppDec  IP  H R ER BB SO HR UER GSc BF
1       1973-05-07 OAK BAL  L 2-8 GS-2 L 1.2  3 4  1  2  0  0   3  37 12
2       1973-04-25 OAK CLE  L 0-1 GS-6 L 6.0  5 1  0  2  6  0   1  64 25
3       1971-05-15 OAK KCR  L 4-5   GS-6 5.0  4 1  1  3  2  0   0  54 22
4       1971-05-04 OAK DET  L 5-6   GS-7 6.1  4 3  3  2  7  1   0  58 26
5       1971-04-29 OAK BAL  L 2-3   CG L 9.0  5 3  1  3 10  2   2  76 37
6       1971-04-25 OAK DET L 2-10 GS-5 L 4.1  8 7  7  3  6  3   0  22 24
7       1971-04-21 OAK CAL  W 4-2   GS-7 7.0  5 2  2  0  4  1   0  63 27
8       1971-04-17 OAK CHW  L 0-4 GS-5 L 4.2  8 4  4  1  3  0   0  34 22
9       1971-04-12 OAK MIL  W 5-0  SHO W 9.0  4 0  0  1  4  0   0  82 30
10   1971-04-07(2) OAK CHW L 4-12   GS-4 4.0  5 3  3  1  2  1   0  41 17
11      1970-09-16 OAK MIL  W 4-1   CG W 9.0  8 1  1  1  7  1   0  73 34
12      1970-08-12 OAK CLE W 11-4   GS-2 1.1  5 4  3  1  1  0   1  30 10
13      1970-08-08 OAK MIN  L 1-3 GS-3 L 2.0  5 3  3  1  3  1   0  36 11
14   1970-08-02(2) OAK WSA  W 1-0   GS-8 8.0  7 0  0  3  3  0   0  68 30
15      1970-07-31 OAK WSA  W 5-4   GS-2 1.0  3 4  4  2  0  0   0  29  8
16      1970-07-19 OAK BOS  L 4-9 GS-2 L 1.1  5 6  6  1  1  2   0  20 10
17      1970-07-10 OAK MIL  L 1-2 GS-7 L 7.0  6 2  2  2  2  0   0  57 29
18      1970-07-05 OAK CAL  L 1-5 GS-4 L 4.0  7 3  3  0  0  0   0  36 19
19      1970-07-01 OAK CHW  W 3-0 GS-7 W 6.1  3 0  0  1  6  0   0  72 22
20      1970-06-27 OAK MIL  L 1-3 GS-6 L 5.1  5 3  3  3  4  0   0  47 23
21   1970-06-21(2) OAK CHW  W 5-4 GS-6 W 5.0  8 3  3  1  1  0   0  39 24
22      1970-06-16 OAK DET  L 1-5 GS-4 L 3.0  5 2  2  1  2  0   0  42 16
23      1970-06-12 OAK BAL  W 4-2   GS-7 7.0  3 2  2  1  4  2   0  66 23
24      1970-06-07 OAK DET  W 5-2   GS-3 2.2  4 1  1  1  2  1   0  47 12
25      1970-06-03 OAK BAL  W 4-1   GS-7 7.0  2 1  1  2  5  1   0  72 24
26      1970-05-30 OAK CLE  W 5-4 GS-8 W 7.1  4 3  3  4  3  0   0  57 29
27      1970-05-26 OAK CAL  L 2-4 GS-7 L 6.1  4 4  4  1  3  1   0  51 25
28   1970-05-17(2) OAK CAL  W 6-5   GS-6 5.1  7 5  2  1  2  1   3  41 25
29      1970-05-07 OAK NYY  L 3-7 GS-5 L 5.0  5 4  4  2  1  1   0  40 21
30      1969-10-01 OAK SEP  L 3-4   GS-8 7.0  6 3  3  3  9  1   0  59 29
31      1969-09-25 OAK CAL  W 7-6   GS-3 2.1  7 5  2  1  0  1   3  28 15
32      1969-09-20 OAK CAL  L 3-7 GS-6 L 5.2  5 6  5  2  2  0   1  37 24
33      1969-09-15 OAK MIN  L 3-6 GS-6 L 6.0  8 4  4  3  2  1   0  39 27
34   1969-05-30(1) OAK CLE  L 2-9 GS-1 L 0.1  3 6  1  0  0  0   5  31  7
35   1969-05-04(1) OAK SEP  L 4-6 GS-7 L 6.0 11 6  5  1  5  3   1  32 28
36      1969-04-27 OAK SEP W 13-5 GS-9 W 8.1  6 5  5  5  2  1   0  48 37
37      1969-04-22 OAK MIN  W 7-0  SHO W 9.0  5 0  0  1  2  0   0  78 32


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/16/2018.

Rivera as SP:

                                                                               
Rk            Date  Tm Opp   Rslt AppDec  IP H R ER BB SO HR UER Pit Str GSc BF
1       1995-09-05 NYY SEA  L 5-6 GS-5 L 4.1 7 5  5  3  5  2   0  85  52  31 22
2    1995-08-10(1) NYY CLE L 9-10   GS-6 5.2 7 5  4  3  3  0   1  95  63  37 26
3       1995-07-26 NYY KCR  L 5-6   GS-6 5.0 7 3  3  1  3  1   0 103  69  43 23
4       1995-07-16 NYY MIN  W 5-1 GS-7 W 6.0 6 1  1  1  5  0   0 101  63  60 25
5       1995-07-09 NYY TEX  L 4-5   GS-6 6.0 6 3  3  0  2  1   0  87  58  50 25
6       1995-07-04 NYY CHW  W 4-1 GS-8 W 8.0 2 0  0  4 11  0   0 129  78  85 29
7       1995-06-11 NYY SEA W 10-7   GS-3 2.1 7 5  4  1  0  1   1  70  41  24 15
8       1995-06-06 NYY OAK  L 6-8 GS-5 L 4.0 7 7  7  1  3  2   0  88  53  22 21
9       1995-05-28 NYY OAK  W 4-1 GS-6 W 5.1 7 1  1  3  1  0   0 103  62  48 26
10      1995-05-23 NYY CAL L 0-10 GS-4 L 3.1 8 5  5  3  5  1   0  89  50  26 21


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/16/2018.

Smith as SP:

                                                                      
Rk            Date  Tm Opp  Rslt AppDec  IP H R ER BB SO HR UER GSc BF
1       1982-07-05 CHC ATL L 5-7 GS-7 L 6.1 8 6  6  2  3  2   0  34 29
2       1982-06-30 CHC PIT L 3-7 GS-6 L 5.2 9 4  4  1  2  0   0  36 26
3    1982-06-26(2) CHC STL L 1-2 GS-7 L 7.0 4 2  2  4  4  0   0  61 28
4       1982-06-21 CHC PIT L 3-4 GS-5 L 5.0 7 3  3  0  4  0   0  45 23
5       1982-06-16 CHC PHI W 7-6   GS-7 7.0 7 2  2  1  6  0   0  60 28
6       1981-10-04 CHC PHI L 1-2 GS-6 L 6.0 3 2  2  4  7  0   0  61 24


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/16/2018.
   498. SoSH U at work Posted: December 16, 2018 at 04:07 PM (#5798260)
20s: keep dreaming: ManRam, Rolen


A year ago, Booey and I bet whether Rolen would make it to a second ballot (he lost).

Now I'm saying he'll get elected by the writers.

   499. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5798262)
A year ago, Booey and I bet whether Rolen would make it to a second ballot (he lost). Now I'm saying he'll get elected by the writers.

Maybe, but he's got a long way to go. Rolen probably needs 4 elected this year for a relatively uncrowded ballot next year to give him a shot with voters who may have been constrained by the 10-player limit. Next year should tell us a lot about his chances. Same for Vizquel. And, of course, Walker.
   500. bachslunch Posted: December 16, 2018 at 06:03 PM (#5798273)
Flip.
Page 5 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAngels and Trout agree (Report)
(83 - 5:20pm, Mar 19)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

NewsblogCarGo, Tribe reach minor league deal
(37 - 5:20pm, Mar 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT - 2018-19 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to Twelfth of Never edition)
(780 - 5:17pm, Mar 19)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto

NewsblogWith Marlins lacking power, Mattingly preaching small ball
(3 - 5:08pm, Mar 19)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogMLB Tries iPitch Watch In Spring Training Games
(5 - 4:52pm, Mar 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogThe openers experiment isn’t really an experiment anymore for Tampa Bay
(30 - 4:49pm, Mar 19)
Last: Greg Pope

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza ([most of] March 2019)
(331 - 4:42pm, Mar 19)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogDodgers promote Brandon Gomes to VP and assistant GM
(4 - 4:25pm, Mar 19)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogBrewers make 'Mean Girls' parody vid
(2 - 3:53pm, Mar 19)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread, v.2019
(764 - 2:51pm, Mar 19)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogPassan: How Phillies' 2018 clubhouse issues caused by Fortnite led to a smashed TV
(37 - 2:28pm, Mar 19)
Last: Karl from NY

Newsblog2019 March Madness thread
(31 - 1:10pm, Mar 19)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 3-18-2019
(19 - 12:49pm, Mar 19)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

Sox TherapyReport from the Fort
(9 - 12:45pm, Mar 19)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Kahuna

NewsblogDane Dunning undergoes Tommy John surgery as another White Sox prospect goes on the shelf
(4 - 12:33pm, Mar 19)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

Page rendered in 0.8252 seconds
46 querie(s) executed