I respect TR for his ballot, and for releasing it here.

While I don't agree with all his choices, I can see arguments for all of those included (even Morris and JuanGon) and the fact that his ballot was "full" explains the omissions. (Sounds like he'd be willing to vote for Trammell in the future.) Nicely done.

Based on the HOF's current non-elite construction, I'd prefer to see non-deserving guys get in than have deserving guys left out, so I'll gladly trade a Morris for a Blyleven, a Rice for a Raines.

I don't agree with all his picks(if people all agreed then there would be no reason to have a vote) but at least he seems reasonable in that he's willing to be swayed, I don't really think there is a reason to go back and forth on Jack Morris but that is me.

I assume he listed Gonzalez and Brown for personal reasons and assuming they still wont make the cut so it's just a nod or whatever to players he has an afinity for.

I find it hard to support Martinez personally, although I know the consensus here is put him in.

BTW...These are the first votes for Juan Gonzalez and Kevin Brown I've come across.

So at least it won't be a shutout...

No need to be ashamed of voting for Brown.

His selections of JuGo and Morris are dubious at best, but I don't think he really needs to apologize for voting for Brown. He's a better choice than say, Jack Morris, for example.

The 'personal reasons' for voting for Brown are presumably that he personally really liked the way that Brown was really good at pitching? I just find it weird that Brown is treated (even by someone who votes for him!) as a weird, fringe candidate who only deserves to be tossed a couple votes for idiosyncratic reasons.

The vote for Morris is frustrating, but (like the other comments above), I'll take it if it comes with votes for eminently deserving candidates like Blyleven, Raines, Larkin, etc.

I can see leaving both Edgar and Walker out, though I personally would put them both in.

Very cool that Sullivan releases the vote here.

I have no objection to voters casting ballots for fringe candidates that were personal favourites or for some other reason. I would probably do it occasionally if I had a vote. I do think it's problematic if one does so and leaves another deserving candidate off the ballot, as opposed to using a 7th or 8th vote. It's not clear Sullivan did that here, as he said Walker's road stats swayed him for now and Edgar needed slightly better numbers as a DH.

Ignoring the steroids issue, I think it was a very good ballot with the obvious exception of Morris and the note that Brown should be more than a fringe candidate. I'd have voted for Trammell and Walker instead of Morris and JuanGon.

Appreciate the early release

It's not clear Sullivan did that here, as he said Walker's road stats swayed him for now and Edgar needed slightly better numbers as a DH.

If TR wants to explain further ... what threw me was the comment regarding Larkin and Trammell. Sounded as if he was only going to vote for one. But why not throw one of the "nice guy" votes to Trammell instead of Gonzalez or Brown?

Not likely to be a big deal either way. None of Trammell, Brown or Gonzalez are going to get enough votes this time to get in and, if anything, his vote will help keep Gonzalez and Brown on the ballot while Trammell doesn't appear to be in any immediate danger of falling off.

If I had a vote, I would always vote for 10 guys. I'm a softie that way.

But why not throw one of the "nice guy" votes to Trammell instead of Gonzalez or Brown?

Presumably because Trammell isn't a former Ranger.

I would too. There's no point in anyone pretending that they have any idea where the in/out line for the HOF ought to be. Just vote for the 10 best each year and let it define itself.

Under that philosophy basically anybody that is clearly within the top 10 cutoff on the ballot will be elected. You're talking 5 to 7 guys getting elected every single year.

It would be like the difference between a pennant race and a wild card race. Instead of having a debate about which players are the very best we would be arguing about which player is the 10th best player on a ballot.

Steve Garvey would be a HoF'er under this setup.

The 'personal reasons' for voting for Brown are presumably that he personally really liked the way that Brown was really good at pitching?

No, they're presumably that Brown is a former Ranger and treated Sullivan (or the community or whomever) well.

Presumably because Trammell isn't a former Ranger.

Yes, but I'm commenting on #7 which suggests that Sullivan didn't leave anybody worthy (in Sullivan's estimation) off the ballot to put Gonzalez and Brown on. Sullivan's comment on Larkin suggests he thinks Larkin and Trammell are very close and is phrased in a way that it sounds like he felt he could only pick one. Without one of Gonzalez or Brown (or Morris), he could have voted for both Larkin and Trammell.

Of course maybe he thinks Larkin is just over and Trammell just under.

On Walker's road numbers, I'm not seeing much of a problem. First, OPS+, WAR, etc. adjust for park and his numbers on those are excellent. Even in raw stats, his career road numbers are 278/370/495 which are awfully damn good -- roughly Justin Morneau's career to date. That's not quite HoF-worth (on offense alone) but most hitters are worse on the road than at home so, even without Coors we'd (probably) be talking about a career line of, say, 285/380/510. Then you get into debates about defense, baserunning and career length.

Anyway, I don't see enough in Walker's road numbers to throw up a red flag. On their own, they're not HoF-worthy but they're HoVG-worthy which is probably true of almost all borderline candidates. Hopefully he'll get enough votes to remain on the ballot and Sullivan can look at it more. My main concern with such arguments is always that you apply that criteria to other candidates (which Sullivan may have done).

Now this is interesting ... hell, amazing:

Morris
home: 1,911 IP; 3.90 ERA; 246/312/381
away: 1,913 IP; 3.90 ERA; 247/315/379

and this is kinda humorous:

Morris
home: 131-83
away: 123-103

Apparently that whole "pitching to the score" thing only happened at home ... or could it possibly be his teams hit better at home? Never! :-) I fully expect the Morris supporters to chime in with how much more valuable home wins are.

I fully expect the Morris supporters to chime in with how much more valuable home wins are.

I wouldn't vote for Morris myself, but wouldn't you think that happy fans buy more beer?

There's no point in anyone pretending that they have any idea where the in/out line for the HOF ought to be. Just vote for the 10 best each year and let it define itself.

It's where you think it ought to be. So vote for whoever you think is deserving and let it define itself (as it has done).

I had a pleasant exchange with TR re Blyleven a couple years ago. He was willing to engage in a serious discussion (unlike a certain blogging non-blogger we all know of). The Hall could use more voters like him.

I like TR's ballot, with some exceptions being Morris and Gonzalez. I actually find TR's Morris vote more defensible than his Gonzalez vote, since TR admits that he's voting for Gonzalez for "personal reasons," which I think is less than ideal.

The voting for Brown for "personal reasons" is particularly odd, given that Brown has a strong case for the HOF and so one of his supporters should be able to see that. I mean, if Brown can't even get people who _like_ him to see that he's deserving, he's even more screwed than we thought.

I would too. There's no point in anyone pretending that they have any idea where the in/out line for the HOF ought to be. Just vote for the 10 best each year and let it define itself.

Under that philosophy basically anybody that is clearly within the top 10 cutoff on the ballot will be elected. You're talking 5 to 7 guys getting elected every single year.

Isn't this an argument in favor of a weighted ballot system, like the annual MVP and Cy Young Awards?

This is a good ballot. More like this and the HoF wouldn't be such a joke. Even the little bit of rationale is sensible.

Except, yeah, Juan Gone. If he had voted for 5 and 1 was Juan, then I'm incensed. But as somebody said, with a full ballot, you wanna "waste" 1 of your 10, fine.

When do we get to do our mock election?

I wouldn't vote for Morris myself, but wouldn't you think that happy fans buy more beer?

My personal experience would seem to indicate the precise opposite. Depressingly lousy pitchers at home. Peter Angelos knows the new market innefieciency!

I wouldn't vote for Morris myself, but wouldn't you think that happy fans buy more beer?

My personal experience would seem to indicate the precise opposite. Depressingly lousy pitchers at home. Peter Angelos knows the new market inefficiency!

Yeah, but that's just rate stats. There's way too small a sample size in Camden Yards for Angie to start gloating.

I actually find TR's Morris vote more defensible than his Gonzalez vote, since TR admits that he's voting for Gonzalez for "personal reasons," which I think is less than ideal.

Ah, Hall of Fame season.

There's no need to slog back through the meaning of a "win," but in this season of festival it helps to remind ourselves of why Jack Morris is a Hall of Fame contender. (**) Those reasons are that he has far and away the most wins of any pitcher in a 15-year era, both pitchers and position players from that era are underrepresented and underappreciated, he was the unquestioned ace on several very good teams, his contemporaries -- players, writers, and management -- thought quite highly of him, he pitched great in two World Series, and he starred in probably the most iconic single-game pitching performance in the history of the World Series.

Carry on.

(**) "Is" being a different concept than "should be."

Carry on.

The only thing your arguments do is convince me to carry on thinking that Morris isn't a HOFer (which might be your purpose), but he's definitely a contender. He's very close, (I'm small-hall), and I can see why he might be in a slightly bigger hall. He's the definition of "fringe" to me, and I absolutely mean that as a compliment.

I really don't think that the disdain for Morris voters is really about the absolute value of Jack Morris. That really comes down to where you draw the line for the Hall. The disdain comes from the fact that a lot of those voters have had a preference for Jack Morris over other, better pitchers. Had they also supported the Bert Blylevens of the world, there would have been a lot less flak.

Note, for instance, that T.R. Sullivan votes for both Morris and Blyleven, and, lo and behold, the criticism is pretty muted.

Apparently that whole "pitching to the score" thing only happened at home ... or could it possibly be his teams hit better at home? Never! :-) I fully expect the Morris supporters to chime in with how much more valuable home wins are.

I haven't the faintest idea what this means. Are you off your meds? This is babble.

Of course maybe he thinks Larkin is just over and Trammell just under.

That was the way I interpreted it. He said it was a hard choice picking Larkin over Trammell and I assumed he meant that the stats of each player were somewhat similar with one player falling over the line and another under. Sullivan indicates he goes back and forth on Morris, indicating that he isn't sold on him as a Hall of Famer. If he felt both Larkin and Trammell were deserving (and he never indicated he doesn't think Larkin was deserving), then he could have erred against Morris, which presumably he has done in the past.

As I said in 7, leaving a deserving candidate off for a sympathy vote is "problematic." If you believe there are 4 only deserving candidates and want to vote for Kirk Reuter, I don't object.

On Walker's road numbers, I'm not seeing much of a problem. First, OPS+, WAR, etc. adjust for park and his numbers on those are excellent. Even in raw stats, his career road numbers are 278/370/495 which are awfully damn good -- roughly Justin Morneau's career to date. That's not quite HoF-worth (on offense alone) but most hitters are worse on the road than at home so, even without Coors we'd (probably) be talking about a career line of, say, 285/380/510. Then you get into debates about defense, baserunning and career length.

Anyway, I don't see enough in Walker's road numbers to throw up a red flag. On their own, they're not HoF-worthy but they're HoVG-worthy which is probably true of almost all borderline candidates. Hopefully he'll get enough votes to remain on the ballot and Sullivan can look at it more. My main concern with such arguments is always that you apply that criteria to other candidates (which Sullivan may have done).

Larry Walker is a sabremetric cause celebre? I can't get on board on this one. He has one season where he played 150 games. If you count 1995, where he would have made it if they hadn't canceled games from the strike, it would be two.

I don't think that Larry Walker is a HoFer. He benefited from Coors to a very large degree, couldn't stay healthy, and was not a transcendent player when he played.

There's no need to slog back through the meaning of a "win,"

In other words: "Look! I'm about to present Morris's case, but you're not allowed to challenge it!"

but in this season of festival it helps to remind ourselves of why Jack Morris is a Hall of Fame contender. (**) Those reasons are that he has far and away the most wins of any pitcher in a 15-year era, both pitchers and position players from that era are underrepresented and underappreciated, he was the unquestioned ace on several very good teams, his contemporaries -- players, writers, and management -- thought quite highly of him, he pitched great in two World Series, and he starred in probably the most iconic single-game pitching performance in the history of the World Series.

And, yet, Morris was only slightly above average at preventing runs. He prevented them at the same rate as Jamie Moyer. It was harder in Moyer's era to pile up innings - but Moyer has more innings than Morris.

It was harder in Moyer's era to compile wins - but Moyer has more wins than Morris. Wins are Morris's calling card, but he 'only' has 254 of them. He has three 20-win seasons to Moyer's two. Big whoop.

I really don't think that the disdain for Morris voters is really about the absolute value of Jack Morris. That really comes down to where you draw the line for the Hall. The disdain comes from the fact that a lot of those voters have had a preference for Jack Morris over other, better pitchers.

If there was anything to the "We're going to show you statgeeks!" votes for Jim Rice, the same should eventually apply to Morris.

Jack Morris is the Bill Mazeroski of pitchers. His career doesn't really scream "Hall of Famer", but he has one big World Series hook that keeps him in the discussion, and that serves as the backdrop for the various ex-post-facto rationalizations ("pitching to the score", a standard that has never, to my knowledge, been applied to any other pitcher in history) about how his career was really better than it looks.

I think Morris has a stronger case than Mazeroski did, but it's a similar dynamic with both players.

he starred in probably the most iconic single-game pitching performance in the history of the World Series.

Don Larsen just spat out his coffee.

And, yet, Morris was only slightly above average at preventing runs.

This misses the point. SugarBear is reiterating why Morris is a HOF contender - "is" being a different concept than "should be". In your world of sabermetrics and post-season performance being irrelevant, he's not a contender. Here in the real world, he clearly is. You can whine and moan all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. And, FWIW, I agree with you. I wouldn't vote for him either.

There's no need to slog back through the meaning of a "win," but in this season of festival it helps to remind ourselves of why Jack Morris is a Hall of Fame contender. (**) Those reasons are that he has far and away the most wins of any pitcher in a 15-year era,

Dennis Martinez? Frank Tanana?

he has far and away the most wins of any pitcher in a 15-year era

Morris actually had the most wins for a quarter century, 1975-99.


Prior to Morris, the only other time that a non-HOFer led for a quarter century was Jim Kaat 1953-77:

If Jack Morris is the fringe, then Kevin Brown should be a hole-in-one first-ballot lock.

Not a bad ballot.

In a world where Jim Rice is a HOFer, Juan Gonzalez deserves a few votes.

Shouldn't Jim Rice serve as a cautionary tale instead?

AJM, did you get my email?

It is really frustrating to see Jack Morris getting all the credit for all those ballgames Trammell and Whitaker (and to a lesser extent Darrell Evans, Lance Parrish, Chet Lemon, Kirk Gibson and Sparky Anderson) won for the Tigers. Everyone else gets overlooked and Jack Morris gets all the credit because he stood on the mound for the most innings.

In Bill James' Historical Abstract, James did not rank Morris as a top 100 pitcher. In his Parnell comment, he goes on a long tangent mentioning that Pop Haines and Rube Marquard were the worst HOP pitching selections and that their records aren't much different than a list of pitchers that included Morris.

On Walker's road numbers, I'm not seeing much of a problem. First, OPS+, WAR, etc. adjust for park and his numbers on those are excellent. Even in raw stats, his career road numbers are 278/370/495 which are awfully damn good -- roughly Justin Morneau's career to date. That's not quite HoF-worth (on offense alone) but most hitters are worse on the road than at home so, even without Coors we'd (probably) be talking about a career line of, say, 285/380/510. Then you get into debates about defense, baserunning and career length.

Quit reading my mind, willya? When I have a little more uninterrupted time I'll put together a translation of Walker's stats as though his home park was a neutral park, and he played, say, 9 or 18 road games a year at Coors. OPS+ is a fine tool, but I'll find it more useful to run up a slash line for Walker year by year and locate some close comps so that I have a better sense on whether I'd "vote" for him.

Thanks to Dan Greenia for the link.
--

Kevin Brown was not a great pitcher for the Texas Rangers. He became one after he left, initially as a free agent signed by the Baltimore Orioles about a week after resolution of the 1994/95 strike. (relying on Retrosheet transactions via his player page at baseball-reference)

I guess that his relationships with people and his long-distance reputation with fans and the press also changed during his career.

Elsewhere (probably Hall of Merit: Kevin Brown) someone reports from a visit to Texas that Kevin Brown is merely one of the crowd there. It's Nolan Ryan, Cliff Lee, and a forest without any individual trees.

Yet it does appear strangely that TRS may have been a fan of Brown, or a local baseball writer with a valued relationship, who didn't closely follow his friend/colleague after Brown left Texas. Or he didn't follow Brown with the favorable bias that one might expect.

TRS may be open to sabrmetric argument for Brown as for Blyleven.

--
Regarding the full ballot:
(I haven't followed any of his past ballots.)
Nothing in these comments suggests to me that he considers Larkin and Trammell both borderline candidates, nor that McGriff and Olerud clearly fall short of borderline, only that he organizes his thinking by fielding position. I *guess* that he considers Alomar, Blyleven, McGwire and Palmeiro to be the clear cut cases (one established by sabrmetric argument) and beyond that it's a numbers game. The borderline long-term, meaning who will get his vote in some annual cycles, may be down at number 12 or number 15 or even lower on the list.

This ballot and comments make me wonder how many BBWAA voters now find the ballot size strictly binding. Probably that will get worse after 2012.

Frankly, if I were a voter who supported all fifteen names marginally, as TRS may, and organized the process by fielding position, I would be sure to vote for Bagwell and Larkin simply because they seem "more electable sooner".
... I would vote for Olerud, too, if I thought there were any chance for 5% support and "renomination". So I would need to bump someone, maybe McGwire this year. Or forego my personal vote for Juan ...

That illustrates the point. After more than a decade with some slack, I think, this year or last year there must be some voters who "need" to think along those lines.