BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: 2012 Hall Of Fame Ballot Collecting Gizmo

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, December 30, 2011

2012 Hall Of Fame Ballot Collecting Gizmo

UPDATE (1:40) ~~~ 148 Full Ballots.

89.2 - B. Larkin
58.8 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
56.8 - Bagwell
52.0 - T. Raines
44.6 - Lee Smith
36.5 - Trammell
32.4 - E. Martinez
23.6 - F. McGriff
18.2 - L. Walker
17.6 - McGwire
12.2 - D. Murphy
11.5 - R. Palmiero
10.1 - Mattingly
3.4 - Bernie Williams !
1.4 - J. Gonzalez
0.7 - V. Castilla
0.7 - B. Mueller
0.7 - T. Salmon
0.7 - P. Rose (write-in)

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

Repoz Posted: December 30, 2011 at 03:20 PM | 300 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: hall of fame, projections

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 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >

201. puck Posted: January 08, 2012 at 12:34 PM (#4031605)

Hmm, Renck thinks Bichette was robbed of the 1995 MVP but doesn't think Walker should be in. I wonder how many people believe both things. (His main issue against Walker is injuries/short career.)

202. rawagman Posted: January 08, 2012 at 12:47 PM (#4031612)

ESPN has published their ballots - 18 in total:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof12/story/_/id/7435492/mlb-barry-larkin-elected-espn-2012-baseball-hall-fame-ballot
Bill Mueller got a sympathy vote!

203. rawagman Posted: January 08, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4031615)

Here's Marc Topkin, Tampa Bay Times:
http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/ml/baseballs-ped-era-complicates-hall-of-fame-vote/1209691
Bagwell, Larkin, McGriff, McGwire, Smith.

204. cardsfanboy

Posted: January 08, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4031619)

And I find this ludicrous. We have two guys who are in the running for best-ever at their position who will not be voted into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. That is unprecedented, and how that (plus the fact that there are a half-dozen other Hall of Fame worthies on the same ballot) affects the entire election is unknowable. Your theories are reasonable, but there is no comp for the 2013 election, and thus just we're all just WAGGing it.

I think it's more than a wag, it's closer to an educated guess than just a wild guess. I've said it before, there is no real reason why Biggio doesn't go in on the first ballot. As all the points that Walt mentioned, he is the best candidate on the ballot. For anyone who actually votes for any new candidates, there is no way you keep him off.

205. cardsfanboy

Posted: January 08, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4031621)

I know it would be more work, but when Repoz change the update number he could add the time/date he did the update so we have a clue if he has gotten the most recent(ESPN ballots)

206. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 08, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4031634)

ESPN has published their ballots - 18 in total:

Peter Pascarelli with the Bill Conlin memorial anti-anti-establishment ballot*:

Smith
Bagwell
McGwire
Palmeiro

* nothing to do with his recent pecidillos, but when he refused to vote for Nolan Ryan because Don Sutton wasn't in yet.

207. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: January 08, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4031650)

The ESPN 18 last year vs. this year (they had 18 voters last year too, but I can't confirm if its the same 18 guys)

First then, second now:
Larkin: 9, 16 (Big leap!)
Morris: 5, 12 (Wow!)
L.Smith: 7, 11
Bagwell: 6, 10
Raines: 4, 9
E. Martinez: 2, 7 (more than triples!)
Trammell: 3, 5
Walker: 0, 2
McGwire: 2, 6
McGriff: 1, 5
Mattingly: 1, 2
Murphy: 2, 3
Palmeiro: 3, 5

Everyone I have info for in both seasons went up; many by substantial margins.

ESPN overall average: 5.33 names/ballot, including guys not mentioned in this post.

208. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 08, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4031663)

That's quite a leap for Larkin among the ESPN voters. 10 voted for him last year, 16 did this year. Olney and Howard Bryant are among the votes he picked up.

(they had 18 voters last year too, but I can't confirm if its the same 18 guys)

"Edes," whoever that is, wasn't one of the 18 this year. Graziano seems to have taken that spot.

209. LargeBill Posted: January 08, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4031671)

207. Dag Nabbit and his imaginary friends Posted: January 08, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4031650)
The ESPN 18 last year vs. this year (they had 18 voters last year too, but I can't confirm if its the same 18 guys)

First then, second now:
Larkin: 9, 16 (Big leap!)
Morris: 5, 12 (Wow!)

Among ESPN's "experts," Morris suddenly doubled his support. I'm not one to assert that you can't change your mind. I strongly supported BBWAA reassessing Blyleven's career because it seemed obvious they dismissed him without really looking at the record of his performance. Problem with that in Morris' case is if they took the time for more than a superficial glance at his career you'd be less rather than more likely to vote for him.

210. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 08, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4031720)

Trying to compile the individual ballots from the ESPN group:

Bryant: Larkin only
Caple: Larkin, Morris, Bagwell, Raines, Martinez, McGwire, McGriff, Trammell, Walker, Williams
Crasnick: Larkin, Morris, Smith, Bagwell, Raines, Martinez, McGriff
Gomez: Larkin, Morris, Smith, Trammell, Mueller
Graziano (who's listed on the site as an NFL blogger): Larkin, Morris, Bagwell
Jackson: Larkin, Smith, Raines, Mattingly
Knisley: Smith, Martinez
Kurkjian: Larkin, Morris, Smith, Bagwell, Raines, Martinez, McGwire, Palmeiro, McGriff, Trammell
Matthews: Larkin, Morris
O'Connor: Larkin, Morris, Smith, Bagwell, Raines
Olney: Larkin, Morris, Smith, Bagwell, Raines, McGwire, Palmeiro, Trammell, Murphy
Pascarelli: Smith, Bagwell, McGwire, Palmeiro
Roberts: Larkin, Smith, Bagwell, Raines, McGwire, Palmeiro
Rubin: Larkin, Morris, Bagwell, Murhpy
Saxon: Larkin, Smith, Raines
Smith: Larkin, Morris, Smith, Martinez
Stanton: Larkin, Morris, Martinez, McGriff, Trammell, Mattingly, Williams
Stark: Larkin, Morris, Bagwell, Raines, Martinez, Palmeiro, McGwire, McGriff, Murphy, Walker

I checked the totals and they seem to match. Worst ballot seems like a tossup between Gomez voting for Bill Mueller but not Tim Raines, and Knicely's Smith/Martinez, specialist-only combo.

211. Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" Posted: January 08, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4031740)

I think Knicely's is the worst. I still think if you swap out Morris for Trammell, Stark has one helluva ballot. Kurkjian's and Caple's are ok, too.

212. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 08, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4031770)

Pascarelli's is pretty bad too. He votes by career saves and home runs, and even then he misses McGriff. He doesn't account for position (missing both shortstops) or all-around skills (not voting for any of Raines, Walker, or Murphy).

213. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 08, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4031772)

I still think if you swap out Morris for Trammell, Stark has one helluva ballot.

Agreed. His reasoning on Trammell is sketchy - basically, it's "he wasn't as good as Larkin." Which is true, but Larkin is in the upper half of HOF shortstops, so that's hardly a good reason for disqualification.

But Stark clearly puts a great deal of thought into his votes. Even if I don't always agree with him, I wish all the voters took this as seriously as he does.

214. Monty Posted: January 08, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4031773)

Stanton: Larkin, Morris, Martinez, McGriff, Trammell, Mattingly, Williams

He had my favorite Crazy Ballot last year: Jack Morris, Edgar Martinez, Tino Martinez, Don Mattingly, and BJ Surhoff

215. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 08, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4031775)

Pascarelli's is pretty bad too. He votes by career saves and home runs, and even then he misses McGriff.

Maybe he only votes for steroid-using hitters, and is giving Bagwell the benefit of the doubt.

216. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: January 08, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4031776)

I've been using 62 WAR as my HOF in/out line the last few years. When you look at the guys on the ballot above this line, you quickly see that they all have something "wrong" with them -- all but one:

Bagwell 79.9 (steroids)
Larkin 68.9 (OK)
Walker 67.3 (Coors)
E Martinez 67.2 (DH)
Trammell 66.9 (Detroit)
Palmeiro 66.0 (steroids)
Raines 64.9 (um...too many SB?)
McGwire 63.1 (steroids)

Actually, what exactly is the knock on Raines? No MVPs? Just the one ring (which he didn't contribute much to)? Was it because he was a tippy-toed stolen-base artist, and not a real man? What?

EDIT: OK, there was the cocaine thing, and the fact he played 13 years in Montreal (which was in, like, another country, man)...

217. Qufini Posted: January 08, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4031777)

Jack Morris, Edgar Martinez, Tino Martinez, Don Mattingly, and BJ Murhoff- fixed that for him.

Not as clear-cut this year but Stanton sure loves his Ms. Probably voted for Maris, Munson and Gary Matthews too.

218. OCF Posted: January 08, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4031784)

Actually, what exactly is the knock on Raines?

In approximate order of importance.

1. A significant fraction of that value is in walks, not hits. Walks are still undervalued. (Compare Tony Gwynn.)
2. A lot of that value is in Montreal. He's really a peak candidate, and that's where the peak was.
3. Played for a very long time after his peak as a lesser player, coloring the memories of him.
4. A victim of the 1986-87 owners' collusion. Only Andre Dawson among top free agents moved, Dawson by accepting less money than he was worth at the time. Some will spin that as Raines being greedy. Oh, and it cost him 20 or so games off his 1987 season, which he played an an MVP level.
5. As you said, under-recognized in MVP voting. See 1987. Related to point #1.
6. Cocaine. Very early in his career, with no known relapses. (Not an issue with Paul Molitor, of course.)

Edit: composed before RMc's edit.

219. Qufini Posted: January 08, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4031790)

7. Overshadowed by Rickey Henderson (e.g. Trammell, overshadowed by Ripken)

220. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: January 08, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4031809)

Walks are still undervalued.

"Don't play lawyer-ball, son."

221. Booey Posted: January 08, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4031823)

I've been using 62 WAR as my HOF in/out line the last few years

You really trust WAR enough to base your opinion entirely off it and nothing else?

222. Adam Starblind Posted: January 08, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4031830)

I've been using 62 WAR as my HOF in/out line the last few years.

I don't see how reasonable people could disagree with this.

223. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: January 08, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4031831)

I've been using 62 WAR as my HOF in/out line the last few years

You really trust WAR enough to base your opinion entirely off it and nothing else?

Don't be daft. I mean, if someone's over 62 they're probably in and if they're below, probably out. There are other things to consider, of course.

There's only one player above 62 WAR (who's eligible) I wouldn't vote for: Reggie Smith, at 63.4. (Yes, he's really that high.)

But just between 60-62 there's DwEvans, Nettles, Dick Allen, KHernandez, Buddy Bell (!), Sal Bando(!!) and Willie Randolph. Good players, all, but HOFers? Hm.

So, 62 it is. Works for me.

224. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: January 08, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4031835)

3. Played for a very long time after his peak as a lesser player, coloring the memories of him.

3a. Missed a lot of games in that time. Buncha 130 game seasons from a faded player doesn't impress the writers. Just ask Lou Whitaker.

225. Ray (CTL)

Posted: January 08, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4031842)

I've been using 62 WAR as my HOF in/out line the last few years.

I don't see how reasonable people could disagree with this.

I think it's horrible, actually.

I mean, he shouldn't have his children taken away, but it's pretty bad logic.

226. Ray (CTL)

Posted: January 08, 2012 at 07:09 PM (#4031843)

There's only one player above 62 WAR (who's eligible) I wouldn't vote for: Reggie Smith, at 63.4. (Yes, he's really that high.)

But just between 60-62 there's DwEvans, Nettles, Dick Allen, KHernandez, Buddy Bell (!), Sal Bando(!!) and Willie Randolph. Good players, all, but HOFers? Hm.

So, 62 it is. Works for me.

And this is one reason why. 60-62 is a clear out, but 63 (except for Smith) is in? Just how fine a tool do people think WAR is, anyway? And even if it were that fine, how in the world does 1 WAR make a difference?

227. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: January 08, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4031853)

60-62 is a clear out, but 63 (except for Smith) is in?

Yes, indeed. In fact, not only should players under 62 WAR be kept out of the HOF, they should be summarily executed.

Why? Just to annoy you, Ray.

Dink.

228. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: January 08, 2012 at 08:16 PM (#4031875)

Here's a look at the players between 60 and 70 WAR:

Lou Whitaker OUT 69.7
Billy Hamilton IN 69.6
Harry Heilmann IN 69.4
Luke Appling IN 69.3
Brooks Robinson IN 69.1
Barry Larkin OUT 68.9
Tony Gwynn IN 68.4
Jesse Burkett IN 68.0
Jim Edmonds (ne) 67.9
Bobby Grich OUT 67.6
Duke Snider IN 67.5
Ivan Rodriguez (ne) 67.3
Larry Walker OUT 67.3
Carlton Fisk IN 67.3
Edgar Martinez OUT 67.2
Alan Trammell OUT 66.9
Manny Ramirez (ne) 66.8
Pee Wee Reese IN 66.7
Eddie Murray IN 66.7
Ron Santo IN 66.4
Scott Rolen (ne) 66.3
Gary Carter IN 66.3
Craig Biggio (ne) 66.2
Rafael Palmeiro OUT 66.0
Kenny Lofton (ne) 65.3
Willie McCovey IN 65.1
Tim Raines OUT 64.6
Ozzie Smith IN 64.6
Ernie Banks IN 64.4
Home Run Baker IN 63.7
Al Simmons IN 63.6
Roberto Alomar IN 63.5
Reggie Smith OUT 63.4
Gary Sheffield (ne) 63.3
Jackie Robinson IN 63.2
Mark McGwire OUT 63.1
Goose Goslin IN 63.0
Shoeless Joe Jackson OUT 62.9
Joe Cronin IN 62.5
Ryne Sandberg IN 62.0
Yogi Berra IN 61.9
Dwight Evans OUT 61.8
Graig Nettles OUT 61.6
Jake Beckley IN 61.5
Dick Allen OUT 61.2
Harmon Killebrew IN 61.1
Carlos Beltran (ne) 61.0
Keith Hernandez OUT 61.0
Buddy Bell OUT 60.8
Willie Keeler IN 60.8
Sal Bando OUT 60.6
Willie Randolph OUT 60.5
Bobby Wallace IN 60.5
Andruw Jones (ne) 60.4
Todd Helton (ne) 60.2

229. Booey Posted: January 08, 2012 at 09:12 PM (#4031897)

So, 62 it is. Works for me.

Sounds like an awful lot of trust in a stat that's gonna be replaced by something better in a few years and rendered obsolete (like Win Shares were before WAR). I think WAR is cool and all, but I see it as a starting point, not a final cut. When Buddy Bell and Sal Bando are ranked as being essentially equal to Yogi Berra and Harmon Killebrew, that doesn't make me rethink the worthiness of Bell and Bando; it makes me question the accuracy of the stat itself.

So what are your exceptions? Surely you can't hold catchers to that standard if Yogi is only at 61.9? And you wouldn't vote for Killebrew? (61.1)

230. OCF Posted: January 08, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4031941)

7. Overshadowed by Rickey Henderson (e.g. Trammell, overshadowed by Ripken)

I remember once starting something on a HoM thread with the words "who wasn't quite." As in

Tim Raines, who wasn't quite Rickey Henderson
Frank Robinson, who wasn't quite Hank Aaron
Pete Alexander, who wasn't quite Walter Johnson
Jimmy Foxx, who wasn't quite Lou Gehrig
Tris Speaker, who wasn't quite Ty Cobb
George Davis, who wasn't quite Honus Wagner - OK, that may not be all that close
Jeff Bagwell, who wasn't quite Frank Thomas

and so on.

You could build quite a team with guys like this.

231. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 08, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4031942)

George Brett, who wasn't quite Mike Schmidt.

232. Don Malcolm

Posted: January 08, 2012 at 11:43 PM (#4031953)

Nap Lajoie, who wasn't quite Rogers Hornsby.

233. mex4173 Posted: January 09, 2012 at 12:17 AM (#4031962)

Frankie Frisch, who wasn't quite Rogers Hornsby.
Charlie Gehringer has a fair bit of overlap with Hornsby too.
Robin Yount, who wasn't quite Cal Ripken.
Billy Williams and Willie Stargell, who weren't quite Willie McCovey.

234. Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Posted: January 09, 2012 at 12:24 AM (#4031965)

Jim Edmonds, who wasn't quite Ken Griffey, Jr?

235. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:23 AM (#4031985)

Jim Abbott, who wasn't quite Mordecai Brown, who wasn't quite Antonio Alfonseca.

236. Walt Davis Posted: January 09, 2012 at 04:17 AM (#4031997)

Mordecai Brown, who wasn't quite Antonio Alfonseca.

not quite? Man was off by a factor of 2! (OK, 1.5 or 1.67)

Alan Trammell wasn't quite Cal Ripken ... Robin Yount wasn't quite a SS :-)
Omar Vizquel wasn't quite Ozzie Smith
Mike Napoli wasn't quite Jeff Mathis

237. Walt Davis Posted: January 09, 2012 at 04:20 AM (#4031999)

Zach Kroenke wasn't quite Zack Greinke
Ryan Zachary Braun wasn't quite Ryan Joseph Braun
Joe DiMaggio wasn't quite Arthur Miller

238. Joe Willie Mammoth Posted: January 09, 2012 at 05:04 AM (#4032005)

Roy Hobbs wasn't quite Kirk Gibson
Anna Nicole Smith wasn't quite Marilyn Monroe
G.W. Bush wasn't quite Albert Einstein
Dirk Diggler wasn't quite Ron Jeremy

239. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: January 09, 2012 at 07:53 AM (#4032031)

I think WAR is cool and all, but I see it as a starting point, not a final cut.

Me, too. I probably should've been more clear but: I use 62 WAR as an informal in/out line, then look at other considerations.

Asa Brainerd wasn't quite Jim Creighton.

240. Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee) Posted: January 09, 2012 at 08:02 AM (#4032037)

Asa Brainerd wasn't quite Jim Creighton.

Addie Joss wasn't quite Asa Brainard.

241. Ron J Posted: January 09, 2012 at 09:22 AM (#4032059)

Ray, just a ballbark estimate. For a short career (by HOF standard -- say Mark MacGwire) the standard error for WAR would not be less than 3 wins. A general rule of thumb is 4 for a typical HOFer.

242. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: January 09, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4032085)

I don't see how reasonable people could disagree with this.

I think it's horrible, actually.

I guess I'll be the one to point out that you responded in complete earnestness to a sarcastic remark.

Sounds like an awful lot of trust in a stat that's gonna be replaced by something better in a few years and rendered obsolete (like Win Shares were before WAR).

WAR isn't a stat, it's a framework. And, no, it won't be replaced; the entire concept consists of adding the known components of player value to create a total. That's it. Refining the way the components are measured will not constitute replacing WAR.

243. a brief article regarding 57i66135 Posted: January 09, 2012 at 10:38 AM (#4032092)

WAR isn't a stat, it's a framework. And, no, it won't be replaced; the entire concept consists of adding the known components of player value to create a total. That's it. Refining the way the components are measured will not constitute replacing WAR.

i'd contend that since replacement level is a theoretical construct, and since wins are an almost useless unit of measure for an individual event, the next great breakthrough will very likely be of a very different framework.

244. DL from MN Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4032117)

Pioneer Press ballots

Sansevere: Morris, Larkin, Jeff Bagwell, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Lee Smith and Larry Walker
Walters: Morris and Larkin
Powers: Morris, Bagwell, McGriff and Larkin
Bass: Morris, Bagwell, Larkin, Martinez

http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_19701789

Funny that the St. Paul guys are all voting for Morris, none for Trammell. The Detroit guys are voting for Trammell and not Morris.

245. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4032119)

Rick Carpinello voted for one candidate - Don Mattingly.

http://rangers.lohudblogs.com/2012/01/09/re-living-the-most-remarkable-season/

246. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:55 AM (#4032133)

Oh wow. Tim Raines has collapsed in the last week. I thought I saw him at 61% earlier. Although if he does get over the 50% barrier, that would still be a good sign for his candidacy. Three hours until we have the full results!

247. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4032139)

Oh wow. Tim Raines has collapsed in the last week. I thought I saw him at 61% earlier. Although if he does get over the 50% barrier, that would still be a good sign for his candidacy. Three hours until we have the full results!

Rock and Tram have both fallen hard. In Raines' case, it's a repeat of 2011.

248. DL from MN Posted: January 09, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4032146)

If a player gets to 50% then writers have to justify why they _aren't_ voting for the guy. Having Raines and Bagwell above 50% is huge for their chances.

249. a brief article regarding 57i66135 Posted: January 09, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4032152)

90.3 - B. Larkin under
60.0 - Jack (The Jack) Morris under
57.2 - Bagwell under
53.1 - T. Raines under
45.5 - Lee Smith over
37.2 - Trammell under
32.4 - E. Martinez over
24.1 - F. McGriff over
17.9 - McGwire over
17.9 - L. Walker over
12.4 - D. Murphy under
11.0 - R. Palmiero over
9.7 - Mattingly over

250. JPWF1313 Posted: January 09, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4032168)

Hmm, Renck thinks Bichette was robbed of the 1995 MVP but doesn't think Walker should be in. I wonder how many people believe both things. (His main issue against Walker is injuries/short career.)

I love the fact that WAR sees Bichette as being essentially replacement level in 1995, .340-40-128 and yet 0.3 WAR
(-18 fielding runs, -3 rdp, -2rBAser....

BBREF sez a league average hitter would have gone .304/.376/.470 in Coors that year
still, Bichette had a 129 OPS+, how does that work out to only 0.3 WAR???

251. Greg Pope Posted: January 09, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4032246)

Cocaine. Very early in his career, with no known relapses. (Not an issue with Paul Molitor, of course.)

I don't recall seeing a ballot posted where a voter has said that he hasn't voted for Raines because of the cocaine. Why is this assumed to be a perceived negative?

252. Rally Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4032268)

Bichette had a 129 OPS+, how does that work out to only 0.3 WAR???

You already answered that, -18 runs fielding. It may not be right. Coors field is a tough park to adjust fielding metrics for. But if accept the fielding, then yes, the guy with a 129 OPS+ and +17 batting runs was only a little bit better than a replacement level left fielder.

If you don't accept the defense rating, use his 2.2 offensive WAR (position adjusted, but assumes average defense for all.)

253. Ray (CTL)

Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4032286)

The results are out. Only Jack Morris made it.

254. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4032290)

BBREF sez a league average hitter would have gone .304/.376/.470 in Coors that year
still, Bichette had a 129 OPS+, how does that work out to only 0.3 WAR???

Well, it would be 2.2 if not for his horrid defense. 2.7 if not for poor baserunning. Some other ~129 OPS+ seasons in ~600 PA from corner OF's ignoring dWAR :

Darryl Strawberry 1984 3.3 WAR including a +2 for baserunning
Keith Moreland 1983 3.3 including a -1 for baserunning
Kirby Puckett 1995 3.4 with a +4 baserunning
Pat Burrell 2007 2.9, -5 baserunning
Al Kaline 1958 3.4 +1 running

The reason all these guys are higher even after factoring in the baserunning, is they all had a higher relative OBP. Not all OPS+ are created equal, and Bichette's .340 BA/.364 OBP is pretty extreme. But in general, a 129 OPS+ in about 600 PA should with average baserunning should give you about 3.0 - 3.3 oWAR.

255. Shock has moved on Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4032294)

Me, too. I probably should've been more clear but: I use 62 WAR as an informal in/out line, then look at other considerations.

I thought it was pretty obvious that that is what you meant.

It seems certain people these days are engaging in a contest of who can be more annoying.

256. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4032306)

The results are out. Only Jack Morris made it.

Don't you mean Larkin, or is this some joke I'm missing?

257. Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4032309)

It seems certain people these days are engaging in a contest of who can be more annoying.

These days?

258. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4032351)

The results are out. Only Jack Morris made it.

Don't you mean Larkin, or is this some joke I'm missing?

Morris is elected. Morris has always been elected.

259. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4032355)

Congratulations to 500 Internal Server Error on his election to the Hall of Fame.

260. Srul Itza Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4032359)

Bernie at 10%

261. puck Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4032360)

Jack Morris at 66.7%

262. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4032361)

67 percent for Jack. Wow.

That's stirking distance.

263. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4032362)

where are the vote totals?

264. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4032366)

Here are the percentages of the plus 5 percent guys.

Barry Larkin 86.4
Jack Morris 66.7
Jeff Bagwell 56.0
Lee Smith 50.6
Tim Raines 48.7
Alan Trammell 36.8
Edgar Martinez 36.5
Fred McGriff 23.9
Larry Walker 22.9
Mark McGwire 19.5
Don Mattingly 17.8
Dale Murphy 14.5
Rafael Palmeiro 12.6
Bernie Williams 9.6

265. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:08 PM (#4032369)

Barry Larkin career highlights up at THT

266. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:11 PM (#4032374)

Glad to see Larkin make it. Sad to see Raines fall under 50%. Slightly disturbed by the Jack Morris total.

267. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:11 PM (#4032375)

67 percent for Jack. Wow.

That's stirking distance.

Just imagine if he squeaks in next year. A very marginal candidate doesn't get in on one of the weakest ballots in history, and does get in on one of the strongest ballots ever. That's the BBWAA in a nutshell.

Hopefully, there's enough guys like Jason Stark and Mike Caple who voted for him this year but won't find room on their ballot for him next year.

268. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4032385)

Larkin +24.3%
Morris +13.2
Bagwell +14.3
Smith +5.3
Raines +11.2
Trammell +12.5
Martinez +3.6
McGriff +6.0
Walker +2.6
McGwire -0.3
Mattingly +4.2
Murphy +1.9
Palmeiro +1.6
Gonzalez -1.2

269. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4032391)

Here are the percentages of the plus 5 percent guys.

No Juan Gone?

270. DL from MN Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4032394)

PLAYER THEM US

Barry Larkin 86.4 99
Jack Morris 66.7 03
Jeff Bagwell 56.0 99
Lee Smith 50.6 10
Tim Raines 48.7 98
Alan Trammell 36.8 95
Edgar Martinez 36.5 72
Fred McGriff 23.9 34
Larry Walker 22.9 66
Mark McGwire 19.5 85
Don Mattingly 17.8 03
Dale Murphy 14.5 38
Rafael Palmeiro 12.6 68
Bernie Williams 9.6 20

Strange that we like McGriff more than the writers

271. formerly dp Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4032397)

Can someone please explain the difference between Larkin and Trammell for me? They seem very close on paper. As a quick shorthand, WAR has Larkin at 68.9 and Trammell at 66.9. Not sure why the love for one and not the other. Both played their whole careers at SS and were above-average offensively, solid-to-good defensively.

272. DL from MN Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4032398)

> on one of the weakest ballots in history

There's already 10+ guys better than Morris on the ballot. What would it matter that there are 15+ guys better than Morris on next year's ballot.

273. JPWF1313 Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4032399)

Sad to see Raines fall under 50%

why, from 37.5 to 48.7 is a healthy gain
Trammel also had a nice gain, but his time is running out too fast.

Morris has 1 year to go and crowded ballot next year

McGwire is going nowhere
I guess Juan Gone has dropped off

274. DL from MN Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4032403)

Larkin - 12 ASG, 1 MVP
Trammell - 6 ASG, MVP 2nd place

Oh and Forman seems to think Trammell was elected this year:

2012 BBWAA (36.8%)
Selected to HOF in 2012 by BBWAA

I'm assuming this will be corrected soon so check it out now.

275. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4032404)

No Juan Gone?

No, 4 percent.

276. formerly dp Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4032408)

Larkin - 12 ASG, 1 MVP
Trammell - 6 ASG, MVP 2nd place

That's all it takes, eh?

I remember hoping that McGriff would go on a tear with TB and get those remaining HRs he needed to reach 500, but he really just had nothing left in him.

Raines/Morris really crystallizes far off base the voters can be on some candidates.

277. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4032410)

Compared to Dag's projections last week:

Barry Larkin 86.4 82
Jack Morris 66.7 65
Jeff Bagwell 56.0 54
Lee Smith 50.6 52
Tim Raines 48.7 52
Alan Trammell 36.8 32
Edgar Martinez 36.5 39
Fred McGriff 23.9 24
Larry Walker 22.9 27
Mark McGwire 19.5 24
Don Mattingly 17.8 18
Dale Murphy 14.5 19
Rafael Palmeiro 12.6 15
Bernie Williams 9.6 12

Nobody else over 5% on either the actual ballot or the projections. Dag was a little optimistic on McGwire, Walker, Edgar, Raines, and Murphy, a little pessimistic on Morris and Trammell (and Larkin, not that his exact percentage matters much), but still within 5% on everyone.

278. JPWF1313 Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4032416)

What would it matter that there are 15+ guys better than Morris on next year's ballot.

what matters is that some of those new guys are starting pitchers
such as Clemens (ok roids)
Wells 239-157, pitched very well in post season (when not knocked out by gout)
Bloody Sock guy

Wells I suspect will not pass the "feels like a HOFer test" for many BBWAA voters, which should make them reconsider their support for Morris (who am I kidding, of course it won't)

Clemens- well obviously blows Morris away- but, well you know

Bloody Sock Guy had short career than Morris - but at times he actually was something Morris never was (save for maybe a random game or two)- a DOMINANT starting pitcher

279. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4032417)

5.10 votes per ballot, a little lower than even Dag's all-time low projection.

280. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4032420)

Nobody else over 5% on either the actual ballot or the projections.

The funny thing is I forgot to predict Juan Gone, and he saves me by falling under 5% and making me look smarter than I actually am.

281. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4032434)

5.10 is the fewest votes per ballot ever, and almost a full name below last year's all-holdover result. That's not a shining sign for Morris.

282. Booey Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4032437)

Me, too. I probably should've been more clear but: I use 62 WAR as an informal in/out line, then look at other considerations.

I thought it was pretty obvious that that is what you meant.

It seems certain people these days are engaging in a contest of who can be more annoying.

It's not at all obvious anymore. Considering that so many MVP and HOF threads nowadays have become just lazily copied and pasted lists of WAR, it really wouldn't surprise me if some people on BTF really did base their opinions entirely on WAR (and I'm not accusing anyone specific of doing this). So if I was one of the ones you thought were trying to be intentionally annoying, I can assure you I wasn't. I really was interested in the extra clarification and I appreciate that the original poster provided it. :)

283. .

Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4032449)

5.10 is the fewest votes per ballot ever, and almost a full name below last year's all-holdover result. That's not a shining sign for Morris.

Doesn't it just mean there's more room for him next year?

284. Repoz

Posted: January 09, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4032519)

Let me dump the green blast of snit from the lovely O'BBWAA here...

BBWAA
officialBBWAA BBWAA
Results of voting for @BaseballHall announced here at 3 pm ET on Monday. (Don't believe anyone else claiming "exclusive" announcement.)
7 Jan

...

officialBBWAA BBWAA
If you've seen a story online in which a BBWAA member explained his/her HOF ballot, pass it on. We're collecting the links.
8 Jan

...

iracane Rob Iracane
Odd that @officialBBWAA waited til now to collect columns explaining HOF ballots while @RRepoz's been at it for a month

...

officialBBWAA BBWAA
@iracane @RRepoz He seems to be merely tallying, and also using ballots with no explanations, like on twitter.

...

officialBBWAA BBWAA
@seanmmcnally @leokitty @iracane @RRepoz Ah, much better. Thanks!

...

officialBBWAA BBWAA
Hat tip to @leokitty for helping keep track of published HOF votes.
.

285. The District Attorney Posted: January 09, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4032523)

Yeah, Repoz, why would you count votes only posted on Twitter? Just because they're votes from registered voters and they count? Jeez.

286. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: January 09, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4032533)

As always, I'd like to thank repoz for doing this.

With 148 ballots collected out of 573 cast, it's an all-time record 25.8% in the tally.

287. DL from MN Posted: January 09, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4032537)

Awesome that they disparage twitter ballots as lacking explanations on twitter

288. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 09, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4032545)

5.10 is the fewest votes per ballot ever, and almost a full name below last year's all-holdover result. That's not a shining sign for Morris.

Doesn't it just mean there's more room for him next year?

Depends. How many names did Morris voters average per ballot? I know Stark, Caple, and Kurk had 10 names, including Morris. Will they have room for Morris next year? Probably not. Of the other ESPN Morris votes:

Crasnick had 7
Gomez 5
Graziano 3
Mathews 2
O'Connor 5
Olney 8
Rubin 4
Smith 3
Stanton 6

So, he's likely to lose 3 - 5 ESPN votes he had this year. Pascarelli seemed to submit a anti-anti steroids protest vote this year. If he keeps it up, his ballot will be filled with nothing but roiders. So, he's got to pick up all the remaining 5 ESPN no votes just to maintain his 66% from that group.

Just a small sample size sure, but it's not really as simple as votes/ballot.

289. dave h Posted: January 09, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4032555)

It also depends how much those voters care about electing Morris, and how strategic they are. If Stark really wants Morris elected, he might put him on the ballot because a vote for Morris is more likely to make a difference than a vote for someone he knows is only going to get 30%, or a vote for someone who still has 12 years left on the ballot.

290. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 09, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4032559)

I know Stark, Caple, and Kurk had 10 names, including Morris. Will they have room for Morris next year? Probably not. Of the other ESPN Morris votes:

Olney voted for Larkin, Morris, Smith, Raines, Bagwell, McGwire, Trammell, Palmeiro. Clearly he has no qualms voting for roid guys. So that's quite likely 4 ESPN votes Jack loses.

291. MelOtt4 Posted: January 09, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4032561)

I'd be surprised if Caple removes Morris from his ballot. Any voters with ties to Minnesota all seem to be Jack Morris supporters.

292. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 09, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4032565)

I'd be surprised if Caple removes Morris from his ballot. Any voters with ties to Minnesota all seem to be Jack Morris supporters.

Well, I'm basing these assumptions on the fact that in strong ballot years, the backlog loses. Now, next year isn't a normal strong ballot year, as many would be no brainers have issues with a segment of the elctorate, so I was just looking at the guys who voted for Mac, Bags, and Raffy. Maybe some guys will be strategic, but I can't see too many guys who voted for Raines, Mac, Trammell, Bagwell, and Palmeiro, with Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Sosa, Schilling, Biggio coming up, leaving 2 of them off to include Morris.

293. Srul Itza Posted: January 09, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4032584)

The hidden NY Votes:

REPOZ
10.1 - Mattingly
3.4 - Bernie Williams

ACTUAL
Don Mattingly 17.8
Bernie Williams 9.6

So Mattingly picked up 7.1 percent and Williams picked up 6.2 percent

294. MelOtt4 Posted: January 09, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4032587)

You're right, the PED voters could very well drop Morris from their ballot. The question is did he reach the point of no return on the ballot? I have a feeling that Ken Rosenthal isn't the only 'guilt' vote that Jack Morris might get. I'm curious if Morris does fall just short next year? Is he the new Jim Bunning (voting not performance)or do enough voters decide to push him over the top?

295. JPWF1313 Posted: January 09, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4032627)

if Morris does fall just short next year? Is he the new Jim Bunning (voting not performance)or do enough voters decide to push him over the top?

I think the reaction/counter reactions will be just hysterical if he gets in, or gets out, by just 1 vote.

296. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 09, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4032636)

I think the reaction/counter reactions will be just hysterical if he gets in, or gets out, by just 1 vote.

The dream: Jack Morris in his 15th year gets 74.979% of the vote, after Corky Simpson mistakenly votes for Mercury Morris, while Bill Conlin's cellmate uses Conlin's filled-out but unmailed ballot to swat him in the head, like the Colonel at the end of "Boogie Nights."

297. MelOtt4 Posted: January 09, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4032641)

I would laugh at the ####### voters who wouldn't vote for Blyleven but did vote for "The Jack".

298. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: January 09, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4032685)

Olney voted for Larkin, Morris, Smith, Raines, Bagwell, McGwire, Trammell, Palmeiro. Clearly he has no qualms voting for roid guys. So that's quite likely 4 ESPN votes Jack loses.

Don't be too sure. Olney might drop the guy with the least support in order to keep the guy with the most current support.

299. Something Other Posted: January 10, 2012 at 05:21 AM (#4032929)

Strange that we like McGriff more than the writers

I'm guessing it was the last 5300 PAs of 119 OPS+ that did him in. He had an excellent first half to his career, hitting like Manny or Dick Allen (for their careers, granted, not their peaks), and then he was pretty much an average 1Bman without being impressive with the glove. I can see the reason for the lack of love, but if he'd gotten 7 more HRs it would have been very, very interesting.

It also depends how much those voters care about electing Morris, and how strategic they are. If Stark really wants Morris elected, he might put him on the ballot because a vote for Morris is more likely to make a difference than a vote for someone he knows is only going to get 30%, or a vote for someone who still has 12 years left on the ballot.

The writers know how honored most players feel by being voted in. I'll bet very few decide to leave Morris off on his last real shot at election.

300. Booey Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4033235)

Strange that we like McGriff more than the writers

I'm guessing it was the last 5300 PAs of 119 OPS+ that did him in.

I actually doubt the writers notice things like this. I think it's more that the strike cost him his shot at 500 homers, and that most people don't know how to adjust for the vastly different offensive environment of 1988-1992 when McGriff had most of his peak years. All they see is a guy who never had more than 37 homers or 107 rbi's and it doesn't look too impressive compared to all the 50 homer, 140 rbi seasons that came just a half decade later. No one seems to notice that Crime Dog was putting up those numbers every year back when they were enough to challenge for the league lead.

Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, December 30, 2011

2012 Hall Of Fame Ballot Collecting Gizmo

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics