Bonds, Schilling and Clemens, please.

Ugh. What a terrible ballot. A bunch of ######## plus McGriff and Murphy. It's like a sinners and saints ballot.

Not sure how Lou Whitaker got left off the ballot.

VCocalypse is slightly less catchy than Ballotgeddon but same phenomenon.

I strongly doubt that anybody will be elected.

I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that Bonds/Clemens + Schilling will get support, but not enough to go in. And by the same token, they will preclude other candidates from being elected (obviously, no other candidate is at the Bonds/Clemens level, but Dale Murphy in particular looks like somebody that otherwise would get a lot of love from this committee).

I wonder why they left off McGwire?

I suspect McGriff and Schilling get elected. Crime Dog would've been a "clean" 500 homer guy without the strike, and while we don't know how much Schilling's past Twitter trolling will continue to haunt him, there's no reason to think his feud with the writers will transfer over to the voters of the VC committee.

Someone wants Murphy elected badly. He hasn't really done that well on previous ballots. What happened to Parker, Garvey, Evans ? Are they just before the cutoff of this committee? How does Albert Belle merit one of the eight coveted spots ?

It's clear baseball is tired of the vets committee pushing through candidates so they've muddied this one up with jerks and HOVG guys.

Still, I think Schilling and The Crime Dog could get in and both would be worthy elections. I doubt these voters care about Schillings choice of t-shirts and he's clearly a HOFr. McGriff is the anti-PED choice (as is Murphy) and is a great way to message that PED guys aren't going in anytime soon.

The morality police will shut down 5 of the 8.
That leaves Murphy, mcgriff and mattingly; the 3 weakest candidates.
Yuck.

What happened to Parker, Garvey, Evans

Garvey should not be eligible for this ballot. Parker shouldn't be either (though it's closer).

This would be the ballot for Evans to appear on.

As is typical, the eras aren't very well delineated (though separating the non-players is a positive step). They went from the most current ballot featuring not enough candidates (one of the chief reasons Hal Baines managed his way in) to one with too many, losing some legit candidates (Evans and Whitaker, among them) in the process.

Come to think of it, why isn't Sosa on this ballot either (he also timed out on the writers ballot last year)? If they're including Bonds, Clemens, and especially Palmeiro, I can't think of any justification for snubbing Mac and Sammy.

Come to think of it, why isn't Sosa on this ballot either (he also timed out on the writers ballot last year)? If they're including Bonds, Clemens, and especially Palmeiro, I can't think of any justification for snubbing Mac and Sammy.

I can see him over Palmeiro, but I don't see the point of a ballot of just roid-suspected guys and Schilling. And if the committee somehow elects Roger and Barry, then I would imagine both guys would make the next ballot covering the time frame.

Do we know who the voters are?

What happened to Parker, Garvey, Evans ? Are they just before the cutoff of this committee? How does Albert Belle merit one of the eight coveted spots ?

This is for players that played "most of their career after 1980."

Do we know who the voters are?

I have not seen it anywhere.

No doubt Mattingly's time with the Marlins will push him over the top.

Seriously though, I'll second the "no one is going in" motion. This is a recipe for a traffic jam. Great players with steroid associations and not-great players without. On a related note: what does Kenny Lofton have to do to get some love around here? He's both clean and deserving.

Third on that no one is going into with this ballot. Way too many way to split the votes, and too small ballot size.

Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Palmeiro.

This Contemporary Era ballot, more than anything else, will show exactly how badly the steroids thing messed up the discussion of who is a great baseball player. It would be like my DeepRed friends arguin with my DeepBlue friends on the merits of Obama vs Reagan.

Mattingly before Mex is a big no.

On a related note: what does Kenny Lofton have to do to get some love around here? He's both clean and deserving.

Stop sending unsolicited dick pics would be a good start.

I think it's possible McGriff could go in, depending on how the committee operates. If they're discussing it among themselves, he could emerge as a candidate each voter could get behind. If it's handled like a BBWAA election, then I would agree the odds of anyone getting elected are much lower.

The morality police will shut down 5 of the 8.
That leaves Murphy, mcgriff and mattingly; the 3 weakest candidates.
Yuck.

yes, there's a conspiracy theory rounding on twitter that this was precisely the point of nominating this particular group of 8

All great players, but I think the playing records of Mattingly, Belle, and Murphy come up short. McGriff is borderline, but I would vote for him. And the other guys have issues, although their playing careers are obviously worthy.

I always thought of Palmeiro as the modern day Al Kaline, but Kaline crushes Raffy in bWAR....mostly due to positional adjustment I guess (10X Gold Glove OF vs 3-time Gold Glove DH), but it's a 20-WAR difference.

Kaline: 11,597 PA, .297/.376/.480, 399 HR, 498 2B, 1622 R, 1582 RBI, 134 OPS+

Palmeiro: 12,046 PA, .288/.371/.515, 569 HR, 585 2b, 1663 R, 1835 RBI, 132 OPS+

If the Committtee is stacked with anti-PED guys, the path forward to election is pretty easy actually. Five guys competing for four votes on each ballot, and no one is voting for Belle anyway, so ballot spots shouldn't be an issue.

Of course, if there are enough non anti-PED guys on the committtee, then Bonds and Clemens will get elected.

The danger zone is if the committee is split on the issue. But even then I could see McGriff or Schilling get enough votes.

I'm going to guess that there will be a lot of "they were Hall of Famers before PED issues arose" sentiment on the committee, and that Bonds and Clemens come close. The ex-players on the committee will be the wild card.

Depending on who is on the committee, I can see McGriff or Murphy or both getting in.

I find it hard to believe that there aren't at least 4 voters opposing any of these guys. Ozzie Smith has been on the committee multiple times, and because of his dislike for TLR, I imagine he's going to vent that towards any of the roiders. (TLR is seen as the welcoming figure to roids or as an enabler if you will) There are probably at least two former writers on there (Ringolsby was on the last committee) so Schilling has an uphill battle, although I don't think the players will have any issue with him and I'm not sure any of the owners or front office people will have a problem with him, so maybe he gets in.

On a related note: what does Kenny Lofton have to do to get some love around here? He's both clean and deserving.

MLB'S KENNY LOFTON SUED BY EX-EMPLOYEE ... Claims Former MLB Star Sent Out Penis Pics

Too bad Lou Whitaker, Dwight Evans, and Keith Hernandez aren't being considered. They're far better options than Mattingly, Belle, or Murphy, who I can't get behind. Would be fine with electing Bonds, Clemens, and McGriff, maybe Schilling. Less taken with Palmeiro as he tested positive after PED bans with testing and penalties were established -- though if he got in, it would open the door for guys like McGwire.

I'm sick and tired of guys like Dale Murphy and Albert Belle making it onto VC ballots while Whitaker and Dwight Evans get ignored.

Stop sending unsolicited dick pics would be a good start.

It's one way to get the voters' attention.

I always thought of Palmeiro as the modern day Al Kaline, but Kaline crushes Raffy in bWAR....mostly due to positional adjustment I guess (10X Gold Glove OF vs 3-time Gold Glove DH), but it's a 20-WAR difference.

It's about 4 wins on bat, 4 wins on the bases and 12-13 in the field (mostly Rfield rather than Rpos). Not that Raffy is a slouch on any of those -- his baserunning was just -8 which is very good for a 1B; he was +48 at 1B which was +68 until his age 39-40 seasons so we can forgive those. But Kaline was an above-average runner and one of the finest RFs of all-tie.

Note, over careers of that length, those "4 wins with the bat" amount to 2 runs a year. 2-3 singles a year, an extra first to third every month, one extra good play a month for 20 years adds up.

3-time Gold Glove DH

Now now. 2100 career starts at 1B, only a bit over 400 at DH. He was an excellent defensive 1B and won his DH GG because of his rep and having legit won the previous 2. If memory serves, he had some injury problems that year, putting him at DH. He returned to 1B for about 100-120 games a year and was still there 70% of the time at 40 although he was pretty average in those years.

Eddie Murray is a better Palmeiro comp, IMO. Or Paul Goldschmidt and Freddie Freeman if you want active players. All 3 of those guys did much better than Raffy in MVP voting though.

Winfield is another decent comp.

I always thought Palmeiro's HOF plaque would be fun to write: Greatest fielding DH in MLB history. Used performance enhancing drugs on the field and in the bedroom. Scored 1663 times...mostly with Sandberg's wife. Most homeruns without ever leading the league (569). Homerun palindrome from 1997-2003 (38, 43, 47, 39, 47, 43, 38). First major star to test positive for PED's, and it came just months after angrily pointing his finger at Congress and adamantly denying usage.

Good stuff.

I did love Palmeiro as a player. High average, gorgeous swing, cool mustache, and the guy just hit and hit and hit for 15+ years.

I wonder if there is a legit chance the voters get together and say something like, "The PED thing has been killing the Hall of Fame for 20 years; we are basically being told to suck it up and get the debate over with. They put the two PED guys on our ballot that everybody agrees were Hall of Famers before any of the PED stuff. They also want us to get the Schilling headaches out of the way, too. Let's just vote these three guys in, and get the pain over with in one fell swoop."

I think the worst thing for baseball and the HOF, as it relates to the PED issue and the Schilling issue, is slow-walking these guys into the HOF over the next 5-15 years. It would kind of suck for Scott Rolen, who seems like the only returning candidate with a chance of getting 75% this time around, but 2023 is probably the only year until 2026 where a first-year candidate doesn't get swept in (Beltre next year; Ichiro in 2025; 2026 looks very weak).

Do folks here think it is pretty much inevitable that Bonds and Clemens are getting in at some point? Schilling?

Schilling definitely. Even with all the ballyhoo the writers nearly put him in. He seems like a shoo-in to me. The PED guys are on so they can be rejected. If bonds and Clemens get rejected we won't see a huge clamor for Sosa and McGwire etc every year. I've always subscribed to "they can put them in when they are dead." If it's good enough for Santo, Allen and Marvin Miller, it's good enough for them.

Murphy would be in if he'd just had a normal decline phase. The cliff came way too early.

Bonds and Clemens -- get it done already, please. Enough virtue-signaling by the same MLB that looked the other way from PED use for years.

I wonder if Schilling really wants to get in. He seems to enjoy martyr-bating about this every year.

Murphy would be in if he'd just had a normal decline phase. The cliff came way too early.

It did, and that's why I think Murphy should be in. I don't think piling up a half dozen 1-WAR seasons (or in Murphy's case, a paltry 0.2 WAR in his last four years) should add or detract from anyone's HoF resume.

The fact they limit voters to three votes now makes it even less likely someone gets inducted. I think McGriff is the only one with a shot

There's some magical unknown formula for peak, counting stats, longevity, and fame that motivates voters. If you have one of them in spades like Koufax or Kaat you can get in but you generally need a decent mix of all of them and Murphy doesn't have that.

Looks like voting is December 4. I'll put up a mock ballot soon.

I wish the HOF personnel who construct these ballots would reevaluate their process. No chance in hell of that happening, I realize, but it just seems like such a haphazard ballot. Great that they put on Bonds, Clemens and Schilling, clearly the most deserving players who fit into 1980 and forward for career, but after that it seems like a mishmash of guys who received a lot of writer support (McGriff, highest support of these three and lasted the full 10, Mattingly, never moved very high but lasted the full 15, and Murhpy, never moved very high but lasted the full 15), and two guys who no one will vote for (Palmeiro, positive after testing and lousy optics in front of Congress, and Belle, too abrasive, not to mention too short a career).

It does seem a bit geared towards getting one of the three who received a lot, or at least lengthy, writer support elected. I would hope it goes to Bonds and Clemens, but it just seems too close to their highly controversial and contentious time on the writer's ballot to see them get in via the Era Committee route. I would hope that if the people who put the ballot together were being intellectually honest, honestly evaluating who and who is not in the HOF from this era, they would recognize that none of Mattingly, Murphy and Belle have legitimate arguments. Not that they didn't all have HOF caliber seasons, or HOF caliber talent, but realistically comparing them to actual HOF players, those elected from similar positions, would show they simply don't have the career longevity associated with HOF players. McGriff is a different story in that he does have a HOF length career, but again, being intellectually honest, in terms of quality he does not distinguish himself from Mattingly in terms of peak play, nor does he distinguish himself from peak and prime/career from Wil Clark, Teixeira and Olerud (one might even include Hernandez in the discussion as most of his career was after 1980 although he won his MVP in 1979). If McGriff is not a clearly better candidate than 4 or 5 other guys who played the same position in the same era, he's really not deserving of being on the ballot, writer support or no.

Lofton, Whitaker, Edmonds, Brown and Saberhagen would all be worth considering. Brown is a much better candidate than Belle if you want to include someone who was not popular with the writers but had a great career, put Saberhagen on if you want to avoid controversial personalities. The first three mentioned all should have received much consideration by the writers, so why not put them on a committee ballot? Isn't that what the committees are supposed to do, find the players the writers overlooked?

11. Booey Posted: November 07, 2022 at 02:20 PM (#6104674)
Come to think of it, why isn't Sosa on this ballot either (he also timed out on the writers ballot last year)? If they're including Bonds, Clemens, and especially Palmeiro, I can't think of any justification for snubbing Mac and Sammy.

Best guess would be they wanted a ballot with some of the controversial candidates and some of the popular old school guys, but they have a limit of 8. So Bonds and Clemens are clearly the best of the PED issue players, and Palmeiro is less controversial than the two guys who brought baseball back from the doldrums of the 94-95 strike, I mean who dared to taint the sacred single season HR record.

I always thought of Palmeiro as the modern day Al Kaline, but Kaline crushes Raffy in bWAR....mostly due to positional adjustment I guess (10X Gold Glove OF vs 3-time Gold Glove DH), but it's a 20-WAR difference.

It's about 4 wins on bat, 4 wins on the bases and 12-13 in the field (mostly Rfield rather than Rpos). Not that Raffy is a slouch on any of those -- his baserunning was just -8 which is very good for a 1B; he was +48 at 1B which was +68 until his age 39-40 seasons so we can forgive those. But Kaline was an above-average runner and one of the finest RFs of all-tie.

Note, over careers of that length, those "4 wins with the bat" amount to 2 runs a year. 2-3 singles a year, an extra first to third every month, one extra good play a month for 20 years adds up.

I think this sort of understates the difference between them. Kaline, IMO, really does crush Palmeiro. Palmeiro's best 5 seasons are worth about 30 WAR: 6.9, 6.3, 5.8, 5.5, 5.2, while Kaline is at 37: 8.4, 8.2, 7.5, 6.5, 6.5. Palmeiro was probably never as good as Kaline was in terms of peak (maybe for one season if you round him up from 6.9 and Kaline down from 8.4/8.2), but Kaline arguably has 5 seasons as good or better than Palmeiro's best 2. Kaline's 6-10th seasons are worth about 28 WAR, closer to Palmeiro's top 5 than Palmeiro's top 5 are to Kaline's top 5, and Palmeiro's 6-10 are only worth about 18 WAR. From 1955-1967 Kaline put up more WAR than Palmeiro did in his entire career (and Palmeiro would only add 0.1 if you want to remove his one negative WAR "season" in 1986), with only one season in that entire 13 year span where he was below All Star level of 5 WAR, as B-R breaks out the quality of seasons by WAR. Palmeiro has only 5 seasons in his entire career above 5 WAR, even giving him 3 more for his seasons of at least 4.5 WAR leaves him 5 short of Kaline.

JAWS has Kaline as a top 10 All Time Right Fielder, with a JAWS7 that is 6 WAR above average for a HOF Right Fielder, Palmeiro is 13th at 1B with a peak that is about 3 WAR below average for a HOF 1B. I don't think anyone would argue strongly that Kaline is not a top 10 RF, while I don't think anyone would argue strongly that Palmeiro IS a top 10 HOF 1B (well, maybe if you argue that 19th century 1B should be considered separately, you might be able to argue he has a case to be 10th, maybe).

32. Booey Posted: November 07, 2022 at 10:40 PM (#6104761)
I always thought Palmeiro's HOF plaque would be fun to write: Greatest fielding DH in MLB history. Used performance enhancing drugs on the field and in the bedroom. Scored 1663 times...mostly with Sandberg's wife. Most homeruns without ever leading the league (569). Homerun palindrome from 1997-2003 (38, 43, 47, 39, 47, 43, 38). First major star to test positive for PED's, and it came just months after angrily pointing his finger at Congress and adamantly denying usage.

golf clap!

37. Hombre Brotani Posted: November 08, 2022 at 10:03 AM (#6104778)

Murphy would be in if he'd just had a normal decline phase. The cliff came way too early.

It did, and that's why I think Murphy should be in. I don't think piling up a half dozen 1-WAR seasons (or in Murphy's case, a paltry 0.2 WAR in his last four years) should add or detract from anyone's HoF resume.

You think Murphy should be in because he fell off a cliff way too early? That's an extreme peak position, and he doesn't have the peak to support it. Average HOF CF JAWS7 is 44.7, Murphy is 41.2. If a guy is going in for peak only, his peak better be WAY better than the average HOF at his position, and Murphy's peak is below average.

39. The Duke Posted: November 08, 2022 at 10:33 AM (#6104787)
There's some magical unknown formula for peak, counting stats, longevity, and fame that motivates voters. If you have one of them in spades like Koufax or Kaat you can get in but you generally need a decent mix of all of them and Murphy doesn't have that.

This conflates writer's voting and committee voting, the two have never been the same as the ballots and constituent voters are never the same. Also, the "formula" is not static as the constituent voters within each of those is not static either. There simply is no rhyme or reason to committee voting as they've shifted so radically over time, but even within the writer's voting things change over a long period. We're starting to see a shift away from an over reliance, IMO, on long career counting stats, to a more analytic voter who will consider peak and/or a shorter career with sufficient production. Also, there's a move towards recognizing defense beyond SS and Catcher now that there's a greater availability and, at least perceived, reliability of/on defensive metrics. Rolen, for example, now that the ballot has cleared out is well on his way, but 20 or 30 years ago he would likely have faced a much more difficult time, perhaps not getting in at all given his offense (he looks like Santo more than any other HOF 3B, and Santo was rejected twice by the writers before an Era Committe put him in); however, enough voters are looking at his defense in combination with his bat and voting for him. Beltre is a different story due to his late career achievements with the bat, but there was plenty of talk about his glove being all time great even before he started making a run at 3000 hits. For example, if he retired at 35, he'd still have 77 career WAR and a JAWS score of 62, which would put him right with Robinson and Santo on the 3B list, plenty of counting stats, too, although missing out on some of the big ones he has.

You think Murphy should be in because he fell off a cliff way too early? That's an extreme peak position, and he doesn't have the peak to support it. Average HOF CF JAWS7 is 44.7, Murphy is 41.2. If a guy is going in for peak only, his peak better be WAY better than the average HOF at his position, and Murphy's peak is below average.

I know, I know, I'm talking to myself, but further to this point. Dick Allen is, IMO, thought of as a peak candidate as he had a short career relative to HOF standards. For example, the average HOF 3B in terms of PA's is 9,027 Allen has only 7,315, 81%. But if you use JAWS7 as a peak measure he's at 45.9 to 43 for the average HOF 3B. However, Allen also has 58.7 career WAR to the average HOF 3B 68.4, about 10 fewer, or 85.8%. Murphy, OTOH, has only 46.5 career WAR to go along with his below average WAR7, which is about 25 WAR below the average career number for a HOF CF, only 64.9%. In terms of playing time, Murphy has 9,041 PA's to the average of 9,082 for a HOF CF. Clearly Murhphy doesn't measure up as a peak candidate given his below average peak, and he actually has the career length of an average HOF CF but falls WELL short there.

I can see where Schilling gets in - Bonds and Clemens are left out in the cold once again.

I believe Schilling has too much respect for the game not to reject this ultimate honor.

It would be fun to see Schilling, Bonds and Clemens in - depending on how you lean, it would either be sanity restored or blasphemy.

I believe Schilling has too much respect for the game not to reject this ultimate honor.

Schilling's speech is likely to be atrocious with baseball writer bashing as only one small horrible piece of it.

Dick Allen, with 646 starts at third with a defensive rating (such as it is) of -9 per year, was not a third-baseman.

Either you think position matters, in which case you don't compare Dick Allen to genuine third-basemen, or you don't think position matters in which case you don't compare Dick All to genuine third-basemen.

Allen is 235th in career games at 3B. He has fewer than Tony Perez, Miguel Cabrera, Ripken, Encarnacion, Molitor, Killerew, Bonilla (by nearly 300). He has fewer than such immortal 3B as Kevin Kouzmanoff, Jack Howell, Geoff Blum, Jim Ray Hart, Hank Blalock and Vance Law. The man even had 150 more starts at 1B than 3B.

Calling Allen a 3B is an insult to Gary Sheffield, Pedro Guerrero and every other ham-handed slugger who gets ridiculed for their time over there.

Compared more sensibly to "1B" or "sluggers" then Allen's WAR puts him in a group with Mac, Killebrew, Greenberg, Ortiz. His WAR7, his better claim to fame, puts him in with Greenberg again (impressive), Thomas, Cabrera, McCovey, Goldschmidt, Reggie. By WAR/WAR7/JAWs standards, he's got at least as good a case as Billy Williams, Stargell, Kiner, Vlad, maybe Raines. By JAWS standards, he's right around the average HoF 1B, a slightly better spot than he holds among 3B.

Schilling's speech is likely to be atrocious with baseball writer bashing as only one small horrible piece of it.

Agree, that is the part that bothers me, it wouldn't surprise me if Schilling gets in, that the hof enacts an approval process for the speech, and puts a man on the stage to rush him off if he goes off script.

But at the same time, he's absolutely deserving.

You think Murphy should be in because he fell off a cliff way too early?

That's not remotely what I was arguing, but that's not important. The counterpoint to inducting Murphy, Dick Allen, isn't a good argument because Allen is CLEARLY Hall-worthy, as are the cluster of CFers in front of Murphy, and Murphy himself. Induct them all, I say.

Elect Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling per "The Jack Morris Corollary."

the longer they linger on ballots, the more annoying it gets.

just pull the Band-Aids off, and we can take them out of the conversation and move on.

Dick Allen, isn't a good argument because Allen is CLEARLY Hall-worthy,

I fully disagree, Allen is at best borderline hof worthy, and his actions as a player might take him out of the borderline. Saying Allen is clearly hof worthy is pretty much saying Edmonds/Andruw is clearly hof worthy...neither of which is true. Both can be argued, both can be argued against, obviously Edmonds/Andruw are more deserving than Allen, but they are still borderline. Allen is no longer the best snub for the hof, in fact he's probably not in the top five(maybe top ten) (and that is even after you exclude the roid guys) anymore.

Which is also why Murphy isn't a good argument, he's clearly inferior to "short" career guys like Andruw, Edmonds, Freehan, Allen etc... And it's not like any of them had a truly remarkable peak like a Koufax.

The sucky part of this is that the roiders (and Mr. Bloody #######) are blocking people mentioned upthread like Sweet Lou and Dewey. It's having a cascading effect on these other ballots now IOW.

Obviously Schilling has gone full troll in recent years, but I'd be shocked if a HOF acceptance speech reflected any of that.

49. You never know regarding someone; I'd probably bet money on Schillling's speech being obnoxious; but he could surprise people.
43. Thank you; I thought Kaline was the much better player; that quantifies it.

Saying Allen is clearly hof worthy is pretty much saying Edmonds/Andruw is clearly hof worthy...neither of which is true.

That's actually exactly what I'd argue, that all three of those guys are Hall worthy. I'm obviously a much more big-hall guy than most here, but, yeah, all three should go in.

I'd vote for Allen, Edmonds, and Andruw, but I don't think any of them are "clearly" worthy. They're all on the "barely, but yes" side of my borderline.

Murphy is a clear step down from any of them though, which puts him solidly in the HOVG category. He actually reminds me a bit of Nomar; 6 great seasons and virtually no value outside of those years.

Top 6 seasons by WAR:

Nomar - 7.4, 7.1, 6.8, 6.6, 6.6, 6.1 = 40.6 WAR
rest of career = 3.7 WAR in 8 seasons

Murphy - 7.7, 7.1, 6.6, 6.1, 5.5, 5.0 = 38.0 WAR
rest of career = 8.5 WAR in 12 seasons

If you want to be a HOFer based on 6 seasons, they'd better be Koufax-esque. Murphy's peak never reached that level, IMO. Which of Bryce Harper, Jose Altuve, Manny Machado, Nolan Arenado, or Freddie Freeman would be HOFers if they cliffdived and added no more value in their careers? I'd say none of them. They're all on pace to be HOFers, but that implies a natural decline where they still add to their case.

From a pitchers side, Chris Sale's career is pretty comparable to Murphy's; great (but not historic) peak, almost no value outside of it. Is Sale a HOFer if he doesn't add anything else to his career?

Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Palmeiro.

Not Palmeiro. Forget the PED thing and his lying about it. I never considered him a premier player or the guy that you couldn't let beat you. For a stretch in the late 80's and early 90's, McGriff was that guy on the Blue Jays. I was at what some Red Sox fans call the "Jeff Stone" game against the Jays with something like 4 games left to go in the season and while there were other guys who were terrific hitters on the Jays, the guy who was feared was McGriff.

59. Agreed. When people talk about peak, it doesn't and shouldn't mean you can give no value for the rest of your career. Sustainability is important even for peak arguments. I'm a little more flexible when it comes to pitchers vs hitters. A guy like Santana feels worthy to me.

Since we're getting down to some detail, when I bother, for HoF purposes I prefer to think of "prime" rather than "peak." "Peak" is a great 4-5 years; "prime" is more like 8-10 years; and of course there's career. Now consider three hypothetical players and their prime, non-prime and career WAR totals:

A 45 0 45
B 45 20 65
C 38 27 65
D 60 5 65

I think it's inescapably obvious that B is more worthy of the HoF than A. That might be due to something unfortunate like an injury to A but those are the breaks -- B was of equal "quality" and had superior endurance. If you think A is HoF-worthy, then obviously you should think B is; if you think B is borderline, clearly A is a no.

As far as I'm concerned, B and C are equal (or close enough). B was better for 7, 8 or 10 years of their prime but C made that up over the 7, 8 or 10 years of their non-prime. There's nothing magical about "peak" value -- B adding a win a year relative to C during ages 24-32 is no differet than C adding a win a year relative to B from ages 21-23 and 33-37. By the transitive property, obviously C is better than A.

Where I get into trouble with you guys is comparing B to D. In terms of value, as far as I'm concerned B and D are equivalent. D is the guy who was really great at his peak, had an excellent 10-12 but then went off a cliff and barely played outside his peak. So D has much less playing time than B and therefore has a much higher WAA than B. But he was useless for the extra 7 years that B played. D was 20 wins better over 10 years; B was 20 wins better over 7 years. The "hypothetical team" that D played for may not have been that much worse off in the years D didn't play but the question is whether B or D was the more valuable player which is a comparison of the players, not the teams.

One solution to that is "the HoF is about greatness, not value" and while the two are highly correlated, they don't always jive at an individual level or a particular comparison. D was the greater player even if not necessarily the more valuable player.

Anyway ... there are very few true peak-only players in the HoF. I can't think of one other than Koufax. And yes, that's a HoF-worthy peak. Now of course that's mainly just a statement that, fortunately, most guys with HoF-worthy peaks stay healthy and productive enough to have HoF-worthy primes and most even to have HoF-worthy careers. For example, Pedro's peak is roughly the equivalent of Koufax and I'd have no problem putting Pedro in if that had been all he had. I'd have been happy to put Trout in even if he'd been hit by a bus after 5 years or, more likely, that bus turned him into post-beaning Tony C for 5 years of mediocrity while we all hoped Trout returned.

But obviously Murphy's not remotely close to that class. The problem with Murphy is that his peak/prime really isn't outstanding by HoF standards.

On Palmeiro-Kaline: to be clear, I wasn't trying to argue the two were equivalent. I can see that my "reduction" to the differences of their average years could lead to the impression I was arguing the difference was thin. And of course in a strict numbers sense it was because that's the nature of baseball ("a seeing eye grounder every two weeks," etc.) But sure, Palmeiro was basically the Whitaker of 1B -- never great but always good and as good at 39 as at 23. Kaline was, give or take, a great player at 20, still a great player at 32. Breaking WAR down a bit like the above, AK vs RP:

23-32 55 43 (5800 PA vs 6500 PA)
Rest 38 29 (5800 PA vs 5500 PA)

So it's not close, never meant to suggest it was. Kaline lasted forever and he was a good player in the down years too. Interestingly, in the prime comparison, the difference is about 1 win with the bat and only half a win on defense. In the non-prime, Palmeiro has a slight hitting edge (25-30 runs total) while Kaline picks up about 7 wins on defense. TZ rates Kaline as a great RF for 19-22 and an average one for 33-39 while Palmeiro is just an average 1B (mostly) outside of his prime.

But there is another way to look at it that makes them seem quite close. (For kicks, I've added Whitaker who starts and ends a year earlier in this comp)

RP 23-39: 11,300 PA, 71 WAR, 32 WAA, -8 dWAR
AK 23-39: 9,000 PA, 71 WAR, 42 WAA, 0 dWAR
LW 22-38: 9,400 PA, 71 WAR, 41 WAA, 15 dWAR

Clearly Kaline is still better than RP (equal production in 2000 fewer PA) but mostly defense. AK and LW are kinda WAR twins. Missing of course is Kaline's 20 WAR from ages 20-22 when Palmeiro barely played at all and LW had 4 WAR at 21. That's the entirety of their career WAR gap.

Perhaps #22 can be forgiven for thinking they were similar -- for 17 years of their careers, they were fairly similar. Of course Kaline deserves credit for being one of the greatest young players in MLB history and blows Palmeiro and Whitaker away because of it.

there are very few true peak-only players in the HoF. I can't think of one other than Koufax

Ralph Kiner

#63 - There's quite a few old time HOFers who would fit that bill; Dizzy Dean, Chuck Klein, Hack Wilson, Chick Hafey, etc. Without bothering to look it up, I'm guessing most of them were VC choices.

I assume that guys like Puckett and Oliva would qualify more as "prime" selections rather than peak, right? What about Posey and Mauer (assuming they get selected)?

Not Palmeiro. Forget the PED thing and his lying about it. I never considered him a premier player or the guy that you couldn't let beat you.

While I hope award voting never totally devolves into "Count the WAR," Palmeiro's got 72 of them -- good for 92nd all-time, and it's going to be an awfully small hall if you draw the line much higher than him. That's more than Jeter, Gwynn, Murray, Smoltz, Larkin, Raines, Palmer, Banks, and several other not-terribly-fringe HoFers.

I'd vote for Allen, Edmonds, and Andruw, but I don't think any of them are "clearly" worthy. They're all on the "barely, but yes" side of my borderline.

That's my view on Edmonds and Andruw, Allen is on the out side for me though, but not a hill I'm willing to die on. He's not Morris/Rice/Baines, clearly not worthy, but he's very borderline for me.

#63 - There's quite a few old time HOFers who would fit that bill; Dizzy Dean, Chuck Klein, Hack Wilson, Chick Hafey, etc. Without bothering to look it up, I'm guessing most of them were VC choices.

I think that Walt left a few words out of his statement... or more accurately one word, and that word is deservedly.

Koufax is pretty much the only deserved peak candidate. I'm a Cardinal fan, and Dean has been forced into my brain for years, but there is no real way to say he deserves the hof he's an inferior version of Bret Saberhagen. 3 great years, 3 good years and average or nothing after that. (Saberhagen is 3 great years 4 good years and a few average years--depending on how you rate 1999) Same can be said about Klein and the others.

As a shorthand WAA+WAR is a much better measure of "impact" or "pennant-added value" than WAR (or WAA) on its own. The idea, of course, is that performance above league average is roughly twice as "valuable" as performance between replacement level and league average. I don't think anybody in 2022 uses WAR as the sole metric for HOF-worthiness.

perhaps Kiner straddles the peak/prime fence?

first 8 years in the majors (NL), rank in HR:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5

only 22 and 18 HR in the next two seasons, and that's his entire 10-year MLB career.

149 OPS+ is pretty good (40th all-time)

ranks in walks:
6
4
2
1
2
1
1
2
8
not top 10 in his last season (but had 65 in 390 PA)

"162 G AVG" is fun: .279-41-112-107 with 111 walks
never noticed before that the Pirates gave him 75 starts in CF (!) as a rookie - and he never started another game there in his other 9 years.

As a shorthand WAA+WAR is a much better measure of "impact" or "pennant-added value" than WAR (or WAA) on its own.

Never thought about adding it, but yes I do find myself looking at both stats when looking at hof cases. (One number I also look at that most people don't look at is games/games started(for pitchers) per season... I just find it hard to credit guys who consistently miss significant playing time multiple seasons, it forces the team to look for a replacement and affects potential structuring of the roster.)

But yes I absolutely will look at waa per season, or war per season, cumulative also has value, but the per season is more important than just showing up for 110 games and putting up good numbers.

Koufax is pretty much the only deserved peak candidate. I'm a Cardinal fan, and Dean has been forced into my brain for years, but there is no real way to say he deserves the hof he's an inferior version of Bret Saberhagen.

Dean's peak lasted from 1934 through the 1937 All-Star game, when he broke his toe and messed up his arm trying to favor his foot.

During that peak, and counting his 1937 post-injury games, Dean was 95-42 with an ERA+ of 140. In those first three years he won 82 games, with an MVP and two second place MVPs thrown in. No way you can brush that off, even allowing for era adjustment.

Saberhagen's peak was from 1985 through 1989, when in 5 years he went 82-50 with a 130 ERA+. That included two CYA and 10th and 8th place MVP finishes.

For his career, Saberhagen won 167 games to Dean's 150, and posted a career ERA+ of 126 to Dean's 131. I fail to see how this makes Dean an inferior version of Saberhagen, especially in their respective peak years.

And as you know, the HoF is often a combination of statistics and narrative, and no player of his era dominated baseball's narrative more than Dizzy Dean. Like Muhammad Ali, he was a braggart and a blowhard, but as he said, "It ain't bragging if you can back it up". Until that untreated injury ruined his career, he was MLB's version of Satchel Paige.

Dean and Saberhagen had one curious factoid in common: They both pitched and won 11-0 shutouts in the 7th game of the World Series. Only Saberhagen pitched his masterpiece before a home crowd against a demoralized Cardinals team that thought that game 7** never should've been played, while Dean threw his gem in front a hostile Navin Field crowd that showered his left fielder with rotten fruit and vegetables.

P. S. I'm not trying to claim that Dean's peak equals Koufax's. That would be taking it way too far.

** The most satisfying game I've ever witnessed in my 78 years, at least from the standpoint of schadenfreude. Watching Whitey pop his blood vessel in frustration was a thrill that comes but once in a lifetime.

Only Saberhagen pitched his masterpiece before a home crowd against a demoralized Cardinals team that thought that game 7** never should've been played

I think I have made my point on that series sufficiently over the years on BBTF
:)

You maybe have to stretch the definition of "peak" a couple of years past what was described above, but the 1900s had a few starting pitchers I'd call peak selections. Ed Walsh was a deserving peak selection. Jack Chesbro was a pretty weak one. Joe McGinnity was somewhere in the middle.

He padded out the rest of his career more than most other pure peak selections, but George Sisler never played much better than decently once his peak had ended. Is he considered a poor selection?

He padded out the rest of his career more than most other pure peak selections, but George Sisler never played much better than decently once his peak had ended. Is he considered a poor selection?

Based upon the era and the current understanding of value at the time, no. Nobody considered Sisler to be a poor selection. Good peak, good prime even by today's metrics, just not really length of career. Even by modern metrics he does pretty well, two elite MVP season, 5 very good All star seasons(You have to add his 1.0 war pitching season to his 1916 season to get that many)


First ballot hofer, hall of merit member etc... he's not a weak selection, just looks a bit weaker because of future players.

Sisler had a unique reason for his decline; he suffered double vision and other vision problems due to an illness that caused him to miss the entire 1923 season. When he came back in 1924, he still had vision problems and was never the same player for the rest of his career as he was before the illness. In eight seasons before, he hit .361 with an OPS+ of 155; in the seven seasons after the illness, he hit .320 with an OPS+ of 97. I think people gave him a bit of a break when rating him, giving more weight to his pre-illness career and recognizing the medical reason for his abrupt decline.

Even by modern metrics he does pretty well, two elite MVP season, 5 very good All star seasons(You have to add his 1.0 war pitching season to his 1916 season to get that many)

Don't forget the shortened schedules in 1918 and '19 due to WW1. 6.8 WAR when your team is only playing a 122-game schedule is rather impressive; Sisler led the AL in position player WAR that year.

Palmeiro belongs, though he wouldn't be my top priority. He's the Don Sutton of position players -- and there's a lot of value to that.

Saberhagen is essentially the Fred Lynn of pitchers. A marginal HOFer if you squint.

As a shorthand WAA+WAR is a much better measure of "impact" or "pennant-added value" than WAR (or WAA) on its own.

Until bbref adds a career WAA leaderboard, WAR will still have to be my go-to for back-of-the-envelope type figuring like this, but looking at WAA+WAR for Palmeiro compared to the other players I listed above:

Larkin 114
Carter 110
Smoltz 107
Gwynn 106
Raines 104
Palmeiro 102
Jeter 101
Palmer 101
Banks 97
Murray 96

so I think my original conclusion still holds: It's going to be an awfully small hall if you draw the line much higher than him, even if you give Jeter bonus points for mystique and aura.

Don't forget the shortened schedules in 1918 and '19 due to WW1. 6.8 WAR when your team is only playing a 122-game schedule is rather impressive; Sisler led the AL in position player WAR that year.

In my defense, I didn't forget, I don't think I knew that at all. I just assumed he missed due to injury.(or if I did know, I forgot that I did) That adds another elite year as you pointed out.

Sisler had a unique reason for his decline; he suffered double vision and other vision problems

After retiring he had a long career as an umpire

That's not remotely what I was arguing, but that's not important. The counterpoint to inducting Murphy, Dick Allen, isn't a good argument because Allen is CLEARLY Hall-worthy, as are the cluster of CFers in front of Murphy, and Murphy himself. Induct them all, I say.

Why? Why should they be inducted? Or just explain why Murphy should be, because as noted by more than just myself, he's not worthy. He doesn't have a HOF peak, nor does he have a HOF career, or even a HOF prime to look at it from Walt's perspective. 45.5 WAR in his 9 prime seasons, 1 WAR in his 9 non-prime seasons. No thanks.

Saberhagen's peak was from 1985 through 1989, when in 5 years he went 82-50 with a 130 ERA+. That included two CYA and 10th and 8th place MVP finishes.

I have no reason to make peak about consecutive years


Saberhagen 1989 262 ip, 180 era+ (56 era-)
Saberhagen 1994 177 ip, 153 era+ (67)
Saberhagen 1985 235 ip, 143 era+ (69)
Saberhagen 1987 257 ip 136 era+ (75)
Saberhagen 1991 196 ip, 135 era+ (75)

Dean 1934 311 ip, 159 era+. (64 era-)
Dean 1937 197 ip, 147 era+ (67)
Dean 1935 325 ip, 135 era+ (74)

That is it of the great years, using 130 as a cutoff and not including Dean's 78 ip with Chicago or Saberhagen 119 ip with Boston. Relative to eras, Saberhagen was a more dominant pitcher in his good years than Dean was in his good years.

Palmeiro belongs, though he wouldn't be my top priority. He's the Don Sutton of position players -- and there's a lot of value to that.

Yep, he’s top 30 all-time in most of the hitting categories, and much higher on HR, RBI and Total Bases. He probably doesn’t fare well on the Keltner test, but had a long, productive career.

Dick Allen, with 646 starts at third with a defensive rating (such as it is) of -9 per year, was not a third-baseman.

Either you think position matters, in which case you don't compare Dick Allen to genuine third-basemen, or you don't think position matters in which case you don't compare Dick All to genuine third-basemen.

Of course position matters. Allen played 40% of his innings at third, 46% at 1B, with the balance played in LF. JAWS looks at value by position though so although he has about a season's fewer innings at 3B than 1B, it ranks him as a 3B because he accrued more value there. His peak was age 22-25 when he was almost exclusively a 3B with only one season split about 2/3 at 3B and 1/3 at LF, not a single game at 1B. Of his 580 games started, 92% were at 3B only 8% in LF. His other 2 big seasons were ages 29-30. At 29 he played the majority of his innings at 3B with slightly fewer in LF and 18% at 1B, at 30 he was a full time 1B. Sure, compare him to 1B if you want to. Given his playing time split between 1B and 3B, you could certainly compare him to either position as he's not a player who is clearly a one position player. I'd still be more inclined to look at him as a 3B for HOF purposes though. When you look at where his value was accrued, where his peak was on the diamond, it was clearly at 3B. Was he a terrible 3B after 1966? The numbers certainly say so, but that shouldn't preclude comparing him to other 3B. This is one of the reasons we use WAR, to compare the different types of players to one another. Great bat, no glove, is he as good as great glove, poor bat?

It's interesting looking at his career more closely in terms of 3B defense. He wasn't horrible his first 3 seasons at 3B, -12 runs in 3,656 innings, 2.5 full seasons. But in 1967 he was -15 in only 121 starts and 116 complete games. So that really horrible season accounts for fully 1/3 of his -45 runs at 3B, and another -18 in only 110 starts split between 1968, 1970 and 1971. I'm always a bit suspicious of really high defensive runs in very limited playing time. Could he really have been 8 runs below average in only 38 games? I guess. But looking at when he accrued his negative defensive runs at 3B 73% of them were in less than two seasons worth of playing time, 35.8% of his innings played at 3B. I know this isn't germane to the question above, just found it interesting.

On Palmeiro-Kaline: to be clear, I wasn't trying to argue the two were equivalent.

And I wasn't trying to hammer you for this either. I just wanted to share my perspective on a comparison of the two taking off from your analysis of the numbers. Wasn't trying to say you were wrong, just trying to show how/why I see Kaline as clearly better than Palmeiro.

That is it of the great years, using 130 as a cutoff and not including Dean's 78 ip with Chicago or Saberhagen 119 ip with Boston.

This undersells Dean though. His 120 and 114 ERA+ in 1932 and 1933 were only good for 10th in the league, but his FIP were 5th and 2nd, while his WAR was 3rd in both. Simply because his ERA+ was under your line doesn't mean those weren't great seasons, clearly they were. From 1932 to 1937 his WAR was 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd and 4th. Agree with you peak does not have to be consecutive as Dean's was, but that is clearly a great peak. Saberhagen has 1st, 3rd, 1st, 8th and 2nd WAR finishes in much larger leagues, but looking at Dean while including both leagues still has him 7th, 6th, 1st, 5th, 3rd and 10th. That's an edge to Saberhagen, IMO, but it's not a huge edge.

I'm probably not the only one in the BBTF "Bermuda Triangle" where, on occasion, one can post in all threads except for the HOM sector. the Contemporary Era vote is in that ghetto (for me, at least), so I'd be grateful if an unbound poster could transfer this vote to that post:

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Curt Schilling

That is it of the great years, using 130 as a cutoff and not including Dean's 78 ip with Chicago or Saberhagen 119 ip with Boston. Relative to eras, Saberhagen was a more dominant pitcher in his good years than Dean was in his good years.

Counting Saberhagen's '91 (135 in 28 starts, 196 IP) and ignoring Dean's '32 (120 in 33 starts and 13 relief outings, 286 IP in a shorter schedule) is certainly a choice you can make.

Also, for what it's worth, I think consecutive peak can be overweighted, but there is value from a teambuilding perspective to having your best years be consecutive. And if you care about consecutive peak AT ALL, Dean vs. Saberhagen is the most extreme case in each direction. The Cardinals could count on Dean to be one of the best pitchers in baseball, year-in year-out, for 5.5 years until his injury, and then they could seek out a long-term replacement (by, for instance, trading him for the reasonably solid Curt Davis). Saberhagen's team might get an ace, or they might get a guy who's pretty solid when healthy but doesn't qualify for the ERA title.

As a fun, non-comparative aside, look at Dean's game log for September 1934, and remember that the Cardinals would go on to win the pennant by a 2-game margin.

87. Howie Menckel Posted: November 13, 2022 at 10:56 PM (#6105426)
I'm probably not the only one in the BBTF "Bermuda Triangle" where, on occasion, one can post in all threads except for the HOM sector. the Contemporary Era vote is in that ghetto (for me, at least), so I'd be grateful if an unbound poster could transfer this vote to that post:

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Curt Schilling

I tried, not sure how I was able to get in the first time, now I've tried four different browsers on two different machines and no luck. I can get into other Merit threads, just not that one anymore.

Counting Saberhagen's '91 (135 in 28 starts, 196 IP) and ignoring Dean's '32 (120 in 33 starts and 13 relief outings, 286 IP in a shorter schedule) is certainly a choice you can make.

I ignored every year below 130 era+, that includes Saberhagens 1993, Dean 1932, 1936. If I started to include below 130, then you have Saberhagens 1993 with a 122, 1998 with 119 and his 1990 118 again more full seasons but we already knew that Dean didn't have a career. This is about peak or elite performance only candidate and whether he's hof worthy, and I just do not see a story for Dean over Saberhagen and Saberhagen is not ever making the hall.

Dean qualified for the era title 6 out of 6 years of his consecutive prime. Saberhagen qualified 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 7 of his consecutive prime, not a huge difference (and he missed qualifying by less than one start in one of those seasons--and if you count his rookie season where he only had 18 starts, yet on the roster all season as a combo fifth starter reliever and still managed 157 ip, it's not as if he was missing out on a lot of starts his first eight years in the majors.)

I'm also locked out of that thread FWIW. The MMP thread is fine, though. This website has some weird quirks.

I ignored every year below 130 era+, that includes Saberhagens 1993, Dean 1932, 1936. If I started to include below 130, then you have Saberhagens 1993 with a 122, 1998 with 119 and his 1990 118 again more full seasons but we already knew that Dean didn't have a career. This is about peak or elite performance only candidate and whether he's hof worthy, and I just do not see a story for Dean over Saberhagen and Saberhagen is not ever making the hall.

Quantity has a quality all its own. Saberhagen's '90 and '93 both didn't qualify for the ERA title; his '98 was 175 innings. Saberhagen's '90 and '93 add to 274.1 innings; that's less than Dean threw in either '32 or '33. Any WAR system you look at will pick Dean's '32 and '33 over Saberhagen's '91.

Dean is possibly the best 20th century case of a pitcher who was extremely durable during an excellent peak, and that's his entire career. He led the NL in innings 3 times, CG 3 times, shutouts twice, games pitched twice, and in 1936, led the majors in complete games and saves in the same season. He is not analogous to Saberhagen in this regard.

None of which is to say that I think Dean should be in the Hall. But looking only at ERA+ in peak years misses half the point of what makes his peak as good as it was.

Quantity has a quality all its own. Saberhagen's '90 and '93 both didn't qualify for the ERA title; his '98 was 175 innings. Saberhagen's '90 and '93 add to 274.1 innings; that's less than Dean threw in either '32 or '33. Any WAR system you look at will pick Dean's '32 and '33 over Saberhagen's '91.

Just looking at war/waa maybe illustrates my point more. Saberhagen in his good years was more dominant to average Dean in his good years. Making his peak a stronger peak. As I said, Dean is just basically an inferior version of Saberhagen, it's hard to say he is deserving of the hof because of an elite peak when he doesn't have the peak of Saberhagen nor does he have the longevity

Sabes dean
bwar/waa bwar/waa
9.7/7.3 8.9/6.1
8.0/5.7 7.3/4.3
7.1/5.1 7.1/4.4
5.5/4.1 5.9/3.6 1932 Dean
5.1/3.3 5.5/3.1 1991 Saberhagen/1933 Dean
3.8/2.6 4.5/2.8
Dean gets a push in war because pitchers in his era pitched more innings, but relative dominance still goes to Saberhagen. At least that is the way I see it (Sabes fourth season best season is also strike shortened, but that only cost him two starts maybe)

Dean gets a push in war because pitchers in his era pitched more innings,

Pitchers in Dean's era pitched more innings - and Dean still stands out more with regard to his era than Saberhagen does. Dean was top-3 in the NL in innings five years in a row; Saberhagen had four total top-10 finishes in innings. Dean has 3 of the top 10 seasons of the '30s by IP ('34 is tied for 10th but he also pitched in the World Series that year). Saberhagen's highest-volume season ('89) ranks 33rd (give or take) for the period from '84 to '93. (Chosen due to lack of strike seasons; even if you pick '89-'98 to be as favorable as possible to Saberhagen, his '89 innings total still narrowly misses the top 10.)

In-season quantity is still important even if the pitcher doesn't have career bulk. It is a significant advantage for Dean over Saberhagen at their respective peaks.

Also, given that I'm not even fully arguing for Dean's peak over Saberhagen's, I'm probably just going to leave the discussion alone at this point.

87. Howie Menckel Posted: November 13, 2022 at 10:56 PM (#6105426)
I'm probably not the only one in the BBTF "Bermuda Triangle" where, on occasion, one can post in all threads except for the HOM sector. the Contemporary Era vote is in that ghetto (for me, at least), so I'd be grateful if an unbound poster could transfer this vote to that post:

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Curt Schilling

I appear to be in the same predicament and would also vote if possible, please:

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Curt Schilling

None of which is to say that I think Dean should be in the Hall. But looking only at ERA+ in peak years misses half the point of what makes his peak as good as it was.

Exactly, a more qualitative and broader stat should be used, aka WAR. And looking at WAR relative to era shows Dean was nearly as good as Saberhagen relative to era.

HOF has become a turd left on your doorstep thanks to the decisions the voters have made over the years, and the inadequate rules put in place by the institution itself. Based on the standards recently set of what the minimum level of excellence is required for entry, every single player on this ballot deserves to get in.

Putting them on an 8 player ballot, limiting the ballot to 4 names, and requiring 75% agreement is a very tough procedure to clear. Makes it so much worse to limit this to 3 names. Either the people who set this up are completely clueless, or they are actively trying to make sure nobody else gets in. Given where we are, there should be no ballot limit at all. If someone wants to vote yes for all 8, they should. At this point they should also guarantee that the top 2 vote getters go in, whether they clear 75% or not.

Putting them on an 8 player ballot, limiting the ballot to 4 names, and requiring 75% agreement is a very tough procedure to clear. Makes it so much worse to limit this to 3 names. Either the people who set this up are completely clueless, or they are actively trying to make sure nobody else gets in. Given where we are, there should be no ballot limit at all. If someone wants to vote yes for all 8, they should. At this point they should also guarantee that the top 2 vote getters go in, whether they clear 75% or not.

Originally I said I didn't think anyone would get in on this ballot, but after more consideration I do think Schilling gets in. I don't think any player has an issue with his comments, and there are probably not going to be enough writers on the ballot to prevent him from getting the vote. Makeup of the last ballot, 16 people,

The cutoff for election to the Hall of Fame remained the standard 75%; as the Modern Baseball Era Committee consisted of 16 members, 12 votes was the minimum for selection. The 16-member Hall of Fame Board-appointed electorate charged with the review of the Modern Baseball Era featured Hall of Fame members George Brett, Rod Carew, Dennis Eckersley, Eddie Murray, Ozzie Smith and Robin Yount; major league executives Sandy Alderson, Dave Dombrowski, David Glass, Walt Jocketty, Doug Melvin and Terry Ryan; and veteran media members/historians Bill Center,[27] Steve Hirdt, Jack O’Connell[28] and Tracy Ringolsby.[29]

And looking at the other recent voters, it's 8-9 players, 3-4 executives and 3-4 writers. Schilling did get as high as 70% of the vote from the writers, if he gets even one to vote for him, he probably goes in pretty easily. He makes it on a anti-roid ballot which might end up being McGriff/Schilling. The more I think about it, the more likely it seems Schilling goes in pretty easy, only if there are voters who insist on voting for just the best of the best Bonds/Clemens, do I see him not making it, and with the makeup of voters being half former players, it seems unlikely they will be using their vote on Bonds and Clemens. Unless you get 4 empty ballots, I think he goes in easily enough.

I don't think any player has an issue with his comments, and there are probably not going to be enough writers on the ballot to prevent him from getting the vote.

On the other hand, the player didn't like him either.

But yes, he's definitely got a chance.

The committee has been named: Chipper Jones, Greg Maddux, Jack Morris, Ryne Sandberg, Lee Smith, Frank Thomas, Alan Trammell, Paul Beeston, Theo Epstein, Arte Moreno, Kim Ng, Dave St. Peter, Ken Williams, Steve Hirdt, LaVelle Neal, Susan Slusser