Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Wednesday, December 08, 2021

Baseball Hall of Fame tracker 2022

DL from MN Posted: December 08, 2021 at 11:35 AM | 1188 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame

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 11 of 12 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 > 
   1001. Walt Davis Posted: January 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM (#6060892)
Flip and ...

Since Eck opened the door, the BBWAA count is 7 SP, 4 pure RPs and 2 hybrids (Eck and Smoltz ... I think Smoltz makes it as a starter, I don't think Eck makes it without the magical closer seasons). In terms of the more contemporary VC selections, it's 1-1 (Morris and Smith).
   1002. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: January 13, 2022 at 01:10 AM (#6060896)
RP haven't been inducted until recently, but they're being inducted for work they've done since the 70s.

What qualification do current (and especially future) pitchers excel at to make up for the fact that they're doing less well at contributing to their team? More generally, if a type of player matter less than they used to, shouldn't fewer of them be in the hall? I know that you can't "tell the story of baseball" without relief pitchers, or if we don't lower our standards for future pitchers, but the plaque room isn't there to tell a story. It's there to honor players who excelled at playing ability, at contributing to their team, at having good character (and sportmanship and so on). The story of baseball is impoverished if you leave out Lefty O'Doul, Bucky Dent, Bo Jackson, and lots of other guys that they haven't seen fit to induct.
   1003. Walt Davis Posted: January 13, 2022 at 01:28 AM (#6060897)
My comment on "who did/will make it" vs "who deserves it" is based in my crappy memory as to which one Jaffe was trying to achieve so I thought I'd cover my bases. But of course they mostly overlap and people here frequently use JAWS and WAR7 in a "who deserves" way whether it was meant that way or not.

But Ziggy is also partly missing the point ... or even a few of them. First, there's simply no way Kid Nichols was a vastly superior pitcher to Kershaw. As I've often said, I want to define HoF-worthiness based on "greatness" or (sustained) quality. That is not the same as "value" although obviously highly correlated. Second, the point isn't that Nichols doesn't deserve credit for his value/performance ... but that the context of the era simply creates a "bias" in WAR7. Nichols threw just over 5000 innings; so did Maddux, Calton and Perry. But because of the era context, Nichols' 5000 IP were nearly all crammed into a mere 12 seasons and, because of era context and how WAR7 is defined, his WAR7 is fairly astronomical.

Why does Nichols deserve extra credit because his WAR (and most of his 5000 innings) was compiled in shorter chronological time? One thing that means is that he missed out on 8+ years when Maddux et al were still pitching, delivering vastly more value in their 30s than Nichols was. Nichols didn't produce more value, his value was concentrated differently by his team, sacrificing (knowingly or not) future wins for current wins. You can make an argument based on "pennant impact" ... but you still have all those years he was having no pennant impact while Maddux et al still were.

The whole rationale for JAWS "balancing" total WAR and peak WAR7 is to try to separate the Whitakers and Murrays from the McGwires and Greenbergs. The relationship between WAR and WAR7 has been pretty constant throughout history for position players. However, for reasons that have nothing to do with player value or quality, that's not true for pitchers. Rightly or wrongly, the historical trend since at least 1920 has been to try to spread out pitcher value/quality over more seasons. The purpose of including WAR7 in the model falls apart for pitchers, especially 19th c pitchers. It's not capturing differences among players, it's capturing differences in usage by era.
   1004. Walt Davis Posted: January 13, 2022 at 01:49 AM (#6060898)
if a type of player matter less than they used to

But, present era possibly aside, starters DON'T matter less than they used to. Debut year and approx career IP of the top 20 pitchers in WAR:

1907 5900
1890 7300
1984 4900
1911 5200
1890 5100
1967 4800
1925 3900
1986 5000
1900 4800
1988 4100
1942 5200
1964 5400
1970 5000
1901 4500
1965 5200
1962 5300
1959 3900
1880 5000
1948 4700
1965 4500

That's 3 pre-1900, 4 1900-1919, (not much), 6 1960-1979, 3 1980+. There are two absolute IP freaks at the top (which helps them be at the top) but otherwise those are pretty similar career IP totals.

You have decided that "value" is single-season value. The pre-1920 studs didn't produce more value, they concentrated that value differently.

Now, if 5000-inning pitchers (even 4,000 or 3,000) are a thing of the past, then yes we might need to re-assess whether there should be fewer pitchers. Similarly if position players were to suddenly stop being given playing time after age 32, we might need to do some re-assessment.

As to DHs, the main reason we don't see them in the HoF is because there have been almost no "career" DHs, it's mainly a position where someone gets "dumped" late in their career. Given we're about to put in the third of a very small bunch (one by VC), it's far from clear there's any HoF penalty being applied.
   1005. TomH Posted: January 13, 2022 at 08:19 AM (#6060906)
When discussing Nichols, one should also admit he pitched for 3 years in the Western League. Partly by choice, as he may have made almost as much money and he was closer to home. In his age 19, 32, and 33 seasons, he won 86 games and lost 27 with a composite ERA in the 1s. Even if you hive him only half MLB credit, that would put him over 400 wins with Walter and Cy.
   1006. alilisd Posted: January 13, 2022 at 12:21 PM (#6060942)
if we're going to stick to the criteria by which players are supposed to be selected (again, looking at worthiness, not whether they actually will be elected), as their contributions to their teams decrease, so should the frequency with which they are elected to the hall.


Then it likely becomes the HOF for Position Players Only. Essentially no relievers are worthy, and by your criteria starters are going to become more the exception than the rule by value/worthiness/qualifications due to increased reliever usage/decreased IP. I guess it would reflect the baseball that seems to be developing though.
   1007. alilisd Posted: January 13, 2022 at 12:26 PM (#6060943)
What qualification do current (and especially future) pitchers excel at to make up for the fact that they're doing less well at contributing to their team?


They're not doing less well, they're doing less in terms of IP. Top starters are still throwing HOF quality innings over the course of a season. That's measurable via ERA+, FIP, WAR, WAA, etc. They simply are not throwing as many innings. The quality is there for those at the top, it becomes a question, I suppose, of where is the quantity cutoff. If a starter drops down to 150 IP as the top end per season, is that enough over the course of a career to warrant a vote?
   1008. alilisd Posted: January 13, 2022 at 12:28 PM (#6060945)
The whole rationale for JAWS "balancing" total WAR and peak WAR7 is to try to separate the Whitakers and Murrays from the McGwires and Greenbergs. The relationship between WAR and WAR7 has been pretty constant throughout history for position players. However, for reasons that have nothing to do with player value or quality, that's not true for pitchers. Rightly or wrongly, the historical trend since at least 1920 has been to try to spread out pitcher value/quality over more seasons. The purpose of including WAR7 in the model falls apart for pitchers, especially 19th c pitchers. It's not capturing differences among players, it's capturing differences in usage by era.


That's really well said!
   1009. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 13, 2022 at 01:13 PM (#6060955)
Then it likely becomes the HOF for Position Players Only. Essentially no relievers are worthy, and by your criteria starters are going to become more the exception than the rule by value/worthiness/qualifications due to increased reliever usage/decreased IP. I guess it would reflect the baseball that seems to be developing though.
Group elections! The 2045 ballot debate will be about whether or not "Yankees Pitching Staff 2023-2040" should get in on the first ballot or not.
   1010. LargeBill Posted: January 13, 2022 at 01:59 PM (#6060961)
Two really awful ballots so far today. One voted Wagner only. Other moron voted Ortiz, Rolen and Vizquel.
   1011. TJ Posted: January 13, 2022 at 02:41 PM (#6060966)
Two really awful ballots so far today. One voted Wagner only. Other moron voted Ortiz, Rolen and Vizquel.


The Ortiz, Rolen & Vizquel ballot was from Paul Daugherty, who dropped Schilling. That is a horrid ballot...

The Wagner only ballot is from Mark Purdy. That is the worst one-person ballot so far and one of the worst I can remember...

Why is anyone surprised? Daugherty and Purdy have long histories of pulling crap like this.
   1012. Karl from NY Posted: January 13, 2022 at 02:41 PM (#6060967)
What's going to be needed is a "pitcher adjustment" for HOF worthiness, the same as the concept of a catcher adjustment exists now. The position takes a physical toll that means you just can't participate as much as a player who doesn't incur that. Somebody has to bear that physical toll for the team, and there is value in doing that, even if it doesn't show up as WAR. (Or to make it show up in WAR, you would lower the replacement level for that position.)
   1013. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 13, 2022 at 04:48 PM (#6060982)
The Wagner only ballot is from Mark Purdy. That is the worst one-person ballot so far and one of the worst I can remember…
Probably just trolling the BBTF relief-pitchers-adverse contingent, although a Papelbon-only ballot might have been caused more consternation. Not sure why some voters don’t take their ballots more seriously, but the relatively large electorate limits the damage.
   1014. John Northey Posted: January 13, 2022 at 06:05 PM (#6060987)
Did a check with the Lahman database on guys with 100+ games started in their careers (so 3+ seasons full time) and you get a declining IP total by decade. From 2599 on average for guys who debuted in the 1870's to 1477 for guys who first pitched in the 2000's (2000-2009). 1940 was the low point at 1640, then climbed up in the 50's to 1865 and the 60's to 1973 before dropping by decade - 1847, 1806, 1565, 1477, and 957 for the 10's (but many of those guys are still active obviously). Raw games started ranged from 218 in 1900 to 292 in 1870's. 2000's was 235 (and still growing a bit). So guys are starting as many as ever but just throwing fewer innings per start. Not a shocker to anyone.

Shift to 300+ starts (now in elite category and HOF consideration) and you get 4033 IP avg in 1870 to 2332 in 2000's. Last time that group cracked 3000 was the 60's group and the peak outside of the 1870's was 3533 in 1890 debut guys. Of big note is you jump the number of guys now vs the past. Pre-1960's no decade had more than 25 guys get 300+ starts, but 30+ every decade since, lowest 32 in the 90's, with 37 in the 2000's (and possibly more, haven't checked who is active/semi-active still and close). So inning limits have clearly helped more guys last longer, but we don't get the elite going as far as before. We just get more elite pitchers.
   1015. alilisd Posted: January 13, 2022 at 06:13 PM (#6060990)
The Ortiz, Rolen & Vizquel ballot was from Paul Daugherty, who dropped Schilling. That is a horrid ballot...


Yeah, that's Daugherty, horrid.
   1016. alilisd Posted: January 13, 2022 at 06:15 PM (#6060991)
So inning limits have clearly helped more guys last longer, but we don't get the elite going as far as before. We just get more elite pitchers.


More teams now, so that makes sense.
   1017. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: January 13, 2022 at 06:23 PM (#6060992)
Pre-1960's no decade had more than 25 guys get 300+ starts, but 30+ every decade since, lowest 32 in the 90's, with 37 in the 2000's (and possibly more, haven't checked who is active/semi-active still and close).


I would think with expansion and the 162-game season, the total number of starts available has increased, so this development isn't unexpected.
   1018. The Duke Posted: January 13, 2022 at 11:36 PM (#6061014)
Next years voting will be super interesting. Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, schilling all gone. Ortiz may go in this year and vizquel has lost so many votes. It should flush out any hidden support once and for all. I would think 10 person ballots will drop like a rock. For those guys hovering around 5% - if they can make it through this year they might hang around a while
   1019. taxandbeerguy Posted: January 14, 2022 at 08:29 AM (#6061025)
1018 - Agreed, I tend to be a big hall voter and only have 9 for next year, 8 if Ortiz gets in. Probably won't be too many 10's - and there is a chance for borderline candidates (Abreu, Buehrle, Rollins, Kent, Pettitte, Hudson and Hunter and Nathan if they survive) to grab some extra ballots. I'd only vote for Kent, but would need to reconsider, given that I'm ambivalent towards the inductions of any of the others. But Abreu, Buehrle, Hudson and Pettitte would warrant another look for sure.
   1020. Howie Menckel Posted: January 14, 2022 at 09:00 AM (#6061031)
tweet submitted without comment from me (haven't thought about it yet):

Bill James Online
@billjamesonline
New research suggests that a player who jumps from team to team may be reducing his chance of selection to the Hall of Fame by 50%, or even more, compared to a player who stays with one time.

https://billjamesonline.com/vagabonds_and_homebodies/


Re-tweet if you can; I would like people to see the article.
10:42 PM · Jan 13, 2022
   1021. alilisd Posted: January 14, 2022 at 11:18 AM (#6061051)
Probably won't be too many 10's - and there is a chance for borderline candidates (Abreu, Buehrle, Rollins, Kent, Pettitte, Hudson and Hunter and Nathan if they survive) to grab some extra ballots.


Unfortunately Buehrle and Hudson won't get a chance next year. I think it would be a good thing for them to stick around for the full 10 to let people consider them. Perhaps the verdict is still no, but they certainly deserve a longer look and careful consideration given the changing nature of starting pitching.
   1022. dark Posted: January 14, 2022 at 11:32 AM (#6061053)
There isn’t really currently a reason to think Buehrle doesn’t make the 5% cut. He’s keeping 64% of his 2021 voters so far, and everyone to drop him voted 10 last year, so they *had* to drop someone to add Papi. He should be fine.
   1023. SoSH U at work Posted: January 14, 2022 at 11:35 AM (#6061056)
Yeah, I agree with dark. Buehrle should be safe. He did better on the private ballots than publics last year, so he has some extra wiggle room.

Hudson had such little margin for error to begin with he's probably not going to make it to a third.
   1024. LargeBill Posted: January 14, 2022 at 11:51 AM (#6061061)
1019. taxandbeerguy Posted: January 14, 2022 at 08:29 AM (#6061025)
1018 - Agreed, I tend to be a big hall voter and only have 9 for next year, 8 if Ortiz gets in. Probably won't be too many 10's - and there is a chance for borderline candidates (Abreu, Buehrle, Rollins, Kent, Pettitte, Hudson and Hunter and Nathan if they survive) to grab some extra ballots. I'd only vote for Kent, but would need to reconsider, given that I'm ambivalent towards the inductions of any of the others. But Abreu, Buehrle, Hudson and Pettitte would warrant another look for sure.


We could see an unprecedented number of players gaining 10 or more percent. May not mean high number (or any) clear 75%, but with that many votes being freed up several players should benefit. Most of the columns I've seen from voters with 10 man ballots had some comment along the lines of "If I could, I'd also vote for _______." This is especially true if Ortiz clears the 75% barrier this year. If Ortiz goes in, have to expect Sheffield to benefit from such a similar contemporary going in. It should be a much more interesting election that this one, where there haven't been any significant surprised other than Ortiz' strong early support.
   1025. SoSH U at work Posted: January 14, 2022 at 01:54 PM (#6061086)
If Ortiz goes in, have to expect Sheffield to benefit from such a similar contemporary going in.


I don't see how Sheffield benefits, other than in a rising tide lifts all boats filled with roids sense.
   1026. DL from MN Posted: January 14, 2022 at 02:03 PM (#6061088)
The Era Committee could alter everything if they elect Bonds, Clemens and Schilling next winter.
   1027. SoSH U at work Posted: January 14, 2022 at 02:24 PM (#6061091)

The Era Committee could alter everything if they elect Bonds, Clemens and Schilling next winter.


Unquestionably, but I'm not betting they do. I think we'll need the Vet's Committees to be more current in makeup before Bonds and Clemens get the call.
   1028. The Duke Posted: January 14, 2022 at 02:36 PM (#6061093)
I’d be surprised if bonds and Clemens efen make the cut for consideration. If I were the Hall I’d give them a rest. Schilling is different. He should go on, get elected and get cleared out of the way so the Vets can start working on the PED cases wirhout distraction
   1029. alilisd Posted: January 14, 2022 at 02:46 PM (#6061095)
SoSH U at work Posted: January 14, 2022 at 11:35 AM (#6061056) Yeah, I agree with dark. Buehrle should be safe. He did better on the private ballots than publics last year, so he has some extra wiggle room.


I hadn't noticed that. Looks like he needs to run at 8% on the remaining ballots, as projected by Thibs, to get to 5%. His actual was 2.7% higher than his pre last year, so that would take him to 6.9%, but he's lost 4 votes this year. Seems like he's going to be really close to the cutoff. Here's hoping he gets another shot next year
   1030. Karl from NY Posted: January 14, 2022 at 02:50 PM (#6061097)
https://billjamesonline.com/vagabonds_and_homebodies/


Thanks for the pointer Howie. Worth reading, there's a good amount of meat there, and probably worth its own thread on BTF.

I think we all knew that one-team players get viewed more positively and that carries over into HOF voting, but it's pretty cool to see a quantifiable analysis. Even by James' lax analytical standards, there's definitely a substantial effect.

I'd like to see this done by WAR instead of Win Shares; we know Win Shares overrates playing time with a too-low replacement level, and that matters here, as a one-team player probably hung around longer with the franchise that he was iconic for.
   1031. Howie Menckel Posted: January 14, 2022 at 03:04 PM (#6061100)
probably worth its own thread on BTF.

you say "jump," BBTF says "how high?"

;)
   1032. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 14, 2022 at 05:58 PM (#6061115)
I'd like to see this done by WAR instead of Win Shares; we know Win Shares overrates playing time with a too-low replacement level, and that matters here, as a one-team player probably hung around longer with the franchise that he was iconic for.

I took a casual look at this in a Carlos Beltran thread a few years ago. One-team players did better in the voting in my check on things, and the more one-teamy the player was, the better he did. (Starting in comment 132.)
   1033. John Northey Posted: January 14, 2022 at 06:31 PM (#6061120)
One team makes sense for a bonus for the HOF - the player gets a stronger base who will fight for him. If a player is identified as being from team abc then that teams writers will push him in meetings with other writers, when a writer is wondering if that player was a good teammate they will go to those 'home town' writers to find out. Whereas someone like Sheffield gets stories that are negative each time he leaves a town (for a good example see Lebron James when he first left Cleveland - local media put a hate on campaign as did the fan base). Plus when you shift regularly you rarely make a strong positive impression on teams unless your first year is a big one - Josh Donaldson in Toronto (MVP, to the playoffs) will help his case when it comes, but his negatives in Minnesota will hurt (seen as a bad clubhouse guy now). Russell Martin should get a bonus though thanks to moving from LA (playoffs 3 of 5 seasons) to NY (playoffs both years) to Pittsburgh (Playoffs twice despite a 20 year no playoff streak - they made it the next year to the playoffs and that is it since), to Toronto (breaking another 20 year playoff break with 2 appearances in 4 years), back to LA (playoffs again as always to end his career). So from 2 teams that are expected to be there, to 2 who had 20 year breaks. Looks good on a resume.
   1034. TJ Posted: January 14, 2022 at 08:52 PM (#6061136)
So this is why LaTroy Hawkins only got two HOF votes…
   1035. Adam Starblind Posted: January 14, 2022 at 10:58 PM (#6061144)
Russell Martin has about as much of a chance as Steve Martin.
   1036. dark Posted: January 15, 2022 at 09:31 AM (#6061158)
Russell Martin’s case is basically a litmus test for how accepted FG and BP’s framing-inclusive catcher value metrics become over time, since he’s 55+ in both and has a rep as a winner. I think he certainly gets 5-percented in three years, but maybe is viewed more favorably down the road.
   1037. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: January 15, 2022 at 12:41 PM (#6061165)
One team makes sense for a bonus for the HOF - the player gets a stronger base who will fight for him.
I think in addition to that, being associated with one team maybe just tends to make you more "famous" (or just well-known if you prefer), period. Imperfect analogy but the same way an actor playing a character over a trilogy of movies probably makes them more identifiable/famous than the same actor playing different characters in three unrelated movies that are roughly equally successful to the trilogy movies.
   1038. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 15, 2022 at 10:50 PM (#6061203)
I think in addition to that, being associated with one team maybe just tends to make you more "famous" (or just well-known if you prefer), period. Imperfect analogy but the same way an actor playing a character over a trilogy of movies probably makes them more identifiable/famous than the same actor playing different characters in three unrelated movies that are roughly equally successful to the trilogy movies.

The way Bill James described it in listing traits of overrated and underrated players: "Anything that 'breaks up' a player's career will cause him to be underrated, because it becomes harder to form an overall impression of him." Team changes and position changes are two big parts of this.
   1039. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 16, 2022 at 01:59 PM (#6061231)
Buehrle gets his first add of the year from Dan McGrath, who also votes Helton/Lincecum/Rolen/Schilling and drops Wagner. For being an "add a starter, drop a reliever" ballot that also includes Helton and Rolen, that one is relatively odd. (I assume it's just "nobody with even a whiff of PED about them.")

That makes five votes for Lincecum; he's now tied with Hudson, and has half of the overall total that Johan Santana got in his one year on the ballot. I get that the 2018 ballot was crowded, but that would be a real weird result.
   1040. TJ Posted: January 16, 2022 at 04:17 PM (#6061245)
Buehrle gets his first add of the year from Dan McGrath,


Make that “Dan McGrath, who has been the president of a Chicago high school since 2010…”

Nothing against Dan McGrath personally, but shouldn’t a HOF voter who has been out of covering baseball and serving as a high school president for over a decade have to prove more qualified to vote than once being an active BBWAA member?
   1041. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2022 at 05:16 PM (#6061249)
Nothing against Dan McGrath personally, but shouldn’t a HOF voter who has been out of covering baseball and serving as a high school president for over a decade have to prove more qualified to vote than once being an active BBWAA member?


It would appear he still writes about baseball (or at least he did as recently as 2017).

   1042. The Duke Posted: January 16, 2022 at 05:55 PM (#6061254)
Martin has deceptively good WAR for a career that wasn’t abnormally long. Looking at him vs Molina, Molina has 700 more hits and more games caught. They are about the same level of OPS hitter. Molina had a horrid first couple of years but after that they are about the same. Same power more or less. Martin seems to have walked a lot more which is his primary strength v Molina.

Molina has four World Series appearances with four very different teams. Martin had none. Molina one team BA multiple for Martin.

Martin feels like he falls on one side of the line and Molina on the other. Posey is in easily and then you have McCann. I watched him a lot and he was pretty darn good. By the eye test he seems to fall in between Martin and Molina for me. Fangraphs had all four of them in basically a dead heat with Posey ahead by a nose.
   1043. LargeBill Posted: January 17, 2022 at 09:58 AM (#6061328)
1041. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2022 at 05:16 PM (#6061249)

Nothing against Dan McGrath personally, but shouldn’t a HOF voter who has been out of covering baseball and serving as a high school president for over a decade have to prove more qualified to vote than once being an active BBWAA member?



It would appear he still writes about baseball (or at least he did as recently as 2017).


Every poster on BBTF writes about baseball and probably a lot more than McGrath.
   1044. SoSH U at work Posted: January 17, 2022 at 10:30 AM (#6061336)
Every poster on BBTF writes about baseball and probably a lot more than McGrath.


He was writing about baseball for the Chicago Tribune, which I'm guessing few of us here are doing. The point is, it's not as if he's stopped covering the sport, which TJ implied.
   1045. TJ Posted: January 17, 2022 at 12:09 PM (#6061350)
I’m not implying anything. I’m stating that Dan McGrath is no longer actively involved in a BBWAA position. McGrath chose to leave “sports journalism” to follow a calling in education. Good for him, and may his choice be fruitful and fulfilling. But anyone who chooses to leave the game should lose their HOF vote- if being in the BBWAA is vital to being qualified to vote.

If McGrath (or anyone else, like those three golf writers who had the vote for a while) were selected as qualified voters by a non-BBWAA system, then great. Under the current system, I feel that you should lose your vote when you stop working in the game…
   1046. SoSH U at work Posted: January 17, 2022 at 12:17 PM (#6061353)
I’m not implying anything.


Then you were simply wrong. He was still covering the sport, writing about it regularly for a major newspaper as late as 2017 (it's possible he's done more since then, but I couldn't tell you).

I think your solution is misguided. Yes, there should come a time when you lose your vote after you've stopped covering the game (which, is in fact, how the system now operates). The minute you stop doing so is most definitely not that time.
   1047. Ron J Posted: January 17, 2022 at 01:24 PM (#6061362)
As long as the Terry Mosher precedent (political cartoonist in Montreal and long time HOF voter) I'm not too worried about McGrath.

I don't know whether Mosher still votes. I know he was voting last time I checked but that was a while back.
   1048. TJ Posted: January 17, 2022 at 01:46 PM (#6061369)
SoSH is right- as best as I can tell, Dan McGrath contributed 12 articles to the Chicago Tribune four years ago, making him active in the game by any reasonable definition. I stand corrected and withdraw any criticism I have of McGrath having a HOF vote under the auspices of the BBWAA...
   1049. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 17, 2022 at 05:45 PM (#6061401)
12 articles to the Chicago Tribune four years ago, making him active in the game by any reasonable definition.


Well sure as he's voting on guys who were active when he was writing so the stance makes sense. However 4 years ago Trump was president and Covid had yet to be unleashed on an unsuspecting world, so 4 years in some respects is a long time ago.....
   1050. SoSH U at work Posted: January 17, 2022 at 05:50 PM (#6061402)
However 4 years ago Trump was president and Covid had yet to be unleashed on an unsuspecting world, so 4 years in some respects is a long time ago.....


It makes sense for the Hall to cancel voting rights after a voter is done covering the game. The 10 years they have now seems about right, though I can see an argument for 15 to line up with the 5-year wait, 10 years on the ballot for the players they're voting on.

   1051. yest Posted: January 17, 2022 at 09:19 PM (#6061417)
It makes sense for the Hall to cancel voting rights after a voter is done covering the game. The 10 years they have now seems about right, though I can see an argument for 15 to line up with the 5-year wait, 10 years on the ballot for the players they're voting on.


Of course that means new voters only covering the first ballot players, and could have missed every year but the last year for the final ballot players.
   1052. The Duke Posted: January 18, 2022 at 07:52 PM (#6061515)
The writers list has been really shrunk has it not ? 500-600 a few years back to 350-500 now. It does appear newbies are arriving faster than others are now leaving so maybe the voting bloc will start to grow again. I don’t profess to know exactly what they are doing but it seems like they are trying to create a younger, more active electorate where more people more closely follow baseball. That can’t be bad.
   1053. The Duke Posted: January 18, 2022 at 08:00 PM (#6061518)
Most popular ballot (turned in 5X): Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jones, Ortiz, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield, Sosa, Wagner

Second, third and fourth most popular (turned in 4X). The blank ballot: Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jones, Kent, Ortiz, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield, Wagner: and Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jones, Ortiz, Ramírez, Rodriguez, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield


There are a few more with 2-3 copies but almost all ballots are unique.
   1054. John Northey Posted: January 18, 2022 at 11:03 PM (#6061534)
Just under a week until the announcement, and 3 still over 75% (Ortiz over 80, Bonds & Clemens). Rolen next at 69, everyone else sub 60 (so virtually no chance of election this year). Schilling and Helton both in the 50's. For a guy without PEDs it is amazing that Schilling has taken this long and still won't get in - he had the famous playoff moment (bloody sock), over 200 wins, a 127 ERA+ lifetime, 3 times 2nd for Cy Young, kind of surprised he only made it to the All-Star game 6 times. One of the very few with 3000+ K's and sub 1000 walks (Fergie Jenkins was the first member of that club in retirement, not sure how many others are in it now). 79.5 bWAR. 3 WS rings, MVP of a WS (2001 Arizona shared with Randy Johnson) and of a playoff series (1993 NCLS). I mean, the guy is so clearly qualified that his moronic personality issues shouldn't have been anywhere near enough to lead to a 10 year miss. But he came in during ballotgeddon with Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Piazza, Sosa, Kenny Lofton (1 and done), with 7 returning guys who made it (Morris..ugh.. Trammell, Lee Smith, Raines, Edgar Martinez, Bagwell, and Walker). What should've been a massive celebration of baseball ended up being a 'no one in' year. Part of why I'd love to see it be automatic that the top vote getter gets in. Biggio in 2013, Schilling last year.

Sheesh did Schilling have tough ballots.
2014: added Maddux, Glavine, Frank Thomas (all in), Mussina (in later), and Jeff Kent (might get in someday)
2015: added Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Smoltz (all in with Biggio), and Sheffield (might get in someday)
2016: added Griffey, (Piazza also got in), Hoffman (later in), Wagner (might sneak in)
2017: added I-Rod (Bagwell & Raines finally in), Vlad Guerrero Sr (later in), ManRam (could sneak in)
2018: added Chipper Jones, Jim Thome (Vlad Sr in, Hoffman in), plus Omar Vizquel (ugh), Scott Rolen (likely in someday), Andruw Jones (has a shot)
2019: added Rivera, Halladay (Edgar Martinez & Mussina in), Todd Helton (likely in someday), Pettitte (might sneak in)
2020: added Jeter (Walker finally in), no others who will ever get in. Well, some like Abreu but I don't see it happening.
2021: Best newcomer was Buehrle who ain't getting in. This was Schillings best shot (same for Clemens & Bonds I think)
2022: Acted like an ass and told people not to vote for him.

Wow. Knew it had been an insane decade but forgot just how insane until going through this. If the HOF used the 3 in per year ala BBTF HOM we'd have seen Biggio/Morris/Bagwell in 2013 (all did make it eventually), Maddux/Glavine/Frank Thomas in 2014 (same as reality), Johnson/Martinez/Smoltz in 2015, Griffey/Piazza/Raines 2016 (Raines a year early), I-Rod/Hoffman/Vlad Sr (Hoff & Vlad a year early) in 2017, Jones/Thome/E Martinez (a year early) in 2018, Rivera/Halladay/Mussina in 2019 (all made it that year anyways), Jeter/Walker/Schilling (Schilling the only one who didn't make it in real life) in 2020, and Bonds/Clemens/Rolen in 2021 (would've been appropriate to have the PED 2 go in during COVID I figure - perfect excuse to minimize the celebration). This year would be lining up to be Ortiz/Helton/Jones although if Clemens & Bonds got in the year before I wonder how many voters would've just said 'screw it' and voted A-Rod.

Not proposing the HOF go by 3 per year, but 1 per year minimum plus anyone over 75% would be better than this risk of no one getting in and would help discourage blank ballots I figure.
   1055. Jaack Posted: January 18, 2022 at 11:31 PM (#6061537)
I think a less-inflammatory Schilling would have gone in at 2019 at the latest. He was running ahead of Edgar and Mussina until his antics lost him votes.

Actually that could have worked out quite nicely. Schilling going in instead of Mussina in 2019, Jeter/Walker in 2020, and Mussina last year.
   1056. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 19, 2022 at 12:22 AM (#6061542)
Most popular ballot (turned in 5X): Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jones, Ortiz, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield, Sosa, Wagner


Change Wagner for a pitcher who brought some real value, say Buehrle, and it's an awesome ballot. That would be Buehrle of the perfect game, no-hitter, great fielder, holder of the running game like no one we've ever seen and just super fast and super fun to watch work, nearly 60WAR, Buehrle.

Though on my personal ballot I did not include Schilling as he asked people not to vote for him and I was happy to comply with his wishes(though he is more then qualified for the honor)
   1057. John Northey Posted: January 19, 2022 at 10:12 AM (#6061565)
An interesting oddity about HOF voting - when a guy gets in (Ortiz - I'd be shocked if he doesn't at this point) who I never at equivalent points of their careers, would've wanted over guys who didn't get in such as John Olerud who played a strong 1B, while still being a premium hitter throughout his career - well, maybe at age 36 when Olerud was done but Ortiz had 4 more great hitting years left (but few question how he kept hitting so well so late - I'd LOVE for a guy in his HOF speech to say 'yes, I took PEDs at the end to stretch out my career and get to this point as many others did who are standing here today, but so what - you all cheered us on and encouraged it while we took the risks). Olerud has 58.2 WAR vs Ortiz 55.3 but was a one and done. Should've had an MVP in 1993 (strong fielding, tops in OPS+) but lost to Frank Thomas (horrid in the field, lower OPS+) for some bizarre reason (heck, moronic voters even put his own teams DH ahead of Olerud in Paul Molitor who had a 160 point lower OPS - Olerud played 158 games so health can't be the issue). MVP voters really hated Olerud though so that hurt him (same group voting on HOF) as he only got votes twice (his 2nd time was the infamous 1998 season when Barry Bonds had more WAR than any other hitter but the race was purely a McGwire/Sosa show due to the dingers...no wonder he PED'ed up after that - Olerud also had more than the PED gang but came in 12th).

HOF voting is fun, but geez is it way off on the marginal guys imo. I think this also is a datapoint for guys who are strongly identified with one team - Ortiz was the Red Sox, Olerud was a star for 3 teams (Jays/Mariners/Mets).
   1058. DL from MN Posted: January 19, 2022 at 10:45 AM (#6061568)
Change Wagner for a pitcher who brought some real value, say Buehrle


Instead of Wagner I would accept Hudson, Buehrle or even Jeff Kent.
   1059. alilisd Posted: January 19, 2022 at 12:11 PM (#6061573)
1057. John Northey Posted: January 19, 2022 at 10:12 AM (#6061565) An interesting oddity about HOF voting - when a guy gets in (Ortiz - I'd be shocked if he doesn't at this point) who I never at equivalent points of their careers, would've wanted over guys who didn't get in such as John Olerud who played a strong 1B, while still being a premium hitter throughout his career


That's a very generous reading of Olerud. Don't get me wrong, I recognize his overall value as a player, and that he was overlooked, but calling him a "premium hitter" is simply wrong. His first three seasons his OPS+ was 120, which is fine, but not premium from a 1B. After the huge, but anomalous as it turns out, 1993 he has another four seasons averaging 122. Then the second big year of 1998 is followed up by another five seasons at 126. Aside from the two unusual seasons, only 2002 with an OPS+ of 140 made it into the top 10, and that was only just 10th. He was a 1B whose skill set was BA and OBP (but even then in his era those equate to just 2 top 10 in BA and 5 in OBP), he topped out at 24 HR during an era which saw HR's explode. A very good player, steady, never having any bad seasons, but not hard to understand why he was overlooked or under valued, and not a premium hitter but for a couple of seasons.
   1060. alilisd Posted: January 19, 2022 at 12:15 PM (#6061574)
Instead of Wagner I would accept Hudson, Buehrle or even Jeff Kent.


Heck, I'd take Rollins, Hunter, or Pettitte. Police your own BBWAA! If some jackass turns in a blank ballot, make them defend it or lose their voting rights. If someone is voting for Wagner, but not a starting pitcher with over twice the work and value in their career, make them justify it or lose their voting rights.
   1061. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 19, 2022 at 01:34 PM (#6061580)
A very good player, steady, never having any bad seasons, but not hard to understand why he was overlooked or under valued, and not a premium hitter but for a couple of seasons.


Even Rickey had a hard time remembering Olerud!
   1062. Karl from NY Posted: January 19, 2022 at 02:42 PM (#6061588)
Let's not kid ourselves that Ortiz is getting elected so easily for anything other than postseason heroics. Without the 2004 and 2007 playoffs, his case looks about the same as Sheffield or Beltran, a borderliner who might go in eventually but not by "feels like a HOFer" credibility.
   1063. The Duke Posted: January 19, 2022 at 03:07 PM (#6061595)
Ortiz is getting in because the writers didn’t want another shutout this year. He’s not anyones definition of a first ballot HOF’r but I can understand the electorate wanting a positive story in a year when bonds, Clemens and schilling, who all should be first ballot inductees, fall off the ballot
   1064. The Duke Posted: January 19, 2022 at 03:07 PM (#6061596)
-
   1065. alilisd Posted: January 19, 2022 at 05:04 PM (#6061619)
Even Rickey had a hard time remembering Olerud!


Rickey!
   1066. TomH Posted: January 19, 2022 at 05:08 PM (#6061620)
"Without the 2004 and 2007 playoffs" - and the 2013 WS, OPS of almost two thousand, 7th highest ever.

is this an oddity?:
highest post-season WPA per bb-ref, position players: Ortiz
highest post-season WPA per bb-ref, starting pitchers: Schilling

   1067. alilisd Posted: January 19, 2022 at 05:12 PM (#6061621)
1062. Karl from NY Posted: January 19, 2022 at 02:42 PM (#6061588)
Let's not kid ourselves that Ortiz is getting elected so easily for anything other than postseason heroics. Without the 2004 and 2007 playoffs, his case looks about the same as Sheffield or Beltran, a borderliner who might go in eventually but not by "feels like a HOFer" credibility.


Well that's certainly a big part of his narrative, but he has other things going for him Sheffield doesn't. The whole smooth career, sort of single franchise player in the way of the recent James discussion. More HR, way more 2B, more RBI, more times leading the league (IOW, more black ink and more grey ink). He's also likely being looked at as the greatest DH ever, although he is not better than Martinez IMO, while Sheff is just another RF, and a terrible defensive one to boot. That may not add up to any difference around here, but it's a big difference to the voters.
   1068. John DiFool2 Posted: January 19, 2022 at 05:36 PM (#6061624)
Olerud fwiw has a higher road OPS than Helton (.965 to .955). But usual caveats apply-and Helton did get a lot of extra runs/wins at home, for whatever reasons, and they still count.
   1069. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 19, 2022 at 06:05 PM (#6061627)
He's also likely being looked at as the greatest DH ever,


If the voters are actually considering DH a separate thing(it's not really a position), much like relief pitcher, then Ortiz is being compared to Edgar and Frank, both of whom are better, but at least he's sort of in the conversation.
With Sheffield, he's being compared to other RF's and there's some pretty decent ones already in the HOF who have some nice numbers that Sheff doesn't really compare with. I think Sheffield deserves enshrinement, but I can see voters making excuses for not voting him in.
   1070. alilisd Posted: January 19, 2022 at 06:11 PM (#6061628)
1068. John DiFool2 Posted: January 19, 2022 at 05:36 PM (#6061624) Olerud fwiw has a higher road OPS than Helton (.965 to .955). But usual caveats apply-and Helton did get a lot of extra runs/wins at home, for whatever reasons, and they still count.


Well, if anyone said Helton was a premium hitter his whole career, I would disagree with them, too. Helton had a great peak as a hitter, which Olerud doesn't have, but he also had a period at the end of his career where he wasn't very good. Olerud has that, too, but to a much lesser extent: 1,326 PA's at a 102 OPS+ from 2003-2005, whereas Helton has 2,695 PA's at a 104 OPS+ from 2008-2013. But Olerud only drops from a 133 career OPS+ to a 129, while Helton drops from 144 to 133.
   1071. alilisd Posted: January 19, 2022 at 07:07 PM (#6061633)
If the voters are actually considering DH a separate thing(it's not really a position), much like relief pitcher, then Ortiz is being compared to Edgar and Frank, both of whom are better, but at least he's sort of in the conversation.


Ah, see I forgot about Thomas because I think of him as a 1B, but yeah predominantly a DH and definitely better than Ortiz. I think voters are definitely considering DH as a separate thing. While it didn't really come up with regards to Thomas, iirc, it was most definitely mentioned for Edgar.
   1072. John Northey Posted: January 19, 2022 at 11:29 PM (#6061660)
Thomas is a DH who was forced at 1B. No idea why the White Sox were so determined to keep him at 1B (guys given shots at DH were George Bell, Bo Jackson, John Kruk - all good hitters in their primes but well past that point as White Sox)... well, other than the kids Julio Franco who at 35 still had 869 games of over 100 OPS+ left in him (spent 3 of those years in foreign leagues too!). Until age 30 he played more at 1B than DH every year. Then never again. His last game in the field was at age 36, and he played until he was 40. Only 3 times did he play 100+ at 1B and never in his career did he have a positive dWAR figure (worst was a -2.0 in the strike shortened 1995 season). Fangraphs also has him as a big negative on defense -267.4 in his career (no advanced metrics though for the vast majority of it). Ortiz gets -247.7. Both hit hard by all the DH time, but neither ever had a positive year either. No shocker. Thomas was a HITTER though - he was as far past Ortiz as Ortiz is by Edwin Encarnacion (154 wRC to 140 to 125). All very good hitters, but I think everyone knows which is better instantly of those 3 DH's (all played some 1B and Encarnacion also played 3B for awhile). Fun to dig into these guys.
   1073. SoSH U at work Posted: January 19, 2022 at 11:34 PM (#6061662)
Gary Sheffield has been on the ballot for eight years. I don't recall so many people in this thread wondering why he wasn't getting support at any point in the previous seven years, but somehow this year it's perplexing.
   1074. GregD Posted: January 20, 2022 at 02:05 AM (#6061670)
is it perplexing?

seems like the votes for a similar and probably worse player in Ortiz are prompting the bafflement
   1075. SoSH U at work Posted: January 20, 2022 at 07:19 AM (#6061672)
Why do you think he went nowhere his first seven years on the ballot?
   1076. Adam Starblind Posted: January 20, 2022 at 11:39 AM (#6061702)
Insufficient one-teaminess.
   1077. GregD Posted: January 20, 2022 at 02:02 PM (#6061736)
Why do you think he went nowhere his first seven years on the ballot?
I guess the question is the reverse: why did Ortiz do so well? I think even many of his backers assumed he'd be a 3 or 4-ballot guy.

The similarity in career and the gap in outcome is what perplexes people. There are lots of reasons why people don't like Sheffield but, again, they don't in and of themselves explain the huge disparity. Lots of ######## have been elected.
   1078. SoSH U at work Posted: January 20, 2022 at 02:15 PM (#6061741)
The similarity in career and the gap in outcome is what perplexes people. There are lots of reasons why people don't like Sheffield but, again, they don't in and of themselves explain the huge disparity. Lots of ######## have been elected.


Sheffield hasn't been elected for the same reason Barry and Roger and Sammy and Mark and Raffy weren't elected - they are tied to steroids. That's it. Without Sheff's link, he's an easy Hall of Famer.

Barry and Roger represent the cap of support for players tied to steroids in the pre-testing era, with everyone else who have been convicted by the BBWAA falling in line below them.

Ortiz is being given a pass by enough people who are otherwise anti-steroids (or he's close this year and may wait until next year). It's ridiculous, especially given Sosa's performance, but that's what has happened.

But Ortiz's success clearly hasn't represented an overall change in thinking on roids, otherwise Bonds and Clemens would be performing much better. He's the outlier - and it has nothing to do with how he compares with Gary Sheffield as a player.
   1079. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: January 20, 2022 at 02:23 PM (#6061748)
seems like the votes for a similar and probably worse player in Ortiz are prompting the bafflement
I think Sheff belongs (and will eventually get in via a vets committee), but nothing about the disparity in support between Ortiz & Sheff should be remotely perplexing. They have similar overall value, but practically everything else that we know matters in actual Hall voting leans toward Ortiz:

More, and better, postseason performance, with multiple incredibly dramatic moments, resulting in 3 rings vs 1.

A popular, recognizable "face of the game." "Famous" in a way Sheff was not.

Primarily associated with one team, and played for 2 total. Vs *8* different teams (dovetailing with a narrative, deserved or not, for being difficult).

More black and gray ink. Etc.

I'm sure others have pointed all this out already. People may not agree, but it's just not the least bit surprising/perplexing.
   1080. Srul Itza Posted: January 20, 2022 at 07:08 PM (#6061787)
I think the word "bafflement" is overstating it.

I think it is the usual case of stats people simply disagreeing about how a HOF vote is trending, where they can see that Sheffield probably deserves it as much as Ortiz, and are just venting, because they well know all the factors that 1078 and 1079 mention.

I always thought that Ortiz would go in fairly easily, if not on the first ballot (and all the votes have not been counted yet), for all those same reasons. Put simply, he was more famous as the face of several Red Sox championship seasons, to which he contributed mightily and visibly in the post-season, and was just more popular, working that whole "larger than life", good for quote, face of the franchise Big Papi thing. Tack on the 541 homers, 1,700+ RBI, and leaving on a high note in his final season, so the last impression was a good one, and it is pretty damn easy for a lot of voters to justify a vote for him.
   1081. Adam Starblind Posted: January 20, 2022 at 07:33 PM (#6061788)
“This is our ###### city.” Sheffield would’ve been suspended.
   1082. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: January 20, 2022 at 07:35 PM (#6061789)
It's still the Hall of Fame and not quite yet the Hall of WAR. How many times did Gary Sheffield drop in at SNL's Weekend Update desk?
   1083. Booey Posted: January 20, 2022 at 08:36 PM (#6061796)
Re: Sheff vs Ortiz

Sheffield may not have much black ink, wasn't popular like Ortiz was, and didn't have all the memorable postseason moments, but he was a 9 time All Star, five time silver slugger, and finished in the top 10 of the MVP voting 6 times (including a 2nd and two 3rd's), so it's not like he wasn't recognized as a superstar. And his career numbers are overwhelming, even for an offense only, sillyball era corner outfielder. 509 HR, 2689 hits, 1676 rbi, 1636 runs scored, 1475 walks, and a .292/.393/.514 slash line (140 OPS+).

As SoSh said, it's the 'roids. It's always been the 'roids. Fair or not, Sheffield is getting heavily penalized for PED's and Papi isn't.
   1084. Srul Itza Posted: January 20, 2022 at 09:37 PM (#6061801)
9 time All Star, five time silver slugger, and finished in the top 10 of the MVP voting 6 times (including a 2nd and two 3rd's), so it's not like he wasn't recognized as a superstar.


Star, yes. Superstar? Not so sure.

He may have been a 9 time all star, but he only started twice. It is the multiple starters who are the Superstars. [Ortiz started 7 times]

I think Sheff was a star, and is HOF worthy. Superstar is another level.

   1085. Howie Menckel Posted: January 20, 2022 at 09:58 PM (#6061802)
Ortiz started 7 times

without the DH slot, how many times would he have started?

Sheffield's first 7 ASG selections were while he played in the DH-free NL.

   1086. Booey Posted: January 20, 2022 at 09:58 PM (#6061803)
Star, yes. Superstar? Not so sure.

He may have been a 9 time all star, but he only started twice. It is the multiple starters who are the Superstars. [Ortiz started 7 times]


All star starters are selected by the fans, so that's more a measure of popularity than ability. There's no debate that Ortiz was more beloved. Papi had one extra AS selection and 1 more top 10 MVP finish, but they're pretty similar:

Sheffield - 9 time all star, 6 top 10 MVP finishes (2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th)
Ortiz - 10 time all star, 7 top 10 MVP finishes (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th)

At the start of spring training, Sheff was a guy you could've predicted to compete for the MVP any season during his prime and no one would have thought you were crazy. That sounds like a superstar to me (splitting hairs on the star/superstar distinction, I know).
   1087. SoSH U at work Posted: January 20, 2022 at 11:35 PM (#6061811)
without the DH slot, how many times would he have started?


Do you mean if they didn't have the position he played in the All-Star game, or if they didn't have the position entirely?

Edit: Interestingly, he started twice at first.
   1088. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 21, 2022 at 09:59 AM (#6061827)
Why do you need to be covering baseball today, to vote on players for the HOF?

Nearly any player on the ballot has been retired for at least 5 years, and their primes often came before then.

The main argument for Todd Helton, for example, is based on his peak from 2000-2004. Why wouldn't a writer who was active in the sport then be the better person to evaluate him, as opposed to a newly eligible BBWAA writer who might have been doing something else at that time? Is the implication that you can't keep up with modern methods of evaluation like WAR, JAWS, wOBA, or whatever, without being active in covering the sport?




   1089. alilisd Posted: January 21, 2022 at 12:09 PM (#6061841)
As SoSh said, it's the 'roids. It's always been the 'roids. Fair or not, Sheffield is getting heavily penalized for PED's and Papi isn't.


Meh. There's a bit more difference between them than that to simply declare it's this one thing, and one thing only. Personality, popularity, narrative all likely play a role. They are likely being treated differently on the PED issue, but it's not THE ONLY differentiator.
   1090. The Duke Posted: January 21, 2022 at 03:31 PM (#6061862)
If you wanted a middle of the order hitter in their prime and you had to choose either Sheffield (playing a position ) or Ortiz ( as a DH), who woikd would you choose ? (Ignore lefty-righty lineup issues )

Same question - only this time Sheffield as a DH and Ortiz as a DH.


If it were me, I’d choose Sheffield both times but I’m the first question it would be a lot closer.
   1091. The Duke Posted: January 21, 2022 at 03:34 PM (#6061865)
From AP article today:

“Through Friday, Ortiz had been named on 84% of the ballots revealed at the bbhottracker.com website maintained by former Oakland Athletics fan Ryan Thibodaux and his number-crunching minions. “

I found this humorous
   1092. SoSH U at work Posted: January 21, 2022 at 03:43 PM (#6061867)
Meh. There's a bit more difference between them than that to simply declare it's this one thing, and one thing only. Personality, popularity, narrative all likely play a role.


Sure. And they might have been the difference between Ortiz getting in first ballot and Sheffield having to wait three or four.

But do you think without any PED stink, a guy with 509 homers, .292 average, a 140 career OPS+, 11 all-star appearances and six Top 10 MVP finishes would be struggling to crack 50 percent?
   1093. The Duke Posted: January 21, 2022 at 04:01 PM (#6061872)
Jaffe had this table in his chat today on “number of HOFrs on each team at any one time”. Row A is BBWA elected and Row B is all electees

https://images.jotcast.com/chat-images/12275/12275-60EFP-91RIS-NEOYU-1XT5H-9GKLG-1780715740541522.png

I assume the PED boycott has really hurt recent years
   1094. base ball chick Posted: January 21, 2022 at 04:06 PM (#6061874)
i think the "PED stink" with sheffield is being used as an excuse for not having to say personal dislike as the reason fr not voting for him. and in mah not so umble opinyn, i think that is most of the reason he's not getting votes. also not being said is him being all Uppity about making it clear that he made getting paid as much as he thought he was worth his priority. because there's no $ in TEAM

i personally think he belongs. i bleeve that you have to consider a candidate against ALL the other players in the HOF and ask - well, is he better than the bottom of the barrel? and if so, he should be elected. there is no planet where he's not better than harold baines r jim ed rice or some others. you lower the standards, you lower the standards. but even with those 2 (for example) i don't think theres any doubt that sheffield easily belongs. too many people wanting the quality and star-ness of jeter with the saintliness of hank greenberg and yes i know he can't be a saint because hes jewish. so what.

p.s. i think schilling should be elected too, and he is a piece of garbage as a human being. an all time great as a pitcher
   1095. SoSH U at work Posted: January 21, 2022 at 04:12 PM (#6061876)
i think the "PED stink" with sheffield is being used as an excuse for not having to say personal dislike as the reason fr not voting for him.


Personal like/dislike has had almost no effect on Hall of Fame voting through the years. The writers didn't like Steve Carlton and Eddie Murray and Jim Rice and Jack Morris. The first two made it first ballot, the unqualified third guy made it on his last try and the really unqualified last guy almost made it.

In contrast, they liked Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy and Orel Hershisher, and none of those guys came close.

About the only borderliner in recent years who might have gotten a likability boost was Kirby, and that was a mistake in retrospect.

Without PEDs, Sheffield gets in easily, liked or not. Not as easy as Barry and Roger, but easy enough.
   1096. alilisd Posted: January 21, 2022 at 07:24 PM (#6061905)
But do you think without any PED stink, a guy with 509 homers, .292 average, a 140 career OPS+, 11 all-star appearances and six Top 10 MVP finishes would be struggling to crack 50 percent?


Again, it's not that straightforward. You would have to add the ballot conditions to your description above and consider that. He debuted in a year in which four players were elected, three first ballot, and he did finish as the top debut guy not elected. The next year it's Griffey's year. Then three more guys the following year, and two very similar guys debut in Guerrero and Ramirez. Ramirez, despite positive tests, debuts higher than Sheffield 105 votes to 59. If it were just the PED's, I would think that would not have happened. Four more go in the next year including Thome (guys like Junior and Thome make Sheffield's numbers look not quite as great, no?), four the year after, then two, and Sheffield is beginning to get a bit more support. Less than one might think given his numbers, but not obviously due to PED's only, or even primarily, IMO. The sheer number of players better qualified, as qualified, or viewed more positively by the electorate is a huge factor.

The era in which he played is also a factor. For example, for the three stats you mentioned just amongst direct contemporaries, 1985 to 2012, using .285 for BA, 400 HR and at least a 130 OPS+ leaves him 6th in HR (Pujols would pass him in 2013 pushing him to 7th), 11th of 12 in BA, and tied for 10th in OPS+ with Vlad Guerrero. So, yes, his numbers are impressive, but not such that they stand out relative to his contemporaries. Remove the BA restriction and you add two more guys over 600 HR, and he honestly doesn't look that much better than Delgado: 473, .280, 138.
   1097. alilisd Posted: January 21, 2022 at 07:32 PM (#6061907)
Further on Sheffield, actually looking at the ballots he's been on, I'm not sure I would have voted for him in his first year unless we get into something like strategic voting. After that I still get to 8th or 9th position before I start thinking about adding him. And that is not due to PED's, but due to better players, IMO.
   1098. Adam Starblind Posted: January 21, 2022 at 08:54 PM (#6061914)
. But do you think without any PED stink, a guy with 509 homers, .292 average, a 140 career OPS+, 11 all-star appearances and six Top 10 MVP finishes would be struggling to crack 50 percent?


Again, it's not that straightforward.


Oh come on. If we were just looking at numbers, that’s a HOFer ten times out of ten. You can talk about the composition of individual ballots, but there is no objective reason why Vlad or Walker would have sailed by him on the basis of numbers alone. There’s no question that in a vacuum he would be in by now..
   1099. SoSH U at work Posted: January 21, 2022 at 11:25 PM (#6061943)
For example, for the three stats you mentioned just amongst direct contemporaries, 1985 to 2012, using .285 for BA, 400 HR and at least a 130 OPS+ leaves him 6th in HR (Pujols would pass him in 2013 pushing him to 7th), 11th of 12 in BA, and tied for 10th in OPS+ with Vlad Guerrero. So, yes, his numbers are impressive, but not such that they stand out relative to his contemporaries. Remove the BA restriction and you add two more guys over 600 HR, and he honestly doesn't look that much better than Delgado: 473, .280, 138.


And how many of those players above or around him from the OPS+ and HR categories, absent PED ties, wouldn't sail into the Hall of Fame?

The only players comparable in OPS that aren't Hall worthy are guys with much shorter careers. His peak as a hitter is not just much better than Delgado's entire career, but longer than it as well.

But you can throw all that out. Do you think a PED-free guy with 509 career homers and nine all-star appearances would be struggling to get 50 percent of the vote? Sure, there may be some guys who are withholding votes for him because he was such a genuine #######, but that's just never been an actual dealbreaker before.

   1100. base ball chick Posted: January 22, 2022 at 12:15 AM (#6061948)
filp
Page 11 of 12 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMLB would not charge Oakland Athletics a relocation fee if team moves to Las Vegas, per reports
(5 - 1:50pm, Jun 28)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogManny, Pedro and Papi's kids are on the same team?! Meet 'The Sons' of the Brockton Rox
(11 - 1:42pm, Jun 28)
Last: Zach

Newsblog2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(3416 - 1:38pm, Jun 28)
Last: Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant

NewsblogOle Miss Rebels sweep Oklahoma Sooners to win first Men's College World Series title
(4 - 1:19pm, Jun 28)
Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for Monday, June 27, 2022
(45 - 1:10pm, Jun 28)
Last: The Duke

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1900 Ballot
(4 - 1:05pm, Jun 28)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogSeattle Mariners acquire first baseman Carlos Santana from Kansas City Royals in exchange for RHPs Wyatt Mills, William Fleming
(19 - 12:59pm, Jun 28)
Last: For the Turnstiles (andeux)

NewsblogEight ejected after wild brawl between Seattle Mariners, Los Angeles Angels
(14 - 12:48pm, Jun 28)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Hall of MeritHall of Merit Book Club
(6 - 12:45pm, Jun 28)
Last: progrockfan

NewsblogThe Guardians duo carrying Jamaica's baseball legacy
(1 - 12:16pm, Jun 28)
Last: . . . . . .

NewsblogFormer No. 1 pick Mark Appel, 30, gets big league call-up from Philadelphia Phillies
(16 - 11:54am, Jun 28)
Last: sanny manguillen

Sox TherapyHey Now
(4 - 11:30am, Jun 28)
Last: The Mighty Quintana

NewsblogPeacock to stream Royals-Tigers game without announcers
(17 - 10:35am, Jun 28)
Last: pthomas

NewsblogMinnesota Twins pitching coach Wes Johnson exiting, reportedly for same position with LSU Tigers
(19 - 10:07am, Jun 28)
Last: greenback needs a ride, not ammo

Newsblog[Medium] Baseball’s Next Defining Innovation is Hiding in Plain Sight: Why Tracking the Path of Every Swing is a Must for MLB Teams
(4 - 10:07am, Jun 28)
Last: Russ

Page rendered in 0.6295 seconds
45 querie(s) executed