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 4 of 12 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
   301. Booey Posted: December 18, 2021 at 11:33 AM (#6057851)
Flip
   302. John DiFool2 Posted: December 18, 2021 at 12:29 PM (#6057858)
Re: the inconsistent standards. The thing is, the ones which have gotten in via the VC lately have pretty much all had "narratives". I mean, we've been hearing that Gil Hodges was a viable candidate since he retired. Jack Morris had the game 7 thing. Oliva had the "Would have gotten in long ago if it weren't for his knees."

By contrast, do any of [copied from 299 for convenience's sake] Rolen, Schilling, Kent, Jones, Abreu, Hudson, Allen, Boyer, Grich, Dahlen, Buehrle, Edmonds, Santana, Lofton, and Brown (he belongs in the discussion here) have such narratives? More to the point, will they have any cronies on the VC which will promote their causes? I remain skeptical that they will get any traction. Schilling of course HAD The Narrative, but decided to forfeit it all.
   303. SoSH U at work Posted: December 18, 2021 at 12:40 PM (#6057863)
By contrast, do any of [copied from 299 for convenience's sake] Rolen, Schilling, Kent, Jones, Abreu, Hudson, Allen, Boyer, Grich, Dahlen, Buehrle, Edmonds, Santana, Lofton, and Brown (he belongs in the discussion here) have such narratives?


Rolen won't need it. Schilling has it, but I couldn't tell you how the Vet's committee will deal with him. During his playing days, he was less popular with his peers than he was the press.

Brown doesn't fit, as he was a Mitchell Report guy.

The rest? Well, I can see Kent and Jones doing well (Allen should go in, but I was certain he would make it this year).

Two things about the Vets Committees tend to stand out. They like career over peak, and they take their cues from the writers. So a guy who did moderately well with the writers has a leg up with the Vets. Even Baines spent more time on the ballot than any of the other guys he was up against other than co-inductee Smith.
   304. reech Posted: December 18, 2021 at 12:43 PM (#6057864)
Re...Tangent Alert

The NFL will probably elect Viniteri (NFL version of Mariano) and Tucker (comparable Gossage) when they are eligible.
   305. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: December 18, 2021 at 01:13 PM (#6057872)
I realize it makes Hall-of-Fame candidacy hard to quantify, but I think the "narrative" thing is important. Some of these candidates DO have narrative, and some of them have a narrative if "elected together"

Rolen: his narrative is primarily as a member of the 2000's Cardinals (secondarily the late 1990's Phillies), and I don't he will get elected until after Pujols does, but maybe later from a VC.
Schilling: HAD it, as noted
Kent: could have HAD it, but decided to wash his truck.
Allen: definitely has a narrative, and I think he will be elected soon.
Jones: His greatest similarity score is to Dale Murphy (and vice versa), with a lot of his extra value in defense. I don't see the voters electing Dale Murphy, and I don't see them electing Andruw Jones, as I think the voters (probably rightly so) distrust the defensive metrics.
Edmonds: similar to but lesser version of Jones. I would think not.
Abreu: he moved around a lot, and his teams never got to the WS. I would think not.
Hudson: I saw his and Zito's last game, when they started against each other. Neither of them felt like they reached Hall of Fame status then (of course, not Zito) and I cannot see that narrative changing. His career just didn't last long enough.
Boyer:
Grich: I can see him getting elected by a VC committee that has Carew on it, and Palmer might help too.
Dahlen:
Buehrle: same story as Hudson
Santana: same story as Hudson, though his peak was higher and his career was shorter.
Lofton: has a narrative as a member of the "forgotten" Cleveland teams of the 1990's, and played in the postseason a lot. Has been active as a broadcaster and I imagine would have friends on a VC committee.
Brown: has a narrative, but most of it is negative, for better or worse. He would need some friends on a VC committee, and I don't he has any.
Whittaker: He has a narrative as the combo partner of Trammel, and I expect he will get in via a VC committee
   306. TJ Posted: December 18, 2021 at 01:13 PM (#6057873)
Vizquel loses another vote- down to 15% on the Tracker.
   307. alilisd Posted: December 18, 2021 at 01:22 PM (#6057875)
But even ignoring PEDs, the voters are still picking a bunch of the "wrong" players where superior clean ones are available. The standard in the past 10 years has been too low overall, while somehow managing to simultaneously keep out a large swath of players who are overqualified for even a much higher standard.


For a long time now it's been necessary to differentiate committee selections from writer selections if you're trying to determine "standards" or where the borderline is, and it's never a simple "this is the problem with the HOF voting" answer, IMO. Pointing to players like Morris, Hodges, and Baines to say the standard is too low ignores the fact they were selected by committees rather than by the writers. Also, Allen, Boyer, Grich, Dahlen are committee issues, and while the first three may seem like egregious oversights by the writers through our lens, they were overlooked by a vastly different electorate. Lofton and Edmonds are caught up in the whole PED mess and end up as collateral damage. Looking at the writers selections over the past 10 years and there's little to argue with. Sure we quibble about Hoffman, and I wish there was a lot less support for Wagner. But, again, it's a wholly different electorate today who were handed a Hall with Fingers, Sutter, and Gossage already in it, and now they're trying to figure out how to handle the one inning closer. They picked up Blyleven, Walker, and Raines while, narrowly, excluding Morris. They overrated Guerrero, but I don't think most people have a problem with him being in easily rather than working his way up the ballot across 10 years. Too soon to say how things will pan out with Rolen, Kent, Jones, and Abreu, but they still have time, especially after this year when the 4 guys who run out of 10 year eligibility drop off.

So, yes, there is a problem with committee selections (same as it ever was), but some writers definitely recognize this and ignore those selections in their voting. Yes, there is a giant mess created by the way voters have handled the PED issue. I do think there may be a coming issue with starting pitchers, but I'm not convinced that Hudson, Buerhle, Pettitte, and Oswalt being overlooked or receiving low support is evidence of it. Going back to 1995 to get all of Pettitte's career and using 40 WAR as a starting pitcher gives Verlander, Kershaw, Greinke and Scherzer at the top. Then Sabathia, Pettitte, Buerhle, Hamels and Hudson all grouped together, but clearly behind the first group. Those sorts of players will always struggle to work up the ballot and gain momentum, and the struggle is even harder with what is still a very crowded ballot.
   308. SoSH U at work Posted: December 18, 2021 at 01:26 PM (#6057876)
Rolen: his narrative is primarily as a member of the 2000's Cardinals (secondarily the late 1990's Phillies), and I don't he will get elected until after Pujols does, but maybe later from a VC.


The only way that could happen was through a VC.

But I don't see any reason to believe Rolen will fall short, and I'm surprised people think so. He eclipsed 50 percent on his fourth year on the ballot, has no negatives (the way Omar has), and is obviously going to keep making progress this year. Add in a second straight BBWAA shutout (and the first ceremony without BBWAA inductees) and the voters are likely going to be more keen to put guys in next year, just as they responded to the 2013 shutout with an unprecedented surge of 10-person ballots.

   309. DL from MN Posted: December 18, 2021 at 02:57 PM (#6057889)
Bonds, Clemens and Schilling will just slide over to the Today's Game ballot next year. Hopefully Tiant and Whitaker get inducted in 2024.
   310. Walt Davis Posted: December 18, 2021 at 03:40 PM (#6057896)
The big question for next year is what will the full ballot voters from this year do. I assume most of the full ballots will nearly all have at least 2 of B/C/S/S who all drop off. (So far all but one have both B/C, most have Schilling, Luis Rangel was the only one I noticed with neither Schilling nor Sosa, dropped for Ortiz and ARod). Apparently a high proportion of the B/C voters are voting Ortiz already and any who have omitted ARod clearly didn't omit him due to his numbers so those two probably won't benefit much from those departures.

So somebody like Filip Bondy will pick up 4 slots. He dropped Kent, Sheff and Vizquel to add Ortiz, ARod and Rolen -- so probably he gives a vote back to Kent and Sheff but neither of those are particularly close. He already votes for Helton. So if he goes beyond 8 next year, he's probably choosing among Abreu, Andruw and Beltran (the only serious debut candidate).

Still, Rolen and Ortiz both look on track for at least 60 percent and the collective psychology next year will probably push both over, very likely at least one. 2024 and 2025 bring some easy candidates. 2026 promises no significant debuts unless Verlander or Cano never play again but there should be plenty of viable backlog candidates that one will go over.
   311. SandyRiver Posted: December 18, 2021 at 04:32 PM (#6057900)
Re...Tangent Alert

The NFL will probably elect Viniteri (NFL version of Mariano) and Tucker (comparable Gossage) when they are eligible.


Vinatieri is all but a lock and Tucker has been/still is the best placekicker in NFL history. Unless they shoot themselves in the foot through personal behavior, they're in.
   312. John DiFool2 Posted: December 18, 2021 at 05:05 PM (#6057901)
[Off topic but since NFL kicking has been brought up: I wonder if the NFL will ever narrow the goalposts at some point? Most of us old farts already know this, but before soccer style kicking came along (and special kicking balls, and better field conditions/turf/domes), kickers were good if they hit 60% of their kicks. Would result in more 4th down tries I'd imagine.]
   313. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 18, 2021 at 06:18 PM (#6057917)
Few new ballots today, including one from Tim Reynolds which is about as good as can reasonably be expected: Bonds/Clemens/Helton/Hudson/Andruw/Ortiz/Pettitte/Manny/Rolen. Adds Rolen, drops Vizquel. Would've liked to see a 10th player picked there, but assuming he's not voting for Schilling at the player's own request, I don't have any particular issue with this one.
   314. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 18, 2021 at 06:24 PM (#6057919)
Bill Plunkett, meanwhile, checks in with Helton/Ortiz/Sheffield/Wagner, the second voter with that exact ballot. Sheffield but not Bonds is certainly a choice.
   315. Jaack Posted: December 18, 2021 at 06:25 PM (#6057920)
Reynolds is the third(!) voter to have Manny but no A-Rod.

Most of the time I find the "why x but no y" questions to be a bit silly, but there's a logical inconsistency there that just baffles me. If you are willing to vote for someone with two PED suspensions, why wouldn't you vote for an overwhelmingly better player with just the one? Particularly with space on your ballot like Reynolds has. I agree that it's a pretty solid ballot otherwise, but what a strange choice.
   316. The Duke Posted: December 18, 2021 at 06:27 PM (#6057921)
I am consistently amazed anyone gets elected by the writers. There are SO many different views on these guys. I wonder how many unique ballots there are every year. Does Thibs track that ?
   317. The Duke Posted: December 18, 2021 at 06:31 PM (#6057922)
315. Could be “ I won’t vote for most guys first time on ballot and will check his box next year?” Are they 10 person ballots and wanting to spread votes elsewhere knowing there is plenty of time to put A-rod in?” Yankees - Red Sox?

   318. John DiFool2 Posted: December 18, 2021 at 07:00 PM (#6057923)
Maybe some are doing the 1st year on ballot boycott thing, which is explicitly allowed in the HoM rules.
   319. alilisd Posted: December 18, 2021 at 07:38 PM (#6057925)
317. The Duke Posted: December 18, 2021 at 06:31 PM (#6057922)
315. Could be “ I won’t vote for most guys first time on ballot and will check his box next year?” Are they 10 person ballots and wanting to spread votes elsewhere knowing there is plenty of time to put A-rod in?” Yankees - Red Sox?


He voted for Ramirez in his first year on the ballot. He's definitely been a big ballot guy, filling in 10 names in the couple of seasons I checked. It's strange he only used 9 this year and left A-Rod off.
   320. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 18, 2021 at 07:45 PM (#6057926)
Most of the time I find the "why x but no y" questions to be a bit silly, but there's a logical inconsistency there that just baffles me. If you are willing to vote for someone with two PED suspensions, why wouldn't you vote for an overwhelmingly better player with just the one?
Blatant speciesism, is what that is.
   321. LargeBill Posted: December 18, 2021 at 08:07 PM (#6057931)
319. alilisd Posted: December 18, 2021 at 07:38 PM (#6057925)

317. The Duke Posted: December 18, 2021 at 06:31 PM (#6057922)
315. Could be “ I won’t vote for most guys first time on ballot and will check his box next year?” Are they 10 person ballots and wanting to spread votes elsewhere knowing there is plenty of time to put A-rod in?” Yankees - Red Sox?



He voted for Ramirez in his first year on the ballot. He's definitely been a big ballot guy, filling in 10 names in the couple of seasons I checked. It's strange he only used 9 this year and left A-Rod off.


Maybe it's the simplest answer, he just can't stand A-Rod. I never understood it, but Alex seemed to bring out the strongest emotions from some folks.
   322. reech Posted: December 18, 2021 at 08:14 PM (#6057932)
Might be that Manny was pretty much finished when he got busted,and Arod was more in the prime of his career?
   323. Walt Davis Posted: December 18, 2021 at 09:05 PM (#6057938)
ARod was near the end too when he was busted, had missed most of age 37 due to injury and was turning 38 when he was busted. He was alleged to be on the 2003 list but so was Manny (just 31). Even if we think he was with Biogenesis for several years, from ages 34-37, his OPS+ was a fairly modest 117.

I checked out of curiosity -- ARod's OPS+ from ages 32-37 are almost exactly the same as Pujuls 31-36. He wasn't really any better of a hitter from 34-37 than Banks (113 OPS+). Doesn't mean the PEDs didn't help, just that he wasn't doing super-human stuff.

EDIT: That said I don't recall how much usage ARod copped to in his first "apology" so somebody can fill that in. In fact I'd forgotten about that apology until after I posted, I suppose I can drop "alleged" from the 2003.
   324. The Duke Posted: December 18, 2021 at 09:58 PM (#6057946)
It must be weird for A-Rod that J-Lo dumped him for an even bigger narcissist. Even if he was trying hard to be a better person as he got older- what’s the takeaway here? The bigger narcissist won. I should go back to being the ass I was.

It’s kind of like the Yankees telling you they love you but you need to switch positions to accommodate this guy they love more.

Luckily for him ………

He has a #### ton of money
   325. reech Posted: December 18, 2021 at 10:47 PM (#6057948)
Well, Arod also fought the PED charges to the point that he sued MLB.
That's not going to garner much sympathy or support.
   326. Walt Davis Posted: December 18, 2021 at 11:34 PM (#6057955)
Another lost vote for Vizquel, he's lost 10 of 15 so far. Somebody asked about other big drops. I'm not aware of anything as dramatic as Omar but here are a few:

Garvey bounced around between 35 and 42 in his first 6 years, finished around 21. Maury Wills was over 40% in his 4th year, fell all the way to 14 in his penultimate year. Famously Bunning got within 1-2 votes in 88. Unfortunately for him, Perry and Jenkins came on the next year and he dropped 11 points. Then Palmer pushed him further down to 58; then he regained some ground in the Perry-Jenkins election but Fingers debuted that year and didn't help. He was off the ballot then but he probably would have been frustrated again as Seaver came on the ballot.

Not really the same thing but when Blyleven first debuted, the ordering was Kaat, John and Blyleven (about 10 points behind). When Morris debuted it was John, Kaat, Morris, Blyleven (still 10 points behind). The Blyleven snuck past Morris, then he skipped ahead of Kaat (nearly tying John), then Kaat dropped off entirely, John dropped a few points and Morris passed him. John never really changed much after that while Blyleven and Morris kept going up. So not drops at all really for John and Kaat just, from 98 to 04, a complete reversal of the relative ranking of those 4 SPs.



   327. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 19, 2021 at 01:14 AM (#6057965)
What do you guys think of relievers? Should they be in the Hall?


Let me reiterate my position on this for approximately the 1000th time...NO.

The position is pitcher. No reliever ever provides more value than a host of HOVG/on the cusp of the HOF starters that have been listed in this thread numerous times.
   328. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 19, 2021 at 08:57 AM (#6057968)
Couple of reasonably sane ballots from David Laurilla and Luis Rangel this morning, including an add for Helton that brings him to +3 so far. (Which means he's exactly tied with Wagner to this point, both in number of votes and progress over last year.)
   329. John DiFool2 Posted: December 19, 2021 at 10:01 AM (#6057973)
About 25 Yea's in a row for Papi now.

I wish he gets in this year over Bonds & Clemens just to see heads asplode both here and in the media. [Mine included note even as I am jumping up and down in joy]
   330. The Duke Posted: December 19, 2021 at 12:31 PM (#6057985)
40 ish ballots is only 10% and the last 10% is wildly different than the first 10% so hard to draw any conclusions yet except that Vizquel is toast and Ortiz will have a very good first ballot showing. Still waiting for evidence of a Rolen/Helton surge and hidden Bonds/Clemens votes.
   331. SoSH U at work Posted: December 19, 2021 at 12:39 PM (#6057989)
Still waiting for evidence of a Rolen/Helton surge and hidden Bonds/Clemens votes.


Last year at this time, Rolen was polling at 62.5 percent. This year it's at 67 percent, converting 7.6 percent of his no votes (and losing a yes). If he maintains that, he'll be in excellent position to earn election next year (particularly if Ortiz manages to get 75 percent this year, which is probably unlikely).

Don't hold your breath on any hidden Bonds/Clemens votes.
   332. Adam Starblind Posted: December 19, 2021 at 02:14 PM (#6058010)
For what it’s worth, Selena Roberts's biography of A-Rod has him using steroids pretty much since birth. High school onward.
   333. alilisd Posted: December 19, 2021 at 02:36 PM (#6058011)
The position is pitcher. No reliever ever provides more value than a host of HOVG/on the cusp of the HOF starters that have been listed in this thread numerous times.


This is reasonable.

Couple of reasonably sane ballots from David Laurilla and Luis Rangel this morning, including an add for Helton that brings him to +3 so far. (Which means he's exactly tied with Wagner to this point, both in number of votes and progress over last year.)


This is not. How can an everyday, two way player, who is a legitimate candidate, be getting the same support as a one inning reliever who provided no offense? It's insane.
   334. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 19, 2021 at 02:40 PM (#6058012)
MLB happens to be replaying the 2001 All-Star game right now. Clemens starting for the AL, Pudge catching, ARod at short (but moving to third so Ripken can start at short), Luis Gonzalez leading off for the NL with 35 homers at the break…now Bonds is up, with Sosa on deck. Jeez.
   335. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 19, 2021 at 03:27 PM (#6058014)
Joe Torre during an in-game interview: “We’ve got technology now, we’ve got computers, we’ve got stopwatches that can time the pitchers…”

Makes you wonder exactly when Torre became aware of the existence of stopwatches.
   336. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2021 at 03:46 PM (#6058015)
#332: That wouldn't surprise me either ... in fact, I meant to tack that onto the end of my post. I was addressing "busted" -- ARod may have used a lot without getting busted but he wasn't caught until near the end.

On relievers ... there are only three that I would consider (not actually voting means I don't have to make up my mind if I don't want to):

Wilhelm -- he threw 2254 IP with a 147 ERA+, 50 bWAR although a 1.5 gmLI helps that. That's not an impressive number of innings for that era but it is nearly as many as Koufax and a much better career ERA+ and Koufax just 53 bWAR ... obviously way short of Koufax's peak. It's 500 fewer innings than Halladay but again a better career ERA+ (but way behind in bWAR). He's an easy one to consider as there's very little doubt he'd have been a very good starter if teams had used him that way.

Eckersley -- We know he was a successful SP, HoVG not HoF although if he'd played for better teams then, he might have been on track for 300 wins. Anyway, nearly 2500 innings and 45 WAR as a SP. Add on those first 6 pretty dominant reliever seasons and it's a very impressive career. Really it was the second half of his time as a starter, that might have been due to his drinking, that derailed his possible HoF career, not being shifted to reliever to revive it.

Rivera -- 1300 innings of a 205 ERA+. Pedro's magical run was 1400 innings of a 213 ERA+. Would I vote for Pedro if that's all he had (and they let him on the ballot) -- you betcha. Rivera's not an automatic for me because relieving is easier than starting ... he was pretty awesome, he wasn't Pedro. But Pedro isn't the HoF minimum. So where would I draw the dominant peak-only line for a SP? Scherzer 2013-18 was 1300 IP of a 148 ERA+ with 3 CYAs and a 2nd-place. That run is certainly why Scherzer will go in but of course he'll add a substantial enough chunk that most voters won't have to think about it very much either. Koufax's peak was 1400 innings of a 167 ERA+ with 3 CYAs. Anyway, it's certainly possible Mo was so dominant in his 1300 innings as to have accomplished as much as a peak-only HoF starter and, again, it's not clear Scherzer is the minimum bar for such a pitcher.

Mo is likely an example of a pitcher who would not have been nearly so successful as a starter (i.e. he likely wouldn't have come close to matching Scherzer/Koufax) but he fit perfectly with the role he was assigned. We'll never know but I suspect Biggio never becomes a HoFer if he sticks at C; we only include "couldn't cut it as a SS" in our evaluation of Gary Sheffield via a broad positional adjustment. Similarly, we don't necessarily want to take Mo's raw 1300 IP and 205 ERA+ and just assume it's as valuable/awesome as a starter doing the same thing but that doesn't mean we should treat him like he's Mike Minor (1300 IP, 104 ERA+). The analogy is hardly perfect but, in HoF terms, Mo is somewhere between Nomar and Greenberg.
   337. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2021 at 03:52 PM (#6058016)
#335: I assume Torre meant digitally accurate stopwatches that didn't rely on a coach's reflexes to start and stop on time. We're talking milliseconds here ... one source claims a blink takes the same time as a pitch to get to home plate. Nobody can accurately start and stop a watch in that time plus you standard analog stopwatch doesn't measure in milliseconds. You could use an analog stopwatch to time a pitcher's release with men on base or a catcher's time to second but not the speed of a pitch.
   338. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 19, 2021 at 04:09 PM (#6058017)
You could use an analog stopwatch to time a pitcher's release with men on base or a catcher's time to second but not the speed of a pitch.
Torre was talking about the former. He was setting up that Don Zimmer didn’t use any of that “technology,” he just observes that “we can steal on this guy.”
   339. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 19, 2021 at 05:06 PM (#6058020)
Interesting ballot from Chris Assenheimer (unfortunate name?) on The Tracker: Adds Bonds, Clemens & Manny, while dropping Hunter, and also voting for Jones, Lincecum, Ortiz, Rodiriguez, Rolen, Schilling & Vizquel. Likely to be a unique ballot, IMHO, but not as bad as some.
   340. yest Posted: December 19, 2021 at 05:18 PM (#6058021)
Reposting from 2 years ago about relief pitchers and the hof
voters love saves and wins, but they also value long saves more than short ones. adjusting saves based innings clearly makes a career in/out line.

saves with 4+ outs
1 Rollie Fingers 201
2 Rich Gossage 193
3 Bruce Sutter 188
4 Lee Smith 169
5 Dan Quisenberry 160
6 Jeff Reardon 152
7 Hoyt Wilhelm 148
8 Sparky Lyle 134
9 Mike Marshall 127
9 Gene Garber 127
11 Mariano Rivera 119
12 Dave Righetti 108
13 Stu Miller 107
13 Ron Perranoski 107
15 Dennis Eckersley 106
15 Doug Jones 106
17 Steve Bedrosian 105
18 Tug McGraw 104
19 Kent Tekulve 100
20 Lindy McDaniel 97


Saves with 6+ Outs
1 Rollie Fingers 135
2 Bruce Sutter 130
3 Goose Gossage 125
4 Dan Quisenberry 120
5 Hoyt Wilhelm 118
6 Gene Garber 107
7 Mike Marshall 95
8 Lee Smith 94
9 Sparky Lyle 91
10 Tug McGraw 79
11 Jeff Reardon 78
12 Steve Bedrosian 77
12 Ron Perranoski 77
14 Lindy McDaniel 74
14 Stu Miller 74
16 Greg Minton 71
17 Bill Campbell 66
18 Bob Stanley 65
19 Roger McDowell 63
19 Don McMahon 63


Saves with 9+ Outs
1 Hoyt Wilhelm 53
2 Gene Garber 52
3 Mike Marshall 40
4 Bob Stanley 37
5 Dan Quisenberry 37
6 Rollie Fingers 36
7 Bill Campbell 35
8 Sparky Lyle 32
9 Tug McGraw 31
10 John Hiller 29
11 Lindy McDaniel 28
12 Gary Lavelle 28
13 Roger McDowell 27
14 Aurelio Lopez 27
15 Pedro Borbon 27
16 Clay Carroll 25
17 Rich Gossage 24
18 Ron Reed 23
19 Dick Radatz 23
20 Darold Knowles 23
21 Dave Giusti 23

wins in relief
1 Hoyt Wilhelm 124
2 Lindy McDaniel 119
3 Rich Gossage 115
4 Rollie Fingers 107
5 Sparky Lyle 99
6 Roy Face 96
7 Kent Tekulve 94
8 Gene Garber 94
9 Mike Marshall 92
10 John Franco 90
10 Don McMahon 90
12 Tug McGraw 89
13 Clay Carroll 88
14 Jesse Orosco 87
15 Bob Stanley 85
16 Bill Campbell 80
16 Gary Lavelle 80
18 Mariano Rivera 79
18 Stu Miller 79
18 Ron Perranoski 79
18 Tom Burgmeier 79


so tabulating
1 point for every save 3 outs or less
1.5 point for a 4-5 out save
2 points for every 6+ out save
2 points for a win in relief
3 points for every 9+ out save

you have a clear in out line for the hall, just using saves and Wins in Relief
700 for a career, 600 with a great peak and 555 if you have a peak like ECKs and have a starting career to go with it.

numbers are inning save, 4/5 out save, 6+ out save, 9+ out save, Wins in Relief, weighted victory points

Just taking a sampling from different eras this would thus be the Relief equivalent of a wins like stat for relief pitchers with similar flaws to wins. To compare them to how the hall sees wins divide this number by 3.
Mariano Rivera 533-108-11-0-79=875 (HOF)
Rollie Fingers 140-66-99-36-107 =759 (HOF)
Trevor Hoffman 546-48-7-0-61=754 (HOF)
Lee Smith 309-75-94-0-71=751.5 (HOF vets)
Rich Gossage 117-68-101-24-115=723 (HOF)
John Franco 334-53-31-6-90=673.5 (got 4.6% in 2011)
Hoyt Wilhelm 80-30-65-53-124=662 (HOF)
Jeff Reardon 215-74-65-13-73=641 (got 4.8% in 2000)
Bruce Sutter 112-58-115-15-68=610 (HOF)
Gene Garber 70-41-55-52-94=585.5
Sparky Lyle 104-43-59-32-99=580.5 (got 13.1% in 1988)
Doug Jones 197-44-57-5-89=570
Francisco Rodriguez 405-30-2-0-52=558
Dennis Eckersley 284-80-26-1-48=555 (HOF)
Dan Quisenberry 84-40-83-37-56=533
Billy Wagner 386-32-3-1-47=526
Lindy McDaniel 77-23-46-28-119=525.5
Mike Marshall 61-32-55-40-92=523
Randy Myers 257-56-31-3-42=496
Joe Nathan 366-10-1-0-52=487
Tug McGraw 76-25-48-31-89=480.5
Kent Tekulve 84-38-43-19-94=472
Jonathan Papelbon 331-36-1-0-41=469
Tom Henke 215-54-39-3-41=465
Dave Righetti 144-52-50-6-46=432
Steve Bedrosian 79-28-63-14-65=419
Craig Kimbrel 332-14-0-0-31=415
Bob Stanley 48-19-28-37-85=413.5
Roger McDowell 71-25-36-27-70=401.5
Bill Campbell 43-17-31-35-80=395.5
John Smoltz 119-24-11-0-4=185 (HOF)


This is not meant to be a real stat just something (I came up with after seeing this post last night) that is supposed to be similar to some of the Bill James HOF tests that show the likelihood of getting in, not the worthiness of it.
   341. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2021 at 05:47 PM (#6058022)
#340: I don't really buy that hypothesis though. They're not valuing certain types of saves more than others, the type of saves just changed over time. They are for the most part voting for the best releivers in each post-save era. So sure in the era of the 1-inning reliever, you need to get towards 500 saves to even register on their radar ... or at least you did until Wagner started making progress.

Lord only knows what they're going to do if baseball gets rid of the closer role.
   342. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 19, 2021 at 11:57 PM (#6058037)
With a couple late votes registering today, Rollins is up to 4 (10% so far). It is currently conceivable that he could outpoll Vizquel.
   343. yest Posted: December 20, 2021 at 10:05 AM (#6058054)
They are for the most part voting for the best releivers in each post-save era

Dan quisenberry is a major hall omission using that logic
   344. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 20, 2021 at 10:45 AM (#6058060)
New voter Rustin Dodd: Bonds/Clemens/Helton/Andruw/Ortiz/Ramirez/A-Rod/Rolen/Schilling/Sheffield. Solid "best ballot so far" contender.
   345. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 20, 2021 at 11:27 AM (#6058064)
[342] I’m going to say it explicitly: I consider Jimmy Rollins to have been a better player and HoF candidate than Omar Vizquel. And no, I wouldn’t vote for Rollins.
   346. cookiedabookie Posted: December 20, 2021 at 12:13 PM (#6058076)
@340 Nate Silver's Goose Egg stat is kinda similar, minus the wins. It hasn't been updated since his original article, but I'm sure someone here could do it
   347. The Duke Posted: December 20, 2021 at 12:46 PM (#6058081)
Rollins gets another vote from Clare Smith. It’s looking like he will live to fight another day
   348. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 20, 2021 at 12:59 PM (#6058083)
[342] I’m going to say it explicitly: I consider Jimmy Rollins to have been a better player and HoF candidate than Omar Vizquel. And no, I wouldn’t vote for Rollins.

Oh, no argument with any of this. I'm just surprised at the direction the actual voting seems to be going.
   349. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: December 20, 2021 at 01:02 PM (#6058084)
Dan quisenberry is a major hall omission using that logic


Much as Dan Quisenberry was/is revered, he didn't pitch for very long. Sutter is in the Hall, maybe when/if he gets on a VC committee he could lobby for Quisenberry, since their career length/value was similar. Sutter had the split-fingered fastball, Quiz was Quiz. Except for their individual narratives, I would think otherwise neither should have been/should be in the Hall.
   350. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 20, 2021 at 01:14 PM (#6058088)
Sutter had the split-fingered fastball, Quiz was Quiz. Except for their individual narratives, I would think otherwise neither should have been/should be in the Hall.
Sutter pioneered the big bushy Closer Beard. Quiz only had a mustache, and Rollie has that one locked up.
   351. alilisd Posted: December 20, 2021 at 01:32 PM (#6058090)
This is not meant to be a real stat just something (I came up with after seeing this post last night) that is supposed to be similar to some of the Bill James HOF tests that show the likelihood of getting in, not the worthiness of it.


I like this a lot. It brings Fingers into a more appropriate light than JAWS at least, IMO.

I was trying to do something a bit like this for what a great one inning closer looks like. I feel they are so similar that it's really hard to differentiate between someone the writers might vote for the HOF versus a closer they would not. The in out line between Wagner, Nathan, and Pappelbon for example. So I used 30 saves as a proxy/cutoff for someone who was a closer for a season, then I looked at Save% and ERA+. This gave me 531 seasons beginning with Ted Abernathy's 1965. The mean is 37.5 Saves, 5.7 BS, for a Save% of 86.8%. I don't know how, or if, you can calculate a mean ERA+ across a group like that, but the median is 156, and the mode is 140 and 170 each appearing 9 times. FWIW, if anything, 128, 153, and 188 have a frequency of 8 seasons each. All of that centers on the mid 150's, so it seems that's probably a pretty good average for a closer.

So how many seasons does a great closer have that are better than 37 saves with an 87% rate and an ERA+ better than 156? Wagner has about 5 "great" out of 9 seasons with at least 30 saves. Nathan about 6 of 9. Pappelbon 5 of 8. But it's a very fine line in some instances, for example, I didn't count Pappelbon's season with a 517 ERA+ because the saves were "only" 35 and percentage only "85.4." Hoffman has 14 seasons with at least 30 saves, but still only 5 "great" ones. Rivera has 6 out of 15.

This doesn't seem to do much to differentiate between great closers, but if you look further at K-Rod, he is pretty similar, while guys with high save totals such as Franco, Percival and Street don't get to those 4 or 5 seasons. It also makes Reardon look like a poor candidate, Myers, Wetteland, Cordero, Rodney, etc. also fall well short even though they have reasonably high save totals. Of course it probably falls apart for guys who were not pure one inning closer-types, but it seems to work somewhat for them. Kimbrel and Jansen both look really good, and Chapman is very close although his season save totals are low. I'm curious to see if it has any predictive use. I doubt it, but I'll keep an eye on it as the years pass to see if any of Nathan, Pappelbon, and the current big three gain any HOF traction.
   352. alilisd Posted: December 20, 2021 at 01:33 PM (#6058091)
350. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 20, 2021 at 01:14 PM (#6058088)

Sutter had the split-fingered fastball, Quiz was Quiz. Except for their individual narratives, I would think otherwise neither should have been/should be in the Hall.

Sutter pioneered the big bushy Closer Beard. Quiz only had a mustache, and Rollie has that one locked up.


I like this explanation!
   353. alilisd Posted: December 20, 2021 at 01:35 PM (#6058092)
I'm curious to see if it has any predictive use. I doubt it, but I'll keep an eye on it as the years pass to see if any of Nathan, Pappelbon, and the current big three gain any HOF traction.


I should have reminded myself that Nathan and Pappelbon are both on the ballot, and neither has received a single vote, so clearly it is not predictive, at all. Ha!

I guess you need at least 400 saves?
   354. Walt Davis Posted: December 20, 2021 at 02:45 PM (#6058099)
Sutter got "pioneer" credit, deserved or not. He was viewed as the first of the modern closers and as the pioneer of the split-finger which became the dominant pitch of the 80s and 90s. Both are debatable but he did very much capture the media and fan fascination for his first couple of big seasons. If I had to pick a position player comp, I suppose it would be Kiner ... Sutter led the NL in saves in 5 of 6 seasons, 6 AS games, 1 CYA.

Not that they're super useful anyway, but things like black/gray ink definitely and I assume the HoF Monitor and Standards need to be re-worked for relievers. As it stands, since relievers other than Mike Marshall don't qualify for leaderboards, the only black ink available to relievers is saves -- Mo's black ink total is just 9 for leading the AL in saves 3 times; Sutter has 15 for his 5. Monitor obviously gets Mo right in terms of his chance of election -- 19th all-time with 214, avg HoFer is 100 -- but Standards gives him just 30 (166th all-time, avg 50).

JAWS does OK I guess. It's certainly got the top 5 and it places Wagner 6th (but also Nathan 8 and Papelbon 10). Smith, Sutter and Fingers are all well down the list. Oh wow, there's a R-JAWS just for relievers. I don't know what it's supposed to do, it doesn't really change anything other than make Rivera look better and everybody else look worse.
   355. SoSH U at work Posted: December 20, 2021 at 02:51 PM (#6058101)
As it stands, since relievers other than Mike Marshall don't qualify for leaderboards,


Bob Stanley, ERA+ king of 1982, would like a word with you.
   356. Walt Davis Posted: December 20, 2021 at 03:41 PM (#6058114)
ARod is getting killed. Down to just 21 of 35 B/C voters and 0 for 9 on the non-B/C voters. He's gonna get creamed once the non-public votes come rolling in. I don't think he's cracking 40%.
   357. The Duke Posted: December 20, 2021 at 03:44 PM (#6058117)
A-rod has a lot of rumors about PEDs from high school onward. It’s hard to argue “he woikd have gotten in without steroids” when it’s not clear he was ever clean.
   358. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: December 20, 2021 at 03:50 PM (#6058118)
Schilling: HAD it, as noted


Sick Boy: It's certainly a phenomenon in all walks of life.
Mark: What do you mean?
Sick Boy: Well, at one time, you've got it, and then you lose it, and it's gone forever. All walks of life: George Best, for example. Had it, lost it. Or David Bowie, or Lou Reed.
Mark: Lou Reed, some of his solo stuff's not bad.
Sick Boy: No, it's not bad, but it's not great either. And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it's actually just shite.
Mark: So who else?
Sick Boy: Curt Schilling, David Niven, Malcolm McLaren, Elvis Presley . . .
Mark: OK, OK, so what's the point you're trying to make?
Sick Boy: All I'm trying to do, Mark, is help you understand that The Name of The Rose is merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory.
Mark: What about The Untouchables?
Sick Boy: I don't rate that at all.
Mark: Despite the Academy Award?
Sick Boy: That means **** all. It's a sympathy vote.
Mark: Right. So we all get old and then we cannae hack it anymore. Is that it?
Sick Boy: Yeah.
Mark: That's your theory?
Sick Boy: Yeah. Beautifully ******* illustrated.
   359. John Northey Posted: December 20, 2021 at 04:29 PM (#6058133)
Kent I figure is a lock someday to get in via the vets. His 'most HR by a second baseman' is a minor thing, but sounds big. His being seen as the 'clean guy' (rightly or wrongly) on the Bonds Giants helps him (he was seen as being the anti-Bonds for some reason). I can easily see a narrative that sells with a small committee. To be honest, I expected it to work with the writers too ala Jim Rice all those years ago but too many of the old writers are gone now to help him. TBH he isn't a HOF'er but a strong HOVG candidate. Still, 100 times better than Harold Baines (as are many, many, many others thus making his election a total joke).

   360. Walt Davis Posted: December 20, 2021 at 06:25 PM (#6058148)
FWIW, Kent had two ballots before the purge and got only 14%. He went up about 3% after the purge. He didn't get a big jump until the first less crowded ballot of 2020. I can't say that I ever sense that much old school love for Kent ... I'm sure some of them liked that he got into that fight with Bonds and they gave him one of the 15 MVPs Bonds deserved (I just grabbed a number but it sounds about right) but he's yet to match even Bonds' worst vote %age.
   361. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 20, 2021 at 08:57 PM (#6058162)
New voter Patrick Saunders: Helton/Jones/Ortiz/Rolen/Rollins/Schilling/Sheffield/Wagner. Anti-PED (except for Ortiz and Sheffield?), but I'll take the Rolen and Helton votes at least; those two are both 3/3 with new voters so far.
   362. The Duke Posted: December 20, 2021 at 09:35 PM (#6058164)
I don’t think Ortiz will get in but if he does, that takes schilling, bonds, Clemens, Ortiz and Sosa off next year. Whatever issues people have with paring down to 10 will go away over night. Then it’s Beltran, Beltre, colon, ichiro, Utley, sabathia, Mauer, posey for the next five years. That’s a thin list and there are several borderline candidates there. The vets committees better have their working shoes on because it’s hard to see more than one a year for quite a while.

Eventually we will have Pujols, Cabrera, greinke, verlander , Votto and kershaw who will all go on easily
   363. dark Posted: December 20, 2021 at 10:16 PM (#6058168)
Even without those five, next year you have a 70 WAR CF, 70 WAR 3B, 117 WAR SS/3B, 69 WAR LF and the following players with 55-63 WAR: CF, 1B, RF, RF, 2B, SP, SP, SP. This doesn't account for the 47 WAR SS, 45 WAR SS, 27 WAR closer, 50 WAR 9x GG CF, either. A Beltran, Rolen, Jones, Helton, Sheffield, Abreu, Kent, Hudson, Buehrle, Pettitte ballot is full and doesn't include anyone suspended for PEDs, with <55 WAR, or a closer.
   364. LargeBill Posted: December 20, 2021 at 10:34 PM (#6058169)
362. The Duke Posted: December 20, 2021 at 09:35 PM (#6058164)
I don’t think Ortiz will get in but if he does, that takes schilling, bonds, Clemens, Ortiz and Sosa off next year. Whatever issues people have with paring down to 10 will go away over night. Then it’s Beltran, Beltre, colon, ichiro, Utley, sabathia, Mauer, posey for the next five years. That’s a thin list and there are several borderline candidates there. The vets committees better have their working shoes on because it’s hard to see more than one a year for quite a while.

Eventually we will have Pujols, Cabrera, greinke, verlander , Votto and kershaw who will all go on easily


I'm no longer confident that Ortiz will wait another year as we've passed the 10% of the electorate and he's still over 80%. However, you hit on a great point regarding next year either way. Bonds, Clemens, Schilling and Sosa are off the ballot. We can expect at least half of their 700+ votes to be distributed to the 10 vote voters' 11th or 12th choice. If Ortiz is also off the ballot, that makes it over 950 votes freed up. Admittedly, not every one of those votes will be used. A 7 or 8 vote ballot next year may be defensible. I may not like how we got there, but the over crowded ballot issue may be resolved at the expense of those players dropped.

Separately, on principle alone, I disagree with changing the 15 years consideration period to 10 years. How many quality HOFrs, like Blyleven, took more than ten years for voters to come around and support their candidacy? After 10 years, Blyleven was just over 50%.
   365. dark Posted: December 20, 2021 at 11:16 PM (#6058172)
I sort of agree about the 15-year period, except I cannot imagine another 5 years of Schilling/Clemens/Bonds discourse.
   366. John Northey Posted: December 21, 2021 at 12:27 AM (#6058175)
As much as I disliked cutting the time frame down it has helped speed things up a bit - Larry Walker had 2 massive jumps in a row to get in as his 10 years was running out (34-54-76), in the old days he'd probably have hung around a few more instead. Tim Raines was similar (last 3 were 55-69.8-86 to get in on his final year). Edgar Martinez also (27-43-58-70-85 to get in his final year). Others like Fred McGriff might have slipped in eventually had they got 15 instead of 10 years on the ballot, but probably not.

So this year Clemens, Bonds, Schilling, and Sosa all end their annual chase for a prize they cannot have. Next year it is Jeff Kent. Then Garry Sheffield. Very few survive the first year on the ballot now vs the past. I think 10 years has worked out well so far and should be kept. If writers won't put a guy in after that long then let the vet's (or whatever they call it now) decide it. I also would like the 5% reduced to just 1 vote - that way guys like Lou Whittaker would've had a shot and not many extras added (9 guys last year would've got a second chance who otherwise wouldn't have - plus that might cut down how many writers do the 'I liked the guy' votes).
   367. Walt Davis Posted: December 21, 2021 at 02:24 AM (#6058177)
we've passed the 10% of the electorate and he's still over 80%

But we've passed the 10% mark and B/C are still at 78% ... while adding just one vote each. It's a badly biased sample right now. I'm obviously missing an Ortiz vote somewhere but he's been omitted by 5 B/C voters and picked up by 6 non-B/C voters. (Note there is one B/~C voter and one ~B/C voter who I am counting as a B/C voter so I get 36 B/C voters, not the 35 votes they are currently on.) So it's great for him (and probably guarantees his evenutal election) that he is picking up 6 of 9 non-B/C voters but if he's gonna lose 1/7 of the B/C voters, that's 8.5-9 percentage points he's missing out on relative to thm. So 52 percentage points from B/C voters and about 26 from non-B/C voters means he's just on track to make it. Roughly speaking, he needs 40-50 more votes from non-B/C voters than he loses from B/C voters, depending on whether B/C add any votes at all.

Anyway, so far he's doing what he needs to do so he's borderline and you're rignt not to be "confident" he won't make it. But 9 is a very small sample of non-B/C voters (about 1 of 15). I'm surprised so many B/C voters aren't taking him and doubly surprised that 4 of the 5 have room on their ballot for him.
   368. TJ Posted: December 21, 2021 at 10:23 AM (#6058199)
TR Sullivan’s ballot- Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, Ortiz, Schilling, Rolen, Wagner, and…Teixeira, Torii Hunter, and AJ Pierzynski! Drops Andrew Jones and Vizquel, adds Schilling.

Hope TR stops by to talk about his choices…
   369. TR_Sullivan Posted: December 21, 2021 at 10:31 AM (#6058202)
Hi All

I retired and Jeff Wilson left the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. We have since started our own substack, which is a enterprise that allows writers to publish their own stuff.

So we published my Hall of Fame vote on our site - I am sure you understand - but I didn't forget about this site either. So here you go, revealed just this morning. just not exclusively on this site.



1. Roger Clemens
2. Barry Bonds
We all know they are two of the best players in baseball history. Clemens has seven Cy Young Awards and Bonds has seven MVP Awards. We also know they are not in the Hall of Fame because they have been implicated in the possible use of steroids. A large number of voters refuse to vote for any player who has any taint – real or alleged – of using steroids.

I have voted for both players every year and am getting tired of it. Ten years is enough. Either get in or get off the ballot.

3. Alex Rodriguez
There is no denying Rodriguez has overwhelming Hall of Fame credentials. There is no denying he used steroids. He admitted it. He got nailed not once but twice.
So why do I vote for him? Because I refuse to sit in judgement of the steroid era.

What does that bull means. It means I believe way far more players were using some kind of performance-enhancing drugs than has been revealed through the Mitchell Report, other media outlets or sanctioned drug testing.

That high-minded crap having been said, there are a lot of players on the balloting who didn’t get my vote. Guys who had the credentials and were stained by steroid implication. Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa, Manny Ramirez. But until Bonds and Clemens get in, these guys have no chance.

4. David Ortiz
Ortiz led the Red Sox to three World Series titles amd I am a big believer in “to the victor go the spoils,” which is a political proverb that goes back some 200 years.
Here it means teams that win World Series – especially multiple titles – have the best players. And the Hall of Fame is about electing the best players.

5. Scott Rolen
6. Billy Wagner
Both are legitimate Hall of Famers to me, the best of a group of borderline candidates that also include Andruw Jones, Jimmy Rollins, Todd Helton, Jeff Kent and Omar Vizquel. All deserve strong consideration.

Vizquel has received my support in the past. But now he faces his own issues concerning domestic violence accusations. I am holding off my support this year until that plays out.

7. Curt Schilling
I really don’t want to vote for him. It is not the politics. It’s just the pure toxic venom he enjoys using to express his views. The hate he spews is just disgusting.

That’s why I have withheld by support for him the last few years. And anybody who thinks it’s because I am a liberal, well, whatever.

But he was a Hall of Fame pitcher and beneath all that toxicity, there once existed – and probably still does - a really good person. He has won the Roberto Clemente, Lou Gehrig and other community/character awards. If he would just drop the attention-getting performance artist act.

I am voting for him this and thankful it’s the last time I have to worry about it.

8. Torii Hunter
All right, if votes are going to subtract for character, well, this is one vote for a player whose character is outstanding. His career accomplishments may be borderline at best. But if character is being considered, then he easily crosses the finish line.

9. Mark Teixeira
If Fred McGriff – who built his career honestly – didn’t make the Hall of Fame then Teixeira has no chance either. He still doesn’t deserve to slip into Hall of Fame ignominy with at least token recognition as to what he accomplished without any shadow on his career.

10. A.J. Pierzynski
Until I actually saw his name on the ballot, I never ever even once thought about A.J. Pierzynski as a Hall of Famer. Never. And I never heard or read anything from another writer about Pierzynski being a Hall of Famer.

White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen once said, "If you play against him, you hate him. If you play with him, you hate him a little less."

The DFW beat writers disliked Pierzynski so much, we voted him the winner of the Harold McKinney Good Guy Award in 2013 in his only year with the Rangers. I might have had something to do with that.

Pierzynski was Yadier Molina’s equal as an offensive player. Molina was far better defensively, which is why he will one day go into the Hall of Fame. This figures to be one and done for Pierzynski even if he was one of the best catchers of his generation. However that he was right there alone ought to merit at least a little Hall of Fame consideration.

There was something else. Pierzynski was a fierce competitor, and could also be a bit devious. He was a smart player and a standup guy in the clubhouse.
There is just something strangely irresistible about that combination so I voted for him
   370. TJ Posted: December 21, 2021 at 10:36 AM (#6058203)
Thanks, TR- good luck with the new project!
   371. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: December 21, 2021 at 10:38 AM (#6058204)
I disagree with changing the 15 years consideration period to 10 years. How many quality HOFrs, like Blyleven, took more than ten years for voters to come around and support their candidacy? After 10 years, Blyleven was just over 50%.

Blyleven doesn't take 15 years with this electorate and now that we're firmly entrenched in the bb-ref/fangraphs era. Doing research and making comparisons was much more difficult when Blyleven first went on the ballot in 1998. Plus a lot of the old school or former baseball journalists who voted back then wouldn't be inclined to do that kind of resarch.

10 years is now plenty. I wouldn't mind it going down to 7 or 8.
   372. sotapop Posted: December 21, 2021 at 11:58 AM (#6058209)
Just going to say I love TR's explanation for his votes. It's overall a really good ballot, and as for the two or three unusual votes, well, the voters get to be human. If you've supported the standout candidates, you're allowed to use a vote or two to honor a player you respect, even if (especially if?) it's futile.
   373. alilisd Posted: December 21, 2021 at 11:59 AM (#6058210)
6. Billy Wagner
Both are legitimate Hall of Famers to me, the best of a group of borderline candidates that also include Andruw Jones, Jimmy Rollins, Todd Helton, Jeff Kent and Omar Vizquel.


This is so disappointing. Wagner is a legitimate Hall of Famer? A guy who threw maybe 600 to 700 meaningful innings (yes, a good number of his extraordinarily small 903 career IP were just regular old relief outings)? But Helton is just a borderline candidate not worthy of a vote tossed to the standup, yet devious, AJ Pierzynski, and a token vote to a far lesser 1B in Texeira? Helton had as good a 5 year peak by WAR as Jeff Bagwell, the best 1B of the era not named Pujols, along with ample career value/production. And Torii Hunter is a more deserving HOF candidate than Andruw Jones? Sorry, Mr. Sullivan. I usually respect your ballot and rationale, but this is a bridge too far. Better luck next year!
   374. bachslunch Posted: December 21, 2021 at 12:21 PM (#6058212)
I guess if you're trying to keep someone on the ballot, tossing a bone to Mark Teixeira makes some sense. He's nowhere near as good a player as Todd Helton (who is in no danger of dropping off), but maybe not worthy of being one-and-done either. By that rationale, though, I'd rather see such votes given to players like Tim Hudson and Mark Buehrle than the likes of A.J. Pierzynski (who has BBRef WAR of 23.8, good for 64th overall at the position, about the same as Chris Hoiles and Hank Gowdy -- and was a raging horse's ass to boot).

I'm also trying to understand how Torii Hunter qualifies as a person of such outstanding character that he merits a boost in his middling HoF case. Maybe I'm missing something. At least I can kind of understand trying to keep him from dropping off the ballot, though I wouldn't complain so much if he did so. Fair point, though, that he's a far worse HoF candidate than Andruw Jones (who is also in no danger of falling off the ballot).
   375. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 21, 2021 at 12:28 PM (#6058214)
New voter Patrick Saunders: Helton/Jones/Ortiz/Rolen/Rollins/Schilling/Sheffield/Wagner. Anti-PED (except for Ortiz and Sheffield?), but I'll take the Rolen and Helton votes at least; those two are both 3/3 with new voters so far.


Saunders covers baseball for the Denver Post, so it would have been shocking if he HADN'T voted for Todd Helton.
   376. DL from MN Posted: December 21, 2021 at 01:12 PM (#6058218)
I'm also trying to understand how Torii Hunter qualifies as a person of such outstanding character that he merits a boost in his middling HoF case.


Did Andruw Jones kick someone's dog?
   377. DL from MN Posted: December 21, 2021 at 01:13 PM (#6058219)
It seems really weird to acknowledge a group of borderline players, then overlook them and vote for some other guys.
   378. Adam Starblind Posted: December 21, 2021 at 01:14 PM (#6058220)
Without defending any particular pick, nor making an original point, it's not the Hall of WAR. If it were (or a Hall of JAWS, etc., etc.), there would hardly be a need for our own Hall of Merit.
   379. JJ1986 Posted: December 21, 2021 at 01:19 PM (#6058221)
I don't want to drag the man, but didn't Hunter make some homophobic statements while he was a player?
   380. cookiedabookie Posted: December 21, 2021 at 01:27 PM (#6058222)
@TR dropping Jones for AJ is insanity
   381. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 21, 2021 at 01:37 PM (#6058225)
Without defending any particular pick, nor making an original point, it's not the Hall of WAR. If it were (or a Hall of JAWS, etc., etc.), there would hardly be a need for our own Hall of Merit.
This is a reasonable point...within reason.
   382. alilisd Posted: December 21, 2021 at 02:25 PM (#6058235)
378. Adam Starblind Posted: December 21, 2021 at 01:14 PM (#6058220) Without defending any particular pick, nor making an original point, it's not the Hall of WAR.


Which is pertinent now how? Hunter over Jones? Teixeira over Helton? Pierzinski over pretty much anyone else? Not seeing your point, original or otherwise.

Edit: Perhaps you would prefer Helton had a vastly superior peak by OPS+ than Texeira and was his equal with the glove?
   383. Baldrick Posted: December 21, 2021 at 02:38 PM (#6058237)
I always enjoy reading TR's ballots, and am thankful that he has posted them here for so long. I often disagree with his selections, but I find them engaging and insightful. And that's especially true this year.

Some of the criticisms of the ballot, on the other hand, manage the impressive feat of being closer to my own substantive point of view while also being far less persuasive.
   384. Karl from NY Posted: December 21, 2021 at 02:54 PM (#6058241)
Regarding relievers, have we thought about leverage at all? I think the most credible argument for inducting relievers is essentially to give them credit for their leverage, and I think that's what the voters are informally or subconsciously doing.

If someone like Wagner had 40 WAR and an average leverage index of 1.5, then he contributed as much to winning games as a starter with 60 WAR and leverage of 1. Whether you want to give a player credit for how the team chooses his playing situations is an arguable question, but I'm actually starting to lean towards yes. Every team has an inventory of high-leverage innings, and if you're the pitcher who is good enough for the team to choose you to assign those, then your contribution did in fact lead to winning that many games.

Another approach would be not to multiply by average leverage, but to break down each of a pitcher's appearances/innings/PA to the leverage index at that moment. I think that's more robust mathematically than average leverage (if cumbersome to calculate)... and I also think that basically becomes isomorphic to WPA, of which I'm also a proponent.
   385. alilisd Posted: December 21, 2021 at 03:46 PM (#6058256)
If someone like Wagner had 40 WAR and an average leverage index of 1.5, then he contributed as much to winning games as a starter with 60 WAR and leverage of 1.


I think there are a couple of problems with this perspective. First, of course, is that Wagner doesn't have 40 WAR, in fact, he has only 28. Second is WAR already incorporates leverage for relievers, which is the only way he even makes it to 28.

Further to my point on Wagner in comment 373, I've looked at a few of his bigger seasons in terms of whether they are cloesr-type appearances or simply reliever-type appearances. In 2003 he had 78 games and 86 IP with 8 games which were plain relief appearances. By that I mean he came in with either a 4 run lead or more, or his team was trailing by at least 2 runs, low leverage situations, not closer situations if you will. In 2005 75 games 77 2/3 IP with 18 plain relieve appearances, and 2006 70 games 72 1/3 with 14 plain relief appearances. That works out to 17% of his IP in those seasons as just simple relief work, same as anyone else in the bullpen. Then consider he really wasn't a closer for 1995, 1996, and 2009, so his career IP as a closer is more like 808 than even 903, and 17%, roughly, of those 808 IP are just plain relief appearances. Boy, you better be one helluva pitcher to be worthy of a HOF vote on fewer than 700 high leverage IP.
   386. The Duke Posted: December 21, 2021 at 04:51 PM (#6058259)
AJ gets a vote!!! Thanks to TR for making my mock ballot more palatable. He really does have quite a career. If we are going to seriously consider guys like Billy Wagner then AJ is a valid choice on the other end of the spectrum. 2000 hits as a catcher, top 10 all-time in games played and a World Series appearance.
   387. The Duke Posted: December 21, 2021 at 05:02 PM (#6058261)
The one inning reliever thing leading to a Hall vote is crazy. I was much more in tune with gossage and fingers. Even Lee smith threw multiple innings in the early days.

You can see how silly this is in todays game. Each team has multiple one inning relievers. Most are interchangeable. The Cardinals had five guys they used in the 7th-9th this year. Cabrera, Garcia, McFarland, Gallegos and Reyes. Reyes got the bulk of the “saves”. One could easily argue he was our least effective pitcher. Without a doubt Gallegos was the best.

Does they mean if Reyes keeps delivering 30 saves a year for 12 more years he should be a HOFr? It’s crazy but if he builds up the magic save total he’ll be in the discussion.

If you were drafting a team off this hall of fame list would you choose mark Buerhle or billy Wagner if you had to choose one or the other on your first pick?
   388. DL from MN Posted: December 21, 2021 at 05:10 PM (#6058262)
It is especially silly to keep passing over starters for relievers when we have seen that pretty much any 4th starter can become a closer.
   389. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 21, 2021 at 05:11 PM (#6058263)
Without defending any particular pick, nor making an original point, it's not the Hall of WAR.


Hey, I'm all for this position, however choosing Hunter over Jones makes no sense. Sure, Hunter was/is appears to be a really good guy and definitely belongs in the HOVG, but Jones is arguably the greatest fielding CF(outfielder by default) ever. If that type of narrative doesn't assist someone's case, then I'm not sure what you mean by narrative.

I'm happy to look at guys like Nettles(amazing fielder, good hitting stats) or Buehrle(great fielder, insanely good at controlling the running game, a no-no AND a perfecto, etc, along with being a darn good pitcher(yes, much better value then any reliever) and give them a nudge for induction on my PHOF ballot, but I just can't see how Hunter's narrative is more persuasive then the guy who has some of the most insanely great fielding stats ever. Heck I'd be inclined to look at a guy like Belanger if he hadn't been so poor with the bat.
   390. alilisd Posted: December 21, 2021 at 05:30 PM (#6058267)
Heck I'd be inclined to look at a guy like Belanger if he hadn't been so poor with the bat.


It occurred to me the other day that Belanger is the guy voters think they are voting for when they vote for Vizquel. Belanger was an all time great glove at SS with no stick, Vizquel was just a great SS with no stick.
   391. alilisd Posted: December 21, 2021 at 05:32 PM (#6058268)
If you were drafting a team off this hall of fame list would you choose mark Buerhle or billy Wagner if you had to choose one or the other on your first pick?


Would be great to be able to get some writers to do this. Here is this year's ballot, now list the players in the order you would draft them if you were building a team. I would love to see the results of that exercise!
   392. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 21, 2021 at 05:49 PM (#6058271)
If you were drafting a team off this hall of fame list would you choose mark Buerhle or billy Wagner if you had to choose one or the other on your first pick?


If you are building a team and you need some pitching, surely you are choosing Tiant, Reuschel, Stieb, Pettite and Buerhle(or any other 5 HOVG starters) before you pick a reliever.
That starting 5 is going to give me 1150-1200 innings. I can then let the Rays scouting department choose another 6-7 pitchers to get through the last 300+ innings and my team is winning 100 games per year.
   393. Baseballs Most Beloved Figure Posted: December 21, 2021 at 06:02 PM (#6058274)
The one inning reliever thing leading to a Hall vote is crazy.

Posnanski pointed out the following years ago and it is the definitive answer for why I don't think relievers belong in the HOF.

Winning % by decade for teams with a lead at the start of the 9th inning:

1950s: .948
1960s: .946
1970s: .948
1980s: .951
1990s: .949
2000s: .954
2010s: .952
   394. SoSH U at work Posted: December 21, 2021 at 06:07 PM (#6058277)
It occurred to me the other day that Belanger is the guy voters think they are voting for when they vote for Vizquel. Belanger was an all time great glove at SS with no stick, Vizquel was just a great SS with no stick.


That's not quite accurate. Vizquel hit like a typical shortstop. Belanger hit like a good-hitting pitcher.

   395. TJ Posted: December 21, 2021 at 06:30 PM (#6058280)
That's not quite accurate. Vizquel hit like a typical shortstop. Belanger hit like a good-hitting pitcher.


C'mon, SoSH, be fair to Belanger- there were some seasons he hit like a great-hitting pitcher!
   396. DL from MN Posted: December 21, 2021 at 06:31 PM (#6058281)
If you are building a team and you need some pitching, surely you are choosing Tiant, Reuschel, Stieb, Pettite and Buerhle(or any other 5 HOVG starters) before you pick a reliever.


I'd pick Boomer Wells, Jamie Moyer, Dennis Martinez or Mark Langston before I picked Wagner.
   397. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 21, 2021 at 06:32 PM (#6058282)
That's not quite accurate. Vizquel hit like a typical shortstop. Belanger hit like a good-hitting pitcher.


Yep, but Belanger's fielding was otherworldly and still nearly accumulated as much WAR as the over 2-decade playing Vizquel. Neither is a HOFer but if I had to choose, I'd probably go with Mark as his fielding is notable(and backed up by the stats) whereas Omar looked nice, and had some really good seasons with the glove, but well, he "was no Mark Belanger with the leather!"

There's your narrative, right there.
   398. reech Posted: December 21, 2021 at 06:36 PM (#6058284)
If yer gonna get in as a "specialist"...and I include DHs as that as well as relievers, you better gave a very compelling narrative (ie Mariano saves plus post season), Papi (post season,).

I see none of that with Wagner.
   399. cardsfanboy Posted: December 21, 2021 at 06:38 PM (#6058286)
Which is pertinent now how? Hunter over Jones? Teixeira over Helton? Pierzinski over pretty much anyone else? Not seeing your point, original or otherwise.


Is it actually "over"? He voted for 10, and, once again, there is no rule about ranking them. If he feels this guy deserves a hof vote, and he uses all ten spots, it's really hard to pass blame on it, if the ballot is generally solid and consistent with his past voting.

   400. kcgard2 Posted: December 21, 2021 at 06:54 PM (#6058289)
If he feels this guy deserves a hof vote, and he uses all ten spots, it's really hard to pass blame on it

Does he really feel that AJ *deserves* a HOF vote? He gives a whole paragraph describing various feelings about Pierzynski, and it's hard to pick out much of anything from those thoughts that represents a reason to vote for him. He never felt like a HOFer to me or to any other beat writer, people in the game disliked him. He was Yadier Molina with the bat (in other words, nothing special, and also, generous to Pierzynski in itself) and not in the same world defensively - again that's not positing a decent reason to vote for him. But his fieriness, deviousness, and intelligence are "strangely irresistible."
Page 4 of 12 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(3735 - 9:38am, Jul 02)
Last: Gaelan

NewsblogNationals burned by quirky 'fourth-out rule' as Pirates score despite lining into inning-ending double play
(58 - 9:36am, Jul 02)
Last: John DiFool2

NewsblogIndependence Day Weekend OMNICHATTER, for July 1-4, 2022
(16 - 9:34am, Jul 02)
Last: Dillon Gee Escape Plan

NewsblogYankees looking for OF help with Aaron Hicks, Joey Gallo struggling
(14 - 7:28am, Jul 02)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogOutfielder Austin Hays becomes sixth player in Baltimore Orioles history to hit for cycle
(3 - 2:04am, Jul 02)
Last: FernandoPoplar

NewsblogWhy Juan Soto’s Reported Extension Offer Is Not As Outlandish As It Might Seem
(20 - 11:54pm, Jul 01)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogWhen do the Tigers and Royals have to admit that 'rebuilding' has turned into plain old losing?
(22 - 9:37pm, Jul 01)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRanking the home uniforms of all 30 MLB teams
(24 - 9:29pm, Jul 01)
Last: Joey Joe Joe Junior Felix Jose Cruz Junior

Sox TherapyHey Now
(15 - 9:06pm, Jul 01)
Last: Jose is Absurdly Correct but not Helpful

NewsblogBoston media explodes after Red Sox blow it without unvaccinated closer Houck
(91 - 7:53pm, Jul 01)
Last: Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant

NewsblogRob Manfred wants you to know: He doesn't hate baseball, he wants to save it
(46 - 7:35pm, Jul 01)
Last: Doug Jones threw harder than me

Sox TherapyNow That's A Road Trip
(46 - 7:15pm, Jul 01)
Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for Thursday, June 30, 2022
(16 - 4:47pm, Jul 01)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogFrustrated Mike Trout Spots His Own Pitcher Tipping Pitches While Standing in Center Field
(56 - 1:54pm, Jul 01)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

NewsblogSt. Pete mayor reopens talks on future of Rays stadium site
(7 - 11:02am, Jul 01)
Last: Lassus

Page rendered in 1.0752 seconds
46 querie(s) executed