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 6 of 12 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
   501. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: December 24, 2021 at 08:52 PM (#6058612)
Flip
   502. The Duke Posted: December 26, 2021 at 09:57 AM (#6058662)
Bonds and Clemens get another switcher in their 10th year. Perhaps they will get closer than I thought in their 10th and final
   503. TJ Posted: December 26, 2021 at 10:55 AM (#6058666)
My question list from another thread after 60+ ballots…

1. Has Curt Schilling kept his name out of the headlines and his big trap shut enough the past year to gain the 4% he needs to get in? (Update- not showing this yet, according to the Tracker- he’s down 4 votes).
2. Do enough voters think Bonds and Clemens have spent enough years in the steroid penalty box to let them in on their last ballot? (One vote gain for Bonds so far, two vote gain for Clemens. Gonna be close…)
3. Do Ortiz and A-Rod replace Bonds and Clemens in the steroid sin bin? Does only A-Rod land there with Big Papi debuting over 50%? (A-Rod looks like he is destined for the box s the comments from voters so far are as bad as his vote total. Ortiz is still hanging around 75%…)
4. How much support does Omar Vizquel lose after his Neanderthal behavior? (Having lost over 20 votes already, the question now is does Vizquel even get 5% and stay on the ballot…)
5. Who keeps building significantly on past gains? Rolen? Helton? Sheffield? Others? (So far Rolen is the only one making noticeable progress…).
6. Who falls off the ballot this time round from last year aside from those who time out at ten years? (Hudson, Hunter, Buehrle have lost a vote, Abreu is holding steady).
7. Which newcomers besides Ortiz and A-Rod make it above the 5% mark? (So far Rollins is the only one making a push.)
8. Does either new closer nominee make it over 5%? (Papelbon and Nathan have one vote each.)
9. Does anyone get shut out? (AJ got a vote! So far Crawford, Fielder, Peavy and Moreau are the only shutout victims…)
   504. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 26, 2021 at 11:15 AM (#6058667)
9. Does anyone get shut out? (AJ got a vote! So far Crawford, Fielder, Peavy and Moreau are the only shutout victims…)

Missed this one when it came out - Ian Harrison voted for both Joe Nathan and Jonathan Papelbon, and dropped Buehrle and Hudson to make room. (Apart from that, Abreu-Helton-Jones-Kent-Ortiz-Rolen-Schilling, plus of course Wagner.)
   505. alilisd Posted: December 26, 2021 at 01:30 PM (#6058676)
Ian Harrison is the sort of ballot which is entirely abhorrent, and yet at least internally consistent, the latter of which is so frequently missing in bizarre ballots. He's been voting for Wagner, so he votes for Nathan and Papelbon. None of whom are deserving, but neither can you distinguish from them on any sort of reasonable basis.
   506. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 26, 2021 at 01:35 PM (#6058678)
Apart from the closers, it's a perfectly reasonable anti-PED big-Hall ballot. Just... the closers.

(And yes, I can appreciate the internal consistency on some level, just not a level that will be pleased if Buehrle/Hudson miss 5% by one vote.)
   507. Jaack Posted: December 26, 2021 at 02:06 PM (#6058679)
I could even see some logical twists into supporting the reliever trio if you go like full in on peak value for pitchers. Hudson and Buehrle got about 1 bWAR per 55 innings pitched. The closer trio got 1 bWAR every 30-35 innings pitched. Schilling for reference is at 1 bWAR for every 41 innings. Now there are a whole host of reasons this is not a good way to evaluate players. But I can't say it's totally, entirely invalid.


It's at least as good as any logic used to vote for Vizquel.
   508. CFBF is Obsessed with Art Deco Posted: December 26, 2021 at 02:29 PM (#6058682)
New ballot from Steve Simmons at the Toronto Sun: Sheffield, Schilling and Jones.

That's...unique.
   509. alilisd Posted: December 26, 2021 at 04:04 PM (#6058688)
506. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 26, 2021 at 01:35 PM (#6058678)
Apart from the closers, it's a perfectly reasonable anti-PED big-Hall ballot.


No, it's entirely abhorrent :-)
   510. Walt Davis Posted: December 26, 2021 at 04:33 PM (#6058691)
Still a small sample of course but things looking OK for for Ortiz. Five of 47 B/C voters** have not listed him while 9 of 15 non-B/C voters have. The current guesstimate based on those rates puts him about 78%.

2. Do enough voters think Bonds and Clemens have spent enough years in the steroid penalty box to let them in on their last ballot? (One vote gain for Bonds so far, two vote gain for Clemens. Gonna be close…)

Can't rule it out yet but it's doesn't look that close. They've converted 2 of 15, they need to convert about 1 of 3. So already 3 votes off the pace after about 10% of the non-B/C vote from last year.

** They each have just 46 but there's one B/~C and one ~B/C that I include.
   511. TJ Posted: December 26, 2021 at 06:02 PM (#6058698)
Re Bonds and Clemens…

I can see two pools of voters that they could draw enough votes from to make it interesting:

1. First time voters- B/C did well with that group last year, and I expect they will do so again this year. The question is “How many first time voters join the pool this year?”, and we don’t know the answer to that one yet.

2. Private voters who think they have served their 10-year penalty- Since private voters don’t reveal their names or rationale, there may be some who switch to a “yes” vote for B/C feeling they have served their sentence and not have to deal with any public backlash for changing their vote.

If there are a significant number of votes for B/C from those pools, then it may come down to “how many voters from last year aren’t voting this year due to death or losing the ballot and how did they vote regarding B/C” and “how many blank ballots get submitted.” While these numbers will undoubtedly be marginal, in a close race the margins matter.

In any case, it’s going to be fun and interesting to follow the numbers!
   512. Moeball Posted: December 26, 2021 at 06:38 PM (#6058700)
As I have maintained for several years, there will be no steroid "penalty box" for Ortiz. If he doesn't get in this time he will soon afterwards.

Yes, he tested positive for steroids in 2003. No, the writers don't care one bit because their attitude on steroids has NEVER been about actual steroid usage, it has been about whether they like the player or not. It would be difficult to find a bigger bunch of hypocrits than the BBWAA. They get paid to write about baseball and, hopefully, know more about the game than most fans. Unfortunately, they don't.

Big Papi was one of the most popular players ever with the writers and he gave them fantastic postseason narratives. He's an easy YES on their ballots despite a modest 20 WAA career.

Guys like Bonds, Clemens, etc. don't fit what the BBWAA is looking for. They will wait for a long time, even once they are beyond BBWAA balloting.
   513. The Duke Posted: December 26, 2021 at 07:03 PM (#6058701)
I’ve been paying more attention to the writers’ choices (and their commentary) over the last few years. They are good at the small hall choices. They seem to have a blind spot for relievers - I’ll be the first to admit I used to feel that way too but no more. I’m surprised more voters haven’t gotten buyers remorse on them. The character clause issues now seem to dominate a lot of discussion. There’s a lot of personal stuff in the votes. I keep coming back to Saxon dropping Rolen for no reason. At first I thought it was a drop for no reason but now I think he only voted for him previously because he was a cardinals beat writer and just decided not to make life hard for himself. Now he can vote the way he wants. Either way it’s bad.

Simmons in Toronto votes for schilling Sheffield and Wagner, slags off everyone else for PEDs and then says he wishes Carlos Delgado and Fred McGriff were there to vote for. In what world are mcgriff and Delgado better than the non-PED guys he left off other being Blue Jays. Blatant homerism. The list goes on.

People don’t like the vets committees but the more recent vintage seems to be ok given they are choosing from a tougher list

I wonder if the structure of the writers vote wouldn’t be better if there was some split between writers, mgmt/ex-players, fans. I’m just not impressed by the logic used by most writers.

   514. Jaack Posted: December 26, 2021 at 08:04 PM (#6058706)
The writers aren't great at selection. But I don't think anyone else is better.

Fans? Fans votes aren't any better than the writers. If we say 10% of the writers are completely nuts, that number is at least 20% for fans. Here is reddit's results from last year. That's mildly better than the writers results, but the end result was the same - no one got in. And since it's reddit, I'm assuming it skews younger and more saber-aware than the average fan. Even here are BBTF, where we probably have a more Hall of Fame intellegent community than just about anywhere, we only have real consensus on Bonds, Clemens, and Rolen of the guys on the ballot. Any actual fan vote would inevitably end up like the All-Star game - completely disconnected from reality. You'd probably end up with less guys dropping off the bottom, but fewer guys getting over the top.

Ex-Players? Here's where they are this year. Is that substantially better than the writers? Bonds and Clemens are over the line, but Rolen is doing a lot worse. And Justin Morneau got a vote from a guy who wasn't even his teammate!

The problem is, inevitibly, the stupidest 15% of any group is really, really stupid. And when you need 75% of the vote to get elected, that 15% is really powerful. For the writers, the stupidest group was purged somewhat a while ago. Requiring public ballots would help a bit too - the most ridiculous ballots seem to be clustered among the non-public ballots, so required disclosure would either purge those voters or make them be less dumb.
   515. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 26, 2021 at 09:31 PM (#6058711)
Even here are BBTF, where we probably have a more Hall of Fame intellegent community than just about anywhere,


And yet people on this site still support relief pitchers over actual really valuable starters like Hudson, Buehrle et al. I find the whole thing bonkers.

I understand people leaving out A-rod and Manny as they actually got caught. I understand people leaving out Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield, Sosa, Papi and the steroid taint guys. Schilling asked not be included and Omar was never qualified.

But this voting for pitchers who provided less than half the value of a really good starter is just inane.
   516. Walt Davis Posted: December 26, 2021 at 09:49 PM (#6058714)
1. First time voters- B/C did well with that group last year, and I expect they will do so again this year. The question is “How many first time voters join the pool this year?”, and we don’t know the answer to that one yet.

True we don't know this year's number yet but we can use Ryan's database to give us a good guess. Over the last 4 years, there have been 48 first-time voters so 12 a year. Last year it was a high 16. But the problem is it can't matter very much unless it's a massive number of new voters. They need at least 75% of the new voters just to break even so either 9 of 12 or 12 of 16. That means the max number of extra votes they can get from newbies is 3 to 4 votes ... except those are adding to the denominator as well.

2. Private voters who think they have served their 10-year penalty- Since private voters don’t reveal their names or rationale, there may be some who switch to a “yes” vote for B/C feeling they have served their sentence and not have to deal with any public backlash for changing their vote.

I can't see any reason to think that private voters will have a massively larger last-second rush than the regular non-B/C voters. We're talking 68 voters -- nearly all the votes are revealed when the BBWAA publishes its results -- and Ryan apparently gets about 1/3 of their ballots anyway. About 43% of those voters supported them last year, why would over half the guys who didn't vote for them before suddenly change their minds -- what is it about privacy that would lead us to think that would happen? I can't see anything.

Bonds and Clemens have never finished above 75% in Ryan's pre-announcement tally -- they came close last year and are around 74% right now. They have tallied 20-25 percentage points lower than that on the post-announcement public tally and about another 10 percentage points below that on the private tally. For them to cross the 75% line, you need a pretty massive changing of mind among those latter two groups -- the groups of voters who have supported them at something below 50%, some voting against them 9 times, are now going to support them at 75%?

We've seen substantial growth for them only twice -- 2016 after the purge because support among the purged voters was very low and because there were 14 known cases of changed votes. The big move it turns out was 2017 when 27 voters changed their minds. One posibility is the election of Piazza and coming election of Bagwell along with growth in B/C support convinced some voters that the trend was towards forgiveness. Whatever the reason, any momentum fizzled after that and the net +/- over the last 4 years is just +9 votes. So over the last 6 ballots, including the two where we've seen the biggest movement in their direction, totals +50 votes (known). They need to do that in one year.
   517. Jaack Posted: December 26, 2021 at 10:02 PM (#6058715)
And yet people on this site still support relief pitchers over actual really valuable starters like Hudson, Buehrle et al. I find the whole thing bonkers.

I understand people leaving out A-rod and Manny as they actually got caught. I understand people leaving out Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield, Sosa, Papi and the steroid taint guys. Schilling asked not be included and Omar was never qualified.

But this voting for pitchers who provided less than half the value of a really good starter is just inane.


It's not as if Wagner got that much support - in the election we did, he got 12% of the vote - better than anyone without a prayer, but behind all of the legitimate candidates, including Hudson and Buehrle.

I myself don't exactly support Wagner, but I'm not exactly opposed. Pretty much every similar player to Wagner has been inducted and pure contextual evaluations (WPA and RE24) put him in about the same range of Buehrle (Hudson comes out a bit better than either). That's not a good Hall of Fame case, mind you. But one I can be sympathetic towards.
   518. The Duke Posted: December 26, 2021 at 10:11 PM (#6058716)
514. Thanks for those links. The lack of love for Rolen from the players is quite interesting. It does make one wonder whether guys like Rolen and Helton are getting more air time simply because a significant minority don’t want the PED guys in. Maybe that explains why Ortiz is doing so well. Writers want to put someone in and Rolen and Helton aren’t getting the votes.
   519. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 26, 2021 at 10:35 PM (#6058719)
And yet people on this site still support relief pitchers over actual really valuable starters like Hudson, Buehrle et al. I find the whole thing bonkers.

I mean, not very many people around here do that as far as I've seen. Even a stats-heavy group like this is not a uniformly-opinionated hive mind. But as noted, Hudson, Buehrle, and Pettitte all outpolled Wagner in our mock Hall vote this year, despite none of the three being slam-dunk candidates. The same was true last year, and for Pettitte two years ago (the others weren't on the ballot yet). And Wagner is about as good a non-Rivera reliever as you can find in the last 30-plus years.
   520. Jaack Posted: December 26, 2021 at 11:57 PM (#6058720)
514. Thanks for those links. The lack of love for Rolen from the players is quite interesting. It does make one wonder whether guys like Rolen and Helton are getting more air time simply because a significant minority don’t want the PED guys in. Maybe that explains why Ortiz is doing so well. Writers want to put someone in and Rolen and Helton aren’t getting the votes.


I do think there is a desire to put players in, and I think most writers at least see Helton and Rolen as close to the line to begin with, if not over. And then there is an element of peer pressure, that is probably beneficial, at least as far as the writers go. Your typical beat guy in Baltimore might not initially think of Todd Helton as a Hall of Famer - he rarely saw him, and none of the guys he talked to would ever be commenting there. A cursory look at his numbers might not immediately impress, so he writes Helton off.

But if the beat guy in Baltimore sees that Jayson Stark and Joe Posnanski are beating the drum for Helton, they'll take notice. Or if he doesn't read them, one of his colleagues does.

I think that's why you saw guys like Mussina and Edgar make regular gains. It's the prominent opinions proliferating down the electorate to the local guys, who really hadn't given Rolen or Helton or whoever much thought either way. Luckily, the biggest national names that care a lot about the Hall of Fame are pretty smart, so we don't see big pushes for the likes of Justin Morneau or whoever.
   521. John Northey Posted: December 27, 2021 at 12:18 AM (#6058721)
That player vote is interesting - not much anger towards PED guys there, where you'd expect them to be most offended by it if they were clean. With 83% for Bonds & Clemens, Ortiz at 66%, ManRam 53.2%, Sosa 51.1%, Sheffield 51.1%, A-Rod 42.6%. Of course, when they had HOF'ers vote for the vets it was a disaster as they wouldn't put anyone in, but it seems general players are more likely to be OK with putting guys in.

It would be interesting for the Hall to run a double vote - one for BBWAA and one for ex-players. Anyone who cracks 75% on either list gets in. I'd like that. Then see writers complain that players don't know what they are doing when they put PED guys in :)
   522. TJ Posted: December 27, 2021 at 08:20 AM (#6058723)
Speaking as a museum professional, the HOF induction process is both archaic and amateurish. Adding inductees is the same as adding items to their collection, and the current induction process is analogous to letting people who have been members of your museum for X number of years vote on whether to acquire a particular artifact. That said, the process works for those who run the Hall, for those doing the voting, for the the casual fan, and only bothers hardcore fans like those who post here. The HOF has never been a paragon of museum professionalism, so don’t expect any substantive changes in the voting process unless fans get so annoyed that they quit paying attention and stop showing up for induction weekend.

I think Jaack raises a good point about the influence of respected voters on some of their BBWAA brethren. In a more professional system, every voting member would be as committed and knowledgeable as the best, open-minded to dissenting views, and respectful of the input of the fans and of each other. But creating a system of that quality would require time, effort, and financial support from the Hall, and that ain’t coming. Until it does, we will continue to gripe about an inefficient process that works despite itself.

   523. LargeBill Posted: December 27, 2021 at 09:47 AM (#6058725)
511. TJ Posted: December 26, 2021 at 06:02 PM (#6058698)
Re Bonds and Clemens…

I can see two pools of voters that they could draw enough votes from to make it interesting:

1. First time voters- B/C did well with that group last year, and I expect they will do so again this year. The question is “How many first time voters join the pool this year?”, and we don’t know the answer to that one yet.


The other side of that coin (first time voters) is who has been removed from the voting pool? Not to be morbid, but four voters passed away since last election. Did any of them vote B/C? And how many others lost eligibility to vote, and were they B/C voters.
   524. sotapop Posted: December 27, 2021 at 10:16 AM (#6058727)
But if the beat guy in Baltimore sees that Jayson Stark and Joe Posnanski are beating the drum for Helton, they'll take notice. ... It's the prominent opinions proliferating down the electorate to the local guys, who really hadn't given Rolen or Helton or whoever much thought either way.


I wasn't a sportswriter but I worked with two guys (now retired) who were BBWAA voters-- one of them prominent and influential, and one a low-level guy-- and I think this is spot-on. Both talked about how their colleagues were voting and how they paid attention.
   525. SoSH U at work Posted: December 27, 2021 at 10:23 AM (#6058728)
I do think there is a desire to put players in, and I think most writers at least see Helton and Rolen as close to the line to begin with, if not over. And then there is an element of peer pressure, that is probably beneficial, at least as far as the writers go. Your typical beat guy in Baltimore might not initially think of Todd Helton as a Hall of Famer - he rarely saw him, and none of the guys he talked to would ever be commenting there. A cursory look at his numbers might not immediately impress, so he writes Helton off.

But if the beat guy in Baltimore sees that Jayson Stark and Joe Posnanski are beating the drum for Helton, they'll take notice. Or if he doesn't read them, one of his colleagues does.

I think that's why you saw guys like Mussina and Edgar make regular gains. It's the prominent opinions proliferating down the electorate to the local guys, who really hadn't given Rolen or Helton or whoever much thought either way. me are pretty smart, so we don't see big pushes for the likes of Justin Morneau or whoever.


That's a nicer way of putting it than I've long insisted. I've always said a large percentage of voters are lazy. They vote for the guys who feel like Hall of Famers, the inner circle types, but don't really research the full ballot. Once a player starts gaining momentum, they'll give that borderline guy a better look, or simply hop on board.
   526. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 27, 2021 at 11:40 AM (#6058734)
Rolen has thus far converted 7/26 people who didn't vote for him last year. That would put him on pace to finish around 65-66%, which, with Beltran as the only viable candidate joining next year and a lot of people dropping off, is a nice position to be in.
   527. alilisd Posted: December 27, 2021 at 11:55 AM (#6058736)
Even here are BBTF, where we probably have a more Hall of Fame intellegent community than just about anywhere, we only have real consensus on Bonds, Clemens, and Rolen of the guys on the ballot. Any actual fan vote would inevitably end up like the All-Star game - completely disconnected from reality.


Keep in mind on the former that Bonds and Clemens would have been in first year. The ballot with a BBTF electorate would be vastly different today than the one the BBWA is looking at. On the former I have no doubt you are correct.
   528. alilisd Posted: December 27, 2021 at 12:06 PM (#6058739)
522. TJ Posted: December 27, 2021 at 08:20 AM (#6058723) Speaking as a museum professional, the HOF induction process is both archaic and amateurish.


Yes, the ownership of the HOF has no desire to become embroiled in anything which would make them the target of angry fans, IOW customers. So they sit back and let the writers flounder with the whole PED era and its fallout. They offer no guidance on how to consider players who may have used, who did use, who were suspended for use. MLB and the MLBPA are responsible for the whole era as they couldn't get together on a ban with testing to enforce it until far too late, the HOF refuses to give any guidance on voting for players of the era, and the writers are left holding the terrible smelling bag. It is something I sympathize with the writers on, even though I think they could have done a much better job than they've done.
   529. alilisd Posted: December 27, 2021 at 12:09 PM (#6058740)
That's a nicer way of putting it than I've long insisted. I've always said a large percentage of voters are lazy. They vote for the guys who feel like Hall of Famers, the inner circle types, but don't really research the full ballot. Once a player starts gaining momentum, they'll give that borderline guy a better look, or simply hop on board.


I think you're absolutely right. But it's also a large enough pool of voters that the other, nicer way of putting it, is also probably true of some voters.
   530. alilisd Posted: December 27, 2021 at 12:21 PM (#6058742)
Wagner has one more vote than Jones right now. I looked at their salaries, not a perfect method of determining how MLB teams valued them relative to one another, but still offers some insight. Wagner signed a free agent contract in 2005 for 5 seasons with a total value of $51 million. Jones was making more than that $10 million average annual value (AAV) in arbitration, and signed a free agent contract in 2007 for 3 seasons and total value of $58.7 million, nearly twice as much in AAV as Wagner's contract.
   531. SoSH U at work Posted: December 27, 2021 at 12:29 PM (#6058743)
528 is spot on.
   532. TJ Posted: December 27, 2021 at 12:38 PM (#6058745)
Even here are BBTF, where we probably have a more Hall of Fame intellegent community than just about anywhere, we only have real consensus on Bonds, Clemens, and Rolen of the guys on the ballot. Any actual fan vote would inevitably end up like the All-Star game - completely disconnected from reality.


The 75% bar is one part of the process that actually works. It sets an attainable level of consensus far enough above a mere plurality to make induction challenging without making it so high that near-unanimous consensus is required. As far a fan vote, that could turn Cooperstown into the “Hall of Popularity”, and no serious fan wants to see David Eckstein or Rajah Davis getting a plaque. Not to say that fan opinion should be ignored- voters should be open to listening to and respecting the voice of the fan. I think HOF voters should actively seek out input from fans and researchers who do not have the vote. HOF voters should represent both the Hall and those who love the game. As Edmund Burke said, a representative owes those they represent both their industry and their judgment…
   533. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 27, 2021 at 01:11 PM (#6058746)
and signed a free agent contract in 2007 for 3 seasons and total value of $58.7 million


The Dodgers signed Jones for 2 years, $36.2m. They later made a deal for the Dodgers to release Jones in exchange for getting to defer some of the money, but that didn't increase the total amount of the deal.
   534. DL from MN Posted: December 27, 2021 at 01:22 PM (#6058747)
The ballot with a BBTF electorate would be vastly different today than the one the BBWA is looking at.


Correct. We've already elected Bonds, Clemens, Rolen, Helton, Manny and Schilling. This year we elected Sheffield but not A-Rod, though A-Rod finished ahead of Schilling, Helton and Manny. David Ortiz had 62% support in 9th place.
   535. The Duke Posted: December 27, 2021 at 01:27 PM (#6058748)
There are some useful markers as guides other than pure stats. Salaries in relation to their time is a probably highly correlated. Lexus-nexis hits during their active playing days compared to others. From my youth the very best determinate was your Topps card number. I think they stopped doing it but for a long time the best players got 100, 200, 300 etc. then 150, 250, 350 then all the zero cards 110, 120, 130 etc. then fives 105, 115, 125.

I’m sure if someone did some math around these the hall of famers would likely stick out
   536. DL from MN Posted: December 27, 2021 at 01:31 PM (#6058749)
The 75% bar is one part of the process that actually works.


Would the membership be any different if that bar was 66%? I can't find a place that lists the highest percentage attained for players who weren't inducted. Gil Hodges was one that stood out but he's in now after he died.
   537. John Northey Posted: December 27, 2021 at 01:39 PM (#6058750)
For relievers a quick and dirty way of checking how much value teams put on them is to look at contracts. Cot's has the top 135 annual salaries all-time and it goes down to $17,666,667 (below a QO today). Liam Hendriks is at $18 mil (tied for 118th), or less than what Derek Jeter signed for in 2001. I don't see any relievers on the top list for total contract (goes down to $90 million - 119 players). Sportrac has a different accounting system, and has the biggest at $18 mil for Chapman or just under a QO.

Clearly MLB teams do not see relievers, even the best of the best, as being close in value to starters or everyday players. Not even half as valuable.
   538. Adam Starblind Posted: December 27, 2021 at 01:46 PM (#6058751)
That should really factor into who makes the Hall of Value.
   539. SoSH U at work Posted: December 27, 2021 at 02:02 PM (#6058752)
Would the membership be any different if that bar was 66%?


Well, Schilling in a few months. Possibly Bonds and Clemens too, but I doubt it.

But it's also hard to say what effect a 66 percent threshold could have. With that, Jack Morris is inducted in 2012, which opens up ballot spots both during his final two years while he's there and on the Vet's Committee. Does that help someone else build momentum, or is someone else elected by his Vet's group?

Additionally, would the perception of guys who are on the cusp change, which results in speeding the process for players once they hit 50 percent?

My guess is the Hall does look differently at 66 percent, not just because it meant Jim Bunning got to enjoy an extra decade as a Hall of Famer.
   540. John Northey Posted: December 27, 2021 at 02:31 PM (#6058753)
Before last year the last time no one got in was 2013, and before that 1996. The 1996 ballot had 8 of the top 10 eventually get in (missing Steve Garvey and Tommy John), and 2 more who got in via vets later on (Joe Torre and Minnie Minoso. So no shortage of good candidates. 2013 had the top 6 eventually get in and 9 of the top 12 (missing Schilling, Bonds, and Clemens. 2013 also has strong potentials in McGwire, McGriff, Dale Murphy, Sammy Sosa, and Rafael Palmeiro. Not to mention guys who didn't get 5% in Kenny Lofton (68 WAR), David Wells (239 wins). 4 guys with 500+ HR's, 2 with 3000+ hits (one with both), a 300 game winner, 3 more with 200+ (Morris, Wells, Schilling), a guy with 478 saves (Lee Smith). This was a VERY deep HOF class. But 4 years earlier pretty much the same voters put Jim Rice in (47.7 WAR). Sigh.

Shifting to at least 1 in every year wouldn't lower the standards one iota. It just would've got Phil Neikro and Craig Biggio in a year quicker. A 66.7% requirement (2/3rd's vs 3/4's) since 2000 would've changed nothing massively. Just got...
1 year ealier than otherwise: Gary Carter, Bruce Sutter, Goose Gossage, Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Roberto Alomar, Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Vlad Guerrero Sr, Edgar Martinez
2 years ealier: Biggio, Trevor Hoffman
Writers instead of vets: Jack Morris
In vs Out: Curt Schilling last year - safe to say he'll get in someday.

50% + 1 might be a bridge too far though. Taking one year - 2017 - 3 got in, but you'd also have Hoffman, Vlad Sr, Edgar Martinez, Clemens, Bonds, and Mussina all going in. All should be in someday but boy would that be a crowded podium. 2021's shutout would've seen 4 guys over 50 (Schilling, Bonds, Clemens, Rolen) with Vizquel extremely close.
   541. John Northey Posted: December 27, 2021 at 02:41 PM (#6058754)
Just did a Lahman database check for 50%+ all-time. Guys who made 50% and didn't get in...
Gil Hodges (just put in via Vets), Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Curt Schilling, Lee Smith (Vets), Omar Vizquel. That's it. I don't see that as a big issue. Sadly I am certain Vizquel will sneak in someday.

Knock it down to 40% and you add in...
Tony Oliva (just added by Vets), Roger Maris, Steve Garvey, Maury Wills, Marty Marion

A clear cut in quality when you shift to a 40% standard.

Any further and the quality drops further of course.
   542. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: December 27, 2021 at 02:43 PM (#6058755)
there will be no steroid "penalty box" for Ortiz. If he doesn't get in this time he will soon afterwards. Yes, he tested positive for steroids in 2003


Once again, as per statements which have been repeated here earlier, Ortiz did not definitely test for anything. He was not named in the Mitchell report, he was on a list of names which was released for which some (but not all) of those on the list tested positive for something.
   543. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 27, 2021 at 03:32 PM (#6058758)
541. John Northey Posted: December 27, 2021 at 02:41 PM (#6058754)
Just did a Lahman database check for 50%+ all-time. Guys who made 50% and didn't get in...
Gil Hodges (just put in via Vets), Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Curt Schilling, Lee Smith (Vets), Omar Vizquel. That's it. I don't see that as a big issue. Sadly I am certain Vizquel will sneak in someday.

Knock it down to 40% and you add in...
Tony Oliva (just added by Vets), Roger Maris, Steve Garvey, Maury Wills, Marty Marion


So, if I reading this correctly, is the following statement correct:

The only players in the history of baseball to get at least 40% of the vote in a HOF election, who are not currently on the BBWAA ballot, and have not eventually gotten into the HOF, are Garvey, Wills, Maris, and Marion?

A few notes on them:
- Garvey started at 41%, got to 42% his third year, and then floated downward into low-20s through his 15th year on the ballot. That year he reached his highest %, 1995? He had the 28th-highest career WAR on that ballot!
- Wills started at 30% in his first year, got to 40.6% in his 4th year, and then immediately dropped into the low 20s, staying in the 20s most years until he fell off the ballot after 15 years. In his highest % year, he had the 18th-highest career WAR on the ballot.
- Maris started in the low 20s,generally stayed there, and then in his final few years on the ballot got up into the low 40s. His best finish was his 15th and final year, when he got 43.1% in 1988. That 1988 ballot looks so out of place now - there were a number of candidates getting legitimate numbers of votes for moments, as much as for careers. Don Larsen got 31 votes; Maris got 184 votes; Roy Face got 79 votes. Sparky Lyle got more votes than Dick Allen.
- Marion got above 33% exactly one time - when he got exactly 40% one time, in 1970. Another ballot that bears no resemblance to today - Johnny Vander Meer, who finished 119-121 in his career, but had consecutive no-hitters, got 29% of the vote. Is there anybody in recent times that people 50 years from now will look back at and be like, "How the #### did that person get so much support?!"

So it looks like the highest percentage a past candidate ever received on a BBWAA ballot that did not eventually get in was Roger Maris, when he got 43.1% in 1988. Then Garvey, then Wills, then Marion.
   544. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 27, 2021 at 03:42 PM (#6058759)
Roy Face got 79 votes
F*** that guy.
   545. The Duke Posted: December 27, 2021 at 03:54 PM (#6058760)
Garvey will likely get in via the vets - hard to argue the Fame part with him. Marion - too late for him. His sabr-profile is a hoot. He won an MVP! For a guy with a career OPS+ of 82, he put up 31 WAR in 11 seasons. He was Omar Vizquel before Omar Vizquel. I’m surprised Maris keeps getting chances but an asterisk will do that for you.
   546. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 27, 2021 at 04:09 PM (#6058761)
Speaking of Maris...if you are a 25-year-old sports fan, it must seem pretty foreign that the country could get so wrapped up in a single-season home run record chase, where every morning you woke up to see if Sosa or McGwire hit a home run, and compare it to Maris's pace 27 years earlier, etc. The romance of that in the moment - I remember reading about it every day in a newspaper on the subway - is completely foreign today. Then you add the steroids part of it...then you add that the biggest stars of the that era aren't even getting into the Hall of Fame...well, it is a different world.

If and when a player threatens to hit 61+ home runs in a season again, how will it be treated? Will "62, done clean" be seen as the record, or will it be "70, but done clean!", or will everybody just sort of act like 70 was the legit record?
   547. Walt Davis Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:23 PM (#6058763)
Umm ... 73 is the record.

Once again, as per statements which have been repeated here earlier, Ortiz did not definitely test for anything. He was not named in the Mitchell report, he was on a list of names which was released for which some (but not all) of those on the list tested positive for something.

Even that's not quite right. The list was never released. We do not _know_ that Ortiz (Sammy, Manny, ARod) was on the list. The NYT reported that at least two ("multiple") people at law firms that had seen the list "confirmed" Ortiz was on the list without having the list in front of them and after an unknown amount of time since they had claimed to see the list. We don't know what other names the various people who saw the list might have remembered being on the list. We don't know how many may have been named by one lawyer but the NYT couldn't find a second lawyer to confirm nor if there were any where the second lawyer specifically denied the player was on the list.

As you note, we don't know what anybody tested positive for. MLB and MLBPA said there were a number of false positives on the list and, how shall I put this, seemed to try to strongly imply Ortiz was one.

EDIT: If memory serves, it might be fair to say that Ortiz, shall I say, seemed to kinda confirm his name was on the list due to a false negative so it's not totally unfair to simplify that as "he was on the list." ARod later confirmed he was on the list. My memory is Sosa never confirmed nor denied but did deny using before Congress ... although there I think he went with "never used anything illegal" or similar which, given what was legal in the DR in those days, is walking a thin line. Mostly people just let Manny keep being Manny until he tested positive later.
   548. alilisd Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:25 PM (#6058764)
The Dodgers signed Jones for 2 years, $36.2m. They later made a deal for the Dodgers to release Jones in exchange for getting to defer some of the money, but that didn't increase the total amount of the deal.


Ah, thanks for that. I was trying to reconstruct just using the tables in B-R. Apologies for the error.
   549. Howie Menckel Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:25 PM (#6058765)
David Ortiz had 62% support in 9th place.

and while there are only a handful of HOM votes posted so far, those nerds over there do not appear to be enamored of The David Ortiz Experience.
   550. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:26 PM (#6058766)
If and when a player threatens to hit 61+ home runs in a season again, how will it be treated? Will "62, done clean" be seen as the record

There was a dress rehearsal for this with Stanton, and the answer seemed to have been "Yes."
   551. alilisd Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:29 PM (#6058768)
538. Adam Starblind Posted: December 27, 2021 at 01:46 PM (#6058751) That should really factor into who makes the Hall of Value.


Bullshit. Teams pay for value, or wins. The players who contribute the most to wins make the most money. It's not a perfect correlation, but it's clearly there and has been since Ruth made more than POTUS. The HOF is about electing the best players, who are the ones who contribute the most to winning on the field. Relievers are nowhere near being HOF level in the vast majority of cases.
   552. Walt Davis Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:29 PM (#6058769)
if you are a 25-year-old sports fan

You are not on BBTF. :-)
   553. The Duke Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:31 PM (#6058770)
It’s weird. I think I would still think hitting 62 cleanly would be the real record. It’s funny that no one wanted Maris to have the babes record and now it’s the same for Sammy, Mac and Bonds.
   554. LargeBill Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:33 PM (#6058771)
546. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 27, 2021 at 04:09 PM (#6058761)
Speaking of Maris...if you are a 25-year-old sports fan, it must seem pretty foreign that the country could get so wrapped up in a single-season home run record chase, where every morning you woke up to see if Sosa or McGwire hit a home run, and compare it to Maris's pace 27 years earlier, etc. The romance of that in the moment - I remember reading about it every day in a newspaper on the subway - is completely foreign today. Then you add the steroids part of it...then you add that the biggest stars of the that era aren't even getting into the Hall of Fame...well, it is a different world.

If and when a player threatens to hit 61+ home runs in a season again, how will it be treated? Will "62, done clean" be seen as the record, or will it be "70, but done clean!", or will everybody just sort of act like 70 was the legit record?


The public reaction will be mixed. Some curmudgeons will insist that 61 and 755 are the true records. However, with the passage of time, they will be a shrinking percentage. Younger fans will accept Bonds' records as the records since they are what happened and what is listed in the record books. Sports writers will work to guide public sentiment, but in time it will be same as those who initially poo-pooed 61 as illegitimate because length of season increased from 154 to 162, their number quickly declined to very few or none.

On the record note, can't help but wonder if Bonds would be doing a lot better in the HOF if his last home run was around 745? His last few homers are insignificant to his overall career, but Hank Aaron was so highly regarded that some of the vote is likely a defense of what some consider the "true record holder."
   555. alilisd Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:34 PM (#6058772)
Is there anybody in recent times that people 50 years from now will look back at and be like, "How the #### did that person get so much support?!"


Billy Wagner, Lee Smith, Jack Morris
   556. DL from MN Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:35 PM (#6058773)
Is there anybody in recent times that people 50 years from now will look back at and be like, "How the #### did that person get so much support?!"


Bruce Sutter

So, switching from a 75% threshold to 66% means people get to enjoy being part of the club a little longer. Sounds like a good reason to make the switch. OTOH - I'd keep the 75% limit for the Era Committees. It is the difference between 11 votes and 12 on a 16 person committee.
   557. alilisd Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:38 PM (#6058774)
I’m surprised Maris keeps getting chances but an asterisk will do that for you.


There's also back-to-back MVP awards, was on 3 WS winning teams, and actually was really good in the WS with St. Louis, multiple AS games, very good RF. But, yeah, it's mostly about 61. Also, bite your tongue on the Garvey remark! ;-)
   558. Jaack Posted: December 27, 2021 at 05:50 PM (#6058776)
On the record note, can't help but wonder if Bonds would be doing a lot better in the HOF if his last home run was around 745? His last few homers are insignificant to his overall career, but Hank Aaron was so highly regarded that some of the vote is likely a defense of what some consider the "true record holder."


I think it was 73 that turned peoples' minds to mush, not 762. The single season record sucked the joy out of the McGwire/Sosa chase, while also not being particularly fun in of itself. THat's what turned the PED-tides more than anything. By 2007, people already though Bonds was illegitimate.

I think if Bonds had hit like 64 in 2001, but made up the difference by being healthier in 2005 or getting IBBed less in 2004, the PED issue would be closer to how it's viewed in the NFL.
   559. John DiFool2 Posted: December 27, 2021 at 07:24 PM (#6058782)
Roy Face got 79 votes

F*** that guy.


But, how do you feel about Dirk Benedict?
   560. The Duke Posted: December 27, 2021 at 07:39 PM (#6058783)
I had to laugh at a comment on Thibs Twitter after ballot 71.

“Many of these ballots make no sense”
   561. The Duke Posted: December 27, 2021 at 07:43 PM (#6058784)
A lot of Andruw Jones activity (4 up and 4 down ). Makes me think he will do better when the ballot clears.
   562. bachslunch Posted: December 27, 2021 at 08:41 PM (#6058788)
Strange thing about Barry Bonds is that his 73 dinger season is a real outlier. His second highest HR total in a season is only 49, set the prior year.
   563. reech Posted: December 27, 2021 at 09:52 PM (#6058791)
Yeah, but then in 02 and 03 and 04 the league refused to pitch to him.
   564. Walt Davis Posted: December 27, 2021 at 10:24 PM (#6058795)
Yep, Bonds is definitely a guy you need to look at AB/HR (or HR/FB or HR/contact) because of the crazy walk numbers, especially post-01. Starting in 2000, AB/HR went 9.8, 6.5, 8.8, 8.7, 8.3. So 2000 was easily the best but that's basically a consistent run with a bit worse and a bit better in the first 2 years.

But what's so strange about it anyway? Maris' 2nd-best season was 39 (the year before). Hack Wilson's 2nd-best was 39 too. Aaron never hit 50; Mays only squeaked past 50 twice. So whether from a single-season record perspective or a big career total perspective, there's nothing surprising about rarely hitting 50+ HR.

And from a season record-setting perspective, it will frequently be the case that it's an outlier, possible fluke, season. That's just the nature of seasonal records. Prior to setting the old record of 257 hits, Sisler's highest hit total was 180. He did give it a good run two years later, finishing at 246. Ichiro's 2nd-best was 242. Earl Webb's 2nd-best doubles season was 30. Rickey's 2nd-best was 108. Not that 159 RBI is shabby but it's still 32 off Hack's best season. If you regularly threaten records, you're Babe Ruth.
   565. Ron J Posted: December 27, 2021 at 10:42 PM (#6058799)
Further to 547, one major problem with the testing from that era is that the test for Nandrolone had a high false positive rate -- at least 20%.
   566. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 27, 2021 at 11:58 PM (#6058801)
A lot of Andruw Jones activity (4 up and 4 down ). Makes me think he will do better when the ballot clears.
Andruw is a severe test of the maxim that you can’t play yourself out of the Hall of Fame, but perhaps he only played himself out of the top 10 during crowded ballot years? I suspect a lot of voters have yet to decide which camp they’re in.
   567. Walt Davis Posted: December 28, 2021 at 12:35 AM (#6058804)
(Correction to 564: I meant 2001 was clearly the best in Bonds AB/HR run.)

#566 ... I don't know about severe test if for no other reason than I'm not sure people exactly thought of Andruw as a likely (much less almost certain) HoFer in his 20s. He was certainly considered an elite defensive CF, possibly some even considering him superior to Mays. But elite CF defense hasn't gotten anybody into the HoF (via the writers at least), only an HoF bat has ever really done that. Now, prior to the collapse, Andruw was a good bet to compile some big counting stats before it was all over given how young he started, how durable he'd been and that his bat seemed to be at its peak.

Vada Pinson might be the best example that comes to my mind. With less than half his career PA, he had 40 WAR and was only turning 27. He didn't really miss any major time for the next several years, he just faded, amassing just 14 WAR in his last 5400 PA. But even during that 7-year run of excellence, he only made the AS team in the first two seasons and had only one top 5 MVP finish so, although a star, I'm not sure people were thinking of him for the HoF yet either.

"Play" your way out of the HoF arguably applies to Nomar and Fregosi but it was certainly injury in Fregosi's case and either injury or massive decline for Nomar. You can add Cedeno and maybe David Wright to that bunch. And this is kinda where Andruw belongs. But the problem there is lack of play, often due to injury. So big (genuinely big) first half of career where a normal decline still makes you an easy choice (say Eddie Murray) but your actual second half is so underwhelming you're barely borderline is actually _playing_ your way out.

I suspect there are some, but no pitchers spring to mind. Gooden sorta ... certainly through age 28 with 2100 IP, 42 WAR and that unbelievable season, he's in the conversation (but the ERA+ is already down to 118). Then he gets hurt, does come back but he's got less than 700 innings left ... I'm not sure that's enough time to pitch your way out, his main issue remains that, compared to those before, after and his contemporaries, 2800 IP just isn't a lot. But yes, if he'd managed another 700 innings of his post-28 level of performance then he's at 3500 IP, about 230 wins but an ERA+ below 110 and he's a very poor man's Ryan or even Jack Morris so he was pitching like a man pitching himself out.
   568. John Northey Posted: December 28, 2021 at 12:46 AM (#6058805)
It is fun to check the tracker as time goes by. Biggest net + is +6 for Scott Rolen, then +5 for Todd Helton - promising for 2 guys who should get in someday. Biggest drop is drastic for Visquel though - net drop of 23 votes. Wow. Next is Curt Schilling doing the opposite of normal for a final year on the ballot by dropping 5 votes so far. Bonds/Clemens still on the right side of 75% but just +2 for Clemens, +1 for Bonds this year.

What is bizarre is seeing guys not voting for Bonds/Clemens but voting for guys like Gary Sheffield (admitted to using 'the cream' - Patrick Saunders, Steve Simmons, and Paul White I'm looking at you) or for Andy Pettitte (marginal even without his admitted PED use - Juan Vené). If you are anti-PED, fine, I disagree but so be it. If you are OK with it then you MUST vote for Bonds & Clemens or you just don't know baseball at all - voting for Pettitte over Clemens or for Sheffield over Bonds is pure stupidity, there is no possible argument for it that I can see beyond MAYBE 'they admitted it' but that is weak imo.
   569. yest Posted: December 28, 2021 at 04:14 AM (#6058806)
Teams pay for value, or wins

Teams pay for people who bring in fans.
Fans like winning but that is not all they like, so fans will come way more to see more to see worn out Albert pujols hit 224/270/395 than a less player hit 250/300/400 at short

A mark the bird fidrych will draw more than a plain old fashioned mark fidrych, catfish hunter out draws Jim hunter.
Fernandomania draws more than Dave stieb. Im assuming almost everyone on this forum rather have Dave stieb on their team throughout the 80s but Fernando was clearly worth more to the dodgers bottom line than stieb would have been.

Economically I think a Eddie yost is not going to be worth even close to his baseball value. Dave kingman is worth way more than his baseball worth.
   570. My name is Votto, and I love to get Moppo Posted: December 28, 2021 at 08:08 AM (#6058810)
Good ballot from Dan Connolly at The Athletic. Votes for 10 candidates: Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Torii Hunter, Andruw Jones, Ortiz, Rolen, Jimmy Rollins, Sheffield, Billy Wagner.

He added Rollins and Ortiz, and dropped votes for Schilling and Vizquel. He clarifies that his vote for Hunter is mainly intended to keep him on the ballot.

Just won’t do it ever

Manny Ramírez and Alex Rodríguez

Here are two players who absolutely, positively have the numbers to be in the Hall of Fame. Two players I loved watching play in their primes — well, I loved watching Rodríguez play the game; I just loved watching Ramírez hit. But two-time PED losers, including suspensions after protocols were set, is too much for me. Suspected/accused of steroids once, I’m still considering. A second time? Nope for me.
   571. TJ Posted: December 28, 2021 at 09:19 AM (#6058815)
According to Thibs, Ann Killion will not be voting this year. Last year she cast a three-person ballot- Jones, Kent and Vizquel. In short, she helped the players who might have a chance this year simply by dropping out…
   572. The Duke Posted: December 28, 2021 at 09:28 AM (#6058816)
It would be humorous if Rolen, bonds, Clemens and Ortiz all get in this year. A ten person class that would dilute the proceedings for any one person. If you had to hold your nose and put bonds and Clemens in - maybe this is the year. Same for schilling but he won’t make it based on the current math
   573. SoSH U at work Posted: December 28, 2021 at 09:31 AM (#6058817)

It would be humorous if Rolen, bonds, Clemens and Ortiz all get in this year. A ten person class that would dilute the proceedings for any one person. If you had to hold your nose and put bonds and Clemens in - maybe this is the year. Same for schilling but he won’t make it based on the current math


It might be humorous, but it has no chance of happening. Ortiz is the only guy with a realistic chance of going in.
   574. DL from MN Posted: December 28, 2021 at 09:32 AM (#6058818)
actual second half is so underwhelming you're barely borderline is actually _playing_ your way out


See Dale Murphy, though the 2 MVPs also overrate his peak. He wasn't a plus glove in CF.
   575. John DiFool2 Posted: December 28, 2021 at 10:50 AM (#6058823)
If you are anti-PED, fine, I disagree but so be it. If you are OK with it then you MUST vote for Bonds & Clemens or you just don't know baseball at all - voting for Pettitte over Clemens or for Sheffield over Bonds is pure stupidity, there is no possible argument for it that I can see beyond MAYBE 'they admitted it' but that is weak imo.


My theory to explain the above--I wonder how much less support Papi would be getting if he had shattered the AL single-season HR record.
   576. SoSH U at work Posted: December 28, 2021 at 10:58 AM (#6058824)
My theory to explain the above--I wonder how much less support Papi would be getting if he had shattered the AL single-season HR record.


I suppose it depends. Did he shatter it in 2003 or 2011?
   577. alilisd Posted: December 28, 2021 at 12:15 PM (#6058827)
570. My name is Votto, and I love to get Moppo Posted: December 28, 2021 at 08:08 AM (#6058810)
Good ballot from Dan Connolly at The Athletic. Votes for 10 candidates: Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Torii Hunter, Andruw Jones, Ortiz, Rolen, Jimmy Rollins, Sheffield, Billy Wagner.


That's a HUGE Hall of Fame, and so I would say not a good ballot. Drop Wagner and it gets a lot better though.
   578. SandyRiver Posted: December 28, 2021 at 01:11 PM (#6058831)
Marion - too late for him. His sabr-profile is a hoot. He won an MVP!

That was one of Marion's better years, with 4.6 WAR. Of course, he had a teammate with 8.9. Who knew?
   579. Greg Pope Posted: December 28, 2021 at 01:35 PM (#6058836)
As you note, we don't know what anybody tested positive for. MLB and MLBPA said there were a number of false positives on the list

Also, IIRC (no guarantee of that), they were testing for a number of things, not all of which were illegal. So even if we confirmed someone's name from the list, it doesn't even prove anything.
   580. Walt Davis Posted: December 28, 2021 at 02:42 PM (#6058843)
Yeah Murphy's a pretty good example. Murphy through 31 is pretty similar to Dawson through 32 in raw stat terms. Give Murphy Dawson's age 33-41 and he ends up with just over 2500 H and about 470 HR which, with 2 MVP, seems like it gets him slowly over as it did for Dawson. Once you bring in the saber stuff, it wouldn't be particularly close as Murphy would be in the low 50s WAR while Dawson is 12-13 WAR ahead.

That brings up Dave Parker but he was more a lesser Pinson with 5 excellent seasons from 24-28. If he'd repeated those seasons, he'd probably be in (60 WAR in 10 seasons) but I wouldn't consider the actual Parker "in" enough at that point to have played his way out.
   581. Adam Starblind Posted: December 28, 2021 at 02:55 PM (#6058845)
Didn’t he snort his way out?
   582. The Duke Posted: December 28, 2021 at 04:04 PM (#6058851)
Parker meets my fame threshold - similar to Garvey. This is why Ortiz will eventually get in as well. Maris had the same thing too but only for one year.

Parker packed almost all of his WAR into that peak and then put up some decent counting stats. Mostly I remember that arm from RF. Because these guys played in my pre-teen/teen years they stand out more to me.
   583. Walt Davis Posted: December 28, 2021 at 04:23 PM (#6058852)
#581: He very likely snorted. Whether that was the cause of the decline is of course unknown.
   584. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 28, 2021 at 05:50 PM (#6058864)
Prior to setting the old record of 257 hits, Sisler's highest hit total was 180.

Speaking of things that need to be adjusted for opportunity - the MLB schedules in 1918-19 were shortened. If not for that, there's a decent chance Sisler reaches 200 hits in either 1918 or '19 (on pace for 192 and 198, respectively, assuming he misses unplayed games at the same rate as real ones).

Which doesn't really affect your point much, I just like to be pedantic about lost playing time that people overlook - especially for Sisler, whose prime looks much better when properly adjusted.
   585. John DiFool2 Posted: December 28, 2021 at 05:59 PM (#6058869)
MLB and MLBPA said there were a number of false positives on the list


I am a bit surprised that the false positive thing doesn't get more attention. Maybe with the specific tests in question they are very rare, but it doesn't require a large false positive rate for someone who tests positive to actually have a pretty good (mathematical) chance of being clean.

I always thought Palmiero may very well have gotten jobbed in precisely that fashion.
   586. LargeBill Posted: December 28, 2021 at 06:26 PM (#6058870)
571. TJ Posted: December 28, 2021 at 09:19 AM (#6058815)
According to Thibs, Ann Killion will not be voting this year. Last year she cast a three-person ballot- Jones, Kent and Vizquel. In short, she helped the players who might have a chance this year simply by dropping out…


While the tracker shows Clemens +2 and Bonds +1, removing from the electorate no votes has to count towards the net positive. Both of them missed by around 50 votes. However, they don't actually need 50 new yes votes, if a bunch of no votes go away. 75% obviously means you need three yes votes for every no vote. So, is dropping a no worth three yes votes? Their chance really seems to hinge on how much the electorate changed from last year to this year?
   587. Ron J Posted: December 28, 2021 at 06:45 PM (#6058874)
#585 I'm not aware that there were problems with tests for stanozolol.

Now there was a problem with tainted supplements around then but those normally caused positive tests for Nandrolone. I suppose one supplier might have opted for stanozolol but I'm skeptical.
   588. alilisd Posted: December 28, 2021 at 07:05 PM (#6058876)
Speaking of things that need to be adjusted for opportunity - the MLB schedules in 1918-19 were shortened. If not for that, there's a decent chance Sisler reaches 200 hits in either 1918 or '19 (on pace for 192 and 198, respectively, assuming he misses unplayed games at the same rate as real ones).

Which doesn't really affect your point much, I just like to be pedantic about lost playing time that people overlook - especially for Sisler, whose prime looks much better when properly adjusted.


Speaking of being pedantic, it wouldn't have looked that much better, would it? He only missed about 20 games each season given a 154 game season and his percentage of games played. But really I just wanted to talk about Sisler a bit. He's such an amazing player! Those first seven full seasons, after his rookie campaign, are extraordinary! What a blazing runner he must have been. Leading the league in triples twice and SB three times. Great hitter for average, and given he was a dead ball player transitioning to the live ball pretty darned good power as well. Six seasons in the top 10 for doubles, HR and extra base hits, 8 seasons in the top 10 for triples. Although I suppose some of that could be park effect, I'm not familiar with those earlier days of baseball beyond the numbers on B-R. Still he's an impressive player and athlete given the hitting, base running and excellent defense, not to mention pitching a little bit in those early seasons.

I hope you'll pardon my pedantry, Eric J :-)
   589. Howie Menckel Posted: December 28, 2021 at 07:41 PM (#6058879)
A young Ernie Banks must have seen Sisler's numbera and said, "Hey, I can have a career like that!"
#minusthesinus

Duke Snider another of that ilk.
   590. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 28, 2021 at 07:50 PM (#6058881)
Speaking of being pedantic, it wouldn't have looked that much better, would it? He only missed about 20 games each season given a 154 game season and his percentage of games played.

6.8 WAR in 123 team games in 1918 translates to over 8 in a modern season, which is a fairly substantial difference when looking at a player's third-best season. 1919 doesn't increase by as much but it's still worth making the change. Schedule-length adjusting Sisler's four best seasons takes them from 9.8, 8.7, 6.8, 6.1 to 10.2, 9.1, 8.5, 6.9 (based on the schedule length adjustment formula I use, which is slightly less generous than pure extrapolation, and of course without accounting for segregation or other timeline factors). That could be a big deal for a peak voter.

It's a combination of the shortened schedules and the spike in scoring in 1920 that make people think Sisler was a two-year wonder when he really has a 6-7 year prime as one of the best players in baseball.

Anyway, how 'bout those Hall of Fame voters? Two fun ones today: Hank Winnicki, Bonds/Clemens/Ortiz/Schilling, and Joe Stiglich with the same four plus A-Rod.
   591. Walt Davis Posted: December 28, 2021 at 10:54 PM (#6058896)
Again, there's not enough turnover in voters from one year to the next for anything major to happen to B/C. First off, Ryan provides an estimate on the total number of votes which I assume incorporates known deaths, etc. and known newcomers. He projects 392 this year, last year there were 401. We can also come up with a good estimate of the number of newbies, it's 9-15 every year, averages around 12-13. So last year, B/C received 248/247 out of 401. Assume 13 are coming on which means that 22 have to leave to get us to 392.

Even if every one of the 22 leaving voted no and all 13 coming on vote yes, that gets them to 261/260. They've picked up 1/2 so var so that's 262 for each. That still leaves them 32 votes short based on 392. If I did my sums right, there would be about 115 non-B/C voters yet to come so they would need to convert nearly 30% of those. They have so far converted 2 of 16. But of course some of the people who left supported them, probably 1-3 of the newbies won't support them.

If we take 22 as the number leaving, that's about 5% of the old electorate. That means the B/C percentage among returning voters has a max increase of (1/.95)*62% or about 3 percentage points -- again, that's the max if none of the 22 leavers supported them. That gets them to 65%. The impact of the newbies is an odder formula because it adds to both numerator and denominator. Thirteen newbies all voting for them would increase that percentage by (give or take) 65*05/1.033 which is about 1 percentage point. So the turnover benefits them by a max of 4 percentage points. They need another 9 percentage points somewhere.

No matter how you slice it realistically, B/C have to change the minds of more than 25% of the voters, many of whom have not supported them for 9 ballots. So far they have converted 2 of 16. It's just not going to happen. History suggests they will at best barely top 75% on the pre-announcment ballot and get creamed on the remaining ballots.
   592. alilisd Posted: December 28, 2021 at 11:05 PM (#6058897)
Schedule-length adjusting Sisler's four best seasons takes them from 9.8, 8.7, 6.8, 6.1 to 10.2, 9.1, 8.5, 6.9 (based on the schedule length adjustment formula I use, which is slightly less generous than pure extrapolation, and of course without accounting for segregation or other timeline factors).


I believe I read an article you wrote explaining how you extrapolate this. It was very interesting and illuminating.
   593. The Duke Posted: December 29, 2021 at 06:49 PM (#6058958)
Rolen only got 32% of the 68 private ballots last year so if he can make some headway with them he could do well.
   594. SoSH U at work Posted: December 29, 2021 at 06:54 PM (#6058959)
He will make up more ground with them, setting himself up for a probable election in 2023.
   595. Harmon "Thread Killer" Microbrew Posted: December 29, 2021 at 07:23 PM (#6058962)
508. CFBF is Obsessed with Art Deco Posted: December 26, 2021 at 02:29 PM (#6058682)
New ballot from Steve Simmons at the Toronto Sun: Sheffield, Schilling and Jones.

That's...unique.


Simmons is truly one of the stupidest individuals Canada has ever had to endure, so this adds up.
   596. bachslunch Posted: December 29, 2021 at 07:36 PM (#6058963)
One thing that will help Bonds and Clemens a little is that (according to the tracker) two folks who didn't vote for them aren't casting ballots this time:

-Ann Killion has publicly abstained this year. Last year's ballot: Jones, Kent, Vizquel.

-Jaime Aron lost their ballot because of eligibility rules. Last year's ballot: Helton, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield, Wagner.

I suspect they won't make it in, but that's at least a small piece of good news for them.

There are also four voters who passed away: Mel Antonen, Jay Greenberg, Pedro Gomez, Bill Hartman. No idea how any of them voted last time.
   597. alilisd Posted: December 29, 2021 at 07:42 PM (#6058964)
There are also four voters who passed away: Mel Antonen, Jay Greenberg, Pedro Gomez, Bill Hartman. No idea how any of them voted last time.


Well I doubt Pedro Gomez voted for Bonds
   598. The Duke Posted: December 29, 2021 at 07:44 PM (#6058966)
As Walt suggested yesterday you can’t assume new writers will go for Bonds and Clemens and we got one today that excluded them (and Ortiz).

It’s still possible to see a surge for them but it’s highly unlikely.

Had they gotten five more years of eligibility the transition may have happened. That loss of five years has doomed them.
   599. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: December 29, 2021 at 07:47 PM (#6058967)
There are also four voters who passed away: Mel Antonen, Jay Greenberg, Pedro Gomez, Bill Hartman. No idea how any of them voted last time.


From Thibs' 2021 tracker, only Antonen's 2021 ballot was listed as far as I can see:

Antonen voted for Buehrle, Helton, Hudson, Hunter, A Jones, Kent, Rolen, Vizquel, Wagner
   600. bachslunch Posted: December 29, 2021 at 08:14 PM (#6058968)
@597 and 599: more incremental good news for Bonds and Clemens, looks like. Still probably won't be enough, though.
Page 6 of 12 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  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 S
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe AL MVP race is closer than you think
(30 - 12:50am, Aug 16)
Last: sunday silence (again)

NewsblogYankees in desperate need of jolt as feeble slide continues to grow concern
(4 - 12:48am, Aug 16)
Last: TVerik - Dr. Velocity

NewsblogTwitter: Andres Gimenez makes a great, heads-up play
(3 - 11:06pm, Aug 15)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get Moppo

NewsblogRangers fire manager Chris Woodward in midst of fourth straight losing season
(17 - 11:05pm, Aug 15)
Last: Jaack

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for the week of August 15-22, 2022
(15 - 10:46pm, Aug 15)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogFernando Tatis Jr. offers ridiculous lie as excuse for cheating
(16 - 10:18pm, Aug 15)
Last: Dillon Gee Escape Plan

NewsblogMajor League Baseball's postseason schedule could feature latest calendar date in World Series history
(14 - 9:42pm, Aug 15)
Last: Jose is Absurdly Correct but not Helpful

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - European Leages Return
(39 - 8:29pm, Aug 15)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

Newsblog2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(4163 - 7:41pm, Aug 15)
Last: 57i66135 is a hard word for me.

NewsblogForecasting The 2022-23 Qualifying Offers: Position Players - MLB Trade Rumors
(12 - 6:31pm, Aug 15)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogTwitter: Wynton Bernard makes the major leagues [video]
(5 - 4:45pm, Aug 15)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

Sox TherapyPredictions of Ridiculousness
(73 - 4:12pm, Aug 15)
Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful

NewsblogHochman: Ozzie Smith, '82 Cardinals celebrate 40 years since World Series title | Benjamin Hochman | stltoday.com
(6 - 3:40pm, Aug 15)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJourneyman Wynton Bernard keys Colorado Rockies win after 10 seasons in minors
(3 - 3:29pm, Aug 15)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGM Mike Elias: Orioles Will “Significantly Escalate The Payroll” During Offseason
(13 - 3:25pm, Aug 15)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 1.1645 seconds
45 querie(s) executed