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 8 of 12 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
   701. Booey Posted: January 01, 2022 at 12:38 PM (#6059240)
Flip
   702. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 01, 2022 at 12:39 PM (#6059241)
Brian Lewis with quite a ballot: Bonds/Clemens/Ortiz/Rolen. Rolen is an add; drops for Manny, Schilling, Sheffield, and Vizquel. This reads like someone who really didn't want to vote for A-Rod and very carefully modified their criteria from last year to justify that decision.
   703. Adam Starblind Posted: January 01, 2022 at 12:47 PM (#6059242)
. I can hold that opinion at the same time as I think it's obnoxious for you to mock someone for directly responding to an argument that you brought up.


Funny you should say that, since under no circumstances will I be calling you names.
   704. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 01, 2022 at 02:04 PM (#6059245)
Brendan Prunty: Bonds/Clemens/Helton/Kent/Ortiz/Pettitte/Manny/A-Rod/Rolen/Sheffield. Notable mostly for the drops - Hudson and Wagner.

Also speaking of drops, Rollins has pulled ahead of Vizquel, 12 votes to 10.
   705. Howie Menckel Posted: January 01, 2022 at 02:10 PM (#6059246)
You Dirty Rat!

hopefully this gets its own thread:

"Newly released court documents show just how embarrassed the New York Yankees were when its minor-league affiliate temporarily rebranded itself the “Staten Island Pizza Rats” during the 2018 season.

In a June 15, 2018 email, Yankees Chief Operating Officer Lonn Trost said the club had “absolute distain” over the now-defunct Staten Island Yankees’ decision to honor the infamous rodent who went viral pulling a grimy pizza slice down a subway staircase in 2015.

Smith fired an email back to Trost, insisting Bombers’ brass agreed to the “temporary promotion” because it was similar to another Yankees minor league affiliate, the Trenton Thunder, temporary calling itself the “Trenton Pork Roll” in 2018 to honor the popular New Jersey meal."
   706. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 01, 2022 at 02:56 PM (#6059248)
Mariano Rivera's career record as a starter, before they made him a reliever: 3-3,5.94 ERA, 10 GS, 50 IP, 64 hits, 38/20 K/BB ratio...you get the idea.
Rivera hadn’t developed his cutter during his brief tenure as a starter. Might have helped.
   707. Walt Davis Posted: January 01, 2022 at 03:30 PM (#6059252)
True enough that Rivera's inclusion doesn't "annoy" me -- there are certainly less deserving players in. But I don't particularly support his inclusion either. If I had a real vote I don't know that I have the guts to have been the only holdout but he's borderline to me. The best argument I can make for him is that it was an amazing 1300 innings (and more amazing 140 postseason innings) that are probably the equivalent value of something like a starter with 1400 innings of say a 150 ERA+. That would be one heck of a starter peak, about 2/3 of Halladay's peak or maybe the equivalent of 4-5 seasons of Gibson. I might vote for that guy. And if starters are now going to be limited to 150-180 innings a year then we have to re-think what constitutes a "great" pitcher and Rivera will likely look even better.

None of which is a knock on Rivera. He was given a role, he did it better than anybody has for about as long as anybody has. He's certainly the best 1-inning closer to date, arguably the best reliever ever. It's not his fault the role he was given is of limited value and allows only limited opportunities to compete. When given a chance to compete, he was great. The limited role makes him Nomar ... who was not Larkin, Jeter, Trammell or Ripken. Or maybe it makes him Koufax. The actual HoF voters went with the second one.

It's obviously moot at this point. The VC put in Smith, either the writers or the VC is going to put in Wagner. If any of the current big 3 survive for another 6 seasons, they'll probably be in. What the voters will do with the next top reliever if teams move away from set closers I don't know.
   708. The Duke Posted: January 01, 2022 at 03:49 PM (#6059254)
I guess the next obvious candidates are Kimbrel, Chapman, and Jansen. I can see the electorate from 20 years ago getting excited about ALM of them. Not sure they have enough juice now to get in. I’d like for Wagner to fail so that these lesser lights don’t get traction either.
   709. Ron J Posted: January 01, 2022 at 03:59 PM (#6059255)
The tradition of selecting to recognize fame rather than confer it goes back to Keeler in 1939. Probably the 3rd or 4th best known 19th century player at the time (mostly thanks to McGraw). (Young, Anson and perhaps Radbourne. Since "everybody" knew about his 60 win season. Keeler was the "hit 'em where they ain't" stories)

Mind you, given the records of the day you couldn't really make a statistical case for (say) Roger Connor. So maybe not exactly on point. You got narrative cases back then because that was the best anybody could do.
   710. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 01, 2022 at 04:07 PM (#6059257)
The tradition of selecting to recognize fame rather than confer it goes back to Keeler in 1939. Probably the 3rd or 4th best known 19th century player at the time (mostly thanks to McGraw). (Young, Anson and perhaps Radbourne. Since "everybody" knew about his 60 win season. Keeler was the "hit 'em where they ain't" stories)

Mind you, given the records of the day you couldn't really make a statistical case for (say) Roger Connor. So maybe not exactly on point. You got narrative cases back then because that was the best anybody could do.


That, and Keeler looks pretty good by the stats that people knew to focus on at the time. Not sure how much of this was available to the voters at the time, but Keeler won two batting titles (including a .424 average) and had 8 consecutive 200-hit seasons, leading the league 3 in hits 3 times. Nobody at the time would have cared that he never had 60 extra-base hits or 45 walks in a season.
   711. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 01, 2022 at 04:31 PM (#6059261)
None of which is a knock on Rivera. He was given a role, he did it better than anybody has for about as long as anybody has. He's certainly the best 1-inning closer to date, arguably the best reliever ever.
It’d be more accurate to say that Rivera was the best of the 1-inning closer era, if not longer, but Rivera himself at his peak was used in multiple innings in postseason and important regular season games on a regular basis.
   712. alilisd Posted: January 01, 2022 at 05:27 PM (#6059270)
It’d be more accurate to say that Rivera was the best of the 1-inning closer era, if not longer, but Rivera himself at his peak was used in multiple innings in postseason and important regular season games on a regular basis.


Agree, this is another reason I find Rivera more compelling than any other "1 inning" closer. He had 241 outings of over 1 inning as a reliever, 96 of those were 2 or more. Hoffman has only 146 over 1 inning with only 74 of those 2 or more. That's a substantial difference before even considering Rivera's post season, which adds another 58 games over 1 inning and 30! of 2 or more. Hoffman also had 122 outings of less than 1 inning to 93 for Rivera.
   713. alilisd Posted: January 01, 2022 at 05:36 PM (#6059271)
708. The Duke Posted: January 01, 2022 at 03:49 PM (#6059254) I guess the next obvious candidates are Kimbrel, Chapman, and Jansen.

,
It could be K-Rod next year with a few more saves than Wagner although he had some off the field troubles which could hurt him, IIRC.
   714. alilisd Posted: January 01, 2022 at 05:43 PM (#6059272)
Given A-Rod's votes to date, and what we know of Bonds/Clemens now in 10 years on the ballot, fair to say he'll never go in via the BBWAA?
   715. The Duke Posted: January 01, 2022 at 05:52 PM (#6059274)
K-Rod! How ludicrous that he could be a hall of famer. Like I said, killing off Wagner’s (and Nathans) candidacy would go a long way to stopping the insanity
   716. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 01, 2022 at 06:10 PM (#6059276)
No, you are not wrong. Speaking on behalf of fantasy baseball players, I can attest that closers have the least reliability or predictability from year to year. For every Mariano Rivera who a manager can rely on game after game year after year, there are dozens of Thigpen types who are unhittable one year and then can't get anyone out a couple years later.
But isn't that likely just an artifact of small sample sizes? There are oodles of fair to middlin' starters who have good two month stretches from time to time.
   717. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 01, 2022 at 06:18 PM (#6059277)
The tradition of selecting to recognize fame rather than confer it goes back to Keeler in 1939. Probably the 3rd or 4th best known 19th century player at the time (mostly thanks to McGraw). (Young, Anson and perhaps Radbourne. Since "everybody" knew about his 60 win season. Keeler was the "hit 'em where they ain't" stories)
I don't think "confer" is quite the right word; let's say "preserve." Setting that aside, I don't see how your examples demonstrate that they were trying to reward fame, rather than perceived greatness.
   718. Ron J Posted: January 01, 2022 at 06:35 PM (#6059279)
#717 I agree it's not precisely on point. They were voting for the players that were known -- presumably on the assumption that if they were known they were great.

The point I was attempting to make is that Keeler was one of the earliest 19th century players to go in and while he's not a long term mistake (although he's not exactly inner circle) there are many more significant players who had to wait.
   719. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 01, 2022 at 06:51 PM (#6059282)
Although Keeler’s best years may have been in the 19th century, he played until 1910, so he wasn’t exactly ancient history to the Hall voters of the 1930s, which may have helped him.
   720. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 01, 2022 at 07:08 PM (#6059287)
I brought up Rivera's lack of success as a starter because he is the unquestioned greater closer of all time, and the Yankees determined in 1995 that he was more likely to be valuable to the organization as a reliever than he was as a starter. He was not particularly successful as a reliever at the end of 1995, either (although he was really, really good in three appearances during the 1995 ALDS). He was obviously amazing going forward from there. There are very, very few relievers who reach the big leagues by getting drafted as relievers - teams virtually always start off seeing if you can be a starting pitcher, and then move you into a relief role once they determine you won't be a major-league starter. Occasionally, you'll have a successful starting pitcher moved into a closer role because of a need at that time, and/or because the team thinks that pitcher might be even better as a short reliever (the Red Sox did exactly that with Jonathan Papelbon, for example). ​

But generally, if a team thinks you can be a solid #3 starter , they are going to give you every chance to be a successful starter before they "settle" on turning you into a reliever.
   721. alilisd Posted: January 01, 2022 at 07:25 PM (#6059289)
K-Rod! How ludicrous that he could be a hall of famer. Like I said, killing off Wagner’s (and Nathans) candidacy would go a long way to stopping the insanity


Nathan doesn't seem to have much of a candidacy yet, but Wagner did move up after the results were announced, and did better on private ballots, in his first year. Maybe Nathan will see a second year. Wagner seems to be treading water this year, but he'll be around for another three. I have no idea if he'll build any momentum. But if you're voting for Wagner, then K-Rod with more saves, led the league three times (Wagner never did), single season save record, better CY performance (if that matters, who knows with the writers and relievers), pitched pretty well in the post season unlike Wagner, and won a WS with the Angels while pitching well at just 20 years old. Seems like he should do as well as Wagner unless the character issues come into play for voters.
   722. alilisd Posted: January 01, 2022 at 07:33 PM (#6059290)
Although Keeler’s best years may have been in the 19th century, he played until 1910, so he wasn’t exactly ancient history to the Hall voters of the 1930s, which may have helped him.


I think playing most of his career in New York would help as well. While the Yankees were not yet the juggernaut they would become, he played for all three of the cities franchises during his career, and New York City was till the great metropolitan city of the country even if the Yanks were not the greatest franchise in sports yet.
   723. TJ Posted: January 01, 2022 at 08:15 PM (#6059291)
Nick Canepa out of San Diego gives us the fourth blank ballot so far, repeating his voting performance from last year…
   724. Howie Menckel Posted: January 01, 2022 at 08:18 PM (#6059292)
from Keeler's SABR bio, a fine testimonial:

"A two-time batting champion and a three-time league leader in hits, he had the speed to leg out infield singles, the bat control to drop down bunts, chops and rollers in front of infielders, and when they moved in, the ability to loft a base hit over their heads. He finished his career with 366 sacrifice hits, the fourth highest total in major-league history.

“Keeler could bunt any time he chose,” Honus Wagner remembered. “If the third baseman came in for a tap, he invariably pushed the ball past the fielder. If he stayed back, he bunted. Also, he had a trick of hitting a high hopper to an infielder. The ball would bound so high that he was across the bag before he could be stopped.”

an anniversary today!

"Keeler didn’t appear to fit into Brooklyn’s plans because of his small size, but he had caught the shrewd eye of Baltimore Orioles manager “Foxy Ned” Hanlon. On January 1, 1894, Hanlon acquired Keeler and star first baseman Dan Brouthers from Brooklyn in exchange for journeymen Bill Shindle and George Treadway in one of baseball’s most lopsided trades.

"Hanlon installed Keeler as the regular right fielder in a lineup that included John McGraw, Hughie Jennings, Wilbert Robinson, and Joe Kelley, launching one of baseball’s great dynasties. Batting atop the Oriole order, McGraw and Keeler – with the help of legendary groundskeeper Tom Murphy – perfected the Baltimore Chop, driving the ball into the infield dirt and beating out the resulting high hop, and though they didn’t invent the hit-and-run, Muggsy and Wee Willie turned it into an art form."

this is..... awkward:

"McGraw often needled Keeler for his defensive lapses, and during the 1897 season, the two teammates brawled naked in the shower room of the Orioles clubhouse as teammate Jack Doyle, a Muggsy antagonist, stood guard to prevent interference. As Doyle had predicted, McGraw was the first to “squeal.”"

a modern-thinking fella:

"The day after the season ended Keeler boarded a train for a barnstorming trip in California. During a layover in Chicago, he made a trip to American League President Ban Johnson’s office and asked if rumors that the league would place a team in New York in 1903 were true. Assured that they were, Keeler signed an American League contract for $11,000, a figure suggested by Johnson, and became baseball’s first $10,000-a-year player. “We can count on our fingers the number of years we will be able to play,” Keeler had told the New York Clipper earlier in his career. “That makes it plain that we must make all the money we can during the short period we may be said to be star players.”

another, sadder, New Year's reference:

"His health continued to fail and Keeler was too ill to attend a reunion of the old Orioles in Baltimore, though many of his old teammates later visited him. He knew he was losing the battle for his life during the holiday season of 1922, but vowed to see 1923. On New Year’s Eve, several well-meaning friends stopped by to congratulate him and cheer him up. When Willie became exhausted, they left him alone, rang in the New Year, and returned to find that he had died. He was 50 years old."

   725. The Duke Posted: January 01, 2022 at 10:31 PM (#6059304)
Some guy named Gordon Edes just submitted in an article: Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
David Ortiz
Todd Helton
Gary Sheffield
Scott Rolen
Jeff Kent

His accompanying article says he is quitting voting because it’s not about choosing the best players anymore. It’s all about peds, me too, social media now.

I’m surprised more aren’t doing this
   726. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 01, 2022 at 10:36 PM (#6059305)
This whole closer rabbit hole is so silly. If Wagner gets in, how can you not at least take a serious look at K-Rod (for the reasons listed above)? And let's talk about Jeff Reardon, who briefly held the all-time record...which was treated at the time like a really big deal (here is the video clip to prove it, from 1992!).

More than 25 years later, he is still 11th all-time in saves, and those ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 15th, 26th, and 30th are all in. Wagner is 6th, Nathan is 8th, and neither of them ever held the record. Reardon was the closer on the 1987 World Champion Twins. I know he was only 8-8 with an ERA of 4.48, and didn't even lead the league in saves that year (he blew 10 saves in 41 chances), but it was still good enough to be the top-finishing pitcher in the MVP race. He finished 11th in the MVP vote, and finished in the top 20 in the league MVP three different times. He also pitched a lot more innings than most of the other closers with 300 saves, including some of the Hall of Famers already enshrined (and a ton more than Wagner).

OK...do I really think Jeff Reardon is a Hall of Famer? Of course not. But if Wagner gets in, his lack of innings, lack of Cy Young or MVP support, lack of championships, and uniquely terrible post-season record makes it harder to reject other closers. And if Nathan stays on the ballot, then what is going on, at that point? How is John Franco not seriously brought up by the appropriate veterans committee? KRod? Kimbrel? Papelbon? Kenley Jansen?

   727. Jose is Absurdly Correct but not Helpful Posted: January 01, 2022 at 10:39 PM (#6059307)
Duke - Edes was a longtime reporter for the Boston Globe and now works as the official historian for the Red Sox. By all accounts he’s a really good guy.
   728. TJ Posted: January 01, 2022 at 11:36 PM (#6059312)
His accompanying article says he is quitting voting because it’s not about choosing the best players anymore. It’s all about peds, me too, social media now.

I’m surprised more aren’t doing this


I’m not- without the HOF vote nobody would pay any attention at all to most BBWAA members…
   729. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 01, 2022 at 11:37 PM (#6059313)
Nick Canepa out of San Diego gives us the fourth blank ballot so far, repeating his voting performance from last year…
Somewhat absurdly, Canepa takes time to pay homage to the worthiness of all Veterans Committee selections while
claiming no one on this year’s ballot makes the cut.
   730. John Northey Posted: January 01, 2022 at 11:49 PM (#6059315)
Totals now past the 25% mark, and 2 over 80 - Bonds and Ortiz. Clemens just shy of 80%, and Rolen damn close to making the magic at 72%. Makes one wonder how late voters reacted seeing this. Did a few add Bonds/Clemens or Rolen to push them over the top or skip them to keep them out? Schilling sub 60% now, Vizquel now under 9% - wonder what the biggest one year drop is? He is looking at a drop of 40 points in one year. Crazy.
   731. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 01, 2022 at 11:52 PM (#6059316)
re: 726,

I’m not seeing any reason to panic about Wagner being elected. He’s at 46.4%, the same as his final total last year, and only up 3 votes among returning voters, with close to 30% of the expected vote tabulated. He looks to have a lot of ground to make up, and only 3 years remaining on the ballot after this one.
   732. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 01, 2022 at 11:59 PM (#6059318)
Vizquel now under 9% - wonder what the biggest one year drop is? He is looking at a drop of 40 points in one year. Crazy.
Not a single vote gained among returning voters to offset any of those drops, and no votes from 1st-time voters, either. Vizquel will be lucky to remain on the ballot after this year, and even if he barely manages to do so, some of his current supporters would probably drop him next year rather than continue to support a non-viable option.
   733. John Northey Posted: January 02, 2022 at 12:06 AM (#6059319)
Nick Canepa clearly hasn't watched much baseball in years or is just an old 'get off my lawn' guy who needs to quit being given a ballot. I get being against PED's and DH's, but Curt Schilling was clearly a better pitcher than Kaat, and Scott Rolen was a better player in all respects than Gil Hodges and Minnie Minoso by any reasonable measure. 7 Gold Gloves, 7 All-Star Games, Hodges had 8 ASG, 3 GG, and played 1B for the Dodgers (Brooklyn & LA). Minosa played in 5 decades (thanks to stunts by the ChiSox owners who tried to get him a 6th one I think but were told 'no') - 7 time all-star, good hitting LF. So you have a 1B and a LF who both hit about as good as Rolen, a top notch third baseman but he suffers as he didn't play in NY/LA/Chicago in the 50's and 60's. Some of these old writers seem to think no one deserves HOF honors who didn't play in that era. Pretty sad.

I think a basic test of knowledge is needed for any writer who submits a 0 votes ballot, or who doesn't vote for a guy who gets in. If they can't name all ML teams today, or can't recognize Trout, Ohtani, or Vlad Jr. then they need to have their ballot taken away as they clearly haven't watched baseball in years.
   734. yest Posted: January 02, 2022 at 01:02 AM (#6059322)
or can't recognize Trout, Ohtani, or Vlad Jr.


This comment makes no sense, why would we care if anyone saw ohtani (first year 18) vlad jr (first year 19) when they are voting on players whose career ended in 16

I rather someone who saw the 93 season than the 17.
The 93 season effects multiple players on the ballot, the 17 season zero
   735. Walt Davis Posted: January 02, 2022 at 01:30 AM (#6059323)
Interestingly (or not), Rollins is just 3 for 33 among those who have dropped Vizquel. He's also just 1 for 10 among those still supporting Vizquel.
   736. John Northey Posted: January 02, 2022 at 02:18 AM (#6059324)
Yest - my point is more he is a guy who probably stopped watching years ago. But agreed, he needs to be able to pick Ortiz out of a lineup at least before he can vote on him. Probably one of those voters who goes 'I know a HOFer when I see them'.
   737. yest Posted: January 02, 2022 at 04:08 AM (#6059326)
Yest - my point is more he is a guy who probably stopped watching years ago.

My gripe with you, is not just you but more to the point the hall
The current hall rules allow for voting after only 10 years and stop it after 10 years of not covering baseball.
Meaning that a guy who missed the last 5 of arods and Ortizs career is officially more a flaw than someone who never saw curt schilling or roger Clemens pitch a single pitch. I’m not pushing for vizquel but someone like vizquel should be judged by people who saw him. The rules allow someone to vote for him who never covered baseball during his entire career. I rather have someone vote who covered Ortiz hit 50 hrs and missed his last 5 years, then never saw vizquel ever.

With the current system of 10 years being out of baseball loosing your ballot I think very few newly eligible players will get hurt even if this had been in place since the 5 year rule was made. Most hall of fames are hofers or close enough before their last 5 years, but this system allows one to see the last 5 years of only the newbies and be an expert observer. If I’m a know it when I see it guy and I follow these rules Albert pujols (he hit 241/290/410 during my theoretical time covering baseball) doesn’t belong anywhere near the hall for the time I am required to see him play.

   738. SoSH U at work Posted: January 02, 2022 at 08:22 AM (#6059327)
I’m not seeing any reason to panic about Wagner being elected. He’s at 46.4%, the same as his final total last year, and only up 3 votes among returning voters, with close to 30% of the expected vote tabulated. He looks to have a lot of ground to make up, and only 3 years remaining on the ballot after this one.


Until a couple of years ago, I would have said Wagner, at this point, has no shot - that's too much ground to make up with so few ballots left. Then Edgar went from sub 50 percent to 80-plus in three elections, and Larry Walker went from 34 percent to election in two.

In contrast, Jack Morris was over 50 percent for his last five elections without coming particularly close.
   739. The Duke Posted: January 02, 2022 at 08:46 AM (#6059329)
There are 69 lost votes for everyone not named Vizquel plus another 33 lost votes for Vizquel. It’s quite extra-ordinary considering that Ortiz is the only viable new candidate. I find the process of dropping someone who you previously voted for as fascinating. Once you clear the hurdle, it’s hard to see how you suddenly change your mind. Even with schilling I find it odd. Vizquel’s loss is completely understandable.

But how do all those other guys lose so many votes ?
   740. SoSH U at work Posted: January 02, 2022 at 09:20 AM (#6059332)
But how do all those other guys lose so many votes ?


Excluding Vizquel, who needs no explanation, and Schilling, who asked to be removed from the ballot and some voters may be respecting his wishes, the remaining holdover players lost 61 votes.

Of those 61 votes, 47 came from voters who had 10-person ballots. So, they had no choice but to drop someone they previously voted for (or exclude someone they would have voted for).

Of the remaining 14, I'd guess some are removing votes from lost causes (Sammy or Manny), some are no longer throwing that let's keep him around for a second ballot vote (Hudson, Hunter) or Juan Vene.
   741. villageidiom Posted: January 02, 2022 at 09:20 AM (#6059333)
What’s the best sabr argument for putting closers (especially the one inning variety) into the Hall? I just can’t see a good justification. Almost any random pitcher would be able to close out most of these games with a 2-3 run lead.
We can tell how likely it is that any random pitcher can pitch an inning of relief without blowing a lead by looking at the proportion of fans in any given year who are thoroughly satisfied with the performance of their team's bullpen.
   742. RJ in TO Posted: January 02, 2022 at 09:43 AM (#6059334)
Scott Rolen was a better player in all respects than Gil Hodges and Minnie Minoso by any reasonable measure. 7 Gold Gloves, 7 All-Star Games, Hodges had 8 ASG, 3 GG, and played 1B for the Dodgers (Brooklyn & LA).
This is a bit unfair, as the Gold Gloves weren't created until Hodges was in his 10th full season. Had they been around, it seems very likely he'd have matched or exceeded Rolen's total.
   743. The Duke Posted: January 02, 2022 at 10:45 AM (#6059337)
Ten new ballots and very little movement. The public pre-release world doesn’t look like it will change much. 11 guys above 40%. The vets committees will have some tough decisions
   744. alilisd Posted: January 02, 2022 at 11:36 AM (#6059340)
723. TJ Posted: January 01, 2022 at 08:15 PM (#6059291) Nick Canepa out of San Diego gives us the fourth blank ballot so far, repeating his voting performance from last year…


Such an embarrassment to San Diego!
   745. alilisd Posted: January 02, 2022 at 11:49 AM (#6059341)
Somewhat absurdly, Canepa


Absurdly but unsurprisingly. He's been a complete hack for decades now. He's a small town newspaper guy who the city outgrew, but no one ever gave him his walking papers. He's a caricature "tough guy" who's really an insecure bully. What a disgrace to the BBWAA.
   746. alilisd Posted: January 02, 2022 at 11:57 AM (#6059345)
Nick Canepa clearly hasn't watched much baseball in years or is just an old 'get off my lawn' guy who needs to quit being given a ballot.


Both, I'm sure, but primarily the latter. His schtick is what a tough guy he is, witness the whole "Sez me.." BS. I completely agree the HOF should be much more rigorous about policing the electorate. There is no free pass for turning in a blank ballot, a test or justification of the non-vote should be required. No, you don't just get to be an ####### to fill column inches.
   747. Adam Starblind Posted: January 02, 2022 at 12:03 PM (#6059346)
. This whole closer rabbit hole is so silly. If Wagner gets in, how can you not at least take a serious look at K-Rod (for the reasons listed above)? And let's talk about Jeff Reardon, who briefly held the all-time record...which was treated at the time like a really big deal (here is the video clip to prove it, from 1992!).


To be fair, Wagner never robbed a jewelry store.
   748. alilisd Posted: January 02, 2022 at 12:07 PM (#6059348)
Until a couple of years ago, I would have said Wagner, at this point, has no shot - that's too much ground to make up with so few ballots left. Then Edgar went from sub 50 percent to 80-plus in three elections, and Larry Walker went from 34 percent to election in two.


Yes, I think Wagner stalling this year is something we'll have to wait on to see if it's a one year thing or not. It could simply be a crowded ballot effect with people trying to figure out what to do with the four players in their last year of eligibility, plus the new adds. Next year with those four off the ballot it opens up a lot of space. If he is still stalled next year, I think we'll have seen his ceiling, roughly at least. But if those open spots turn into votes for him, it could be a rush to the finish line. And even if he only gets close, see what happened with Lee Smith and his committee election for a likely Wagner scenario.
   749. alilisd Posted: January 02, 2022 at 12:18 PM (#6059349)
Wow, there's a cluster of SF Chronicle voters on the tracker from Jenkins to first timer Kroner, and they are some real doozies. Jenkins goes 9, but leaves off Kent, gives Lincecum his only vote so far, and keeps Vizquel. Karl drops Buerhle, Hudson, and Jones to add Ortiz, A-Rod, and Rollins. Kroichick votes Jones, Kent and Vizquel, WTF? Kroner's first ballot is B/C, Kent, A-Rod, Rolen and Wagner.

Edit: Looks like Assenheimer was actually the first to vote for Lincecum. Ostler, another SF Chronicle writer added a third vote to Tim's total.
   750. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 02, 2022 at 01:25 PM (#6059350)
There are 69 lost votes for everyone not named Vizquel plus another 33 lost votes for Vizquel. It’s quite extra-ordinary considering that Ortiz is the only viable new candidate.

First, Ortiz is obviously not the only interesting new candidate; A-Rod isn't getting in via the writers barring a significant shift of some kind, but he's still going to soak up a healthy chunk of votes for obvious reasons. And second, as mentioned earlier in the thread, nobody who got over 5% last year was dropped from the ballot - nobody got in, and it wasn't anyone's tenth ballot. Votes for first-time players (averaging almost 1.6 per ballot so far) have to come from somewhere, and no space was made last year, so you get drops. A lot more progress will be available next year, with the 2013 debutants dropping.
   751. TomH Posted: January 02, 2022 at 02:06 PM (#6059354)
I would love for someone to engage Canepa on who he thinks SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame; both from 1940-1985, and 1985-2020. Because his column reads as if he's good with Kaat and Hodges and Oliva, which means he believes the N-th best player from the Jackie-thru-expansion era is good enough, but virtually nobody modern. Which is.. well, I will say using nice words, inconsistent and inexcusable.
   752. DL from MN Posted: January 02, 2022 at 03:01 PM (#6059356)
Discussion on relief pitchers in the Hall of Fame should really include Hilton Smith if it includes Dennis Eckersley.
   753. alilisd Posted: January 02, 2022 at 03:12 PM (#6059357)
I would love for someone to engage Canepa on who he thinks SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame


No, you really wouldn't. It would be a whole bunch of nonsense, just like his "rationale" for not voting for anyone this year. I found no ballot on the tracker for him from 2014, but in 2015 he published 7, said he didn't vote for 10, but wouldn't publish his full ballot. A classic "look at me!" stunt. Nothing in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, or 2021 on the tracker. So a whole lot of nothing, which is all you'd be likely to get.
   754. John Northey Posted: January 02, 2022 at 04:37 PM (#6059363)
yest - thanks for the point about the 10 year rule about being out of baseball writing - I either forgot or didn't know that. I knew they tightened the rules a bit. A great idea imo as it is important that voters had to have watched the guys play.

Lost votes are interesting. Some voters seem to have their own ideas on limits - Jeff Blair seems to have decided a 4 person limit is needed as he dropped ManRam because he was adding A-Rod & Ortiz. Others will fill all 10 slots with assorted strategies - some put the best 10, some make sure they put on guys in their final season, some avoid first year guys unless they are slam dunks, etc.

Right now Andy Pettitte has more votes than Omar Vizquel - I agree with that, but find it very surprising. Seems Viquel went too far by sexually harassing a bat boy. Quite different from how they react to the Clemens statutory rape accusations. It'd be interesting to hear the reasoning from writers, not that I'd expect any.
   755. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 02, 2022 at 05:39 PM (#6059366)
Seems Viquel went too far by sexually harassing a bat boy.
Vizquel’s wife also raised domestic violence claims since last year’s ballot.
   756. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 02, 2022 at 05:51 PM (#6059368)
Seems Viquel went too far by sexually harassing a bat boy. Quite different from how they react to the Clemens statutory rape accusations. It'd be interesting to hear the reasoning from writers, not that I'd expect any.

I was about to say that I wouldn't expect a ton of overlap between "drop Vizquel" and "vote for Clemens." Good thing I checked first; if I count correctly, 29 of the 34 Vizquel drops so far are in fact voting for Clemens.

If I were to speculate (always dicey), a possible rationale could be that the character clause is part but not all of the selection process, and Vizquel is closer to the borderline than Clemens based on their performance on the field?
   757. Howie Menckel Posted: January 02, 2022 at 06:18 PM (#6059369)
were any charges filed against Vizquel but not against Clemens?

guess I'm being quaint even for asking.
   758. LargeBill Posted: January 02, 2022 at 07:07 PM (#6059373)
757. Howie Menckel Posted: January 02, 2022 at 06:18 PM (#6059369)
were any charges filed against Vizquel but not against Clemens?

guess I'm being quaint even for asking.


Don't believe so. Believe the accusations against Vizquel are being handled in civil court.

Some of the difference in voter reaction to the allegations may simply be attributed to ignorance. Each voter has info they know and huge blindspots of info they don't know. Are the allegations against Vizquel considered worse by some? Who knows? Is the statutory rape thing a more vague charge? I've heard rumors about it but haven't read any articles explaining the charges. Was it purely consensual and she just too young? How underage? 17 is very different from 16 which is very different from 15 and so on. I have a nephew who was charged with statutory because of angry parents. They've been married 15 years now and the three years age difference is now very irrelevant. Just to be clear, I'm NOT defending Clemens. Just saying each voter could look at it differently and have a different understanding of the "facts.".
   759. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 02, 2022 at 07:17 PM (#6059374)
Believe the accusations against Vizquel are being handled in civil court.
It appears that Vizquel was arrested at least once. His wife asked that the charges be dropped, but later said she was coerced and threatened with financial retribution.
   760. yest Posted: January 02, 2022 at 09:19 PM (#6059381)
I would love for someone to engage Canepa on who he thinks SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame; both from 1940-1985, and 1985-2020. Because his column reads as if he's good with Kaat and Hodges and Oliva, which means he believes the N-th best player from the Jackie-thru-expansion era is good enough, but virtually nobody modern. Which is.. well, I will say using nice words, inconsistent and inexcusable.


if he is against peds and is a leftist pig who boycotts Schilling, and thinks Vizquel belongs but uses his off the field issues against him, he could easily have a ballot that has numerous people on it based on his view of the N-th best player.

Remember OVER HALF THE BALLOT that the tracker has over 5% is on someone's boycott list
10 boycotts
(Bonds, Clemens, Ortiz, Pettitte, Ramirez, Arod, Schilling, Sheffield, Sosa, Vizquel)
7 no-boycotts
(Abreu, Helton, A Jones, Kent, Rolen, Rollins, Wagner)

So theoretically one could think there are 10 players who's baseball career (cheating and all) is worthy of the hall and still put forward a blank ballot
   761. yest Posted: January 02, 2022 at 09:24 PM (#6059383)
yest - thanks for the point about the 10 year rule about being out of baseball writing - I either forgot or didn't know that. I knew they tightened the rules a bit. A great idea imo as it is important that voters had to have watched the guys play.

except the new system allows people who never saw players play vote on the other end, there is, and always has been more of an anti old bias then an anti recent bias. The reason the old timers have more is because they had more opportunities and that will correct itself every year if there is no interference.

   762. DL from MN Posted: January 02, 2022 at 09:37 PM (#6059384)
a leftist pig who boycotts Schilling


Schilling requested that voters drop him this year. Voting for him actually goes against his wishes.
   763. yest Posted: January 02, 2022 at 09:47 PM (#6059386)
I would love for someone to engage Canepa on who he thinks SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame; both from 1940-1985, and 1985-2020. Because his column reads as if he's good with Kaat and Hodges and Oliva, which means he believes the N-th best player from the Jackie-thru-expansion era is good enough, but virtually nobody modern. Which is.. well, I will say using nice words, inconsistent and inexcusable.

The problem is I'm sure there are writers who weren't even born when Clemens won his MVP who are now voting on him
   764. JJ1986 Posted: January 02, 2022 at 09:56 PM (#6059388)
The problem is I'm sure there are writers who weren't even born when Clemens won his MVP who are now voting on him

1. There aren't many.
2. Young voters are probably more likely to vote for Clemens specifically and to put more players on their ballots in general.
   765. yest Posted: January 02, 2022 at 10:25 PM (#6059390)

1. There aren't many.
2. Young voters are probably more likely to vote for Clemens specifically and to put more players on their ballots in general.

my point was a long career with an early greatness, who is on his later years on the ballot is getting people voting who never saw him. Before the hall revamped the writer's ballot a few years ago, people were complaining that voters never saw the newer players but at the same time many more voters were voting on Jim Kaat who never saw him when he was good if at all. (the former point has numerous complaints which helped make the purge, the later which was more glaring was completely ignored)

something stinks if to vote for the hall you need to cover baseball for only 5 years of the players you are currently voting on, but can't cover it you saw all but the last 6 years of the newest players you are voting on. meaning I can cover 0 years of all 10 year players and be worthy of a vote.

at the very least the 10 year covering rule should correspond with the 1st year players, saw I saw 10 years worth of at least 1 years class of newbies.
   766. Adam Starblind Posted: January 02, 2022 at 10:29 PM (#6059391)
. a leftist pig who boycotts Schilling


A very high proportion of professional athletes are Republicans, especially the white ones. People don’t vote against Schilling because he is conservative. They vote against him because he is an a$$hole.

The case against Curt Schilling has always been “ok, but f##k Curt Schilling.” And if Schilling wanted to be in the hall of fame, he should’ve been more respectful to the people who get to decide. A six year old understands that principle, but apparently not Curt.
   767. Jaack Posted: January 02, 2022 at 10:55 PM (#6059395)
How many times would a Twins beat writer who covered the team for the last 40 years see Todd Helton play? Definintely not enough for their eyewitness account to be worth anything at all.
   768. TJ Posted: January 02, 2022 at 11:40 PM (#6059398)
How many times would a Twins beat writer who covered the team for the last 40 years see Todd Helton play? Definintely not enough for their eyewitness account to be worth anything at all.


This has long been my counter-argument to the “I know a Hall of Farmer when I see one” point. Unless you watch a player the majority of their career_ both during their peak and when they are young and growing and old and declining- you don’t have anything more than a glimpse of their career. Responsible HOF voters should take input from those who covered the career of a player, just as they should take into account the statistical record, player narrative, HOf standards set by past induction, historical knowledge, and any other input that helps the voter place the candidate into the proper historical context. Then they need to examine their judgment in light of new evidence which may arise.

Or they can just say something like, “I know a HOFer when I see one”or “I vote only for players I would pay to see” and then claim to have HOF expertise that no one else could possibly possess…

   769. Howie Menckel Posted: January 02, 2022 at 11:59 PM (#6059402)
the Football HOF has the opposite problem.

each candidate has a "booster" among the writers who covered that player, and they make a pitch to the committee (during Super Bowl week iirc).

if you're an ex-player who is beloved by your "booster" and your booster is popular with the committee, then great.
if not, the committee may just hear a tepid endorsement - or a stronger one, but by a writer not among "the cool kids."

for all of the stupid votes BBWAA writers make for guys they covered and liked, at least they don't generally serve as head cheerleaders for that player.

but you might well see a recently-retired NFL beat writer take the stage to announce a pick on NFL Draft Day. few ex-MLB writers would likely be as interested (and not just because that draft is less in the spotlight).

it is weird how different sports sportswriters act. perhaps still to this day, hockey writers dress to the nines like 1950s baseball fans - or writers. meanwhile, many baseball writers are total slobs.

almost 30 years ago, MSG Network in NY decided it wanted to show live the post-game beat writer interviews with the coaches.
the Knicks writers were quite amenable, but the Rangers guys were so adamantly against it that they refused to begin asking questions until the MSG cameraman left the room. that was the end of that experiment.
   770. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 03, 2022 at 12:29 AM (#6059404)
The Pro Football Hall of Fame operates like a slightly larger version of baseball’s Veterans Committee.
   771. LargeBill Posted: January 03, 2022 at 08:19 AM (#6059407)
770. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 03, 2022 at 12:29 AM (#6059404)
The Pro Football Hall of Fame operates like a slightly larger version of baseball’s Veterans Committee.


Correct. The problem of smaller electorates like committees is a "bad" vote has much greater weight. Yesterday, people were criticizing that Canepa guy and his ballot, but at least for the baseball HOF, the ballot of a goof like that is worth way less than 1% of the total.
   772. TJ Posted: January 03, 2022 at 09:52 AM (#6059412)
770. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 03, 2022 at 12:29 AM (#6059404)
The Pro Football Hall of Fame operates like a slightly larger version of baseball’s Veterans Committee.


Correct. The problem of smaller electorates like committees is a "bad" vote has much greater weight. Yesterday, people were criticizing that Canepa guy and his ballot, but at least for the baseball HOF, the ballot of a goof like that is worth way less than 1% of the total.


Good points. The basic structure of the HOF vote strikes me as fine- a 400-count voting body, 75% required for induction. It's who makes up the voting body that is a major part of the issue. There has to be 400 people in this country that are both qualified to make informed votes and are willing to make the commitment of time and research to the process that the honor of HOF induction demands. Maybe some of them are current BBWAA voters, but not all 400 or so are. So many BBWAA voters speak of the "privilege" of being a HOF voter. That privilege should require more than a few weeks of pondering the ballot once it is released...
   773. John DiFool2 Posted: January 03, 2022 at 11:15 AM (#6059419)
I am still boggled that Ken Riley isn't in (who, note, died 6 months ago). Or Clay Matthews Jr.
   774. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 03, 2022 at 11:45 AM (#6059424)
Ryan Fagan: Abreu/Bonds/Buehrle/Clemens/Ortiz/Ramirez/Rolen/Sheffield. Drops Hudson and Schilling.

None of the choices are inherently bad, but a couple of the omissions are weird in light of them - Abreu but not Helton, and Manny but not A-Rod.

And then of course there's Rob Parker with Bonds/Clemens/Sheffield/Sosa; apparently he has very specific minimum AND maximum standards for the amount of steroid use required by a Hall of Famer.
   775. The Duke Posted: January 03, 2022 at 12:35 PM (#6059434)
Parker’s column suggests he knows that many writers will convert and put Bonds and Clemens in. No evidence of that but a lot of ballots to go.
   776. bachslunch Posted: January 03, 2022 at 02:39 PM (#6059453)
@773: Ken Riley (now only Senior-eligible) has an extremely marginal PFHoF argument at best, based entirely on his playing forever and amassing enough career interceptions to end up 5th all time. However, he never went to a single Pro Bowl and was named a First Team All Pro only once (and not unanimously even then). He's not even the best Cincinnati Bengal candidate not in, which would be Ken Anderson (the best QB not in) or Lemar Parrish (who was Riley's teammate for a good bit of his career, and was a First Team All Pro 3 times, went to 8 Pro Bowls, and was a world class kick returner -- Riley didn't return kicks). Film study done by scholars more knowledgeable than me strongly suggests that Parrish was the better cover cornerback and that QBs preferred to throw at Riley instead -- which is another way you can wind up getting a fair number of INTs. Jim Marshall (who sometimes undeservedly makes HoF snub lists) is a similar non-deserving sort -- played forever, quite well, but not at HoF level and has a HoF "case" that totally mystifies me.

There about 60 Senior-eligible players not in the PFHoF who I think have a better argument. More or less in egregious snub order, worst snubs first: Lavvie Dilweg, Al Wistert, Chuck Howley, Billy Howton, Maxie Baughan, Harold Jackson, Randy Gradishar, Jim Tyrer, Verne Lewellen, Ox Emerson, Del Shofner, Jimmy Patton, Walt Sweeney, Riley Matheson, Dick Barwegen, Jim Ray Smith, Dave Grayson, Tommy Davis, Gene Brito, Duane Putnam, Billy Wilson, Eddie Meador, Bobby Boyd, Joe Fortunato, Deron Cherry, Karl Mecklenburg, L.C. Greenwood, Bill Forester, Ed Budde, Abe Woodson, Art Powell, George Kunz, Larry Grantham, Tom Sestak, Mark Gastineau, Joe Klecko, Houston Antwine, Mike Kenn, Nolan Cromwell, Earl Faison, Bill Bergey, Pete Retzlaff, Lester Hayes, George Christensen, Jerry Smith, Mike Stratton, Joey Browner, Bob Kuechenberg, Gale Gillingham, Gene Lipscomb, Ken Gray, Lionel Taylor, Ed White, Roger Brown, Louis Wright, Todd Christensen, Joe Jacoby, John Niland, Tommy Nobis, and Lee Roy Jordan. (Cliff Branch is up this time around for the Senior slot, and will probably -- and deservedly -- get in).
   777. bachslunch Posted: January 03, 2022 at 03:08 PM (#6059457)
Also @773: Clay Matthews Jr. (who just dropped into the Senior-eligible pool) has the same "long career, low honors" issue guys like Ken Riley and Jim Marshall have, only less pronounced. Matthews played forever, was named a First Team All Pro only once, and went to four Pro Bowls. Reports of his play via film study varies, but some scholars have him looking very good this way, which is more than one can say for Riley or Marshall. Part of Matthews's issue is that there are already a large number of outside linebackers from the 80s-90s in the HoF, and it gets increasingly difficult to make a case for him the further down the list you go. The line's got to be drawn somewhere, after all. I'd sooner support Matthews than Riley or Marshall, but I'm lukewarm on him given that there are numerous worse snubs out there.
   778. TomH Posted: January 03, 2022 at 03:25 PM (#6059460)
Broadening my rant about Canepa into a larger issue:

There was, and likely still is, a tendency for {fans, writers, anyone} to evaluate the players or yesteryear more highly than the more current ones. This leads to modern players being required to wait for some kind of Veterans committee for HoF induction.
Evidence for this claim
#1 – original HoF vote, 1936. Cobb and Wagner over Ruth. Matty over Alexander and Grove.
#2 – the 1969 “centennial” MLB all star team. Of the 10 players (8 positions, 2 arms), the Most Recent had retired 18 years before (DiMaggio); they all were active between 1910 and 1950. No Williams, Mays, Mantle, F Robby, Aaron, Ed Mathews (Pie Raynor got the nod at 3B!), Spahn, or Koufax.
#3 – blank ballot voters today
   779. SoSH U at work Posted: January 03, 2022 at 03:53 PM (#6059466)
Matty over Alexander and Grove.


Johnson. Grove was still active.
   780. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 03, 2022 at 04:04 PM (#6059469)
#1 – original HoF vote, 1936. Cobb and Wagner over Ruth. Matty over Alexander and Grove.

Wagner and Ruth tied on the original ballot, if you want to split hairs. I'm also reluctant to read too much into 98% vs. 95%; basically everyone thought that both Cobb and Ruth were pretty great.

Matty vs. Alexander - pretty sure Mathewson was just seen as a better pitcher by the numbers at the time; he has a better winning percentage (with an identical win total) and his ERA is 40 points lower. People weren't exactly adjusting for scoring context in 1936.

Your other points are fair.
   781. taxandbeerguy Posted: January 03, 2022 at 04:13 PM (#6059473)
Going back a few days to catch up on the posts and the major influx of ballots. 621 623 and 651 in particular.

Sheffield vs. Ortiz. - I support both for the Hall of fame I guess what is interesting is that they are two long career "hitters". Sheffield mostly played the field (and poorly), Ortiz was almost solely a hitter. Their offensive stats are very similar particularly for long career guys. Sheffield's a little better at getting on base and Ortiz has a bit more power. Is it reasonable and rational that postseason, popularity, and severity of PED allegations (Ortiz is like a 1 on a 5 point scale and Sheffield is a 2 or 3) account for about a 32% difference in voting patterns so far. If the gap was 10% I could see it, but it seems like they're both hall of fame talents and probably 10-20% over the line. Ortiz is more popular, has better (and more) postseasons and his PED allegations are essentially the Mitchell report. Based on those I just really have a hard time seeing the line as between the two rather than both being on one side of the line or the other.

For the blank ballots, I've said this before but if you're so strongly anti- PED and you're a small hall guy (say the top 150 players of all time -one for each year of professional baseball), Schilling's definitely in there, but is Rolen? His case is more nuanced, and if someone said he was close to the line but not quite over it, then fine. And then deciding to drop Schilling for his Schillingness (whatever you decide that entails) and I get it. But then don't go celebrating Kaat and Oliva as well on their merits as players (Buck O'Neil is different and should be in as ambassador of baseball.) Looking and Canepa with this comment.

Also I would really love to know who these blank ballots feel would have / should have been a hall of famer in the past and justify it. Is there anyone outside of the Chipper Jones, Greg Maddux, Ken Griffey (among recent guys) sphere they feel strongly about. Did any of them feel really strongly about Gary Carter or Phil Niekro (two guys that took a few years, but are qualified at about the same level as Jones, Maddux and Griffey). That would make for an interesting read.
   782. John Northey Posted: January 03, 2022 at 04:51 PM (#6059479)
An all 20th century team would be interesting to see now. Who'd make the cut if voted on by BBWAA, vs if voted on by BBTF?
By BR WAR you get...
C: Johnny Bench (no argument here) 75.1, 2nd is Gary Carter at 70.1 - Fisk is 68.4
1B: Stan Musial (over 1000 games) 128.7 or Lou Gehrig 113.7 - I'd bet most writers would pick Gehrig
2B: Rogers Hornsby 127.3 closely followed by Eddie Collins 124.4 - Joe Morgan is at 100.4
3B: Mike Schmidt 106.9 - Note: Alex Rodriguez 117.5 (over 1000 games at 3B, but more at SS), but just 27.7 WAR in the 20th c
SS: Honus Wagner 120.1 WAR in the 20th C, 130.8 overall
LF: Babe Ruth 183.1 WAR, 162.7 as a hitter - his 162.7 ties with Barry Bonds (to the first decimal point, but 'just' 103.7 in the 20th c mostly free of PEDs). Go figure.
CF: Willie Mays 156.1 WAR (doubt there is much argument although Cobb 151.5 would fight it)
RF: Hank Aaron 143.1 WAR

SP: Walter Johnson 164.8, Pete Alexander 119, Tom Seaver 109.9, Lefty Grove 106.8, Christy Mathewson 106.5
note: CY Young 'just' 78 in the 20th c, Maddux 'just' 75.2 in the 20th c 104.8 overall, Roger Clemens 103.6 in the 20th c 139.2 overall, Randy Johnson 52.2 in the 20th c, 103.5 overall.

I won't bother with DH and relievers. Neither has anyone close to 100, or even over 60 for pure relievers (Rivera).

Not sure how many I'd have guessed off the top of my head. Clemens, Maddux, and Johnson mess up pitching by crossing over the 20/21st centuries like Cy Young did with the 19th and 20th. Find it funny that excluding pitching Ruth and Bonds are a perfect tie for their career WAR.
   783. TomH Posted: January 03, 2022 at 04:59 PM (#6059480)
779, I believe active players were eligible at the time. At the end of 36, Grove had 7 ERA titles.
   784. SoSH U at work Posted: January 03, 2022 at 05:23 PM (#6059483)
779, I believe active players were eligible at the time. At the end of 36, Grove had 7 ERA titles.


OK, but it wasn't like that first group of voters was electing active players. Hornsby got the most votes of active players, but only 46.5 percent, and lost support in the next election.

And Grove, great as he was, wasn't close to Johnson.
   785. Howie Menckel Posted: January 03, 2022 at 05:40 PM (#6059486)
162.7 ties with Barry Bonds (to the first decimal point, but 'just' 103.7 in the 20th c

I hope you are including the year 2000, since that was in the 20th century.

(and not giving Wagner credit for 1900, since you are just doing the 20th century.)
   786. SoSH U at work Posted: January 03, 2022 at 05:53 PM (#6059487)
LF: Babe Ruth 183.1


Why is he in left?

1B: Stan Musial (over 1000 games) 128.7 or Lou Gehrig 113.7 - I'd bet most writers would pick Gehrig


I'd pick Gehrig, since Musial spent almost twice as much time in the outfield as he did at first.
   787. alilisd Posted: January 03, 2022 at 06:04 PM (#6059489)
An all 20th century team would be interesting to see now.


Agreed!

C: Johnny Bench, although I see lots of people with more knowledge of NgL baseball voting Josh Gibson.
1B: Lou Gehrig, I can't go with Musial since his biggest seasons were in the OF and most of his 1B games later in his career.
2B: Joe Morgan, I think level of competition, or timeling if you prefer, puts him above the early 20th C guys.
3B: Mike Schmidt
SS: Cal Ripken, for the same reason as Morgan.
LF: Ted Williams, native San Diegan and a Marine, I have to put him in LF.
CF: Willie Mays
RF: Hank Aaron

Ruth will be my Shohei Ohtani, he'll pitch and DH, Musial will be my fourth OF since he played a significant number of games at all three positions.

SP: Walter Johnson, Roger Clemens, Tom Seaver, Lefty Grove. I don't think I'll need more than four, but would like to have another lefthander on the roster so I would add Warren Spahn. I know this is probably not quite in the spirit you intended, but it's fun nonetheless. Cheers!

Edit: I guess I don't have to add Spahn. Ruth is a lefty pitcher and, as mentioned, will pitch and DH.
   788. alilisd Posted: January 03, 2022 at 06:05 PM (#6059490)
786. SoSH U at work Posted: January 03, 2022 at 05:53 PM (#6059487)

LF: Babe Ruth 183.1

Why is he in left?


So you can put Aaron in right?
   789. The Duke Posted: January 03, 2022 at 06:21 PM (#6059491)
I’m amused at the thought of Stan Musial as a 4th outfielder. I bet that’s the only time in history “Musial” and “4th outfielder” have been used in the same sentence.

“Stan, go get warmed up, we’re going to use you as a defensive replacement for Ruth in the 8th if we get the lead”
   790. vortex of dissipation Posted: January 03, 2022 at 06:52 PM (#6059493)
LF: Babe Ruth 183.1

Why is he in left?


Ruth had a similar number of games played in left and right - for his career, 1128 in right and 1047 in left (and 74 in center). The reason is that Ruth hated to play the sun field, so once he became a superstar and had the pull to get his way, he would play whichever corner outfield position wasn't the sun field. He played right field at the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium, as well as in Washington and Cleveland but in left field at the other AL cities (Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and St. Louis).
   791. SoSH U at work Posted: January 03, 2022 at 06:57 PM (#6059495)
Ruth had a similar number of games played in left and right - for his career, 1128 in right and 1047 in left (and 74 in center).


Sure, but if you're going to assign Musial to first on the technicality that he played the most games there, then to be consistent Ruth has to be in right.
   792. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 03, 2022 at 07:03 PM (#6059497)
@789 It's called playing the percentages; it's what smart managers do to win ballgames.
   793. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: January 03, 2022 at 07:14 PM (#6059498)
There was, and likely still is, a tendency for {anyone} to evaluate {anything} from yesteryear more highly than the more current {version of said thing}.
FTFY.
In addition to athletes see music, movies, visual art, politicians and historical figures.

Tech is one of the only obvious counterexamples I can think of -- no one is arguing to return to the TVs or computers of the 1950s or even the 1990s.
   794. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 03, 2022 at 07:49 PM (#6059502)
Ruth will be my Shohei Ohtani, he'll pitch and DH

There is no reason that Ruth would ever sniff the mound on an all-century team.
   795. alilisd Posted: January 03, 2022 at 07:49 PM (#6059503)
789. The Duke Posted: January 03, 2022 at 06:21 PM (#6059491) I’m amused at the thought of Stan Musial as a 4th outfielder.


Right! :-)
   796. alilisd Posted: January 03, 2022 at 07:52 PM (#6059504)
There is no reason that Ruth would ever sniff the mound on an all-century team.


Sure there is, because we're limiting it to one player per position and I don't want to include him in the OF, so he'll pitch and DH. I mean why not? I don't want him getting bored just being the DH, and he would be a second LH pitcher to go with Grove. Granted, YMMV, but I like it :-)
   797. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: January 04, 2022 at 12:07 AM (#6059533)
Nick Canepa out of San Diego gives us the fourth blank ballot so far, repeating his voting performance from last year…


As I've said before, anybody who turns in a blank ballot (let alone four of them!) should be kicked to the curb forthwith.
   798. John Northey Posted: January 04, 2022 at 01:49 AM (#6059538)
I do get a laugh out of people who go '1900 isn't part of the 20th c but 2000 is'. I am a stats guy but roll my eyes at that detail. Technically it is correct, but no one saw 2001 as the 'turn of the century', it was 2000 all the way.

Agreed that Ruth wouldn't pitch on an all-century team - he was an all-star pitcher, but not one of the best ever.

I loved the old Historical Baseball Abstract with the all-decade teams (note: they were 10-19, not 11-20 for example). Fun things to play with and see who belongs on each team. Bonds with 59.1 WAR in the 00's might be the starter in LF despite playing just 8 years, 1 with only 14 games, 4 times total with 130 or fewer games. Geez, was that an insane time. PEDs or not, it was fun to watch (other than the 100+ intentional walks).
   799. Adam Starblind Posted: January 04, 2022 at 07:08 AM (#6059541)
. Tech is one of the only obvious counterexamples I can think of -- no one is arguing to return to the TVs or computers of the 1950s or even the 1990s


On the other hand, I would like my Blackberry back.
   800. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 04, 2022 at 07:28 AM (#6059542)
I do get a laugh out of people who go '1900 isn't part of the 20th c but 2000 is'. I am a stats guy but roll my eyes at that detail. Technically it is correct, but no one saw 2001 as the 'turn of the century', it was 2000 all the way.

Even this isn't as entertaining as the occasional effort people make to argue that, for instance, the 1980s should be 1981-1990.
Page 8 of 12 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHe got a job via LinkedIn -- Major League player
(2 - 10:34pm, Aug 18)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogJoey Votto to have season-ending shoulder surgery on torn rotator cuff
(42 - 10:06pm, Aug 18)
Last: Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for the week of August 15-22, 2022
(114 - 10:03pm, Aug 18)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogTop 100 prospects updated 2022 midseason rankings
(14 - 10:02pm, Aug 18)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogFernando Tatis Jr. suspended, tests positive for banned substance
(31 - 9:47pm, Aug 18)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogYankees four-time All-Star Dellin Betances retires
(5 - 7:31pm, Aug 18)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogThe Six-Man Rotation May Be Baseball’s Next Evolutionary Step
(2 - 5:59pm, Aug 18)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogSources: New York Mets to call up touted 3B prospect Brett Baty
(11 - 3:25pm, Aug 18)
Last: Karl from NY

NewsblogJosh Donaldson delivers for New York Yankees with grand slam walk-off in 10th inning
(2 - 2:39pm, Aug 18)
Last: cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE

NewsblogAthletics release Andrus in final year of $120M deal
(15 - 2:38pm, Aug 18)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogVideo shows Tony La Russa may have listened to fan in stands before putting pinch runner in
(29 - 12:44pm, Aug 18)
Last: sunday silence (again)

NewsblogSteep drop, but still season-high, for “Field of Dreams” sequel
(21 - 11:56am, Aug 18)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Sox TherapyOver and Under
(20 - 11:44am, Aug 18)
Last: John DiFool2

NewsblogFormer SF Giants player turned internet troll Aubrey Huff running for local office, will probably lose badly
(9 - 10:49am, Aug 18)
Last: cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE

NewsblogJon Daniels dismissed by Rangers; Chris Young to run baseball ops
(7 - 10:20am, Aug 18)
Last: BDC

Page rendered in 0.9178 seconds
46 querie(s) executed