User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.6120 seconds
45 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, December 12, 2022
Baseball Hall of Fame tracker 2023
Baldrick
Posted: December 12, 2022 at 09:22 AM | 748 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: hall of fame
Tags: hall of fame
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Trevor Bauer is Reportedly Off to Pitch in Japan
(43 - 10:13pm, Mar 24)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)
Sox Therapy: Yoshida In The Spotlight
(38 - 9:58pm, Mar 24)
Last: Darren
Newsblog: OT - 2023 March Madness thread
(74 - 9:35pm, Mar 24)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: Ohtani fans Trout to seal Japan's 3rd Classic championship
(28 - 9:24pm, Mar 24)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: All-Star pitcher Miles Mikolas, Cardinals agree on multi-year extension: Sources
(11 - 9:10pm, Mar 24)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Check out all 30 Opening Day starters
(6 - 8:56pm, Mar 24)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Spring training OMNICHATTER 2023
(151 - 8:24pm, Mar 24)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: MLB 26-and-under power rankings: Which clubs have the best young players?
(2 - 6:45pm, Mar 24)
Last: bookbook
Sox Therapy: The Rostah
(171 - 6:03pm, Mar 24)
Last: villageidiom
Newsblog: MLB Pipeline: Ranking all 30 farm systems
(17 - 5:12pm, Mar 24)
Last: Darren
Newsblog: MLB to stream all minor league games for free on Bally’s casinos app
(1 - 5:04pm, Mar 24)
Last: Darren
Newsblog: Reggie Jackson: Former commissioner Bud Selig blocked me from buying A's
(23 - 4:35pm, Mar 24)
Last: It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out
Newsblog: 2023 NBA Regular Season Thread
(1283 - 4:29pm, Mar 24)
Last: Hombre Brotani
Newsblog: Rhys Hoskins suffers torn ACL in Phillies' spring game | ESPN
(10 - 3:07pm, Mar 24)
Last: Walt Davis
Hall of Merit: Reranking Center Fielders Ballot
(10 - 1:35pm, Mar 24)
Last: DL from MN
(43 - 10:13pm, Mar 24)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)
Sox Therapy: Yoshida In The Spotlight
(38 - 9:58pm, Mar 24)
Last: Darren
Newsblog: OT - 2023 March Madness thread
(74 - 9:35pm, Mar 24)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: Ohtani fans Trout to seal Japan's 3rd Classic championship
(28 - 9:24pm, Mar 24)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: All-Star pitcher Miles Mikolas, Cardinals agree on multi-year extension: Sources
(11 - 9:10pm, Mar 24)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Check out all 30 Opening Day starters
(6 - 8:56pm, Mar 24)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Spring training OMNICHATTER 2023
(151 - 8:24pm, Mar 24)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: MLB 26-and-under power rankings: Which clubs have the best young players?
(2 - 6:45pm, Mar 24)
Last: bookbook
Sox Therapy: The Rostah
(171 - 6:03pm, Mar 24)
Last: villageidiom
Newsblog: MLB Pipeline: Ranking all 30 farm systems
(17 - 5:12pm, Mar 24)
Last: Darren
Newsblog: MLB to stream all minor league games for free on Bally’s casinos app
(1 - 5:04pm, Mar 24)
Last: Darren
Newsblog: Reggie Jackson: Former commissioner Bud Selig blocked me from buying A's
(23 - 4:35pm, Mar 24)
Last: It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out
Newsblog: 2023 NBA Regular Season Thread
(1283 - 4:29pm, Mar 24)
Last: Hombre Brotani
Newsblog: Rhys Hoskins suffers torn ACL in Phillies' spring game | ESPN
(10 - 3:07pm, Mar 24)
Last: Walt Davis
Hall of Merit: Reranking Center Fielders Ballot
(10 - 1:35pm, Mar 24)
Last: DL from MN
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
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.
I think this might be some west coast bias? My feeling aligns with Booey, that Wagner was one of the biggest closer stars in the game. I knew Gagne for being a failed starter (as all these guys are) and then for a crazy short run of PED fueled dominance, and then he disappeared. Wagner got a lot more talk, year after year after year, for being a star. My impression, anyway.
Jimmy Rollins
K-Rod
NOTE: This is different from submitting a blank ballot. I would not do that, because I think there are several players on the ballot who are worthy of the HOF, but at least I understand the argument. There is not a Griffey/Maddux/Jeter/Pedro 1st year guy that makes the blank ballot absolutely, positively indefensible. If you are a small-Hall voter, I can see the argument.
But you see this ballot, and you decide...that the only guy here who rises to your standard of a HOFer is...Jimmy Rollins? Francisco Rodriguez? What's the best good-faith argument for either of these ballots you can construct?
I admit this is subjective, but Hoffman had a consistency and longevity that none of the other guys seemed to. He basically missed a season due to injury at age 35 but other than that you could say he was an above average, and usually very good, closer every year from age 26 through 41.
Wagner had a terrible year at age 28 (I assume he was hurt, but I don't remember), and missed most of his age 37. He was better than Hoffman during his good seasons and he started earlier, so I'm not sure how much to hold it against him. But I'm comfortable with Hoffman being in and Wagner being out.
Joe Nathan missed multiple seasons and had a few clunkers in there as well. His case seems much tougher than Wagner's.
I'm not going to put forward a case because neither is deserving, but Rollins isn't that far below HOF standards, while K-Rod isn't even worthy of a second glance.
In my initial post, I specifically said that Wagner felt like a bigger star than Hoffman TO ME. I'm not claiming that was the general consensus at the time. I really have no idea on that. His peak seasons looked more dominant, so they stood out more in my mind. But yes, Hoffman lasted longer and longevity is probably the most important criteria when discussing closers for the HOF, so if I HAD to elect one of them, I'd pick Hoffman over Wagner (but in reality I wouldn't vote for either).
It's basically your typical peak vs career argument. Giambi was a bigger star at his peak than Palmeiro, but Raffy ended up with a much better career.
If "relief pitcher" is a separate position it's a lot easier position to play than Starting Pitcher. WAR treats relievers like they're doing something special by pitching in high leverage situations. Credit for optimizing a bullpen so the best pitchers pitch in the highest leverage situations should go to the manager (or now the people who hand the spreadsheet to the manager). It shouldn't go to the pitchers. Relievers only have to pitch for one inning so they can just throw as hard as they can. They get the "first time through the order" advantage every time. They only need two pitches (or sometimes just one) to be successful. If the degree of difficulty is lower our expectations should be a lot higher.
Hoffman wasn't just a compiler though. I mentioned earlier that Wagner and Hoffman (and Papelbon, for that matter) were about even in WAR7 - and both were below Nathan.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_RP.shtml
Well for both, if you are a big time character clause person, you can knock out all of the strong candidates aside from Rolen and Helton in one fell swoop. Everyone else is either tainted or debatable.
For K-Rod:
Most saves of anyone not in the Hall of Fame. This is basically how McGriff and Baines got in with HR and hits respectively. Looking at raw saves allows him to beat Wagner as well.
A pure counting stat guy would not appreciate Rolen. Helton is better there, but not super strong, and he has the Coors Factor.
For Rollins: Its a Phillies homer pick, but the most good faith argument for him is that he was perceived best player on some great Phillies teams. Utley was actually better, and the pitching was the heart of the best of those teams, but it's well within the range of public opinion. Meanwhile Helton was mostly on bad teams while Rolen was a sidekick to Pujols in his prime. Rollins also has nice counting stats for a SS, which again, is a problem for Rolen and Helton.
That we have guys who nominally, are a starter (because they are, after all, starting the game) but being used like a reliever and throwing one inning, should show us that these guys are just pitchers.
It's so absurd to me that we've allowed a special exception to be carved out for closers. Not even relief pitchers, just closers. Is David Robertson's 145 ERA+ going to get him the traction that Hoffman's 141 did? Of course not. He's only got 159 saves.
The fact that he was, objectively, not the best player on the team seems like it would make the argument about his perception in bad faith.
I've been doing a thought experiment in my head the past couple of weeks, arguing with myself that replacement level should be different for each inning. (note: this is just a concept I'm going through mental exercises with, it's nothing concrete, just a thought experiment, but I'm arguing with myself. That a pitcher pitching inning 1 might have a different definition of "replacement" level than someone pitching the 6th or 9th or extra innings...this isn't about leverage though, it's more about pitching roles and the ability to move through roles... another side argument is that "replacement level" is different per consecutive inning pitched... so a pitcher who throws 5 innings in a game has a lower replacement level than a pitcher who throws one inning or 4 innings etc.--- again this is a thought exercise, not something concrete I back)
I'm not a fan of relievers in the hof personally either, I wouldn't have voted(if I had a vote) for Rivera if there weren't already other relievers in the hof. But that cat is out of the bag, and to maintain consistency, other relievers should be considered based upon established standards(whether Wagner or K-rod or others meet that standard is of course a different argument, and of course any voter is free to ignore the standard if they feel the standard is too low or shouldn't exist) . (and no this isn't the same as we need to start looking at pinch hitters, as there has yet to be a pinch hitter that has been putting in the hof, and of course even the few inning pitchers still face twice the number of batters per season than the a pinch hitter has appearances (record is 82 by Jose Morales a 60 inning pitcher faces close to 200+ batters or more)
* Like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter. ;-)
Argument for Rollins: the guy was a Phillie and a star for them for many years (the voter is from Philadelphia). Abreu spent too much time with the Yankees. Werth wasn't as good and also spent significant time with other teams and Wagner spent far more time with the Astros. Rolen was a better player, but no Phillie fan likes Rolen.
By that argument, Ruth shouldn't be in the HOF as the credit for his performance in the outfield should go to his managers, not him, since they're the ones that moved him off starting pitcher.
He said Gagne was a massive star for those 3 years, and he was. Three straight AS appearances, 4th, 1st and 7th in CY, also 12th, 6th and 11th in MVP voting! Averaged 51 saves, a 223 ERA+ and a FIP 22 points below his ERA. Your other memories of him are accurate, but he was a big star for those 3 seasons.
Babe Ruth doesn't get different credit in WAR for runs he produces in different innings or situations. Relievers should get credit for preventing runs but they shouldn't get credit for the game situation.
in unrelated news, while I have voted, I could not get into the discussion thread to note that it is difficult for many to get into HOM threads in general.
I would suggest a "house to house search" of recent voters on social media to see if they can vote in another avenue and then have it transferred to the translucent-at-best HOM pages.....
Mo -- 12 and 16. Damn.
And that does not include 141 Post season innings at an ERA of 0.70 -- about half that of his best individual year, against superior competition.
EDIT: And he did all that throwing essentially ONE PITCH, that every batter knew was coming.
All you Stat Drunk Computer Nerds can ##### and moan about fWAR and bWAR and VORP and GORP and FIP and FU, but the Hall of Fame is about players like Mo, who amazed and awed. If you don't understand that, just take up futbol and leave the real fans alone.
The Hall would be poorer without Hoyt and Mo. There is more to the love of the game than quantitative analysis.
I'm more with than against Breslin on this one: Baseball isn't statistics, it's Joe Dimaggio rounding second base.
EDIT: Not that statistics can't provide their own appreciation of the game, but they can't be the be-all and end-all.
You can draw it reasonably to include Rivera and exclude all others.
If you are going to include more than just Rivera, it gets complicated. There are really only 2 options for second best RP - Wagner (rate quality) and Wilhelm (quantity of elite performance) - not that they are a clear #2/#3, but there's no one else who is a possible #2.
I would feel most comfortable drawing the line to include only those 3 + maybe Goose and Hoffman, although the real HOF has decided to be somewhat more inclusive. Based on the de facto standard, I think Wagner is clearly in.
The only two closers that I've ever perceived as superstars, or among the 10-20 most famous players in the game, are Gagne for those three years and Rivera. I don't think that Wagner, Hoffman, Smoltz, Rodriguez, Papelbon, Kimbrel, Chapman, or anyone else reached that level (I'll cop to not having a good handle on anything past 2015 or so). Wagner probably did get more press over the course of his career than Gagne did, but you could say the same thing about other non-superstars with excellent longevity like Bob Abreu.
Rich Gossage's reliever prime was every bit as good as Wagner's full career on a rate basis with more innings thrown, and then Goose added another 700 innings of quality pitching on top of that.
Wagner and his 903 IP of great regular season pitching (and abysmal postseason pitching) have no business near the Hall of Fame
Save % for the 90s/00s relievers:
Rivera - 89
Hoffman - 89
Nathan - 89
Papelbon - 88
Wagner - 86
Eck - 85
Smith - 82
Yes, absolutely. Paul Richards's misguided attempt to make Gossage a starter cuts off his excellent 1975 from the rest of his prime and thus it can't summed easily. But from 1977-1985, he had 833 IP with a 182 ERA+. Add in 1975 and it's something like 975 IP and 186 . Wagner for his career was 903 187. To that, Gossage adds 392 and 105 at the end of his career and 224 and 91 (good for 2.8 WAR) his one year as a starter. Yes, I choose to ignore his first 3 years, which were abysmal, but those were ages 20-22. At those ages, Wagner was in college and A ball.
A modern closer has one job - get 3 outs to the end the game before the opponent gets to 1, 2, or 3 runs, depending on the score.
It's not all that difficult for a good pitcher. Rivera allowing fewer baserunners than similar closers doesn't particularly mean anything (unless you're the manager's blood pressure).
Mo gave up fewer earned runs in 141 innings of postseason work than Wagner did in 11.2.
Quantitative analysis puts both of those guys in. If I am feeling generous I would elect Gossage. But that's it. I'm fine with Gossage as the standard for relievers. Wagner needed about 6 more seasons before I would take him seriously as a candidate.
Ranking relievers by WAA + WAR
Rivera 89
Wilhelm 77
Gossage 56
Wagner 44
Smith 43
Hoffman 42
Nathan 40
Rodriguez 37
Tekulve 37
Quisenberry 37
Sutter 35
Franco 34
Fingers 32
Reardon 27
He satisfies my criteria that he could both start and relieve at a high level
The BBWAA have been far more inclusive, far too inclusive, but even so there is hardly a standard. Wilhelm is first in 1985, but he's vastly different than Fingers who was second in 1992. Then it's another 14 years before Sutter goes in, and he's quite different from Fingers (far fewer career innings, much more emphasis on Saves rather than the Fireman role Fingers filled early in his career). You can't include Eckersley meaningfully in any sort of reliever standard as he simply has too much careers as a starter. Gossage is elected only two years after Sutter, but he's more of a throwback to Fingers, at least in terms of role. By Fireman role I mean both Fingers and Gossage were much more likely to be used in non save situations than Sutter. They were brought into high leverage situations with runners on base and earlier in games much more often than Sutter. Then it's on to Hoffman in 2018 and both Rivera and Smith in 2019. Two guys who were one inning closers (with the caveat that Rivera was stellar in save situations of more than one inning, and as noted ever more so in the post season), and another who somewhat straddled the multi-inning reliever transition to single inning closer role in Smith. So how do you get a standard from that? And how does Wagner meet it?
And where's the line going forward? Everyone with 400 saves? Is that the difference between Joe Nathan and his paltry 377 saves being one and done while the very comparable KRod might work his way up to election? Will Kimbrel and Jansen punch their tickets to Cooperstown next season when they record their 400th save?
It all seems so arbitrary at this point.
- the Hall is, unfortunately NOT that. it SHOULD be, but it has this unfortunate Character Clause and These Days a ballplayer is expected to be a Saint off the field as well as on it.
and, as you've prolly noticed, most of the Stat Drunk Computer Nerds do NOT adjust their stats to include the obviously bad electees like jack morris, harold baines etc
Yeah, that last is it. The standards are whether the writers got stories out of that player. Wagner made that easy by throwing 102 mph. So did K-rod with his strikeout totals and he's going in too.
Right, these are reasonable, logical questions a reasonable, logical voter would ask. But honestly what is the reasonable, logical explanation for Joe Nathan receiving only 17 votes, 4.3%, in his only year on the ballot, and Wagner pulling 46 votes, 10.5%, in his first year on a much more crowded ballot? Nathan's career as a closer ran consecutively from 2003-2014, his first two seasons were as a starter, then two seasons lost to injury, and his last two "seasons" comprised only 6 2/3 IP. He also missed 2010 right in the middle of his career, but you're looking at a closer who pitched from 2003-2014 in that role.
Saves 375, Save % 89.1, ERA+ 177, ERA/FIP 2.44/2.77, K/9 10.5, IP 729 1/3, if anyone cares W-L 50-28 versus
Saves 422, Save % 85.9, ERA+ 187, ERA/FIP 2.31/2.73, K/9 11.9, IP 903 if anyone cares W-L 47-40
This seems far too fine a line to draw between someone who was one and done and another player who is looking like he may very well be on his way to election with a final year of eligibility bump.
Not so sure about Rodriguez making it all the way to 75%, but agree writers nearly always write about the K's when trying to justify voting for Wagner, a lot of them throw in ERA+, too, but mostly it's about the K's. Of course it's always about the rate of K's, too, never the quantity. Conveniently forgetting that it's far easier to throw gas past hitters who only get one chance at you, and you only have to throw one inning at a time. I guess being 376th on the all time Career K list, right between Chris Capuano and Russ Ortiz, isn't as impressive as 11.9 K/9. I wonder if they ever look at the Career K/9 list and wonder why he's not there
I remember when he and Von joined the Cards way back when.
He had a wonderful career….not a HOFer but a great pitcher.
Was he a bonus baby? I see he pitched all of 19 innings at age 19, never appearing in the minors until his age 22 season.
He's better than Fingers, Sutter, Wagner, K-Rod, Kimbrel, Chapman, and Nathan by bWAR. Roughly equal to Lee Smith and Trevor Hoffman
Only wilhelm and Gossage had more Ks from what I can see
Only wilhelm has more innings
His combo of wins and saves is excellent and would have been much higher had anyone been playing using the save metric
He's certainly the type of guy who should be on an old-timers vet ballot
Because the voters didn't start losing their minds until they got mesmerized by Rollie and his moustache.
The most obvious reason is that bWAR (or any other WAR) is completely irrelevant to HOF voters when evaluating relievers. Which is apparent by the fact that there are relievers in the HOF (other than Mo). But if you think that Lindy McDaniel is honestly a good candidate, you have to start asking yourself why about 200 other players aren't. For example, McDaniel's virtual clone, Tom Gordon. And as you're talking yourself into voting for him, you're saying to yourself things like "Yeah, he's a slightly better Ryan Dempster, and that's HOF worthy" which maybe makes you re-evaluate talking yourself into voting for him. That'd be my guess. Combined with the fact that lots of HOF voters do not care about consistency, logic, or putting the effort of thoughtfulness into the privilege.
bbref leaders, post-season Championship WPA
1. Mariano Rivera 183.0
2. Madison Bumgarner 132.6
3. Rollie Fingers 122.3
of course the other 2 came well after Fingers' career
Sadly, I think quite high.
I see only one ballot came in yesterday and it's an interesting one. Allan Greenwood, or something like that, voted for only Manny and A-Rod. Some kine of pro PED ballot? An anti character clause ballot?
Same here. I thought Rolen would get through, but his inability to convert any early votes just makes it hard to see a path to 75 percent this year.
Regarding Rolen, I'm a bit worried that if he doesn't make it this year, his support might stagnate for a couple years with several worthy newcomers hitting the ballot in the next 2 elections (Beltre, Mauer, and Utley in 2024, Ichiro and Sabathia in 2025), one of which (Beltre) is basically a superior version of Rolen himself.
Yeah that does make sense.
This seems like a reasonable take. It's sad that after putting in many deserving players in recent years, even while shutting out many others, it's looking like the writers will only put in one from 2021-2023, and probably only one more in 2024. I don't think they can miss on Beltre since he soared past 3000 hits and has the defensive rep to go with plenty of great offensive numbers. But still that's shutout, one, shutout, and one from 2021-2024. Would be sad if Rolen gets stuck on the doorstep and can't get over the line, same with Helton from my perspective on his candidacy at least.
Beltran is at 51.6% so far, which would be potentially promising as a first-time percentage if it holds up, but he's also currently behind Rolen, Helton, Wagner, Andruw, and Sheffield, and running barely ahead of Manny and A-Rod. His correlation to Manny and A-Rod's exact voters may be less strong than I initially expected; he now has 9 votes that didn't include either of them.
Lots of deserving HOFers debuted at 50ish percent or less before ultimately getting elected. Your theory requires that at least half the people not voting for Beltran on the first ballot will never vote for him. That would be ahistorical and surprising. We’ve pointed out the arguable hypocrisy many times — steroids are treated differently from other forms of cheating. Time will tell.
How have people forgotten that Sheffield used the same steroids from the same company as Barry Bonds?
Trying to extrapolate Era selections from BBWAA voting totals is pointless. There may be some correlation between a higher vote total by the writers and eventual selection by a committee, but it's far from meaningful. For example, Bonds and Clemens were at 66/65% in their final year, McGriff never made it to 40%, yet McGriff is going in and the other two received "less than four" votes. Gil Hodges was over 60% in his last year on the ballot with the writers, but took almost 40 years to go in via committee. Baines couldn't even stay on the ballot for the entire eligibility period, but 8 years later went in. There's simply no rhyme or reason there.
Oh, the Facebook voter has a fascinating take on that. Sheffield made the All Star team and received MVP votes in 2004 and 2005, after testing began, so he must have been clean then and he was still good. According to Mr. Graves, Sheffield only "ran into issues w/ties to Balco and being associated with the Mitchell Report."
First, Beltran's percentage now is not likely to be his final percentage; stat-friendly candidates tend to fall as more ballots are released.
Second, this would be ahistorical and surprising - except among a subset of candidates that get blacklisted by a particular subset of the writers. Beltran may end up in that group. (He also may not; we'll see how he progresses next year.)
Trying to extrapolate Era selections from BBWAA voting totals is pointless. There may be some correlation between a higher vote total by the writers and eventual selection by a committee, but it's far from meaningful. For example, Bonds and Clemens were at 66/65% in their final year, McGriff never made it to 40%, yet McGriff is going in and the other two received "less than four" votes.
As has been noted in many other places, Bonds and Clemens are a special case. (They may also get in eventually, it will depend on how the VC evolves over time.)
In general, players who get very close on the BBWAA ballot get in via the vets pretty quickly; other players also get in, but the 50-plus percent players are at the front of the line. (As you note, Hodges took a while, but he did get in, and if memory serves nobody else who cleared 50% via the writers has had to wait nearly as long as Hodges.) The question is whether Sheffield's early gains will hold up, and if they do, whether the VC will have a selective memory on his 'roid use compared to Bonds and Clemens.
In the October 11, 2004 issue of Sports Illustrated, Verducci reported that Sheffield told the grand jury that he was introduced to BALCO by Bonds, a casual friend who invited him to train with him in San Francisco before the 2002 season. Trainer Greg Anderson gave Sheffield what the slugger believed to be a cortisone-type cream to rub on his surgical scars, but it was in fact the testosterone-based steroid known as “the cream.” He was not told it was an illegal steroid:
“I put it on my legs and thought nothing of it. I kept it in my locker. The trainer saw my cream,” he told the grand jury. Though he soon broke off ties with Bonds due to an unrelated matter, he used the cream during the season, a relatively down one in which he hit a representative .307/.404/.512 but with just 25 homers. He was shocked to find out it was a steroid.
Im inclined to give him a pass simply because he was willing to admit it. Did he really not know?
I hope I'm wrong.
The set of voters seems weird to me so far in general (still only one first-time voter through 65 total). Hunter hasn't actually lost any votes from last year, none of his supporters have announced yet.
Whatever momentum Vizquel seemed to have regained in the first few voters appears to have been a mirage; he's -2 so far, with 5 total votes putting him behind Rollins, Buehrle, and K-Rod.
Is this really true though? Not a HOF electoral history expert, but in looking at the B-R page showing inductees by year it looks like the VC started putting in players (and others, but we're concerned with players) in the 50's. Prior to that it was the Old Timers Committee, which did a pretty good job, IMO. Looking at a sampling of those players from the 50's to early 60's it's a pretty mixed bag. Many of those I looked at had very low voting percentages before going in via the VC. Some were over 50% by a bit, but many never even came close to that. 1963-64 was a very busy time for this early VC with 9 players being elected. Of those 9 it's a mixed bag: Eppa Rixey 12% in 1958, 52.8% in 1960, 30.6% in 1962, previous high 14% in 1956. Sam Rice over 50% in 1960 and 1962. Elmer Flick 0.4% in 1938. John Clarkson 6.4% in 1936 and a nominating vote of 0.5% in 1946. John Ward 3.8% in 1936. Heinie Manush topped out at 9.4% in 1962. Tim Keefe 1.3% in 1936. Burleigh Grimes 26.9% in 1962, high of 34.2% in 1960. Maybe those 19th Century guys are not representative, but that leaves 2 moder guys who made it to 50 and 2 who didn't. The next 5 VC inductions in the 60's never made it anywhere near 50%, and then you start to get into the Frankie Frisch era. Of the 10 VC selections in the 80's only Slaughter made it over 50% and most of the others were never close, I think Mize was the only one who topped 40%. The 90's were a bit different with 3 of 9 VC selections having exceeded 50%, but it was way over 50%, in fact over 70%.
I'm getting tired now, so I'll go in reverse order and look back from McGriff to Santo in 2012 to see if recent trends have changed. I think they might have, but let's see. Santo is a no, despite being put back on the ballot, or perhaps because of it, he topped out at 43.1%. Trammell no, 40.9%. Jack The Jack, yes. Smith, yeah I guess, 50.6% in 2012, but fell right back below and stayed below for the next 5 years (understandably, I suppose). Baines, no, not even close. Simmons, one and done. Oliva, no (topped out at 47.3% in 1988, then fell all the way back to 30.2% the next year and only made it back above 40% 4 years later, but finished below 40% in each of his last 4 years). Minoso, no. Kaat, no. So 7 of the 9 never made it to 50%. I'm really not seeing any evidence that 50% is any sort of significant event for a VC/Era selection.
This is one of the takeaways Posnanski seems to have from his current reflection on what the HOF wants. They seem not to want controversy, but, of course, they do want inductees. So Beltran is a likely no, if voters follow his line of reasoning, while a vote for Rollins may be perfectly reasonable. Now I don't know that any significant number of writers will follow that line of thinking, but I do see Beltran suffering in a post PED world more, much more, than he would have if the character clause hadn't come front and center over the past decade plus.
Obviously a lot of players below that have gone in, but getting that kind of support from the writers is absolutely the best path to election by a veteran's committee.
I didn't say that the VC only selects players who do well with the writers - just that players who don't get in via the writers but clear 50% almost always get in via the VC. Players since 1950 who have cleared 50% on the BBWAA ballot without clearing 75% are:
Bonds/Clemens/Schilling (possibly special cases, didn't get in on their first VC try, too early to say how they'll do long-term)
Lee Smith (fell off in 2017, got in via VC in 2019)
Jack Morris (fell off in 2014, VC in 2017)
Orlando Cepeda (fell off in 1994, VC in 1999)
Jim Bunning (fell off in 1991, VC in 1996)
Nellie Fox (fell off in 1985, VC in 1997)
Gil Hodges (fell off in 1983, VC in 2022)
Sam Rice (fell off in 1962, VC in 1963)
Eppa Rixey (fell off in 1962, VC in 1963)
Edd Roush (fell off in 1960, VC in 1962)
Max Carey (fell off in 1958, VC in 1961)
Everyone up to B/C/S is in. Most of them got in very quickly via the VC. If Sheffield can clear 50% with the writers (and doesn't get Bonds/Clemens treatment) then he will very likely get in via the VC. Same for Andruw, or Helton, or (sigh) Wagner.
Fred McGriff (k, 39.8% if you want to get nitpicky) - HOF
Alan Trammell - HOF
Jack Morris - HOF
Lee Smith - HOF
Ron Santo - HOF
Steve Garvey
Orlando Cepeda - HOF
Bill Mazeroski - HOF
Tony Oliva - HOF
Jim Bunning - HOF
Roger Maris
Nellie Fox - HOF
Gil Hodges - HOF
Red Schoendienst - HOF
Maury Wills
Enos Slaughter - HOF
Richie Ashburn - HOF
Pee Wee Reese - HOF
Hal Newhouser - HOF
Johnny Mize - HOF
17/20 (85%) who reached 40% on the writers ballot (without being deliberately snubbed) went on to be VC selections, and many of the most recent ones did so on their first VC ballot. So yes, there are a few Ted Simmons' and Harold Baines' who the VC picks despite the writers not giving them the time of day, but for the most part, it appears the VC still very much takes it's cues from the BBWAA. Get 40% on the writers ballot and you have a well over 90% chance (including all the players who the writers eventually selected) of getting elected eventually.
Edit: And what SoSh and Eric said
Wills and Garvey have their own flavor of character issues, if I'm not mistaken.
Garvey. Again, he doesn't hold up well under sabr-stat scrutiny, but he was definitely a marquee player in his time. The longer it takes for him to get another vote the less likely it becomes. I believe he was getting some traction with the last vote and might have gone in on the next one if they hadn't have changed the format.
Both of these guys meet the "fame" criteria and I personally wouldn't vote for either of them now, I've gotten comfortable with Garvey going in. Wills is a bridge too far. A better version of Wills got in, Lou Brock.
OK, but the last four don't help your case because they never made it anywhere near 50%. The top two I think what we're seeing there is partly writers voting and partly Era committees focusing on a more limited ballot. Cepeda and Bunning support your theory, Fox and Hodges do not as they took a long time to go in it certainly doesn't appear they went to the front of any line. Still I concede it certainly won't hurt anyone's chances.
Umm... yes they did?
Rice: 53.2% on the 1960 ballot, 50.6% in '62
Rixey: 52.8% on the 1960 ballot
Roush: 54.3% on the 1960 ballot
Carey: 51.1% on the 1958 ballot
Oh well my bad memory kicking in again! :-)
The others have relatively decent chances (though I'm highly doubtful Sheffield can get there), but Kent is just hoping the Vet's committee next door hears him knocking.
Not sure where you get this perspective from. It's certainly very much a minority view around here at least. For example, on the most recent mock ballot BBTF selected 6 players for induction, half of whom we had already elected. Remove those three from the ballot and it's possible Jones would have been elected as he still received 73.3% of the votes. I think 3 voters said they would have voted for other players but for the 10 player limit. Of the 30 ballots cast, 13 had the full 10, and 20 had 8 or more, only 5 ballots had 5 or fewer. I don't think BBTF users find it a weak ballot, simply a more open ballot than has existed in a decade.
It's weak in the sense that there are no no-doubt inner-circlers. It may ultimately have just as many HOFers as the peak-backlog mid-2010's ballots, but the range of them is borderline to average by HOF standards rather than historically great planet-eaters.
Beyond that, I agree. The next best player is one of Rolen, Beltran, or Manny, who all topped out right at 70-ish WAR.
And I guess Kevin Brown might be on the "he won't get in" list
His Mitchell Report Appearance is only one of Kevin Brown's problems, but not the biggest one.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main