Rolen still sitting at +7, but he's also 9/9 among people who didn't vote last year, which effectively puts him at +9 overall (4 new voters are equivalent to a +1 for the purposes of reaching 75%).

And that doesn't include voters aged off the voting rolls, who tend to be smaller Hall and private ballots

Raines wasn't bad from 36-42, but it sure wasn't burnishing his image. I wonder if he would have been elected more easily if he'd retired after 1995 or 1997.

Trouble is, retiring after 95 knocks like 300 hits off his total. That's a tough blow to counting stats. I wonder if he'd look a lot like Willie Wilson in that regard. And starting on the ballot in 2003 might de-emphasize that OBP.

Trouble is, retiring after 95 knocks like 300 hits off his total. That's a tough blow to counting stats. I wonder if he'd look a lot like Willie Wilson in that regard. And starting on the ballot in 2003 might de-emphasize that OBP.

I don't think anyone was talking about 2600 hits for Raines, it was more about times on base, or OBP as you note. But, yes, that could have been de-emphasized had he retired earlier. Very superficially he may have resembled Wilson, and it does seem many voters are very superficial in their assessments. In looking at the 2003 ballot he would have debuted with Fernando, the same guy who beat him out for ROY, but also Murray, who was elected along with Carter, Sandberg and Smith, both of whom debuted strongly in the 40's.

When I look through the results of that vote I have no idea where he might have placed. It's such a grab bag, or more aptly a #### show. The top 9 spots all went in via the writers, including Murray and Carter that year. Then 3 of the next 5 have since gone in via Era committees, including Trammell who only had 14% in his second year. Beyond Tram there's a list of regulars, or regularly discussed as being worth considering, on the Era Committee ballots: Mattingly, Murphy, Concepcion, and Parker. Lastly there's Valenzuela, and Keith Hernandez is the final guy to get at least 5% in his 8th year on the ballot. I'd like to think a guy like Raines with 795 SB, 1475 R, .296 BA in over 9500 PA's could have pulled over 20%, but it seems just as likely he would have been in the low teens like Trammell. Who knows with results like that?

Rolen picks up another. He's going to be very close as is Helton. We could have two guys at 74....or 76

With Rolen on the ballot 4 more years, and Helton 5, it looks to be just a matter of time before they are elected if they don’t make it this year. Neither seems like the type to spark an adamant minority to hold out forever, as was the case the PED issues. They’ll make it.

With Rolen on the ballot 4 more years, and Helton 5, it looks to be just a matter of time before they are elected if they don’t make it this year. Neither seems like the type to spark an adamant minority to hold out forever, as was the case the PED issues. They’ll make it.

There's no doubt they will. But it's frustrating that we will likely have two consecutive shutouts with players we all know will eventually make it in. Maybe the Hall revisits their induction rules after two shutouts, and changes it to the top vote getter being inducted. So far, that would be no-doubters Berra, Niekro, Biggio, and Schilling. And one of these two this year.

There's no doubt they will. But it's frustrating that we will likely have two consecutive shutouts with players we all know will eventually make it in. Maybe the Hall revisits their induction rules after two shutouts, and changes it to the top vote getter being inducted. So far, that would be no-doubters Berra, Niekro, Biggio, and Schilling. And one of these two this year.

If two consecutive shutouts forces the Hall to act, then I'm rooting for that.

The one thing the Hall seems to prize more than all else is this idea of its higher degree of exclusivity (of course undercut by the inductions of various Baineseses) which is just bizarre for a museum that needs people coming through the doors.

It wouldn't be 2 consecutive shutouts, since Ortiz got elected last year. But it would be 2 shutouts in 3 years (also 2021), and 3 shutouts in 11 years (2013). And it would be just 1 player elected by the BBWAA in a 3 year span. With plenty of worthy players on the ballot in each of those, I agree that would be a strong argument in favor of changing the process a bit. As I and others have pointed out before, there's nothing magical about 75%. It's not a legal trial or a political election where the process is as important as the result. They've changed the election rules before (adding players back to the ballot, dropping the eligibility from 15 years to 10); they could do it again if necessary.

Maybe the Hall revisits their induction rules after two shutouts, and changes it to the top vote getter being inducted.

As long as there are live bodies on the podium like McGriff, Baines, Smith, etc. the HOF doesn't care if the writers don't elect anyone. My 2 cents anyway

But it would be 2 shutouts in 3 years (also 2021), and 3 shutouts in 11 years (2013). And it would be just 1 player elected by the BBWAA in a 3 year span.

But in the 7 year span between 2013 and 2021 they elected 22! In three of those years they elected four! Not saying they are justified in not electing anyone, but I don't think the HOF will be in any hurry to mess with the writers process when there's been that sort of activity plus, and especially because, the Era Committee's have been very active as well.

Forgot about Ortiz somehow. But yeah, 2 shutouts in 3 years, with only one inductee in those three years is problematic. And all it does is either slow down players joining the ballot, or cause deserving candidates to fall off. A one inductee minimum will not lower the HoF standards.

There's no guarantee the vets will elect a living candidate every year.

I just don't understand the Hall's thinking. They can push changes that would ensure someone on the podium every year without becoming the Pro Football Hall of Fame. There's quite a bit of middle ground there.

There's no guarantee the vets will elect a living candidate every year.

I just don't understand the Hall's thinking. They can push changes that would ensure someone on the podium every year without becoming the Pro Football Hall of Fame. There's quite a bit of middle ground there.

Absolutely no guarantee. Agree with your other points as well, but I imagine the HOF bigshots do not feel any need to change. They are happy with the status quo, or at least happy enough not to feel any compulsion to try to ensure an annual induction of an actual living person.

I think shutouts are part of the process and the vets committee has been given the mandate of pushing one guy through every year. The crime dog got 16 votes for a reason.

I would like to see them go back to an older logic and put some one and done guys back on the writers ballot like Delgado, Oliver, Freehan, and Edmonds and Willie Davis and a few others and at least let the writers take a second crack at them before the vets committees see them.

I think shutouts are part of the process and the vets committee has been given the mandate of pushing one guy through every year.

For a museum where induction weekend is its biggest draw of the year, shutouts should not be part of the process.

And, based on previous voting, one of the guys the Vets push through could be Dick Allen or Maury Wills, neither of whom is going to drive much attendance to Central New York.

From jay Jaffe on why Keith Hernandez can't even make a vets ballot much less be elected

"I haven't seen Joe's list but I do think KH is ripe for reconsideration and would have put him in the Hall long before McGriff. His nonstandard offensive profile and comparatively modest counting stats work against him, and I suspect he's probably got somebody among the ranks of the Historical Overview Committee — the group of BBWAA elder statesmen that tasked with building the ballots, and painfully lacking in turnover — who is pretty set against including him."


Thoughts? He must know who it is

I don't know why he'd come to that conclusion. Bobby Grich, a more deserving candidate than Keith, can't sniff a Vet's committee ballot, and I can't imagine he's ever ruffled any feathers in Cooperstown.

Roger Rubin with a ballot consisting entirely of four adds and a first-timer (Beltran/Helton/Rolen/Sheffield/Wagner). His ballot last year was Bonds/Clemens/Ortiz/Schilling, none of whom are back.

Ken Rosenthal in The Athletic:

"I voted only for six players I endorsed previously: Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Jeff Kent, Scott Rolen, Gary Sheffield and Billy Wagner.

You’ll notice I remain a “no” on Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez. I voted in the past for players alleged or confirmed to have used performance-enhancing drugs, including Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. I draw the line with Rodriguez and Ramirez because both were suspended after Major League Baseball established firm rules and penalties for using PEDs.

I’m also a “no” on Omar Vizquel. I voted for Vizquel initially.... [yada yada yada]

"Beltrán presents a new type of off-field question for voters: What to do with a player who helped create the illegal electronic sign-stealing system used by the 2017 and 2018 Astros?.... the Astros’ trash-can-banging scheme was the most egregious team activity known to have occurred. Beltrán was a ringleader. And what is it the Hall’s rules say? “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”

He figures to reach Cooperstown eventually, even if I never vote for him. I’m guessing I will at some point. It just didn’t feel right this year. Maybe next year it will."

But in the 7 year span between 2013 and 2021 they elected 22! In three of those years they elected four! Not saying they are justified in not electing anyone, but I don't think the HOF will be in any hurry to mess with the writers process when there's been that sort of activity plus, and especially because, the Era Committee's have been very active as well.

Yeah, the writers elected a lot of players from 2014-2020, but that was made necessary in part because of their stinginess in the years leading up to ballotgeddon. They only elected 4 players from 2010-2013. While this onslaught of debuts wasn't their fault...

2013 - Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Schilling, Piazza, Biggio, Lofton
2014 - Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Mussina, Kent
2015 - Johnson, Pedro, Smoltz, Sheffield
2016 - Griffey, Hoffman, Wagner, Edmonds
2017 - Pudge, Vlad, Manny
2018 - Chipper, Thome, Rolen, Andruw
2019 - Rivera, Halladay, Helton, Pettitte

...they knew it was coming and did nothing to prevent it, like say...clearing some space on the ballot by electing more of the 8 future HOFers (plus McGwire and Palmeiro) who were already filling the ballot BEFORE it got completely out of control in 2013. Bagwell, Raines, Trammell, Edgar, and Walker at least should have already been in by then.

Besides, big elections are fun! :-D And great for the Hall's bottom line! It's not a coincidence that 4 of the top 6 highest attended induction ceremonies happened from 2014-2019 (the others were 1999 and 2007), when they...well, you know...actually elected lots of modern players that living fans actually saw play! ;-) Why they don't try harder to guarantee big crowds like that every year is beyond me.

Because the voters have no incentive to elect more players and if anything have an incentive to elect less players. If they're a rubber stamp nobody cares and nobody is interested in their articles or in the fact that they have a vote.

#421 - I'm talking about the powers that run the Hall itself. They have incentive to care, and they can change the rules, the process - hell, the voting body itself - whenever the actual voters aren't giving them the results they want.

they knew it was coming and did nothing to prevent it, like say...clearing some space on the ballot by electing more of the 8 future HOFers (plus McGwire and Palmeiro) who were already filling the ballot BEFORE it got completely out of control in 2013.

I wonder about this. They should have done so, absolutely, but I wonder how many writers even had this cross their minds. For all the blather you read in articles about what an honor it is to vote for the HOF, how seriously they take it, I wonder if many of them really look closely at things. When I read justifications for voting or not voting for players it often seems like the writers are very superficial in their approach. I tend to doubt many of them at all ever looked to see what would be coming down the pike in three or four years as they were voting in 2010-2013. You can look at 30 years of history from 1980 to 2009 and that's just the way HOF voting went. Only 3 times in those 30 years were 3 players ever elected in a single year, and there was a shutout in 1996, 11 times only 1 player went in and 2 of those times were relievers Sutter and Gossage. The electorate was filled with crotchety old gate keepers even into the mid 90's when Phil Niekro debuted with 318 W's and couldn't get in on his first ballot, and then lost 5 votes the next year when Carlton was the only inductee, he makes a little progress the next year, but only Schmidt goes in, 1996 is a shutout, and then it's Niekro solo in 1997. Meantime the voting roll is growing, up from 423 in Niekro's first year to 497 in 1999 when 3 first ballot selections are made. This masks the difficulty in coming to consensus, an increase of 17.5% in only 6 years. In 2001 the number of voters crosses 500 with another 2 first ballot selections. But how many of those 500+ voters is actually going out to the internet or using any other methodology to look down the road to see who is coming up for election? These guys have jobs, paying jobs, and it is not part of the job description to vote for the HOF, it's a perk, an uncompensated perk. I don't think they're really spending much time on it.

So, yeah, they should have been looking forward and seeing a coming wave. But did they? I don't think so. Most of them were not internet savvy, most of them had no inclination to seek out a resource such as B-R which would allow them to see what upcoming ballots would look like. For years they'd been voting based on the ballot that arrived in the mail, and for many years the organization as a whole had been operating in the same fashion: elect the obvious first ballot guys, and wait for the rest to gradually work their way up or fall off after 15 years.

I'm talking about the powers that run the Hall itself. They have incentive to care, and they can change the rules, the process - hell, the voting body itself - whenever the actual voters aren't giving them the results they want.

True, but changing the rules for an election calls into question the legitimacy of prior elections and caution should be exercised in doing so. Yes, they have made changes over the years, and they made a big one fairly recently. I don't think they're in any rush to make more in order to avoid calling into question the legitimacy of the process and the institution.

Re 422. They did. The committees are sending bunches of people in

Fred McGriff is going in. Under the old rules he'd still be on the ballot

@424 if they guaranteed the top vote getter gets in if no one reaches 75%, that would have added Berra, Niekro, Biggio,and Schilling early. And maybe Rolen this year. Don't know how that would make all elections illegitimate. But if that's an issue, drop the percentage to 67% - still a supermajority, still hard to reach, and no one who's made it that far hasn't been inducted save Schilling

The committees are sending bunches of people in

Bunches?

#425 - Sure, but by the same token, Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling aren't going in, and they might have been under the old format (or have 4 additional shots if they didn't). Considering BALCO tainted Sheffield's unexpected jump, it seems entirely possible that Barry and Roger might've been able to make up that final 9% of the vote they were missing.

The new rules cut both ways. They help some players and hurt others.

The committees have sent 15 people into the hall over 7 years.

A 10 person ballot by Felix De Jesus. He manages to vote for Beltran and K-Rod while adding Hunter, Kent and Wagner, and does not have a space for Rolen. Sheesh!

@424 if they guaranteed the top vote getter gets in if no one reaches 75%, that would have added Berra, Niekro, Biggio,and Schilling early. And maybe Rolen this year. Don't know how that would make all elections illegitimate. But if that's an issue, drop the percentage to 67% - still a supermajority, still hard to reach, and no one who's made it that far hasn't been inducted save Schilling

Sure, but do you honestly think anyone at the HOF involved in the voting process knows this? I'm quite sure we spend more time each year discussing, considering and researching things like this than those folks have done in the past decade. For them it's a process which has been in place (the 75% that is) for longer than they've been alive and seems to be working just fine. I don't think the HOF is hurting for funds, nor will it be even if there are some empty podiums from time to time. So where's the motivation to change?

The committees have sent 15 people into the hall over 7 years.

Only nine of whom were players, and only seven of them were alive.

Only nine of whom were players, and only seven of them were alive.

Six went in one bunchy year. No more than two in the other six years.

I also don't even know who the "Classic Era" (pre-1980) committee even has remaining to induct anymore. Their most recent election basically grabbed everyone left from previous ballots (Kaat, Oliva, Hodges, Minoso, etc).

Elect Dick Allen and Luis Tiant next time - maybe Ken Boyer - and then shut it down* and focus solely on the Contemporary era (1980-present)?

* Since Grich can't even make it on a ballot anyway

I also don't even know who the "Classic Era" (pre-1980) committee even has remaining to induct anymore

Dahlen, Glasscock, Caruthers, Ferrell off the top of my head

#435 - Exactly. Long dead players that living fans didn't see (probably never even heard of) and wouldn't care about except for hard core SABR geeks.

Sorry, not trying to be snarky. I just don't really see who it would benefit to induct more 2nd tier stars from the 19th century or the Great Depression because a couple of computer generated stats (WAR/WAA) from a century later suggests that these guys might have been a bit better than contemporary opinion at the time thought they were.

The Hall of Fame should be about celebrating the best players in the game's history, regardless of how long it takes, or how long they've been dead.

Edit: double

If they're an egregious oversight, sure. None of those guys are though except maybe Dahlen. And even he's a "cuz WAR says so" HOFer. The HOF isn't - and shouldn't - just be a generic collection of everyone who produced above a certain amount of computer calculated value either. That would be boring.

I just don't really see who it would benefit to induct more 2nd tier stars from the 19th century or the Great Depression

If they are going to induct more (and they are) they could at least induct the best ones.

We're coming up on 1/3 of the known ballots getting tallied (32.7%), and something I noticed in looking at the number of gains is that there are two clear tiers. One group has four players who are all +8 (Abreu, Buehrle, Pettitte, Rolen). The top tier guys are all between +19 and 22 (Helton, Jones, Kent, Sheffield, Wagner). Maybe this will even out as more ballots come in.

Sorry, not trying to be snarky. I just don't really see who it would benefit to induct more 2nd tier stars from the 19th century or the Great Depression because a couple of computer generated stats (WAR/WAA) from a century later suggests that these guys might have been a bit better than contemporary opinion at the time thought they were.

Yes, I think this is a good take.

The Hall of Fame should be about celebrating the best players in the game's history, regardless of how long it takes, or how long they've been dead.

And they've done so. The focus would be much better put on more recent players who were overlooked rather than a few long gone players. Now the issue is the poor selection of players put on the ballot leading to selections like Baines and Smith, but that's another story.

I think consolidating over a hundred years on one ballot is more than enough focus on the past 40 years. The problem is wasting a whole year on non players. I'd rather have two committee votes a year, one year 1990-present and non-players; the next year pre-integration and 1947-1990.

The Hall doesn't have a "focus". They have committees for a variety of eras. They all can be sent in.

From the Athletic ballot list, I found this particularly annoying.

The struggle was justifying Wagner (27.7 career WAR) over very good starters Andy Pettitte (60.2) and Mark Buehrle (59.1). But JAWS puts both of those starters below the threshold of an average Hall of Fame starting pitcher (73.0). Going by S-JAWS, Pettitte and Buehrle rank below the likes of Chuck Finley, Kevin Appier and Tim Hudson. In contrast, Wagner’s R-JAWS figure trails only Cooperstown residents Mariano Rivera, Dennis Eckersley, Hoyt Wilhelm, Goose Gossage and Trevor Hoffman.

JAWS is a fine way of broadly categorizing players, I guess. And if you don't have any better way to determine your vote, sure go ahead and use it. But if you're going to use it, at least use it.

JAWS:
Buehrle: 47.4
Pettitte: 47.2
Wagner: 23.7, right behind Mike Napoli and JJ Hardy. And right above Bronson Arroyo

Wagner gets huge support from the supposedly sabr-savvy new voters. What a strange thing

So many + signs for almost every returning candidate. I wonder if that's ever happened in such high numbers before? I guess there really was a big backlog from voters with bonds and Clemens and schilling in prior years

Sorry, not trying to be snarky. I just don't really see who it would benefit to induct more 2nd tier stars from the 19th century or the Great Depression because a couple of computer generated stats (WAR/WAA) from a century later suggests that these guys might have been a bit better than contemporary opinion at the time thought they were.

Agreed 1000%. Want to remember greats from the 1800s? That's what the museum should be for.

Honest question: What are these committees even looking at with guys like Dahlen or Jim McCormick? What else is there left to debate about him? What information is there to pour over? What new information are they thinking they'll discover that will change their minds about a guy whose career began when there was just a pitching slab 50 feet from the plate and gloves had no size limits?

At what point can we say we've reasonably looked at/analyzed guys from the 1800s in as many ways as are feasible, and we just need to say: "These are the worthy guys from that era" and be done with it?

Why do we have to stop analyzing players from any era? That presumes the past had perfect knowledge and decision making, which smells like hubris to me

The committee wasn't created to study the 19th century but to pick players from that ere that should be in the hall. Like the Negro Leagues the hall can say they're done for the time being and they probably should be done with players pre 1961. Maybe open the books every 15 years or so and take a look.

There's quite a bit of middle ground there.

Human beings suck very badly at middle ground.

Agreed 1000%. Want to remember greats from the 1800s? That's what the museum should be for.

Honest question: What are these committees even looking at with guys like Dahlen or Jim McCormick? What else is there left to debate about him? What information is there to pour over? What new information are they thinking they'll discover that will change their minds about a guy whose career began when there was just a pitching slab 50 feet from the plate and gloves had no size limits?

At what point can we say we've reasonably looked at/analyzed guys from the 1800s in as many ways as are feasible, and we just need to say: "These are the worthy guys from that era" and be done with it?

I mean, that's just how the historical process works - new information emerges, new perspectives develop. What's the advantage of closing the door? Sure you don't need a 19th century committee every year, but taking a look every five or seven years seems fine.

So many + signs for almost every returning candidate. I wonder if that's ever happened in such high numbers before?

Basically any ballot with significantly more space available than the previous one will see this effect. 1999 saw 3 first-ballot inductees; if you look at '99 to '00, returning candidates saw the following increases, roughly in order of their finish in 2000:

Fisk +13% (inducted)
Perez +16% (inducted)
Rice +22%
Carter +16%
Sutter +14%
Garvey +2%
John +8%
Kaat +5%
Murphy +4%
Parker +5%
Blyleven +3%
Tiant +6%

Mid-to-high range candidates increased by the most, lower candidates also saw general increases. Looks quite similar to this year (with the possible exception of Rolen, who has not gone up as much as I expected so far).

I mean, that's just how the historical process works - new information emerges, new perspectives develop. What's the advantage of closing the door? Sure you don't need a 19th century committee every year, but taking a look every five or seven years seems fine.

My earlier question wasn't rhetorical. I genuinely want to know what exactly these committees are discussing about guys who played a version of baseball bearing no resemblance to the modern version. Not in the "Well, now we care about hitters drawing walks" sense. But the "Jim McCormick's career started when it took 8 balls to earn a walk but by his fifth year, pitchers could release pitches above their waist" sense.

But other than just objectively ranking guys via a new computer metric like WAR or JAWS, what is the new information/perspective about guys in the 1890s?

what is the new information/perspective about guys in the 1890s?

Bud Fowler wasn't going to get elected 30 years ago. Our perspective on which events in history are important changes.

For Negro Leaguers we have uncovered a lot more information in the last 20 years. Retrosheet has added access to play-by-play data giving a new perspective for seasons back to 1910.

My earlier question wasn't rhetorical. I genuinely want to know what exactly these committees are discussing about guys who played a version of baseball bearing no resemblance to the modern version. Not in the "Well, now we care about hitters drawing walks" sense. But the "Jim McCormick's career started when it took 8 balls to earn a walk but by his fifth year, pitchers could release pitches above their waist" sense.

But other than just objectively ranking guys via a new computer metric like WAR or JAWS, what is the new information/perspective about guys in the 1890s?

My apologies - my broad assumption is that John Thorn or whatever real historian is on the committee makes his case for each guy and then Dennis Eckersley and Bert Blyleven randomly vote. I can't imagine any of the Hall of Fame players or exectuvies are that knowledgeable about George Scales or Jack Glasscock. I did find this transcript from NPR from when Deacon White got elected that implies that some of the players might have some insight into the broad physicallities as well or at least add weight to historians' arguments.

As far as new information - retrosheet is currently reconstructing a lot of the missing play-by-play data from older eras - I think they've pushed into the early 20s by now, which actually allows us to evaluate base-running or situational hitting from that era. The process is also ongoing for the Negro Leagues too. There's also plenty of room available for further analysis - I for one would love to see a systematic investigation into pre-1893 pitching, and catcher defense is a total unknown for much of history.

And then there is the process of actually applying the advances already made. Jack Glasscock, for example, hasn't been up for a vote in decades.

JAWS is a fine way of broadly categorizing players, I guess. And if you don't have any better way to determine your vote, sure go ahead and use it. But if you're going to use it, at least use it.

JAWS:
Buehrle: 47.4
Pettitte: 47.2
Wagner: 23.7, right behind Mike Napoli and JJ Hardy. And right above Bronson Arroyo

Yeah, the whole reliever JAWS thing is just complete bullshit! They're ####### pitchers, compare the to other pitchers!

At what point can we say we've reasonably looked at/analyzed guys from the 1800s in as many ways as are feasible, and we just need to say: "These are the worthy guys from that era" and be done with it?

We are probably already there. Anyone entrusted with the task today has no 1st hand knowledge of 19th century players. Those who voted in the Hall’s early years, when many active in 19th century baseball were still around, or at least had earlier rubbed shoulders with those who were then active in the game, had a broader knowledge base. Any election today just rehashes what those folks left behind, and might well turn on who has the has the most persuasive, or well-liked, advocates, based on who knows what.

Maybe there isn’t a consensus yet, but perhaps when the Hall hits 100 (not that far away) it can cut off consideration of the 19th century, and move toward 100 years of eligibility for all players. That should be enough, even if there may be some Really Big Hall advocates who think a few more belong.

12 votes dropped this morning... and of course we somehow don't get any new Rolen info from them, as they all voted for him last year.

Abreu with a +10 now, which is a 50% increase in support from the same voters compared to last year. Pettitte and Buehrle have similar jumps so far. It's not inconceivable that one of them could start a climb, given the weakness of the upcoming ballots.

Yeah, the whole reliever JAWS thing is just complete bullshit! They're ####### pitchers, compare the to other pitchers!

Well, that's one way of looking at it. The other way, is that managers select pitchers for certain roles, and two roles are clearly most important - SP and Closer - as evidenced by the investment that teams make for players for those roles, and another way of looking at it is that the best in both roles should be recognized.

I think it's a lot more likely that Wagner could have been as good a SP as Buehrle or Pettitte (since dozens of SP have been that good, and Wagner was himself a really good pitcher) than that Pettitte or Buehrle could have been as good a closer as Wagner (since only Rivera has been as good on a per-inning basis for an extended period, ever).

We'll never know - we only know what they actually did, but it's reasonable to recognize an extreme level of talent (and yes, cumulative accomplishment over a 15 year career) at the "lesser" role, and once you do that Wagner stands out from his peers to a far greater degree than standard-issue durable #2 starters.

once you do that Wagner stands out from his peers to a far greater degree

It's true. All of his Hall of Fame reliever peers managed to throw at least 1,000 innings.

Pettitte or Buehrle could have been as good a closer as Wagner

Maybe not, but they did something more difficult and more valuable instead. If Wagner could have been as valuable of a starter as Pettitte or Buehrle he was epically mismanaged by baseball's front offices.

I'm fine with inducting closers but the ratio should be like 10 starting pitchers per closer.

I think it's a lot more likely that Wagner could have been as good a SP as Buehrle or Pettitte (since dozens of SP have been that good, and Wagner was himself a really good pitcher) than that Pettitte or Buehrle could have been as good a closer as Wagner (since only Rivera has been as good on a per-inning basis for an extended period, ever).

And yet the Astros never gave Wagner a single start after they brought him up to the big club, while he had never made a single relief appearance in the minors. Have you looked at his minor league performance? He had no control. Sure he could still strike people out, but he walked 4.7 per 9 IP in 548 minor league innings. Not many starting pitchers are successful with BB rates like that. OTOH, we know starters have and regularly do make the transition to successful reliever, or even closer. Your "theory" that Wagner is more likely to have been as good a starter as Buehrle or Pettitte than they would have been as closers is belied by both the historical record in general as well as Wagner's own history.

it's reasonable to recognize an extreme level of talent (and yes, cumulative accomplishment over a 15 year career) at the "lesser" role, and once you do that Wagner stands out from his peers to a far greater degree than standard-issue durable #2 starters.

And just how do you determine the degree to what Wagner stands out? Joe Nathan has a better save %, as a reliever his ERA+ is 177, K/9 is double digit, and K/BB is 3.68 to 3.99 for Wagner. Jonathan Pappelbon has a better save %, 177 ERA+, K/9 is double digit and a better K/BB ratio than Wagner. Francisco Rodriguez's first run as a closer was 289 saves with a 174 ERA+, and 11.3 K/9; his next stint was less impressive to be sure, but he still managed to save over 90% of his games in those last 3 seasons despite the much lower ERA+, and overall his save % is the same as Wagner. Kimbrel and Jansen both have better save %, better K/9 and better K/BB than Wagner, and Kimbrel has a stellar 177 ERA+. Kimbrel, Jansen and Rodriguez all led the league in saves multiple times, Wagner never did. He really doesn't stand out to any significant degree from Hoffman and Rivera. Sure, you can say he was much better by ERA+, but Hoffman also has several peak seasons with stellar ERA+ numbers and better save % than Wagner in those peak seasons. He definitely does not stand out from Rivera. So how do you perceive that he stands out so greatly?

Why keep rehashing this? You make the same points over and over again. The HOF threads are the best of the year except that you have to scroll and scroll past the same tired arguments about relievers not belonging in the hall of fame (except maybe Mariano!). Enough already.

Why keep rehashing this? You make the same points over and over again. The HOF threads are the best of the year except that you have to scroll and scroll past the same tired arguments about relievers not belonging in the hall of fame (except maybe Mariano!). Enough already.

So scroll past

And just how do you determine the degree to what Wagner stands out? Joe Nathan has a better save %, as a reliever his ERA+ is 177, K/9 is double digit, and K/BB is 3.68 to 3.99 for Wagner.

1. You just listed four stats comparing Wagner to Nathan, and Wagner comes out ahead in three of them.

2. Wagner faced the same uphill climb that Nathan would have. Sometimes you need to get lucky those first couple of votes, though.

3. Why would we exclude Nathan's time as an SP? It's part of his career.

Another blank ballot and a Kent-only ballot

It’s kind of funny reasing the threads here and then the HoF threads on Reddit’s r/baseball. r/baseball is overall very pro-Wagner. I’ve thought about writing why I don’t think Wagner should be a HoFer there, but figured any such comment would be downvoted into oblivion.

1. You just listed four stats comparing Wagner to Nathan, and Wagner comes out ahead in three of them.

2. Wagner faced the same uphill climb that Nathan would have. Sometimes you need to get lucky those first couple of votes, though.

3. Why would we exclude Nathan's time as an SP? It's part of his career.

1. Because supposedly Wagner stands out from his peers by a large degree, but the difference between he and Wagner is minimal in these areas, which are the areas most commonly cited by his proponents.

3. Because we are comparing Nathan to another reliever so what is relevant is his performance in that role.

Another blank ballot and a Kent-only ballot

Yeah, the Boston Globe nonsense extends past Shaunessy this year.

Because we are comparing Nathan to another reliever so what is relevant is his performance in that role.

Nonsense.

I never once saw Curt Schilling's career separated out like that when he was being compared to say, Mike Mussina.

No one said "Sure, Schilling had 303 more strikeouts than Mussina, but since we're only comparing Schilling to other starters, really, we shouldn't count the ones he got as a reliever, so the difference is really 2,952 to 2,812, and that's only 140." I've never heard his bWAR referenced as only what he got as a starter.

3. Why would we exclude Nathan's time as an SP? It's part of his career.

If we include it, it would be to illustrate, yet again, how a pitcher can fail as a starter yet still succeed as a closer. Another data point that contradicts DCA's theory on Wagner vs. Buehrle/Pettitte.

Further to this, did Wagner even have a secondary pitch? Without at least one it's basically impossible to succeed as a starter at the MLB level. Perhaps this is why his BB levels were so high in the minors, he was trying to develop something off-speed but couldn't develop the control of it. Become a one inning pitcher and you can get by with one pitch though

Nonsense.

I never once saw Curt Schilling's career separated out like that when he was being compared to say, Mike Mussina.

If you want to compare just what pitchers did on the bump and not separate them out as if reliever was some mythical creature, I'm sure alilisd would be delighted. But these guys are being treated as different beings, whose paltry innings totals and lack of value created should be set aside and not compared with the contributions of Andy Pettitte or Mark Buehrle.

So when that's the standard, then absolutely what Joe Nathan did while starting needs to be zeroed out in such a comparison.

Rolen with another add today... offset by 3 continued no votes.

Also, if Shaughnessy is trying to compete for "worst ballot," his Kent-only entry just isn't going to stack up against the K-Rod-only and Rollins-only votes we've already seen.

I can readily believe it is harder to pitch the ninth. I don't think it is super rare trait but yeah, saves or other spots a relief ace is asked to pitch, requires a certain mentality. Opposing teams are more likely to be using active strategy: bunts, PHs, PRs, other contact related approaches, etc. This would make the inning more complicated to pitch in than a random inning.

I just have a really hard time believing it is twice as hard as racking up quality starts. Likewise, I don't think the mentality is twice as rare as a workman's mentality of a starter. Baseball players as a group are already sorted heavily towards players who can handle stressful situations.

@474 — Wagner had a wipeout slider. It was a filthy pitch.

It’s kind of funny reasing the threads here and then the HoF threads on Reddit’s r/baseball. r/baseball is overall very pro-Wagner. I’ve thought about writing why I don’t think Wagner should be a HoFer there, but figured any such comment would be downvoted into oblivion.

Back when Hoffman was on the ballot, a lot of people argued against his inclusion by pointing to Wagner as a comparable, possibly superior player with little support. The lesson people should have taken was 'maaaaybe we've gone a little far with this reliever thing.' The lesson most people appear to have learned was 'Wagner was better than Hall of Famer Trevor Hoffman.'

I like to compare the single-inning closer to the 60s-80s leadoff guy. Rivera is the Rickey of closers. Hoffman is Lou Brock - iffy choice on the merits, but has some stellar counting stats. I think that the reddit/twitter crowd sees Wagner as the Tim Raines in this analogy - wrongfully overlooked player because he didn't have the same counting stats. But really, he's just Willie Wilson.

I can readily believe it is harder to pitch the ninth. I don't think it is super rare trait but yeah, saves or other spots a relief ace is asked to pitch, requires a certain mentality.

If it were so difficult, requiring a special "mentality," then you wouldn't see someone like Jose Mesa with over 300 saves. A starter for five seasons, then moves to the bullpen, then becomes a closer, loses the closer spot, then becomes a closer again, loses the spot, then becomes a closer again.

Mesa, who was never thought of by anyone as a HOF, has a career save percentage of 83.8. Apply that to the 491 save opportunities Wagner had, and you get 411.5 saves. And not all blown saves result in a loss. So likely fewer than 11 more losses, spread across 15 seasons, for a team with someone like Mesa versus having "Hall of Famer" Wagner as the closer. If it were that hard, the difference between mediocrity like Mesa and "Hall of Fame" Wagner would be vastly larger.

A lot of nerds readily dismiss the mental aspects of being a professional athlete.

For the older players (pre 1980) they probably should look at doing it only every 5 years or so, while the 1980 and beyond get checked every winter - at least until guys who should've been voted in by the writers get in like Lou Whittaker and Kenny Lofton.

By FanGraph WAR Sweet Lou is #9 all time at 2B, Bobby Grich #8, #13 Willie Randolph. Of the top 18 at 2B all are in the HOF who are qualified for it outside of those 3. Chase Utley is #14, Robinson Cano #17, Jeff Kent #19. Sadly of all those guys Kent has the best shot at getting in due to having the most HR of any 2B.

In CF Carlos Beltran will take over highest fWAR without getting in this year, Andruw Jones should slip in soon given his jump this year, Reggie Smith is #13 but won't ever get in I suspect. Jim Edmonds #14, Kenny Lofton #16, Willie Davis #20. Those last 3 I don't see getting in soon, but Lofton has his supporters. Edmonds would've had a much better shot with 51 more hits (gets him to 2000) and 7 more HR (400). A shame he missed his age 39 season as given what he did at 40 he'd have probably had more than enough to crack those magic numbers and get more writers to notice him. Dumb how much of a difference that can make isn't it?

3B is a lot better - top 13 will all be in once Rolen gets in this year (hopefully) outside of still active Miguel Cabrera (yes, he is listed at 3B at FanGraphs). That puts Graig Nettles at #14 as the top omission, then #16 Buddy Bell, #17 Dick Allen, #18 Darrell Evans in the top 20 there. Last 2 being guys who moved off 3B long before the end of their careers like Cabrera.

SS outside of PED Alex Rodriguez sees Bill Dahlen at #5, Jack Glasscock #18 (the really old guys who keeps coming up), and #20 Jimmy Rollins.

Catcher is the other tough position - Buster Posey at #8 isn't qualified yet, same as #10 Yadier Molina, #11 Russell Martin, #12 Brian McCann, and #15 Joe Mauer. Qualified but not in are #17 Brian Downing, #20 Gene Tenace. Sure shows how modern medicine has allowed guys to stay behind the plate a LOT longer than in the past thus letting them build up WAR. #20 though is just 45.0 fWAR, lower than other positions #20.

First Base has #5 Albert Pujols (not qualified), #8 Pete Rose (we all know why), #13 Rafael Palmeiro*, #15 Miguel Cabrera (listed at multiple positions), #18 Mark McGwire* otherwise everyone in the top 20+ are in. #20 has 63.3 fWAR to show how much higher WAR is at 1B vs C.

RF is pretty easy - #13 Manny Ramirez*, #14 Dwight Evans, #16 Reggie Smith (listed in CF/RF), #17 Gary Sheffield*, #18 Joe Jackson (DQ), #19 Sammy Sosa*

LF #2 Barry Bonds*, #13 Manny Ramirez*, #16 Sherry Magee (early 1900's), #19 Joe Jackson (DQ)

Note how the misses are almost all recent guys (past 50 years) with 3 exceptions. The 2 shortstops we often hear about and Sherry Magee. Get them in and all stats based guys pre-1960 would be in so pre 1960 should be a every 5 years at best with 1 max going in from now on imo. The more modern era outside of guys not qualified has a lot who deserve to get in (ignoring the PED guys and banned ones) like Dwight Evans, Reggie Smith, Graig Nettles, Buddy Bell, Dick Allen, Darrell Evans, Jim Edmonds, Kenny Lofton, Bobby Grich, and Willie Randolph. And that isn't touching pitchers.

If it were so difficult, requiring a special "mentality," then you wouldn't see someone like Jose Mesa with over 300 saves. A starter for five seasons, then moves to the bullpen, then becomes a closer, loses the closer spot, then becomes a closer again, loses the spot, then becomes a closer again.

I don't think every pitcher can maximize their mental performance when they're the guy who blew it or the guy who might blow it again . I'm not saying it makes a closer better at getting outs once they clear that hurdle.

A Jose Mesa sighting!
Never thought I’d see Joe Table in a HoF thread.
Very long and interesting career, lead the league in saves the year the Indians went to the WS.

A Jose Mesa sighting! Never thought I’d see Joe Table in a HoF thread.

He's a great person to bring in as a counter to the "being a closer is so hard" sort of perspective. There are plenty of other examples on a seasonal basis, but career-wise Mesa demonstrates very clearly the fact that you don't have to be a particularly effective pitcher to be an effective closer. It's just not that hard to get 3 outs after coming in with no one on base and not giving up a 1, 2, or 3 run lead.

I think the vast majority of MLB pitchers who make it past Double-A have the "closer mentality". MLB players are already selected for those who can handle pressure.

Of course in the highest pressure situations of his career, the playoffs, Billy Wagner was godawful. He also has a history of blaming his teammates when expectations aren't met and was traded a couple times to get him out of the locker room.

and was traded a couple times to get him out of the locker room.

Such as? He was traded exactly twice in his career, once from the Astros to the Phillies after league-minimum Brad Lidge emerged, and once from the Mets to the Red Sox at the deadline with a month left in his contract.

From Billy Wagner's Wiki page:

"Following the World Series, Wagner criticized the Astros front office for not building a playoff worthy team. On November 3, Billy Wagner was informed that he had been traded to the Philadelphia Phillies"

"In a May 7, 2006 interview, Wagner stated that he was confronted by all of his former Phillies teammates in September 2005 after he had criticized their performance in the media by repeatedly saying that the Phillies had "no chance" of making the playoffs (which proved accurate, as the Phillies lost out on the playoffs by one game); Phillies left fielder Pat Burrell reported called Wagner a "rat.""

"On May 15, 2008, Wagner issued a tirade full of profanity against his teammates and coaches following the Mets' 1–0 loss in a game against the Washington Nationals."

Of course in the highest pressure situations of his career, the playoffs, Billy Wagner was godawful.

Yet another area where Wagner doesn't stand out from Joe Nathan.

Postseason
Wagner 11.2 IP - 10.03 ERA
Nathan 10 IP/9 - 8.10 ERA

The Tracker is at 150 votes, enough that I don’t expect much change in the final pre-announcement votes. Rolen & Helton are separated by only 2 votes, with 81.3% and 80% respectively. Last year the drop off in the pre to actual was 7.8% for Rolen and 5% for Helton, which would put them right on the edge. However, since they’ve gained a bit of ground with the pre votes, my guess is that they’ll also gain enough with the other votes to clear the 75% threshold, although probably not by that much, with both in the 75-79% window.

Sure shows how modern medicine has allowed guys to stay behind the plate a LOT longer than in the past thus letting them build up WAR.

Not sure this tracks, given that of the 5 players listed, only one is in the top 20 in games caught. (Molina is #4, McCann #24, Martin #27, Posey #97, Mauer #152.)

I think what this actually shows is that fWAR includes pitch framing for catchers, which is only available in recent seasons and will therefore give an extra benefit to modern catchers who were good at it.

Sure shows how modern medicine has allowed guys to stay behind the plate a LOT longer than in the past thus letting them build up WAR.

I think whatever gains are made there will be offset by our increased understanding of noggin health. And catching is decidedly not good for that. We won't see many more Jason LaRues, thank God.

@488 So once, maybe.

490. One thing thibs doesn't do is tell you how much overlap there is in voters for each milestone. That is, of the first 150 this year, Joe many of them were in the first 150 last year. That would help understand how much you can extrapolate. Rolen has picked up all the new voters so I think he's actually on track to get over the hump. There's so many names being added to ballots you can't help but think even the private guys may add Rolen a few times. Helton, awfully close.

I think it is still uphill for Rolen. He finished 47 votes short last year. He is perfect so far with new voters, but that is only 8 votes - plus another 3 from former voters who didn't vote last year. He has a net +10 from returning voters. So that is +21 so far.

The tracker has 146 public ballots tallied (plus 8 anonymous), and there were 205 pre-results public ballots last year. So most of the pre-results ballots are known. Maybe he picks up another 5 of those, getting him up to +26. That would still mean he needs to get another 20 or so votes out of the last ~200 ballots. Possible, but unlikley.

I think it is still uphill for Rolen.

I think it's equally likely that Rolen finishes in 2nd place to Helton as he ends up the leader. He's 3 ahead of Helton on the public ballots and Helton had a much smaller private to public difference last year.

I think it's equally likely that Rolen finishes in 2nd place to Helton as he ends up the leader.

I think that's highly unlikely. Rolen finished with 44 more votes than Helton last year. Helton has gained 14 on him through almost 40 percent of the voting this, in the part of the electorate where he had the most room to gain ground.

I'm guessing the private guys are also the oldest so I bet they are churning pretty fast. If 5-10 of them go most are not Rolen voters

I'm guessing the private guys are also the oldest so I bet they are churning pretty fast.

That's the big unknown. Is how many voters are being pushed out annually. I share your suspicion about how they tend to be the private voters (it only stands to reason. They're getting pushed out because they're not actively writing about baseball, so they're far less likely to be collected by Thibs).

Flip.