Flip.

But voters sure do care about counting stats, and that's sort of the point. Pedro Martinez had 84 bWAR, three Cy Young awards, and the best ERA+ of any non-Negro League starting pitcher ever.

And he got 91% of the vote. Think that might have had something to do with him "only" having 219 wins

I don't think, fair or not, Mauer's candidacy even gets started if he retires after 2013 and has 1,414 hits.

I mean, yes, some voters rejected Pedro Martinez for a lack of counting stats. There are plenty of idiot voters out there. Are you arguing that Mauer won't get any support, or that he shouldn't? Because the former is blatantly untrue - he's not going to get 85% on the first ballot, but he's not going to be anywhere near falling off either.

I could change that to "reached 1,150 hits while playing catcher", induct basically every catcher I want, and let Mauer languish.

It's so, so weird that people try to make Mauer's career as a catcher into something it's not. By Hall standards, it was super short, and he accumulated a lot of his numbers playing elsewhere on the diamond. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Ah, so your standard is 'not Joe Mauer' that actually makes plenty of sense now.

If you want to talk about value and production, Mauer's value at catcher clearly stands up to the guys in the HoF. He's marginally behind the uncontroversial Michey Cochrane.

If you are into blindly following arbitrary counting stat Mark's, he also meets the silly 2000 hit mark that separates Mark Grudzielanek and Todd Zelie from the chaff like Jim Edmonds and Chase Utley.

Now if you frame things as negatively for Mauer as you possibly can, sure he might look a bit like Jason Kendall and Darrell Porter, who make up the first rung of not-HoF catchers. But that matches neither the smell test nor a thorough statistical analysis. And he's still close enough that his inclusion wouldn't be an outright mistake - that's where Ernie Lombardi is too, and he basically never makes the list of top HoF mistakes.

Also something I've never understood. Why the hell would someone want to have cake and not be able to eat it too? Eating it is the whole point of cake having

Pendant alert: I've always understood the phrase to mean that it is impossible to eat your cake while still having it available in the future.
You have to choose either short-term enjoyment by eating it or long-term enjoyment by leaving it to eat later, but you can't eat it now and still have it available for eating later.

Given that you said 80-90 of his value came from when he was catching, and 19% of his career bWAR came from the seasons where he was literally never a catcher, I’m not sure you’re the person to be lecturing me on accuracy.

To me, the Hall of Fame is mostly about exceptional performance, and WAA is a far more useful place to start the conversation. Given that he accumulated 26.9 of his 27.5 career WAA in seasons when he was a catcher (when, yes, he didn't catch every game in those years, this is extremely normal stuff for catchers), I think 80% is a perfectly reasonable assessment. And since he's a borderline guy, those ten years aren't so exceptional that they justify his induction. But with even a modest bit of bulk added as an average first baseman, he's a fine--if not especially inspiring candidate.

To make it really simple: the vast majority of the value that makes him a decent HOF case was derived during his career as a catcher. The time as a 1B/DH is just what keeps him from being a 'fell off a cliff at 30' guy. It's pretty reasonable to call him a catcher and compare him to other catchers.

* Also something I've never understood. Why the hell would someone want to have cake and not be able to eat it too? Eating it is the whole point of cake having.

I believe the meaning is supposed to be more: "you want to eat the cake now, but then still have the cake available to eat later."
Edit: too late with my pedantry.

Pendant alert: I've always understood the phrase to mean that it is impossible to eat your cake while still having it available in the future.
You have to choose either short-term enjoyment by eating it or long-term enjoyment by leaving it to eat later, but you can't eat it now and still have it available for eating later.

Thank you. That makes some sense, though I'm retaining my objections to the phrase as it exists now.

They'll vote for him because he spent 10 years as a catcher being about as good as you can ever reasonably hope for.

Those “10 years as a catcher” only include 5 seasons in which Mauer caught 100 games, and just 920 total games, or 92 per season on average, which is pretty light. I think more catchers should be in the Hall, and would with proper positional adjustment, but I find it a bit irksome that some, here & elsewhere, seem willing to give Mauer the benefit of being a catcher, while denying it to those most deserving of such consideration - the long haul catchers who shouldered a far heavier burden behind the plate during their careers.

I kind of agree with Ithacca. Mauer is on my borderline for HOF as a hybrid C/1B/DH. I don't know if I will vote for him in a mock HOF ballot. I won't mind if he is elected but won't feel outraged if he isn't.

If he put up his numbers while catching 80-90% of his games, he's a no-brainer electee. His overall numbers, without a catching bonus, aren't good enough, however. So, the question is how much of a catching bonus (beyond the positional adjustment already accounted for) to give him based on the portion of his career that he actually caught. I may be misstating his argument, but that is the question I think Ithacca is raising and it's a valid discussion.

So what you guys are saying is there's a point where catching is difficult and worth acknowledging how it's going to limit overall production when evaluating a career, but 920 games caught doesn't reach that threshold.

When I explain to a non-hardcore fan what I think it takes to get into the HOF, I tell them 6+ years of excellence and another 6+ years of solid (averageish) play. Translated into WAR, that's something like 6 X 6 WAR plus 6 X 3, which is 54 WAR. That is on the low end for career WAR but players usually tack on a few more since they play more than 12 years.

With Mauer, I count 6 great years. Starting in 2006 (the Twins improved a ton and won the division; Mourneau won the MVP but I thought it should've gone to Mauer) and running through 2013, removing his 109-game 2007 and his 82-game 2011. He accumulated 35 bWAR for those six years -- a very strong peak for a catcher. He won one MVP and finished in the top 10 three other times.

I see another 5 decent years, which were not great because he either didn't play enough or didn't hit with any power. If you take 2005, 2007 (both when he still caught), 2014, 2016, 2017, you get to about 15 bWAR.

This falls one season short of my arbitrary threshold for decent years. But given that he played his peak behind the plate I'm more than fine with giving him a durability handicap. When you thrown in that he played his entire career with his hometown, won the first batting title as a catcher since Lombardi, and overall seemed like a decent guy and credit to the game, he's a pretty easy yes for me.

920 is a debatable number of games. It clearly deserves some extra credit, but how much? Reasonable people can disagree here.

I see two main reasons to give Mauer extra credit:

1. how hard it is to play which limits the number of games - since Mauer played significant 1B/DH during his catching years, he might not have lost as many games as other catchers

2. increased injury risk reducing their offensive performance - Mauer deserves this credit for the games he caught. How much it effected his numbers in the games he didn't catch (both in the seasons he was a catcher and the cumulative damage for his post-catcher seasons) is a discussion point.

A third reason, getting to the majors later because of the difficulty of learning to catch, didn't apply to Mauer since he made the majors at 21.

Also, if Joe's plaque doesn't end with the line "Well played, Mauer" then the entire institution should be burned to the ground.

the long haul catchers who shouldered a far heavier burden behind the plate during their careers.

I'm in favor of electing Bill Freehan too.

How much it effected his numbers in the games he didn't catch (both in the seasons he was a catcher and the cumulative damage for his post-catcher seasons) is a discussion point.

A third reason, getting to the majors later because of the difficulty of learning to catch, didn't apply to Mauer since he made the majors at 21.

He tore his meniscus in his knee that rookie season.

The weird thing is the saber-centric folks are creating new logical stretches to support Wagner - look at Jaffe for instance. They fully accepted the false concept that RP is a separate position from P.

Yes, it's serious crazy town out there with some people! I guess Jaffe's so monetarily invested in promoting JAWS he can't see how pointless it is to use it to analyze relievers. And oh the zeal with which Wagner's K/9 and ERA+ are thrown around! Why did you know his K/9 is higher than Mariano Rivera's?!?!?!?!

So Jeff Kent was interviewed about not getting in and blamed his omission on "stat people." Which is a take you can have, I guess.

Kent did better on public votes (51.5%) than so-far private ones (41.5%); public ballots are typically more stat-heavy. Of the known ballots so far, Kent went 98/173 (56.6%) among people who voted for stat candidate Rolen, compared to 10/40 among people who didn't. Want someone whose numbers weren't skewed toward induction? Kent went 62/114 among known Beltran voters (54.4%), 46/99 (46.5%) otherwise. Helton? 57.1% of known voters also supported Kent. Andruw? 60.4%. How about a fringier stat candidate? I bet Bobby Abreu's voters are pretty stat-happy; Kent went 28/38 (73.7%) among them, nearly a high enough percentage for induction.

Of course, none of those numbers would have gotten Kent elected - but it wasn't the nefarious stat people who kept Kent out; he appears to have done even worse with the traditionalists.

I don't think it should be Mauer is a good ballplayer and how much extra credit should he get for catching. If he puts up these numbers at 1B or DH, he's not getting into the Hall.

He's a catcher but one that didn't have a particularly long or consistent career actually catching. However, he was quite good when he did catch. He's got both the offense and the defense. I think I'd be of the view that he made Hall consideration as a catcher and the 15 WAR extra he got from 1B/DH is enough to give him enough career credit (ie counting stats) to go in.

I'm voting for Posey (and I would vote for Munson) and I can't see a reason how I can vote for him and not vote for Mauer

Bottom line - is the narrative here is confusing and Mauer will probably need a few years.

I support the relievers not for the hof argument (and I support the argument that relievers are in, so it's a separate position argument that should be considered).... the stupidest argument ever is "if relievers are hof, then why not putt Lenny Harris in."... sorry that is not remotely a legit argument, it's a dumb ass argument, made by someone trying to make a dumb ass point, and it's as stupid as arguing the earth is flat, that genders is only two and vaccines causes autism. It's a dumb argument beyond rationality.

I get the argument against relievers or closers etc. But comparing the best relievers in history to the best pinch hitters in history is just silly.

Of course, none of those numbers would have gotten Kent elected - but it wasn't the nefarious stat people who kept Kent out; he appears to have done even worse with the traditionalists.

Very interesting to see that breakdown of Kent voters, thank you. The Abreu crossover is really surprising! Just speculation, of course, but I think Kent had one hook, the most HR for a 2B, and that wasn't enough for many voters. He did win an MVP, but didn't do particularly well in voting any other season. Modest AS selections and SS awards for someone whose case is solely offense. By the numbers he wasn't a bad defender, until he turned 38, which is unsurprising. Maybe enough people look at his B-R page and see no black ink, then look at Sandberg, who he supplanted for HR by a 2B, and see all those AS and GG, plus some black ink and a whole bunch of SB. Or maybe they look at Alomar and see some pretty good counting stats and 10 GG. Then Kent doesn't look so hot by more traditional standards either.

On the Mauer discussion, I think it's going to be an easy path for him. Very, very few voters are going to look at his last five years at another position and think he's undeserving. He's going to be looked at as having one of the best ever catcher peaks, 3 batting titles and an MVP, JAWS7 as good as Rodriguez, Fisk and Berra, career WAR right in line with catchers in the HOF if you're WAR inclined. I'm not going to guarantee a first ballot selection, but he's going in easily. He may not be literally the second coming of Ernie Banks, but he's a reasonable facsimile, and it's clearly not the ballot it was from 2013 to 2022.

What argument does Jeff Kent have that he was better than his stats? He was not regarded as a good clubhouse guy. His RField is way higher than I would have guessed based on his reputation. Good postseason hitter, but usually in losing efforts.

Sheffield now comes to his last year. Bonds/Clemens topped out around 65%. I wonder if Sheffield can climb that far. The electorate keeps changing and I wouldn't be surprised if he at least gets to 65% next year. Hoping he can climb closer to 70% which would make him a logical vets Candidate. Every player knows how much a game-changer Sheffield was so he'll do better with them. I doubt his PED issue will resonate - I think people are moving to punishing only the obvious guys.

At any rate the ballot will lose beltre, helton, Sheffield and maybe Wagner next year which should clear it out for good.

Then the ballot will have a bunch of borderline candidates to mull over: Jones, Beltran, Abreu, mauer and utley. Then you will have the battle of the 200+ wins pitchers: CC, colon, Buerhle and Pettite.

Then the ballot will have a bunch of borderline candidates to mull over: Jones, Beltran, Abreu, mauer and utley. Then you will have the battle of the 200+ wins pitchers: CC, colon, Buerhle and Pettite.

CC will go in fairly easily. Bartolo will not. Buehrle and Pettitte haven't made the progress to think they can get to 75 percent.

Every player knows how much a game-changer Sheffield was so he'll do better with them. I doubt his PED issue will resonate -

Sheffield really did come up with the best strategy for deflecting heat for PED use. Blame Barry.

CC will go in fairly easily. Bartolo will not. Buehrle and Pettitte haven't made the progress to think they can get to 75 percent.

Yeah, I think Sabathia will be overrated by the writers. Not saying he isn't a worthy candidate, just that he'll receive support more in line with him being a high peak candidate whereas I think he's a bit more of a low peak candidate. And, fortunately or unfortunately depending on your view of Buehrle and Pettitte, neither of them has shown any sign of moving towards electable territory. Buehrle actually received 2 fewer votes this year than he did in his debut year after falling off in year 2. I guess Pettitte has made a little progress, but he's still below 20% and already half way through his eligibility.

Sabathia is basically Andy Pettitte with 650 extra K's (putting him over the 3000k milestone), a CYA, no HGH baggage, and an actual peak (5 straight top 5 CYA finishes). He'll get in quickly.

Sabathia is basically Andy Pettitte with 650 extra K's (putting him over the 3000k milestone), a CYA, no HGH baggage, and an actual peak (5 straight top 5 CYA finishes). He'll get in quickly.

Agree he'll get in quickly, but the "actual peak" is not as overwhelming as I think he'll be given credit for. For example, his WAR7 is 10 WAR below the average HOF, and he doesn't improve with the new adjusted WAR7 that's been added. That's well behind Wes Ferrell, Verlander, Kershaw, Greinke, Scherzer, Wilbur Wood, Brown, Urban Shocker, Santana, George Uhle, Stieb, and Tiant (all 20th century, non HOF pitchers with at least 50 career WAR). Still a bit behind Reuschel, Cone, Bucky Walters, Saberhagen, Appier, Wilbur Cooper, Babe Adams, and Langston, too. Basically the same as Oswalt, Hersheiser, and Finley although CC has a better career total.

So Jeff Kent was interviewed about not getting in and blamed his omission on "stat people." Which is a take you can have, I guess.

Kent's candidacy among stat-heavy observers is interesting to me. Here's the thread from this site when he retired. It isn't until towards the end of the first page that anyone expresses doubt that he belongs.

WAR took hold pretty shortly after that and had him on the outside looking in, and now he doesn't seem particularly popular among fans who place a lot of emphasis on advanced stats.

A lot of electrons are being spilled over Mauer on this site, but what I see from mainstream journalists is that he is going to go in; it may take a little time, but the larger sentiment is that he is worthy.

The REAL difference between Andy Pettitte and CC Sabathia is razor thin* -- thinner, when you consider their post season work. Yeah, Andy got more chances, but CC was hardly shut out -- he started 23 post season games to Andy's 44 -- but that meant longer seasons taking a toll on Pettitte, and Andy had a lower ERA in the post-season, against presumably stiffer competition.

But I agree with those who think CC gets in reasonably quickly, while Pettitte will probably need a few former Yankees on some future committee to have a chance



*Using "CC Sabathia" and "thin" in the same sentence just seems . . . wrong.

Looking at Kent's B-Ref page I'm a little surprised he didn't do better with the writers. He's got pretty good counting stats for a second baseman. He's just under 27 WAA which is also pretty good. But - with a negative defensive reputation and the negative fielding runs that seems to back that up a bit, that doesn't help. The larger issue isn't even really whether Kent belongs or not, but there are several second baseman who need to go in before him. Grich, Whitaker, Randolph are all clearly better and can't even get a sniff so that makes Kent's chances pretty much slim and none.

*Using "CC Sabathia" and "thin" in the same sentence just seems . . . wrong.

Hey, he slimmed down a lot when he got sober. As a fellow sometimes-fat-guy, you gotta give him his due. Maybe he's not Rob Lowe, but these days he's pretty svelte by the standards of actual giants, which he is.

The REAL difference between Andy Pettitte and CC Sabathia is razor thin* -- thinner, when you consider their post season work. Yeah, Andy got more chances, but CC was hardly shut out -- he started 23 post season games to Andy's 44 -- but that meant longer seasons taking a toll on Pettitte, and Andy had a lower ERA in the post-season, against presumably stiffer competition.

Pettitte of course has the PED issue. Sabathia's only known problem in that regard was with Posterior Expanding Desserts.

Looking at Kent's B-Ref page I'm a little surprised he didn't do better with the writers. He's got pretty good counting stats for a second baseman. He's just under 27 WAA which is also pretty good. But - with a negative defensive reputation and the negative fielding runs that seems to back that up a bit, that doesn't help. The larger issue isn't even really whether Kent belongs or not, but there are several second baseman who need to go in before him. Grich, Whitaker, Randolph are all clearly better and can't even get a sniff so that makes Kent's chances pretty much slim and none.

But that misses the fact that all three of the 2B you mention were one and done, while Kent lasted 10 years and had a nice last year bump. This makes him much more likely to do well on committee elections than the others. While I agree Grich and Whitaker are egregious sleights and Randolph could be worth looking at, HOF history tells us that Kent did quite well with the writers and is likely to get much more consideration from his Era Committee than any of them.

At any rate the ballot will lose beltre, helton, Sheffield and maybe Wagner next year which should clear it out for good.

Then the ballot will have a bunch of borderline candidates to mull over: Jones, Beltran, Abreu, mauer and utley. Then you will have the battle of the 200+ wins pitchers: CC, colon, Buerhle and Pettite.

Folks can quibble with specific names in this quote, but I agree with the larger sentiment: We appear, for the first time in quite a while, to be entering a stretch where even the strongest advocate for a "Big Hall" will struggle to mark off 10 names.

2024: Beltre, Mauer, Utley, and Sheffield's last year
2025: Ichiro and Sabathia, and Wagner's last year if he wasn't voted in already by then
2026: No serious new candidates, and Manny's last year
2027: Buster Posey is the best new candidate; it is Vizquel last year, as well as Andruw Jones's last year, if he wasn't voted in already by then.

I think a consequence of this clearing of the backlog is that it may cause some voters to vote yes on some 50/50 calls. For example, it is hard to imagine Mauer or Sabathia not being elected in 2026, when there are no legit new candidates. They'll both start off (I'm guessing) at least where Beltran got to this year, if not higher. That makes getting in by 2026 not much of a leap.

Next year will be very interesting for Beltran. I can't imagine voters would equate the whole Astros scandal with use of PEDs - but Beltran is also not as slam dunk of a candidate as Bonds and Clemens were. So does Beltran's 2023 result signify a ceiling, like ARod's totals? I it a one-year penalty in the minds of many voters, who will now check him off in 2024? Or is simply not seen by a supermajority of the voters as an obvious Hall of Famer?
2028:

2027: Buster Posey is the best new candidate

Frankly, I think Posey is the player people would be discussing whether he is qualified due to lack of playing time, not Mauer. He has a ton of narrative with the Giants success during his career, but only 10 full seasons, fewer than 6000 PA's. Despite his edge in games caught over Mauer, career-wise I think he looks a lot more like Munson given the dearth of overall playing time. Tons of narrative with 3 WS wins, ROY, MVP, batting title. He'll be interesting.

Posey has all those World Series. I think posey, Maurer and Munson are really in the same bucket. All three have the single team narrative too. Mauers final years are what Posey and Munson might have looked like. They all belong I think. I've come around on Mauer. He was really exceptional while he could still catch and then added a few WAR and counting stats to round everything out. Posey and Munson have the post season pedigree.

even the strongest advocate for a "Big Hall" will struggle to mark off 10 names

This season I supported Rolen, Abreu, Beltran, Buehrle, Pettitte, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Sheffield and Kent. That doesn't mention Andruw or Helton. Kent and Rolen get replaced by Beltre, Mauer and Utley but the rest will stay for a while longer. They're going to add at the same rate they're electing/removing. It won't be hard to mark 10 names.

Posey has all those World Series.

Yes, as I mentioned, tons of narrative. But look at the HOF hitters with around 5600 PA's (average HOF is 8734). They're almost all 19th century, Negro League players, or Frankie Frisch VC selections. Regardless of how Mauer got there at least he has nearly 8000 PA's, and don't forget Posey has over a seasons worth of starts as a 1B. His career, by HOF standards, is incredibly short.

This season I supported Rolen, Abreu, Beltran, Buehrle, Pettitte, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Sheffield and Kent. That doesn't mention Andruw or Helton. Kent and Rolen get replaced by Beltre, Mauer and Utley but the rest will stay for a while longer. They're going to add at the same rate they're electing/removing. It won't be hard to mark 10 names.

Looking forward to the next 5 elections, I think I disagree. I suspect you might be underrating just how few worthy candidates will be hitting the ballot some of these years. Legitimate candidates are going to be dropping off the ballot (either via election or timing out) faster than they'll be joining.

I supported 9 players this year too (I'm not sold on Abreu or Buehrle, but I added Helton and Jones to your list). That's already the fewest number I would've voted for in over a decade. Here's my "votes" since 2011, assuming an unlimited ballot (I don't penalize for PED's or vote for non-Rivera closers):

2011 - 12
2012 - 9
2013 - 15
2014 - 18
2015 - 19
2016 - 17
2017 - 15
2018 - 16
2019 - 17
2020 - 13
2021 - 11
2022 - 13

Amongst the players I support, here's how the next 5 years look, including my predictions (posted earlier in this thread) of who gets elected each year:

2024 - Loses Rolen and Kent; adds Beltre, Mauer, and Utley (Beltre, Helton, Wagner elected)
Likely number of votes on my mock ballot - 10 (ARod, Ramirez, Helton, Sheffield, Pettitte, Jones, Beltran, Beltre, Mauer, Utley)

2025 - Loses Beltre, Helton, and Sheffield; adds Ichiro and Sabathia (Ichiro, Jones elected)
Likely number of votes on my mock ballot - 9 (ARod, Ramirez, Pettitte, Jones, Beltran, Mauer, Utley, Ichiro, Sabathia)

2026 - Loses Ichiro and Jones; adds no one (Sabathia, Mauer elected)
Likely number of votes on my mock ballot - 7 (ARod, Ramirez, Pettitte, Beltran, Mauer, Utley, Sabathia)

2027 - Loses Sabathia, Mauer, and Ramirez; adds Posey (Beltran elected)
Likely number of votes on my mock ballot - 5 (ARod, Pettitte, Beltran, Utley, Posey)

2028- Loses Beltran; adds Pujols, Cano, and Molina (Pujols, Posey elected)
Likely number of votes on my mock ballot - 6-7 (ARod, Pettitte, Utley, Posey, Pujols, Cano, maybe Molina if I'm feeling generous)

Assuming an average of 2 elections a year, even a big Hall "voter" who doesn't penalize for PED's like me is going to be down to 5 votes as early as 2027.

Yeah, it's going to thin out. That's why I think Buerhle/pettite/colon might get some traction and why wainwright might also get traction.

Which great players are retiring soon: Cabrera, wainwright, cano(PED), Votto, Longoria, Cruz (peds) and greinke That's thin class - Cabrera and Votto are locks, not much out there from what I can see. You could get scherzer, verlander and kershaw and then finally the new crop will start getting up there (goldy, Arenado, freeman, altuve, Stanton).

So there won't be many people going in after 2028. Maybe six guys over six years. It will be thin. The Hall better hope the vets get 1 or 2 a year during that period.

The Hall better hope the vets get 1 or 2 a year during that period.

Luckily the writers passed over at least 25 guys in the past 20 years.

Cabrera and Votto are locks, not much out there from what I can see. You could get scherzer, verlander and kershaw and then finally the new crop will start getting up there (goldy, Arenado, freeman, altuve, Stanton).

I think this is really interesting. A few years ago I would not necessarily have thought of Votto this way. In fact, I think there were some discussions on his chances here, and some lack of surety amongst a number of people. But given the change I perceive in the electorate I do think he's a lock now. As for the new crop, I would drop Stanton from that group and add Machado. Stanton is, unfortunately, a guy with extraordinary talent, HOF level talent undoubtedly, who could not stay healthy. His last five years he's averaged 90 games, 380 PA's, 22 HR, a 129 OPS+, and 2 WAR. He's signed for five more years, but now instead of being 28 to 32, he'll be 33 to 37 years of age. Seems highly unlikely he'll improve on those numbers without a miraculous recovery of health. And he doesn't deserve any credit for a short 2020 season as his 94 PA's were just 12th on the team, while appearing in fewer than half of the team's games.

Stanton is, unfortunately, a guy with extraordinary talent, HOF level talent undoubtedly, who could not stay healthy. His last five years he's averaged 90 games, 380 PA's, 22 HR, a 129 OPS+, and 2 WAR. He's signed for five more years, but now instead of being 28 to 32, he'll be 33 to 37 years of age. Seems highly unlikely he'll improve on those numbers without a miraculous recovery of health.

I’m not sure it would be all that miraculous for Stanton to put together a run of relatively healthy seasons, especially if he’s used exclusively at DH, or nearly so. It’s the off-season, let’s be optimistic.

[739] Why didn’t you out the PED parenthetical next to Colon like you did for Cano and Cruz?

I’m not sure it would be all that miraculous for Stanton to put together a run of relatively healthy seasons

It would absolutely be miraculous. Right now he's sitting on 13 seasons, but age 20 was an in season call up of 100 games, a large chunk of, but still less than, a full season. So let's look at him without that age 20 season in 4 year chunks, since it divides evenly. 2011-2014 avg. 134 G, 561 PA's, 149 OPS+, 2015-2018 avg. 128, 546, 144, 2019-2022 avg. 72, 299, 128. He has 5 seasons where he didn't make it to 500 PA's, and 3 of them have been in the past 4 seasons. And, again, he didn't get shortchanged in 2020, and he's going to be 33 next year. It is not going to happen for him, sadly.

[739] Why didn’t you out the PED parenthetical next to Colon like you did for Cano and Cruz?

Or Pettitte? And Altuve has the (cheating) tag on him, too, what with all that hidden buzzer stuff in addition to the team wide trash can imbroglio.

743 because everyone likes Bartolo and as we have seen with Ortiz, that makes a difference

The writers released their ballots and there are some weird ones:

Rolen only - I'm only voting for the one I think will get in
Rolen/Rollins - I'm only voting for Phillies
Rolen:Jones - I believe defensive metrics understate value
Helton/Wagner - I thought I was voting for Honus Wagner
F Rodriguez only - I meant A-Rod
A-Rod/Ramires - I'm a purist, only the best
Sheffield only - turned in by a writer named Sheffield (just kidding )
Rollins only - love to hear the logic there
Jones/Wagner - hmmm
Wagner only - Hall needs more relief pitchers
Beltran/Rolen - only voting for cardinals who have been in World Series
Kent only - good luck with the vets committee, jeff!
Beltran only - the holdovers are boring

Double post