Fun day as always. Six inductions is quite a bit though. Lot of speeches. Nice to see over 50 guys there. The old guard has moved on and there's a new group of HOFrs on the dais

Goddammit, why couldn't the Yankees have traded Giambi for Ortiz back in about 2002? I'm sure the Twins would've jumped at it.

I'm guessing that was satire but it's still a fun history. The Yanks had just signed Giambi for 7/$120 prior to the 2002 season. If the Twins had wanted Giambi for 7/$120, they would have signed him when they had the chance. In 2002, Giambi had a 7-WAR season so understandably the Yanks might not have wanted to trade him for a guy who was about to be non-tendered ... when the Yanks could have signed Ortiz for next to nothing. Besides, if Boston didn't have both of them, you could have probably traded Jeremy Giambi for Ortiz.

People seem to like to re-write this as if the Red Sox had some brilliant insight on Ortiz. He was just a piece they were gambling on. He started just 32 of the first 61 games of the 2003 season, not becoming a regular until mid-June. Early in the season, the Red Sox were more focused on keeping Hillenbrand in the lineup and finding time for Millar, Giambi and Bill Mueller.

Millar 46 starts
Hillenbrand 46 (of 52 then traded to DBacks)
Mueller 42
Ortiz 32
Giambi 27 (he got off to a lousy start)

Of Hillenbrand's 46 starts, 17 came at 1B and 1 at DH. He was hitting 303/335/443 at the time of the trade (just average for the era but coming off a 4-WAR season). Traded for Byung-Hung Kim.

Over the last 101 games

Millar 94
Mueller 92
Ortiz 85
Giambi 8 (hurt I guess)

If Giambi gets off to a hot start and Ortiz slumps or if Hillenbrand repeats his 4-WAR season in the first half, history might have been quite different.

After the 2002 season, the Braves allegedly offered the same one-year, $1 million contract to David Ortiz, Frank Catalanatto and Robert Fick with the understanding that the first to accept the offer would get the contract. They managed to get the worst of the trio to say yes.

They managed to get the worst of the trio to say yes.

But at least he was a fun guy to root for.

Well, Frank wasn't taking a paycut to sign with the Braves and indeed he didn't take a cut that off season so he's right out. So it's really about Fick Vs Ortiz.

The Twins did real well with the HoF this year, didn't they? A coincidence, but a fun one.

Speaking of the Hall of Fame, y'alls are going to love this latest bit of news:

Trailblazer Waldman elected to Radio Hall of Fame

Yankees radio broadcaster Suzyn Waldman, who has covered the team as a broadcaster or reporter for 36 years, was selected as one of nine inductees into the Radio Hall of Fame, the Museum of Broadcast Communications announced on Monday.

Waldman, 75, was the first woman to become a full-time broadcaster for a Major League Baseball team.

“This accomplishment is the deserved result of decades of hard work and dedication to her craft, and we would be remiss to not laud her professionalism and resolve while staring down countless obstacles as a pioneering woman in her field,” the team said in a statement. “The Yankees are thrilled to see her recognized in this fashion as she takes her place alongside other luminaries in the broadcast radio world.”

Waldman and the other inductees will be honored at the 2022 induction ceremony in Chicago on Nov. 1.

Even though his career was cut short by knee injuries, I'm still glad that this day came for Tony Oliva and that he was actually alive to enjoy it. I am old enough that I saw Oliva play and he really was a terrific hitter. Everything he hit was a hard smacked line drive. Rarely have I seen a player hit so many balls right on the nose.

Someone mentioned that this was a good day for Twins fans, I also think it was a great day for players out of the Caribbean, with Ortiz, Oliva and Minoso getting honored.

There are/were 12 MLB games today. Of the 8 completed, the team with the worse record won.
In 4 that are still going, the team with the worse record is winning 3 of them.
Seattle is up 2-1.

We are now onto the next HOF discussion which is will Carlos Beltran survive trash can-gate and how many more votes can Vizquel lose before finally falling off the ballot.

This should be Scott Rolens year

Playing off of #11, a few HOF questions for the 2023 vote:

1) Will any 1st-year candidate besides Beltran get 5%? (John Lackey, Jered Weaver, and Jacoby Ellsbury are the next three in career WAR, so you'd think the answer is an easy "no". But down the list further is K-Rod, who has 437 saves. Perhaps enough voters are drawn to the save total to get him to 5%?)

2) The obvious question: Will anybody get to 75%? Beltran should do well, but TrashCanGate would hurt a little, and if Ortiz barely got to 75% in year one, it would seem unlikely that Beltran would. Only three returning candidates broke 42% last year: Rolen (63%), Helton, (52%), and Wagner (51%). Could Rolen get all the way to 75%? Seems unlikely, but I hope so, or 2023 is going to be a pretty quiet Induction Weekend.

3) 2023 may be the first time in a long time that I do not have 10 candidates I would support. (Your view on the whole PED thing probably influences this a lot.) I suspect that many on this site are like me in this regard. Do you feel this way about 2023? (I've probably got seven: Beltran, Rolen, Helton, Ramirez, Sheffield, ARod, Wagner. I'm listening on Andruw Jones and Jeff Kent.)

4) Is there any reasonable scenario you can see where ARod gets to 75% over the course of the next nine ballots?

5) Do any of the following returning candidates not get 5% in 2023:

Vizquez (24% last year, but obviously a lot of problems)
Pettitte (11%)
Rollins (9%)
Abreu (9%)
Buehrle (6%)
Hunter (5%)

6) Do you see any of those lower-tier candidates getting momentum in a weaker-candidate environment and making a legit run at 75% over the course of their candidacy? (Abreu strikes me as having the most compelling case of the six from a statistical POV; Buerhle from a narrative POV).

Will any 1st-year candidate besides Beltran get 5%?

I assume Rodriguez will.

2) The obvious question: Will anybody get to 75%?

Rolen should.

4) Is there any reasonable scenario you can see where ARod gets to 75% over the course of the next nine ballots?

Not really. For it to happen, the Vets committee would have to quickly welcome in Bonds and Clemens and McGwire. And that won't happen until the committee is made up more of their peers than the current committee membership, if ever.

Do any of the following returning candidates not get 5% in 2023

Buerhle and Hunter could fall off. Without progress, it's easy to see those types losing the support they have, even if there aren't any newcomers to displace them.

Do you see any of those lower-tier candidates getting momentum in a weaker-candidate environment and making a legit run at 75% over the course of their candidacy?

Not from this group. The one that will be worth watching in the years to come is Utley. He'll be the most likely candidate for a Rolen-like climb.

Could Rolen get all the way to 75%? Seems unlikely, but I hope so, or 2023 is going to be a pretty quiet Induction Weekend.

It's actually quite common for a player to make the jump from the 60's to induction. Larry walker went from 55 to 76. Mike Mussina from 63 to 76. Edgar Martinez skipped the 60's. Went from 58 to 70 to in.

edit; With the obvious caveat of the PED guys.

Rolen going from 35 to 52 to 63 the last 3 ballots is nearly a lock.

The vets committees appear to have been neutered so they may have no inductees. It's a shame because seeing Oliva and Kaat up there was a lot of fun

The vets committees appear to have been neutered so they may have no inductees.

Absent a change in actual voting habits among the committee members, I don't see how the changes will neuter the committees. If anything, it should lead to more inductions.

Beltran should do well, but TrashCanGate would hurt a little

I think Beltran will debut in the 20% range and show little progress from there. With the main steroid antagonists aging off the ballot, BBWAA will turn their self-righteous fury onto the Luhnow-era Astros in their role as guardians of all things sacrosanct about baseball.

Did the neutering come before or after they inducted those 2 very marginal candidates?

Did the neutering come before or after they inducted those 2 very marginal candidates?

After, but it looks to me, that rather than being spayed, the voters have been given boner pills. The Hall separated players from managers, execs and umps, which is a good move and should lead to more people elected. It's also reduced the number of players on the ballot from 10 to eight, which will make it easier for any of those candidates to reach 75 percent (the previous time this group was considered by the vets, the voters used up almost all of their slots and no one hit 75 percent because there was no consensus).

The process seems so arbitrary. Kaat and Oliva were fine players. So were dozens of other guys, many of them contemporaries, who will never get a shot. Tony Oliva is 298th in position player WAR. There are a lot of players 25% or more higher who will likely never even get on a ballot, like Chet Lemon, Robin Ventura, Johnny Damon, Jose Cruz and John Olerud. Well, maybe Damon will because, you know, counting stats.

Lou Whitaker would be an obvious consensus pick for the Era committee if they want to punt Bonds and Clemens to a future committee.

The process seems so arbitrary.

Rats! The secret is out!

Of course the hall of fame is arbitrary. Bill James wrote a whole book about it. It is maddening though. You're right that lower-tier guys getting in probably won't help those above them.

I can't see trashcangate preventing Beltran from getting in. What might get in the way is that he just doesn't look like an impressive candidate. Sort of Andre Dawson without the MVP. Of course Dawson got in eventually, and I expect that Beltran will too, but it might take a few years climbing up the vote totals.

And yes, this is Rolen's year. Once a player reaches the point that they are basically a consensus pick, they almost always get elected.

They neutered it in several key ways. You only get three votes now not four. I'm not a math whiz but that should reduce the likelihood of getting 75% quite a bit

And they have shoved all players prior to 1980 into one bucket so for that group, even getting on the ballot is much harder now.

One out of every three years there are no players on the ballot at all

I'd say the chances of a player being put through are far less likely now

Kaat got in on the "service to the game " vote. Player, coach, broadcaster. Basically the Joe Torre route and that's fine by me. Oliva - never really got that one other than a gimme to Twins fans. He wasn't close. Having said that, it was fun to see him go in and nice that he was alive to treasure it. In my mind Baines had a better argument than Oliva

I do not want the HOF to be strictly WAR based, but let's look at some of Oliva's contemporaries who will likely never get in (and frankly, most shouldn't):

Oliva - 43 WAR
Bill Freehan - 45
Jim Fregosi - 49
Norm Cash - 52
Bert Campaneris - 53
Vada Pinson - 54
Jim Wynn - 56
Willie Davis - 61
Sal Bando - 62
Reggie Smith - 64

These are merely his more or less exact contemporaries. It doesn't include partial contemporaries like Chet Lemon, Ron Cey, Jose Cruz, Toby Harrah, Brian Downing, and Cesar Cedeno, or contemporaries who are not in but I think will likely make it like Thurman Munson, Dick Allen, Ken Boyer, and Darrell Evans.

That is a boatload of marginal candidates just among his contemporaries, and at least by this one metric, he's the least deserving.

From jay Jaffe: " While their classification as Classic Baseball candidates is clear-cut, there’s ambiguity with regards to three of the top four holdovers from that 2020 ballot, namely Dwight Evans, Dave Parker, and Steve Garvey, who respectively received eight, seven, and six votes out of 16. "

They'd be better off if they are in the pre-1980 ballot because the post 1980 ballot will simply be a rehashing of PED guys and there's no way these guys get in with bonds and Clemens on the ballot. Lou Whitaker might have a similar issue.

And what of Keith Hernandez who has one foot in both camps. He can't even get on a ballot and now it will be much harder

They neutered it in several key ways. You only get three votes now not four. I'm not a math whiz but that should reduce the likelihood of getting 75% quite a bit

As SOSH noted, they also reduced the number of candidates. Before one could vote for 4 out of 10, 40%. Now it's 3 out of 8, 37.5%. A reduction, but not a big one as you imply. And it will likely be easier to come to a consensus when they are comparing players to other players only. Is Minoso more deserving than Marvin Miller or John Schuerholtz? Who the f*** knows?

Knocking two candidates out (from 10-8) likely doesn't help. There are always a couple candidates who get no traction (and no votes). Going from 4-3 votes just makes it much harder for the top candidates to get in. Maybe thats a good thing but it will probably have the effect of several guys getting 10 votes and no one getting in.

Under the old system it was obvious that Garvey, Evans and Parker would likely make it on their next go-round. Now, they may not even be on the ballot. Again, maybe that's a good thing

Speaking of the Hall of Fame, y'alls are going to love this latest bit of news:

Trailblazer Waldman elected to Radio Hall of Fame

Good for her.

I wonder how much it impacts the voters (both veterans committees and the BBWAA) when they see 35K people showing up on a hot summer day in late July, lots of positive attention for the sport, etc. The vast majority of that attendance was for Ortiz, and the proximity of New England, plus the unique relationship Ortiz had with the fan base, makes him a lot like when a Yankee or Met gets in.

But do any (many?) voters see that positive energy, and go, "You know, it sucks so much when we don't elect anybody." Rolen doesn't have Ortiz-levels of fame, but a Rolen/Whitaker headliner next year would get a nice turnout of fans from Detroit, Phily, and St. Louis, right? And for a Gen-X'er like me, seeing Whitaker would be pretty cool - he has long been one of my favorite players who was not yet in the HOF.

The NBA, NFL, and other sports (like golf) are increasingly trying to figure out how to get something going during the quietest part of the sports calendar - from after the NBA Finals to the beginning of the NFL season. For 2 1/2 months, baseball pretty much has the sports world to itself in America, but the NBA has talked about shifting its season so that the playoffs would be in the summer, and the NFL has successfully filled in holes in its calendar to create lots of buzz (the Draft has become a massive thing; Free Agency is a big thing; the schedule release; new uniform releases; rookie camp; and making training camp more of a fan-friendly event to visit).

Baseball has the All-Star Game and the Hall of Fame Weekend all to itself. I think MLB should do more to make the HOF a weeklong celebration of the sport, going from the Monday before Induction Day right through the next Sunday, maybe do more with Doubleday Field to have major-league games there or a minor-league All-Star Game, etc. It is such an awesome weekend to attend and watch.

Who is on the committee? If Trammell and Morris are in the room it bodes well for Whitaker just like it was good for Oliva and Kaat to have Rod Carew advocating for them.

They neutered it in several key ways. You only get three votes now not four. I'm not a math whiz but that should reduce the likelihood of getting 75% quite a bit

The ESPN write-up I found didn't mention that.

Edit: OK, I saw it elsewhere. That will definitely hurt, but it will be somewhat offset by the smaller ballot.

And they have shoved all players prior to 1980 into one bucket so for that group, even getting on the ballot is much harder now.

But that doesn't have any effect on the voters, or how many people will get in.

From jay Jaffe: " While their classification as Classic Baseball candidates is clear-cut, there’s ambiguity with regards to three of the top four holdovers from that 2020 ballot, namely Dwight Evans, Dave Parker, and Steve Garvey, who respectively received eight, seven, and six votes out of 16. "

There really shouldn't be. Garvey and Parker are 70s guys. Evans is an 80s player.

let's look at some of Oliva's contemporaries who will likely never get in

Even if you just look at "best 7 seasons" which is about as favorable to Oliva as you can get, he's still behind several of those players

let's look at some of Oliva's contemporaries who will likely never get in


Even if you just look at "best 7 seasons" which is about as favorable to Oliva as you can get, he's still behind several of those players

I wonder how many voters looked at "Black ink: 41, average HOF 27", he's got to go in.

I wonder how many voters looked at "Black ink: 41, average HOF 27", he's got to go in.

Among the many reasons that is a dumb metric, is that it puts all HOFers in the same basket. How much black ink did Ozzie Smith have? Pudge Rodriguez? Brooks Robinson?

What does the average HOF corner OF have is the proper comparison, if the comparison has any validity, which it doesn't?

#36. It's specific black ink. Oliva was overrated when active because he got a lot of hits.

To be clear, fine player on a genuine HOF track (helped by the fact that he was a pretty good corner OF) before his knees failed him. The stories Carew tells about him wandering the hotels in the middle of the night searching for ice are memorable.

I don't find what if HOF cases to be particularly compelling but I'm not too worked up by Oliva.

Totally agree with #37, but perhaps some long-in-the-tooth voters didn't.

Oliva does have a pretty good argument that the Twins wasted his ages 23 and 24 seasons in the minors. That's mainly because they had Killebrew and Bob Allison in the corner outfield spots. BTW - Reggie Smith was signed by the Twins but drafted away by the Red Sox in 1963 in the first year player draft because the Twins had no room for him on the MLB roster. Oliva was always very gracious to Minnesota fans while Reggie Smith (accurately) called Boston fans racist.

I can't see trashcangate preventing Beltran from getting in.

I can absolutely see this. Beltran is already right on the borderline margin - not by merit or WAR, but by "feels-like-a-HOFer". Trashcangate is going to hit right where that margin hurts. Even if only 5% of the electorate dings him for it, there's a pretty substantial chance that 5% is the margin between 70% and 75% by his last year.

Knocking two candidates out (from 10-8) likely doesn't help. There are always a couple candidates who get no traction (and no votes). Going from 4-3 votes just makes it much harder for the top candidates to get in.

You're assuming they're going to do the logical thing and remove the two least qualified candidates from the ballot. But my guess is there will still be a couple of guys who have no case and get no traction -- there will just be fewer borderline/deserving players on the ballot and it will be easier for those guys.

Beltran -- I don't know. Obviously the scandal could do him in but Cora and Hinch have been back managing for two seasons and I haven't noticed anybody being super upset about that. Of course becoming a hitting coach didn't help McGwire's HoF case. On the other hand, there are very few to vote for.

Rolen -- either this year or next. If Beltran doesn't do well, then Rolen's probably in this year unless there are going to be a lot of blank ballots. With first-ballot Beltre in 2024, the HoF would prefer Rolen (or Beltran) elected in 2023.

Low-vote guys -- I've been surprised that Pettitte's made no progress in 4 years. Maybe with Clemens and Schilling gone, being the only SP on the ballot, he'll make a small move. I've come around a bit on Pettitte -- I still wouldn't vote for him but he's solidly borderline and we might be begging for SP candidates as good as Pettitte in a few years. Minor speculation of mine is that guys who get stuck in between pitching usage eras get lost in the shuffle -- their numbers don't stack up to the guys just before and then it takes the voters a few years to adjust to the new reality, by which point it's too late for them. Here's Pettitte vs CC:

AP 256-153, 3316 IP, 117 ERA+, 61 WAR, solid postseason record (277 IP) in line with his career with a ALCS MVP
CC 251-161, 3577 IP, 116 ERA+, 62 WAR, meh postseason but a ALCS MVP

CC's CYA is a big difference of course. Outside of that, both had a set of solid CYA finishes but CC's were most clustered so he has a better argument for a peak "among the best in the game." Really that's a very thin line yet I think most of us support CC, at least moreso than Pettitte. And I'm not sure that's much more than a "felt like a HoFer" argument. Pettitte overlapped with some of the best SPs ever so he was never going to be remotely close to the best pitchers in the game. But it's far from clear that CC was in any significant way a better pitcher than Pettitte.

In some ways, Pettitte was the Ortiz of SPs. He was a very good, consistent pitcher through, say 35 and I and others were saying "no chance at the HoF ... sure maybe if doesn't decline and stays healthy through 40 ..." and then he added 800 innings of 111 ERA+, 55 wins, 12.5 WAR despite missing 1.5 years to injury.

I know there's the PED connection and his vote total may not mean anything more than only about half of the Manny voters think he deserves the HoF which is probably about right.

Oliva -- while it took a while, he's been in the mix for VC selection for a long time. He's sort of a classic "felt like a HoFer" who instilled "TEH FEAR." I was only 10 but my brothers and broadcasters did speak of him in awe. People speak of how fearsome the young Dave Parker seemed -- Oliva's a good comp there. It was a very different time of course and we over-valued hits and BA but he was Carew ripping line-drive doubles and 20-25 HR a year. Voters gave him good support, consistently in the 30s, nearly made 50% at one point.

But sure, he doesn't belong. There are a lot of sudden endings in baseball plus those guys who had sudden endings but carried on, killing their rate stats. Of the names in #26, Fregosi (injured), Pinson (excellent young peak, big drop, long career) and Cedeno (very little after 29) are the good comps and certainly Fregosi and probably Pinson deserve the honor at least as much. Pinson used to get mentioned a lot as a VC candidate, I don't know that I've ever heard Fregosi's name as a serious candidate (had he made a ballot? 1% on his one BBWAA ballot.) Cedeno also quickly dismissed; Pinson got about 1/3 the support Oliva got.

The Official Unofficial Walt 2023 Ballot with Full Takesy-backsy Rights Reserved

Rolen
Beltran
ARod
Manny
Sheffield

then ... Sometime in the last couple of years, I took a semi-serious look at Helton and my brain decided he probably belonged in but boy it still doesn't feel right. I won't object when he goes in. Andruw is somebody I want to vote for but I sure wish we had better measures of defense. I think he was the best defensive CF I've ever seen but what do my eyes know? That quick collapse hurts him -- I'm more interested in peak but with his uncertain peak value, it would have been nice to see solid late career production to give me more faith in that peak. If you took Andruw through age 30 and gave him Hunter's age 31-38, he'd be a laughably obvious HoFer, the Beltre of CF, sitting on 90 WAR and it wouldn't matter if his defense was over-rated by 10-15 wins. Even Dawson's late-career 15 WAR would make it so the only difference between them was Andruw picking up those extra 15 wins on defense and then we just have to believe he was only a bit better than peak Dawson defensively.

But I'd also be happy to cut that list back to the first two. ARod and Manny votes are wasted anyway and if any hitters were mainly the product of PEDs (I don't believe their effects were so magical) then it's those two ... plus both broke the rules post-testing, multiple times. Clear cheating. Sheffield I've not voted for for years -- crowded ballots were a convenient excuse. He's here just because the stats are too much to ignore -- I didn't support Edgar, the main reasons I'm begrudgingly adding Sheffield is really career length and he's sort of the anti-Andruw in that it's hard to believe teams would keep trotting him out to the field with such horrific performance. (And with Edgar and Ortiz in, Sheff pretty clearly satisfies the existing HoF standard whether I like it or not.)

I think Beltran will debut higher than 20% and will eventually go in, but it will take 5+ years. He may not have "felt like a HOFer" for much of his career, but I think that narrative changed when he just kept hitting after age 35. Adding another 100+ HR, 600+ hits, 300+ R and RBI, and two All-Star appearances goes a long way.

You're assuming they're going to do the logical thing and remove the two least qualified candidates from the ballot. But my guess is there will still be a couple of guys who have no case and get no traction -- there will just be fewer borderline/deserving players on the ballot and it will be easier for those guys.

You're assuming the voters won't vote for the least qualified candidates but they've had consistent support for Steve Garvey and Harold Baines got elected.

But I'd also be happy to cut that list back to the first two. ARod and Manny votes are wasted anyway and if any hitters were mainly the product of PEDs (I don't believe their effects were so magical) then it's those two

PEDs probably helped, but A-Rod was a consensus #1 pick out of HS and both guys hit the snot out of the ball from the moment they arrived in the minors as teenagers and never really stopped. I agree with the rest of your rationale for why not to vote for them, but I can think of other guys who probably benefitted a lot more from PEDs.

I am a Twins fan but I can admit that the Twins have the most overrated group of Hall of Famers. Killebrew, Blyleven and Carew belong but Puckett, Oliva, Kaat and Morris took someone else's spot. Contrast to the Tigers who can't get Darrell Evans, Lou Whitaker or Bill Freehan elected. Guess that bodes well for Joe Mauer.

I think Beltran will debut higher than 20% and will eventually go in, but it will take 5+ years. He may not have "felt like a HOFer" for much of his career, but I think that narrative changed when he just kept hitting after age 35. Adding another 100+ HR, 600+ hits, 300+ R and RBI, and two All-Star appearances goes a long way.

A few years back, I looked at the HoF voting success of position players who were somewhere around the borderline (between 50-70 WAR) as a function of how easily they could be associated with a single team. The more your career was spread between teams, the worse your chances of induction. Beltran's career is as spread around as anyone's, so he may have some trouble with this (even though his final WAR total is 70.1, which puts him marginally outside the borderline range I was considering).

He's also the kind of well-rounded player who's hard to get a handle on - very good hitter but not often great (only two top-10 OPS+ finishes, nothing higher than 5th), very good fielder but only won 3 Gold Gloves, excellent baserunner (especially by percentage) but only had 30 steals 4 times. Two top-10 MVP results (a 4 and a 9), 0.76 MVP shares (355th all-time). One point of black ink, for games played. If you look at his ranking in career offensive stats, his best finishes are in things like extra-base hits (25th), doubles (29th), and total bases (34th). He's 9th all-time in power-speed number if you think we can get the voters hyped about that - but Bobby Bonds beats him, and he's not too far ahead of Alfonso Soriano and Bobby Abreu.

To be clear, I would vote for Beltran in a heartbeat. But I don't think he was getting picked on the first ballot with or without trashcanlidgate, and I don't think we'll know how big an issue the scandal is for him until the ballots come out.

but Puckett, Oliva, Kaat and Morris took someone else's spot. Contrast to the Tigers who can't get Darrell Evans, Lou Whitaker or Bill Freehan elected.

Morris is more a Tiger than he is a Twin, game 7 notwithstanding.

1) Will any 1st-year candidate besides Beltran get 5%? (John Lackey, Jered Weaver, and Jacoby Ellsbury are the next three in career WAR, so you'd think the answer is an easy "no". But down the list further is K-Rod, who has 437 saves. Perhaps enough voters are drawn to the save total to get him to 5%?)

Wagner's climb up the ballots makes me think K-Rod will.

2) The obvious question: Will anybody get to 75%? Beltran should do well, but TrashCanGate would hurt a little, and if Ortiz barely got to 75% in year one, it would seem unlikely that Beltran would. Only three returning candidates broke 42% last year: Rolen (63%), Helton, (52%), and Wagner (51%). Could Rolen get all the way to 75%? Seems unlikely, but I hope so, or 2023 is going to be a pretty quiet Induction Weekend.

I actually think two guys have shots. Rolen, and Helton.

There is only one even decent 1st year candidate. There are three major vote getting holdovers on the ballots who are now gone (Bonds, Clemens, Schilling) and with Ortiz getting elected, that means there were four guys taking up a lot of space on the 2022 ballots who are now gone. These guys could really benefit from that.

I really want to say Billy Wagner, but last year's performance among 1st year voters, (46%) makes me wonder if he's got a ceiling.

I'm personally of two minds on Wagner. He wouldn't be in my personal Hall, because I don't create special exceptions for guys who weren't good enough to be starters and threw 400 fewer innings than Brandon Webb (who would need three more seasons to even be eligible.)

But, if I were voting tomorrow, I'd vote for him. The horse is out of the barn, and we're electing closers. A Hall with Hoffman and Smith and not Wagner makes no sense to me.

4) Is there any reasonable scenario you can see where ARod gets to 75% over the course of the next nine ballots?

No. The voters are clearly distinguishing between guys with various steroid rumors — Ortiz and BB/RC (who were gaining votes every year by being over 75% with first time voters) and guys actually suspended for steroid use, like A-Rod and Manny.

5) Do any of the following returning candidates not get 5% in 2023:

Vizquez (24% last year, but obviously a lot of problems)
Pettitte (11%)
Rollins (9%)
Abreu (9%)
Buehrle (6%)
Hunter (5%)

Hunter and Buherle may not. I know I mentioned that the ballots are opening up. But seeing guys dip like they did in Year 2 seems dangerous. I feel like a decent number of their Year 1 support could have been the "He was a great guy, so I'm going to give him some love so he isn't ignored" kind.

6) Do you see any of those lower-tier candidates getting momentum in a weaker-candidate environment and making a legit run at 75% over the course of their candidacy? (Abreu strikes me as having the most compelling case of the six from a statistical POV; Buerhle from a narrative POV).

I'd feel better about Abreu's statistical climb if he wasn't doing terribly with first-year voters. These are the people you would think would be embracing the kind of player the advanced stats say he is. And they're just not.

Speaking of Webb, DeGrom's current situation makes me wonder if we're finally going to do away with the 10-year rule.

He's probably going to get 10 years in, but if he had a Webb-like setback upon his return this season, I feel like there'd be a strong push for a re-evaluation of the setup

I think the guys just above 5% will do much better. This will be the first year in a long time when there aren't good reasons for a 10 man ballots. I'm betting writers will not want to drop down to 4-6 man ballots and add back guys like Abreu and Buehrle to fill out theirballot. Makes for a more interesting HOF column to have a full 10 names.

In 2007-08 I ran a series of polls to determine the top HOF candidates, starting with the top candidates from each decade. The poll for the 1960's included 26 players, vote for your top nine. We had 24 voters participate. Here are the results:


Santo, Torre, Kaat, and Oliva now reside in the HOF. Allen, Boyer, and Freehan hired the wrong PR people.

Morris is more a Tiger than he is a Twin, game 7 notwithstanding.

But he doesn't get elected without Game 7.

Allen, Boyer, and Freehan hired the wrong PR people

I wonder if Freehan would be in the HOF if he'd had a long post-playing career as announcer or coach/manager. He did brief stints in those roles, but his main post-playing job was as coach at the University of Michigan, a solid contribution to the game but clearly not impressive to HOF voters.

By contrast, Santo and Kaat were announcers, Torre enshrined for managing as much as playing, Oliva was a long-time ML coach. Boyer did manage in the majors, but died before he could have a long career in that role.

But I'd also be happy to cut that list back to the first two. ARod and Manny votes are wasted anyway and if any hitters were mainly the product of PEDs (I don't believe their effects were so magical) then it's those two

PEDs probably helped,

There is a case that PEDS *HURT* A-Rod's ##s and value more than they helped
1) how much better did he get after he used them? Evidence doesn't show it
2) He was suspended a whole year. Perhaps 20 HR, which would have resulted in him passing Ruth.

A Rod was rumored to be on roids as early as high school. If true, maybe he'sonly a 60-70 WAR guy. It's impossible to know. The argument for bonds is that he was a HOFr Before peds. We don't know when he started, it's just a narrative that it was because of McGwire.

54. Or the 198 wins, no-hitter, etc..in Detroit.

He’s a Tiger.

54. Or the 198 wins, no-hitter, etc..in Detroit.

He’s a Tiger.

I agree that he's a Tiger, but he probably doesn't get elected if he's just a Tiger. The brief Twins part of his career is how he gets enough support to get elected.

Of course he doesn’t go in without Game 7. But in the context of this conversation, he’s more of a counter to the idea Tigers get no Coop love than Twins are boosted.

Re: Morris

He wouldn't be the first guy to be associated with a team or two who would not have gotten in without their entire career, even when that other part of the career doesn't include something like G7. Heck, even with Game 7, Morris, IMO, probably doesn't get into the Hall without the wins he tacks on in Toronto and Cleveland)

Red Sox/Marlins legend Andre Dawson is not a thing that exists. But does he make the Hall with 399 HR and 1,425 RBI? Does Dave Winfield, of the "Padres or Yankees?" hat debate, get in with just the 2,400 hits and 359 HR he got in those uniforms? Or is he just another Dave Parker?

We're going to see this with modern guys too.

Andruw Jones' post Atlanta career is pretty much the subject of mockery, but taking away 250 H and 66 HR from a guy with already unimpressive counting totals makes me wonder if he would have survived the first ballot. Ditto Utley, who would have the fewest hits of any HOF hitter since 1959 even before you took away the 262 he tacked on in LA. Or Utley's former teammate Cole Hamels, (if you're into that sort of thing), who at 58 bWAR, is a much better candidate that he is than he is without the 5 WAR he got during a season and a half in Chicago.

None of this really changes who we associate these guys with

1) how much better did he get after he used them? Evidence doesn't show it

I tend to agree with you, but "didn't get better" is a low bar. I believe he claims to have started using in 2001, he had 2,149 hits and 507 HR after that point, including multiple 30+ HR, All-Star caliber seasons well into his 30s. He didn't age perfectly but many infielders have aged far worse. Who knows, without PEDs A-Rod might have been one of those guys.

1) how much better did he get after he used them? Evidence doesn't show it

I tend to agree with you, but "didn't get better" is a low bar. I believe he claims to have started using in 2001, he had 2,149 hits and 507 HR after that point, including multiple 30+ HR, All-Star caliber seasons well into his 30s. He didn't age perfectly but many infielders have aged far worse. Who knows, without PEDs A-Rod might have been one of those guys.

1) how much better did he get after he used them? Evidence doesn't show it

Because if you care about the effect of steroids, you're not going to learn anything measuring "better" against his previous seasons.

Guys get better or worse all the time. A-Rod went from a 161 OPS+ in 1996 to a 120, 136, 134 three year run, back up to 163 in 2000. His first four years in NY saw him go 131-173-134-176.

You're measuring better against his hypothetical non-steroid using self in that same season. So even if A-Rod started using steroids and saw OPS+ drop 40 points the next year, that doesn't mean it didn't have a positive effect. It might be the reason it only dropped 40 points, rather than 60.

This is also why we can't just sniff out usage by using a stat sheet

Would Mike Piazza still be a Hall of Famer without the week he spent as a Florida Marlin?

I'm currently running a survey to determine who really deserves to be on the 2023 BBWAA ballot, based on a reform of the election process proposed in this mock press release:

(COOPERSTOWN, NY) – The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum’s Board of Directors today announced major revisions to the BBWAA election process. Effective immediately, the ballot will be limited to 20 players. In addition, the BBWAA Screening Committee is eliminated, while the fans will be given a say on who will make the final ballot.

Here is a timeline for the new election process:

1) Late January - After the results of the annual BBWAA election are announced, the top ten returning players in the voting will have earned a place on the next ballot. For the 2023 election, the ten returning are Scott Rolen, Todd Helton, Billy Wagner, Andruw Jones, Gary Sheffield, Alex Rodriguez, Jeff Kent, Manny Ramirez, Omar Vizquel, and Andy Pettitte.
2) February thru April - The Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) will prepare a 25-player ballot of the top remaining candidates from the ten-year period under consideration. For the 2023 election, they will consider players who made their last appearance in MLB in the years 2008 through 2017.
3) Late July thru early October – Fans will register at the HOF website at baseballhall.org, then vote to determine the other ten players to appear on the final ballot from the list of 25 players prepared by SABR. Voting will begin on Hall of Fame weekend and end on the day after the regular season ends.
4) November/December – BBWAA voters will cast their ballots for the current election. Rather than be restricted to ten votes, voters will be required to vote Yes or No on all 20 candidates.

The Hall of Fame is welcoming the fans to be a part of the election process for the first time. The Board of Directors felt it was important to give the fans a voice in the selection of who is honored by the Hall. Unlike the balloting for the all-star game, each fan will be limited to one ballot.

The Hall of Fame is also excited to deepen its long-time partnership with SABR, the preeminent organization for scholarly research into all things baseball related. We believe there is no one more suitable for the task of compiling the ballot for the fan vote.

By restricting the ballot to 20 candidates, the Hall of Fame is putting an end to the practice of allowing players on the ballot simply to acknowledge a fine career. Going forward, only the best candidates will be under consideration for election to the Hall of Fame.

“With these updates to the election process, we are upholding our commitment to the very high standard of excellence that has always been required for Hall of Fame election,” said Jane Forbes Clark, Chairman of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. “Increasingly, we have had the desire to give the fans a direct role in the election process. Inviting them to vote on which players will be on the final ballot is the ideal solution.”

No thanks.

A Hall with Hoffman and Smith and not Wagner makes no sense to me.

A hall with hoffman and smith makes no sense. That you made a mistake in the past isn't a reason to keep making it.

#68 Or to put it another way, not everybody better than Lloyd Waner belongs in the hall.

I wouldn’t want to see Wagner in even if you take the if Hoffman and Smith, then … argument. Wagner may be more qualified than either guy, but he would still lower the IP bar.

If the BBWAA has decided that, collectively, 1-inning closers are to be treated like a separate “position” from starters, and should be in the hall of Fame — and they have — then they should recognize the best ones.

It’s no different than if the voters for the Pro football hall decide to start electing returners or gunners. If you’re going to do it, get the right ones.

Wagner raises the Hoffman/Smith/Sutter bar

That’s what makes it different than Waner. To the voters, they don’t see the closers as the worst pitchers in the Hall. They aren’t comparing them to guys like Cone or Saberhagen. They see them as their own position.

I don’t understand how you can make such a statement. Maybe some subset of voters think that way, but the same guys who easily elected Hoffman we’re evenly split on Smith (he peaked at 51% and actually declined after that). He was ultimately a VC selection. The idea that there is some consensus on how voters view these guys is simply not supported by anything the Hall has done. They’re not consistent when it comes to any other position so I don’t know why people ascribe consistency to their views on closers.

How can I make the statement that closers are seen differently than starters by the BBWAA?

Pitcher A (closer): 61-75, 28 bWAR, 141 ERA+, two runner up finishes in Cy Young voting, 4 seasons with Cy Young votes
Pitcher B (starter): 139-74, 51 bWAR, 136 ERA+, two Cy Young awards, 6 seasons with Cy Young votes.

Those pitchers were on the ballot together in 2018. One of them received 337 votes, and the other got 10.

Here's another one, these guys shared a ballot in 2007 (so I won't use WAR or ERA+)

Pitcher A (closer): 71-92, 3.03 ERA, Cy Runner up, 4 seasons with Cy votes
Pitcher B (starter): 167-117, 3.34 ERA, 2 CYs, 3 seasons with Cy votes, World Series MVP

One of these guys got 127 votes, one got 7.

That closers are seen differently than starters is just a fact. It doesn't matter if the closer in question gets elected. Not every closer with 400 saves is getting elected, any more than Jamie Moyer got in with his 269 wins. But they are seen as fundamentally different.

I do not want the HOF to be strictly WAR based

It shouldn't be, it should be strictly WAA based. Peak WAA to be more specific. Ignore below average seasons and add up all the seasons they were better than the average MLB player and you get the best single number for career value.

If the BBWAA has decided that, collectively, 1-inning closers are to be treated like a separate “position” from starters,

They may have decided that, but they're wrong about it - all of them are pitchers.

Ignore below average seasons...and you get the best single number for career value

Below average seasons can contribute value too.

#76 Yeah. But precisely nothing to a HOF case. No amount of below average play moves the needle.

#76 Yeah. But precisely nothing to a HOF case. No amount of below average play moves the needle.

Perhaps in fantasy. But plenty of Hall cases have been aided by below average play.

It certainly has. See Harold Baines. But should it? See Harold Baines.

It certainly has. See Harold Baines. But should it? See Harold Baines.

Eh. Don Sutton where his below average season are zeroed out doesn't make the Hall of Fame (he's at 240-ish wins, 2,600 Ks). Do you think he's a mistake?

And Baines was just a terrible selection, no matter which way you try to construct a case for him.

Eh. Don Sutton where his below average season are zeroed out doesn't make the Hall of Fame (he's at 240-ish wins, 2,600 Ks). Do you think he's a mistake?

That's a very good question. I would say no, he's not a mistake, but he certainly stretches my limits. If his career were shaped differently, and the bulk of the negative came at the end of his career in "hang around time", I might answer yes. But they didn't. He sprinkled poor seasons throughout his career. His main problem was that when he was good, he usually wasn't that good. Add up all of his positive WAA, and he's still 2 wins below Jacob deGrom. But he was good enough.

Jim Kaat on the other hand...His last above average season was 1976. At that point he was 247-201. For the rest of his career he went 36-36, but with -7.5 WAA and -2.9 WAR. He got in for more than just his 283 wins, but that other stuff wouldn't have been enough if he had only 241.

I just took a closer look at the other questionable selection Tony Oliva. I expected to find the opposite of Kaat, a player who was good or excellent every year of his career but just wasn't able to be on the field long enough. But that was not true. His last above average year was 1971. At that point he had a nice (especially for his era) .313 batting average, and all of his black ink, but only 1462 hits. For the rest of his career he got another 455 hits, but he was below average every year, amassing -5.7 WAA. Oliva wasn't elected because of his career totals, but would they have elected someone with only 1462 hits, especially when that was essentially all he brought to the table? Ralph Kiner had only 1450 hits, but he brought a lot more to the table.

#80 Yeah, I guess you're right. There have been a few cases where somebody's crept to a magic line and made it in -- though I do think guys like Early Wynn (the earliest case I can think of for somebody sticking around for a milestone) would have made it in eventually. In precisely the same way that Sam Rice eventually made it -- and yeah Rice isn't what you'd call overwhelmingly qualified. Though these days you'd have people arguing to give some weight to the missing time from his early 20s -- it's very unlikely he wasn't major league ready years sooner.

Kaat's a weird case. It's mostly narrative. Arrange the shape of his best years and take away the hanging on and I think Catfish Hunter (again not a well qualified candidate -- which is how I see Kaat)

Sutton's interesting. Still pitching on merit when he got 300. Which isn't precisely an automatic qualification but may as well be. Even today he'd have gone in.

He doesn't look particularly good by WAR7 adj (which is probably the least favorable metric) but he's still in the same general range as Lemon, Gomez, Ford and Faber. And loads of guys who didn't make it. Interestingly barely ahead of Jamie Moyer and just behind Bob Shawkey.

Jerry Koosman might be a better name for the discussion since at their respective bests they're directly comparable (Koosman slightly ahead in WAR7, but comfortably within method error) and in the end what separates them is what amounts to ~7 years of slightly below average starting (~10 WAR in 1443 IP). That has value but isn't anything I'd cite in a HOF case.

So do I think Stutton's a mistake? Not precisely. I see him lifted out of the area where a pitcher may or may not make it by something I don't see as particularly important to a statistical HOF case. And I'd have voted for him (as long as it wasn't a crowded ballot) because in the end somebody playing on merit when he crosses a recordball magic line is enough for me.

#82 Nobody was making any kind of statistical case for Oliva. They voted for the guy they remembered -- He was a pretty good (if somewhat overrated. Good line drive hitter with a little pop. Very good corner OF. Though already starting to slow) player before blowing his knee out and they did broadly the same thing as they did for Kirby Puckett -- mentally filled in the remained of his career optimistically. Never mind that he was just entering the phase where he was a pretty good bet to decline even before injury considerations.