Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, February 09, 2020

Marlins’ Mattingly bothered by sign-stealing, Jeter vote

MIAMI (AP) — Baseball’s news cycle of late has been dominated by the sign-stealing scandal that led to upheaval in Houston and Boston, as well as Derek Jeter missing out on being a unanimous selection for Baseball’s Hall of Fame.

Don Mattingly was bothered by both stories.

Miami’s manager spoke out Saturday at the team’s annual FanFest, expressing dismay over how Jeter — the Marlins’ CEO — was one vote away from appearing on 100% of the ballots submitted in this year’s Hall of Fame voting, as well as the sign-stealing controversy that is could well taint Houston’s World Series win in 2017 and Boston’s title in 2018.

“You could see it kind of coming, honestly, with the technology, with the cameras, just how fast that has come to the forefront with everything you can do with replay,” Mattingly said. “You could actually see how it could ... how something could start to happen. Unfortunately, it did.”

Well, we’ve managed to find out how Mattingly has managed to keep his head when everyone around him on the Marlins was losing theirs…..

 

QLE Posted: February 09, 2020 at 01:41 AM | 40 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: derek jeter, don mattingly, hall of fame, sign-stealing

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. majorflaw Posted: February 09, 2020 at 05:56 AM (#5922954)
“ “You know, like you said, it doesn’t matter. From my viewpoint, it doesn’t really matter. But I’m thinking to myself, I don’t know how you could look at anything in his career and say it’s not Hall of Fame. So I’ll leave it at that.””


Mattingly, on behalf of Jeter, has nothing to complain about. Jeter got closer to a unanimous vote than Willy frikking Mays, closer than Ted Williams, closer than Mickey Mantle. Sort of surprising that more than one voter didn’t decide that Jeter’s defense at a defense-first position was below standard for a first ballot HoFer.

Rivera’s unanimous vote was a convergence of several factors, not the least of which was that he had been recognized as the best “closer” in baseball history. A non-vote for Rivera would have been a statement that no RP, or closer at least, deserves to get in. Even so, it’s a bit surprising that no voting member(s) chose to make that statement. Every candidate has his supporters and detractors, even he all-time greats weren’t unanimous. There’s always an argument—that’s just the way it works. And the way it should work.
   2. cardsfanboy Posted: February 09, 2020 at 10:48 AM (#5922973)
Mattingly, on behalf of Jeter, has nothing to complain about. Jeter got closer to a unanimous vote than Willy frikking Mays, closer than Ted Williams, closer than Mickey Mantle. Sort of surprising that more than one voter didn’t decide that Jeter’s defense at a defense-first position was below standard for a first ballot HoFer.


I agree but I don't agree if you know what I mean. I think that once you have a unanimous vote, there is no reason remaining to hold off your vote for the guy that is clearly a first balloter, but at the same time complaining about it, doesn't really work when, as you pointed out, he did so much better than greater players than him did, and there is at least a potential reason to not include him on the ballot. If your ballot is already filled with ten names, then there is no reason to eject someone you think is worthy to replace him, as there is no rule requirement that you have to vote based upon ranking of players.

If the person who didn't vote for him, cast less than ten votes, then he should have his children taken away. Or at least his right to vote for the hof as he has proven he's incompetent at that particular skill.
   3. JJ1986 Posted: February 09, 2020 at 12:51 PM (#5922996)
Mattingly bothered by sign-stealing, Jeter, vote.
   4. Barnaby Jones Posted: February 09, 2020 at 12:53 PM (#5922997)
You don't have to go back to Mays and Mantle to make this point.

In 2018, 12 people didn't think Chipper Jones was a Hall of Famer.
In 2016, 3 people didn't vote for Griffey.
In 2015, 15 people didn't vote for Randy Johnson and 49(!) people didn't vote for Pedro Martinez.
In 2014, 16 people didn't vote for Maddux.

All those players are equally or moreso "obvious HOFs" than Jeter, and frankly, better players. Their "non-unanimity" is even more "incorrect." But we didn't see quite so much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth over those. I'm gonna guess there is probably at least one Yankees' hack who didn't for Pedro and is now mad about someone not voting for Jeter.

The caterwauling about Jeter, how could this happen to someone so special, is why everyone hates the Yankees. He only even got this close because being a Yankee made him so famous.
   5. cardsfanboy Posted: February 09, 2020 at 02:16 PM (#5923012)
The caterwauling about Jeter, how could this happen to someone so special, is why everyone hates the Yankees. He only even got this close because being a Yankee made him so famous.


That isn't remotely the argument, the argument is that we now have a unanimous selection, is there any reason going forward that we shouldn't have a clear hofer go in unanimously?

I'm not a Jeter fanboy in the slightest, but I used to gnash my teeth about Chipper, Griffey, Randy, Maddux etc... but at least there we had an established standard of non-unanimous electees... that is no longer the wall that needs to be broken. So now it boils down to why didn't he get 100% vs whether he is more worthy than Mays/Cobb/Musial/Seaver/etc. of the vote.

and again... the only reason to not put Jeter on your ballot, is that your ballot is full... which is perfectly acceptable and defensible answer to the question of why didn't you vote for him..... but I have a funny feeling that, this random a-hole didn't vote for him, simply to make it an issue. (although that theory is weak because he hasn't made his vote public, so that means my theory is clearly lacking in one way)
   6. cardsfanboy Posted: February 09, 2020 at 02:18 PM (#5923013)
All those players are equally or moreso "obvious HOFs" than Jeter, and frankly, better players. Their "non-unanimity" is even more "incorrect." But we didn't see quite so much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth over those. I'm gonna guess there is probably at least one Yankees' hack who didn't for Pedro and is now mad about someone not voting for Jeter.


And for the record, unless you are new here, there was plenty of rending of garments and gnashing of the teeth over those.
   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2020 at 02:41 PM (#5923015)
Mickey Mantle got 88%. That's pretty stunning.
   8. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 09, 2020 at 03:07 PM (#5923018)
The caterwauling about Jeter, how could this happen to someone so special, is why everyone hates the Yankees.
“Caterwauling“? When only 1 voter omits a player, it’s going to be commented on, and most people, like Mattingly, have merely noted that although it doesn’t really matter, the vote is indefensible on the merits. At this point, any holdout, “No One Should Be Unanimous” voter is just be clowning themselves, as are those who would attempt to defend such votes by claiming “everyone hates the Yankees”.
   9. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: February 09, 2020 at 03:59 PM (#5923024)
People have been caterwauling about Willy frikking Mays not being unanimous for approximately one year longer than people have been caterwauling that so-and-so shouldn't be unanimous because Willy frikking Mays wasn't unanimous.
   10. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: February 09, 2020 at 04:19 PM (#5923026)
Conveniently, Don Mattingly wasn't bothered by popcorn-stealing.
   11. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 09, 2020 at 05:14 PM (#5923032)
People have been caterwauling about Willy frikking Mays not being unanimous for approximately one year longer than people have been caterwauling that so-and-so shouldn't be unanimous because Willy frikking Mays wasn't unanimous.

the best line about some writers not voting for Mays came from the generally loathsome Dick Young: "these guys wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ--after all, he dropped the cross three times"
   12. bbmck Posted: February 09, 2020 at 05:23 PM (#5923036)
A summary of the best unanimous candidates after Lou Gehrig until Ken Griffey Jr.

The conspiracy theory that Gehrig wasn't unanimous is an interesting option, if the Hall had made a unanimous announcement for Griffey or Jeter would the one of the three or the only voter have been willing to go public?

Jeter not being unanimous is really easy to explain, one person has to assume PED use for a player who played at the height of the steroid era. 150 or so 2020 voters are no on PEDs and one of those voters took the flying leap that an extremely unnatural career arc in his 30s and being teammates with multiple known PED users was "bacne" reason enough to leave Jeter off the ballot so that when/if Jeter's PED use comes to light they can go "I knew it, that's why I didn't vote for him".
   13. Adam Starblind Posted: February 09, 2020 at 06:14 PM (#5923042)
Jeter had an unnatural career arc in his 30s?
   14. Barnaby Jones Posted: February 09, 2020 at 06:22 PM (#5923044)
the argument is that we now have a unanimous selection, is there any reason going forward that we shouldn't have a clear hofer go in unanimously?
... at least there we had an established standard of non-unanimous electees


This hasn't been "a standard" for a long time now. It was just something that happened because there have always been dumb sportwriters who are too stupid to vote sensibly. There was never a good reason to vote against a clear hall of famer (other than ballot space). Voting against Randy Johnson before Mariano was just as dumb as voting against Jeter after.

You think there were a dozen voters who didn't vote for Chipper because of a "standard" that said no one should be unanimous, but within one year they all had an epiphany that the standard was wrong? No, that's absurd; they voted that way because they are dumb, but Mo's HOF case is easier for a dumb person to understand. All the non-idiot voters were already voting for both.

At this point, any holdout, “No One Should Be Unanimous” voter is just be clowning themselves, as are those who would attempt to defend such votes by claiming “everyone hates the Yankees”.


That has been "clown" logic for decades, and there is no evidence that was the reason this guy didn't vote for Jeter. More likely reasons, imo, are: (1) Ballot Full (2) Idiocy (3) Vague unfounded PED concern (4) Spite

It is just plainly clear that people who withheld from other better players, didn't withhold for Mo and Jeter. The reason for this is not some group epiphany about unanimity; it's that the dumb-as-rock voters who don't know dogsh*t about baseball about are still aware of DA CAPTAIN and ENTER DA SANDMAN because the DA YANKEES are the center of the baseball media world. These are the voters that make the difference. Like Rick Gosselin, who didn't put Pedro on his ballot, not because he was afraid of "unanimity" (he voted for Randy Johnson), but because he is a football writer who covers the Cowboys and clearly knows nothing about baseball (he voted Smoltz over Pedro). But of course he voted for Mo and Jeter. Even Cowboys beat writers know how to COUNT DA RINGZ for the leaders of DA CORE FOUR.

I'm pretty sure, for example, Adrian Beltre, a better player than Jeter, is not gonna get 100% because there will be at least one (and probably multiple) Gosselin style voter who leaves them off because they are bad at understanding baseball. I'd love to be wrong about that, but I doubt it.

And "everyone hates the Yankees" isn't a justification for the vote. It's an observation.
   15. Adam Starblind Posted: February 09, 2020 at 06:27 PM (#5923045)
It is just plainly clear that people who withheld from other better players, didn't withhold for Mo and Jeter. The reason for this is not some group epiphany about unanimity; it's that the dumb-as-rock voters who don't know dogsh*t about baseball about are still aware of DA CAPTAIN and ENTER DA SANDMAN because the DA YANKEES are the center of the baseball media world.


For SOME REASON this brought to mind when the Mets signed Billy Wagner, and Mike Francesa complained that Wagner also used Enter Sandman. When it was pointed out that Wagner had been using it for longer, Francesa fell back on MARIANO'S BEEN DOIN IT FAWH LONGA IN NEW YAWK.

Like Wagner should just switch to some other strip club song. Like Black Betty?
   16. DJS Thinks Apples and Oranges are Similar Posted: February 09, 2020 at 06:29 PM (#5923046)
I don't have enough BBWAA years yet to vote in the Hall election, but I would not have voted either for Rivera or Jeter. There are easily more than 10 players I'd have voted for each year and I just can't prioritize voting for the guys who have enough ballots to be ironclad locks. As long as there are more worthy inductees than ballot spots, I have no intention of voting for any player with at least 90% of the tracker vote at the turn-in deadline.

   17. bbmck Posted: February 09, 2020 at 06:39 PM (#5923048)
Yes, it's unnatural and/or unusual for a 121 OPS+ hitter to average 645 PA and 113 OPS+ in his 30s. Partly that's luck of strike avoidance, Cal Ripken Jr 122 OPS+ and then averages 599 PA and 106 OPS+ in his 30s.

He doesn't have the increase of Barry Bonds, Roberto Clemente, Sammy Sosa, Adrian Beltre, Lou Whitaker and others but especially for a high volume middle infielder the 30s are typically a period of steeper decline in playtime and often a steeper decline in hitting.
   18. cardsfanboy Posted: February 09, 2020 at 06:39 PM (#5923049)
This hasn't been "a standard" for a long time now.


Yes it has, it's been standard since the first election... nobody gets a unanimous election. That has been standard from the first ballot until Rivera.

The reasons given is of course the reasons given, but ultimately players have never gone in unamiously before Rivera, that is the standard that was created, and broke by Rivera... moving forward from that point now, means that a voter is being disingenous if they refuse to vote for a first time player, simply because nobody has been unanimous.

It is just plainly clear that people who withheld from other better players, didn't withhold for Mo and Jeter. The reason for this is not some group epiphany about unanimity; it's that the dumb-as-rock voters who don't know dogsh*t about baseball about are still aware of DA CAPTAIN and ENTER DA SANDMAN because the DA YANKEES are the center of the baseball media world. These are the voters that make the difference. Like Rick Gosselin, who didn't put Pedro on his ballot, not because he was afraid of "unanimity" (he voted for Randy Johnson), but because he is a football writer who covers the Cowboys and clearly knows nothing about baseball (he voted Smoltz over Pedro). But of course he voted for Mo and Jeter. Even Cowboys beat writers know how to COUNT DA RINGZ for the leaders of DA CORE FOUR.


this is just nutzoid ranting nonsense.. Pedro is a clear hofer, but he is also a guy that benefits greatly from the changing roles of pitchers... Pedro is probably the single greatest pitcher that benefited from the new use of bullpens in baseball history. He's absolutely one of the top 20 greatest starters of all time, but he is clearly a level below Randy/Maddux/Clemens from his own era. I get why someone in a crowded ballot might put the guy who had 54 complete games ahead of the guy with 22, when you add the 154 saves, and 600 extra innings pitched. And as a reminder, there is no requirement to rank players, as long as you have 10 names on your ballot, you aren't voting for someone over someone or even ranking them, you are just voting ten names... (mind you I doubt a football idiot writer actually put ten names in there because....well football is for stupid people, so I expect stupid people to do stupid things)

   19. Adam Starblind Posted: February 09, 2020 at 06:46 PM (#5923051)
Yes, it's unnatural and/or unusual for a 121 OPS+ hitter to average 645 PA and 113 OPS+ in his 30s. Partly that's luck of strike avoidance, Cal Ripken Jr 122 OPS+ and then averages 599 PA and 106 OPS+ in his 30s.

He doesn't have the increase of Barry Bonds, Roberto Clemente, Sammy Sosa, Adrian Beltre, Lou Whitaker and others but especially for a high volume middle infielder the 30s are typically a period of steeper decline in playtime and often a steeper decline in hitting.


All Hall of Famers are atypical. They're better for longer. Jeter was an excellent player from about 25-35, less so in the second half of that period. To be fair though, he did have his 7th best hitting season at 35 on the strength of a .368 BABIP.
   20. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2020 at 08:55 PM (#5923074)
I really don't want to here anyone complain about Jeter not being unanimous when Alan Trammell had to wait for the freaking Veterans Committee.

I'd take Trammell over Jeter every day of the week.
   21. PreservedFish Posted: February 09, 2020 at 09:52 PM (#5923087)
I think the voters are becoming more rigorous. Less mythology, less gut feeling. Better access to statistics. Better statistics, period. A rigorous voter looks at the "first ballot" "non-first ballot" distinction as a bunch of baloney. I think that, going forward, unanimous (or at least almost unanimous) voting will become much more common.
   22. DJS Thinks Apples and Oranges are Similar Posted: February 10, 2020 at 12:45 AM (#5923112)
I think the voters are becoming more rigorous. Less mythology, less gut feeling. Better access to statistics. Better statistics, period. A rigorous voter looks at the "first ballot" "non-first ballot" distinction as a bunch of baloney. I think that, going forward, unanimous (or at least almost unanimous) voting will become much more common.

The electorate shift also helps considerably. And it will really change once the internet age writers become eligible. Some are eligible, but they didn't really start treating internet writers as equal to newspaper writers until around 2015. My year alone (class of 2016) had something like 75 new members alone (that was the year MLB.com writers were allowed to be admitted). Some will drop off (new beat, leaving industry, passing away), but there are something like 250 writers who are set to pass ten years in the next five years. Less than half the active membership has ten years of service time.

It's hard to overstate how difficult the intransigent subset of "traditionalist" writers are. For example, we had passed a motion to ask the Hall to make all ballots transparent, by something like a 90-to-9 vote. And the bloc who lost that vote went straight to the Hall to whine about it and demand the Hall refuse. Which they did, because they were the older writers with more pull than knowledge of modern baseball, the ones that end up on various committees for no good reason.

What's funny, is that in the end, a *lot* of the writers who railed against allowing internet writers in are now employed as internet-only writers. At least of the ones still gainfully employed! Luckily, we've had quite a lot of reformist BBWAA presidents in recent years such as Derrick Goold and Susan Slusser. Trent Rosecrans is the next president and I expect he'll do a good job too.
   23. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: February 10, 2020 at 12:59 AM (#5923114)
I think the voters are becoming more rigorous. Less mythology, less gut feeling. Better access to statistics. Better statistics, period.

On the other hand: Omar Vizquel.
   24. Howie Menckel Posted: February 10, 2020 at 01:57 AM (#5923116)
I really don't want to here anyone complain about Jeter not being unanimous when Alan Trammell had to wait for the freaking Veterans Committee.

I'd take Trammell over Jeter every day of the week.

anecdotally, it seems as if HOM voters place Jeter, Trammell, and Larkin in the same crop. long prime vs long useful.

all of them skated right in, and I don't know of any voter who questions any of their HOF status.
   25. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: February 10, 2020 at 08:28 AM (#5923124)
I'd take Trammell over Jeter every day of the week.

Preach, brother! (And what about Sweet Lou, ya bastids...?!)
   26. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 10, 2020 at 10:11 AM (#5923141)
That has been "clown" logic for decades, and there is no evidence that was the reason this guy didn't vote for Jeter. More likely reasons, imo, are: (1) Ballot Full (2) Idiocy (3) Vague unfounded PED concern (4) Spite

(5) He's a Marlins fan, although that may fall under the "Idiocy" category.
   27. gef, talking mongoose & vexatious litigant Posted: February 10, 2020 at 10:15 AM (#5923143)
Wipe your ####### chin, Mattingly.
   28. Barnaby Jones Posted: February 10, 2020 at 01:07 PM (#5923197)
this is just nutzoid ranting nonsense.. Pedro is a clear hofer, but he is also a guy that benefits greatly from the changing roles of pitchers... Pedro is probably the single greatest pitcher that benefited from the new use of bullpens in baseball history. He's absolutely one of the top 20 greatest starters of all time, but he is clearly a level below Randy/Maddux/Clemens from his own era. I get why someone in a crowded ballot might put the guy who had 54 complete games ahead of the guy with 22, when you add the 154 saves, and 600 extra innings pitched. And as a reminder, there is no requirement to rank players, as long as you have 10 names on your ballot, you aren't voting for someone over someone or even ranking them, you are just voting ten names... (mind you I doubt a football idiot writer actually put ten names in there because....well football is for stupid people, so I expect stupid people to do stupid things)


You are just proving my point. Everything you wrote explain why a dumb person (or a person who is doing full-ballot-math) would not vote for obvious HOF Pedro Martinez, and it has nothing to do with a unanimity "standard," which faded away long ago. As the Poz piece linked above explains, exact one of the people who voted against Seaver 30 years ago actually did so for that reason, and that one person was a old fogey holdover from the 70s when people actually cared about this issue. Nobody has been voting under this "standard" for a long time, ergo it isn't a "standard," it's just an empirical phenomenon created by the fact that at least 1 of 400-500 sportswriters is usually an idiot.

Gosselin did not have a full ballot. He just left Pedro off. He was an idiot.
   29. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: February 10, 2020 at 03:41 PM (#5923268)
I'd take Trammell over Jeter every day of the week.


May I ask why? I'm no Jeter fan, but he was a better hitter, better basestealer, played 500 more games, had more team and postseason success, more Top-10 MVP finishes and a higher bWAR (72 to 70). They're both excellent players to be sure.
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 10, 2020 at 04:27 PM (#5923275)

May I ask why? I'm no Jeter fan, but he was a better hitter, better basestealer, played 500 more games, had more team and postseason success, more Top-10 MVP finishes and a higher bWAR (72 to 70). They're both excellent players to be sure.


Because Trammell was a quite good fielder, and Jeter was the worst long-term SS ever. There is reason to believe his D was worse than DRS (various WOWY analyses, among others).

I think a team with a 110 OPS+, good fielding SS is much, much better off than a team with a 120 OPS+, awful fielding SS.

Trammell also crushes Jeter on WAA: 40.5 to 31.
   31. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 10, 2020 at 04:31 PM (#5923277)
If six people hadn't voted for Jeter, rather than just one, there wouldn't be half as much huffing and puffing about it.
   32. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 10, 2020 at 04:35 PM (#5923280)
May I ask why? I'm no Jeter fan, but he was a better hitter, better basestealer, played 500 more games, had more team and postseason success, more Top-10 MVP finishes and a higher bWAR (72 to 70). They're both excellent players to be sure.

I would think you answered your own question. Essentially same WAR, in >3200 fewer PA, is a much better player.

WAA is not close, 31 to 40.4.
   33. Walt Davis Posted: February 10, 2020 at 04:47 PM (#5923282)
There's nothing particularly unusual about Jeter's career arc. He was pretty much the same player from ages 22-35. That's pretty standard for an HoFer -- the basic HoFer formula is 13 outstanding years which generally gets you to about 8000 PAs and 60-70 WAR and the rest is gravy. From age 36 on, Jeter was severely diminished (94 OPS+, one major injury). He is unusual in that for his entire career he was highly durable -- also with the advantage of hittting high in the order for a high-scoring team in a high-scoring era.

For PAs 20-29, expansion era, Jeter is 7th between Santo and Miggy (Rollins actually #1 over Jeter). Rollins, Ripken and ARod are all ahead of him and all SS of course. From 30-35 he is 3rd, behind Rose and Ichiro and ahead of Brock -- 4 pretty similar hitters. He's 110 PA ahead of Biggio, about 250 ahead of Michael Young, Tejada, Omar; about 300 ahead of Alomar. Cal played every inning of every game of course but 94-95 is the middle of this stretch. ARod did finally start getting time off and getting hurt and Rollins had PA totals of 725, 394, 631, 699, 666, 609 (playing in as many or more games as Jeter at ages 30, 33 and 34 but always fewer PA and probably fewer starts). Sandberg would have been right up there if he hadn't taken 1.5 years off (to come back at 36 for 621 PA.

Anyway, Jeter's durability was certainly unusual but not historic. As to his consistent offensive performance for 30-35, that's a lot harder to nail down. If we look at hitters in his OPS+ range (say 115-125) we of course get an odd mix of players -- solid but unspectacular OFs, good-great 2B/3B/CF and great C/SS (some of whom go off the cliff). But to go outside this range just complicates matters -- e.g. Billy Williams 20-29 had a 133 OPS+, from 30-35 he had a 139; Thome 22-29 had a 148 then 158 30-35; etc.

Anyway, you've already mentioned Ripken but looked at his entire 30s which includes the big decline (as did your Jeter numbers). Here's a 22-29 and 30-35 list of similar Jeter batters:

Ripken 124/109 (the biggest decline in my cherry-picked sample)
Trammell 119/117
Dawson 124/126
Beltran 116/133
Alomar 123/113 (people forget his peak was age 31-33)
Roy White 125/115
Rose 123/132
Oliver 119/132
Baines 118/130
GMsr 118/119
DLee 124/120

Those are cherry-picked out of a list of just 27 qualifiers, so add Jeter (122/120) and about 40% of expansion-era players with an age 22-29 OPS+ in the 115-125 range and 4500+ PAs went on to show little/no decline (or even improvement) in OPS+ for ages 30-35. C'mon, if Roy White can do it, Jeter can do it.

Jeter was basically Baines or Matthews playing SS -- which would explain the defense. :-)

Being the same player at 30-35 that you were at 22-29 practically defines a position HoFer (unless of course you weren't so good relative to position at 22-29), at least in the expansion era. Jeter was incredibly durable but in that way similar to Ripken, Rose, Ichiro, Omar, Ozzie and even a player as dull as Steve Finley (nearly 7400 PA age 30+). Then there are the amazing few who weren't durable in their 20s then became durable in their 30s (Molitor over 7500 PAs age 30+; Edgar 6000 PA age 32+). In Jeter's case, it's not clear it's anything but the classic Jamesian stereotype that an athletic player with a high BA ages well.

Jeter BAs: 318 22-29 ... 317 30-35 ... 283 36-40 (but his old self at 38).
Rose 309/313/309
Brock 285/305/286
Ichiro (328)/335/284
   34. Howie Menckel Posted: February 10, 2020 at 05:02 PM (#5923285)
also bothered by Astros sign-stealing is former MLB pitcher Mike Bolsinger, who fild a lawsuit against them today. he claims that "one disastrous inning" against the scheming Astros convinced the Blue Jays to release him, ending his career.
   35. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 10, 2020 at 05:33 PM (#5923289)

#34 I'm sympathetic to Bolsinger, but even if you take out his two appearances against Houston, he had a 5.97 ERA in 2016-2017. He put up a 4.63 ERA last season in 103 innings in the Japanese Pacific League. The Houston game may have been the final nail in his MLB career, but he'd probably be in the same place today even if not for that game.
   36. Barnaby Jones Posted: February 10, 2020 at 05:58 PM (#5923294)
Maybe he can get joined by Kris Medlen, who worked his way back after years of injury (2 TJS) just to get one MLB start against the Astros where he got blown out. He was sent down to the high-offense PCL where he had respectable 3.97 ERA over his next three starts, only giving up 1 ER in 2 of those 3 starts. He then retired; he hadn't been particularly great before the call up and it was probably clear he wasn't getting another shot.

It was a road game for HOU, so probably hard to prove or even be sure that anything was happening, but if I were him I'd be pissed.
   37. Zach Posted: February 10, 2020 at 05:59 PM (#5923295)
Everyone thought it was sooo much fun when Mariano was the first unanimous selection...

Fools.

All they did was introduce a Hall of Fame standard where every single dissenting vote became something to whine about.
   38. Jay Z Posted: February 10, 2020 at 06:27 PM (#5923308)
I don't have enough BBWAA years yet to vote in the Hall election, but I would not have voted either for Rivera or Jeter. There are easily more than 10 players I'd have voted for each year and I just can't prioritize voting for the guys who have enough ballots to be ironclad locks. As long as there are more worthy inductees than ballot spots, I have no intention of voting for any player with at least 90% of the tracker vote at the turn-in deadline.


And your potential vote is more important than other people's because....?

I'm sure your vote is more important to YOU than anyone else. It just isn't more important to ME, or frankly to anyone else involved in the process, or who even cares about it.

Really, there's NO player about 90% threshold who'd you would ever vote for. None of them. Some five time MVP, great characters, multiple WS winners, and it's a NO vote from you.

Your vote isn't special. You don't have the God given right to vote last, to listen to everyone else's honest statements about who they will vote for, and then to game your ballot so you have an outsized impact. That isn't your right, and you have no business playing that role. Just submit an honest ballot.
   39. SoSH U at work Posted: February 10, 2020 at 06:33 PM (#5923309)
You don't have the God given right to vote last, to listen to everyone else's honest statements about who they will vote for, and then to game your ballot so you have an outsized impact. That isn't your right, and you have no business playing that role. Just submit an honest ballot.


Dan has the deadline-given right to vote anytime before the date the ballot is due. As long as he's filling his ballot with people he feels are worthy of Cooperstown, there isn't a specific way he's supposed to do it. And nothing about filling it out this way would make his vote any more, or less, important than anyone else's.

   40. Barnaby Jones Posted: February 10, 2020 at 07:37 PM (#5923327)
Really, there's NO player about 90% threshold who'd you would ever vote for. None of them. Some five time MVP, great characters, multiple WS winners, and it's a NO vote from you.


He very explicitly is only doing this because there is a backlog of people who need to votes more. He's not saying he would never vote for such a person.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT – NBA CoronaThread 2020
(3073 - 4:42pm, May 27)
Last: NJ in NY (Now with two kids!)

NewsblogFormer Braves catcher Biff Pocoroba dies at 66
(4 - 4:32pm, May 27)
Last: Tony S

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(4170 - 4:28pm, May 27)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogGregg Jefferies complicated Mets’ failure looks different now
(72 - 4:15pm, May 27)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogA's Tell Minor Leaguers They Won't Be Paid for the Remainder of the Season
(4 - 4:13pm, May 27)
Last: Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it

NewsblogBatting .400? A sub-1.00 ERA? Here are the MLB records that could be threatened in an 82-game season
(18 - 3:51pm, May 27)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

NewsblogMLB owners sending latest plan to MLBPA that includes sliding pay scale for players
(31 - 3:28pm, May 27)
Last: Greg Pope

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-27-2020
(23 - 2:47pm, May 27)
Last: Born1951

NewsblogGriffey a Pirate? Chipper a Tiger? The MLB draft rule that changed history
(2 - 1:40pm, May 27)
Last: SoSH U at work

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1927 Ballot
(2 - 1:19pm, May 27)
Last: DL from MN

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1927 Discussion
(7 - 1:12pm, May 27)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogHow Johnson, Pedro could have starred in same rotation
(1 - 11:48am, May 27)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogCrew chief: Umpire told Jeter he was tagged by Rolen in stolen base attempt
(160 - 11:48am, May 27)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

Newsblog“Is MLB Going to Be Able to Pull This Back?” Health Experts Break Down Baseball’s Plan
(3 - 6:45am, May 27)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogMLB, players’ union are working to salvage season, and the next two weeks are critical
(5 - 11:35pm, May 26)
Last: Stevey

-->

Page rendered in 0.5030 seconds
46 querie(s) executed