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

Monday, November 18, 2019

Ryan Thibs’ Hall of Fame Tracker

The Thibs Hall of Fame Tracker is back.

Baldrick Posted: November 18, 2019 at 12:27 PM | 1475 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, son of gizmo

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.

Page 13 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 15 > 
   1201. . Posted: January 20, 2020 at 04:44 PM (#5917640)
I can understand why you wouldn't want to talk about the transition year, since it takes a big dump on the argument you made.


It barely lays a finger on it. By 1997, the very next year, he was a full-fledged one inning closer.

Putting aside the dual fire hydrant pissing, my wider point is that now that we know the number of times through the lineup data far better, modern closers should be getting far less, not more, love than before that all became clear. Billy Wagner isn't within a million miles of being qualified for the Hall of Fame.
   1202. SoSH U at work Posted: January 20, 2020 at 04:50 PM (#5917643)
Billy Wagner isn't within a million miles of being qualified for the Hall of Fame.


I agree wholeheartedly, and was saying that about relievers long before the Hall elected Sutter or Gossage. Rivera's the only reliever I do support (I don't mind Hoyt's inclusion, though I don't think he would have gotten my vote), but only because he managed to do it longer than his peers, at such a high level of performance, and with such a spectacular postseason record.

   1203. . Posted: January 20, 2020 at 04:55 PM (#5917644)
I can get behind Rivera being in because of his postseason record, which is ridiculously good, plus he stretched out to 141 IP in 96 appearances. I put no stock at all in the "well he was only in the postseason in the first place because he played with good teammates, which he had nothing to do with" argument.
   1204. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 20, 2020 at 05:04 PM (#5917646)
He was so bad, they pulled the plug after only 10 starts. He was basically a dreadful failure.

I would submit that the Yankees moved Rivera to the 'pen in part because they had Pettitte-Rogers-Gooden-Key-Cone lined up as their season opening rotation in '96, and had the resources to add David Wells, Orlando Hernandez, and Roger Clemens over the next three years. Rivera would have been an unknown quantity in the rotation for a team that was in contention every year, and was great in the bullpen, and there was no need to mess with what was working.

In other words, I would guess the Yankee thought process was more along the lines of "maybe he'd be good, maybe not, we don't have enough information to say and there's no need to gamble because we have basically infinite money," as opposed to "he is clearly garbage as a starter."

Edited to add: Obviously I don't know exactly why the Yankees did what they did, and neither do you; all of this is speculation anyway.
   1205. . Posted: January 20, 2020 at 05:21 PM (#5917654)
Edited to add: Obviously I don't know exactly why the Yankees did what they did, and neither do you; all of this is speculation anyway.


It's not unknowable; we do have things like Google and the NYT archives and the like. How about maybe doing a little research and getting the answer?
   1206. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 20, 2020 at 05:32 PM (#5917655)
It's not unknowable; we do have things like Google and the NYT archives and the like. How about maybe doing a little research and getting the answer?

Feel free; I'm not invested enough in the semantics of "failed starter" to put in that much effort. I will be surprised if you actually find a record of a Yankee official outright stating that they think one of their young players isn't good enough for the starting rotation, but I've been surprised before.
   1207. . Posted: January 20, 2020 at 05:48 PM (#5917656)
No need; the record and the removal raise a clear prima facie case of failure. If we want to change the word to something like "unsuccessful," fine by me -- but he didn't cut it as a starter, that much is clear.
   1208. Adam Starblind Posted: January 20, 2020 at 05:58 PM (#5917658)
Wagner wasn't a failed starter. He was a pretty good starter in the minors, and the Astros put him in the bullpen when they promoted him. He excelled and stayed there.
   1209. Adam Starblind Posted: January 20, 2020 at 06:02 PM (#5917661)
The annoying thing about this closer debate is that you're both right and there isn't too much else to say about it.

1. There is a very strong case that top relievers are less valuable and perhaps less skilled than merely very good starters; but

2. Too bad. Closers have a place in baseball narrative, so the top ones get elected and probably always will, particularly since several horses are now out of the barn.

   1210. Moldorf Posted: January 20, 2020 at 06:16 PM (#5917663)
For what it's worth, here are some excerpts from a Jack Curry New York Times article (5/26/96) called "The Indispensable Yankee: Mariano Rivera, With a Bright Future, Recalls Simpler Times":

'He's our most indispensable pitcher,' Torre said. 'Especially with Cone and Key out and our bullpen the way it is. He gives me protection. I'm not moving him. I can use him three times in five days. I can't do that if I start him.'


'Starter is still my choice, but closer down the road,' said Rivera. ... 'Starting is my thing. I don't see it this year. I have to do my job this year.'


So the kid from Panama with the cardboard glove and the $3500 bonus is the most pivotal pitcher on a $55 million dollar team filled with renowned names.
   1211. Rally Posted: January 20, 2020 at 06:27 PM (#5917665)
Rivera in his 10 starts was better than Greg Maddux was in his first 30.
   1212. EddieA Posted: January 20, 2020 at 06:27 PM (#5917666)
It looks like a career leaderboard is available here for Total Zone runs. Omar is 31st overall, and fifth among shortstops, behind Belanger, Ozzie, Aparicio, and Sanchez, for whatever period the stat covers.


The stat covers 1925-present, though it's stated some information from 1925-1973 is missing.
Omar trails Rolen even in this. He also trails candidates Andruw and Barry, both of whom (and Rolen) could hit a little. It's weird to see 2 predominantly leftfielders in the top 10 for this stat.
   1213. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 20, 2020 at 06:40 PM (#5917670)
The stat covers 1925-present, though it's stated some information from 1925-1973 is missing.
Omar trails Rolen even in this. He also trails candidates Andruw and Barry, both of whom (and Rolen) could hit a little. It's weird to see 2 predominantly leftfielders in the top 10 for this stat.


Straight TotalZone runs are compared to positional average, not adjusted for the importance of the position. They'll give you a mix of all positions. dWAR will be weighted toward the shortstop/catcher side of the spectrum.
   1214. Barnaby Jones Posted: January 20, 2020 at 06:51 PM (#5917671)
So Vizquel is 5th in total zone fielding runs among SS:

1 Smith 239
2 Belanger 238
3 Ripken 176
4 Aparicio 149
5 Vizquel 130
6 Tulo 122
7 Sanchez 112
8 Simba 109
9 Guillen 99
10 McMillan 88

But he did that in kind of "compiler" way (though since these are above average, it is all a question of "how far above"), which is something that really is kind of amazing. Players typically can't compile their way up these leaderboards because defense almost always fades faster than other skills, but Vizquel managed to do just that by being so danged consistent for so dang long.

If you look at a couple different version of the "peak" leaderboards, he's much farther down. And bear in mind that his whole career is during the "zoned" era of Total Zone, so the older guys are gonna have their peaks more regressed or whatever.

Top 3 Seasons, SS Total Zone

1 Belanger 88
2 Smith 74
3 Guillen 71
4 Sanchez 71
5 Hansen 68
6 Ripken 68
7 Everett 65
8 Ordonez 64
9 Brinkman 62
10 Aparicio 60
11 Simba 59
12 Dent 58
13 McMillan 57
14 John_Valentin 56
15 Tulo 53
16 Escobar 52
17 Campaneris 52
18 Bordick 52
19 Hardy 52
20 Vizquel 51
21 Ahmed 50
22 Gagne 50
23 Clayton 50

Top 5 Seasons, SS Total Zone

1 Belanger 138
2 Smith 112
3 Ripken 111
4 Guillen 99
5 Sanchez 96
6 Simba 87
7 Aparicio 85
8 Hansen 84
9 Everett 84
10 McMillan 80
11 Tulo 80
12 Vizquel 79
13 Brinkman 78
14 Bordick 76
15 Dent 75
16 Hardy 74
17 Campaneris 73
18 Gagne 71
19 Ahmed 70
20 Escobar 68

And then he slowly climbs the more seasons you add. But basically, you are looking at JJ Hardy if he couldn't hit for crap, but kept playing pretty good D for 2 decades.

Or Tulo's whole career subtracting 30 WAR of offense, and then adding 12 years of purely average (0 TZ) shortstop play.
   1215. reech Posted: January 20, 2020 at 07:05 PM (#5917674)
fwiw-
mariano finished 3rd in the cy young and 12th in the mvp voting in 1996
   1216. The Duke Posted: January 20, 2020 at 07:25 PM (#5917677)
I agree with the general premise that the writers and vets have massively over valued closers but the alternative view is that you see teams pull closers all the time if they can’t finish a team off. Most guys get about 3-5 misses before they are pulled from closing duties. Starters and middle relievers get much more latitude. Which is another way to say leverage has to somehow play a bigger role. Some guys just can’t handle the stress of closing. But having said that, I would argue every hall of fame starter would be a great closer but the reverse is never true
   1217. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: January 20, 2020 at 07:39 PM (#5917679)
1. There is a very strong case that top relievers are less valuable and perhaps less skilled than merely very good starters; but

2. Too bad. Closers have a place in baseball narrative, so the top ones get elected and probably always will, particularly since several horses are now out of the barn.


Having made a mistake isn't a reason to repeat it.
   1218. Adam Starblind Posted: January 20, 2020 at 07:49 PM (#5917680)
1217, That’s another thing somebody has to say in this discussion.
   1219. . Posted: January 20, 2020 at 07:51 PM (#5917682)
Some guys just can’t handle the stress of closing.


I agree with everything you said, but, see, the "stress of closing" is one of two things. It's either (a) learned, acculturated behavior, because no one ever said anything like this before the one-inning closer era (*); or (b) bullshit.

(*) In other words, it's talked about so much, and coach/manager types talk about it so much and pitchers hear it so much from little league on, that it itself leads to the ninth inning being stressful.
   1220. . Posted: January 20, 2020 at 07:53 PM (#5917683)
Did managers or front office types ever say or hint something like, "I'll let Bob Gibson pitch the ninth, but it's too stressful for Ray Sadecki?" Or did they just expect their starter to complete games and if they were pitching well enough and still had enough gas in the tank, all the starters pitched the ninth as if it was just another inning in the game? Pretty sure it was the latter.
   1221. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: January 20, 2020 at 08:25 PM (#5917690)
I agree with the general premise that the writers and vets have massively over valued closers but the alternative view is that you see teams pull closers all the time if they can’t finish a team off. Most guys get about 3-5 misses before they are pulled from closing duties. Starters and middle relievers get much more latitude. Which is another way to say leverage has to somehow play a bigger role.


I take the opposite interpretation. Closers are so quickly replaced because it is easier to find closers than other pitchers. Since closers are easily replaceable (even if the teams don't admit it) then someone who is not performing adequately gets booted from the position and you try the next guy. How many new "star" closers burst on the scene each year after they replace the existing closer. On the other end of the spectrum, your #1 pitcher, who is very hard to replace, gets much more time to find themselves after a period of ineffectiveness.

I agree with everything you said, but, see, the "stress of closing" is one of two things. It's either (a) learned, acculturated behavior, because no one ever said anything like this before the one-inning closer era (*); or (b) bullshit.


This sounds like a great SABR research project. Has this been studied already and does anyone have a link to the conclusion?
   1222. Hot Wheeling American Posted: January 20, 2020 at 08:38 PM (#5917692)
This sounds like a great SABR research project. Has this been studied already and does anyone have a link to the conclusion?

SBB's certainly got the time! I nominate him to take a sabbatical from this website and come back, months (years??) from now with a full report.
   1223. taxandbeerguy Posted: January 20, 2020 at 11:27 PM (#5917706)
Lots of ballots released today - some personal highlights (and lowlights)

The Good

Chris Bahr 10 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Jones, Kent, Rolen, Schilling, Vizquel, Wagner, Walker) - Jones, Kent, Rolen and Wagner are adds. 4 adds are nice.
Peter Abraham 8 (Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jeter, Rolen, Schilling, Wagner, Walker) - only 8 but very cromulent ballot
Mike Bass 10 (Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jeter, Kent, Rolen, Schilling, Sosa, Vizquel, Walker) - Helton, ROlen and Vizquel are adds - he used 10 and got 9 right(ish).
Pete Caldera 8 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Manny, Schilling, Sheffield, Vizquel, Walker) - Sheffield and Walker are adds, and take away Vizquel and you're left with my 7 best.
Ken Davidoff 10 (Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jeter, Jones, Manny, Rolen, Schilling, Sosa, Walker) - I'd find a way to get Sheffield on there, but that's near perfection.
Tim Kurkjian 10 (Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jeter, Kent, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield, Vizquel, Walker) - Helton, Kent, Rolen and Vizquel are adds. 4 adds are nice.
Gabe Lacques 7 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield, Walker) - Add Ramirez for 8 best, but I understand why some wouldn't. Slightly smaller hall.
Bob Nightengale 9 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Kent, Schilling, Sheffield, Sosa, Vizquel, Walker) - Kent, Sosa and Walker are adds. 3 high quality adds. Now if only Rolen were on there.
Eric Nunez 10 (Abreu, Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Jones, Manny, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield, Walker) - Abreu might be the first guy out, but that's a damn stellar ballot.
Joe Posnanski 10 (Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jeter, Manny, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield, Sosa, Walker) - *Perfect ballot* - the only one that matches mine perfectly (so far - but looking for Jeff Fletcher - we are in great agreement too)
Michael Silverman 7 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Manny, Rolen, Schilling, Walker) - That's the best 7 right there, although would love to see a Sheffield add.
George Willis 10 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Kent, Schilling, Sheffield, Vizquel, Wagner, Walker) - Voted 10, Kent, Sosa, Wagner and Walker are adds, getting Rolen in there is preferable, but still a really good ballot. Hope he considers Rolen, Jones and Helton (and Abreu if he survives) in the future.


The Bad
Marcos Breton 4 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Vizquel) - The presence of Vizquel here on a ballot with only 4 combined with dropping Manny and Sosa. Yikes.
Peter Gammons 6 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Kent, Rolen, Schilling) - Added Kent but dropped Walker and Helton. I can live with this outside the Walker drop.
Rob Gillies 2 (Jeter, Walker) - It's pretty terrible, but features the two players most likely to be inducted. If you're smaller hall with anti PED views, add Schilling (and Rolen) and you have a fairly consistent and reasonable 3 (or 4) person ballot.
Steve Goldman 5 (Jeter, Kent, Schilling, Vizquel and Wagner) Vizquel, Kent and Wagner are more deserving than Rolen and Walker?
Mark Gonzales 4 (Jeter, Kent, Vizquel and Wagner) - These last two ballots almost make me more anti Kent (and Wagner) to say nothing of Vizquel. I don't have a huge issue with voting them in on a 8-10 person ballot, it's just that picking them as 1 of the 3-5 best makes me scratch my head.
Paul Gutierrez 3 (Jeter, Kent, Vizquel) - I don't even know where to start. I'd actually respect a Jeter only ballot (other than Anthony Rieber's) more than this garbage.
David Haugh 5 (Jeter, Schilling, Vizquel, Wagner, Walker) - New voter is anti-PED, could have been salvaged with a Rolen and or Jones and or Helton vote. One of the three and I would've given it a pass.
Kevin Kernan 7 (Jeter, Kent, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield, Wagner, Walker) - Adds Rolen, Sheffield and Wagner (good). Drops Bonds, Clemens and Helton (WTF?) He only voted 7. Could have kept Bonds, Clemens and Helton there. I don't understand. Also Sheffield is still on. Isn't he lumped in with the PED crowd? More confused than anything.
George A. King III 6 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Pettitte, Manny, Schilling) - Schilling is an add, dropped Sheffield and Vizquel (opposites), only voted for 6 and no Walker. Confused 2.0.
Bob Ryan 5 (Helton, Jeter, Schilling, Vizquel, Walker) - I might have actually been okay with this with a Rolen add.
Dan Shaughnessy 1 (Jeter) - He only voted 1, but if you're very small hall, love counting stats and anti PED, this is the result. I actually hate this less than Gutierrez's vote.
Joel Sherman 4 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Schilling) - Same as Hohler below, but no adds. Add 1 of Walker or Manny or Rolen or Sheffield, and this goes to the 'meh' pile.
Paul Sullivan 4 (Helton, Jeter, Vizquel, Walker) - Helton and Walker are adds. If he added Rolen too, this goes straight to the meh pile instead it's still bad, but improving and less bad than other ballots.


The Meh - No strong feelings one way or the other
Shi Dividi 7 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Kent, Rolen, Schilling, Walker) - Kent is the only add.
Dan Graziano 6 (Jeter, Jones, Kent, Rolen, Wagner, Walker) - Rolen is an add
Tom Haudricourt 10 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Kent, Schilling, Sheffield, Sosa, Vizquel, Wagner, Walker) Kent, Sosa, Vizquel and Wagner are all adds. The lack of Rolen here dampens my spirits.
Bob Hohler 4 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Schilling) - small hall, would love to see Walker here, but Bonds and Clemens are adds and these are (arguably) the best 4 players.
Brian Lewis 9 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Pettitte, Manny, Schilling, Sosa, Vizquel, Walker) - NYC heavy, fine with PED's, has Sosa but doesn't have Sheffield (that seems internally inconsistent), didn't use 10 and no Rolen. I didn't even mention Vizquel there either. It's almost as bad as you can get with having 9. Still he has 9.
John Perrotto 7 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Manny, Schilling, Vizquel, Walker) - Very solid for 7 but alas there are only 7 and I wouldn't vote for Vizquel.
Mike Puma 7 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Schilling, Sheffield, Wagner, Walker) - Very solid 7 but alas only 7 and I wouldn't vote for Wagner.
Ken Rosenthal 9 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Kent, Rolen, Schilling, Vizquel, Wagner, Walker) - Kent, Rolen and Vizquel are adds which I don't love, plus he voted only 9.
Bob Sherwin 5 (Jeter, Kent, Sheffield, Vizquel, Walker) - Only 5 but Sheffield and Walker are adds, not internally consistent, but those two adds make up for a lack of Rolen and Schilling.
Jim Street 5 (Jeter, Pettitte, Schilling, Vizquel, Walker) - His last ballot. Only 5 but Schilling and Walker are adds, in his own way trying to get help a couple of guys across. With Sherwin, hoping these two guys help Walker get across the line.
Tara Sullivan 7 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Kent, Manny, Schilling, Walker) First time voter did okay, but an add for Rolen and or Sheffield would bring some more positive vibes.
Marc Topkin 7 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Rolen, Sheffield, Wagner, Walker) - Rolen is an add. I feel like I should like this 7 man ballot more, but the Wagner but not Schilling vote just strikes me the wrong way even with the Rolen add. With a Schilling add too, this would be top notch.
   1224. The Duke Posted: January 20, 2020 at 11:37 PM (#5917707)
The Joel Sherman ballot is not bad. If you are small hall guy who doesn’t care about PEDs or tweets these are the only four you could pick. These are the best four and everyone else is not even close. Or put another way, these are all inner Circle guys In a perfect world
   1225. John Northey Posted: January 21, 2020 at 12:17 AM (#5917712)
For the HOF I keep waiting for someone to keep Jeter from 100%. Rivera I could understand as he clearly was the best closer ever by a mile by virtually any measure, but Jeter wasn't even the best shortstop on his own team in many respects (A-Rod I'd rank far higher).

I really hope Walker makes it in without needing the Vets ballot.

As to the closers in the HOF - Rivera is a godsend for that. Why? Because no closer will be comparable anytime soon so we should see a stop to this induction of closers for a bit. Wagner is getting some support but I can't imagine he'll make it. His 422 saves gives a nice number, but that is over 200 fewer than Rivera, almost as far behind Hoffman and still behind Lee Smith (who held the save record for a long time), Francisco Rodriguez, and John Franco - the last two will never make it in I'd think. Given most voters mainly check the save column and ERA and K/IP that will hurt him a lot.
   1226. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2020 at 12:31 AM (#5917714)
Peter Gammons 6 (Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Kent, Rolen, Schilling) - Added Kent but dropped Walker and Helton. I can live with this outside the Walker drop.
In this MLB Network interview with Chris Russo, Gammons ‘explains’ his ballot. He dropped Walker because he missed too many games to injury. That’s a rather strange reason FOR A DROP, since Walker didn’t miss any games since last year’s vote, and Gammons had 4 more available ballot spots. He also said he’d feel awful if Walker missed by 1 vote. Some other stuff of interest, but Gammons has lost a fair bit on his fastball.
   1227. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2020 at 12:55 AM (#5917716)
For the HOF I keep waiting for someone to keep Jeter from 100%
Jeter is 6th in career hits. In a few years that will also be the most hits of anyone who debuted in the 2nd half of MLB history. For a lot of reasons, the percentage of the vote hasn’t precisely tracked the greatness of the players, so it isn’t a big deal whether someone gets 95%, 99.9% or even 100%, but hoping for someone to cast a bad ballot against an obviously qualified candidate is a bit silly.
   1228. LargeBill Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:57 AM (#5917722)
1170. SoSH U at work Posted: January 20, 2020 at 02:04 PM (#5917583)

After 197 public+anon votes, Rolen retakes the lead from Omar by a full percentage point!



Rolen will get in over the next few years. I think Omar will have a tougher time. I suspect his No votes will be harder to convert, and there may be a cap to his support well below 75 percent.


I don't get the Vizquel hatred on this forum or the incessant need to compare him to Rolen. Their candidacies are not remotely similar. One's main argument is most games played at a premium defensive position coupled with the highest fielding percentage. Vote for him or not, but that is his main calling card. Advocated for Vizquel are not arguing he was a better hitter than Rolen. He was more durable and had a longer career. Rolen's argument should be that his quality of play was such that it makes up for his relatively low counting stats. Arguing that a 3B out hit a glove only SS is not going to complete the sale. The constant tying him to Vizquel does Rolen no favors.
   1229. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:04 AM (#5917728)
I don't get the Vizquel hatred on this forum or the incessant need to compare him to Rolen. Their candidacies are not remotely similar. One's main argument is most games played at a premium defensive position coupled with the highest fielding percentage. Vote for him or not, but that is his main calling card. Advocated for Vizquel are not arguing he was a better hitter than Rolen. He was more durable and had a longer career


As someone who is a no on Vizquel, I think this is fair. I'm seeing a similar thing popping up elsewhere among Walker supporters, who just love to mention that his bWAR is basically the same as Jeter's, as if that's the totality of their candidacies
   1230. Rally Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:21 AM (#5917735)
That’s a rather strange reason FOR A DROP, since Walker didn’t miss any games since last year’s vote


Actually, Walker missed quite a few games last year, 162 in fact. Jeter on the other hand did not miss nearly as much, he was still playing for the Marlins, although under the alias "Miguel Rojas" so as not to interfere with his HOF eligibility.

I know that is an outrageous claim, but this is the Marlins and you'll have a fine time producing an eye-witness to contradict me.
   1231. . Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:31 AM (#5917742)
I don't get the Vizquel hatred on this forum or the incessant need to compare him to Rolen. Their candidacies are not remotely similar.


Remember Uma Thurman's line in Pulp Fiction, when Vincent Vega was dishing about Tony Rocky Horror -- "When you little scamps get together, you're worse than a sewing circle"?

   1232. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:49 AM (#5917749)
Walker has drifted down to 83.5% with just over half of the ballots in. Announcement is in 8 hours.
   1233. SoSH U at work Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:55 AM (#5917752)
I don't get the Vizquel hatred on this forum or the incessant need to compare him to Rolen. Their candidacies are not remotely similar.


I neither hate Vizquel nor was I comparing him as a player with Rolen. But Rolen had been ahead of him for quite a while, and I was merely noting that Omar had passed him back (and also acknowledging that Omar is going to have a tougher road, IMO).

I wouldn't vote for him, but his election would bother me that much.
   1234. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:15 AM (#5917761)
In this MLB Network interview with Chris Russo, Gammons ‘explains’ his ballot. He dropped Walker because he missed too many games to injury. That’s a rather strange reason FOR A DROP, since Walker didn’t miss any games since last year’s vote, and Gammons had 4 more available ballot spots. He also said he’d feel awful if Walker missed by 1 vote. Some other stuff of interest, but Gammons has lost a fair bit on his fastball.


That seems like a perfectly valid reason to not vote for Walker. There are so many things I hate about the Hall of Fame process and the idea that a person can’t change their mind about someone is one of the many.
   1235. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:28 AM (#5917763)
That seems like a perfectly valid reason to not vote for Walker. There are so many things I hate about the Hall of Fame process and the idea that a person can’t change their mind about someone is one of the many.

He kept Rolen, who averaged 125 games per season during his career, but dropped Walker, who averaged 123 (ignoring their cups-of-coffee in both cases). And Walker's career included two strike-shortened seasons, while Rolen's did not.

Guys can change their vote, but if that was his only explanation, it doesn't really hold up.
   1236. Rally Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:28 AM (#5917764)
I disagree. If he would feel awful if Walker misses by a vote, then use one of 4 blank spots and vote for him!

If Peter has changed his mind and honestly feels Walker is not HOF-worthy, that's fine, but he should own it. He should be proud to keep Walker out of the HOF if that's his honest opinion of the player.
   1237. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:31 AM (#5917766)
Yeah. It's one thing to change your mind about a player in year 3 or 4. When it's his last year on the ballot and he's right on the cusp, you'd better be damn sure and not equivocate about feeling bad if he falls a vote short.
   1238. SoSH U at work Posted: January 21, 2020 at 11:00 AM (#5917768)
Yeah. It's one thing to change your mind about a player in year 3 or 4.


He's changed his mind frequently on Walker, voting no in 12 and 13, yes in 14, no in 15, yes in 16, no in 17 and 18, yes in 19 and no in 20.

   1239. Flynn Posted: January 21, 2020 at 11:15 AM (#5917775)
Paul Gutierrez 3 (Jeter, Kent, Vizquel)


As a Giants fan, I never thought I'd want Amy G to fill out a Hall of Fame ballot, but she'd definitely do a better job than her husband.
   1240. . Posted: January 21, 2020 at 11:23 AM (#5917777)
People change their minds, particularly on things they think are borderline calls. "Should I marry Cletus?" Day one, no; day five, yes; day seven, no; day 11, finally yes.

A year passes between ballots. People grow, adapt, change, engage, refine in that year. It's only natural.
   1241. JJ1986 Posted: January 21, 2020 at 11:31 AM (#5917780)
The Vizquel votes are a completely different thing, but I really don't get the Kent-Yes, Walker-No people.
   1242. PreservedFish Posted: January 21, 2020 at 11:31 AM (#5917781)
He kept Rolen, who averaged 125 games per season during his career, but dropped Walker, who averaged 123 (ignoring their cups-of-coffee in both cases). And Walker's career included two strike-shortened seasons, while Rolen's did not.

Guys can change their vote, but if that was his only explanation, it doesn't really hold up.


This is Fire Joe Morgan level criticism. I think we can be charitable and assume that even the very old and addled Peter Gammons is capable of juggling more than idea in his head at once. When virtually anyone says "Walker missed too many games" there should be a tacit understanding that it really means "Walker missed too many games for a player of his quality." Perhaps Gammo thinks that Rolen was just better, so he doesn't care as much about Rolen's missed games.
   1243. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 21, 2020 at 11:41 AM (#5917786)

He's changed his mind frequently on Walker, voting no in 12 and 13, yes in 14, no in 15, yes in 16, no in 17 and 18, yes in 19 and no in 20.

Gammons did not vote for Walker in '12, but actually did vote for him in '13. He dropped Walker in '14 but had a full ballot and was only displacing him with first-year candidates, so he wasn't necessarily changing his mind.

In '15 he could have added Walker back, but added McGriff (who had not been on his ballot in '13) instead. It was a full ballot so not necessarily an indication that he didn't think Walker belonged. But there was some implicit re-evaluation of the relative merits of those two players.

He voted yes in '16 but did not drop anyone from '15, so you can't say he necessarily changed his mind on Walker vs. anyone else.

Then in '17 he dropped Walker (and McGriff) and added Bonds, Clemens and Hoffman to a full ballot. He said he would have voted for Walker if there had been room, so not really changing his mind, but there again was some implicit re-evaluation of the relative merits of his case vs. those other three.

In '18 he bizarrely dropped Clemens and didn't add McGriff or Walker back, only voting for 9 players. So he definitely changed his mind there.

In '19 he added Walker (and Clemens) back to a full ballot, so again changed his mind on Walker.

Then in '20 he dropped Helton and Walker, and added Kent, who he had never voted for previously, to a 6-person ballot. (He did say in 2017 and 2019 that he would have voted for Kent if he had room on his ballot, so that's not such a strange add.)

So yeah, you can say he definitely changed his mind on Walker's HOF-worthiness 4 times, plus twice that he didn't necessarily change his mind, but re-shuffled his ranking of players.
   1244. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 21, 2020 at 12:04 PM (#5917801)

This is Fire Joe Morgan level criticism. I think we can be charitable and assume that even the very old and addled Peter Gammons is capable of juggling more than idea in his head at once. When virtually anyone says "Walker missed too many games" there should be a tacit understanding that it really means "Walker missed too many games for a player of his quality." Perhaps Gammo thinks that Rolen was just better, so he doesn't care as much about Rolen's missed games.

It wasn't meant as a criticism -- just observing that if that was his only reasoning, it doesn't hold up. But maybe he had other reasons that he didn't articulate. He didn't write a column explaining his vote this year, but last year he acknowledged the same criticism of Walker but still justified voting for him. Not sure what changed -- not explaining that is a bigger issue than not taking into consideration Rolen's missed games.

Walker was a great player, one whose numbers put him in the top dozen right fielders ever. His knock was that he averaged 127 games a season, topping 145 once. Unlike Helton, he was playing a huge field and played it like Ronnie Lott, and physical recovery has always been an immeasurable part of playing in the Denver altitude.

Walker played 31 percent of his career games at Coors. He won three batting and two OPS titles, seven Gold Gloves and had a career stolen-base rate over 75 percent. Yes, he has the third highest home/road OPS split, but his career road OPS was .873. Yogi Berra’s career OPS was .830, Eddie Murray .836, Dave Winfield .827, home and away.

Scott Rolen is the 10th name on my ballot. Jeff Bagwell once described Rolen’s presence at third to “a huge office building.” Now that we’re in an era with Matt Chapman, Nolan Arenado, Manny Machado and other great third base defenders, we tend to forget Rolen’s stature. He won eight Gold Gloves. His career OPS+ of 122 is 10th among third basemen, his 70.2 WAR is above the HOF average at the position — and, admittedly, third base is an underrepresented position in The Hall —and his JAWS numbers are above the average HOFer.
   1245. . Posted: January 21, 2020 at 12:12 PM (#5917807)
This is Fire Joe Morgan level criticism. I think we can be charitable


Yeah, good luck with that.
   1246. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM (#5917816)
I don't get the Vizquel hatred on this forum or the incessant need to compare him to Rolen.
Some folks get pretty feisty about the Hall, or other topics, here, but one area where the criticism seems legitimate, IMHO, is the small-Hall ballots that include Vizquel while omitting what seems to many more qualified players. There are 2, 3 & 4 person ballots with Vizquel on them.
   1247. taxandbeerguy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 01:07 PM (#5917824)
but one area where the criticism seems legitimate, IMHO, is the small-Hall ballots that include Vizquel while omitting what seems to many more qualified players.


This is the biggest thing for me this year that is driving me nuts. However, there's been a couple ballots where there seems to have been a change in opinion: I present to you The arguably most improved ballot for 2020:
Chris Assenheimer: Jeter, Jones, Rolen, Schilling, Vizquel and Walker. Jones, Rolen and Walker are adds. If defense matters so much (which it has to in Vizquel's case) at least he consistent and adds Rolen and Jones who are also (greater) defensive studs. Walker's got defense too, plus his bat was really good (and presumably close to the line for Assenheimer)
   1248. TJ Posted: January 21, 2020 at 01:24 PM (#5917838)
Got to agree with Clapper on Vizquel. While I wouldn't vote for him (I'm a middle size HOF guy who sees the middle tier of HOF shortstops starting with maybe Lou Boudreau), I can see a Big Hall case for Vizquel. He certainly fits into the lower tier of HOF shortstops such as Aparicio, Maranville, Bancroft, Travis Jackson, etc. Vizquel would not lower the quality of HOF shortstops, he would just reinforce the lower tier. If a voter submitted a 10-person ballot and put Vizquel on it over, say, Wagner, Kent or even Jones I wouldn't argue with it.

By the way, the best comment I have seen in any published article by a HOF voter on why they changed a vote came from Paul Sullivan. He cited a conversation he had with a Chicago bartender in which the barkeep supported inducting Walker. As Sullivan put it, "Recently a bartender chastised me for that way of thinking (Coors factor), arguing that if baseball writers can penalize Rockies players for playing most of their careers at Coors Field, they also should’ve penalized homer-happy sluggers who played most of their careers in the bandbox ballparks from the pre-1960s that eventually were all replaced, except for Wrigley Field and Fenway Park. Chicago bartenders always make good points, so I listened." When I read that, I immediately thought of at least a half-dozen BBWAA voters who should just give their ballot to that Chicago bartender...

PS- Looks like we just had our 4th Jeter-only ballot courtesy of BBWAA voter Ron Cook...
   1249. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2020 at 01:47 PM (#5917856)
It’s looking more and more like Larry Walker will be the closest vote ever in the Thibodaux Tracker Era. Last year Mike Mussina made it with 7 votes to spare receiving 76.7%, getting 81.5% in the pre-announcement public ballots, 76.8% in the post-announcement ballots, and 60.3% in the private ballots. While Walker’s 83.4% is ahead of Mussina’s pace, he only had 48% on last year’s post-announcement public ballots, and but 27.9% on the private ballots, more than 15% behind where Mussina stood in those categories the year prior to his election. Optimistically, that leaves plenty of opportunities for flippers, and the guy who most accurately predicted last year’s vote has Walker elected in 80% of his simulations, although other projections are less optimistic.
   1250. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2020 at 01:49 PM (#5917859)
Larry Walker
‏Verified account

@Cdnmooselips33
7m7 minutes ago
More
Although I believe I’m going to come up a little short today I still wanna thank all you that have been pulling for me and showing your support. I’m grateful for all of you! It’s been fun leading up to today reading everyone’s thoughts. Cheers
   1251. TJ Posted: January 21, 2020 at 01:51 PM (#5917861)
Just read that tweet, Clapper. Now I want Walker inducted more than ever.
   1252. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: January 21, 2020 at 02:22 PM (#5917873)
Hopefully Walker knows about the history of the VC and so realizes that his chances of getting in eventually are very good.
   1253. DanG Posted: January 21, 2020 at 03:33 PM (#5917890)
Some folks get pretty feisty about the Hall, or other topics, here, but one area where the criticism seems legitimate, IMHO, is the small-Hall ballots that include Vizquel while omitting what seems to many more qualified players. There are 2, 3 & 4 person ballots with Vizquel on them.
The people who support Vizquel for the HOF are akin to the Flat Earthers. Their foundation of belief is built on what was once widely thought to be true; they believe what their eyes tell them. They have little interest in detailed analysis based on the best evidence available.

A hall of fame case for Omar Vizquel cannot be found in the statistics; none of the comprehensive measures of value shows Vizquel as belonging in the HOF. Outside of one or two seasons, he was not an all-star caliber player. The sum of Omar’s value is significant only because he was able to keep compiling to an unnaturally advanced age. How does being a not-great player for a long time make someone a hall of famer?
   1254. base ball chick Posted: January 21, 2020 at 03:40 PM (#5917893)
How does being a not-great player for a long time make someone a hall of famer?

- see harold baines
   1255. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 21, 2020 at 03:58 PM (#5917901)
A hall of fame case for Omar Vizquel cannot be found in the statistics


Sure it can. It just can't be found in the statistics preferred by folks here. Omar Vizquel's statistical case is a pure counting stat case. He played a lot of games, he got a lot of hits, he won a lot of Gold Gloves; he did a lot of things to help his teams win for a lot of years. Here's the statistical case for Omar Vizquel.

Now, I wouldn't vote for Omar Vizquel, but people that are voting for Omar Vizquel and not Scott Rolen are doing so in part because they have different standards for the Hall of Fame. If all you care about are wins, who gives a damn about losses or how long it took to accumulate them (and, to be clear, I do care about those things), then Omar Vizquel has a case.
   1256. . Posted: January 21, 2020 at 04:07 PM (#5917906)
The people who support Vizquel for the HOF are akin to the Flat Earthers.


They're nothing like Flat Earthers, for many reasons, perhaps the most important of which is that HOF worthiness isn't subject to the scientific method and the counter-case to theirs isn't provable by scientific observation.
   1257. Lassus Posted: January 21, 2020 at 04:23 PM (#5917912)
How does being a not-great player for a long time make someone a hall of famer?

I'm sorry, but even if Vizquel doesn't deserve a spot in the HOF, he was definitely NOT a not-great player. That just overselling.
   1258. DanG Posted: January 21, 2020 at 04:32 PM (#5917917)
#1255: You're proving my point. The statistics that people use to make a hall of fame case for Omar do not, in fact, show him to have value at the level of a hall of famer. You show this to be true, in your deeper analysis of those statistics.

Vizquel's supporters mostly rely on outmoded proxies for value: career hits, fielding average, gold gloves, games played. Forty years ago, they were the sum of a good case for the Hall of Fame. People cling fondly to those old tools, despite the fact we now have better methods for statistical analysis.
   1259. . Posted: January 21, 2020 at 04:34 PM (#5917920)
"Value" isn't a criteria for Hall of Fame selection. The closest thing in the actual criteria would be "playing record" -- and that's only one of six delineated criteria -- but there's nothing whatever saying that playing record has to be analyzed based only on "value" metrics.
   1260. DanG Posted: January 21, 2020 at 04:39 PM (#5917925)
even if Vizquel doesn't deserve a spot in the HOF, he was definitely NOT a not-great player
Semantics. What's "great"?

To me, a great player has great seasons, all-star level seasons, and MVP-level seasons. BB-Ref says that a 5-WAR season is all-star level, but I think it's more like 4 to 4.5. How many of those seasons did Omar have? One or two. So for more than 20 years Vizquel was a not-great player, over 90% of his career.
   1261. DanG Posted: January 21, 2020 at 04:53 PM (#5917934)
"Value" isn't a criteria for Hall of Fame selection.
Value is THE criterion for Hall of Fame selection. As Bill James said, "The definition of a great player is one who helps his team win a lot of games".

Except for those times when the "character clause" has muddied the waters, I submit that the primary focus of the HOF voters has always been on value.

The fact that nearly half of them support Vizquel's election is a reflection of the poor analytical abilities of those voters - Omar simply did not have HOF-level value. However, they honestly believe he did because they're using outmoded tools to measure value.
   1262. Lassus Posted: January 21, 2020 at 04:56 PM (#5917935)
BB-Ref says that a 5-WAR season is all-star level

This is in STANDARD BATTING at BBREF. While I'm not a sabermetrician, I'm still assuming that's an offensive stat, or no? Omar's case for being, um, NOT not-great is based on batting + fielding + longevity (which is certainly considered a skill or Mattingly and Keith would have waltzed in).

I mean, whatever. As I've said before, I don't have a problem with Vizquel being kept out of the HOF, I just think that case is oversold on BTF.
   1263. The Duke Posted: January 21, 2020 at 05:09 PM (#5917945)
Dan G, over 50% of the electorate thinks he is a Hall of Famer and lot of those guys look at the same stats you do. I would posit that you have a very narrow view of the world, strong black and white views based on a a handful of stats you have fallen in love with whereas the electorate seemingly takes into account things like what they saw when he played, what others in the game think about him, his relative status to other shortstops, and his incredible endurance, at a high level, in the second hardest position on the field.

Reasonable minds can disagree of course but you and others make it seem like there is no logical argument. Of course there is, the voting tells you there is. The hall voting is full of inconsistencies. Mariano Rivera was essentially a part time player and he got 100% of the vote. That strikes me as far weirder than 50% of the people voting for vizquel.


   1264. Lassus Posted: January 21, 2020 at 05:10 PM (#5917946)
I understand the "you need to be against his election MORE", but, meh.
   1265. . Posted: January 21, 2020 at 05:12 PM (#5917947)
Value is THE criterion for Hall of Fame selection.


It's no such thing. It's not listed as a single criterion; at absolute most, it's the best way to apply the "playing record" criterion -- one of six. Even with that single criterion, there are equally valid way of going through the process of analyzing and applying.

Except for those times when the "character clause" has muddied the waters,


There is no "character clause," any more than there's a "playing record clause." Character is merely one of the six criteria on which voting "shall be based."

The fact that nearly half of them support Vizquel's election is a reflection of the poor analytical abilities of those voters - Omar simply did not have HOF-level value. However, they honestly believe he did because they're using outmoded tools to measure value.


They're not merely "measuring value," and if they were, they'd be voting in contravention of the listed voting criteria. No one could possibly objectively read the criteria for voting and conclude that the voters should be voting based simply on modern measurements of "value."
   1266. JJ1986 Posted: January 21, 2020 at 05:52 PM (#5917963)
I wondered if Omar's value numbers might be depressed because of his contemporary shortstops, but Ozzie Smith's rpos is 162 and Vizquel's is 152 in a few more PAs before he went to Texas, so that's 10 runs over his career.

I think his supporters probably just think he's a much better fielder than BBRef numbers do. I remember the praise he got in like 1995-1997; with no numbers if I had to guess, I would have assumed he'd be +10-+15 runs a season then, but he grades out as average.

His case seems to be that he was 80-90% of Ozzie while WAR says he was 60%.

There's also 80 runs difference in baserunning between Vizquel and Ozzie that you wouldn't notice in most of their statlines. They seem more similar if you discount those.
   1267. QLE Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:16 PM (#5917973)
Walker's in.

EDIT: And, apparently, one person didn't vote for Jeter.
   1268. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:21 PM (#5917975)
Rolen faded quite a bit on the non-pre-announcement ballots.
   1269. Meatwad Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:23 PM (#5917976)
Someone didnt vote for jeter, I like the cut of that guys jib.
   1270. JJ1986 Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:24 PM (#5917977)
Rolen gets like 19% on private ballots.
   1271. The Duke Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:27 PM (#5917978)
Wow on Rolen. So Schilling gets two more chances and will Probably need both. Vizquel is the new leader for next in from
The remainders. Not sure how rolen overcomes the private voters unless it’s by death and retirement.
   1272. Esoteric Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:31 PM (#5917979)
Nah, Schilling goes in next year unless he re-endorses Paul Nehlen.

Rolen may have only gotten 35% but his candidacy is only going to grow during those upcoming fallow years of the HOF. He's going in on the writers' ballot.
   1273. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:32 PM (#5917981)
Rolen got a higher percentage in his third year than Walker did in his eighth year (34.1). He's gone 10-17-35 so far. He'll be fine.
   1274. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:36 PM (#5917982)
Schilling hitting 70% should get him in next year. He also did an interview with Bob Costas that the MLB Network broadcast today which might be helpful with some voters.
   1275. QLE Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:38 PM (#5917983)
The complete vote, for those curious:

Derek Jeter 396 (99.7 percent)
Larry Walker 304 (76.6)
Curt Schilling 278 (70.0)
Roger Clemens 242 (61.0)
Barry Bonds 241 (60.7)
Omar Vizquel 209 (52.6)
Scott Rolen 140 (35.3)
Billy Wagner 126 (31.7)
Gary Sheffield 121 (30.5)
Todd Helton 116 (29.2)
Manny Ramírez 112 (28.2)
Jeff Kent 109 (27.5)
Andruw Jones 77 (19.4)
Sammy Sosa 55 (13.9)
Andy Pettitte 45 (11.3)
Bobby Abreu 22 (5.5)
Paul Konerko 10 (2.5)
Jason Giambi 6 (1.5)
Alfonso Soriano 6 (1.5)
Eric Chávez 2 (0.5)
Cliff Lee 2 (0.5)
Adam Dunn 1 (0.3)
Brad Penny 1 (0.3)
Raúl Ibañez 1 (0.3)
J.J. Putz 1 (0.3)
Josh Beckett 0
Heath Bell 0
Chone Figgins 0
Rafael Furcal 0
Carlos Peña 0
Brian Roberts 0
José Valverde 0
   1276. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:40 PM (#5917985)
In other news, Alfonso Soriano will not be available to voters next year.
   1277. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:42 PM (#5917986)
The final count (397 voters) was noticeably under Thibs 412 estimate. Too early to rule out foul play?
   1278. DL from MN Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:45 PM (#5917988)
Rolen is one of the top 5 players not in the Hall of Fame. Bonds, Clemens, Bill Dahlen, Curt Schilling, Rolen.
   1279. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:50 PM (#5917990)
Bobby Abreu clears the 5% threshold with 1 vote to spare.

EDIT: OOPS, using the actual number of voters rather than Thibs projection reduces the threshold, so Abreu made it with two votes to spare.
   1280. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:51 PM (#5917991)
I like the voter who voted for Clemens but not Bonds. The Thibbs tracker was trending in the other direction.
   1281. The Duke Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:58 PM (#5917992)
I’d love to see how the composition of the baseball writers eligible voters has changed and will change. It would seem to me that Vizquel will be swimming against a strong tide while Rolen will have the wind at his back as the years go on. I think vizquel has a small shot but the 10 man ballots will basically be gone next year and he will have no more backlog votes to count on. I think he won’t got much higher than 60% and get in via vets.

Looks like most of these guys are going to hang around awhile but other than Helton and Rolen I don’t think we will see much upward movement. I could be wrong but most of the other guys have bigger holes in their cases
   1282. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:01 PM (#5917993)
Sheffield up 17%.

Wagner up 15%.

Helton up 13%.

Andruw up 12%.

Vizquel up 10%. So is Kent.

Schilling up 9%.

Bonds and Clemens up 1%.
   1283. gabrielthursday Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:02 PM (#5917994)
A couple haphazard observations:

I want to buy the voter who left Jeter off his ballot a beer.

Walker may have benefitted from a bunch of low-propensity voters not voting this year. It will be interesting to see what his post-announcement & private voter percentages will be.

Vizquel showed more momentum than I would have expected. Before the tracker began this year, I was thinking he'd burn out around 55%, but I'd now say he's probably a 2 to 1 favourite to make it in.

Bonds & Clemens have advanced about 7% over the past three years, even with the ballot opening out, voter turnover and a significant drop in the total number of voters this year. They're cooked.

Rolen and Wagner look much better-positioned to be voted in. They leapfrogged Kent and Manny, which should give them (especially Rolen) a closer look by less analytical voters. I'd guess Rolen gets voted in in three more years; Wagner will likely get in in his 9th or 10th year. This is an electorate that moves much faster than earlier electorates on candidates who don't have character-clause issues.

All in all, this is as pretty much as good a result as I could have hoped for.
   1284. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:03 PM (#5917996)
I like the voter who voted for Clemens but not Bonds. The Thibbs tracker was trending in the other direction.

There was more than one of these, since there were a couple Bonds-not-Clemens voters.

Speaking of, the writeup on ESPN did confirm that Kahrl no-voted Clemens due to his relationship with Mindy McCready.
   1285. Blastin Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:08 PM (#5917999)
But then don't you have to take Bonds's domestic abuse allegations into the equation? (Not that you shouldn't, just saying, neither of them has a sterling reputation with women.)
   1286. Blastin Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:10 PM (#5918000)
People who got a single vote somehow: Putz, Ibanez, Penny, and Dunn.
   1287. alilisd Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:17 PM (#5918002)
I didn't think Abreu would make it to a second ballot, good for him. And you just have to love the idiosyncratic nature of the voting when one guy is willing to flip the bird to The Captain, while four votes are cast, one each, for Brad Penny, Adam Dunn, Raul Ibanez, and JJ Putz.

On Gammons, I was listening to the MLB live show which had him as a commentator. His situation, while sad on a personal level, is why the HOF must continue to thin the ranks of those voters who are aging out. His health, and cognitive abilities, have deteriorated so badly, there's no way he could cogently defend his ballot exclusion of Walker.
   1288. gef, talking mongoose & suburban housewife Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:19 PM (#5918004)
Penny is the only player to be the subject of a song by Big Black. That should count for something, dammit.
   1289. bachslunch Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:20 PM (#5918005)
Congratulations to Derek Jeter and Larry Walker. Wasn’t sure the latter would make it, but he did — by 6 votes.

Is Walker’s final eligible year jump to election from 54.6% to 76.6% unprecedented? I can’t think of anyone that low in their next-to-last year jumping that far to get in. Not that I’m complaining, mind you.
   1290. LargeBill Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:22 PM (#5918006)
1277. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2020 at 06:42 PM (#5917986)
The final count (397 voters) was noticeably under Thibs 412 estimate. Too early to rule out foul play?


Most likely more voters were purged than he anticipated.
   1291. Blastin Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:24 PM (#5918008)
Is Walker’s final eligible year jump to election from 54.6% to 76.6% unprecedented? I can’t think of anyone that low in their next-to-last year jumping that far to get in. Not that I’m complaining, mind you.


THAT'S JAY JAFFE'S MUSIC
   1292. Howie Menckel Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:28 PM (#5918009)
I want the "no Jeter" voter to come out and say he wanted to pick Jeter, but his 10th and final slot came down to Jeter and Konerko - "and the coin came up heads, so there you have it." that might just break the internet.

even moreso if the voter anonymously informs a fellow scribe: "Three words: no. gift. basket."
   1293. Esoteric Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:29 PM (#5918010)
THAT'S JAY JAFFE'S MUSIC
it's a good thing that we can't fav/unfav posts here on Primer the way they do on Fangraphs, but if we could this would get five upvotes from me on five alt-accounts.
   1294. alilisd Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:30 PM (#5918011)
Is Walker’s final eligible year jump to election from 54.6% to 76.6% unprecedented? I can’t think of anyone that low in their next-to-last year jumping that far to get in.


I think someone on the MLB show mentioned Kiner's big jump, but he only went from 58.9 to 75.4. A big jump to be sure, but Walker started lower and ended a bit higher. Good for Walker!
   1295. Blastin Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:34 PM (#5918013)
it's a good thing that we can't fav/unfav posts here on Primer the way they do on Fangraphs, but if we could this would get five upvotes from me on five alt-accounts.


FG said earlier he's got a piece tonight.
   1296. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:42 PM (#5918014)
I want the "no Jeter" voter


What a silly thing to do. Jeter is a no doubt HOFer, there was no reason not to vote for him.

Awesome news about Walker though, really happy for him.
   1297. Thok Posted: January 21, 2020 at 07:50 PM (#5918019)
while four votes are cast, one each, for Brad Penny, Adam Dunn, Raul Ibanez, and JJ Putz.



A vote for Dunn isn't that weird; you just need a voter who only cares about home runs. I won't try to explain the other voters.
   1298. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:04 PM (#5918021)
I hope the Jeter no vote was a strategic voter who had ten other candidates he wanted to vote for.

Vizquel and Wagner getting support while bonds and Clemens are outside is upsetting.
   1299. kwarren Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:12 PM (#5918022)
Congratulations to the electorate for getting Larry Walker voted in. With a 16% share four years ago who would have thought it possible. As great a career as Walker had, apparently his four best seasons came after he retired.

And now for the disheartening news. Wagner improved from 19% to 34% - a 79% improvement !! I'm really afraid that he's gonna get in.
   1300. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:23 PM (#5918024)
how is there no hof election result thread going already?
Page 13 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 15 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (CTL)
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - November* 2020 College Football thread
(255 - 8:16pm, Dec 05)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogTexas Rangers name ex-pitcher Chris Young as new GM
(12 - 8:13pm, Dec 05)
Last: JimMusComp likes Billy Eppler....

NewsblogOrioles trade veteran infielder José Iglesias to Los Angeles Angels, report says
(37 - 7:36pm, Dec 05)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Winter Is Here
(273 - 7:21pm, Dec 05)
Last: Mefisto

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2020 Ballot
(9 - 6:28pm, Dec 05)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(10758 - 6:09pm, Dec 05)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogThe Athletic: How FanGraphs catapulted from ‘super nerd’ site to the baseball mainstream [$]
(3 - 5:46pm, Dec 05)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogBill James: The Biggest Problem With WAR
(152 - 5:42pm, Dec 05)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-3-2020
(14 - 5:38pm, Dec 05)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogLet's Rethink the Playoffs
(21 - 4:54pm, Dec 05)
Last: sunday silence (again)

NewsblogIs the Hall leaving out too many players?
(130 - 4:28pm, Dec 05)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogLen Kasper is leaving Marquee Sports Network... for White Sox radio
(45 - 2:53pm, Dec 05)
Last: Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB)

NewsblogStaten Island Yankees cease operations, sue New York Yankees, MLB
(39 - 12:49pm, Dec 05)
Last: Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB)

NewsblogMLB non-tender deadline tracker: Yankees will keep Gary Sanchez; White Sox, Twins, Cubs make notable cuts
(39 - 1:20am, Dec 05)
Last: Lowry Seasoning Salt

NewsblogSources: Isiah Kiner-Falefa to replace mainstay Elvis Andrus as starting Rangers shortstop next season
(26 - 10:12pm, Dec 04)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Page rendered in 0.7614 seconds
48 querie(s) executed