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 14 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 > 
   1301. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:23 PM (#5918025)
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.


3rd or 4th best reliever of all time, based upon established standards, no issue with him... it's guys like Ortiz or Vizquel that worries me more.
   1302. TJ Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:28 PM (#5918026)
while four votes are cast, one each, for Brad Penny, Adam Dunn, Raul Ibanez, and JJ Putz.


I didn't know Brad Penny had a family member who was a BBWAA HOF voter...
   1303. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:28 PM (#5918027)
I want to buy the voter who left Jeter off his ballot a beer.


I want to beat the #### out of him, I'm positive that has to be a stat guy and it's the same stupid crap that didn't give Mays or others 100%... other words petty bs... if the guy is worthy, give him the vote, and there is nobody on the planet that knows anything about baseball that thinks Jeter isn't hof worthy... sure he's overrated, but who the f cares... we have officially one guy who has clearly demonstrated that the President of the U.S. is not the dumbest person on the planet by not voting for Jeter.
   1304. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:30 PM (#5918028)
I want to buy the voter who left Jeter off his ballot a beer.


I want to beat the #### out of him, I'm positive that has to be a stat guy and it's the same stupid crap that didn't give Mays or others 100%... other words petty bs... if the guy is worthy, give him the vote, and there is nobody on the planet that knows anything about baseball that thinks Jeter isn't hof worthy... sure he's overrated, but who the f cares... we have officially one guy who has clearly demonstrated that the President of the U.S. is not the dumbest person nor the most narcissistic person on the planet by not voting for Jeter.(thereby making it about the voter)
   1305. Snowboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:30 PM (#5918029)
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.


Ziggy, I was guessing that as well? (And I guess hoping? "Jeter doesn't need my vote, let's keep Pettitte/Giambi/ alive...etc.")

Your second point? Same thought.
   1306. Booey Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:32 PM (#5918030)
#1301 - Why would the 3rd or 4th best DH getting elected worry you more than the 3rd or 4th best reliever? (With half as much WAR)
   1307. Snowboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:51 PM (#5918033)
I've probably never thought this was going to happen for Larry Walker?
What a delicious result!
(And, yes, there is some CDN home-cooking in my opinion, but its down the list far enough that it barely counts in the recipe. However some CDN may now emerge in the celebration!)
   1308. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:53 PM (#5918035)
#1301 - Why would the 3rd or 4th best DH getting elected worry you more than the 3rd or 4th best reliever? (With half as much WAR)


because there are 6 relievers, while there is two dh in the hof, by the standards established by the hof, being the best of the 7 or so who they enshrined gets you in... meanwhile Ortiz is maybe the best dh of all time or maybe second. It's a debate. I'll go with Martinez, but I don't fault people who go with Ortiz, and Baines is a clear disaster of a pick.


The voting electorate establishes the standards in my opinion.. I don't agree with them, but they establish the standard. If a player is clearly above more than half of the people in his group (position mostly) then he's probably worthy by the established standards...

Reliever arguments do have a ton of other issues, which I think is fair to discuss, but thinking that Wagner hasn't surpassed the standard that the hof has established for relievers is a bit weak, so has Nathan and others, so we do need to re-evaluate the standards the hall has established, but considering that SBB is a 100% Jack Morris supporter, his argument against relievers going in is kinda ####### silly.




All of this means, that relievers need constant and legitimate discussion as the role has changed. And assuming someone like Wagner clearly doesn't belong, is a short sighted argument. (would I put him in... no, nor would I put in Sutter, Smith, Fingers, Gossage, Hoffman or Rivera... in my world, Wilhelm is the only one worthy, but that isn't the world of the hof)
   1309. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:55 PM (#5918036)
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.


You could be right, but I based my comment on the fact that the % difference between Clemens and Bonds was the same as the difference between Jeter's and 100%, which we know was one voter.

EDIT: Of course on second thought, in order for that Thibbs tally to have been reversed, there had to be two voters who voted Clemens yes, Bonds no, or three who voted that way to two who reversed that ballot. If it'd been but one, they would've tied.
   1310. alilisd Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:55 PM (#5918038)
3rd or 4th best reliever of all time, based upon established standards


What "established standards" might those be?
   1311. alilisd Posted: January 21, 2020 at 08:58 PM (#5918040)
because there are 6 relievers, while there is two dh in the hof, by the standards established by the hof,


Ah, those "established standards!" So because the writers haven't been able to figure out a consistent position, and the VC then selected another reliever, Wagner is somehow deserving. What a crock of ####

Edit: To make it more clear than the snark, what I'm saying is there are no standards established by the HOF. Over time one might have enough representation at a position to say here is where the in/out line has, roughly, been established. But even then one has to decide how to handle odd VC selections, whether to include 19th Century players in the comparison, how to handle integration, Negro League players might factor in for some. IOW, it is not ever an established standard, and nowhere is this more true than for relievers. Wilhelm, for example, really bears no resemblance to Gossage, Fingers, or Sutter. Smith straddles a line between those latter three and the two closers. Eckersley is unique among all of them. So what are you using as a "standard" to say he's 3rd or 4th, and how do you account for him being behind essentially every starting pitcher in the HOF, because he played the same position they did
   1312. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:00 PM (#5918041)
I've probably never thought this was going to happen for Larry Walker?
What a delicious result!
(And, yes, there is some CDN home-cooking in my opinion, but its down the list far enough that it barely counts in the recipe. However some CDN may now emerge in the celebration!)


Loving Walker going in, guy deserves it, deserved it more than Edgar, so I'm happy now with the Edgar induction, since I think Edgar is a great guy from everything I read, and I didn't like bad mouthing him, but him and Walker were about the same for me in regards to the in/out line...
   1313. TJ Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:02 PM (#5918042)
I want to buy the voter who left Jeter off his ballot a beer.


Oh, I so hope it was Murray Chass...
   1314. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:03 PM (#5918043)
The “established standard” for making the Hall of Fame as a reliever is to either hold the career saves record at some point or win an MVP award. The only exception is Goose Gossage. The problem with saying that Billy Wagner deserves to be in the Hall because he’s as good as Trevor Hoffman or Lee Smith is that the standard you have to use to establish that really says that none of them belong.
   1315. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:04 PM (#5918044)
Ah, those "established standards!" So because the writers haven't been able to figure out a consistent position, and the VC then selected another reliever, Wagner is somehow deserving. What a crock of ####


and yet I have never said he was deserving...my point was that I have no issue with his continuance on the ballot. or improvement. But sure interpret my comments as saying he was deserving.
   1316. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:09 PM (#5918045)
So cool about Walker. Good for him.

   1317. cookiedabookie Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:10 PM (#5918046)
So Schilling goes in next year. Does Omar make the jump to join him? I don't think he belongs, but it's been a given he would make it. I think it takes him at least two more years, but it would free up the ballot spot, and hopefully boost Rolen, among others. If it's just Schilling, it will be a relatively boring year. Although Schilling having the podium to himself would be terrible because it would feed his ego, and ironic given the Jeter only voter who wanted Jeter alone on the podium.
   1318. Esoteric Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:18 PM (#5918048)
I'd be interested in knowing who the VC is voting on next year, because otherwise it's just going to be Schilling by himself.
   1319. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:20 PM (#5918049)
No clue if it's true but I have heard from more than one person who has shared the rumor that if elected Schilling is going to ####### unload on everyone whoever crossed him for his HOF speech. Total scorched earth approach and dare anyone to step up and take away the mic.
   1320. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:21 PM (#5918050)
Schilling having the podium to himself would be terrible because it would feed his ego,
If his speech is long enough, there's a decent chance his election will be revoked by the end of it.

EDIT: Semi-Coke to Jeremy R.
   1321. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:31 PM (#5918055)
No clue if it's true but I have heard from more than one person who has shared the rumor that if elected Schilling is going to ####### unload on everyone whoever crossed him for his HOF speech. Total scorched earth approach and dare anyone to step up and take away the mic.


Note: I'm absolutely on the other side of the political spectrum of Schilling...

If he does, who can blame him? He isn't really a borderline candidate, he's better than Smoltz who went in on his first ballot. He's better than Halladay who also went in on his first year, so it's not a lack of recognizing current quality players, there is something absolutely clearly more involved with Schilling, and politics is a part of it, but his reputation with the press is another part of it.

The fact that Schilling is still on the outside after 8 elections is another piece of the evidence that the voting needs to be removed from the writers and given to historians who aren't going to give a #### that the guy said mean things about them.
   1322. Jaack Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:34 PM (#5918056)
Next year's VC is Golden Era and Early Era. Obviously, no one from the early period is alive to give a speech. Dick Allen, Tony Oliva, Jim Kaat and Maury Wills are all alive and have done well enough recently in the Golden Era to be plausible candidates. Minnie Minoso has also done well, and since the committees love to induct people the first opportunity after their death, I expect he'll make it in.

Curt Schilling and Dick Allen would be a fun pair.
   1323. SoSH U at work Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:36 PM (#5918059)
Curt Schilling and Dick Allen would be a fun pair.


I think both of them are chosen, with the possibility of one other player emerging from the Vets.
   1324. taxandbeerguy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:37 PM (#5918061)
When I left it was 5pm and there were 1262 comments. Heard the news super psyched for Walker (especially being Canadian) was surprised he made it across with 6 votes. Early on I was wondering whether the vote count was going to drop by 13 from 425 to 412, in the end, that was way undersold as there were only 397 votes.

General comments:
1) Still hard to believe Walker got in.
2) for 1289 and 1294 - I do believe this is the the farthest away a player has been from election to get elected in the subsequent. Barry Larkin in 2012 may have had a larger jump to get in, but he was polling at 62% + (to 86%) on a ballot with minimal competition and minimal quality when it came to newbies. Kiner and Vlad (and Raines and Edgar) are also in the running although they (other than Kiner) were set up for election.
3) Jeter not being unanimous surprises me, but it was only 1 vote. I'd really like to know the thinking there as he should have been (alongside a few dozen other players through history).
4) Abreu survived - now he can start building his case. I don't know where it goes, but could see a big increase in support next year as I feel he was 11-12th on a number of voters ballots (with 10 votes). He is borderline and if he doesn't get in that's fine, but at least he gets a second chance.
5) Clemens and Bonds made less progress than I thought they would. I was expecting an additional percentage point or two and given the exodus of voters (who generally don't like the PED guys), they may have crept up into the 63-64% range. Next year is important and 2022 is going to be a ****show with Bonds and Clemens in their final years and A-ROD and Ortiz jumping on the ballot.
6) Private voters were stingy. Between the public release ballot and final totals: Rolen dropping 12%, Andruw 6% (from only 25%) Sheffield 5%, hell even Kent at 5% and Pettitte gaining less than 1%, some of these totals got massacred. Omar unsurprisingly did well, Wagner did alright, Sosa held his own and more surprisingly Helton didn't plummet.
7) Omar's getting in through the writers or veterans committee and that's been confirmed with this vote (if it wasn't already). Helton and Rolen are well positioned for eventual election a few years from now.
8) Putz, Penny, Ibanez votes. I really hope they were adds on full ballots. Soriano with 6? Don't get it. Konerko with 10 I do get, because he was a good player and immensely liked in the community (with a rep to match), even if he's not quite HOVG.
9) 2021 should be Schilling's year if he keeps his mouth shut, he's the only possibility as Bonds and Clemens won't make progress, Omar's going to have issues with very small hall and very analytical thinkers and no one else is close. Can any of the big gainers (Rolen, Wagner, Sheffield, Helton) hit 40% or 50% next year? (Rolen and Wagner should hit 40%, don't know about the rest)

   1325. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:40 PM (#5918062)
7) Omar's getting in through the writers or veterans committee and that's been confirmed with this vote


Been saying that even before his first election. and been railing against that.... but was told on here, that it wasn't likely to happen.

   1326. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:43 PM (#5918065)
One of the theories I have, that hasn't been remotely proven true at all, is that with more analytical voters, we will eventually see less movement of players. My thought process is that once they make up their mind, barring new evidence, it's going to be tough to sway them. (New evidence is catchers data.... type of thing, something in the future might be a rudimentary way to correlate statcast data into existing data we have or even retroactively work it into film we have... it's far fetched now, but in the future that might be a thing)
   1327. Jaack Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:51 PM (#5918066)
8) Putz, Penny, Ibanez votes. I really hope they were adds on full ballots. Soriano with 6? Don't get it. Konerko with 10 I do get, because he was a good player and immensely liked in the community (with a rep to match), even if he's not quite HOVG.


Soriano has 400 HR, nearly 300 SB, seven All-Star games, 40/40 season in 2006. His low OBP and poor defense at second are big hinderances, but if you don't care about that stuff, I could see someone liking him.
   1328. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:53 PM (#5918067)
No clue if it's true but I have heard from more than one person who has shared the rumor that if elected Schilling is going to ####### unload on everyone whoever crossed him for his HOF speech. Total scorched earth approach and dare anyone to step up and take away the mic.

Note: I'm absolutely on the other side of the political spectrum of Schilling...

If he does, who can blame him? He isn't really a borderline candidate, he's better than Smoltz who went in on his first ballot. He's better than Halladay who also went in on his first year, so it's not a lack of recognizing current quality players, there is something absolutely clearly more involved with Schilling, and politics is a part of it, but his reputation with the press is another part of it.


Which just shows how petty some writers can be. Have any of them who didn't vote for him written to give their reasoning?

Fun bit of trivia: Clemens' Yankees beat Schilling's Red Sox in what was Clemens' final game and Schilling's penultimate. Schilling pitched but one more game after that, just 9 days later. Shades of Christy Mathewson's 1916 duel with Three Fingered Brown.
   1329. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:57 PM (#5918071)
Soriano has 400 HR, nearly 300 SB, seven All-Star games, 40/40 season in 2006. His low OBP and poor defense at second are big hinderances, but if you don't care about that stuff, I could see someone liking him.

Sure, if they feel like voting for a terrible defensive player with a .562 postseason OPS and a career 28.2 WAR, Soriano's their man.
   1330. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:58 PM (#5918072)
No clue if it's true but I have heard from more than one person who has shared the rumor that if elected Schilling is going to ####### unload on everyone whoever crossed him for his HOF speech. Total scorched earth approach and dare anyone to step up and take away the mic.
With sources like that, who could doubt it? Sounds like some projection there.
   1331. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 09:58 PM (#5918073)
Which just shows how petty some writers can be. Have any of them who didn't vote for him written to give their reasoning?


Going from memory, I'm pretty sure there were two writers who mentioned his tweets about executing a writer as enough of reason to be petty.
   1332. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:02 PM (#5918077)
That's still a stupid reason. Schilling's a supremely qualified HoFer, regardless of his creepy off-field activities and political opinions.
   1333. PreservedFish Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:06 PM (#5918078)
I don't think it's entirely fair to compare Schilling to Smoltz and Halladay.

Schilling had an unusual career shape. His bulk years with the Phillies produced almost 40 WAR but only 3 All-Star nods and one near CYA. An injury right in the middle of it interrupted his prime, too. He didn't give off HOF vibes until he was, oh, 35 years old. That in itself is unusual.

Schilling hit an (extremely memorable) peak in his "hired gun" years, 30 WAR in just 4 years.

I gotta say, before I looked at Schilling objectively, I assumed that he was very borderline. He just didn't seem like a HOFer in Philly, and his late peak seemed like it had the narrative but probably wouldn't add enough actual value. I was wrong. His career totals are way, way over any reasonable line. And I'm a guy that clicks on Baseball Reference about 40 times per day. We know that many HOF voters are much less in touch with the numbers than that.

I think he's a slam dunk, and if he gives a deplorable speech, hey, it's just another wacky episode in baseball's colorful history.
   1334. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:12 PM (#5918079)
I gotta say, before I looked at Schilling objectively, I assumed that he was very borderline. He just didn't seem like a HOFer in Philly, and his late peak seemed like it had the narrative but probably wouldn't add enough actual value. I was wrong. His career totals are way, way over any reasonable line. And I'm a guy that clicks on Baseball Reference about 40 times per day. We know that many HOF voters are much less in touch with the numbers than that.


Not quite as bad for me, but yes, when you look at the numbers, and you also know that he is underrated by era+ because of his low unearned runs, he's so far clearly over the line, that he's the evidence that maybe the writers might think "Kershaw" hasn't past the point (not that they haven't... but my point is Schilling is so clearly over the line, that if he's out, other similar players over the line might have to wonder)

   1335. Howie Menckel Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:24 PM (#5918086)
Shades of Christy Mathewson's 1916 duel with Three Fingered Brown.


I know of Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown. I think you're referring to a prequel to the "Eight Men Out" movie that had an NC-17 rating once the plot took an unexpected turn.
   1336. PreservedFish Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:36 PM (#5918087)
Ah yes, I recall the chapter on The Shocker in "Pitching in a Pinch."
   1337. kwarren Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:39 PM (#5918089)
#1301 - Why would the 3rd or 4th best DH getting elected worry you more than the 3rd or 4th best reliever? (With half as much WAR)

Relievers are indispensable. You need them to get saves so you can win games. There should really be a lot more of them in the HOF. They are underrepresented.

And assuming someone like Wagner clearly doesn't belong, is a short sighted argument. (would I put him in... no, nor would I put in Sutter, Smith, Fingers, Gossage, Hoffman or Rivera... in my world, Wilhelm is the only one worthy, but that isn't the world of the hof)

Well said, couldn't agree more. Not only did Rivera get in, but it was unanimous. And Clemens and Bonds can't get it. Just shows how screwed up the HOF voting is now.

What "established standards" might those be?


Saves, you take career saves and divide by 100 to get an indication of what a relievers true WAR is.

   1338. taxandbeerguy Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:41 PM (#5918091)
1325 - I thought he was automatic through the veterans previous based on 2018 (and proclivity for voting in the likes of Morris and Lee Smith among others) Now he maybe has a legitimate chance through the writers. There's a lot of voters who are mostly SABR inclined that have Vizquel on their ballot or added him in 2020 when I though they were definitely against his election. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few more move over. There could also be a case of "hey if you vote for Vizquel, maybe we'll throw Rolen and Helton a few more votes".

1327 - When you put it that way - 6 votes might be about right.

1333 - His career shape is weird. Even from the beginning - flip his W-L record in 1992 and 1993 and he probably gets some back of the ballot Cy love in 1992. 2003 matches up statistically (with ERA+, K's etc.) with 2001, 2002, and 2004 but his record isn't close (less wins and more losses in way less games and innings). Still it's 6 bWAR. 1996-2000 he's always picking up value and is a legit "ace" but there's a couple injuries in there ('96 and '99) that knock out a quarter season, a trade in 2000 so it doesn't seem like he has a great stretch of years even though it's there. 2001, 2002 and 2004 he's legit, Cy runner up to Big Unit twice and peak Santana. 99% of major league pitchers can't beat those guys at their best, so no shame in Schilling being runner up in those years, he was good enough to win with those stats in other years.

Side note: Was trying to figure out the ballots. Not trying to super sleuth or reveal anyone's secret identity here - One of the anonymous ballots (was 8 now at 7) with 7 votes is now in the tracker under a name. I'm 99% sure it's Dennis Manoloff as the voter was anti Bonds and Clemens, pro Walker and Rolen and I don't recall seeing his name in the tracker. His ballot's not great but not bad, I'd do it differently but no reason to hide. Arnie Stapleton's the other option (I don't remember his name appearing)and they do have identical ballots (so does Dave Reynolds). Manoloff's incidentally the only guy without his name in the ballot twins of the three. (which wasn't fully updated).
   1339. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:47 PM (#5918093)
It's been years since I first said that I was sincerely looking forward to a Baseball Hall of Fame where Omar Vizquel is in but Barry Bonds is not, where Bowie Kuhn is in but Marvin Miller is not, and where Jack Morris is in but Roger Clemens is out.

The committee screwed the perfection of that vision by electing Miller, but otherwise I still dare to live my dream!
   1340. The Duke Posted: January 21, 2020 at 10:49 PM (#5918094)
It was a good couple hall of fame years for the cardinals. Lee smith last year. Ted Simmons gets in righting a terrible injustice. Walker didn’t play long for the Birdos but was much loved in St. Louis. And Rolen made great strides even with a very disappointing private voter result. Maybe Ken Boyer gets a shot next year and I still have hope for Keith Hernandez and jimmy Edmonds. Pujols will be along in 7 years and Yadi May be never actually retire but when he does I hope he gets in.
   1341. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 21, 2020 at 11:13 PM (#5918100)
...2022 is going to be a ****show with Bonds and Clemens in their final years and A-ROD and Ortiz jumping on the ballot.


I'm in favor of 2022 becoming the induction where all Family Business is settled. Get a dozen guys up there, the more dirt under their fingernails the better.
   1342. greenback used to say live and let live Posted: January 22, 2020 at 12:09 AM (#5918118)
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).

No, this WAR statistic includes defense. I mean, a position player doesn't get a 6-win season with an 111 OPS+ unless he had about 1,200 plate appearances or a lot of defensive value.

I'm coming around to the idea that there should be a Jack Morris pseudo-wing of the HoF. These are guys who pretty clearly don't have the value of the Scott Rolens or the Lou Whitakers, but had good, long careers with a couple of shiny objects in their resume. Morris's case has been discussed to death. Lou Brock and Bill Mazeroski are two others. Nolan Ryan would fit in this group, if he his career ends around age 34. Maybe Bruce Sutter could be included because of what he did with the splitter, or more generally a bunch of non-Mo relievers go in as well due to a kind of physical dominance that doesn't necessarily translate to a lot of value. This is where Vizquel's argument really stands, that he's a kind of Lou Brock of fielding (11,000/12,000 PAs, 5.3/8.4 WAA, 45.3/45.6 WAR).

The argument for Vizquel is something to the effect that he had the best hands of anyone history. It is annoying that that argument to some extent boils down to his fielding percentage, since fielding percentage is a statistic that needs to die in a fire as quickly as possible. But I think it makes sense for the Hall to highlight guys like Vizquel, because honestly 400 baseball writers aren't going to build a WAA or WAR list that's credible. It does suck that the Lou Whitakers of the world don't get the publicity that they deserve though.
   1343. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 22, 2020 at 12:20 AM (#5918119)
This is where Vizquel's argument really stands, that he's a kind of Lou Brock of fielding (11,000/12,000 PAs, 5.3/8.4 WAA, 45.3/45.6 WAR).


Great analogy! In my Player won-lost records, pWins (and eWins) are essentially on the same scale as pitcher wins, so 300 is a great career total. Both Brock and Vizquel earned over 300 pWins but when you start bringing in the pLosses and comparing them against any kind of baseline - average, replacement - the value just isn't there. Here's a side-by-side of them in my pWins (WOPA is "Wins over Positional Average"; WORL is "Wins over Replacement Level").
   1344. The Duke Posted: January 22, 2020 at 07:57 AM (#5918144)
Brock had all those stolen bases and iconic World Series performances which made it easy. Morris had his great game. Bruce Sutter has the split-finger fastball. Vizquel has the “great hands”. The guy who is inexplicable is Harold Baines. No real moment, sustained goodness but not much greatness, carrying around DH negatives.

Even wiki is throwing him shade — “ prior to his induction, he had the ninth highest RBI count among retired players not elected in the Hall of Fame”. Not the first! But the 9th.

Still a great ball player with 2866 hits.

   1345. alilisd Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:02 AM (#5918195)
1315: I interpret your comments as being absurd because there is nothing remotely resembling an established standard for relievers, it’s a muddled mess. But I have noted that you did not state Wagner was deserving, thank you
   1346. DanG Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:31 AM (#5918215)
there is nothing remotely resembling an established standard for relievers, it’s a muddled mess
Not as bad as you say. Draw a line at 28 WAR (or 27 if you like Wagner).

Leaders in Pitching WAR, with Saves > 1.5 * Wins

Rk          Player  WAR    G  SV   W     IP   To
1 Dennis Eckersley 62.2 1071 390 197 3285.2 1998 H
2   Mariano Rivera 56.3 1115 652  82 1283.2 2013 H
3     Hoyt Wilhelm 49.8 1070 228 143 2254.1 1972 H
4     Rich Gossage 41.7 1002 310 124 1809.1 1994 H
5        Lee Smith 29.3 1022 478  71 1289.1 1997 H
6   Trevor Hoffman 28.1 1035 601  61 1089.1 2010 H
7     Billy Wagner 27.8  853 422  47  903.0 2010
8       Joe Nathan 26.3  787 377  64  923.1 2016
9     Kent Tekulve 26.2 1050 184  94 1436.2 1989
10  Rollie Fingers 25.0  944 341 114 1701.1 1985 H
11 Dan Quisenberry 24.6  674 244  56 1043.1 1990
12    Bruce Sutter 24.5  661 300  68 1042.0 1988 H 

A couple of slight outliers, but not too bad.
   1347. alilisd Posted: January 22, 2020 at 12:16 PM (#5918295)
1346: Right, yes of course, it all comes down to 28, or 27, WAR
   1348. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 22, 2020 at 04:52 PM (#5918434)

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.

I have a couple of friends who are HOF voters who vote for Wagner every year. I enjoy giving them #### for it but now it seems the joke's on me. (It honestly wouldn't bother me that much if he got in...I don't think his induction would open up the floodgates to a bunch of lesser relievers.)
   1349. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 22, 2020 at 05:13 PM (#5918446)
I'm coming around to the idea that there should be a Jack Morris pseudo-wing of the HoF. These are guys who pretty clearly don't have the value of the Scott Rolens or the Lou Whitakers, but had good, long careers with a couple of shiny objects in their resume.

Bill Simmons had the idea a while back to make the Hall of Fame a pyramid. Easy as it is to reflexively dismiss ideas that come from Bill Simmons, I actually really like this idea (and can expand on why) if anyone is interested). Among its virtues would be having a place for guys like Vizquel and Morris and Mazeroski and Brock and Roger Maris and Johnny Vander Meer, who wouldn't necessarily be Hall of Famers by a value standard but who had careers that were both good and distinctive. The Pyramid Hall lets those guys in without lowering its standards, because the guys who are better players than them are on the higher levels of the pyramid.
   1350. RJ in TO Posted: January 22, 2020 at 05:32 PM (#5918449)
The Pyramid Hall lets those guys in without lowering its standards, because the guys who are better players than them are on the higher levels of the pyramid.
It really doesn't, because the argument just extends from this guy should/shouldn't be a Hall of Famer, to this guy should/shouldn't be a Type 1/2/3/4/5 Hall of Famer, and his selection/exclusion is cheapening/diluting that level.

Also, while I'm not actually averse to the idea as it is neat to hear about guys with really interesting skills or weird achievements, the truth is that there's already a place for guys who have distinctive careers who weren't necessarily Hall of Famers, and that's the Hall's museum.
   1351. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 22, 2020 at 05:43 PM (#5918451)
Among its virtues would be having a place for guys like Vizquel and Morris and Mazeroski and Brock and Roger Maris and Johnny Vander Meer, who wouldn't necessarily be Hall of Famers by a value standard but who had careers that were both good and distinctive. The Pyramid Hall lets those guys in without lowering its standards, because the guys who are better players than them are on the higher levels of the pyramid.


There's a little bit of an implicit assumption in this that HOF voters are operating in bad faith. That is, this only really works the way you'd like it to if you think that these voters KNOW that Jack Morris had a worse career than, say, Dave Stieb, but are voting for him anyway. But people who voted for Omar Vizquel and Billy Wagner, but not for, I don't know, Scott Rolen and Cliff Lee, are doing so because they believe Omar Vizquel and Billy Wagner were, in fact, more deserving of being Hall of Famers. A guy who votes for just Jeter and Vizquel on this year's ballot would absolutely argue that Omar Vizquel is a "Type 1" Hall-of-Famer or maybe at worst a "Type 2", but certainly deserving of a higher tier than, say, Larry Walker.
   1352. . Posted: January 22, 2020 at 05:53 PM (#5918453)
There's a little bit of an implicit assumption in this that HOF voters are operating in bad faith. That is, this only really works the way you'd like it to if you think that these voters KNOW that Jack Morris had a worse career than, say, Dave Stieb, but are voting for him anyway.


The loudest and most prominent faction on these boards never even came close to understanding the case for Jack Morris, no matter how many times it was laid out -- including near the end, by Tom Verducci, who essentially cribbed (not intentionally) the arguments I'd been making for years (*) and that the voters had been making implicitly or explicitly with their votes. There wasn't the least bit of bad faith in the votes for Morris, or for anyone else, really. There's no evidence that the votes for Harold Baines were exercised in bad faith.

It's the telltale sign of a dogmatic to not be able to hold in one's head the idea that someone can disagree with you or interpret the voting criteria differently than you do, or even have a different conception of a Hall of Famer than you, while at the same time be acting honestly and in good faith. What more thoughtful and charitable people do is try to understand what arguments could be made for someone like Harold Baines -- and there are some. This being the stupid-ass internet, saying that out loud will get in return genius thoughts such as, "HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT HAROLD BAINES FOR THE HALL OF FAME, YOU IDIOT TROLL???!??!?," but such is the price of engagement, one supposes.

(*) I can't recall off the top of my head whether he included the "was consistently paid like an ace" stuff, although he hit on the "was treated and perceived as an ace" stuff pretty well, if memory serves. Of course the only retort to all these things was something in the key of, "Well, those people were all stupid," which needless to say, isn't really engagement or understanding. "I'm smart, Sparky Anderson is stupid" really shouldn't be expected to garner a lot of sympathy outside the circle of the deeply committed.
   1353. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 22, 2020 at 06:02 PM (#5918457)
It really doesn't, because the argument just extends from this guy should/shouldn't be a Hall of Famer, to this guy should/shouldn't be a Type 1/2/3/4/5 Hall of Famer, and his selection/exclusion is cheapening/diluting that level.

This is true to an extent, but I feel like those discussions would be less strident than what we have now, because the stakes would be lower. (Probably wishful thinking, human nature being what it is.)

Also, this sort of brings up another benefit of the Pyramid Hall, which is that it keeps the enshrined players as part of the discussion. (The structure Simmons proposed was that the normal Hall election still takes place, with enshrinees getting into the lowest tier; then you have non-annual elections to promote from the lowest tier to the next, and so on.) At the moment, Larry Walker gets into the Hall of Fame, and everyone talks about him now and again at the induction, and then he basically exits mainstream baseball discourse. The Pyramid Hall lets us talk about him again in two years.

There's a little bit of an implicit assumption in this that HOF voters are operating in bad faith. That is, this only really works the way you'd like it to if you think that these voters KNOW that Jack Morris had a worse career than, say, Dave Stieb, but are voting for him anyway. But people who voted for Omar Vizquel and Billy Wagner, but not for, I don't know, Scott Rolen and Cliff Lee, are doing so because they believe Omar Vizquel and Billy Wagner were, in fact, more deserving of being Hall of Famers. A guy who votes for just Jeter and Vizquel on this year's ballot would absolutely argue that Omar Vizquel is a "Type 1" Hall-of-Famer or maybe at worst a "Type 2", but certainly deserving of a higher tier than, say, Larry Walker.

You could implement the Pyramid Hall with different groups voting on induction and promotion, which would avoid having the same group of voters evaluating their own prior choices. (Maybe not in a real-world context, but this is never happening in the real world anyway.) It also allows for straightforward handling of past selections that may not necessarily have been made in bad faith, but were not defensible selections by any reasonable non-Frisch standard. (Or may have involved voters being confused as to which brother they were selecting.)
   1354. RJ in TO Posted: January 22, 2020 at 06:03 PM (#5918458)
This is true to an extent, but I feel like those discussions would be less strident than what we have now, because the stakes would be lower. (Probably wishful thinking, human nature being what it is.)
I appreciate your optimism, but suspect this is wistful thinking.
   1355. . Posted: January 22, 2020 at 06:05 PM (#5918460)
You could implement the Pyramid Hall with different groups voting on induction and promotion, which would avoid having the same group of voters evaluating their own prior choices. (Maybe not in a real-world context, but this is never happening in the real world anyway.)


Right, but like Kiko said, this presumes that those prior choices are in need of re-evaluation and we're right back to assuming some kind of bad faith. There's nothing about any voting since at least 1980 that requires some kind of revisit. Just because you aren't able to perceive of a defense for the post-1980 electees doesn't mean there isn't one.
   1356. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 22, 2020 at 06:19 PM (#5918461)
Right, but like Kiko said, this presumes that those prior choices are in need of re-evaluation and we're right back to assuming some kind of bad faith. There's nothing about any voting since at least 1980 that requires some kind of revisit. Just because you aren't able to perceive of a defense for the post-1980 electees doesn't mean there isn't one.

The pyramid hall isn't meant to imply error in previous selections (even though there have been some that I disagree with). "Revisiting" isn't inherently a negative thing; we all (I assume) like talking about baseball, this would mostly be an excuse to do it more.
   1357. alilisd Posted: January 22, 2020 at 06:35 PM (#5918463)
the truth is that there's already a place for guys who have distinctive careers who weren't necessarily Hall of Famers, and that's the Hall's museum.


I totally agree. It generally doesn't help, but when I've talked with people who are upset about Player X not being in the HOF I've definitely pointed out that they are in fact in the HOF museum. That unique achievement of their's or that special game is certainly commemorated in the museum or within its collection. But it doesn't mean they should be elected to the HOF as a player and given a plaque just because they pitched 10 innings in a WS game once upon a time, or had the most wins in the 80's, or were the Opening Day starter a whole bunch of times.
   1358. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 22, 2020 at 06:57 PM (#5918465)
Also, this sort of brings up another benefit of the Pyramid Hall, which is that it keeps the enshrined players as part of the discussion. (The structure Simmons proposed was that the normal Hall election still takes place, with enshrinees getting into the lowest tier; then you have non-annual elections to promote from the lowest tier to the next, and so on.) At the moment, Larry Walker gets into the Hall of Fame, and everyone talks about him now and again at the induction, and then he basically exits mainstream baseball discourse. The Pyramid Hall lets us talk about him again in two years.
IMHO, that’s a terrible system that requires even more decisions about a now large group of players. The present system may be imperfect, but it works pretty well. Trying to rank all the HOF players, many of them never observed by any current voter, is fraught with peril. Mistakes will inevitably be made and there will be a legitimate or arguable case that some players are in a higher or lower tier than warranted. The same arguments will go on forever. That’s not really an improvement on the status quo.
   1359. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 07:36 PM (#5918473)
What "established standards" might those be?


let's see among the pitchers who have 200 saves, sorted by waa...

Rk                Player WAA/pitch  SV  WAR ERA+  ERA  FIP
1         Mariano Rivera      32.5 652 56.3  205 2.21 2.76
2       Dennis Eckersley      30.3 390 62.2  116 3.50 3.41
3           Hoyt Wilhelm      26.8 228 49.8  147 2.52 3.06
4           Billy Wagner      16.5 422 27.8  187 2.31 2.73
5           Rich Gossage      16.3 310 41.7  126 3.01 3.18
6             Joe Nathan      14.0 377 26.3  151 2.87 3.36
7         Trevor Hoffman      13.8 601 28.1  141 2.87 3.08
8              Lee Smith      13.7 478 29.3  132 3.03 2.93
9      Jonathan Papelbon      13.1 368 23.5  177 2.44 2.81
10   Francisco Rodriguez      12.2 437 23.9  148 2.86 3.31
11             Tom Henke      11.8 311 22.9  157 2.67 2.72
12       Dan Quisenberry      11.8 244 24.6  146 2.76 3.24
13         Craig Kimbrel      11.6 346 19.6  195 2.08 2.19
14          Bruce Sutter      10.8 300 24.5  136 2.83 2.94
15           John Franco      10.3 424 23.6  138 2.89 3.45 


Looking at that list, and knowing who the hofers are you have
1. Rivera(hofer)
2. Eckersley (hofer)
3. Wilhelm (hofer)
4. Wagner
5. Gossage (hofer)
6. Nathan (who I have no problem arguing for him based upon the established standards)
7. Hoffman (hofer)
8. Smith (hofer)
....

Obviously there are other lists and ways to do it, but to me it seems that the decision of what a hof reliever represents is a high save total and dominance above average. Sutter is in because of the legend of split finger fast balls, and I have no ####### clue why Fingers is in.

And I would have zero problems if the hof would have just Rivera/Eckersley/Wilhelm in... the gap between them using the list I just put up is a clear delineation....but that isn't really the standard that the hof has established.


(and I'm a fan of removing negative numbers from the argument... so I imagine many of the players who don't make the list or even players who made the list, might be better represented if you remove their negative seasons---this is just one snapshot of what I think is kinda the concept that the voters are using to establish their standards, whether they realize it is quantifiable or not, or that it might not be accurate, this really does seem to be what they think of when they think of a hof reliever)

   1360. SoSH U at work Posted: January 22, 2020 at 08:20 PM (#5918483)
Here's another way of listing Hall of Fame relievers, including Billy Wagz.

Eckersley 3,285
Wilhelm 2,254
Gossage 1,809
Fingers 1,701
Smith 1,289
Rivera 1,283
Hoffman 1,089
Sutter 1,042
Nathan 923
Wagner 903

So, in this sense, the inductions of the last two would reduce the amount actually pitched standard well below its already too-low levels.
   1361. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:25 PM (#5918501)
Here's another way of listing Hall of Fame relievers, including Billy Wagz.

Eckersley 3,285
Wilhelm 2,254
Gossage 1,809
Fingers 1,701
Smith 1,289
Rivera 1,283
Hoffman 1,089
Sutter 1,042
Nathan 923
Wagner 903

So, in this sense, the inductions of the last two would reduce the amount actually pitched standard well below its already too-low levels.


Which of course has nothing to do with any discussion being discussed in this thread. Unless you list all of the people on that list, not just the hofers and Wagner/Nathan... the list more than likely doesn't include a "standard" for hof relievers.

My list didn't cherry pick, it put a standard and showed that among that particular standard, the people that met it went in... if you are listing innings pitched, how many people between 903 innings pitched and 3,285 are there? How many made the hall, what is the chance etc... it's not a standard, it's a data point.

And again...my personal standard is much higher than the hof standard, but ignoring the hof standard just seems silly... to the point of not voting for Jeter for the hof or not voting for Piazza etc.... they both exceed the established threshold... to not vote for them is more an indication of the voter not the player. And of course that means Wagner is a viable candidate, so is Nathan, whether they are worthy is an argument, but them getting votes shouldn't be a big deal... the hof has already past that point with Sutter and Fingers.

   1362. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:36 PM (#5918506)
MLB has an article about who is the next likely unanimous selection... they think there is a slight chance it will be Ichiro, but better chance it will be Pujols... I'm all for them... in my mind there should have been about 70 unanimous selections... but the fact that it's not an option is better than it not being a possibility.
   1363. SoSH U at work Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:38 PM (#5918508)
Which of course has nothing to do with any discussion being discussed in this thread. Unless you list all of the people on that list, not just the hofers and Wagner/Nathan... the list more than likely doesn't include a "standard" for hof relievers.


Nonsense. How many other pitchers threw more IP is irrelevant to the question of Hall standards. The Hall has elected eight relievers. None of the previous inductees has thrown fewer than 1,000 innings, and only two have thrown fewer than 1,200. Wagner and Nathan would lower the IP standard for a role that already doesn't do enough work.

   1364. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:54 PM (#5918517)
Is there actually a chance that Joe Nathan gets elected to the hall of fame? Have we actually slipped into bizarro-world, or are we just kicking ideas around here?

I wish I knew. But it looks like Omar Vizquel will be elected to the hall of fame, and Harold Baines is already in, so I'm not sure.
   1365. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:55 PM (#5918518)
Nonsense. How many other pitchers threw more IP is irrelevant to the question of Hall standards. The Hall has elected eight relievers. None of the previous inductees has thrown fewer than 1,000 innings, and only two have thrown fewer than 1,200. Wagner and Nathan would lower the IP standard for a role that already doesn't do enough work.


So your argument is that the hof standard for relievers is 1200 ip..not sure you understand the concept of standards for an argument but among pitchers who have pitched.... let me arbitrarily say 50 percent of their apperances as relief, who have over 1200 innings pitched.


yea... my pi search gave me 128 pitchers... apparently that isn't a hof reliever standard.

Change it to 70 percent and we are still at 64... 80 percent still gives me 42 pitchers of which only 5 are hall of famers...again this isn't a standard that passes a smell test.
   1366. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:57 PM (#5918519)
Is there actually a chance that Joe Nathan gets elected to the hall of fame? Have we actually slipped into bizarro-world, or are we just kicking ideas around here?


No, he's more than likely the reliever version of Grich or something... (without being nearly as deserving as Grich is more deserving than every ####### single reliever in the hall... this is the thing that people don't get... I'm not arguing my concept of a hall... I'm arguing the established concept of the hall)
   1367. flournoy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:57 PM (#5918520)
I have no ####### clue why Fingers is in.


Are you just saying that, or do you actually not understand why Rollie Fingers is in the Hall of Fame?

- All-time saves leader at the time of his election
- MVP Award winner
- Cy Young Award winner
- World Series MVP Award winner
- Three time World Series champion, on the very famous back-to-back-to-back A's teams
- Well regarded character with inner-circle HoF mustache



Any appeal to WAR as reason for why he should or should not have been elected to the Hall of Fame when he was miss the mark rather widely, given that WAR did not exist as a statistic at the time. By the measures that were actually used, he rated quite highly.
   1368. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:05 PM (#5918524)
now I'm sure you are going to next try and cherry pick a stat that will allow you to include mostly hofers, while ignoring Wagner... that is how this routinely works... but at some point in time, no matter your cherry picked stats, you are going to end up with a list of hall of fame relievers that will end up removing up to three currently in the hall to exempt Wagner from your list... this is what I mean by the established standards...

I accept that Wagner isn't hof worthy.... just like sutter, fingers, etc aren't worthy... my point is that it's nearly impossible to look at the established standard of hall of fame relievers and argue that Wagner is not clearly in the middle of that group. ... Almost no matter how you slice it, to create a pool that covers the 6 or so relievers in the hall, any criteria you use, will eventually put Wagner at least on the border.
   1369. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:10 PM (#5918526)

Are you just saying that, or do you actually not understand why Rollie Fingers is in the Hall of Fame?

- All-time saves leader at the time of his election
- MVP Award winner
- Cy Young Award winner
- World Series MVP Award winner
- Three time World Series champion, on the very famous back-to-back-to-back A's teams
- Well regarded character with inner-circle HoF mustache


I hope this post wasn't serious... I almost replied honestly... but yes he had a nice peak...so did a lot of pitchers...but a single season award or two seasons of accolades doesn't really make one hof worthy... Hoffman/Rivera really broke the mold in my opinion... generally speaking great closers have a six year career... maybe 8 if they are truly great, but Hoffman and Rivera did it for 15 plus.... That makes up a lot for their relative lack of in season value....

The reason I put up the waa post is to point out that the hof has generally regarded relievers who were great relative to average, not replacement... (they still over rate them obviously) but being good is not something to put a reliever in the hof... Fingers 7.0 waa goes against the more or less established standards I was talking about for relievers... they are generally much better than average on a seasonal basis.

   1370. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:16 PM (#5918528)
Bill Hands and Rollie Fingers’ careers overlapped for several years. It’s a shame they were never teammates so that Fingers could have relieved Hands. But they did pitch in the same game twice.
   1371. flournoy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:19 PM (#5918529)
What about my post would lead you to believe it wasn't serious? Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera are utterly beside the point when discussing why Rollie Fingers was elected to the Hall of Fame. Neither of them had even made their major league debuts at that point. When Rollie Fingers was elected to the Hall of Fame, the only other reliever so enshrined was Hoyt Wilhelm. There was no pattern to speak of. Rollie Fingers was the all-time saves leader, which was the primary measuring stick of closer effectiveness, and he had a ton of awards hardware. If any reliever was going to be inducted to the Hall of Fame at that point in time, the line would form behind Fingers.
   1372. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:23 PM (#5918531)
What about my post would lead you to believe it wasn't serious?


The comments about the world series, mustache, double representing the mvp/cy young

By the time Fingers got elected, the all time saves leader was Jeff Reardon....not seeing many people champion for his election...
   1373. flournoy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:27 PM (#5918532)
One of us has no grasp on the historical criteria used for Hall of Fame induction, and it isn't me.
   1374. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:31 PM (#5918534)
One of us has no grasp on the historical criteria used for Hall of Fame induction, and it isn't me.


okay, what is the historical criteria for hall of fame induction, since you know it so well?
   1375. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:33 PM (#5918535)
(mind you, this is and never has been the discussion I argued for... I argued for established standards, but heck let's retroactively go to an argument that you are more comfortable with, so you can tell me why Rollie Fingers is clearly better decision because he was the all time saves leader at one point, but guys like Jeff Reardon weren't and guys like Lee Smith who were all time save leaders had to wait a decade to go in.... because..????)
   1376. flournoy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:41 PM (#5918537)
I never said anything about better decision making. Twelve years separated Fingers' and Smith's retirements. A lot can happen in that time, and a lot did. Namely, other relievers started cramming up the all-time saves list to the extent that it lost a lot of its luster.
   1377. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:47 PM (#5918540)
On top of his regular season record (which, as noted, would have looked much more impressive at the time than it does now), Fingers was really, really good in the postseason for a team that won three consecutive World Series. In those three postseasons, he pitched in 24 games (the A's played 33 total), and threw 46.1 innings with a 1.55 ERA. In Game 7 of the '72 Series, he entered up 3-1 in the eighth with runners at second and third and nobody out, and sealed the series with a two-inning save. And that's not even the year he won the series MVP award.

(He was not as good in the playoffs outside of those years, but those are the years that people remembered.)

To be clear, I would not vote for Fingers as a Hall of Famer. But given the information available to the voters in 1992, I can understand why he was chosen.
   1378. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:55 PM (#5918544)
To be clear, I would not vote for Fingers as a Hall of Famer. But given the information available to the voters in 1992, I can understand why he was chosen


To be clear, despite my earlier comments, I also understand why he was voted, it doesn't change the fact that in retrospect it was a poor decision.


Twelve years separated Fingers' and Smith's retirements.


And again, by the time Fingers went up for election... Jeff Reardon was the all time saves leader... and nobody has ever championed for his induction, so being the saves leader at some point in time is not really an argument that holds water.

I've been in dozens of these discussions in the past and reardon's name never comes up as a guy who should deserve consideration.
   1379. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:55 PM (#5918545)
okay, what is the historical criteria for hall of fame induction, since you know it so well?


I cited it in comment #314. But I'll expand on it for you.

Before 1970 or so, nobody ever considered voting for a relief pitcher for the Hall of Fame. Hoyt Wilhelm became the first reliever to reach 200 saves in 1969 (the save became official that year, but was generally known about before that - regardless of the exact number, Hoyt Wilhelm was clearly the first relief pitcher to pitch a substantial career).

From that point, the career saves record has been held by Hoyt Wilhelm (1964-79), Rollie Fingers (1980-91), Jeff Reardon (1992), Lee Smith (1993-2005), Trevor Hoffman (2006-2010), and Mariano Rivera (2011-). The CAREER route to the Hall of Fame for a relief pitcher is to hold the career saves record for at least two seasons. Full stop. No exceptions. This is why Trevor Hoffman is in the Hall of Fame.

As with all positions, it is also possible to make the Hall of Fame based on one's peak as a relief pitcher. Three pitchers have done so.

Dennis Eckersley won an MVP (and Cy Young) award and had four top-10 MVP finishes (all top-6) in a five-year stretch.
Bruce Sutter won a Cy Young award and had five top-10 MVP finishes in eight seasons.
Goose Gossage arguably had more of a Hall-of-Fame prime than peak. But he had back-to-back top-10 MVP finishes (3rd and 9th in 1980-81), received MVP votes three other times, and made nine All-Star teams in eleven seasons.

Billy Wagner meets none of these standards. He was fifth in career saves when he retired and has subsequently fallen to sixth. He received Cy Young votes twice with a high finish of 4th and MVP votes twice with a high finish of 16th.

Honestly, relief pitcher probably has the cleanest, most well-defined Hall-of-Fame standards of any position. And Billy Wagner does not meet them.

As for the fact that Billy Wagner has more career WAA than Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner has fewer career WAA than Mark Grace and Tony Fernandez. Anybody who used WAA as a criterion for determining which relief pitchers are HOF-worthy would be hard-pressed to fit Billy Wagner into his WAA-based Hall of Fame.
   1380. flournoy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:00 PM (#5918547)
And again, by the time Fingers went up for election... Jeff Reardon was the all time saves leader


Wrong. When Rollie Fingers was elected to the Hall of Fame, Rollie Fingers was the all-time saves leader. By the time of his induction ceremony, Jeff Reardon had recently passed him.

EDIT: And the only thing I remember Jeff Reardon doing in 1992 is giving up a game-blowing pinch hit homer to Ed Sprague, so screw that guy.
   1381. cardsfanboy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:11 PM (#5918549)
Agree with much of that, outside of that last paragraph, which doesn't at all apply to this particular discussion.

But when people are arguing to add a person to the hof they are arguing for including them based upon the current standard based upon the players already in... and the only list that you can come up with that explains the hof relievers and their existence in the hall is the list I posted above. And by those standards Billy Wagner meets it..

Again... I'm not and if you read anything I have wrote in this thread, I have never argued for Wagner in the hall... my only point was that giving him votes doesn't seem bad, his increase seems reasonable, and by the effective, objectively statistically based standards for relievers in the hall he has a case.

And again... I'm not championing him or any reliever for the hall... the Hall has, in my opinion 4 too many relievers... but that doesn't change the fact that they have a decent amount of them, that going forward you have to either take a hard line stance(no more---unless they are Rivera great) a reasonable stance (based upon the standards established) or a weak ass stance (ehh put all in who have a good 10 year career)...

Trying to quantify what makes a hof reliever should be something people are striving for, instead of accepting simple answers. Even your simple answers required a bunch of work arounds to get the three who didn't meet those criteria in. and some of those were stretches... apparently 9 all stars is magic, while 7 is not type of thinking.



   1382. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:18 PM (#5918550)
And by those standards Billy Wagner meets it..
Insisting that your opinion is a fact that others must agree with, is not a good look. As many have already noted, there are ample reasons that many find Wagner inferior to the relievers already elected. They’re entitled to their opinion, as are you.
   1383. RJ in TO Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:19 PM (#5918551)
EDIT: And the only thing I remember Jeff Reardon doing in 1992 is giving up a game-blowing pinch hit homer to Ed Sprague, so screw that guy
Meanwhile, this makes me want to root for Ed Sprague to make the Hall of Fame.
   1384. The Duke Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:24 PM (#5918553)
Mark Saxon on voting vizquel over Rolen

I’ve gone over my viewpoint on this on Twitter, but I’ll do it again here. I’m pretty confident that, if you had polled most voters 15 or 20 years ago, when both players were in their primes, more of those voters would have said Vizquel looked like more of a Hall of Famer. The defensive metrics obviously were rudimentary back then compared to what we have now. And, yes, I realize that current numerical standards — such as Wins Above Replacement (WAR) — indicate Rolen had the better career. But I have trouble trusting the defensive metrics, and I’ve been told by many front-office execs that they don’t trust the publicly available ones either

Would love to know more about why execs don’t trust defensive stats. I don’t either but I don’t have any objective reasons why, I just think they aren’t proportional to the role that defense plays (ie given too much credit ) and I don’t believe any stat that says you are good at defense in years a,c,e and bad in years b, d and f nor do I have confidence when someone says you need multi-years for a good sample.
   1385. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:25 PM (#5918554)
and the only list that you can come up with that explains the hof relievers and their existence in the hall is the list I posted above. And by those standards Billy Wagner meets it..


It makes no sense to argue that Rollie Fingers doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame because somebody came along 30 years after his career after the position of relief pitcher had dramatically changed to a religious focus on saves and earned more saves than him. And it makes even less sense to talk about WAA as the "standard" for Hall-of-Fame relievers when literally no Hall-of-Fame voter has ever voted for a relief pitcher based on his career WAA.

Given modern reliever usage patterns, it is possible to earn 600 career saves. We know this to be true because two relief pitchers did, in fact, earn 600 career saves. Billy Wagner did not earn 600 career saves. He did not earn 500 career saves. He did not earn 450 career saves. He does not meet the "established standards" of the Hall of Fame as those words are typically understood in the English language.

Trying to quantify what makes a hof reliever should be something people are striving for, instead of accepting simple answers. Even your simple answers required a bunch of work arounds to get the three who didn't meet those criteria in. and some of those were stretches... apparently 9 all stars is magic, while 7 is not type of thinking.


No workarounds required. The established peak standard for a Hall-of-Fame reliever is a period of five or more years regularly finishing top-10 in MVP voting. The only possible exception is Dan Quisenberry whose peak was arguably similar to Gossage and Sutter (but I'd argue a bit lower) but whose career was much shorter. Given current reliever usage patterns, it seems extremely unlikely that anybody will ever again qualify for the Hall of Fame based on this standard. But there is no evidence that Hall-of-Fame voters, as a group, have lowered this standard.

And frankly, I don't understand what your point is in any of this given that you've already stipulated that Billy Wagner isn't a Hall-of-Famer. The Hall of Fame has elected three relief pitchers in the last two years: it's not like there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of the position lest we never see another Hall-of-Fame reliever.
   1386. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:32 PM (#5918555)
I don’t believe any stat that says you are good at defense in years a,c,e and bad in years b, d and f
Whaaaat? Do you also not believe in any pitching stats because of Bret Saberhagen?
   1387. flournoy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:50 PM (#5918562)
Trying to quantify what makes a hof reliever should be something people are striving for


Why?

You have engaged in what I would classify as a gross misuse of data. You started with a pre-determined conclusion ("There is an established, quantifiable Hall of Fame standard for relievers"), and then tried to coax the available data into supporting your conclusion. To compound this, you're relying on measurements that had not even been developed when the majority of the decision making that you're trying to quantify took place.
   1388. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 23, 2020 at 12:17 AM (#5918567)
There is an established, quantifiable Hall of Fame standard for relievers
I don’t agree with that premise. A very few relievers have been elected, with varying careers as usage patterns for top relief pitchers evolved over the last ~ 70 years. The ‘best of the best’ as understood at the time have been elected, and one can find some similarities, but I don’t see any clear standard (unless one assumes MLB is now wedded to Saves for 1-inning closers in perpetuity), much less a standard that Billy Wagner indisputably meets.
   1389. PreservedFish Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:13 AM (#5918603)
I’ve gone over my viewpoint on this on Twitter, but I’ll do it again here. I’m pretty confident that, if you had polled most voters 15 or 20 years ago, when both players were in their primes, more of those voters would have said Vizquel looked like more of a Hall of Famer.


This seems extraordinarily wrong to me. Rolen in Philly was just as good as David Wright or Evan Longoria, a "if he does this for 15 years, he probably HAS to be a HOFer" guy. Then he went to St. Louis and quickly got even better. playing MVP quality baseball for one of the best teams in the league. Things kind of fizzled out after that, and I'm sure I'm not alone in being surprised to see how much WAR he accrued in Toronto and Cincy. He seemed to be laboring in obscurity those years, always injured too. But it's a classic career shape, with a HOF peak.

Vizquel has been discussed ad nauseam here. I think we can all agree that there was very little HOF talk about him in his prime. That didn't get started until he was in his late 30s - which makes sense, because that's the most exceptional part of his story.
   1390. flournoy Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:15 AM (#5918605)
I don’t agree with that premise.


You were quoting me, so I want to be clear that I don't agree with it either.
   1391. . Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:24 AM (#5918607)
Billy Wagner has no HOF case to speak of. He pitched very few innings. He did not have to pace himself, as starting pitchers did for much or all of his career.(*) He did not have to go through the order multiple times. His performance in the postseason was the very definition of garbage. Harold Baines has a better HOF case than Billy Wagner.

(*) What the saber community needs to do, if it hasn't done this yet, is find a way to turn reliever performance into "starter-equivalent performance," using things like the data for the various times during the lineup and the impact of not having to pace oneself. I suppose this can be done in the opposite direction, too -- starter performance can be turned into "21st century closer-equivalent performance." Data such as the difference in 100 meter elite sprint times versus 5,000 meter elite run times might be useful, too, as might be the "starter save" data Kiko and others were generous enough to link to.

This seems extraordinarily wrong to me. Rolen in Philly was just as good as David Wright or Evan Longoria, a "if he does this for 15 years, he probably HAS to be a HOFer" guy.


I can't remember the criteria I used in that big, long discussion of Dale Murphy right before the VC vote; I'd have to go back -- but Scott Rolen badly underperformed a whole lot of guys that came up in the discussion. It was probably league oWAR rankings.
   1392. flournoy Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:56 AM (#5918617)
Data such as the difference in 100 meter elite sprint times versus 5,000 meter elite run times might be useful, too


Definitely not. The general idea is the same (inverse relationship of intensity and duration), but you'd have a lot of work cut out for you to show why rates from one activity are applicable to a wholly unrelated activity.
   1393. PreservedFish Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:59 AM (#5918618)
I'm not saying that I absolutely support Rolen for the Hall. I'm a small hall guy and Rolen seems like the type of candidate that's reasonably on the small/big hall border. He was only top 10 in WAR 4 times, and in a world with Manny, Bonds, Sheffield, Vlad, Pujols etc he was not an elite hitter. The comparison to Vizquel that I quoted just struck me as very wrong.
   1394. jmurph Posted: January 23, 2020 at 10:10 AM (#5918623)
MLB has an article about who is the next likely unanimous selection... they think there is a slight chance it will be Ichiro, but better chance it will be Pujols... I'm all for them... in my mind there should have been about 70 unanimous selections... but the fact that it's not an option is better than it not being a possibility.

Pujols is going to finish his career with at least 9 consecutive years of play welllllll below the standards of a HOF player. There is no chance he's going to be unanimous.
   1395. The Duke Posted: January 23, 2020 at 10:50 AM (#5918642)
Yes, pujols is playing himself right out of the Hall :)
   1396. jmurph Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:06 AM (#5918647)
Yes, pujols is playing himself right out of the Hall :)

Crucially, no one is suggesting this.
   1397. Adam Starblind Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:13 AM (#5918654)
Jeff Reardon was the all time saves leader... and nobody has ever championed for his induction, so being the saves leader at some point in time is not really an argument that holds water.


He also robbed a jewelry store.
   1398. Adam Starblind Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:18 AM (#5918663)
Throwing this standard out there for consideration:

Relievers break down at a crazy rate. Top closers routinely last 4 or 5 years and then fizzle. It appears to me that one standard that applies to the modern closers (Mariano, Hoffman, Sutter, Smith, and we'll see about Wagner) is the ability to perform at a high enough level for a really long time. You can debate what's a high enough level or a long enough time (and do we mean seasons or innings pitched?), and maybe that's what HOF voters are doing here.
   1399. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:19 AM (#5918665)
He also robbed a jewelry store.
Wow, that really happened. And he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, because he apparently was taking a dozen prescription medications and was suicidal after the death of his 20-year-old son. What a sad story.
   1400. RJ in TO Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:28 AM (#5918671)
He also robbed a jewelry store.
That occurred after he had already been rejected by the Hall.
I am not saying the two things are related.

And, as WdBRhaEF notes, it's a really sad story. I remember hearing about the robbery attempt on the news right after it happened, but only heard about all the details about the medications, suicidal thoughts, and everything else years later.
Page 14 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 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
cardsfanboy
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 0.8399 seconds
48 querie(s) executed