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 3 of 15 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
   201. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 22, 2019 at 05:45 PM (#5903305)
He [Vizquel] received essentially half the votes needed for election in his first year (156 with 159 being half), and went up to 57% his second year. That is not a "critical electorate." Guys who debut that highly are very likely to be elected.
There is a significant group of voters, writers, commentators, and fans who are somewhat vociferous that Vizquel is not a Hall of Famer. It remains to be seen whether Vizquel will continue to build support like most “traditional” Hall of Fame candidates, or will hit a firewall that leaves him short. This year’s vote may tell us a lot.
   202. RJ in TO Posted: November 22, 2019 at 05:49 PM (#5903306)
But honestly, over 24 years with six teams, playing behind scores of different pitchers, you would expect his opportunities to be very close to average.
During his years with Seattle, he generally played behind pitching staffs which were striking out between 0.5 and 1 extra batter per 9 IP, which would slightly suppress his opportunities. With Cleveland, during the years Vizquel was there, the first regular starting pitcher they had who was a lefty was Chuck Finley, in 2000, which was Vizquel's 7th year with the team. Under those conditions, you'd expect him to see less opportunities than normal, as other teams would be more likely to load their lineups with lefty batters. In San Fran, you do see a team that has a more normal lefty/righty split in the rotation and which was roughly average in strikeouts when compared to league average. After San Fran, it's just part time play as he ages.

Yes, you would expect things to average out over 24 years, but that doesn't mean they did average out, and it's a bit misleading to talk about 6 teams during that period, when 20 of the 24 years were with the first three, and he only ran up 931 PA over those final four seasons.

Please note I'm not saying he was a better fielder than the numbers show, but there may be indications his teams did suppress his assist numbers slightly for reasons beyond his control. However, even if they did, it's very doubtful they did enough to make him match someone like Ozzie Smith.
   203. Al "Battery" Kaline Posted: November 22, 2019 at 07:17 PM (#5903324)
Still stunned at the Rieber "cheese stands alone" move. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone else vote for all the players he dropped WITHOUT voting for Jeter as a counter-statement.
   204. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: November 23, 2019 at 12:17 AM (#5903365)
I wouldn't be surprised to see someone else vote for all the players he dropped WITHOUT voting for Jeter as a counter-statement.


I doubt it. Last year there was enormous social pressure to make Rivera unanimous. There likely will be with Jeter as well.
   205. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: November 23, 2019 at 12:22 AM (#5903366)
Guy who won't get much love this year even though he should: Gary Sheffield. Last year Edgar Martinez went in. Sheffield was a better hitter than Martinez and wasn't a DH (much). I get that people say Sheffield's defense was so bad it had negative value, but I have a tough time seeing how a guy who was a better hitter than a hall of fame DH doesn't also belong. But between Balco and a general loathing from sportswriters, Sheffield probably won't crack 20% (should see a little bit of an uptick given how cleared out the ballot is now, though).
   206. Howie Menckel Posted: November 23, 2019 at 12:27 AM (#5903367)
thank you guys for both 199 and 202.

I haven't thought much about Vizquel at all, but I appreciate the analysis.
   207. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: November 23, 2019 at 12:48 AM (#5903368)
204 - Sean Forman is suggesting on the twitter that his ballot will effectively be that.
   208. bachslunch Posted: November 23, 2019 at 06:16 AM (#5903379)
@207: Good for Sean. Hope he has the stones to do it.

I realize it’s early, but it’s a tad disheartening to see Larry Walker only getting 2 votes out of 5 ballots in his last eligible year thus far. If memory serves, Edgar charged out of the gate with strong support in his last go-around.

And yeah, Anthony Rieber is a big-time horse’s butt. Steven Marcus, too, but Rieber took it to a whole other level.
   209. alilisd Posted: November 23, 2019 at 10:44 AM (#5903395)
205: Looking at Sheffield and Edgar on career numbers Sheffield has about 29 more RBat but in about 2,000 more PAs. Edgar has a higher OPS+. I don’t see any particular peak advantage for Sheffield either. What do you see that looks like he’s a better hitter than Edgar? And I agree he should be getting better support for enshrinement. A bat like that is certainly a HOF bat if teams are willing to absorb the defensive hit to put him out there
   210. PreservedFish Posted: November 23, 2019 at 11:03 AM (#5903399)
Sheffield was not a good fielder, but I never saw him as a brutal defender, the way BR does.
   211. RJ in TO Posted: November 23, 2019 at 11:41 AM (#5903408)
Sheffield was at about -13 per season (excluding games at DH) for his career by Total Zone. That's bad, but not brutal. Looking at the outfield only, to avoid his time at SS/3B, where he was legitimately bad, he's at about -11 per season. His terrible career totals are just a matter of him playing forever, running up these fairly consistent levels of bad (not brutal) defense year after year.
   212. SoSH U at work Posted: November 23, 2019 at 11:52 AM (#5903416)
What do you see that looks like he’s a better hitter than Edgar?


Yeah, I don't see that. The extra PAs might drag him even with Edgar's significant rate edge, but I don't see how you can call him a better hitter.

And Edgar, though he didn't play there long, was quite competent at third. Until he became a full-time DH in 1995, he had positive dWAR for his career. Unlike Shef, who was pretty sub-par everywhere.

Also, Edgar was widely respected, not a giant pain in the ass. And only one of them was a known juicer.

   213. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 23, 2019 at 12:22 PM (#5903419)

-11 from a corner outfielder is still pretty bad. It means he would have accrued more WAR as a full-time DH, assuming there was no negative effect on his hitting as a result. Not that the difference between 60 and 65 WAR is what's keeping Sheff out of the Hall.
   214. RJ in TO Posted: November 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM (#5903422)
Oh, it's still definitely comfortably inside the realm of not good. It's just not terrible. He doesn't have any Adam Dunn/Kevin Reimer/late career Bernie Williams seasons in there, but rather was just comfortably chugging along at the same level of below average for roughly 15 years out there. The best equivalent I can think of off hand would be someone like Eddie Yost, who ran up -112 runs at 3B in his career, by being consistently below average at the position but not so bad that you'd think you'd definitely need to move him off of it.
   215. PreservedFish Posted: November 23, 2019 at 12:53 PM (#5903427)
I looked at outfield defense according to Fangraphs' "Def" number, whatever that is, from 1996-2006. Sheffield is the 9th worst regular(ish) outfielder (on a rate basis):

Melvin Nieves
Hideki Matsui
Jeremy Giambi
Bobby Bo
Joe Carter
Matt Stairs
Geronimo Berroa
Sheffield
Manny
Bichette
Craig Wilson...

That doesn't sound insane, but still I would have expected Sheffield to rate better than this group of losers. Certainly better than Manny, better than oafs like Giambi and Bichette, better than the immobile like OLD Joe Carter and Bobby Bo. He also ranks worse than Albert Belle, Roger Cedeno, old Rickey Henderson, Juan Gonzalez, Glenallen Hill, Klesko, old man Gwynn, young man Adam Dunn, Pat Burrell, Butch Huskey, Ruben Sierra, to name several notably indifferent and/or inept fielders.
   216. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 23, 2019 at 08:01 PM (#5903494)
I realize it’s early, but it’s a tad disheartening to see Larry Walker only getting 2 votes out of 5 ballots in his last eligible year thus far.

He's actually +1 among these voters compared to last year, which is good. Also, as noted, it's early.
   217. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: November 23, 2019 at 10:43 PM (#5903508)
Sheffield has more rBat than Martinez, though lower rate stats. He’s basically Edgar Martinez plus three seasons of slightly above average hitting overall. Ok, so maybe not clearly better but very close at minimum. And I realize that Martinez was kind of borderline, taking 10 years to get in. Still, if you’re going to give him any credit at all for playing the field, even poorly, over being a DH and you don’t care about steroids, I think Sheffield has to be considered.
   218. gabrielthursday Posted: November 23, 2019 at 11:08 PM (#5903511)
@202

I haven't read the DRA methodology, but I'd be very surprised if it didn't take into account strikeout rates and pitcher handedness. For what it's worth, FRAA also places Vizquel as a roughly-average defensive player over his career - above average as a young player, below average as he got older.

This is one of the problems of evaluating hall-of-fame candidates. We tend to anchor ourselves closely to rWAR and fWAR, and implicitly, to just one or two defensive metrics - TZ for pre 2001 years, and UZR or DRS for more recent seasons. We should be giving at least some consideration to DRA and FRAA as well. Tom Tango published some numbers from his compelling "WOWY" metric a few years ago which have some bearing on some candidates as well - Andruw, Rolen and Jeter most prominently.
   219. John DiFool2 Posted: November 23, 2019 at 11:34 PM (#5903520)
Manny is very comparable-but better.
   220. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 25, 2019 at 04:39 PM (#5903845)
Through 7 ballots, Curt Schilling has 3 gains (and 1 loss from Anthony Reiber’s unusual vote). Maybe just a quirk due to how the ballots are coming in, but perhaps a sign that boycotting Schilling for his political views is losing support. Being the highest returning player on the ballot and Mike Mussina’s making it last year may also cause some to focus more on the merits of Schilling’s case this year.
   221. Srul Itza Posted: November 25, 2019 at 09:54 PM (#5903909)
Was it his political views -- sportswriters are not notoriously liberal -- or was it his suggestion that journalists should be hung, which might have rubbed even some of the more neanderthalic knights of the keyboard as coming a little too close to home?

Maybe the uptick is just the result of Curt being (relatively) quiet lately, and not adding more fuel to the fire. Of course, I may not have been paying attention enough, and might have missed some recent event of verbal self-immolation.
   222. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:40 PM (#5903921)
was it his suggestion that journalists should be hung, which might have rubbed even some of the more neanderthalic knights of the keyboard as coming a little too close to home?


I'm pretty sure it was this. Or, at least, there were specific writers who specifically wrote about this specific incident as a reason to drop Schilling (for one or more years). e.g., here.
   223. Howie Menckel Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:51 PM (#5903923)
not voting for Schilling specifically for some of his odious comments strikes me as bizarre - and I know some of these writers.

dudes, take the emotion out of it. was he good enough for the Hall of Fame or not? I have no problem with fans getting so emotional - they're fans, after all.

but if you get that BBWAA ballot in the mail - get over yourself, or throw the ballot away.
   224. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:57 PM (#5903924)
Was it his political views -- sportswriters are not notoriously liberal -- or was it his suggestion that journalists should be hung, which might have rubbed even some of the more neanderthalic knights of the keyboard as coming a little too close to home?
Pretending that Schilling’s tasteless t-shirt was any real threat that has the slightest bearing on his Hall-worthiness just reinforces that the objection is his views.
   225. DJS Thinks Apples and Oranges are Similar Posted: November 25, 2019 at 11:51 PM (#5903928)
I don't have my vote yet -- I waited longer than I should have to ask for membership -- but I've exchanged briefly on this subject with Sean and I feel similarly.

We've tried to get the Hall to lift the ten-player limit. They refuse. Which leaves a position in which I would feel obligated to use my violate to prioritize the ten players whose checkbox means the most: players right around 75% and right around 5%.

It's probably fortunate I was tardy with my membership because I would have gone down as the dude who denied Mariano Rivera his 100% induction. I personally see, under this system the Hall is using, that anything over 75% is technically a worthless vote. Now, you still have to vote for the guys you think are 76% because you have imperfect knowledge, but when someone has 100% of the vote in 200 public ballots, votes for them when you want to induct more than ten is simply running up the score.
   226. John Northey Posted: November 26, 2019 at 12:06 AM (#5903931)
Jeter is really not deserving of a 100% given only Rivera got it and Rivera was clearly the best closer ever - even though that was due to his being a failed starter.

Jeter isn't even the best SS on the Yankees for a good chunk of his career (that was A-Rod no matter why the manager played A-Rod at 3B instead of moving Saint Jeter). Is he a HOF'er? Yes. Should he get an honor only 1 player has ever had before? No.
   227. GuyM Posted: November 26, 2019 at 10:03 AM (#5903978)
This is one of the problems of evaluating hall-of-fame candidates. We tend to anchor ourselves closely to rWAR and fWAR, and implicitly, to just one or two defensive metrics - TZ for pre 2001 years, and UZR or DRS for more recent seasons. We should be giving at least some consideration to DRA and FRAA as well. Tom Tango published some numbers from his compelling "WOWY" metric a few years ago which have some bearing on some candidates as well

I think this is exactly right. TZ provides a generally reasonable estimate of a player's defensive performance in a given year, which is what it was constructed to do. However, it has an inherent limitation, which is that it does not take account of a player's performance in other seasons when it tries to estimate what happened in year X. So, for example, Derek Jeter and Ozzie Smith receive equal penalties for every groundball fielded by their team's LF, even though it is actually much more likely in one of these cases that it reflected a failure on the part of the 3B. And for post-2003 seasons, DRS alone will often not provide the best possible estimate of a player's fielding performance. When considering a player's full career, their defensive WAR rating should be considered the starting point -- not the conclusion -- of the evaluation.
   228. SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2019 at 10:13 AM (#5903983)
Pretending that Schilling’s tasteless t-shirt was any real threat that has the slightest bearing on his Hall-worthiness just reinforces that the objection is his views.


His political views aren't any different than John Smoltz's (if anything, he's less conservative). It was the general trolling behavior he was engaged in two years back.
   229. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 26, 2019 at 11:21 AM (#5903998)
It was the general trolling behavior he was engaged in two years back.


Well, that and the credible accusations of multi-million-dollar financial fraud. It'd be embarrassing if a guy couldn't attend his own Hall induction because he was behind bars.
   230. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 26, 2019 at 11:32 AM (#5903999)
but one advantage of the large BBWAA electorate is that a couple of quirky or self-promoting voters don’t matter that much.


Strongly disagree. For every lost vote, a guy has to pick up 3 new votes just to make progress.
   231. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: November 26, 2019 at 11:41 AM (#5904003)
No pro of con on Sheffield but my dad's take is that Sheffield should get hit on defense not because he was bad at it in terms of metrics but that he was bad at it because he didn't give an effort when he had the tools to play decent or better defense. Dad finds that approach more offensive than someone like Braun who really does seem to try out there but still kind of sucks.

Thoughts?
   232. TR_Sullivan Posted: November 26, 2019 at 11:43 AM (#5904005)
I haven't done my ballot yet....

When I do... I will maintain tradition and announce it here first...

But this looks like the hardest ballot I have ever had to consider...

Even I am extremely curious how I will vote
   233. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 26, 2019 at 12:01 PM (#5904011)
No pro of con on Sheffield but my dad's take is that Sheffield should get hit on defense not because he was bad at it in terms of metrics but that he was bad at it because he didn't give an effort when he had the tools to play decent or better defense. Dad finds that approach more offensive than someone like Braun who really does seem to try out there but still kind of sucks.

Thoughts?


I agree. If a guy can't be bothered to try, and it costs his team, that should count heavily against him.
   234. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: November 26, 2019 at 12:08 PM (#5904013)
233--Ok. And I want to be sure nobody here thinks I am saying Sheffield tried to be bad. I know there is a story out there that Sheffield intentionally made errors to get away from the Crew. I don't buy it as the data isn't there to support this claim. I think it's plausible that Sheffield did his own cost/benefit and thought trying on defense might be riskier than just hanging out
   235. SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2019 at 12:19 PM (#5904016)
Well, that and the credible accusations of multi-million-dollar financial fraud. It'd be embarrassing if a guy couldn't attend his own Hall induction because he was behind bars.


I think the evidence of his fraud predated his decline in support, though it certainly could have contributed.
   236. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: November 26, 2019 at 12:47 PM (#5904021)
Well, that and the credible accusations of multi-million-dollar financial fraud. It'd be embarrassing if a guy couldn't attend his own Hall induction because he was behind bars.



I think the evidence of his fraud predated his decline in support, though it certainly could have contributed.


What were the fraud accusations?
   237. Srul Itza Posted: November 26, 2019 at 12:54 PM (#5904025)
Pretending that Schilling’s tasteless t-shirt was any real threat that has the slightest bearing on his Hall-worthiness just reinforces that the objection is his views.


Depends on how you define "views". If the views are right-wing political, that simply puts him in line with the vast majority of jocks and sportswriters. If the view is that journalists all suck, that is not so much a political view as a personal view that is alright to insult the people he wants to vote for him. It doesn't have to be a real threat to accomplish that.
   238. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: November 26, 2019 at 12:58 PM (#5904027)
   239. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2019 at 01:05 PM (#5904031)
233--Ok. And I want to be sure nobody here thinks I am saying Sheffield tried to be bad. I know there is a story out there that Sheffield intentionally made errors to get away from the Crew. I don't buy it as the data isn't there to support this claim. I think it's plausible that Sheffield did his own cost/benefit and thought trying on defense might be riskier than just hanging out

Wasn't an issue of trying/getting hurt but of supposedly intentionally throwing baseballs into the stands instead to the first baseman.
   240. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2019 at 01:07 PM (#5904032)
From Sheffield, "The Brewers brought out the hate in me. . . . I was a crazy man. I hated (Dalton) so much that I wanted to hurt the man. I hated everything about that place. I didn’t even want to come to the ballpark. If I missed a ball or something, so what? If the official scorer gave me an error that I didn’t think was an error, I’d say, ‘OK, here’s a real error,’ and I’d throw the next ball into the stands on purpose. I did it all."
   241. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2019 at 01:13 PM (#5904033)
Sheffield only had two games in 1989 with more than one error in it. In both games Sheffield got his second error of the game on a throwing error to first. Have no idea if the ball went into the stands. 4/23 and 6/20.

don't think I have my proquest resources active like I used to back in the day.
   242. SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2019 at 01:23 PM (#5904034)
Just suggesting he did that is problematic, regardless whether one specific incident fits his description.
   243. DanG Posted: November 26, 2019 at 01:33 PM (#5904038)
#225
We've tried to get the Hall to lift the ten-player limit. They refuse. Which leaves a position in which I would feel obligated to use my violate to prioritize the ten players whose checkbox means the most: players right around 75% and right around 5%.

It's probably fortunate I was tardy with my membership because I would have gone down as the dude who denied Mariano Rivera his 100% induction. I personally see, under this system the Hall is using, that anything over 75% is technically a worthless vote. Now, you still have to vote for the guys you think are 76% because you have imperfect knowledge, but when someone has 100% of the vote in 200 public ballots, votes for them when you want to induct more than ten is simply running up the score.
In fact, the election rules contain nothing to dissuade voters from taking this sort of tack. Nowhere does it instruct voters to vote for the best candidates, or even all worthy candidates. Strategic voing is perfectly allowable. This is all it says:
An elector will vote for no more than ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election.

I think strategic voting taints the election process, devaluing the results and diminishing the honor. It doesn't have to be that way.
   244. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: November 26, 2019 at 01:33 PM (#5904039)
Kind of don't get the follow up Sheffield posts. I wrote I didn't think he tried to make errors as the data while with Milwaukee doesn't support what a 20 year old said he did

I was just wondering if posters who saw him play agree with my dad's assessment that Sheffield had the ability to be ok or better on defense but chose not to for his own reasons.
   245. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2019 at 01:39 PM (#5904040)
The Milwaukee Sentinel has an article on the 4/23/1989 game but only mentions that he had two throwing errors in the game and does not go into detail about the 5th inning. The Journal mentions the 5th inning throwing error but not in detail. Only that it happens. The Milwaukee Journal had the 6/20 game but again make no mention of the second throwing error. The Sentinel's June 21st edition was not available to me.
   246. gabrielthursday Posted: November 26, 2019 at 01:41 PM (#5904041)
@238

There's no claim of fraud in that article, or in my brief research. The company collapsed, and it doesn't speak well of Schilling, but 1) companies collapse all the time; and 2) you expect civil suits when a company goes bankrupt. There was no criminal accusation.

Fraud is a serious accusation, and shouldn't be made lightly or without evidence.
   247. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2019 at 01:44 PM (#5904043)
Kind of don't get the follow up Sheffield posts. I wrote I didn't think he tried to make errors as the data while with Milwaukee doesn't support what a 20 year old said he did

Gary stated in an interview after he left Milwaukee that he intentionally threw balls into the stands and didn't really care if he got to a ball or not. Basic fielding data isn't really going to show or not show that.

1989 was kind of the year where all the turmoil boiled over. In it he only had two games with multiple errors and in both games his second error was in fact a throwing error to first. In 1990 he only had one game with 2 errors and the second error was a fielding error. In 1991 he had one two error game and the second error was on a throw to first.

Gary believed he should have been the SS and that Bill Spiers got the job because of racism. Then Gary was hurt but the Brewers didn't really believe him or could find anything wrong. It wasn't until he got demoted to the minors that their minor league doctors discovered a fracture in his leg.

Gary was young and athletic and like many young and athletic kids he played SS before the majors but like so many players he wasn't really good enough to be a major league SS.
   248. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: November 26, 2019 at 01:48 PM (#5904045)
246: from the first line of article: Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N) agreed to settle a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fraud lawsuit related to a $75 million bond offering for 38 Studios Inc, a now-bankrupt video game company founded by former All-Star major league baseball pitcher Curt Schilling.

I was just sharing how things finally played out. No judgement on merits. Nor did I claim fraud happened. But if you google Schilling and fraud right or wrong get plenty of hits
   249. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 26, 2019 at 01:58 PM (#5904047)
Well, that and the credible accusations of multi-million-dollar financial fraud. It'd be embarrassing if a guy couldn't attend his own Hall induction because he was behind bars.
Schilling wasn’t much of a businessman, and he lost a lot of his own money, as well as what the state of Rhode Island and other investors foolishly put in his company, but, unless I missed something, there were never any criminal charges. Being a poor businessman, or financially inept, wouldn’t seem like an appropriate Hall of Fame voting factor.
   250. Zach Posted: November 26, 2019 at 02:12 PM (#5904051)
has anyone ever figured out why there's a screening committee? Are they worried that the BBWAA might accidentally elect Steve Henderson or something?

When the ballot is too long, it's too hard for the voters to concentrate on the top candidates. Cutting out the dross ends up in more guys getting elected.

It's always worth remembering that the Hall of Fame is in the inducting business. Their worst possible outcome is having a bunch of qualified candidates stacked up on the ballot with no way to choose between them.
   251. Zach Posted: November 26, 2019 at 02:20 PM (#5904054)
If I recall correctly, the screening started in the early days, when voters had all of baseball history to choose from and few good stats. So the HOF historian helped the process out by preparing brief stat lines and yearly updates on who had gotten what percentage of the vote last time.

   252. alilisd Posted: November 26, 2019 at 02:34 PM (#5904060)
250: When the screening committee is including JJ Putz, Heath Bell, Jose Valverde, Chone Figgins, Carlos Pena, Brad Penny, and Raúl Ibañez, it certainly isn’t functioning in the way you describe.
   253. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 26, 2019 at 02:51 PM (#5904067)
If I recall correctly, the screening started in the early days, when voters had all of baseball history to choose from and few good stats. So the HOF historian helped the process out by preparing brief stat lines and yearly updates on who had gotten what percentage of the vote last time.


I thought the screening came in when they implemented the 5% rule ~ 1980.
   254. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 26, 2019 at 03:02 PM (#5904071)
When the screening committee is including JJ Putz, Heath Bell, Jose Valverde, Chone Figgins, Carlos Pena, Brad Penny, and Raúl Ibañez, it certainly isn’t functioning in the way you describe.


Perhaps it could be executed better but there were 60 people who retired in 2014 with 10 or more years played. Only 18 made the ballot.
   255. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 26, 2019 at 03:06 PM (#5904072)
Schilling wasn’t much of a businessman, and he lost a lot of his own money, as well as what the state of Rhode Island and other investors foolishly put in his company, but, unless I missed something, there were never any criminal charges.


There were, however, both state and federal criminal investigations of Schilling related to the situation, and as such one certainly couldn't blame writers for wanting to wait until the dust had settled before voting for him.
   256. alilisd Posted: November 26, 2019 at 03:16 PM (#5904074)
Perhaps it could be executed better but there were 60 people who retired in 2014 with 10 or more years played. Only 18 made the ballot.


Beneath my snark was definitely the implication that it could, and should, be executed better :-)
   257. gabrielthursday Posted: November 26, 2019 at 03:17 PM (#5904075)
TZ provides a generally reasonable estimate of a player's defensive performance in a given year, which is what it was constructed to do. However, it has an inherent limitation, which is that it does not take account of a player's performance in other seasons when it tries to estimate what happened in year X. So, for example, Derek Jeter and Ozzie Smith receive equal penalties for every groundball fielded by their team's LF, even though it is actually much more likely in one of these cases that it reflected a failure on the part of the 3B. And for post-2003 seasons, DRS alone will often not provide the best possible estimate of a player's fielding performance. When considering a player's full career, their defensive WAR rating should be considered the starting point -- not the conclusion -- of the evaluation.

Yes - my impression is that we should probably prefer FRAA or DRA for career defensive value, although TZ is still useful to check. You can just substitute the run values in the rWAR and fWAR calculations to get a broader sense of what the overall range of value might be. I wish we had WOWY numbers for entire careers, but Tango did release them for some players from 1993-2008 and you can complete career values with another metric. To set the cat among the pigeons I'll post the WAR values for Derek Jeter generated by substituting the different defensive metrics into the rWAR and fWAR calculations:

Derek Jeter

rWAR (TZ/DRS): 72.4
rWAR (sub FRAA): 66.5
rWAR (sub DRA): 61.9
rWAR (sub WOWY/DRA): 55.2

fWAR: (TZ/UZR): 73.0
fWAR: (sub FRAA): 56.6
fWAR: (sub DRA): 52.0
fWAR: (sub WOWY/DRA): 45.2

Of course, there are other substitutions one could justify. You could do a similar run for Rolen or Andruw or Vizquel, to name a few other guys for whom defensive value is central to their hall-of-fame case.
   258. snowles Posted: November 26, 2019 at 03:38 PM (#5904079)
I can't wait to see Edwin Jackson's HOF case when it comes up - the richest, most average pitcher of our day. Of course I'm assuming he'll retire at some point.
   259. Rally Posted: November 26, 2019 at 03:38 PM (#5904080)
The lowest rWAR you have there is almost identical (55.3) to a DH Jeter idea I had.

Suppose Jeter is as bad or worse than the worst of his defensive metrics, and the Yankees had realized this in time and never let him wear a fielding glove. Zero out his negative fielding runs, take away his positive position adjustment for being a shortstop, and give him the -15 penalty per year for being a DH. I tried that and came up with 55.3

Is a 55.3 WAR DH a HOFer? Actually, there is such a creature, and he also has multiple rings, hit one of the magic round totals (3000 hits or 500 homers), and is a bit of a cult hero to his fan base. David Ortiz.
   260. Booey Posted: November 26, 2019 at 03:51 PM (#5904083)
Jeter as a DH for half his career looks a lot like Paul Molitor, no?
   261. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:02 PM (#5904084)
I can't wait to see Edwin Jackson's HOF case when it comes up - the richest, most average pitcher of our day. Of course I'm assuming he'll retire at some point.

If he goes in he should wear a Cubs hat since the Cubs gave him the bulk of his money.
   262. DanG Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:02 PM (#5904085)
I thought the screening came in when they implemented the 5% rule ~ 1980.
The HOF website dates the screening committee's origin as 1968, although I have seen 1962 somewhere as well. Refer to post #120 in this thread for a brief history of the screening committee.
   263. GuyM Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:06 PM (#5904087)
259: Interesting thought experiment. However, I think the DH hitting penalty is something like .015 in wOBA. If you reduce Jeter's hitting by that amount (and I've done the math right), that would have cost him about 160 runs, or 16 WAR. So now he's down to 39 WAR*. And in that scenario, does he even reach 3,000 hits? Do the Yankees let that player stick at DH through age 40?

OTOH, maybe the fact that serving as DH has such a negative impact on hitting performance means that WAR's -15 position adjustment for DH is too big a penalty?
   264. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:09 PM (#5904089)
I can't wait to see Edwin Jackson's HOF case when it comes up - the richest, most average pitcher of our day. Of course I'm assuming he'll retire at some point.


Jackson won't make the cut. I suppose it will depend on other first time eligible starters, but this year the worst starter is Brad Penny, with over twice Jackson's WAR, more wins, fewer losses, and an ERA half a run better. Looking at who could join Jackson, assuming he's done, C.C and King Felix top the chart. Ervin Santana maybe? Nolasco, Liriano?
   265. cookiedabookie Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:09 PM (#5904090)
So I looked at adjusted batting runs on a per 650 PA basis. Among players with at least 200 batting runs and 9000 PA (105 total players), Sheffield's 35 batting runs per 650 PA ranks 28th. The only players eligible and not in the Hall are Barry Bonds and Manny Ramirez (Pujols and Cabrera are as well, but they're still active). He's essentially tied with Ortiz (34.9). I'm not sure there's a better match for Gary, and if Ortiz goes in easily, I don't see how those same voters can skip over Gary. Bad fielders who were/should've been DHs, with a hint of steroid allegations, and top thirty hitters all time by this measurement.

Oh, and Jeter is 100th out of 105. Surrounded by HoF players who got boosts for defense that he doesn't get (Alomar, Appling, Dawson, Yount, Ripken, and soon to be HoFer Beltre). But Biggio is right there, and he wasn't great with the glove.
   266. cookiedabookie Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:12 PM (#5904092)
I think Jeter would've made a serviceable center fielder. I wonder what that would've done to his career and value. Or hell, if he pulled a Banks and went to first base after age thirty.
   267. gabrielthursday Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:13 PM (#5904093)
@248

Sorry, I got it wrong, although it's important to note that the claims were civil, not criminal, and no judicial determination was ever made.
   268. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:19 PM (#5904095)
Or hell, if he pulled a Banks and went to first base after age thirty.


Well after age 30 ,Jeter had a net -66 fielding+ positional runs. If he were an average fielding 1B in that amount of playing time, he would have had a net -75 or so. So it depends on how well he could have fielded 1B. I suspect he would have been at least decent.
   269. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:21 PM (#5904096)
I can't wait to see Edwin Jackson's HOF case when it comes up - the richest, most average pitcher of our day.

I wouldn't say average. In Stark's best of the decade column, he noted that Jackson had the highest ERA of the '10s at 4.83 (min 1,000 IP). Of course, you have to be decent enough to get to throw 1,000 innings.
   270. GuyM Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:36 PM (#5904098)
So it depends on how well he could have fielded 1B. I suspect he would have been at least decent.

I wonder how many GGs Jeter gets in that scenario? He picked up 4 gold gloves at SS after age 30, and in every one of those years Teixeira won the GG at 1B. On the one hand, it's hard to imagine Jeter wouldn't have been a better fielder at 1B. On the other hand, he wouldn't have been an offensive standout at the position, which (sadly) was a big factor in many GG selections.
   271. flournoy Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:44 PM (#5904103)
Beneath my snark was definitely the implication that [the screening process] could, and should, be executed better


I get your point, but I'd rather have the screening committee allow too many names through. Sure, J.J. Putz is nobody's idea of a Hall of Famer, but I want the voters to make that determination rather than the screeners. If the screeners are charged with limiting the ballot to legitimate Hall of Fame candidates, then they're going to misfire and omit a few. I'd rather have J.J. Putz on the ballot than Cliff Lee off of it.
   272. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 26, 2019 at 04:51 PM (#5904107)
I'd rather have J.J. Putz on the ballot than Cliff Lee off of it.


Agree. Less than 1/3 of eligible players are on the ballot. That's fine.
   273. DanG Posted: November 26, 2019 at 05:07 PM (#5904110)
I'd rather have J.J. Putz on the ballot than Cliff Lee off of it.
Eh, same thing. Neither one is a legitimate HOF candidate; they don't belong on the ballot. Both will be one and done.
   274. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 26, 2019 at 05:19 PM (#5904114)
Cliff Lee has 43 WAR, a 72 on the HOF monitor, and a 30 on the HOF standards. I wouldn't vote for him. You wouldn't vote for him. But I want the voters to have a chance to not to vote for him rather than an unaccountable secret body taking that decision away.
   275. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: November 26, 2019 at 05:25 PM (#5904115)
267--No worries. Just sharing. I think Schilling's biggest problem right now is the dude ####### looks terrible. Like he's getting no sleep and is living on junk food.
   276. SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2019 at 06:39 PM (#5904120)
Eh, same thing. Neither one is a legitimate HOF candidate; they don't belong on the ballot. Both will be one and done.


Wow, this is a drastic change from when you were upset that J.T. Snow wouldn't appear on the ballot in 2012, but would have to wait until 2014.

"Appearing on the HOF ballot is an honor that only 7% of major league players receive (72 of 1029 players who last played 2001 to 2005). For players like Snow, it is the highest honor the Game has for them. Snow has earned a place on the HOF ballot with his play. He has fulfilled the necessary waiting period. His honor is now due."

I agree with that earlier version of you. I think for good but not great players, there is honor in appearing on a Hall ballot, and the committee should take the care necessary to make sure the Lenny Harrises and J.J. Putzes are not included while the Mark Ellises or Javy Lopez's are left off.

So what was behind the change of heart there?

   277. Zach Posted: November 26, 2019 at 07:22 PM (#5904122)
252 -- My point is that they're not passing judgement on players, just trying to clean up the ballot so that voters can focus on the good candidates.

From my perspective, Mark Ellis had a good enough career that he should have been listed. He was a longtime Oakland A, a great fielder, good hitter. Guys like that tend to draw one or two hometown votes.

I tend to think that anybody who could plausibly draw a couple of votes should appear on at least one ballot.
   278. alilisd Posted: November 26, 2019 at 07:39 PM (#5904124)
I think the committee could be a good deal more selective and not leave legitimate candidates off, the names already mentioned should be evidence of that. And frankly I’m sick of writers casting BS votes for guys they liked when they covered them while not being able to put together a reasonable ballot or make a coherent argument for who they voted for or against
   279. Zach Posted: November 26, 2019 at 08:01 PM (#5904126)
#178 - I've thought the same thing, and it's just crazy how a few additional bad seasons at the end of his career has changed people's opinions of Vizquel so much in a GOOD way.

I don't know about that. Especially for compilers, the end of the career is where they put separation into the field.

It's like a big hill at the end of a marathon. It shows you who's running on fumes and who still has something left in the tank.

Vizquel played shortstop until he was 45. That's a really exceptional career length, and it gives him a lot of separation from good shortstops who were done by their mid 30s.
   280. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 27, 2019 at 02:20 PM (#5904220)

Eh, same thing. Neither one is a legitimate HOF candidate; they don't belong on the ballot. Both will be one and done.

I'd prefer not to have the screening committee at all, but if you're going to have it then the current version is what you want. This way the most egregious omissions are guys like Ellis and Javier Vazquez.

Not sure if this is what you're saying, but if you direct them to exclude guys like Cliff Lee, they'll also occasionally leave off someone like Cone / Saberhagen / Appier who are deserving or at the very least borderline.
   281. ajnrules Posted: November 27, 2019 at 03:42 PM (#5904243)
I agree with that earlier version of you. I think for good but not great players, there is honor in appearing on a Hall ballot, and the committee should take the care necessary to make sure the Lenny Harrises and J.J. Putzes are not included while the Mark Ellises or Javy Lopez's are left off.

Javy Lopez did make the ballot in 2012 though. He picked up one vote, or one more vote than Tony Womack.
   282. RJ in TO Posted: November 27, 2019 at 04:17 PM (#5904248)
As a pitcher, Cliff Lee put up 42.8 WAR (23.5 WAA) over 2156 IP (W/L of 143-91), with a peak season at 8.5 WAR and his best five seasons at 32.6, while also winning a Cy Young and being a 4 time All Star. Dizzy Dean put up 43.7 WAR (27.0 WAA) over 1968 IP (W/L of 150-83), with a peak season at 8.9 WAR and his best five seasons at 34.7, while winning an MVP and appearing in 4 All Star games. If you want, you can widen the gap between them a bit by including pitcher batting, but no one voting for the Hall actually gives a damn about pitcher batting.

Dean isn't exactly an inner circle Hall of Famer, but he was elected, and that's a pretty fine line to draw between him and Lee, in terms of belonging in the Hall vs. not even being placed on the ballot to begin with.
   283. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 27, 2019 at 05:42 PM (#5904271)
As a pitcher, Cliff Lee put up 42.8 WAR (23.5 WAA) over 2156 IP (W/L of 143-91), with a peak season at 8.5 WAR and his best five seasons at 32.6, while also winning a Cy Young and being a 4 time All Star.


A guy like this should always be put on the ballot when his turn comes up. Any player that is the best or near the best even for just one season deserves a look and on a ballot where there may not be 10 viable candidates, some homer might throw him a vote; which I think is nice.

That stretch quoted above may not be Pedro or Koufaxian like, but it's pretty d*mn impressive.
   284. SoSH U at work Posted: November 27, 2019 at 06:08 PM (#5904273)
Javy Lopez did make the ballot in 2012 though. He picked up one vote, or one more vote than Tony Womack.


That should have been Javier Vasquez.

   285. bbmck Posted: November 27, 2019 at 07:35 PM (#5904283)
Pitching WAR/WAA only:

1973-84 Frank Tanana 2356.2 IP, 43.2 WAR, 21.9 WAA, 115 ERA+
1986-97 Chuck Finley 2238.1 IP, 42.3 WAR, 21.5 WAA, 117 ERA+
2002-14 Cliff Lee 2156.2 IP, 42.8 WAR, 23.5 WAA, 118 ERA+
1979-87 Dave Stieb 2044 IP, 42.1 WAR, 24.1 WAA, 126 ERA+
1999-08 Tim Hudson 2017.1 IP, 43.3 WAR, 25.3 WAA, 127 ERA+

2000-09 Mark Buehrle 2061 IP, 41.3 WAR, 21.6 WAA, 122 ERA+
1987-96 Dennis Martinez 1986.2 IP, 41.2 WAR, 24.4 WAA, 128 ERA+
1984-92 Bret Saberhagen 1758 IP, 42.2 WAR, 26.8 WAA, 127 ERA+
1989-97 Kevin Appier 1665.1 IP, 45.6 WAR, 29.9 WAA, 136 ERA+
2000-08 Johan Santana 1543 IP, 42.9 WAR, 28.4 WAA, 144 ERA+

Except for Dennis Martinez that's start of career until they are close to Cliff's career WAR. The seven that have ballot results so far have averaged 6 votes with Cliff Lee's career and then some.
   286. bachslunch Posted: November 27, 2019 at 07:58 PM (#5904285)
Aurelio Moreno put up an interesting ballot. Asterisks next to new ballot additions:

Abreu, Bonds, Clemens, *Helton, Jeter, *Schilling, Sosa, Vizquel, *Walker.

Mostly reasonable except for Vizquel. His additions are good, and Abreu is a decent and maybe surprising choice. Didn’t include any of Sheffield, Andruw, Kent, Wagner, or Rolen despite room for one more name, though.
   287. bachslunch Posted: November 28, 2019 at 07:07 AM (#5904325)
Another interesting ballot just up, from Bill Center. Asterisks next to new ballot additions:

Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, *Schilling, *Sheffield, Vizquel, *Wagner, Walker. Dropped Helton.

Again, defensible except for Vizquel. The additions are varying degrees of reasonable. Still couldn’t find room for guys like Andruw, Kent, Rolen, or Sosa (and dropped Helton) with two open ballot slots.
   288. alilisd Posted: November 28, 2019 at 11:20 AM (#5904337)
Centers ballot is the sort of thing that makes me crazy about how some writers vote. What possible logic is there to dropping Helton and adding Sheffield?
   289. DanG Posted: November 28, 2019 at 11:37 AM (#5904340)
I'd prefer not to have the screening committee at all, but if you're going to have it then the current version is what you want. This way the most egregious omissions are guys like Ellis and Javier Vazquez.

Not sure if this is what you're saying, but if you direct them to exclude guys like Cliff Lee, they'll also occasionally leave off someone like Cone / Saberhagen / Appier who are deserving or at the very least borderline.
Why can't we have both - a good screening committee, AND one that knows enough to exclude Cliff Lee from the ballot? Of course, now we're talking about reform, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

However, I'm not so quick to give a free pass to the status quo. The screening committee should be able to perform their job much better than they do. It would help a lot if they could just limit their take to about a third of what it is now. That would be six new candidates this year rather than 18. And there would be no chance of omitting guys like "Cone / Saberhagen / Appier" if they would simply treat it seriously and do a little research. Heck, all they need to do is tune in to the thread I post annually at Baseball Fever (2020 BBF Ballot Screening Committee) and put a little thought into their decisions.

We all agree that players the caliber of Cliff Lee aren't legitimate HOF candidates. Post #285 is a good illustration of this fact. A similar case to Lee was Johnny Damon two years ago, a very good player but not a HOFer. Here's what I wrote about him in the screening thread that year:
Johnny Damon was a fine player. He compiled over 50 WAR, had more than 2700 hits, 1600 runs, 1100 RBI. A good leadoff hitter for a long time, in his prime he consistently had over a .350 OBP with 25+ SB, and he scored more than a hundred runs in ten seasons. He even won a couple rings, with the Red Sox and Yankees.

Despite all that, Damon was never a top-tier player and he clearly falls short of the Hall of Fame. He was named to the all-star team just twice, he never finished in the top ten in MVP voting and he never won a gold glove. In his career year in 2000 he had 6.1 WAR, good for 9th in the AL that year, and 25.6 Win Shares, 11th in the AL. The HOF Monitor has Damon with 90 points, meaning he does not have many of the accomplishments that the voters typically look for in a hall of famer. The HOF voters have quickly dismissed similar or better center fielders from Damon’s era (Kenny Lofton, Jim Edmonds, and Bernie Williams).

What is the point to putting Johnny Damon on the ballot for the Hall of Fame? Oh, he’ll get a few votes, maybe ten or twenty, but he’s almost certain to be one and done.

“But, but, but, Damon was better than some guys in the hall of fame. Doesn’t he deserve his day in court?” OK, maybe we don’t draw the line at Johnny Damon; most of the new candidates on the 2018 ballot won’t even be as good as him. But they’re all in the same boat: the BBWAA doesn’t vote for guys like that, they’re off the ballot quickly.

I'm working on a fuller explanation of my thinking on this issue, which I hope to have up soon. To cut to the bottom line, is that to include these non-candidates on the ballot is antithetical to performing what should be the Hall's primary aim: to elect The Best players available.
   290. SoSH U at work Posted: November 28, 2019 at 11:55 AM (#5904344)
Why can't we have both - a good screening committee, AND one that knows enough to exclude Cliff Lee from the ballot? Of course, now we're talking about reform, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon.


I've often said that I don't think anyone's given more thought to the Hall voting process than you have. That doesn't mean I've always agreed with you. And the idea that players such as Cliff Lee shouldn't reach the ballot at all is the area where I'm in strongest disagreement with you about. For some players, making the Hall of Fame can be the pinnacle of a long career. For others, making the ballot is the best they can hope for. Denying them the latter because they won't reach the former is wrong, and doing so will do nothing to assist other players from making the Hall. If anything, it might retard those efforts.

And, I'm still curious if you' could answer the question I posed in 276, as this seems to be a complete reversal in your thought process.

   291. PreservedFish Posted: November 28, 2019 at 12:07 PM (#5904348)
Centers ballot is the sort of thing that makes me crazy about how some writers vote. What possible logic is there to dropping Helton and adding Sheffield?


It's been clear for some decades that people in the stathead community prize logical rigor and consistency in a way that most people just do not.
   292. PreservedFish Posted: November 28, 2019 at 12:14 PM (#5904351)
DanG:
And there would be no chance of omitting guys like "Cone / Saberhagen / Appier" if they would simply treat it seriously and do a little research.


Would they omit Omar Vizquel?
   293. Jaack Posted: November 28, 2019 at 12:15 PM (#5904352)
Say what you will about Cliff Lee, but I do think he is a better hall of fame candidate than Omar Vizquel. And while I will be very annoyed when Omar ends up in the Hall, it will be because he got ample support.

If you eliminate the 'close but clearly not' guys like Cliff Lee and Johnny Damon, you'll eventually eliminate someone who has real, ample support, which is taking the election out of the voters hands. You're essentially making the selection committee the gatekeepers and the actual election is just window dressing. And with a small, secretive committee, you will end up with weirdness, no matter how smart that committee is.

This is a flawed process, but it's relatively visable, unlike the committees which are kept a secretive as possible, and it is generally capable of electing quality candidates, or at the very least is trending that way.
   294. DanG Posted: November 28, 2019 at 12:52 PM (#5904363)
I'm still curious if you' could answer the question I posed in 276, as this seems to be a complete reversal in your thought process
It actually IS a complete reversal of my thoughts on the matter, heart has little to do with it.

As I said, I'm working on a fuller explanation; there is method to my madness. But let me ask you this: can you maybe conceive of a better way to honor the Cliff Lees and Johnny Damons than pretending they're candidates for the Hall of Fame? I know I can.
   295. SoSH U at work Posted: November 28, 2019 at 01:10 PM (#5904365)
But let me ask you this: can you maybe conceive of a better way to honor the Cliff Lees and Johnny Damons than pretending they're candidates for the Hall of Fame?


By the Baseball Hall of Fame? I don't know what it would be.

I think seeing one's name on a Hall of Fame ballot, a distinction only 7 percent of the players receive, is a pretty damn nice honor. Offhand, I can't think what purpose it serves to remove that particular honor, though I guess I'll have to wait on your fuller, heartless explanation to see what you've come up with.
   296. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 28, 2019 at 01:14 PM (#5904366)
What is the point to putting Johnny Damon on the ballot for the Hall of Fame? Oh, he’ll get a few votes, maybe ten or twenty, but he’s almost certain to be one and done.
I prefer that the Hall of Fame Voters & the 5% Rule address those who may get 10 or 20 votes, rather than have an anonymous, secretive committee eliminate them as presumptively unworthy. To the extent there is a problem, it isn’t that the Screening Committee allows Johnny Damon or Cliff Lee on the ballot, it’s that it allows too many guys that never get a vote.
   297. DanG Posted: November 28, 2019 at 01:30 PM (#5904369)
By the Baseball Hall of Fame? I don't know what it would be.
I'll give you a hint: Honor Rolls of Baseball
   298. cookiedabookie Posted: November 28, 2019 at 03:58 PM (#5904388)
Why not ask the writers to vote for players eligible the next year, then use that as the nomination process? Say the top 20 in total votes will be added to the ballot the following year?
   299. PreservedFish Posted: November 28, 2019 at 04:13 PM (#5904390)
I'd like an answer to my question in 292. It seems like a prickly one.

If the revised DanG committee were to endorse Vizquel as a candidate, well then, it would seem impossible not to also endorse Johnny Damon, Cliff Lee and Javier Vazquez, which means that there is no significant difference between the new selection process and the old one.

If the committee were to reject Vizquel (or Rice, or Morris), then we have to recognize that it has summarily dismissed a player that is widely viewed as a viable candidate. And so the committee is not just making common sense distinctions between real candidates and pretenders, it's actually wielding huge discretionary power that will meaningfully affect the shape of the hall.
   300. DanG Posted: November 28, 2019 at 04:58 PM (#5904401)
To answer: probably not omitting Omar.
Page 3 of 15 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRob Manfred offers little insight, shows contempt for reporters in press conference
(64 - 2:14am, Feb 18)
Last: Jay Z

NewsblogHow will the Red Sox market a Mookie-less team? - The Boston Globe
(45 - 1:28am, Feb 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogAstros’ Dusty Baker begs MLB to protect players from cheating retaliation
(22 - 1:16am, Feb 18)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - January, 2020
(567 - 11:44pm, Feb 17)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogHow a rookie middle infielder could be the most interesting player in Giants camp
(3 - 10:15pm, Feb 17)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

NewsblogRosenthal: Carlos Correa rips Bellinger, passionately defends Altuve and says the Astros deserve their 2017 title – The Athletic
(69 - 9:55pm, Feb 17)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-17-2020
(13 - 9:26pm, Feb 17)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogPederson, Stripling back to work with Dodgers after no trade
(5 - 9:08pm, Feb 17)
Last: Dock Ellis

NewsblogSABR announces 2020 Henry Chadwick Award recipients
(7 - 9:07pm, Feb 17)
Last: Cblau

NewsblogAgainst the Astros and their reputation, suspicious Nationals felt they had to assume the worst
(7 - 9:06pm, Feb 17)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogBlue Jays legend Fernandez dies at 57
(19 - 7:44pm, Feb 17)
Last: blueshaker

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread 2020
(1364 - 6:51pm, Feb 17)
Last: aberg

NewsblogBen Zobrist Reportedly Not Planning To Play In 2020
(34 - 6:22pm, Feb 17)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (February 2020)
(96 - 3:44pm, Feb 17)
Last: gef, talking mongoose & vexatious litigant

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(605 - 1:24pm, Feb 17)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

Page rendered in 0.7122 seconds
46 querie(s) executed