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 | 372 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 4 of 4 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4
   301. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 28, 2019 at 06:05 PM (#5904408)
Why can't we have both - a good screening committee, AND one that knows enough to exclude Cliff Lee from the ballot?


Why on Earth are you choosing poor Cliff Lee as your token of a bad screening committee? Cliff Lee won a Cy Young award, had one or two other seasons where he was a serious Cy Young candidate (he was top-2 in pitcher WAR three times, for example), was regarded for a time as one of the best pitchers in baseball (and was paid like it - he had three seasons where he was paid $25 million per year). If you want to criticize the screening committee, criticize them for including J.J. Putz and Brad Penny. Excluding players with HOF cases comparable to Cliff Lee's very much shifts the voting process to the selection committee and away from the electorate.
   302. DanG Posted: November 28, 2019 at 06:27 PM (#5904410)
Read #289. Given the current process I have no problem including guys like Lee and Damon on the ballot. However, post #127 is where I’d like to be be. If only the best candidates were on the ballot, Lee and Damon don’t make the cut.

Again, fuller reasoning behind all this to come.
   303. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: November 28, 2019 at 06:53 PM (#5904416)
I can't imagine that fuller reasoning amounting to anything like a coherent standard.

If a 50-win player doesn't belong on the ballot because you don't project him to get very many votes, that's either an argument in favor of anybody with a constituency or for the committee to become the de facto voting body and also bar undeserving players who would nonetheless get lots of votes.
   304. bbmck Posted: November 28, 2019 at 09:10 PM (#5904426)
4016 careers ended in 1995-2014 and 947 or 23.6% have at least 10 MLB seasons.
484 careers ended in 1995-2014 that made an all-star roster and 419 or 86.6% have at least 10 MLB seasons.

Among the 65 making an all-star roster but with fewer than 10 MLB seasons, 20 position players and 45 pitchers:

Most career Hits: Shea Hillenbrand 1014, Jose Lopez 1005, Hank Blalock 959
Most Hits in a season: Jose Lopez 191, Shea Hillenbrand 196, Chris Sabo 175
Most career HR: Carlos Quentin 154, Hank Blalock 153, Brad Hawpe 124
Most HR in a season: Carlos Quentin 36, Morgan Ensberg 36, Hank Blalock 35

Most career position player WAR: Marcus Giles 16.8, Chris Sabo 16.6, Morgan Ensberg 13.8
Most position player WAR in a season: Marcus Giles 7.9, Hank Blalock 6.4, Morgan Ensberg 6.3
Most position player WAR in 2 seasons: Marcus Giles 11.9, Morgan Ensberg 11.1, Hank Blalock 11
Most position player WAR in 3 seasons: Marcus Giles 15.2, Morgan Ensberg 14.6, Chris Sabo 14.3
Most position player WAR in 4th best season: Carlos Quentin 1.6, Ben Grieve 1.4, Chris Sabo 1.4

Most career K: Matt Clement 1217, Brandon Webb 1065, Josh Johnson 915
Most K in a season: Mark Prior 245, Matt Clement 215, Brandon Webb 194
Most career Saves: Bryan Harvey 177, Bobby Jenks 173, Brian Wilson 173
Seasons of 40+ saves:
2 - Brian Wilson 48 and 41, Bobby Jenks 41 and 40, Bryan Harvey 46 and 45
1 - Joel Hanrahan 40, Matt Capps 42, Chad Cordero 47, Kazuhiro Sasaki 45, Duane Ward 45

Adding in Tim Lincecum who reached 10 seasons with the Angels and retired outside the range but will probably be included on the ballot and Alex Fernandez who received one career Cy vote (3rd in 1996) and once received MVP vote(s) (4 points in 1993) and was on the ballot as reference points:

Most career pitching WAR: Brandon Webb 33, Alex Fernandez 27.7, Josh Johnson 24.3, Tim Lincecum 20, Mark Mulder 19.6, Mark Prior 15.7, Dontrelle Willis 15.4
Most pitching WAR in a season: Tim Lincecum 7.8, Justin Thompson 7.7, Mark Prior 7.4, Dontrelle Willis 7.3, Josh Johnson 7, Brandon Webb 7, Alex Fernandez 6.4
Most pitching WAR in 2 seasons: Tim Lincecum 15.2, Josh Johnson 13.6, Brandon Webb 13.4, Alex Fernandez 11.8, Dontrelle Willis 11.4, Mark Mulder 11.4, Mark Prior 11, Justin Thompson 10.6
Most pitching WAR in 3 seasons: Brandon Webb 19.6, Tim Lincecum 18.9, Josh Johnson 17.5, Mark Mulder 16.1, Alex Fernandez 15.6, Dontrelle Willis 15.3
Most pitching WAR in 4 seasons: Brandon Webb 25.3, Tim Lincecum 22.2, Josh Johnson 21.3, Alex Fernandez 19.4, Mark Mulder 19.2
Most pitching WAR in 5 seasons: Brandon Webb 30.2, Tim Lincecum 24.5, Josh Johnson 24.2, Alex Fernandez 22.4
Most pitching WAR in 6 seasons: Brandon Webb 33.4, Josh Johnson 26.2, Alex Fernandez 25.2, Tim Lincecum 24.8

Among the 3532 not making an all-star roster and retiring in that range:

Most career Hits: Juan Pierre 2217 (0 HoF votes), Orlando Cabrera 2055 (0), Tony Phillips 2023 (1), Todd Zeile 2004 (0)
Most Hits in a season: Juan Pierre 221, 204, 204 and 202 (0), Doug Glanville 204 (9 seasons), Shannon Stewert 202 (not on ballot), Randy Velarde 200 (not on ballot)
Most career HR: Tim Salmon 299 (5), Pat Burrell 292 (0), Eric Karros 284 (2), Matt Stairs 265 (0), Eric Chavez 260 (2020 ballot), Kirk Gibson 255 (13), Todd Zeile 253 (0)
Most HR in a season: Richard Hidalgo 44 (9 seasons), Travis Hafner 42 (0), Matt Stairs 38 (0), Pat Burrell 37 (0), Geronino Berroa 36 (not on ballot), Josh Willingham 35 (not on ballot), Bill Hall 35 (not on ballot)

Most career position player WAR: Tony Phillips 50.9 (1), Tim Salmon 40.6 (5), Kirk Gibson 38.4 (13), Eric Chavez 37.5 (2020 ballot), Mark Ellis 33.6 (not on ballot), John Valentin 32.5 (not on ballot), Scott Fletcher 32 (not on ballot), Jose Valentin 31.6 (not on ballot)
Seasons of 5+ position player WAR:
3 - Travis Hafner (0), Eric Chavez (2020 ballot), Tim Salmon (5), Tony Phillips (1), Kirk Gibson (13)
2 - Richard Hidalgo (9 seasons), John Valentin (not on ballot), Shane Mack (9 seasons)
1 - Bill Mueller (4), Jacque Jones (1), Aubrey Huff (0), Bobby Higginson (0)
1 - 6 with fewer than 10 seasons, 13 others also not on ballot

Most career K: Bobby Witt 1955 (0), Danny Darwin 1942 (0), Tom Candiotti 1735 (2), Pedro Astacio 1664 (not on ballot), Jeff Fassero 1643 (not on ballot), Jose DeLeon 1594 (not on ballot), Todd Stottlemyre 1587 (1), Tim Belcher 1519 (not on ballot)
Most K in a season: Jeff Fassero 222 (not on ballot), Bobby Witt 221 (0), Erik Bedard 221 (not on ballot), Melido Perez 218 (9 seasons), Pedro Astacio 210 (not on ballot), Brett Myers 208 (not on ballot), Doug Davis 208 (not on ballot), Jose DeLeon 208 and 201 (not on ballot), Jonathan Sanchez 205 (8 seasons), Todd Stottlemyre 205 and 204 (1), Jeremy Bonderman 202 (9 seasons), Kirk McCaskill 202 (not on ballot), Daisuke Matsuzaka 201 (8 seasons), Alex Fernandez 200 (0), Tim Belcher 200 (not on ballot)

Most career Saves: Billy Koch 163 (6 seasons), Roger McDowell 159 (not on ballot), Michael Jackson 142 (0), Mike Timlin 141 (0)
Seasons of 40+ saves:
1 - Antonio Alfonseca 45 (not on ballot), Joe Borowski 45 (not on ballot), Billy Koch 44 (6 seasons), Jose Jimenez 41 (7 seasons), Michael Jackson 40 (0)

Most career pitching WAR: Tom Candiotti 42.3 (2), Danny Darwin 40.3 (0), Kevin Tapani 29.2 (not on ballot), Pedro Astacio 28.3 (not on ballot), Jarrod Washburn 27.7 (not on ballot), Alex Fernandez 27.7 (0)
Seasons of 5+ pitching WAR:
2 - Alex Fernandez (0), Jim Abbott (13), Danny Darwin (0), Chris Bosio (not on ballot), Tom Candiotti (2)
1 - none on ballot: Jeff Fassero, Pedro Astacio, Alejandro Pena, Kevin Tapani, Ismael Valdez, Erik Bedard, Mark Eichhorn
1 - 14 with fewer than 10 seasons

Jim Abbott didn't have a right hand, Kirk Gibson hit that HR and a dozen or so voters might have included Brandon Webb over an empty spot but you would need something very specific like a career ending injury to Mike Trout before opening day to have a credible Hall of Fame case without both 10 seasons and an all-star selection. This means an average of ~21 new candidates per year without any further screening process than 10 seasons and made an all-star roster.
   305. bbmck Posted: November 29, 2019 at 12:14 AM (#5904444)
102 starting pitchers (60%+) meet the 10 years and an all-star roster criteria over the last 20 years of ballot debuts:

7 in the Hall of Fame, Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling have a credible Hall of Fame case. Bret Saberhagen 1-1-3 is the only other pitcher with 3 or more Top 3 Cy finishes.

150+ wins and two Top 3 in Cy voting the Jack Morris HoF case: Andy Pettitte (42 first ballot votes, actually only one Top 3 but bumped him a group for post season volume), David Cone (21), David Wells (5), Dwight Gooden (17), Frank Viola (2), Kevin Brown (12), Jimmy Key (3) and Orel Hershiser (58). Jack Morris is the reason for using 20 years, he just misses. At this level it mostly depends on the standard for credible, Gooden is Fernando in New York surely he will also reach the 2nd ballot but he doesn't, it seems really unlikely he will be inducted for at best 132-53, 2.91 ERA followed by 62-59, 4.45 ERA.

150+ wins, modern metrics look kindly but 0-1 Top 3 in Cy voting: Chuck Finley (1), Dave Stieb (7), Dennis Martinez (16), Jamie Moyer (10), Kenny Rogers (1), Kevin Appier (1), Mark Langston (0) and Roy Oswalt (4). And fair enough if Stieb was never a Top 3 AL pitcher as Cy voting suggests he doesn't have a credible HoF case. In theory a strict screening committee should know these pitchers have no realistic chance but you're talking about some of the very best pitchers over a 20 year period of retirements, are you only going to average one starting pitcher past the screening committee every two years?

150+ wins and surprise by modern metrics they made the 2nd ballot: Dave Stewart (38) and Fernando Valenzuela (31)

150+ wins and no surprise they didn't make the 2nd ballot: Al Leiter (4), Doug Drabek (2), Freddy Garcia (0), Kevin Millwood (0), Livan Hernandez (1), Scott Sanderson (0) and Tim Wakefield (1)

150+ wins and did not make the ballot: Andy Benes, Javier Vazquez, John Burkett and Mike Moore

26 with 125-149 wins: Aaron Sele (1), Brad Radke (2), Carlos Zambrano (0), Chris Carpenter (2), Cliff Lee (2020 ballot), Darryl Kile (7), Jack McDowell (4), Jason Schmidt (0), Johan Santana (10), Jon Garland (0), Josh Beckett (2020 ballot), Mike Hampton (0), Pat Hentgen (1), Ron Darling (1), Ted Lilly (0) and Woody Williams (0). Not on ballot: Charles Nagy, Esteban Loaiza, John Smiley, Jon Lieber, Kevin Gross, Mark Gubicza, Mike Morgan, Ramon Martinez, Ryan Dempster (87 saves) and Steve Trachsel. Only Dempster and Smoltz with more than 28 saves among the 102. Mazeroski made the Hall of Fame for beating the Yankees and he wasn't even the MVP so I guess include Beckett on the ballot. If Cliff Lee makes a 2nd ballot then Santana needs to appear in a 2020 game. Johan with 9 seasons averaging 5.6 WAR, 150 ERA+ and 198 IP "should" be a credible HoF case, Corey Kluber has 5 years averaging 6.5 WAR, 151 ERA+ and 218 IP. It seems that "only" 50 WAR in "only" 2000 IP are both seen as negatives when 2000 IP is what makes the 50 WAR more impressive or at least rarer.

20 with 100-124 wins: Bob Tewksbury (0), Brad Penny (2020 ballot), Danny Jackson (0), Hideo Nomo (6), Jose Rijo (1 and 0), Shane Reynolds (0), Sid Fernandez (2) and Tom Browning (1) make the ballot. Carl Pavano, Chan Ho Park, Denny Neagle, Jake Westbrook, Ken Hill, Matt Morris, Paul Byrd, Pete Harnisch, Russ Ortiz, Shawn Estes, Vincente Padilla and Wilson Alvarez do not. Rijo has a 7 season run averaging 5.1 pitching WAR, 147 ERA+ and 188 IP but Tim Hudson starts his career with a 7 season run averaging 4.9 WAR, 134 ERA+ and 205 IP and will most likely get little support from voters next year even with a decade averaging 2.2 WAR, 110 ERA+ and 169 IP after that 7 year run. Nomo has 5 years in Japan to start his career but you have to be pretty generous to assume he has Chris Carpenter's career if Nomo starts his career in MLB. Slim case to make the ballot for two pitchers and pretty much no case for the other 18.

17 below 100 wins don't make the ballot and don't have a better HoF case than Juan Guzman 24.5 WAR, 112 ERA+, 6.7 and 5.5 pitching WAR seasons, one career Cy vote (3rd in 1993), his main edge over Ben Sheets is 2 Rings while Ben never made the playoffs. Aaron Cook, Andy Ashby, Atlee Hammaker, Bobby Jones, Eric Milton, Erik Hanson, Gil Meche, James Baldwin, Jason Bere, Joe Saunders, Jose Lima, Mark Redman, Odalis Perez, Rick Reed and Steve Perry are the other 15. Some can make a case they deserve to be on the ballot if Alex Fernandez does but that says more about why Alex shouldn't have been listed.

Fame works: Pettitte, Hershiser, Stewart and Fernando make the 2nd ballot with Gooden the first ballot surprise by fame. Moyer might be the most famous of the rest that have a questionable at best HoF case but being famous for being a mediocre pitcher who hangs around for a long time doesn't really build much of a voting block. Kenny Rogers assaulted a cameraman and David Wells wrote about pitching drunk but those are also not good ways to build a HoF case.

Strict screening does create "it's an honor just being nominated" which doesn't really apply when Roy Oswalt is receiving the same honor as Ted Lilly, Freddy Garcia and Jon Garland. Does Dave Stieb feel any better about receiving 7 votes if only 20 starting pitchers had even been nominated in the last 20 years?
   306. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: December 02, 2019 at 09:27 AM (#5904777)
Why on Earth are you choosing poor Cliff Lee as your token of a bad screening committee? Cliff Lee won a Cy Young award, had one or two other seasons where he was a serious Cy Young candidate (he was top-2 in pitcher WAR three times, for example), was regarded for a time as one of the best pitchers in baseball (and was paid like it - he had three seasons where he was paid $25 million per year). If you want to criticize the screening committee, criticize them for including J.J. Putz and Brad Penny. Excluding players with HOF cases comparable to Cliff Lee's very much shifts the voting process to the selection committee and away from the electorate.

Totally agree with this and all the other comments in defense of having Cliff Lee on the ballot. And while I wouldn't vote for him, Lee has a credible peak-focused HOF case. He was a 6 WAR pitcher from 2008 to 2013 (and was 4th in CYA voting in 2005). He also has about a half-season of excellent postseason pitching (82 IP, 2.52 ERA) in that time. He doesn't have enough career bulk IMO, but there are many worse SPs that have appeared on the ballot.
   307. cookiedabookie Posted: December 02, 2019 at 10:26 AM (#5904798)
I'm confused by Rick Morrissey's ballot. He argues (correctly) for Larry Walker, but doesn't even mention Scott Rolen. To me, those two are pretty equal HoF cases. Both were plus offensively and defensively at their positions, both had a hard time staying healthy, so neither were able to put up the type of career numbers that scream "no-doubter." Given that he only voted for three players, he had room.
   308. Rally Posted: December 02, 2019 at 10:32 AM (#5904800)
Totally agree with this and all the other comments in defense of having Cliff Lee on the ballot.


100%. Lee would not be the worst HOF if he was voted in. I want to see people well below his level make the ballot, not that I would vote for them. I just don't want the screening committee doing any actual selection of the HOF.

If this was a garden the job of the voters is to take the best of the crops and award prizes. The job of the screeners is simply to weed the garden. Just keep the ballot from getting too big by making sure the Juan Castros and Orlando Palmeiros of the world don't make it.
   309. Rally Posted: December 02, 2019 at 10:34 AM (#5904801)
I'm confused by Rick Morrissey's ballot. He argues (correctly) for Larry Walker, but doesn't even mention Scott Rolen.


He'll probably come around to Rolen when Scott is up for his final ballot.
   310. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 02, 2019 at 11:59 AM (#5904819)
I'm confused by Rick Morrissey's ballot. He argues (correctly) for Larry Walker, but doesn't even mention Scott Rolen.


Expanding on Rally's #309, I think for a lot of voters, there comes a level of support where the thought process shifts from "Can I make an affirmative HOF case for this guy?" to "Can I make an argument for keeping this guy out?" And that level of support tends to be right around 50%. There are four returning candidates who broke 50% last year: Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, and Walker. Morrissey voted for the latter two and not the former two, which can be fairly easily explained as an "anti-PED" vote - fair enough. The only new candidate who's at that obvious 50% level is Jeter, and Morrissey voted for him too. My best guess is that Rick Morrissey literally gave no thought at all to Scott Rolen's (or Omar Vizquel's or Todd Helton's or ...) Hall-of-Fame case. (Unless I missed it, the only candidates Morrissey mentioned in his column are the four >50% returnees, Derek Jeter, and Paul Konerko, who got a shout-out because Morrissey writes for the Chicago Sun-Times.)

Note, I'm not DEFENDING this process: it's lazy and insulting to the candidates being ignored. But I think that explains it.
   311. alilisd Posted: December 02, 2019 at 12:26 PM (#5904835)
308: Juan Castro, Orlando Palmeiro, JJ Putz, Jose Valverde, etc.
   312. Rally Posted: December 02, 2019 at 12:57 PM (#5904863)
I don't mind Putz and Valverde being on the ballot. Valverde had almost as many saves as Bruce Sutter. Now he'd be a horrible pick, and Sutter was a bad pick himself, but that is exactly the kind of decision I want the actual voters to be making, not some committee behind the scenes.

IMHO, any time there's a question as to whether or not to include a player, err on the side of inclusion.

As far as Mark Ellis -damn right he should be on the ballot.
   313. cookiedabookie Posted: December 02, 2019 at 01:31 PM (#5904884)
I mentioned earlier, but why not turn the BBWAA into the screening committee? When they send in their HoF ballot, they can also vote on the next year's class. Top twenty vote getters get added to the ballot the following year. That way, you know it's at least guys with support from the voting bloc.
   314. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 02, 2019 at 01:51 PM (#5904889)
I mentioned earlier, but why not turn the BBWAA into the screening committee? When they send in their HoF ballot, they can also vote on the next year's class. Top twenty vote getters get added to the ballot the following year. That way, you know it's at least guys with support from the voting bloc.


I think because you're asking BBWAA voters to do more work than they're willing to do - see my hypothesis in #310 regarding Rick Morrissey's current ballot. The only purpose the screening committee serves is to prevent the ballot from being too large for the electorate. If you think the electorate can handle a ballot that large anyway, you don't need a screening committee. If you don't think the BBWAA can handle a ballot that large, then they're not a particularly good choice for the screening committee.

Honestly, I know it's fun to criticize and come up with new and better ideas, but the screening committee works pretty well as it's currently constructed. If other people are doing the screening, there will always be edge cases where I think Mark Ellis is a better HOF candidate than J.J. Putz but the screening committee goes the other way. The key is to just make sure that those edge cases are all choices between two guys who are in no way remotely HOF candidates. Which, so far, has been the case for the screening committee. If you push the standards of the screening committee up to, say, exclude Cliff Lee, though, then some day they're going to exclude a player that somebody somewhere thinks is a legitimate Hall-of-Famer (and honestly, Cliff Lee is getting very close to that; he's probably a better HOF candidate than, say, Jack Morris and Catfish Hunter and if you're anti-PED user and lukewarm or worse about relief pitchers, then Cliff Lee is the second-best pitcher candidate on this year's ballot).
   315. DanG Posted: December 02, 2019 at 02:07 PM (#5904898)
If this was a garden the job of the voters is to take the best of the crops and award prizes. The job of the screeners is simply to weed the garden. Just keep the ballot from getting too big by making sure the Juan Castros and Orlando Palmeiros of the world don't make it.
The screeners have a high tolerance for weeds. Over the past 16 elections (2004-19) two-thirds (173/259) of all first-year candidates have been one-and-done while drawing less than 1% of the vote. Among those 173 players there were none that I would consider to be a legitimate HOF candidate.
   316. Rally Posted: December 02, 2019 at 02:07 PM (#5904899)
Good points Kiko, agree 100%.

One could probably automate the screening process but it does a reasonable job all things considered.

Maybe something like:
1) Must play at least 10 years
2) Must have either:
A) Been an all star at least once
B) Finished in top 20 for MVP or Cy Young

The latter criteria would catch guys like Salmon and Chavez who never made an all star team. Javier Vazquez was an all star once and got some Cy Young votes once.

I don't know what to do about Ellis. Putting on something for gold gloves won't help him since he never won it. I'd rather not treat ROY votes like MVP/CY, or else we'd automate Jerome Walton onto the ballot. I don't think there's a way to automate it and end up with Ellis on the ballot without either using WAR explicitly, or constructing some extremely specific statistical criteria.

So I guess I can live with Ellis being off, since I probably could not construct a better solution without resulting in who knows how many more questionable on/off outcomes. It comes down to a judgment call. I disagree with the judgment made but I can respect the process.
   317. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 02, 2019 at 02:11 PM (#5904901)
Through 10 ballots, there are 18 votes added for returning players. Early votes aren’t necessarily typical, and there are a few small-Hall ballots already, but voters may be indicating an inclination to use the extra slots freed up by recent elections and what many regard as a weak group of 1st-year eligibles. Could give some hope for those on the cusp if the trend continues.
   318. Baldrick Posted: December 02, 2019 at 02:31 PM (#5904912)
Through 11 ballots, Walker is +4.

I still don't expect it to happen, but he's off to a strong start.
   319. alilisd Posted: December 02, 2019 at 02:34 PM (#5904914)
310: Simultaneously very good and interesting analysis, and quite depressing
   320. Jaack Posted: December 02, 2019 at 02:38 PM (#5904916)
Eh, having the BBWAA do it would make it confusing and is frankly an extra step. As long as their errors of ommission are of the Mark Ellis/Marco Scutaro level, I don't think there is a huge problem.

Just as a fun experiment - I tried to screen next years ballot.

I think this is everyone (I think) who is newly eligible next year:
Jeremy Affeldt
Grant Balfour
Clint Barmes
Rafael Betancourt
Mark Buehrle
AJ Burnett
Bruce Chen
Michael Cuddyer
David DeJesus
Kevin Gregg
Aaron Harang
Dan Haren
Corey Hart
LaTroy Hawkins
Tim Hudson
Torii Hunter
Adam LaRoche
Jason Marquis
Aramis Ramirez
Alex Rios
Wandy Rodriguez
Cody Ross
Skip Schumaker
Grady Sizemore
Rafael Soriano
Nick Swisher
Dan Uggla
Shane Victorino
CJ Wilson
Randy Wolf
Barry Zito 


Apologies to Shaun Marcum, Scott Baker, and Chad Billingsly who didn't make the cut due to seasons missed to injury.

The last 4 ballots have had 18-20 newcomers. Obvious inclusions are Tim Hudson, Mark Buehrle, Torii Hunter, Dan Haren. and Aramis Ramirez. Barry Zito won a Cy Young, so he's in easily as well. Grady Sizemore was a legit star, and I think the 3 All Star appearances will help him. The only other guy with 3 All Star picks on the list is... Dan Uggla.

The Hall of Fame's website also lists Burnett, Cuddyer, LaRoche, Rios, Swisher, and Victorino, so I assume they will make the cut. Corey Hart and CJ Wilson are the only players remaining with multiple All-Star games, so we'll grab them. The Hall tends to like relievers, so I'll grab LaTroy Hawkins, Rafael Soriano, and Grant Balfour, who seem like the best three. That puts us at 19, and no one stands out based on the most surface of measurements.

That makes my list
Grant Balfour
Mark Buehrle
AJ Burnett
Michael Cuddyer
Aaron Harang
Dan Haren
Corey Hart
LaTroy Hawkins
Tim Hudson
Torii Hunter
Adam LaRoche
Aramis Ramirez
Alex Rios
Grady Sizemore
Rafael Soriano
Nick Swisher
Dan Uggla
Shane Victorino
CJ Wilson
Barry Zito 


I feel like Wilson and Balfour are the most likely cuts from the actual screening committee. They seem to have been more demanding from starting pitchers than they should be (see Vazquez, Javier). Balfour was mostly a set up guy who closed at the end - same with Soriano, but Soriano had more name cache and got to 200 saves. Every

I'm leaving off
Jeremy Affeldt
Kevin Gregg
Bruce Chen
Clint Barmes
Aaron Harang
Cody Ross
David DeJesus
Rafael Betancourt
Wandy Rodriguez
Jason Marquis
Skip Schumaker
Randy Wolf 


The names on the cut list that stand out are Randy Wolf and Aaron Harang. They were about the exact same pitcher, so it would be hard to include one an not the other. I could see Skip Schumaker making the ballot because maybe Tony LaRussa is on the screening committee. Cody Ross had a big postseason moment, so he might sneak in as well.
   321. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: December 02, 2019 at 02:39 PM (#5904918)
The screeners have a high tolerance for weeds. Over the past 16 elections (2004-19) two-thirds (173/259) of all first-year candidates have been one-and-done while drawing less than 1% of the vote. Among those 173 players there were none that I would consider to be a legitimate HOF candidate.
I just don't see that, broadly, as an issue. And certainly not something I would want to see addressed by filtering out all but the other third from even getting on the ballot.

The key eligibility requirements are played 10 years, retired for 5. The vast majority of players who meet that criteria should be on the ballot, in my opinion.
   322. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 02, 2019 at 02:47 PM (#5904927)
The screeners have a high tolerance for weeds. Over the past 16 elections (2004-19) two-thirds (173/259) of all first-year candidates have been one-and-done while drawing less than 1% of the vote. Among those 173 players there were none that I would consider to be a legitimate HOF candidate.


Among those you would have summarily dismissed are:

Roy Oswalt
Miguel Tejada
Lance Berkman
Brian Giles
Luis Gonzalez
Kenny Rogers
David Wells
John Olerud
Kevin Appier
Ellis burks
Robin Ventura
Chuck Finley
Bret Saberhagen
Dave Steib

and that's just the 50 WAR guys.


   323. Rennie's Tenet Posted: December 02, 2019 at 02:55 PM (#5904933)
Edit: tried to link last year's tracker, but my phone isn't cooperating.
   324. Rally Posted: December 02, 2019 at 03:06 PM (#5904939)
Sizemore's an interesting case to consider for the extreme peak value voters. He had about 25 WAR for his best 4 seasons, which is about the same as the best 4 consecutive seasons as Mattingly, Parker, and Murphy.

But he has much less outside of that peak than those other guys. Also similar to Charlie Keller, Keller was a better hitter but Grady had more speed and defense. Sizemore was just as good as Carlos Beltran at his best, and they had similar skill sets. The difference is Sizemore only lasted 4 years at that level while Beltran was there for about 15 years.
   325. alilisd Posted: December 02, 2019 at 03:11 PM (#5904943)
312: Not minding if Putz and Valverde (and Bell, Pena, Penny, Figgins, etc.) are on the ballot just feels like saying I don’t care about the process or seeing it improve, which I guess is a valid position as no amount of discussion here, or even directed to the Hall, is going to do any good. I know that’s not what you’re saying, it’s just how I feel about it. I do understand what you’re saying about wanting the electorate to do the screening rather than a committee, that’s a very good point.

Generally I believe the writers have done a good job, all in all, but if there’s one thing I believe they’ve missed the boat on, it’s relief pitchers. The bar has been, if not set far too low, at least not set in any sort of consistent position. As bad as an occasional Baines is, the flow of one inning relievers has the potential to be much worse. Lee Smith is now in via the VC/Era route. To who else will that open the door ? Rivera and Hoffman May give us Wagner. And then who’s next? Including guys like Putz, Valverde and Bell on the ballot only enforces the idea that these marginal players are worthy of voting for. I’m sure my reliever bias is showing, but when a reliever is the guy who breaks the unanimous ballot shutout (and I have no problem with Rivera being in), and writers now having elected seven relievers in just 35 years to just eight 3B in 71 years, I think it’s a problem (but probably not one the Hall is interested in as someone pointed out they’re in the enshrinement business). As a baseball fan and one who loves the HOF though, I see it as a problem
   326. DanG Posted: December 02, 2019 at 03:17 PM (#5904944)
Roy Oswalt
Brian Giles
Luis Gonzalez
Kenny Rogers
David Wells
John Olerud
Kevin Appier
Ellis burks
Chuck Finley
I deleted from your list these players who were not under 1% support: Berkman (1.2%), Tejada(1.2), Ventura(1.3), Saberhagen(1.3), and Stieb(1.4). Among those remaining I see nobody that has any noticeable constituency supporting them for the HOF.
   327. PreservedFish Posted: December 02, 2019 at 03:22 PM (#5904949)
Guys, there's no need for complicated statistical screening criteria. If you put any three of us in a room together it would take about 1 hour to draft a quality mission statement for the new screening guidelines, and then about 20 minutes to properly screen an entire HOF class. This is not a complex issue, it can be perfectly handled by the judgment of one or two learned observers.

There isn't even really a big problem right now, if Mark Ellis' exclusion (or Cliff Lee's inclusion) is the #1 thing to complain about. The only real problem is that the screening criteria is opaque (at least to us).
   328. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 02, 2019 at 03:27 PM (#5904953)
I deleted from your list these players who were not under 1% support: Berkman (1.2%), Tejada(1.2), Ventura(1.3), Saberhagen(1.3), and Stieb(1.4). Among those remaining I see nobody that has any noticeable constituency supporting them for the HOF.


I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. How is that not the ultimate post-hoc analysis? Lance Berkman had 52 WAR, was top 4 MVP times, All Star 5 times, got 5 votes, and was one and done. Teammate Roy Oswald had 50 WAR, was top 5 CYA 5 times, All Star 3 times, got 4 votes on the same ballot, and was one and done.
   329. DanG Posted: December 02, 2019 at 04:06 PM (#5904972)
And yet they're non-starters for the HOF and the HoM. IOW, not legitimate candidates.

Look, the point is not who those 179 players are. You can substitute Sandy Alomar and Tino Martinez and Vinny Castilla and Jim Abbott and Hideo Nomo...weaker guys who were one-and-done with 1% or better. The point is that easily two-thirds of the candidates who get past the screeners are unnecessary to the process of electing players to the HOF. Two-thirds of the candidates are joke candidates, getting a participation trophy.
   330. PreservedFish Posted: December 02, 2019 at 04:18 PM (#5904977)
All of those guys are "joke candidates," except for the guys that aren't, like Bruce Sutter, Omar Vizquel, Jack Morris, Jim Rice and even Lou Brock.

I think #303 is still a good response to all this:

If a 50-win player doesn't belong on the ballot because you don't project him to get very many votes, that's either an argument in favor of anybody with a constituency or for the committee to become the de facto voting body and also bar undeserving players who would nonetheless get lots of votes.
   331. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 02, 2019 at 04:29 PM (#5904981)
All of those guys are "joke candidates," except for the guys that aren't, like Bruce Sutter, Omar Vizquel, Jack Morris, Jim Rice
That's an excellent argument for DanG's position.
   332. Rally Posted: December 02, 2019 at 04:37 PM (#5904983)
If Berkman is the upper limit of guys you don’t want on the ballot, then it sounds like the selection committee should replace the BBWAA and just induct anyone who meets the standards of the ballot.
   333. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 02, 2019 at 04:47 PM (#5904988)
And yet they're non-starters for the HOF and the HoM. IOW, not legitimate candidates.
I don’t see any problem with the decision on who is a legitimate HOFer being made by the HoF voters, a relatively large pool, instead of a small group of so-called experts, who will likely eventually replicate the problems that have plagued the various incarnations of the Veterans Committees. The Screening Committee could tighten it up a bit, but allowing the BBWAA to vote on players with 40 or 50 WAR is not a problem.
   334. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 02, 2019 at 04:49 PM (#5904990)
The point is that easily two-thirds of the candidates who get past the screeners are unnecessary to the process of electing players to the HOF.


But what's the downside? Even if I accept that putting Chone Figgins on the Hall-of-Fame ballot has no positive value, what's the negative value that we're trying to solve by taking him off? Why does it matter that Figgins is on the ballot? He's not getting any votes, so he's obviously not hurting the candidacies of the "real" candidates by squeezing votes away from them. It requires no effort to dismiss his Hall-of-Fame case, so it's not like his presence is taking away valuable time from the voters that could be better spent researching Scott Rolen's case. I don't really get what problem you're trying to solve here.
   335. PreservedFish Posted: December 02, 2019 at 04:49 PM (#5904991)
That's an excellent argument for DanG's position.


What #332 and #303 say. If DanG's "screening committee" eliminates such players, it will become a de facto voting body, and the BBWAA will be reduced to a rubber stamp for the screening committee's decisions.

DanG is arguing that "honoring" Cliff Lee and Lance Berkman is a waste of time. First of all, I still don't see how it's a problem, but whatever, let's set that aside. There's no way to remove Lance Berkman and Cliff Lee without also removing players that are in fact viable candidates, even if statheads and WARvoters aren't happy about it.

DanG's new scheme will either do absolutely nothing, or will profoundly affect the results. He has not yet articulated a version of it where we cease to waste our time with Lee and Berkman but don't actually prevent the BBWAA from debating candidates like Vizquel.
   336. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 02, 2019 at 04:56 PM (#5904993)
DanG is arguing that "honoring" Cliff Lee and Lance Berkman is a waste of time. First of all, I still don't see how it's a problem, but whatever, let's set that aside. There's no way to remove Lance Berkman and Cliff Lee without also removing players that are in fact viable candidates, even if statheads and WARvoters aren't happy about it.


In Hall of Merit elections, when one makes a ballot they have to include "required disclosures" which are the top-10 vote-getters from the previous year's ballot who were not elected. Lance Berkman is a "required disclosure" for the 2020 HOM ballot. He very much has a constituency among Hall of Merit voters. Post 271 is a preliminary HOM ballot with Lance Berkman ranked first. Johan Santana (2.4% in his only HOF ballot) is also a "required disclosure". Jim Edmonds (2.5% in his only HOF ballot) was elected to the HOM in his first year of eligibility.
   337. DanG Posted: December 02, 2019 at 05:25 PM (#5905012)
So maybe Berkman IS a legitimate HOF candidate; a whopping one third of the HoM voters found room for him on their 15-man ballot last year. If the lower 2/3 of BBWAA candidates were omitted, I don't think he should be among them.

But of course, we can't trust the current screening process to make that distinction under a tighter standard. Obviously the process needs reform if they can't even be trusted to include someone like Berkman as a candidate.

I'll get the full explanation up as to how it's harming the HOF election process to include non-candidates. Unfortunately, I don't have the mind of Walt Davis or someone who can dash off a thousand coherent words in a few minutes. In the mean time I refer you again to post #127 for an example of what a proper ballot might look like.
   338. PreservedFish Posted: December 02, 2019 at 05:31 PM (#5905014)
I'll get the full explanation up as to how it's harming the HOF election process to include non-candidates.

Can you give us, like, a preview of this argument?
   339. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 02, 2019 at 05:46 PM (#5905019)
Not related to the BBWAA vote, but Graham Womack on Twitter tweeted the members of the Modern Era Committee that are going to vote this weekend (he didn't provide a source and I didn't see anything on the HOF's website, so it might just be made up, who knows). Six HOF players (Brett, Carew, Eckersley, Murray, Ozzie, and Yount), six executives (Alderson, Dombrowski, Glass, Jocketty, Doug Melvin, and Terry Ryan), and four writers (Bill Center, Steve Hirdt, Jack O'Connell, and Tracy Ringolsby). None of them jump out at me as a Reinsdorf-Baines connection, but I don't know that I know the full resumes of most of the non-players there. The list does include my all-time favorite player, Eddie Murray, so I feel good about that for no particular reason.
   340. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 02, 2019 at 06:12 PM (#5905029)
In Hall of Merit elections, when one makes a ballot they have to include "required disclosures" which are the top-10 vote-getters from the previous year's ballot who were not elected. Lance Berkman is a "required disclosure" for the 2020 HOM ballot.

Forget Berkman. (Don't forget Berkman, actually, he was very good in the regular season and also a stealth monster in the playoffs, and it would be possible to put together a non-absurd rationale for voting for him.) Saberhagen and Stieb are both ALREADY IN THE HOM.

Also, if your standard for "player who should not be on the ballot" is "player who gets less than 1% of the vote," how do you identify those players without putting them on the ballot?
   341. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 02, 2019 at 06:52 PM (#5905037)
DanG is arguing that "honoring" Cliff Lee and Lance Berkman is a waste of time


No. He's arguing that honoring Lee and Oswalt is a waste of time. Berkman would only have been a waste of time had he gotten 4 votes, like Oswalt got, instead of 5.
   342. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 02, 2019 at 07:02 PM (#5905040)
I don’t see any problem with the decision on who is a legitimate HOFer being made by the HoF voters, a relatively large pool, instead of a small group of so-called experts, who will likely eventually replicate the problems that have plagued the various incarnations of the Veterans Committees. The Screening Committee could tighten it up a bit, but allowing the BBWAA to vote on players with 40 or 50 WAR is not a problem.


I have never been in more agreement with YC.
   343. yest Posted: December 02, 2019 at 07:06 PM (#5905042)
Tracy Ringolsby). None of them jump out at me as a Reinsdorf-Baines connection, but I don't know that I know the full resumes of most of the non-players there. The list does include my all-time favorite player, Eddie Murray, so I feel good about that for no particular reason.


What would the ballot of someone who voted against wade boggs and rod carew but voted for Dave Concepcion look like?



http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2004/12/a_hall_of_fame_1.php


he voted for Dale Murphy his final 2 years on the ballot, so Murphy only needs 11 more.
   344. DanG Posted: December 02, 2019 at 07:23 PM (#5905046)
DanG is arguing that "honoring" Cliff Lee and Lance Berkman is a waste of time

No. He's arguing that honoring Lee and Oswalt is a waste of time.
Actually, the point is that being one of the "winners" in the current screening process is no way to HONOR anyone.
   345. DanG Posted: December 02, 2019 at 07:45 PM (#5905051)
if your standard for "player who should not be on the ballot" is "player who gets less than 1% of the vote," how do you identify those players without putting them on the ballot?
I didn't say that. You read someone's misinterpretation of #315 where I simply said
Over the past 16 elections (2004-19) two-thirds (173/259) of all first-year candidates have been one-and-done while drawing less than 1% of the vote. Among those 173 players there were none that I would consider to be a legitimate HOF candidate.
Misirlou then posted a list of some top players who drew under 1% support, which I fixed for accuracy:
Roy Oswalt
Brian Giles
Luis Gonzalez
Kenny Rogers
David Wells
John Olerud
Kevin Appier
Ellis burks
Chuck Finley
This is not a list of "players who should not be on the ballot". Rather, it is an illustration of the caliber of the very best players who might be left off the ballot if the current screening process was mandated to cut out two-thirds of their choices. I agree that most, if not all nine of those guys, rate in the top third and should not be left off the ballot. At the same time, there is nobody there whose omission from the ballot would be egregious.

Now, I certainly don't want to see this screening committee continue unchanged, given the present dismal state of the process. The screening process needs reform, I think we pretty much agree on that. But with just a couple minor tweaks, increasing transparency and accountability, the current process could be much improved.

However, I don't advocate that either. The screening process needs wholesale revamping if it going to be a meaningful part of an improved election process. Stay tuned.
   346. bbmck Posted: December 02, 2019 at 08:22 PM (#5905054)
[320] you missed 19 eligible players:

Jeff Baker
Scott Baker
Joe Beimel
Willie Bloomquist
Alberto Callaspo
Randy Choate
Kevin Correia
Neal Cotts
Chris Denorfia
Jeff Francis
Jason Frasor
Jonny Gomes
Dan Johnson
Reed Johnson
Gerald Laird
David Murphy
Wil Nieves
Tim Stauffer
Delmon Young

Simply making the criteria 10 years and All-Star roster compared to your ballot:

Remove: Aaron Harang, LaTroy Hawkins, Adam LaRoche
Add: Kevin Correia, Jason Marquis, Randy Wolf

Most off a 10 year and All-Star ballot:

Hits: Adam LaRoche 1452, David DeJesus 1434, Delmon Young 1162
HR: Adam LaRoche 255, Josh Hamilton 200, Jonny Gomes 162
K: Aaron Harang 1842, Chad Billingsley 1052, Justin Masterson 1004
SV: LaTroy Hawkins 127, Casey Janssen 90, David Aardsma 69

Using an All-Star selection sets up releasing a preliminary list at the All-Star break and give months for the media and internet to discuss how good Josh Hamilton was and how 10 years is an arbitrary and unnecessary criteria or how the Rockies only reach the World Series because LaTroy Hawkins locks down the 7th inning.

On the flip side you can have commentary on why Kevin Gregg or whoever shouldn't make the ballot to make reaching the ballot more of an honor but it's really unlikely that streamlining the ballot will gain much traction since whether or not Kevin Gregg makes the ballot is not something that will generate much interest.

I think Javier Vazquez and Mark Ellis are eligible for every ballot until they have been retired for 15 years as the only ways to become ineligible are the exempt list and receiving less than 5% of the vote so they should be considered by next year's screening committee or preliminary list but won't.
   347. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: December 02, 2019 at 08:51 PM (#5905061)
I agree that most, if not all nine of those guys, rate in the top third and should not be left off the ballot. At the same time, there is nobody there whose omission from the ballot would be egregious.
To the extent that it's mostly a Who's Who of the Hall of Very Good, it's only "not egregious" in that none of those guys is an obvious or even a likely HoFer.

I object to the idea that the only guys on the ballot should be the slam-dunk HoFers, the pretty-clearly-gonna-make it and a small band around the borderline. Because, 1) earlier years using a similar process would have produced lists of "joke candidates" that we would violently disagree with now; and 2) the presence of the merely excellent doesn't detract from the truly great, in fact it has the potential to honor both groups.
   348. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: December 02, 2019 at 09:24 PM (#5905071)
Or we can just do away with the screening committee entirely and just let anyone who retired in the past 15 years and hasn't been culled by the 5% rule stay on the ballot.

(Even better would be to let the BBWAA elect whomsoever it damn well pleases, but one thing at a time.)
   349. QLE Posted: December 02, 2019 at 10:16 PM (#5905079)
   350. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 02, 2019 at 10:18 PM (#5905080)
Or we can just do away with the screening committee entirely and just let anyone who retired in the past 15 years and hasn't been culled by the 5% rule stay on the ballot.


there was a voter who left Rickey Henderson off his ballot because he said he forgot about him an didn't notice him on the ballot. While I'm not a big fan of giving idiots cover, I don't want to put any obstacles in the way of legit HOFers getting elected. If there were no screening committee, there would be about 50 new players every year. With no screening, this ballot would contain 53 new players. You don't wan't voters missing Larry Walker among Josh Willingham and Jamey Wright.
   351. DanG Posted: December 02, 2019 at 11:32 PM (#5905098)
Can you give us, like, a preview of this argument?
There's a lot to it, it's multi-faceted. And I've dropped bits of it in several posts in this thread. For example, in #289 I wrote
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.
I'll also add this: If you or I or almost anyone here were creating an election system for the HOF, would we pretend to honor non-candidates by listing them on the final ballot? I don't think so. If only the Hall had some other way they could honor people. Wait, they already do.

The Hall already has the Frick, Spink, and Buck O'Neil awards. It would behoove them to continue to bring more people into the HOF circle by creating other awards for categories currently overlooked by the Hall, like authors or coaches. As I mentioned in #297, the HOF made a step towards this in 1946 with the Honor Rolls of Baseball.

So the HOF could create a lower level (or levels) of honored players. Here's an idea I had a couple years ago: The Hall of Fame Spotlight.
   352. bbmck Posted: December 03, 2019 at 12:51 AM (#5905110)
Football has a lower level by their ballot process: https://www.profootballhof.com/heroes-of-the-game/selection-process-faq/

The basic premise applied to the current BBWAA process would be to have 2 votes a year. The 100ish person ballot at the All-Star break where you could even include a fan vote of every 10 year player retired in the appropriate year and any player with "strong enough credentials to give them even a remote chance of eventual Hall of Fame election" who retired the nine years prior to that. Then you honor 25 players and ties by naming them to the official ballot in the fall. The Football HoF only has 48 voters allowing them to reduce 25 to 15 to 10 to 5 and then the final 5 candidates needing 80% or 39 of 48 votes. In would be very tedious to replicate those stages with the much larger voting pool for the Baseball HoF.

With a limit of 10 spots and without an intermediate step only 24 players received votes last year so likely it would require even the Derek Jeter stands alone voters to pick 15 players at the intermediate step even if they wouldn't pick 14 of those on their fall ballot. The fan ballot results especially for Bonds and Clemens would be very interesting. Using the current standard of 10 years of eligibility, the 2002 initial ballot after Lou Whitaker is one and done:

Descending position player WAR: Ozzie Smith, Lou Whitaker, Alan Trammell, Gary Carter, Graig Nettles, Dwight Evans, Buddy Bell, Willie Randolph, Andre Dawson, Keith Hernandez, Darrell Evans, Chet Lemon, Jose Cruz, Ron Cey, Jack Clark, Brian Downing, Ted Simmons, Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Dale Murphy, Willie Wilson, Lenny Dykstra, Don Mattingly, Davey Lopes, Doug DeCinces, Andy Van Slyke, Darrell Porter, Jim Sundberg, Carney Lansford, Dave Parker, Dave Concepcion, Lance Parrish, Jesse Barfield, Kent Hrbek, Tim Wallach, Lonnie Smith, Kirk Gibson, Bill Madlock, Steve Garvey, Cecil Cooper

Descending pitching WAR: Bert Blyleven, Rick Reuschel, Tommy John, Frank Tanana, Ron Guidry, Frank Viola, Jack Morris, Bob Welch, Rich Gossage, John Candelaria, Charlie Hough, Doyle Alexander

Then everyone with 10 years not already named who retired in 1996 and potentially some relivers like Tom Henke and Dave Righetti, Dave Stewart would have in theory still gotten 7.4% the previous ballot and whoever else to reach 100ish names.

Ted Simmons is potentially honored by being picked for the final ballot in 5 of his 10 years of eligibility even if he falls short of 5% of the final vote each time. And the flip side instead of feeling like you were some large oversight in a single vote, some players could fail to make the final 25 every year and be even more clearly rejected by the voting process.
   353. yest Posted: December 03, 2019 at 04:53 AM (#5905120)
#339- FWIW, this article confirms everyone on that list but Yount



https://baseballhall.org/news/modern-baseball-era-committee-meets-december-8
   354. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 03, 2019 at 08:16 AM (#5905126)
What I notice about the committee membership is that it has a heavy AL tilt among players. I would expect that to help Evans, TJ, Mattingly, Munson, and Whitaker. I expect it to hinder Simmons who wasn’t all that good in the AL. I suspect that the most likely outcome is no honorees, but Whitaker has the deck if not stacked in his favor, subtly slanted toward him. But that’s just what I’m seeing.
   355. yest Posted: December 03, 2019 at 09:52 AM (#5905147)
L. I suspect that the most likely outcome is no honorees, but Whitaker has the deck if not stacked in his favor, subtly slanted toward him. But that’s just what I’m seeing.


If I was robin young seeing Whitaker might not be a good thing (at least offensively) he really stunk when playing in Milwaukee hitting 225/306/297

Compare Dwight evans in Milwaukee 272/373/388
   356. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 03, 2019 at 10:03 AM (#5905151)
What I notice about the committee membership is that it has a heavy AL tilt among players. I would expect that to help Evans, TJ, Mattingly, Munson, and Whitaker. I expect it to hinder Simmons who wasn’t all that good in the AL. I suspect that the most likely outcome is no honorees, but Whitaker has the deck if not stacked in his favor, subtly slanted toward him. But that’s just what I’m seeing.


Assuming Robin Yount is on the committee (see 353), I think Simmons (Yount) and Evans (Eckersley) are the only two candidates who have a former teammate on the committee, for what that's worth. My understanding is that the committee meets in person before voting and they've elected two each of the last two years. So, I suspect they'll try to reach consensus around one or two (or three?) candidates and somebody will be elected. Not sure who - I'd have guessed Simmons and Whitaker before the committee was named; maybe Evans has a shot if Eck goes to bat for him (I, of course, have no idea what the relationship of these two guys was).
   357. PreservedFish Posted: December 03, 2019 at 10:09 AM (#5905155)
I'll also add this: If you or I or almost anyone here were creating an election system for the HOF, would we pretend to honor non-candidates by listing them on the final ballot? I don't think so. If only the Hall had some other way they could honor people. Wait, they already do.


The primary intent of the large ballot is not to honor players, so this is a strange aspect of the process to fixate on.
   358. yest Posted: December 03, 2019 at 10:11 AM (#5905157)
Assuming Robin Yount is on the committee (see 353), I think Simmons (Yount) and Evans (Eckersley) are the only two candidates who have a former teammate on the committee

Dave has Parker was teammates with both of them at the end of his career
   359. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 03, 2019 at 10:44 AM (#5905171)
Dave Parker was teammates with both of them at the end of his career


Ah, yes. I always forget the details of Dave Parker's foray into the AL in his later years. I'm not sure how much that would help him, though; his Hall-of-Fame case rests entirely on his Pirates years.
   360. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 03, 2019 at 11:15 AM (#5905185)
maybe Evans has a shot if Eck goes to bat for him (I, of course, have no idea what the relationship of these two guys was).
"Well, he's not Rick Manning" is probably a pretty good start.
   361. yest Posted: December 03, 2019 at 11:22 AM (#5905190)
Ah, yes. I always forget the details of Dave Parker's foray into the AL in his later years. I'm not sure how much that would help him, though; his Hall-of-Fame case rests entirely on his Pirates years.


friendship got Baines in the hall
   362. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 03, 2019 at 04:44 PM (#5905357)
Now at 12 votes - Adam Rubin the latest with Jeter and 7 holdovers, no adds or drops. Bonds, Clemens, Schilling & Walker all with 9 votes, or exactly 75%. Not that many adds, except for Schilling (+2) & Walker (+4), so it’s mostly a function of who voted early, although I don’t recall previously seeing any of those guys above the threshold after the first few days.
   363. bachslunch Posted: December 04, 2019 at 07:46 AM (#5905446)
There are 12 ballots up, and one interesting thing so far is that many voters have added players who have been on the ballot before. Specifically for adds and drops:

Bonds: 1+, 1-
Clemens: 1-
Helton: 3+, 2-
Kent: 2+
Manny: 2+, 1-
Pettitte: 1-
Rolen: 1+
Schilling: 3+, 1-
Sheffield: 2+, 1-
Vizquel: 1-
Wagner: 2+
Walker: 4+

Most of the drops come from Rieber's idiot ballot. The Sheffield drop and one of the Helton drops came on 10-vote ballots where other players were added instead.
   364. bachslunch Posted: December 04, 2019 at 07:52 AM (#5905447)
What I noticed about the Vets Committee membership is this:

"major league executives Sandy Alderson, Dave Dombrowski, David Glass, Walt Jocketty, Doug Melvin and Terry Ryan"

Six execs on a 16 man committee, which suggests the deck is yet again stacked against Marvin Miller. As long as there are so many such folks voting, I don't think he has a prayer.
   365. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 04, 2019 at 10:58 AM (#5905501)
Jay Dunn of the Trentonian wrote an article noting that he lost his vote this year. I linked the article because it's kind of a classic of the "old-man-screams-at-clouds" genre. Of relevance, according to Ryan Thibodeaux on Twitter, Dunn did NOT vote for Bonds, Clemens, or Walker last year. So, while not as good as a voter changing from "No" to "Yes" this is slightly good news for each of their chances.
   366. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 04, 2019 at 12:32 PM (#5905574)
Jay Dunn of the Trentonian wrote an article noting that he lost his vote this year. I linked the article because it's kind of a classic of the "old-man-screams-at-clouds" genre.


Dunn reads like a parody of an out of touch writer, aghast that his eyes are no longer being trusted to be the sole arbiter on what makes a good player. By his own admission, he gets a book on fielding metrics and immediately disregards it the first time it challenges one of his preconceived ideas, and falls back on the "anyone who actually knew anything about baseball" trope.

The process is better off without Dunn, not because his opinions differ, but because he clearly can't approach differing opinions in good faith, and refuses to attempt to learn more.
   367. Rusty Priske Posted: December 04, 2019 at 01:10 PM (#5905600)
FTA

If I’m not qualified to vote for the Hall of Fame now, then I never was.


The truth hurts, Jay.

Based on you claiming that Derek Jeter was great defensively, and your refusal to look at the evidence to the contrary, No. You shouldn't have been voting.
   368. Rusty Priske Posted: December 04, 2019 at 01:13 PM (#5905602)
Stop the ballots!

If we stop now Jeter, Bonds, Clemens, Walker, and Schilling are all in.

I can live without the last one (though I would vote for him), but the first four would right a lot of wrong with the Hall.
   369. gabrielthursday Posted: December 04, 2019 at 01:50 PM (#5905613)
@363

The significant number of adds and drops so far may well be a bit of an artefact of the kinds of writers who release their ballots early.

I think one encouraging thing is that Walker has been added on four of the seven ballots that didn't have him last year - and two of the ones he wasn't on just had Jeter. So 4 of 5 adds when voting >1.
   370. gabrielthursday Posted: December 04, 2019 at 07:26 PM (#5905734)
More on Walker:

Thibodeaux lists six voters having left this mortal frame this past year, and four having lost their vote. Of those ten, two didn't have public ballots last year, and of the rest, only three of the eight had Walker on their ballots. Walker only polled 28% from private voters, so it seems likely he wasn't on either of the two private ballots, but let's say he was on one: that means he lost 4 votes, and 6 non-votes. Removing those ballots only nudges Walker marginally higher: he would have polled 54.94% rather than 54.59%. Nevertheless, it's about the equivalent of 1.5 flipped votes from returning voters.

Walker has gained votes on 4 revealed ballots and both partial ballots. That's 6 of 9 opportunities. 2 of those misses were on ballots naming just Jeter, and we shouldn't expect many such ballots. He has to convert a little less than half his non-voters last year to get elected.

I think it's been pointed out that Walker hasn't performed well on new voters - which is broadly true: he only got 6 of 10 last year, and only 11 of 39 from 2016-2018. But that 11 of 39 number is misleading: 34 of those voters had public ballots last year, and Walker was on 29 of them, an 85% rate (and one of the 5 non-voters added him this year). Taking that into account, Walker seems poised to do well on new ballots.

All in all, I think Walker is looking about as good as it's possible to look for a guy who needs a 20.4% jump to get elected.



   371. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 04, 2019 at 07:49 PM (#5905737)
Stop the ballots!

If we stop now Jeter, Bonds, Clemens, Walker, and Schilling are all in.


Bonds is a net 0 from last year so far. Clemens is a net -1, thanks to 2 ######## voting for Jeter only. So, not good news.
   372. Ryan Thibs Posted: December 04, 2019 at 08:08 PM (#5905742)
All in all, I think Walker is looking about as good as it's possible to look...


Agree.
Page 4 of 4 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4

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
Harry Balsagne
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - November* 2019 College Football thread
(541 - 6:37pm, Dec 07)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogNumbers Suggest Mike Trout's Best Days Are Already Behind Him
(15 - 6:28pm, Dec 07)
Last: Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K

NewsblogNationals Owner Says Team Cant Afford Stephen Strasburg and Anthony Rendon
(13 - 6:24pm, Dec 07)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread, Start of the 2019-2020 Season
(1361 - 6:17pm, Dec 07)
Last: rr: calming the thread down with my arms

NewsblogCaptain Obvious
(45 - 5:47pm, Dec 07)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogThe Hall of Fame may have a Harold Baines problem
(98 - 5:41pm, Dec 07)
Last: .

NewsblogThe Hall of Fame Case for Ted Simmons
(4 - 4:47pm, Dec 07)
Last: cookiedabookie

NewsblogOT- Soccer Thread- October 2019
(812 - 4:41pm, Dec 07)
Last: frannyzoo

Hall of Merit2020 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(323 - 4:26pm, Dec 07)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

NewsblogAn honest look at the Pirates’ frugal free-agent history under Bob Nutting – The Athletic
(8 - 4:22pm, Dec 07)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogThe Hall of Fame Case for Don Mattingly
(78 - 4:10pm, Dec 07)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogWhat we know about the Angels' deal with Anaheim - Los Angeles Times
(8 - 11:34am, Dec 07)
Last: eric

NewsblogThe Hall of Fame Case for Thurman Munson
(2 - 9:53am, Dec 07)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogThe Life & Death of Jim Devlin, Baseball's Original Cheat
(2 - 9:19am, Dec 07)
Last: Jose Canusee

Hall of MeritMock Hall of Fame Ballot 2020
(33 - 7:25am, Dec 07)
Last: kcgard2

Page rendered in 0.7021 seconds
46 querie(s) executed