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 5 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   401. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2019 at 10:46 AM (#5908061)
I call Thibs on bumping
   402. cookiedabookie Posted: December 12, 2019 at 11:09 AM (#5908071)
Federal law, yes. Policy, no.

Fay Vincent made it policy in 1991. You can argue that it wasn't in the MLBPA/MLB contract, but that is irrelevant to the fact that it was policy. Had it been enforced, maybe the players grieve it, or maybe they don't want to look like their protecting/supporting steroid use.
   403. Booey Posted: December 12, 2019 at 11:13 AM (#5908074)
#402 - That early league policy didn't differentiate PED's from marijuana or any other recreational drug.
   404. SoSH U at work Posted: December 12, 2019 at 11:20 AM (#5908081)
You can argue that it wasn't in the MLBPA/MLB contract, but that is irrelevant to the fact that it was policy.


A policy that is not collectively bargained, has no enforcement mechanism, any penalties, or anything else is just a suggestion. And the players, obviously, treated it with exactly as much weight as it warranted.
   405. cookiedabookie Posted: December 12, 2019 at 11:26 AM (#5908088)
A policy that is not collectively bargained, has no enforcement mechanism, any penalties, or anything else is just a suggestion.


It had penalties, and was enforced by the commissioner's office. Again, not everything has to be in a collectively bargained contract. If a union deems it a violation of the contract in some way, they can grieve it. And again, I'm not sure that the MLBPA would've wanted to look like they supported their members breaking federal law, and "cheating"

For reference, here's Vincent's memo:

"Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game…

This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."
   406. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 12, 2019 at 11:31 AM (#5908093)

If you believe WAR, Sheffield has all of ~3 more career WAR than Sosa. Sosa has the best single season between the two of them, they are pretty similar in their 2nd through 11th best seasons, and then Sheffield benefits from a few additional average-ish seasons that put him over Sosa in career value. PEDs aside, it's not obvious to me that Sheff has a better career or case than Sosa.
   407. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 12, 2019 at 11:33 AM (#5908097)

Has any player made the "I didn't know it was against the rules" defense?
   408. SoSH U at work Posted: December 12, 2019 at 11:39 AM (#5908103)

It had penalties, and was enforced by the commissioner's office.


Who was penalized for PED use between the release of the Fay memo and when the formal policy went into effect?

   409. bachslunch Posted: December 12, 2019 at 11:45 AM (#5908110)
"Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game…"

I dunno. The "penalties" seem vague and pretty much subject to the whims of the commissioner. I'm also unsure if it was ever applied to a major league player in actual practice. Appears meaningless to me, but YMMV.
   410. cookiedabookie Posted: December 12, 2019 at 01:50 PM (#5908191)
Who was penalized for PED use between the release of the Fay memo and when the formal policy went into effect?

Just because it wasn't used doesn't mean it couldn't have been used. Steve Howe was booted from the game for drugs. If someone was caught in the same way with steroids at the time, I have to assume they would've been dealt with in a similar manner.
   411. alilisd Posted: December 12, 2019 at 02:51 PM (#5908234)
609 HR in his career, and three seasons over 60


Not a good enough reason. This is a career award. Not a 'few good seasons' award.


He has more than a few good seasons. I'm not a huge proponent of Sosa, but as a young player he was a good defender with speed and some pop. He had two 30-30 HR-SB seasons sandwiching a 20-20 season from ages 24-26, while playing excellent defense. From 25-27 he had seasons of 4, 4, 5, and 5 WAR. Then during his peak he's crushing HR all over the place and has an OPS+ of 162 from 1998-2003, that's 6 seasons and 4,105 PA's of hitting like a HOF. From 29-33 he averaged 6.6 WAR with a low of 4.8 and a high of 10.3. From 24-33, a nice 10 year prime, he put up 54 WAR. He's a cromulent HOF candidate if you don't discount for PED's
   412. Rally Posted: December 12, 2019 at 03:09 PM (#5908243)
609 homers seems to meet the career requirement. Sammy is not Roger Maris.

If you don't vote for Sammy it's an anti-PED stance, right or wrong.

I usually did not have Sammy on my fake ballot, just because I could find 10 more qualified players in the recent crazy stacked ballots, but had the 10 player restriction been removed I certainly would have.
   413. Rusty Priske Posted: December 12, 2019 at 03:42 PM (#5908260)
If you don't vote for Sammy it's an anti-PED stance, right or wrong.


Absolutely not. Sosa is all peak. His career as a whole is just not that impressive. A bunch of home runs, as home run totals were skyrocketing, is not enough.

I just checked the sheet and I see that as of now, Clemens and Bonds have fallen off, unfortunately. We are currently at Jeter and Walker only (which is better than Jeter only).
   414. Booey Posted: December 12, 2019 at 03:53 PM (#5908266)
#413 - Sosa is more of a prime case than pure peak. He put up 36 WAA in 11 years from 1993-2003 (and that's with 2 strike shortened seasons). And 59 WAR isn't an embarrassingly low career total for a HOFer.

Honestly, campaigning against Sosa's case for anything other than (assumed) PED reasons seems weird to me. Even if he didn't put up historic peak numbers (which he did) or crack the top 10 all time in homers (which he did), his value is already right in line with lots of HOFers that most people don't consider a mistake.
   415. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 12, 2019 at 04:41 PM (#5908295)
Right, Sosa's career value is on the borderline -- plus he had a good peak/prime and was an immensely famous, fun and popular player (until the PED stuff). With those other things his career value is sufficient IMO. Similar to Vlad.
   416. alilisd Posted: December 12, 2019 at 05:10 PM (#5908303)
Agree with 414. 54 WAR across a 10 year prime is not a peak only candidate, although he does have a nice peak to go along with his prime. And then, if you’re not anti PED, he has all kinds of narrative factors going for him
   417. bachslunch Posted: December 12, 2019 at 05:32 PM (#5908311)
@410: It’s not clear to me how one can assume a player using steroids would have been booted from the game if caught.

In Michigan, there apparently has been a law on the books since 1931 that criminalizes adultery, with those caught subject to punishment of up to four years in prison and a $5000 fine. Wonder when that last happened? Or are Michigan residents uniformly faithful to their spouses?
   418. DanG Posted: December 12, 2019 at 06:06 PM (#5908322)
Or are Michigan residents uniformly faithful to their spouses
Come to Michigan and seek for her pleasant peninsulas!

Well, take a Michi-gander at her!

I say this as a lifelong resident of the state.
   419. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: December 12, 2019 at 07:34 PM (#5908334)
If you don't vote for Sammy it's an anti-PED stance, right or wrong.

Apart from 2001, his reputation for having a big peak is entirely unjustified, and outside that his case rests on the idea that a tools goof with bad instincts was actually a brilliant defender for several years. Couldn't give a #### about steroids, and I'd no more vote for Sosa than Norm Cash.
   420. Booey Posted: December 12, 2019 at 08:06 PM (#5908339)
#419 - Would you vote for Stargell? McCovey? Killebrew? Billy Williams? Winfield? Dawson? Vlad? Ortiz?

These are the types of sluggers that are comparable to Sosa, IMO. And Sammy has more narrative/historical relevance than most of them.
   421. Booey Posted: December 12, 2019 at 08:17 PM (#5908341)
Sosa's peak is historic, not necessarily historically great (though it is very good). He didn't just top Maris's record of 61, he AVERAGED 61 homers over a 4 year span (and 149 rbi), and 58 over a 5 year span. His 292 HR from 1998-2002 is the biggest 5 year HR binge in history. He owns 3 of the top 6 single season totals. He also averaged 405 total bases from 1998-2001 and his 425 in 2001 is the highest since 1948. Sillyball era or not, peak Sosa looked like a video game.

For a guy who wouldn't be a bad choice value wise even if he hadn't done any of the above, a guy who DID do all of it seems like a no brainer to me (PED suspicions aside).
   422. Rally Posted: December 12, 2019 at 08:42 PM (#5908345)
My favorite Sammy fact: hit 60+ homers 3 times in a 5 year span but did not lead the league any of those years. But the 2 years he hit “only” 49 or 50, he leads the league.
   423. Booey Posted: December 12, 2019 at 10:30 PM (#5908360)
Yeah. Sosa's 1998, 1999, and 2001 HR totals would have led the league in every season in MLB history...except for the 3 years he actually hit them in.
   424. John DiFool2 Posted: December 12, 2019 at 10:43 PM (#5908364)
...and was an immensely famous, fun and popular player (until the PED stuff).


Has any player seen his public image inexplicably take such a nosedive in such a short time? I mean, he went from top of the world, toast of Chicago to pariah there and pretty much everywhere else within like 2-3 years. Yeah, Garvey & Rose & a few others sure (but they were never really in the Ernie Banks/Cal Ripken style popularity pantheon in the first place), but outside of the allegations he didn't seem to do anything personally to piss people off (like Bonds and Schilling have done). But everyone just turned on his ass. Contrast that with how Papi has been treated, where the only PED stuff they have on them came off of the same leaked 2003 list.
   425. SoSH U at work Posted: December 12, 2019 at 11:07 PM (#5908369)
Yeah, Garvey & Rose & a few others sure (but they were never really in the Ernie Banks/Cal Ripken style popularity pantheon in the first place)


I think Garvey and Rose were very much in the Ripken category in terms of popularity (Banks predates me). I would venture they were, with Reggie, 1 2 and 3 in popularity in the 1970s.

but outside of the allegations he didn't seem to do anything personally to piss people off (like Bonds and Schilling have done).


The end in Chicago was not pretty. The local sheen was definitely off by the end of 2004 (the corked bat, the boom box mess, the collapse).
   426. Booey Posted: December 12, 2019 at 11:15 PM (#5908371)
#424 - Sosa's popularity nosedive wasn't ENTIRELY due to the PED suspicions. He also had the corked bat incident and his ugly exit from the Cubs. And now he's a meme for his post retirement, um...changes...to his appearance.

Edit: coke to SoSh
   427. PreservedFish Posted: December 12, 2019 at 11:25 PM (#5908373)
There was an inverse proportion between Sosa's figurative sheen and his literal sheen.
   428. Baldrick Posted: December 13, 2019 at 12:53 AM (#5908377)
Would you vote for Stargell? McCovey? Killebrew? Billy Williams? Winfield? Dawson? Vlad? Ortiz?

This list contains a bunch of marginal HOF candidates. Some probably deserve to go in. Maybe even all do, if you're a big hall person. It's hardly a compelling argument for "If you don't vote for Sammy it's an anti-PED stance."
   429. Howie Menckel Posted: December 13, 2019 at 01:05 AM (#5908381)
the first 7 of those are in the Hall of Merit.

Sosa is not, even though PEDs are not part of that voting equation.

he finished 12th in last year's voting (this year vote coming soon).

re modern OFs, he is behind unelected Kenny Lofton (6th), Andruw Jones (7th) but ahead of Bobby Bonds (20th).

top 12 holdovers:
Tiant
Helton
Lofton
AJones
BTaylor
Kent
Santana
Schang
SOSA
Berkman
Munson
Rizzuto

   430. QLE Posted: December 13, 2019 at 01:26 AM (#5908382)
This list contains a bunch of marginal HOF candidates. Some probably deserve to go in. Maybe even all do, if you're a big hall person. It's hardly a compelling argument for "If you don't vote for Sammy it's an anti-PED stance."


Quite- of these candidates, there are four who I think clearly belong in, one who is balancing on the borderline, two who I'm on the fence on due to questions involving either in-season durability or the accuracy of their defensive calculations, and one who I'm tempted to regard as being about as deserving as Cepeda or Perez, and I have methods of calculating this matter that would be more favorable to this group than others would have.

As for Sosa, I'm inclined to support his HOF case- but I wouldn't have had him on either of my hypothetical ballots the last two years due to stronger other candidates, and those who either use different approaches (more career-oriented) or who appraise other players differently are likely to have him lower than I do.
   431. Rennie's Tenet Posted: December 13, 2019 at 07:23 AM (#5908390)
Per last year's thread, there were 37 ballots on December 13. This year, just 23.

Happy Friday the 13th!
   432. SoSH U at work Posted: December 13, 2019 at 08:25 AM (#5908396)
If you're talking about whether you'd put Sammy in on a given ballot, then obviously it doesn't have to be PED related. But it seems like the argument being made was that he wasn't a worthy candidate at all, and that seems like a stretch to me. If you think his career isn't quite good enough, then it seems like you're just using that WAR as measuring stick thing that Sugar keeps insisting everyone does. Because he's obviously close enough strictly on the career merits, but he got there in the most Hall of Famey way (both in terms of value accrued by peak/prime performance over mere compiling and with the extras that Hall voters have historically loved - the chase, the MVP, the status within the game).
   433. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 13, 2019 at 10:39 AM (#5908426)
Sosa had 10 fewer rBat than Albert Belle in more than 3,000 extra PAs. His OPS+ is tied for 197th of all-time and worse than John Olerud's. Here were his league-wide slugging percentage ranks during his prime everyone is raving about.

1998: 3rd
1999: 4th
2000: 9th
2001: 2nd
2002: 9th

He was a massively overrated hitter, even in his prime. If you want to argue that his defensive numbers for that short stretch give him enough overall value, sure, or that there's something extra special about the way he captivated baseball because of the HRs, I guess so. But the idea that the only way to argue against him is to take a PED stance is ridiculous.
   434. cookiedabookie Posted: December 13, 2019 at 10:54 AM (#5908439)
Here were his league-wide slugging percentage ranks during his prime everyone is raving about.

1998: 3rd
1999: 4th
2000: 9th
2001: 2nd
2002: 9th


That seems to be an argument in his favor? Or must he have been first in order for him not to be overrated? Because that's a bar very few would reach
   435. Booey Posted: December 13, 2019 at 10:55 AM (#5908440)
#428/430 - Well, then your PHOF standards are quite a bit higher than the real ones. With the standards the actual hall has established over the years, most those guys were easy choices, and few here or elsewhere seem to disagree with their inductions. The majority or voters - even amongst the SABR crowd - don't seem to think that HOFers should be determined ENTIRELY by a computer generated number.
   436. Booey Posted: December 13, 2019 at 11:03 AM (#5908443)
#434 - Exactly. He was AMONGST the best hitters in the game during his peak. No one said he was THE best. Being amongst the best at your peak, plus putting up borderline HOF career value, plus putting up HOF looking career totals (9th all time in HR), plus being one of the players that defined your era with historical achievements, should all add up to an easy selection (sans PEDs). Otherwise we're completely redefining what the HOF has always been. Seems that some here are arguing more about the HoM.
   437. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 13, 2019 at 11:18 AM (#5908449)

If you're talking about whether you'd put Sammy in on a given ballot, then obviously it doesn't have to be PED related. But it seems like the argument being made was that he wasn't a worthy candidate at all, and that seems like a stretch to me. If you think his career isn't quite good enough, then it seems like you're just using that WAR as measuring stick thing that Sugar keeps insisting everyone does. Because he's obviously close enough strictly on the career merits, but he got there in the most Hall of Famey way (both in terms of value accrued by peak/prime performance over mere compiling and with the extras that Hall voters have historically loved - the chase, the MVP, the status within the game).


Totally agree. If Vlad is a HoF'er then Sosa most definitely is.
   438. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 13, 2019 at 11:40 AM (#5908470)

Apart from 2001, his reputation for having a big peak is entirely unjustified, and outside that his case rests on the idea that a tools goof with bad instincts was actually a brilliant defender for several years. Couldn't give a #### about steroids, and I'd no more vote for Sosa than Norm Cash.


So basically you don't believe the defensive numbers. Fair enough -- if you think he was just an average defender, then he really is borderline at best in terms of value.

In terms of the HOM, Sosa was #6 last year but dropped to #12 this year. Not sure of the reason for the drop.
   439. DL from MN Posted: December 13, 2019 at 12:33 PM (#5908499)
I have no problem with Sosa making the Hall of Fame. I have at least 30 players I like better though including 15 players from his era on the ballot and another 5 who didn't get 5% support and dropped off.
   440. Booey Posted: December 13, 2019 at 12:44 PM (#5908503)
#439 - Curious who those 20 players from his era are. I'll bet I agree with half of them.
   441. jmurph Posted: December 13, 2019 at 02:08 PM (#5908526)
In terms of the HOM, Sosa was #6 last year but dropped to #12 this year. Not sure of the reason for the drop.

He also wasn't even close in the recently completed BBTF Mock HOF vote, getting only 43% of the vote.
   442. cookiedabookie Posted: December 13, 2019 at 02:25 PM (#5908533)
He also wasn't even close in the recently completed BBTF Mock HOF vote, getting only 43% of the vote.

I do think that's a matter of the ballot being limited to ten. With an unlimited vote, I'd vote for him
   443. RJ in TO Posted: December 13, 2019 at 02:31 PM (#5908536)
In terms of the HOM, Sosa was #6 last year but dropped to #12 this year. Not sure of the reason for the drop.
There's all of 27 voters, and that drop from #6 to #12 was from 238 points (out of 720) to 148 points (out of 648). With a group that small, that drop is really just noise.
   444. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 13, 2019 at 02:49 PM (#5908542)
I do think that's a matter of the ballot being limited to ten. With an unlimited vote, I'd vote for him


I was just going to post that. 6 players got 90% of the vote. There were 7 other players who got between 19% and 76%, and vast majority of people could vote for only 4 of them. I did vote for him, but it would not be in anyway relflective of Sosa's worthiness if they chose Jones or Kent instead, both of whom I had to pass on.

If the ballot were limited to those not already inducted by this group, 5 of the top 6 vote getters would be gone.
   445. jmurph Posted: December 13, 2019 at 02:50 PM (#5908543)
I do think that's a matter of the ballot being limited to ten. With an unlimited vote, I'd vote for him

Doesn't seem like that was the main cause, he only got 18 votes from 42 overall voters. And with 393 votes from 42 voters, the average ballot was short of being maxed out.

(Of course RJ's point about the HoM is also relevant here, 42 isn't a giant pool of voters.)
   446. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 13, 2019 at 02:51 PM (#5908544)
There's all of 27 voters . . .
Last time I checked a Hall of Merit vote a few years back, there were only 35 voters. I realize that some people put a lot of effort into their Hall of Merit posts, but it’s not like the Hall of Fame and Hall of Merit are 1A & 1B. One is the real deal. How a player is regarded by a handful of people on a fairly obscure corner of the Internet isn’t really relevant to anyone’s Hall of Fame case.
   447. alilisd Posted: December 13, 2019 at 03:00 PM (#5908549)
Apart from 2001, his reputation for having a big peak is entirely unjustified,


I don't believe anyone has said he had "a big peak." Some have pointed out that he does have enough peak, and then a prime to go with it to be a viable candidate from a more Sabre/Value perspective, as well as being a clear old school numbers and narrative candidate. Really haven't seen anyone arguing his peak is overwhelming though. Still, it is a solid 5 year peak averaging over 6 WAR per season, and great old school numbers to boot. Looks pretty darn solid.

Would you vote for Stargell? McCovey? Killebrew? Billy Williams? Winfield? Dawson? Vlad? Ortiz?

This list contains a bunch of marginal HOF candidates.


This seems odd to me. Stargell is not marginal. McCovey is not marginal. Killebrew, Williams, Winfield, Dawson, and Guerrero are not marginal either, at least not to my mind. How do you see them as marginal? Ortiz will engender some argument, I suppose, because of being a DH, but he has a lot going for him, too.

I think Booey summed it up nicely, "Well, then your PHOF standards are quite a bit higher than the real ones. With the standards the actual hall has established over the years, most those guys were easy choices..."

He was a massively overrated hitter, even in his prime.


I don't get this. Are you saying he was massively overrated because of his HR? He was absolutely one of the best hitters in the game from 1998-2003 average of 154 G, 684 PA's, with a 162 OPS+. For players with 3,000 PA's during those seasons he's 4th behind Bonds, Ramirez-167, and Giambi-165, so by a pretty slim margin for the latter two, and by Rbat he's 3rd by a tick with 313 to Ramirez's 303. If you drop it down to just 2,000 PA's, McGwire comes in 2nd for OPS+, but has over 100 fewer Rbat, and Pujols also has an OPS+ of 165, but again over 100 fewer Rbat. Just behind are a peak Jim Thome, and Sheffield, also in his age 29-34 seasons just like Sosa.
   448. alilisd Posted: December 13, 2019 at 03:03 PM (#5908550)
My favorite Sammy fact: hit 60+ homers 3 times in a 5 year span but did not lead the league any of those years. But the 2 years he hit “only” 49 or 50, he leads the league.


I'd say that's mine, too. Such a fun baseball factoid!
   449. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 13, 2019 at 03:09 PM (#5908551)
Doesn't seem like that was the main cause, he only got 18 votes from 42 overall voters. And with 393 votes from 42 voters, the average ballot was short of being maxed out.


It certainly does. You don't have to speculate, since all the votes are public. I just went through the voting thread, and Sosa failed to appear on 17 ballots that were maxed out, and only 7 which were not. 5 said they would have included Sosa if there were no limit. Just giving him those 5 puts him at 55%. Thus he would need 9 of the remaining 12 to get elected.
   450. alilisd Posted: December 13, 2019 at 03:14 PM (#5908553)
He also wasn't even close in the recently completed BBTF Mock HOF vote, getting only 43% of the vote.


Well that's because 5 of the 7 guys who were "elected" this year wouldn't have been on an actual ballot because they were already elected on prior mock ballots. Ramirez was only elected this year for the 1st time. Also, Sosa actually is close in this scenario, even with all of those holdovers, as he received 18 votes while only needing 32 for election, and 4 people mentioned they'd vote for him if not for a 10 ballot limit.
   451. alilisd Posted: December 13, 2019 at 03:25 PM (#5908558)
Doesn't seem like that was the main cause, he only got 18 votes from 42 overall voters. And with 393 votes from 42 voters, the average ballot was short of being maxed out.


Don't forget 4 voters with full ballots specifically said they'd vote for him, and most voters with full ballots did not comment on whether they would vote for others, which would give him 69% of the number needed for election. I count 7 full ballots without Sosa and without comments, but I might have missed some. It's certainly possible he would have picked up a few more votes there. He's definitely close without a 10 person limit, or with a ballot removing those we "elected" in prior years.

393 votes from 42 voters is an average of 9.4 votes per ballot. So, yeah, I guess you can say the average was short of being maxed out, but you're stretching it.
   452. alilisd Posted: December 13, 2019 at 03:29 PM (#5908562)
Sosa failed to appear on 17 ballots that were maxed out


Wow! A Holiday Beverage of your choice, Sir! And how did I miss so many of those?
   453. RJ in TO Posted: December 13, 2019 at 03:34 PM (#5908563)
This seems odd to me. Stargell is not marginal. McCovey is not marginal. Killebrew, Williams, Winfield, Dawson, and Guerrero are not marginal either, at least not to my mind. How do you see them as marginal? Ortiz will engender some argument, I suppose, because of being a DH, but he has a lot going for him, too.
Stargell: 57.5 WAR, 26.6 WAA, five year consecutive peak at 28.0 WAR
McCovey: 64.5 WAR, 30.5 WAA, five year consecutive peak at 32.5 WAR
Killebrew: 60.4 WAR, 28.1 WAA, five year consecutive peak at 25.9 WAR
Williams: 63.7 WAR, 27.1 WAA, five year consecutive peak at 28.5 WAR
Winfield: 64.2 WAR, 24.0 WAA, five year consecutive peak at 27.0 WAR
Dawson: 64.8 WAR, 29.2 WAA, five year consecutive peak at 32.6 WAR
Vlad: 59.4 WAR, 29.5 WAA, five year consecutive peak at 29.7 WAR

Sosa: 58.6 WAR, 28.2 WAA, five year peak at 33.0 WAR

Generally speaking, players become under discussion at about 25 WAA and 60 WAR. For the group above, they mostly exceed those standards, but not notably. They're guys who are at the edge of qualification in terms of advanced stats, but who have either more traditional stats supporting their candidacies, or narrative considerations.

They're marginal, in the sense that players in this general range can go either way with the voters.
   454. alilisd Posted: December 13, 2019 at 05:57 PM (#5908597)
Sosa had 10 fewer rBat than Albert Belle in more than 3,000 extra PAs


Another odd one to me as I can't tell if it's arguing for Belle, or against Sosa, but it's not a good argument either way. Belle has fewer than 7,000 PA's, a short career HOF generally has at least 8,000. The handful in Belle's range are frequently 19th C players who played fewer games per season, players who missed time to WW II, maybe a catcher or two. Anyway, as far as Sosa is concerned it's not an apples to apples comparison because it includes his early years where he was trying to learn to hit at the MLB level as a 20 and 21 year old, and his decline seasons at 36 and 38. A fair comparison would be his age 22-33 seasons, the same ages as Belle, which gives him 322 in only 425 more PA's. Granted Belle is still better on a rate basis, but not by nearly as much when considering comparable playing time rather than "more than 3,000 extra PAs."

Peak Sosa 314 Rbat in 4,105 PA's, peak Belle 282 Rbat in 3,955 PA's. You could swap out Belle's 1997 for his 1993 if you're not concerned about a strictly consecutive peak and it becomes 305 in 3,947, so virtually identical at peak level.
   455. alilisd Posted: December 13, 2019 at 06:08 PM (#5908599)
Generally speaking, players become under discussion at about 25 WAA and 60 WAR. For the group above, they mostly exceed those standards, but not notably. They're guys who are at the edge of qualification in terms of advanced stats, but who have either more traditional stats supporting their candidacies, or narrative considerations.


Interesting, thanks.

They're marginal, in the sense that players in this general range can go either way with the voters.


And yet Stargell, McCovey, Killebrew, and Winfield were all first ballot. Guerrero took two, Williams debuted at just 23% but built steadily each year and just missed in year 5 with 74.1%. I think that's a pretty strong HOF showing. The only one who struggled a bit was Dawson, but he debuted strongly at 45% and then struggled to build momentum. An argument probably exists that it was the BBWAA's shortcomings rather than his which that kept him on the ballot so long though. I mean in two of those years they only elected one player: Sutter and Gossage. Some really weird voting going on in those years.
   456. QLE Posted: December 13, 2019 at 06:54 PM (#5908605)
An argument probably exists that it was the BBWAA's shortcomings rather than his which that kept him on the ballot so long though.


Not sure that's that tenable a claim looking at the historical record- there were a lot of sabermetrically-inclined folk in that era who really disliked Andre Dawson's candidacy, in part because of the status of defensive appraisal at that time and in part because Dawson wasn't particularly good at drawing walks. As such, it feels a bit churlish in retrospective just blaming the BBWAA when there was considerable doubt in other circles as well.
   457. alilisd Posted: December 13, 2019 at 07:16 PM (#5908607)
Not sure that's that tenable a claim looking at the historical record- there were a lot of sabermetrically-inclined folk in that era who really disliked Andre Dawson's candidacy, in part because of the status of defensive appraisal at that time and in part because Dawson wasn't particularly good at drawing walks
.

Sure there was a good bit of discussion among some of the voters about his low OBP, but I don't recall anyone in particular denigrating defense appraisals. Quite the opposite, in fact, there was a good bit of discussion about what a great CF he was before the turf in Montreal ruined his knees.

As such, it feels a bit churlish in retrospective just blaming the BBWAA when there was considerable doubt in other circles as well.


Which is not at all what I did, but I love that I'm being called churlish, or at least I hope I am. I just said there's probably an argument to be made about that the voting of time was not the greatest, and if you look at the ballots and results, it's hard not to think so. Just Sutter in 2006 while Dawson cracks 60% in his 5th year, but then he gets leapfrogged by Gossage, and only Gossage gets elected in 2008. Meanwhile we have Trammell, who debuted with Dawson languishing below 20%, but Lee Smith at 43%. I don't see any indication that sabr inclined voters are ruling the roost.

Perhaps it was an aging group of writers not keeping up with the times. The electorate grew from 472 in his first year to about 540 in his last few years, maybe the newer writers who came on during that time were more advanced star oriented, and those who were aging were less than adept?
   458. RJ in TO Posted: December 13, 2019 at 08:09 PM (#5908612)
And yet Stargell, McCovey, Killebrew, and Winfield were all first ballot. Guerrero took two, Williams debuted at just 23% but built steadily each year and just missed in year 5 with 74.1%. I think that's a pretty strong HOF showing. The only one who struggled a bit was Dawson, but he debuted strongly at 45% and then struggled to build momentum.
Often, narrative or specialization is enough to give them the extra attention. In the case of Stargell, he had the "We are family" MVP, the two home run titles, the face of the franchise rep, and a very positive reputation.

In comparison, there's John Olerud, with 58.2 WAR, 27.5 WAA, a five year consecutive peak at 27.2 WAR, and yet only 0.7% on his one BBWAA ballot, as he never had an MVP, moved around (mostly) between three teams, only picked up one batting title, and was mostly was viewed as boring as dirt. Sometimes the writers vote purely on stats, and sometimes they vote on narrative, and sometimes on a blend.

To be clear, I'd also vote for Stargell, but not Olerud, or Vlad, instead of Dwight Evans, or all sorts of other x who is in the hall instead of y who is more or less statistically equivalent but not in the hall cases, but that doesn't make those x actually more valuable than the y, or any of those in this general range less marginal. It just means I can be every bit as fickle as the writers have been over the years.
   459. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 13, 2019 at 08:45 PM (#5908618)
Has any player seen his public image inexplicably take such a nosedive in such a short time [as Sosa]?

I don't remember the exact timeline, but Mark McGwire sure went from the penthouse to the shithouse in public opinion in the same proportion as Sosa. While Bonds' and Clemens' HoF votes have climbed steadily upward, McGwire peaked at 23/7% and ended at 12.3%. Sosa may have dipped even further, but in terms of peak glory and subsequent disgrace they're pretty much joined at the hip.
   460. The Duke Posted: December 14, 2019 at 12:32 AM (#5908654)
459. I think I speak for many people and writers that I will never forgive either one of them for the thrilling home run chase that they engaged in which made baseball interesting again and ushered in 20 years of tremendous growth for the sport. They should be banished to the closet with my musty old baseball cards for their transgressions.

It’s disappointing that so many writers continue the fraud of giving them votes
   461. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 14, 2019 at 01:48 AM (#5908660)
#410:
Who was penalized for PED use between the release of the Fay memo and when the formal policy went into effect?

Just because it wasn't used doesn't mean it couldn't have been used. Steve Howe was booted from the game for drugs. If someone was caught in the same way with steroids at the time, I have to assume they would've been dealt with in a similar manner.


Yes, but not in the way you assume. Howe appealed Vincent's ban, it was speedily overturned, and Howe continued his major league career.
   462. Rennie's Tenet Posted: December 14, 2019 at 08:44 AM (#5908664)
There's been some talk of the existence of writers who will go for Bonds and Clemens in their tenth year. It could make for an interesting induction. Sosa would also be in year, Schilling if he's still out there. I think it'll also "Today's Game" year, so McGwire and Palmetto could be on the ballot.
   463. darkvoid116 Posted: December 14, 2019 at 09:46 AM (#5908667)
McGwire would be eligible, but he was left off the ballot when Baines was elected last year, so I don’t think he’ll make the 2022 version. Fred McGriff will debut on that committee ballot and, if he doesn’t get in, Larry Walker will be eligible that year too. Kevin Brown, Palmeiro, John Olerud, Bernie Williams, Kevin Appier, Robin Ventura are all first eligible in 2022 too, so it should be relatively competitive and difficult for any of them to earn induction besides McGriff and Walker.
   464. alilisd Posted: December 14, 2019 at 10:23 AM (#5908674)
458: Yes, RJ, that’s the point. Most of those guys are not marginal at all because they have a valid statistical case and tons of narrative! And that’s Sosa, unless you’re holding a PED grudge. No, he doesn’t have an overwhelming statistical case from a pure value perspective, but combined with the extraordinary HR numbers and the narrative factors which go along with them, he’s an easy pick.
   465. Baldrick Posted: December 15, 2019 at 06:28 AM (#5908762)
If you're talking about whether you'd put Sammy in on a given ballot, then obviously it doesn't have to be PED related. But it seems like the argument being made was that he wasn't a worthy candidate at all, and that seems like a stretch to me. If you think his career isn't quite good enough, then it seems like you're just using that WAR as measuring stick thing that Sugar keeps insisting everyone does. Because he's obviously close enough strictly on the career merits, but he got there in the most Hall of Famey way (both in terms of value accrued by peak/prime performance over mere compiling and with the extras that Hall voters have historically loved - the chase, the MVP, the status within the game).

If others want to value 'fame' elements in a HOF case, that's fine. But it's baffling why people who do care about those things so consistently insist that it literally isn't possible to articulate a voting criteria which doesn't consider those elements.

Sosa wouldn't be a terrible HOFer, obviously. Being on the borderline definitionally makes him a plausible candidate. If you care about the shape and story of his production, that certainly helps the case, and makes him pretty similar to a Stargell. They're both guys who could easily have fallen by the wayside (a la John Olerud et al) for happening to have produced their value in a boring way.

I don't care about PEDs, and Sosa is personally just over the line for me. So I am one of the mock HOF voters here who didn't list him but would if not for the limit of 10 people. But if I grew a little bit more grumpy about HOF induction creep, I could see leaving him on the other side of the line.
   466. Sunday silence Posted: December 15, 2019 at 09:57 AM (#5908771)
This list contains a bunch of marginal HOF candidates. Some probably deserve to go in. Maybe even all do


OK which ones DONT?? Cause that would be interesting to show how you're not anti PED.

Cause I get your overall point; you're not anti PED because your against Killebrew. you're just being a weirdo.
   467. Sunday silence Posted: December 15, 2019 at 10:01 AM (#5908773)

Has any player seen his public image inexplicably take such a nosedive in such a short time [as Sosa]?


The 2017 Astros say "Bang, bang."
   468. SoSH U at work Posted: December 15, 2019 at 10:23 AM (#5908778)
If others want to value 'fame' elements in a HOF case, that's fine. But it's baffling why people who do care about those things so consistently insist that it literally isn't possible to articulate a voting criteria which doesn't consider those elements.


But I didn't just mention the fame elements. He also had the reasonable peak/prime of a Hall candidate (so he didn't accrue his value strictly in a Damon-like compiling way, which many reasonable Hall voters reject).

As I see it, even for the person who strips everything away accept value or value delivered in a non-compiling away, he's still a candidate on the merits.

So I think it's more accurate to say you'd have to be anti-PED/cheating* or a particularly small-Hall voter to believe Sosa is not a worthy Hall of Famer (with the caveat that this doesn't refer to people who keep him off a given ballot because they see 10 people more worthy).

* To account for the anti-bat corking contingent.
   469. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 15, 2019 at 01:15 PM (#5908811)
Has any player seen his public image inexplicably take such a nosedive in such a short time [as Sosa]?


Not really inexplicable since there was an obvious reason for it, Rafael Palmeiro's was much faster. When the guy got his 3000th hit, the media was celebrating him bigtime. He was just the fourth player to get 3000 hits and 500 homeruns. People were talking about how he'd sail into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot, etc. Then a couple months later he tested positive for steroids and everything went to #### for him.
   470. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2019 at 02:06 PM (#5909025)
Up to 29 ballots with Peter Botte & Mike Vaccaro the latest. Vaccaro is the first voter to add Omar Vizquel this year - possibly an indication that the Vizquel holdouts will not be easily converted. Helton (+8), Kent (+7), Rolen (+6) & Walker (+5) are the big beneficiaries of the less-crowded ballot, so far. At a minimum, it looks like they’ll be evaluated on their own merits, rather than where they rank in a group of 10-20 arguable HoFers. Might be too late for Walker, since he’s only getting 1 year like that, but I’d think clearing 60% would set him up pretty well with the Veterans Committee. He’s at 79.3%, so he still has a chance.

Sheffield is +5, too, but still only 24% in his 6th year, so he has some work to do.
   471. DL from MN Posted: December 16, 2019 at 02:18 PM (#5909030)
#439 - Curious who those 20 players from his era are. I'll bet I agree with half of them.


Contemporary players (not inducted) I prefer to Sosa listed alphabetically

Bobby Abreu
Barry Bonds
Kevin Brown
David Cone
Roger Clemens
Jim Edmonds
Brian Giles
Derek Jeter
Jeff Kent
Mark McGwire
Roy Oswalt
Rafael Palmeiro
Andy Pettitte
Jorge Posada
Manny Ramirez
Scott Rolen
Johan Santana
Curt Schilling
Gary Sheffield
Larry Walker
   472. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 16, 2019 at 03:34 PM (#5909054)

I don't believe anyone has said he had "a big peak."

Right, actually the quote I was responding to in #399 that set this whole thing off was that he was a peak-only candidate and didn't have the career value to get in.

Not a good enough reason. This is a career award. Not a 'few good seasons' award.


And I (as well as others) argued that he in fact does have the requisite career value. I actually agree that he doesn't have an outsized peak from a value standpoint.
   473. Booey Posted: December 16, 2019 at 04:25 PM (#5909072)
#472 - Yep. It's not that his well known 5 year peak is awesome enough to warrant enshrinement by itself, it's that that peak is actually longer than his detractors think. It started in 1993, not 1998, and it lasted a full decade.
   474. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 16, 2019 at 06:06 PM (#5909119)
Yes, it does require you to believe that he was a very good RF despite the fact that he never won any GG awards. I don't remember him having a great defensive rep but I wasn't following baseball that closely during those years and certainly not the Cubs. He was a fast guy who led the league in assists (although also errors) several times, so it's not crazy to think he was a valuable defender.
   475. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 17, 2019 at 09:51 AM (#5909212)
93-97 were Sosa's peak defensive years. In that stretch 6 players took all 15 awards. GG may be neat and all, but they are pretty fickle.

Bonds - 4x
Grissom - 4x
Walker - 2x
Mondesi - 2x
Finley - 2x
Darren Lewis - 1x

Darren Lewis didn't really 'deserve' his, and Finley actually rates at -21 rfield per BREF one of the those years (other was at -1). Bonds, Walker, Grissom were all very good, if not always in the years they won.

In other words - it's not a huge travesty that Sosa never won a GG. He probably should have, but I wouldn't let that lack color your opinion of his defense all THAT much.
   476. John DiFool2 Posted: December 17, 2019 at 10:20 AM (#5909227)
Sheffield is +5, too, but still only 24% in his 6th year, so he has some work to do.


Manny +3. Side by side you gotta go with Manny, dontcha?
   477. Booey Posted: December 17, 2019 at 10:59 AM (#5909246)
#476 - Sure, unless you think testing positive for PED's (twice!) when MLB actually had testing procedures and penalties in place is worse than juicing up during the Wild West "Anything goes!" days when MLB and everyone else turned a blind eye to PED's. That's not an unreasonable distinction.
   478. jmurph Posted: December 17, 2019 at 11:05 AM (#5909248)
the Wild West "Anything goes!" days when MLB and everyone else turned a blind eye to PED's.

Legally, those days are referred to as the "Loosey Goosey Era." I'll accept LGE for short.
   479. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: December 17, 2019 at 11:47 AM (#5909276)
Not really inexplicable since there was an obvious reason for it, Rafael Palmeiro's was much faster. When the guy got his 3000th hit, the media was celebrating him bigtime. He was just the fourth player to get 3000 hits and 500 homeruns. People were talking about how he'd sail into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot, etc. Then a couple months later he tested positive for steroids and everything went to #### for him.

Plus, earlier that year he did his finger-wagging denial at the Congressional hearing. He was supposed to be one of the good guys. That changed in a hurry.
   480. John DiFool2 Posted: December 17, 2019 at 12:20 PM (#5909286)
I wonder if he got screwed out of the HoF thanks to a false positive. Now, someone who knows how such tests work can chime in and tell me that, in this particular test, that can't happen, but I do recall that statistical paradox scenarion where, in a population where ~90% are clean and ~10% are dirty, that a positive result more often than not will involve an innocent.
   481. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 17, 2019 at 01:20 PM (#5909311)
I wonder if he got screwed out of the HoF thanks to a false positive.
If there is anything exculpatory, it might be that Palmeiro really didn’t know that “B-12” was Miguel Tejada’s code for steroids. That doesn’t seem all that likely, but Tejada’s subsequent PED history does suggest that he wasn’t some innocent bystander thrown under the bus by Palmeiro, as it was generally portrayed at the time.
   482. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 17, 2019 at 01:53 PM (#5909327)
Last year’s Thibs Tracker Thread had 49 ballots tallied on the morning of December 17th; now we only have 32. I haven’t seen anything this year about the Hall, the BBWAA, or even influential writers, suggesting ballots shouldn’t disclosed, so perhaps folks are just procrastinating this year. Or maybe Thibs is resting on his laurels and not banging on the voters’ front doors at dawn demanding their ballots?
   483. DanG Posted: December 17, 2019 at 02:04 PM (#5909328)
All the non-Jeter voters are waiting to vote, because they know whoever goes first will get hammered.
   484. soc40 Posted: December 17, 2019 at 04:04 PM (#5909365)
Jeff Kent - he's really benefited from the clearing of the logjam. +7 votes so far in small sample. Does he have legs to make a run? Jeter and Walker come off the ballot this year. Torii Hunter only legit new add on next year, and he's no slam dunk. Year after- Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Sosa come off (if they haven't been inducted already). Arod and Big Papi come on (both with PED clouds). That brings us to year 10 on Kent. Beltran comes on. If current pattern holds, Kent could be highest returning vote getter with a final year push. Vizquel and the above mentioned newbies are the only ones in his way. At very least, he looks like a better veterans candidate than he has for the last 6 years.
   485. cookiedabookie Posted: December 17, 2019 at 04:09 PM (#5909366)
he looks like a better veterans candidate than he has for the last 6 years

He's always seemed like a guy who will sail in on the VC committees, if he doesn't make it with the writers.
   486. flournoy Posted: December 17, 2019 at 04:49 PM (#5909382)
Torii Hunter only legit new add on next year


Tim Hudson and Mark Buehrle are every bit as legitimate as Torii Hunter, if not more so.
   487. Qufini Posted: December 17, 2019 at 04:59 PM (#5909387)
Jeff Kent - he's really benefited from the clearing of the logjam. +7 votes so far in small sample. Does he have legs to make a run?
It's not just Kent. We're seeing a similar rise in support for a number of players after last year's big class. Helton is +6, Rolen is now +7, Sheffield is +5, Wagner +4. Larry Walker's is also +5 in his last year of eligibility. I think we're seeing how the 10-player limit impacted these candidates. I argued at the time that the ballot should have been expanded to 15 names when the time frame was cut to 10. It will be difficult for these guys to build support from the 15-20% range all the way to the induction threshold of 75.
   488. The Duke Posted: December 17, 2019 at 05:47 PM (#5909400)
I think these guys will see a one-time bump and then flatten out. I don’t see any of them going in
   489. QLE Posted: December 17, 2019 at 08:25 PM (#5909420)
#482- There are two items to consider as potential complications:

1) Thibs is dealing with a newborn, and, given the obligations there, it seems highly likely that his activities are being limited compared to previous years.

2) Thanksgiving was early last year and late this year- I wonder if there's a chance that that fact could be causing some of this delay, particularly with regards to the folk who use their columns to reveal their HOF votes.

#487- Agreed that the ballot should have expanded in names, but this issue will vary, player by player. It clearly has affected Walker and, to certain degrees, Kent and Sheffield (though Sheffield has other issues blocking his path to 75%). With Helton and Rolen, however, it's complicated by the time they have left- Rolen has seven more ballots to go and Helton eight, and, after 2022, the only people in the backlog with more support than Rolen who will still be ballot-eligible are Vizquel, Ramirez, and Kent, while Helton only adds Wagner to that list. As such, they still have time, especially since it doesn't seem at the moment like the backlog will grow much in the next few years.

   490. SoSH U at work Posted: December 17, 2019 at 08:37 PM (#5909424)

I think these guys will see a one-time bump and then flatten out. I don’t see any of them going in


Some of them will push through. And once they get some momentum, they'll continue to gain ground. The voters are going to be looking for people to elect, and the newcomer classes aren't as strong as they've been in the past.

   491. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 17, 2019 at 08:55 PM (#5909426)
Tim Hudson and Mark Buehrle are every bit as legitimate as Torii Hunter, if not more so.


Buehrle will be lucky to get a vote.

He had a perfect game. He had another no-hitter. He won multiple gold gloves. He had one of the greatest defensive plays I have ever seen from a pitcher. He was a far better pitcher than Jack Morris. He will be lucky to get a vote.
   492. PreservedFish Posted: December 17, 2019 at 09:05 PM (#5909427)
Is Mark Buerhle among the most peakless players of all time? Look at his FIP, unbelievably consistent. Same pitcher at 36 as he was at 21.
   493. RJ in TO Posted: December 17, 2019 at 10:42 PM (#5909435)
Buehrle will be lucky to get a vote.

He had a perfect game. He had another no-hitter. He won multiple gold gloves. He had one of the greatest defensive plays I have ever seen from a pitcher. He was a far better pitcher than Jack Morris. He will be lucky to get a vote.


Buehrle will get votes. He has 210 wins, started 30 games 16 seasons in a row, and threw 200 IP 15 years in a row, while also doing the stuff you mentioned, and being a part of the White Sox team that won their first world series in 80+ years. He's not going to get elected, but he'll get votes.
   494. Booey Posted: December 17, 2019 at 10:47 PM (#5909436)
#492 - Without looking it up, I'm like 98% sure Buehrle went exactly 13-10 with a 3.80 ERA like 15 years in a row.
   495. The Duke Posted: December 17, 2019 at 10:51 PM (#5909437)
I just don’t see the remaining cast of non-PED guys doing well. There’s an argument for several of them but if you ask me all these guys look a lot like the group of names we just saw on the modern era ballot. Guys who are pretty darn good, maybe getting 30% of the vote but some flaw in their story that keeps them from taking off. Rolen kind of has a crappy back end of his career And could go either way. Kent really plays a position that doesn’t get votes and seemed to generate a lot of offense in the go-go years with no defense, vizquel just can’t withstand sabr-scrutiny, Helton played in Colorado and didn’t factor in the post-season. Andruw Jones got fat and stopped caring. Wagner may suffer as people re - evaluate why there are so many closers getting put in. Walker only has this year.

I see only rolen having a chance and it might take ten years.

I could see rolen and vizquel getting in on Vets votes.
   496. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 17, 2019 at 11:15 PM (#5909439)
You have to see this year’s results before you can make predictions about the following years with any confidence, IMHO. With only 8.7% of the votes tallied, there are 5 players over the threshold for election: Jeter (100%), Walker (83.3), Schilling (77.8%), Bonds (75%) & Clemens (75%). Jeter is a lock, Walker is either in or off the ballot after 10 years, with the others uncertain. Voters may soon have a choice of voting for the “borderline” candidates, those some consider to be PED-tainted, or no one. Don’t think we can yet predict what those accustomed to casting 10-player ballots will do.
   497. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 17, 2019 at 11:39 PM (#5909441)
You have to see this year’s results before you can make predictions about the following years with any confidence, IMHO. With only 8.7% of the votes tallied, there are 5 players over the threshold for election: Jeter (100%), Walker (83.3), Schilling (77.8%), Bonds (75%) & Clemens (75%).


Jeter will be the only inductee. It is known.
   498. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 17, 2019 at 11:41 PM (#5909442)
Buehrle will get votes. He has 210 wins, started 30 games 16 seasons in a row, and threw 200 IP 15 years in a row, while also doing the stuff you mentioned, and being a part of the White Sox team that won their first world series in 80+ years. He's not going to get elected, but he'll get votes.


OK. A couple of Chicago writers will throw him a bone. No one else knows who he is.
   499. RJ in TO Posted: December 17, 2019 at 11:48 PM (#5909443)
OK. A couple of Chicago writers will throw him a bone. No one else knows who he is.
This is probably about right. I'd be reasonably surprised were he to make it to a second ballot.
   500. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: December 17, 2019 at 11:52 PM (#5909445)
I would be extremely surprised.
Page 5 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  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 0.7463 seconds
48 querie(s) executed