Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, January 20, 2022

Sherman: In defense of the blank Hall of Fame ballot

Understand that this is not a binary vote, like Democrat vs. Republican, where one is going to be mayor or governor or president. Each voter can choose anywhere from 0 to 10 candidates, which means there are all kinds of ranges of outcomes. But the biggest issue is the 75 percent threshold.

It is hard to get three out of four friends to agree where to go to dinner. Now try to get a few hundred people to determine what they think of whether to vote for candidates with steroid clouds, especially when those clouds come in different sizes. Factor in those who think the Hall of Fame should be small — the best 1 percent of players ever, roughly — and those who think it should be larger and spread to the top 2 or 3 or perhaps even 4 percent. Do you favor old stats or modern analytics or a cocktail?

Last year no candidate amassed the requisite 75 percent, but four bettered 50 percent — a total with which most mayoral, gubernatorial and presidential candidates would be thrilled. Curt Schilling received 71.1 percent of the vote, then blasted the electors. So he was painting broadly a group that by more than 7 out of 10 thought he should be in the Hall. This year’s tracking had six candidates at 56 percent or more and two others close to 50 percent. If election was about a majority, there would be multiple Hall of Famers this year.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 20, 2022 at 08:04 PM | 44 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame

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.

   1. The Duke Posted: January 20, 2022 at 10:38 PM (#6061807)
It’s pretty easy to have a blank ballot if you

A). have an expansive list of PEDrs
B). are an aggrieved writer who can dish out abuse, but not take it
C). Are opposed to ball players abusing ball boys
D). Don’t buy into defensive metrics as a determining HOF factor
E). Think all pitchers should be evaluated against the same standard
F). And you think offense metrics from Coors should be discounted


Or you could suck it up and check Jeff Kent


   2. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 20, 2022 at 11:29 PM (#6061810)
Or you could suck it up and check Jeff Kent


Is that the Jeff Kent who amassed 46 of his 55 WAR AFTER the age of 28? Yep, no steroid cloud there....

Though jokes aside, I had no idea he had nearly 2500 hits and 560 doubles along with those 370+ homers. Those are some serious old school numbers.
   3. JJ1986 Posted: January 21, 2022 at 10:44 AM (#6061830)
I'm not against blank ballots in theory, and I don't think it's any different from voting for just Wagner or just Kent, but you have to think that some players from an era are worthy. The Hall is not just for the absolute slam-dunk guys.
   4. cookiedabookie Posted: January 21, 2022 at 11:11 AM (#6061831)
It's not defensible, unless you can point to any HoF ballot that didn't have a future HoFer on it (much less multiple future HoFers)
   5. SoSH U at work Posted: January 21, 2022 at 11:55 AM (#6061833)

It's not defensible, unless you can point to any HoF ballot that didn't have a future HoFer on it (much less multiple future HoFers)


That's not true. If Jack Morris and Jim Rice topped a ballot, their future elections wouldn't have made them retroactively worthy of a vote.
   6. sunday silence (again) Posted: January 21, 2022 at 12:06 PM (#6061839)

It's not defensible, unless you can point to any HoF ballot that didn't have a future HoFer on it (much less multiple future HoFers)


can you explain the logic here? Cause I dont get it.
   7. sunday silence (again) Posted: January 21, 2022 at 12:08 PM (#6061840)
I think the only way to accuse a voter of bad faith is if they leave some off the ballot that they later vote for AND assuming that had slots left over in the earlier ballot. I can see leaving off Bonds say if you already had ten picks, but if you have open slots adn leave him off and later put him on, that seems bad faith or bad logic.
   8. JRVJ Posted: January 21, 2022 at 12:17 PM (#6061843)
The problem isn't the blank ballot per se, but the d o u c h e b a g g e r y behind those blank ballots (including the Shaugnessy's of the world, voting just for Jeff Kent).
   9. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: January 21, 2022 at 12:34 PM (#6061844)
The Hall is not just for the absolute slam-dunk guys.


What is slam dunk, though? And why can't the Hall be that? I'm a small-Hall guy, which I think is a legitimate position. I want it to be the very best, the elite of the elite. If I had a vote this season, I would definitely vote for Bonds, Clemens, and A-Rod. I would consider Rolen and Schilling and, even though I find him reprehensible as a human being, I'd probably vote for Schilling. I wouldn't vote for anyone else because I don't think they belong in the Hall.

If you're someone who takes a hard stance against PED users and don't think Schilling deserves the honor, I could see a blank ballot as legitimate.
   10. John DiFool2 Posted: January 21, 2022 at 12:42 PM (#6061846)
Should the Hall institute an Inner Circle (annex)? Where these guys have statues? [/Bill James] Or would the debates therein be even more rancorous? I can't think of a Hall of Fame (North America at least) which has such a binary structure.
   11. cookiedabookie Posted: January 21, 2022 at 01:35 PM (#6061849)
1990: 12 HoFers
1991: 12 HoFers
1992: 10 HoFers
1993: 9 HoFers
1994: 12 HoFers
1995: 11 HoFers
1996: 10 HoFers
1997: 9 HoFers
1998: 9 HoFers
1999: 11 HoFers
2000: 9 HoFers
2001: 9 HoFers
2002: 10 HoFers
2003: 12 HoFers
2004: 11 HoFers
2005: 10 HoFers
2006: 8 HoFers
2007: 10 HoFers
2008: 9 HoFers
2009: 9 HoFers
2010: 10 HoFers

The point being, if you can't find a reason to vote for one of the typically ten eventual future HoFers on a ballot, you probably shouldn't be given a vote.
   12. John Northey Posted: January 21, 2022 at 02:08 PM (#6061852)
It is silly when people hand in blank ballots. Basically it is a 'screw you' to all the guys on the ballot. 2021 no one made it, same in 2013 and 1996. In 2013 the top 6 eventually got in, with 7/8/9 being Schilling/Clemens/Bonds then 3 more HOF'ers, then 3 more who I think will get in via vets at some point (McGriff, Dale Murphy, McGwire) plus Sosa and Palmeiro. Not to mention worthy but didn't even get 5% Kenny Lofton.

1996 had the top 3 get in later, plus #5-8 and #10, 15, and 17 on the ballot. Lots of support for Steve Garvey (never should get in), Tommy John (kind of surprised he hasn't made it), and Dick Allen (probably going in someday). Luis Tiant has his supporter too. So in the blank ballot years there were no shortage of guys who eventually got in. If you look at years with just 1 getting in you see similar patterns. Safe to say the years with under 10 HOF'ers in the list from #11 will get to 10+ eventually. 1993 still has out of the HOF Dick Allen, Pete Rose, Luis Tiant, and 60+ WAR guy Ken Boyer (didn't know he was that good). 1997/8 had Dwight Evans, Luis Tiant, Tommy John with 1998 having Willie Randolph as a 1 and done (HOF really hates great 2B who weren't flashy between him and Sweet Lou), and 1997 having Dick Allen, Graig Nettles, Rick Reuschel (69.5 WAR and only got 2 votes!). 2006 with just 8 need 2 to make it - I figure Dale Murphy, Tommy John, Will Clark, and Orel Hershiser have real shots someday (depending who is on the vets in various years) but that was a weak year - just 4 guys with 60+ bWAR on that ballot.
   13. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: January 21, 2022 at 02:50 PM (#6061854)
If you're someone who takes a hard stance against PED users

Then I hope they've submitted nothing but blank ballots since 1960. or earlier.

   14. Walt Davis Posted: January 21, 2022 at 03:33 PM (#6061863)
Like some others, I have no problem with a blank ballot in theory -- if there's nobody worthy on a ballot then there's nobody worthy. In practice, I don't think that's ever happened. 2006 was pretty close IMO -- Trammell's the only one I really consider "obvious" (and the BBWAA never got there). Dawson and Blyleven were both deserving but I can see how others would disagree. Sutter, Gossage and Smith were not deserving; Rice and Morris weren't deserving. So at best 3 of the 8 (and counting?) that made it would have been on my ballot. My 1987 ballot wouldn't exactly be overflowing and my #1 candidate finished 14th (Santo).

And in theory at least, blank ballots (and years with no inductees) would be a lot more frequent if the BBWAA had more sense -- i.e. there might well be some HoM ballots where I don't think anybody deserves it. Take this year's ballot if Bonds, Clemens, Rolen, Sheffield, Manny, Schilling, Sosa had all been elected years ago. I'd vote for ARod and maybe unenthusiastically for Helton and Andruw. But I don't mean that first sentence as a PEDs thing, it's more a reference to Santo and Trammell -- the BBWAA is an electing body where it's quite possible that the most deserving candidate on a ballot finishes 10th ... and the various VCs have generally made even less sense. It's a system barely teetering along. It's like the 20-yo car you know you need to replace but it hasn't completely fallen apart and manages to start every morning so we'll stick with it even though we all know it needs to go.
   15. Greg Pope Posted: January 21, 2022 at 04:50 PM (#6061883)
if there's nobody worthy on a ballot then there's nobody worthy. In practice, I don't think that's ever happened.

This is pretty much what I think, too. If I had a vote and I legitimately didn't think anyone was worthy, I'd send it back blank. I know we had the discussion before about it being "voting against" the players but if there was one worthy person and I voted for that one person, then I'd be voting against the rest using that logic. I don't see what's magic about that last vote.

But the way to look at it would be this: If every player that you thought was worthy went in on their first ballot, then would there be years when you wouldn't want to vote for anyone? In other words, are there years when nobody new came on the ballot that you thought was worthy?

To take Walt's 2006 example, it was Trammell's and Dawson's 5th time on the ballot and Blyleven's 9th. Let's say those three had gotten in before 2006. I'd probably send in a blank ballot.
   16. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 21, 2022 at 05:50 PM (#6061897)
If every player that you thought was worthy went in on their first ballot, then would there be years when you wouldn't want to vote for anyone?


Of course. Remember that time Bernie Williams was the best newcomer to the ballot?
   17. Jaack Posted: January 21, 2022 at 07:43 PM (#6061908)
Just looking at the Hall of Merit to compare, we haven't yet elected anyone from the 2021 ballot, although Hudson and Buehrle both have significant support.

Going back further, the last year where there were no new eligibles who eventually got elected was 2012, with only Bernie Williams ever getting much support. Next year back was 1987 but Bobby Bonds and Sal Bando both are good bets to get elected soon. We haven't elected anyone from 1985 either, but Cooperstown took Lou Brock and Catfish Hunter, and at least four other guys from that year are still receiving HoM votes.

It's pretty rare that there are no new viable candidates. There are occasional dud years, but realistically, you should be able to find someone to vote for. That isn't to say that a blank ballot can't be justified, but if you are sending in a blank ballot more than once every fifteen years, the problem is probably with the voter and not with the candidates.
   18. Greg Pope Posted: January 21, 2022 at 07:55 PM (#6061909)
It's pretty rare that there are no new viable candidates. There are occasional dud years, but realistically, you should be able to find someone to vote for. That isn't to say that a blank ballot can't be justified, but if you are sending in a blank ballot more than once every fifteen years, the problem is probably with the voter and not with the candidates.

Right, under the assumption that there's no holdovers you want to vote for. Which is why it's only "in theory". But under those circumstances I would occasionally send a blank ballot. In the real world there will always be an Alan Trammell type to vote for.
   19. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 21, 2022 at 09:07 PM (#6061916)
It is silly when people hand in blank ballots. Basically it is a 'screw you' to all the guys on the ballot. 2021 no one made it, same in 2013 and 1996. In 2013 the top 6 eventually got in, with 7/8/9 being Schilling/Clemens/Bonds then 3 more HOF'ers, then 3 more who I think will get in via vets at some point (McGriff, Dale Murphy, McGwire) plus Sosa and Palmeiro. Not to mention worthy but didn't even get 5% Kenny Lofton.


Doesn't that in itself strongly suggest that blank ballots, at least in their present abundance, 'screw' hardly anyone at all?
   20. Walt Davis Posted: January 21, 2022 at 09:08 PM (#6061918)
Me in #14: we'll stick with it even though we all know it needs to go

I'll walk that back at least a bit. The BBWAA is not "good" at this but I don't have any better alternatives to suggest, other than letting me make all the choices (y'all can do what you want after I'm gone).
   21. Howie Menckel Posted: January 21, 2022 at 09:39 PM (#6061921)
re HOM 2022 voting:

A-Rod was a unanimous No. 1.

after that, Abreu (21), Pettitte (22), and Sosa (21) each got 75% and got elected also.

BUT... the ballot had 15 slots, not 10, unlike the HOF we have to choose a full slate, and there was no Schillng, Clemens, Barry Bonds, Rolen, Sheffield, AJones, Kent, or Manny to choose from as they already are "enshrined."

(and of course, being on a HOM ballot isn't a binary yes or no, so the 75$ coincidence surprised me.)

granted, we have perpetual eligibility, so we had votes for players dating back more than 100 years.

still, no one other than A-Rod was considered a slam dunk. only half of the voters had runnerup Abreu as one of the eight best options. same for Sosa, and Pettitte didn't do quite that well. Ortiz tied for 9th with BOBBY Bonds, which surprised me.

with the "Feasome Foursome" going off the ballot next year, the number of 10-slot HOF ballots I would assume drops significantly.
   22. sanny manguillen Posted: January 22, 2022 at 06:20 AM (#6061959)
If you're someone who takes a hard stance against PED users

Then I hope they've submitted nothing but blank ballots since 1960. or earlier.


Annual note: no organization anywhere should strive merely to maintain its ethical standard over a course of 60 years.
   23. TomH Posted: January 22, 2022 at 07:07 AM (#6061960)
Dear HOF: I offer a simple proposal.

Background: we all agree we don't want to tell the writers how to vote, or for whom to vote. However, we *do* want them informed. And some voters by their votes and their explanations would be appear to be ... not so informed about HOF history, or at least let's see, lacking some perspective.

Proposal: Along with each ballot, provide a note and a graph. The graph would show the 267 (or whatever it is) MLB players elected to the Hall, by decade; any decade in which they played. Make a timeline, so each voter can see both visually and with a simple total at the end how many players are in the Hall who played in the 1930s, 40s, .. 90s, etc.. Then mention *in kind of big bold letters* that the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to honor the best players of each era.

Perhaps the hint will sink in to a few how ignorant it is to tell the world, yeah, we're gonna screw over the last generation.
   24. LargeBill Posted: January 22, 2022 at 09:04 AM (#6061977)
In theory, a blank ballot might be justifiable. We have not had one of those theoretical years in recent memory. In the past decade plus, every ballot had more than a dozen legitimate HOF caliber players. Even if one is hard-core opposed to players using special vitamins to be at their best, there were several players on each ballot with no cloud of suspicion. A blank ballot as some sort of protest is clearly against the spirit of the voting process.
   25. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2022 at 10:17 AM (#6061983)
If you're a small Hall-no drugs voter you absolutely could have turned in a blank ballot half the time over the last dozen years
   26. John Northey Posted: January 22, 2022 at 10:28 PM (#6062064)
Looking back you can see many years the HOF didn't put anyone in when many were more than good enough - 1945 & 1946 were the first 2 years like that - 7 over 50% in '45, just one in '46. Weird voters back then. Old Timer's Committee put in 11 though in '46, and 10 in '45. The '45 ballot saw the top 33 (!!) eventually get in anyways. Plus 23 more. Wow. Two guys with over 100 WAR (should be painfully obvious HOF'ers by any measure when they get that high) didn't get in - Kid Nichols with 5 votes, and Lefty Grove with 28. Guessing writers then only wanted Ruth/Cobb and guys like that in the HOF, but even by that standard I'd think those 2 qualify.
   27. Ron J Posted: January 22, 2022 at 11:50 PM (#6062073)
#26 That's mostly ballotmageddon. To many viable candidates. I mean Jimmy Foxx finished 26th. The BBWAA had basically lost the ability to elect anybody. Which is why the Old Timer's Committee had to take in so many in those two years. Things started to function more or less normally once some of the backlog cleared.
   28. John Northey Posted: January 23, 2022 at 12:35 AM (#6062078)
#27 - same as in 2013. Ignore PED's and you still had 4 guys over 70 WAR (Bagwell, Schilling, Walker, and Trammell), 4 more 65+ (Raines, E Martinez, Lofton, Biggio), and 385 foolish voters wasting a vote on Jack Morris and his 43.5 WAR (and 1 shutout game 7), and 272 on Lee Smith (record for saves for a decade). Then the PED crew - Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa. And others who in the past would've hung around like McGriff, David Wells, Bernie Williams, Steve Finley, Julio Franco. With significant (75) votes going to Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy (106 in his final year). The lowest WAR guy to get votes was Sandy Alomar with 16 despite just 13.7 WAR (wonder if some older voters thought it was his father or brother). That is a LOT of viable candidates plus 'writer favorites' - 8 very qualified non-PED guys, 5 PED guys who were overqualified but aren't getting in via writers, and 9 others getting significant votes or worthy of more consideration at least. Total of 23 guys who some voters would've liked to put on their ballots I'm sure. Insanity. Quickly followed by 3 no brainers in 2014 (Maddux/Glavine/Frank Thomas), a guy who made it eventually (Mussina) and another worth votes (Jeff Kent), and 3 more no brainers in 2015 (Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Smoltz), another PED guy (Gary Sheffield), and more who deserved more consideration (Carlos Delgado, Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Giles). It was a crazy ballot time.
   29. Walt Davis Posted: January 23, 2022 at 01:21 AM (#6062079)
Take a look at 1958 -- only one guy made it to 50%, Max Carey at 51%. Eventually 42 players on that ballot made it.
   30. TomH Posted: January 23, 2022 at 07:44 AM (#6062084)
#25 McCoy, you made my point in 23. How can a writer legitimately be a "small hall" voter? If a writer stated "I think only the best 100 players ever deserve to be in the HoF", well, that's your opinion, but you can go create your own top 100 then, have a nice life... but the HoF we *actually have* is not that one, and you need to get on board with this thing called reality. We DO have TWO good process checks on any writer (a theoretical "big hall" guy) who thinks there should be 600 players in the Hall; one is the 75% standard, and the other is the 10-man ballot limit. The HoF problem is we have no good check on the contrarians.
   31. SoSH U at work Posted: January 23, 2022 at 08:19 AM (#6062085)
There's nothing illegitimate about being a small Hall voter, it's just a matter of how small is OK. The current Hall was built through some combination of both small and large Hall guys, and the Vets committee. There's no reason it shouldn't be that way going forward.

And certainly no one advocates a Hall where the worst choices, either by the vets or even the writers, becomes the standard for inclusion - that anyone better than Pie Traynor or Jim Rice or Bruce Sutter should be voted in. So where the borderline is placed by an individual voter is going to be placed somewhere north of those guys, but there's no de facto right location.
   32. McCoy Posted: January 23, 2022 at 08:30 AM (#6062086)
The Hall of Fame we have is made up of press voters who traditionally have had small hall voters be the gatekeepers and committees who then decide who else should go in.
   33. John Northey Posted: January 23, 2022 at 12:50 PM (#6062104)
It is funny how the BBWAA seems small hall but then votes in guys like Bruce Sutter and Jim Rice who both are very clearly below average for the Hall. A true small hall fan should demand anyone inducted increases the standard, not decreases it. That would require... pitchers: 87 in, #44's WAR is Juan Marichal 61.78 - recent ones below that - Mariano Rivera, Jim Kaat (v), Jack Morris (v), Goose Gossage, Ray Brown (v - NegL with a 103 OPS+, 149 ERA+), Lee Smith (v), Trevor Hoffman, Andy Cooper (v NegL), Bruce Sutter, Hilton Smith (v - NegL who had a 105 OPS+ and a 143 ERA+), Hank O'Day (V - in as umpire). Note how the vets puts in a lot of these, but the relivers are mostly via writers. From Ray Brown down they all were less than half the WAR of average. 4 of the vet choices though made sense - 3 were Negro League players (2 amazing ones who were Ohtani like) and an umpire who pitched first. The writers put in 4 relievers of whom 2 were over the half way point (Rivera, Gossage), below that I see no excuse for putting them in (Hoffman, Sutter).

Batters: 209 hitters - median would be #105 George Sisler (54.8). Clearly they have been putting in lower quality hitters than pitchers over the years. Recent players (since 2000) below 54.8 are... Tony Perez, Minnie Minosa (v), Bid McPhee (v), Kirby Puckett, Ted Simmons (v), Turkey Stearnes (v), Jim Rice, Deacon White (v), Gil Hodges (v), Tony Olivia (v), Harold Baines (v), Mule Suttles (v), Bill Mazeroski (v), Jud Wilson (v), Biz Mackey (v), Cristóbal Torriente (v), Billy Southworth (v), Willard Brown (v), Ben Taylor (v).

Note: for hitters, there is an issue as it isn't easy to see which are in as managers/executives/etc. and I suspect that shifted things down a bit. I just pulled 87 out at the bottom for pitchers but Tom Glavine comes in at #202 for WAR non-pitching (6.8 - wow, he was amazing).

Lots of Negro Leaguers again - but looking through you can see the clearly bad choices by writers - Perez, Rice, Puckett (killer peak, ended early ala Koufax on the pitchers side, had a great personality so writers didn't wait and see if any other issues existed or just ignored them). I recall how Mazeroski going in was seen as the bridge too far for the vets leading to the massive rejigging of it and no one getting in via it for years outside of a wave of Negro Leaguers in 2006 iirc.

Raw average makes it 67 WAR for hitters - adding in a lot more writer choices - Biggio, Dawson, Winfield, Vlad Guerrero, Piazza. Plus 2 vets (Torre & Joe Gordon). I doubt many here feel those guys aren't worthy HOF'ers.
   34. greenback needs a ride, not ammo Posted: January 23, 2022 at 03:25 PM (#6062118)
It is funny how the BBWAA seems small hall but then votes in guys like Bruce Sutter and Jim Rice who both are very clearly below average for the Hall.

Sutter's candidacy probably benefited from writers forgetting how long his dominant period was but also because he was something of a pioneer (maybe the pioneer) for a now-common pitch.
   35. Walt Davis Posted: January 23, 2022 at 03:30 PM (#6062119)
Since we're discussing it ... I took a look but decided not to post it ... for McCoy's #25 to be true, you'd have to be small hall enough that Larkin/Walker don't belong. Which is (a) ludicrous and (b) reasonably consistent with actual BBWAA behavior. Walker of course took 10 years and needed two pretty miraculous jumps to make it. Given how crowded the ballots were, it does seem that 75% of writers thought Walker deserved it but they just didn't have room for him until those last two years. But that doesn't hold for Larkin -- only three ballots and a high enough debut that it was clear he would be going in, but those three ballots were quite weak ballots and he's probably lucky he made it over (easily) before the 2013 deluge.

I look at that (and Bagwell, Piazza and many others) as evidence of the illogic of the BBWAA (whether it be lack of knowledge or anti-recency bias) but of course it works just as well as evidence of a staunch 10-15% who do draw the line somewhere above Larkin. You could tease some of this out if you really dug into Ryan's database where you could track individual voters over years to begin to establish their personal standard. There are only a handful of blank ballots every year so most of those 15% who didn't vote for Larkin in 2012 were voting for somebody (and for several years in most cases). Did they have super-high standards or were they voting like morons? I'd bet on the latter but will stipulate that it's likely the non-Larkin ballots that year listed fewer names than the average ballot.

There is always the alternative that I am overly critical and that a vote for Morris or Smith or Mattingly but not Larkin was a perfectly reasonable position to hold -- but what are the chances of that??!!
   36. Mefisto Posted: January 23, 2022 at 04:22 PM (#6062125)
#33 wouldn't really work as a voting principle: if implemented after the first class, the only position player inducted since would be Willie Mays (with an argument for Williams based on military service time).
   37. Ron J Posted: January 23, 2022 at 08:04 PM (#6062159)
#36 There was a pretty vocal contingent (obviously a minority but a loud one) arguing against Hank Greenberg as not measuring up to the standards of the position. And Johnny Mize had to go in through the Veterans's. Set Mize as the In/Out line and you get a pretty small hall.
   38. Howie Menckel Posted: January 23, 2022 at 08:18 PM (#6062161)
I think Greenberg in particular ran into the issue of him not clearly being the best at their position in his era. as if there couldn't be multiple great players at once.
   39. Walt Davis Posted: January 23, 2022 at 08:20 PM (#6062162)
Mize and Greenberg are examples where war credit, if it was ever given, was given grudgingly. Mize ended up short of 7500 PAs and his case is really an outstanding 10-year peak. Greenberg not only missed 3.5 years in the military but also most of the 36 and 41 seasons and ended up with 6100 PA. From a WAR perspective, Mize ended up with 71 which is the same as Larkin. Trammell, Santo, Rolen, Walker, Grich, Raines are other examples that the writers' border, for position players at least, is somewhere around here. Of course the easy election of Thomas, Jeter and Thome suggest that's not the case ... especially as we add Puckett, Brock, Stargell, B Williams and any number of others.

There's very little consistency here, especially as one drills, even at an aggregate level -- which is what we should expect anytime you get a group of more than about 5 human beings together (outside Fox News studios).
   40. Howie Menckel Posted: January 23, 2022 at 08:42 PM (#6062165)
(outside Fox News studios).

sigh.

some BBTF regulars will not be content, in seems, until every goddam thread is infected with gratuitous political comments. at this rate, instead of (in a dream scenario) only one such thread, maybe we'll have to be grateful if posters agree to leave one active thread alone.

I mean, what is the point there?
Greenberg makes someone think of Foxx, so....?

I've never been on Facebook, and I don't follow anyone on Twitter who references politics. if I ever want to catch up on a current such topic, I do it voluntarily.
it's relaxing.

non se·qui·tur
/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/

noun: non sequitur; plural noun: non sequiturs; noun: nonsequitur; plural noun: nonsequiturs

a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
   41. Mefisto Posted: January 23, 2022 at 09:05 PM (#6062170)
@37: I wonder if anti-semitism contributed to that view of Greenberg. Walt's probably right that it had more to do with the failure to recognize military service.
   42. Ron J Posted: January 23, 2022 at 09:23 PM (#6062173)
#41 I know Greenberg felt that was a factor.
   43. Lassus Posted: January 24, 2022 at 09:22 AM (#6062200)
I admit a certain amount of shock at the number of people here who would find any defense of the blank ballot. And I'm small-hall.
   44. yest Posted: January 24, 2022 at 12:29 PM (#6062241)
#27 - same as in 2013. Ignore PED's and you still had 4 guys over 70 WAR (Bagwell, Schilling, Walker, and Trammell), 4 more 65+ (Raines, E Martinez, Lofton, Biggio

Bagwel was considered a ped candidate by a huge chunk of the electorate, possibly doesn't make it without the purge.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogLook Good, Feel Good, Play Good. Smell Good?
(6 - 5:11pm, May 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThese 5 MLB Breakouts Are (Probably) For Real
(6 - 5:10pm, May 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogYankees, White Sox benches clear after Josh Donaldson calls Tim Anderson 'Jackie' Robinson
(49 - 5:03pm, May 23)
Last: winnipegwhip

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1899 Ballot
(1 - 5:02pm, May 23)
Last: DL from MN

Newsblog2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(1736 - 4:36pm, May 23)
Last: spivey

NewsblogZach Davies’ estranged wife says MLB pitcher ghosted her for a year
(63 - 4:09pm, May 23)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogJOEY VOTTO IS THE GREATEST REDS PLAYER OF ALL TIME
(25 - 3:51pm, May 23)
Last: I don't want to talk about Rocco

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Crowning Champions and Pro-Rel
(161 - 2:56pm, May 23)
Last: Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging

NewsblogRoger Angell, Who Wrote About Baseball With Passion, Dies at 101
(54 - 12:51pm, May 23)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogAdley Rutschman, MLB's No. 1 prospect, called up to O's
(29 - 12:40pm, May 23)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogFormer Giants fan-favorite infielder Joe Panik retires from MLB
(16 - 12:05pm, May 23)
Last: jingoist

Sox TherapyOne Step Forward
(19 - 11:57am, May 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogJuan Soto trade rumors: Nationals may be 'motivated' to trade outfielder
(58 - 11:06am, May 23)
Last: bfan

NewsblogWEEKEND OMNICHATTER for May 20-22, 2022
(120 - 9:59am, May 23)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogSports teams love crypto. What happens when their sponsor strikes out?
(12 - 8:35am, May 23)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

Page rendered in 0.5988 seconds
45 querie(s) executed