Going by Tangotiger's system, here's how the Tribune guys score:
Greenstein: 74
Gonzalez: 64
Hersh: 60
Mitchell: 38
Sullivan: 34

Mitchell & Sullivan would rank among the 8 lowest as it currently stands.

@Weird_Meat, Ryan: I track Edgar votes, and have been periodically checking what I have versus what you have. I was consistently one "yes" more than you have, so I went through and checked. The difference is Ross Newhan: you have him a "no" and I have him a "yes." He is a "yes" - check his 12/30/2013 tweet @RossNewhan1.

Good catch! Newhan's ballot was already on leokitty's sheet when I first copied it. There was a yes vote on Mussina and no vote for Martinez, which was the problem. I've corrected it.

I wonder if Repoz has it right in his totals?

Dag,
I was wondering about their Tango grades,
-5 for blanks, 7, 3, 14, 1, 9, 1, 12 = 42 point ballot for Mitchell
-7, 7, 7, 14, 9, 1, 12 = 43 point for Sullivan

Or maybe I'm off?

Srul, go find someone else to stalk.

Dear me, I think I've activated his emotion chip.

@1002, Ryan: That's the main reason I brought it up (as well as, if somebody found a mistake in MY sheet - which is exceedingly easy to do - Id'd want to hear about it): wasn't sure if Repoz was using your sheet or Leokitty's, or his own....

Interesting dynamic on Edgar's vote: at this point, among the known, public ballots, 21 voters who voted for Edgar in 2013 have not this year (all, I believe, on full ballots; I'll have to double-check that). That's approaching as many ballots as he has known, public "yes" votes (30). If all of them had room on their ballot to vote for him again this year, he'd be sitting at 42.34% through 20+% of the ballot....

I haven't done this for other down-ballot candidates (Walker might also be a bell cow for this), but Edgar might well be the poster-child for why 10 isn't enough.

Mike,

Here's the modified Tango system, which has stepped penalties for each blank ballot:

14 points for each of: Bonds, Maddux, Clemens

12: Fr Thomas

9: Piazza, Bagwell, Raines

7: Biggio, Glavine

That’s 95 for nine guys.

5: Trammell, Schilling, Mussina, Edgar, McGwire

Any of those guys gives you 100.

3: La Walker, Sosa, Kent

2: Palmeiro, McGriff

1: Mattingly, Morris, Alou, Lee Smith, Lu Gonzalez, Kenny Rogers

Voting for anyone else, or leaving a blank spot:

-1 for 1st

-3 for 2nd

-5 for 3rd

...

-19 for 10th

That’s a total of -100 if you hand in a blank ballot.



Mitchell is (14, 12, 9, 7, 3, 1, 1) 47 - 9 points for 38.

Sullivan is (14, 12, 9, 9, 7, 1) 50 - 16 points for 34.

Regarding Maddux and 100%, could a rational Sosa, Palmeiro, or Mattingly supporter (which, granted, is a potentially-wrong-but-rational position in the first place) look at the Gizmo and decide that (a) Maddux is getting in, regardless, (b) he's not getting 100% because I'm sure some other idiots won't vote for him, and therefore (c) my tenth vote is better spent in ensuring that another HOF-worthy candidate doesn't fall off the ballot this year?

1007, Adam: I've wondered that too, but think most voters would rather not pass on voting for Maddux (or potentially being remembered as the guy who broke up perfection, or prevented Maddux from breaking Seaver's record) to vote for guys that have all had steadily declining vote totals for at least a couple of years. Of the "bubble" guys, I might see this happening for Walker or Kent, but not for any of the others.

Regarding Maddux and 100%, could a rational Sosa, Palmeiro, or Mattingly supporter (which, granted, is a potentially-wrong-but-rational position in the first place) look at the Gizmo and decide that (a) Maddux is getting in, regardless, (b) he's not getting 100% because I'm sure some other idiots won't vote for him, and therefore (c) my tenth vote is better spent in ensuring that another HOF-worthy candidate doesn't fall off the ballot this year?

If you're asking about looking at the Gizmo specifically, probably not - the voting closes on 12/31, and the Gizmo didn't have much of a sample at that point. (If such a voter were looking at the Gizmo, I'd hope they'd leave off Glavine before Maddux, since they both appear entirely safe at this point.)

If you're asking about voting behavior independent of the Gizmo, well, the BTF Mock Hall of Fame vote had a higher percentage of votes for Piazza than Maddux, specifically because people voted like this in a mock election. So it's possible.

I think you're far more likely to see someone drop Glavine from the ballot in favor of one of the 'needs our support' candidates. I have no doubt that someone out there has an empty ballot to mail in, or someone will refuse to vote for Maddux "because Babe Ruth didn't get 100%." But I doubt anyone drops Maddux to vote for Don Mattingly.

Dear me, I think I've activated his emotion chip.

You're an insane loon.

You're an insane loon.

Hot, uncensored insane loon on robot boy action!

I wonder if Repoz has it right in his totals?

Yeah, I caught that.

Yeah, but I'm an insane loon enjoying another wonderful Hawaii winter.

Inducting Trammell and Whitaker will help me forget the appalling Tinker/Evers/Chance inductions, for which we have a mediocre rhyme to thank.

I get this sentiment, and it is hard to argue the numbers, but I do think there's something to Bill James' question. Wasn't somebody on those Cubs teams a pretty fair ballplayer? They were in 4 of 5 World Series and won 2. They had one of the what 6-7 best runs of any team ever, and one of the teams won 116 games. Something had to be going right for them. Sure Harry Steinfeldt and Johnny Kling may have been better than we thought. But James thought it probable they had the best infield defense of all time and obviously Evers and Tinker and Chance deserve a good deal of that credit. I wouldn't spend time defending them, but I do think it's logical that one of the greatest teams of all time is going to have some HOFers other than Mordecai Brown.

Jan 5 update from Murray Chass, looks like he did vote for Frank Thomas.

Evers also would explain the otherwise mystifying 1914 Miracle Boston Braves, won a WS out out nowhere with a 32-yr-old 2B named... Johnny Evers, who won the MVP that year with a mere 114 OPS+ (granting different voting rules at the time).

I think Bill James may have written about that, too, plus how much more important 2B (and 1B) defense was in that era.

Chance has gotten many late-ballot slots in HOM over the years from a handful of voters; at his peak he was worthy but he wasn't on the field that much....

I am also an insane loon. It's not that bad.

could be coke-d here, but Klapisch detailed explainer on previous ballot picks

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Hall_of_Fame_ballot_causing_angst.html

of interest:

"Unfortunately, the Hall’s outdated rules don’t allow for more than 10 inductees in any one year. Maybe in the future a better, more just system will be in place."

"Biggio didn’t get my vote last year because it was his first time on the ballot. I do believe there’s an important distinction between getting in right away (like Maddux will) and having to wait until the 15th and final year, like Jim Rice. Not all Hall of Famers are alike."

"NO MAN’S LAND: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Bagwell
In no way does this vote condone or accept the use of performance-enhancing drugs. To the contrary, I believe those who succumbed to temptation had an unfair advantage over those who played by the rules. The cheaters knew they were crossing a line — this wasn’t like taking amphetamines in the 50s and 60s."

If the federal government couldn’t prove Bonds or Clemens were using steroids, then the matter is, legally, settled. Until I have information to the contrary — proof — the two will get my vote, as will Piazza, the greatest offensive catcher in baseball history, and Bagwell, a career .297 hitter who finished with 449 HRs.

To be clear, I will never vote for players who were clearly cheating, outed either by their own admission or a positive test. That’s why Alex Rodriguez and Mark McGwire won’t get to Cooperstown if I can help it. Same goes for Manny Ramirez. It was their bad luck to have been caught."

more on his 2 final ins, a couple of regrets, etc

I refuse to attempt to judge players from an era so far removed from the modern as Tinkers/Evers/Chance. Clearly there was something going on there. The Hall should acknowledge differing eras, obviously. Modern fans should recognize that regardless of how awesome Foreman's work has been, we don't know nearly as much about those eras as we'd like to claim.

The counter to my question is: Everybody on the team was pretty good. The other teams had total black holes, and they really didn't. They were a much more modern team in that way. Amazingly in 1910, they won 104 games and didn't have anybody in the top 10 in WAR, or even within 1.3 of the 10th place person. And in 1907 they won 107 games and didn't have anybody in the top 10 or within 0.5 of the 10th place. For their great 5-year-run, they had 1 5th (in the one year they didn't make the series), 1 7th, 2 8th, 1 9th, and 1 10th. If you take out 1906, they had 3 WS teams (2 winners) that had a total of 1 7th and 8th place in WAR. Most of the other dynasties--except the pre-ARod recent Yanks--have a guy right at the top.

Jack Curry ballot:
Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Morris, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Thomas

"Character" should not be substituted for "racism," Walt. That was more to the point of Dick Allen's problem, in addition to the short career. (Please understand that I am NOT directing the "r" word in your direction.)

But he fits your definition to a tee. He had a much better peak than Murphy, no matter how it's sliced'n'diced. Murphy's "character" (as manifested in his squeaky-clean whiteness) isn't getting him into the HOF, even with what is still a rather skewed-in-his-direction (well...white, yes--not so sure about the squeaky-clean part!) voter population.

As for the Edgar/Cash thing: Edgar has a massively better late career than Norm. I like Norm, but, jeez, a fifth of his career value is in one season--and that was not even in the time frame being discussed.

And it's important to note that being able to hit at a rarefied level past the age of 35 is--well, exceptionally rarified. The ongoing impulse to regress from regression to simple addition (alright, complicated addition...) tends to obscure that point. To be able to go that much against the grain of age is another signifier of "greatness"--and it actually shows up pretty well when we use the quintessential, two-dimensional "value" stat (WAR). Consider this list:

PLAYERS WITH 2.5+ WAR IN AGE 35+ SEASONS
6--Cap Anson, Edgar Martinez, Honus Wagner, Willie Mays
5--Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker
4--Chipper Jones, Eddie Collins, Stan Musial
3--Charlie Gehringer, Darrell Evans. Deacon White, Jose Cruz, Lave Cross, Luke Appling,
Mike Schmidt, Nap Lajoie, Ozzie Smith, Pete Rose, Rafael Palmeiro, Sam Rice,
Steve Finley, Wade Boggs
2--Bill Dahlen, Bill Terry, Bob Boyd, Bob Johnson, Carlton Fisk, Dave Winfield,
Frank Robinson, Hank Sauer, Joe Morgan, Kenny Lofton, Mel Ott, Moises Alou,
Omar Vizquel, Pee Wee Reese, Willie Stargell, Zack Wheat

This a better list than one that completely ignores defense to look at the top hitting performances year by year--the top 30 in OPS+ season-by-season from age 35 on, where only Anson and Edgar are in the top 30 six times. (Anson actually does it one more time, at age 42, but I stopped at age 40 for the list. Bonds would have seven such seasons if I'd gone out all the way, but we already know about him.) And the list above encompasses a bunch of players who get the boost from the defensive model, while Edgar comes in with his "penalty." It also creates better separation in its levels of HOF induction, as we'll see in a second.

The guys with four or more such seasons total 13; right now ten of 'em are in the HOF. The other two aside from Edgar are Chipper and Barry. One way or another at some point those two will be in, which means it will be 93%.

The guys with two or three such seasons total 30; right now seventeen of 'em are in. There are a number of interesting names on the list (who knew, for example. that half of Lave Cross' career value--according to WAR, at least--came from his years aged 35 and higher?), but only two of the non-elected have really compelling cases--Rose and Palmeiro. (Of the rest, Bob Johnson and Lofton have some reason for more lingering consideration, in part due to their ability to play really well at age 35+.) The percentage of inductees in this class is right around 60%.

Note, of course, that Norm Cash is nowhere to be found here. He had one age 35+ season over 2.5 WAR (1971, 3.1, age 36). Edgar had six consecutive seasons from age 35 on with at least 2.5. Of the other players who achieved this, he will likely be by the year 2020 the ONLY one of them NOT in the HOF. (Yes, we should be that optimistic about Bonds: much of this steroids stuff will break apart by then...looks like McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro will be the ones who wind up taking the "big hit.")

Was Edgar not "great" in his 20s? He had an OPS+ of 138 during his 20s (while he was still playing 3B). That figure is right up in the hitting range of modern HOF 3Bmen, though we'd have to extrapolate some kind of decline phase. Edgar's problem in his 20s was as unique as his performance from age 35 on: he was on a team that just wouldn't give him a job no matter how many times he killed AAA pitching. Somehow this manages to get turned around on him in these discussions. He was great, but it took his team a ridiculously long time to figure it out. And that they then decided to keep him off the field to belatedly recognize his unique skill as a hitter becomes one of the factors in a series of double-thought, double-bound analyses that attempt to marginalize him.

His advanced-age achievement as a hitter--regardless of whether he took the field or not--places him in a pantheon of "greats" who are all 95+% first-ballot choices for the Hall. The DH penalty, whatever it might be, cannot/should not be so much that he should fall below 75%, once one realizes exactly how rarified a territory he's co-inhabiting, and when you look at his age 27-29 and age 32-34 seasons.

As for whether he's "better" than Larry Walker? Put 'em both in the Hall and then we can square off on that one. They both should be there, but they both may have to wait for the Vets Committee.

They were a much more modern team in that way. Amazingly in 1910, they won 104 games and didn't have anybody in the top 10 in WAR, or even within 1.3 of the 10th place person. And in 1907 they won 107 games and didn't have anybody in the top 10 or within 0.5 of the 10th place. For their great 5-year-run, they had 1 5th (in the one year they didn't make the series), 1 7th, 2 8th, 1 9th, and 1 10th. If you take out 1906, they had 3 WS teams (2 winners) that had a total of 1 7th and 8th place in WAR. Most of the other dynasties--except the pre-ARod recent Yanks--have a guy right at the top.

But if you look at total team WAR, those Cubs were actually winning 13-25 more games than they were accumulating WAR. If I read BB-Ref correctly, a 0-WAR team should win 45 in a 154-game schedule. The Cubs' team WARs from 1906 - 1910 translate into 82-101 win teams; they really won 99-116 games. So, WAR is missing something about what made those teams great: the question, then, becomes how many of those extra wins do you want to credit to Tinker, Evers, and Chance? Given that Chance was the team's manager and given Evers's experience with the 1914 Braves, I'm fine with giving both of them enough extra credit to justify their being in the Hall of Fame. I'm less sure about Joe Tinker, but could probably be convinced on him, too, if the story of those Cubs teams really was their infield defense.

Re the T2E2C Cubs. Secret weapon was Sheckard. In Wizardry, Humphreys points out that PO rates in LF were really close to those in CF in this era. Much higher than in the modern game. Sheckard was an exceptional defender, and in that context DRA has him being much more valuable than in the modern context we know. All defense systems show Sheckard as a +++ defender: among top 10 in TZ, all-time great in DRA, and A+ in Win Shares (the WS is doubly impressive because it tilts the field steeply against corner OFs).

If T E C, Brown, and Sheckard are all Hall talents or very, very close to it, then you've got one hell of a core, maybe the Pettitte, Jeter, Posada, Williams, Rivera of its time.

Everybody on the team was pretty good.

Yeah, you mentioned six guys and didn't even get to Jimmy Sheckard, who is in the Hall of Merit. (EDIT: Sodastream Sparkling Original Pink Grapefruit to Dr. Chaleeko.)

I think it's simultaneously true that it's silly that all of Tinker/Evers/Chance are in, and to argue that each of them individually has some sort of case. Chance as mentioned was a very good player per out, plus he was the manager. If you think Gil Hodges is a candidate with 45 WAR and a World Series win as a manager, you can surely argue that Chance is a candidate with 45.9 WAR and two World Series wins as a manager. James makes a hell of an argument for Evers in the first Historical Abstract. Evers is 22nd among 2B¹ in WAR. Tinker is 19th among SS¹. Top 12 or so are usually slam dunk-y, so top 20 puts you on the borderline, I think.

Now, if three randomly selected guys are very borderline, you'd usually expect at least one of them not to have found their way in. So, from that point of view, yeah. (You won't be surprised to hear that Whitaker and Trammell are 6th and 10th respectively on the lists I just mentioned.)

¹ Minimum 50% of games there.

GregD, are you looking at fangraphs? Because BR has both Hofman and Tinker in the top ten. Also, Cole and Brown for pitchers. Even in combined Hofman and Cole are both top ten for 1910. In 1907 I just looked at combined and they have three in the top ten.

Yeah, you mentioned six guys and didn't even get to Jimmy Sheckard, who is in the Hall of Merit.

Sheckard was terrific - but he also did his best work before joining the Cubs. By WAR, five of his six best seasons came for non-Cub teams.

One point about Chance (and other turn-of-the-century stars) is that the schedule was actually 140 games from 1900-03; Chance had one of his best years in the last of those seasons.

It's also not entirely clear to me whether the positional values assigned in the DBE are correct or not, given the importance of first base at the time. Adjust for schedule and give him a few extra positional runs and Chance gets pretty close to the Hall before any extra credit for the extra team success that has to be explained somehow. Also, if you lean in the direction of WAA at all, Chance has 28.5, in comparison to 13.9 for the aforementioned Hodges.

So Chance, at least, is a reasonable candidate.

I find Chance is fine as a HOFer in the lifetime-achievement-award kind of way. Fame, managing, playing together make sense. Playing alone, however, is not enough, even if you adjust for sked and for his several years of catching. (I tend to bonus catchers so that they look more like other positions based on usage patterns of their time. It's not perfect, but it gets me close enough.)

1028: I wonder if Sheckard was the last piece of the puzzle. His arrival coincides with the vault from 2nd/3rd place team to dynasty.

Hi everyone, this is my first comment here. I'm that rare thing, a Brit who is a big baseball fan. Its great to find somewhere with so many people who have well-thought-out views about the game. I'm sure its been done in different places but I wanted to weigh in with my view on the whole Morris vs Mussina thing which is driving me absolutely nuts.

What I don't get is that this does not need to be an old-school vs sabermetrics debate or comparison. You don't need advanced metrics to see that Mussina is miles better candidate than Morris:

Wins - Morris 254 Mussina 270
Strikeouts - Morris 2478 Mussina 2813
Walks - Morris 1390 Mussina 785
ERA - Morris 3.90 Mussina 3.68

Throw in some basic knowledge about when the steroid era was and the AL East being tough and Mussina's a slam dunk surely? So why don't all these guys who still think Wins are great vote for Mussina? I just don't understand the logic, its absolute nonsense.

And as for game 7 1991 WS. I'm all for postseason being worth something in the voting, but cherry-picking someone's best game or signature moment and weighting it heavily is ridiculous. You could as easily weight his worst start heavily. Nobody else has people arguing for signature moment preferential treatment in the same way - Kirk Gibson was a good player in the 80s with a big signature moment and he's not in, and rightly so. Roger Maris doesn't get in for 1961. I wonder wow far one could take it....Aaron Boone anyone?

I don’t think Morris is a Hall of Famer. But if people want to vote for him and lower the standards of the Hall then thats up to them. What I do complain about is people voting for him instead of better qualified pitchers, and this year Maddux, Glavine, Mussina and Schilling all deserve votes ahead of him.

1028: I wonder if Sheckard was the last piece of the puzzle. His arrival coincides with the vault from 2nd/3rd place team to dynasty.

So does Harry Steinfeldt's. (Per B-R, Steinfeldt was acquired in October and Sheckard in December, so I suppose Sheckard was the last piece chronologically, at least.)

@1031 Sam - Welcome to the site.

That stats you point out are what drive so many of us nuts about Morris, and why you occasionally (well maybe frequently) see bile spewed towards the writers that use a precious ballot spot on Morris.

Several writers have stated they bumped Mussina for Morris because it's Morris' last year and they'll get Mussina next year.

[1034] Yup, and I'm expecting a big boost for Moose next year. The votes for ballot slots for Maddux and Glavine will go straight to Johnson and Pedro, but Thomas will be coming off of ~85-90% of ballots, Biggio off of ~75-80% and Morris off of ~65-70% of ballots freeing up about 2.2 slots/ballot. Smoltz will likely debut in the Schilling/Mussina range and I expect Sheffield to get ~10% (Balco scandal, forced trades from MIL and LAD, historically awful dWAR). So that leaves room for Mussina to pick up the votes of those maxed out voters as well as Raines, Martinez and Walker. For as bad as people were making the ballot glut out to be, it looks like the worst of it is over even without a rule change.

1023, Don Malcolm: Well said, and thanks for the Edgar support. I'm with you about Walker: he ALSO deserves to be in, so I don't worry too much about who is better than who in that particular case. They are both worthy.

Regarding Davidoff's ballot: I think Ken Davidoff is one of the most thoughtful writers in the BBWAA, and consistently produces some of the best ballots, year-to-year. I tend to be in his camp, that the writers aren't moral arbiters, etc.

That said, his position on PEDs is an interesting one, and not one I think makes much sense. Bonds and Clemens he will vote for, despite a mountain of evidence that they used, because they weren't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but if a player admits using, he won't vote for him? Or if he is caught, which may well be after an arbitration appeal using a lesser standard of proof that "beyond a reasonable doubt," same thing, he'll never support them (even though they may be "caught" and punished on less evidence than was presented against Bonds or Clemens)? I am part of the camp that does not believe this is anything like a criminal standard of proof, and agree with what I think is a growing consensus that, however you choose to deal with PEDs, something closer to a preponderance standard is plenty good enough.

I don't have a problem, on THIS crowded a ballot, with anybody choosing not to vote for anybody credibly linked to steroids, as long as they have a full ballot, but Davidoff went further than that. Personally, I might leave off Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro THIS YEAR, but only if I was pretty sure that at least Bonds and Clemens wouldn't fall off, but I can't see the distinction Davidoff makes between Bonds & Clemons, and the others. I understand the distinction that Bonds & Clemons were Hall of Famers before they were tied to PEDs, and that is far less clear with others, but I don't see a distinction drawn solely on differences in legal burdens of proof, or that discourage users from admitting what they've done. I might make any number of these guys wait for otherwise qualified candidates who aren't tied to PEDs, but I'd probably vote for ANY of them as soon as there is room.

. Bonds and Clemens he will vote for, despite a mountain of evidence that they used, because they weren't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but if a player admits using, he won't vote for him?

Big Jule: Well, I used to be bad when I was a kid, but ever since then I've gone straight, as has been proved by my record: Thirty-three arrests and no convictions!

"Character" should not be substituted for "racism," Walt. That was more to the point of Dick Allen's problem, in addition to the short career.

I have no dog in this fight but all sorts of minds disagree on Allen. Bill James took a dim view of his actions, our own HW will gladly extol you at length about Allen's cancerous clubhouse persona. We all know that he did walk away from his team mid-season. We also can take a pretty good guess that as a forthright black man in the 60s that he took a lot more crap than anybody should have to take and that the other Frank Thomas probably deserved worse than he got. I don't doubt that Allen's personality rubbed a lot of voters the wrong way, even moreso because he was black but it's a long way from 4% to 75% and I'd be very hesitant to call that "racism" without a lot of evidence.

Anyway, my point was simply this -- I could offer Allen as the example of a peak-only candidate who didn't make it and a dozen people here would say that he's not in because of the character clause ... and I wouldn't be able to refute that.

Short-career sluggers have never had an easy time of it. Greenberg had to wait a bit, Mize wasn't voted in (and his career wasn't even that short), Kiner made it in his 15th year, Rice made it in his 15th year (peak but not short career). We also know the HoF voting can get pretty f'd up at times -- Santo was as summarily dismissed as Allen just 3 years earlier and neither got much support when they were put back on the ballot. Allen debuted with Torre who barely made it over 5% -- both with fewer votes than Don Larsen, Roy Face, Elston Howard, Lew Burdette. Cepeda, another peak-heavy slugger with an MVP, only got 16%. Bizarrely, Tommy Helms, Felix Millan and Dave Giusti all got one vote (Jimmy Wynn 0).

If you can find a sensible pattern -- be it racism or anything else -- in the 1983 ballot, you're a more insightful guy than I am. I think the BBWAA just went insame (more than usual) for a few years there.

<1036>

I don't see Davidoff's ballot article saying anything you describe.

Bonds and Clemens he will vote for, despite a mountain of evidence that they used

Where is the mountain of evidence Clemens used? After spending literally tens of millions of dollars on investigations complete with the ability to compel testimony, the only thing the federal prosecutors could turn up was one person who admitted on the stand to lying about a mountain of other things and who had been terminated from his prior police position due to tampering with evidence who said that he personally provided PEDs to Clemens. Is that some evidence? Sure. A mountain? It is less than the highest mountain in Florida.

Dave Krieger's ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Martinez, Morris, Piazza, Raines, Thomas, Trammell.

So is Ringolsby the only Denver guy to vote for Walker? Renck also passed over him (felt his career was too short). Not sure if any other Denver guys have votes.

If it were just about his hitting, he'd be in, short career or no short career. I mean, look at the guy's OPS+ and oWAR. This was put together in the frigging second deadball era. But it isn't just about hitting, and it isn't as if only a few people say he was an ####### and a blight on his teams in a major way, and that should be taken into account. Historically, it's been dispositive. Allen has almost been universally condemned. His behavior extended right up to the end of his career.

And, he was a terrible fielder.

However, it should bel noted that Allen does have defenders. Jim Kaat has gone on record as stating Allen was personable and open to helping young players. That should mean something. Kaat played with Allen, and Kaat is seen as a good guy universally respected. I believe Schmidt, too, has come to Allen's defense. There must be others--and I'm talking not just people like here who defend him in a negative way--i.e., he had good reason to act like he did. How committed Kaat and Schmidt and others are to Allen can only be tested if Allen is ever a serious candidate. As his critics die off, all that will remain is his record and a degrading memory of his behavior that will seem to be excusable to those that didn't witness it.

BTW, even Jim Bouton doesn't defend Allen in Ball Four. Instead, he says that guys with talent like Allen are entitled to special treatment. It's kind of the Marilyn Monroe defense. You put up with prima donnas if they put out quality performances and bring in the crowds and are big part in you winning. YMMV.

Several writers have stated they bumped Mussina for Morris because it's Morris' last year and they'll get Mussina next year.

I have very little respect for the writers and think they are petty vindicative bunch. And I fully think that if Morris doesn't go in this year, that some of them will say "Well if Morris doesn't make it, Mussina is basically the 90's version of Morris, so he shouldn't be a hofer."

Obviously a lot will give Mussina a vote, and I think he'll go in, in a few years (after Schilling, Smoltz, Randy and Pedro though)

His ERA+ was helped by his seasons as a closer, and that will also help him.

Middling helped at the most. Smoltz had 7.5% of his innnings pitched in relief, and Schilling had 5.5 of his innings pitched in relief. Yes Smoltz was much better as a reliever than Schilling, but I don't see how that hurts his case. I understand that it's easier to post better era as a reliever, and if there was a significant difference in innings pitched between the two as relievers I think it would be worth arguing, but the truth is, they both had a moderate run as relievers.

As always, when talking about Schilling, the elephant in the room is unearned runs and that always bolsters him.

I personally see Schilling and Smoltz as pretty much equal, but if someone forced me to choose, I would take Schilling. Mussina is the guy who gets ripped off in these discussions because he "feels" like he was a plus pitcher with a long career, but he had a peak on par with Schilling and Smoltz. He doesn't have the peak seasonal innings pitched totals that Schilling and Smoltz have which might hurt his perceived value though.

If it were just about his hitting, he'd be in, short career or no short career. I mean, look at the guy's OPS+ and oWAR. This was put together in the frigging second deadball era.

1. OPS+ and oWAR are already adjusted for the second deadball era, so Allen's numbers in those particular categories are not made more impressive by their timing.
2. The voters are highly unlikely to have looked at OPS+ and oWAR, since they either did not exist or were not nearly as publicized as they are now when Allen was on the ballot.
3. The fact that Allen's career was in the '60s and '70s made his superficial numbers, the ones the voters actually would have looked at, less impressive than they would have been otherwise.

The character clause may well have spurred some writers to leave Allen off of their ballots, but given that he never reached 20% of the vote, I'm inclined to doubt that it was decisive in his exclusion; that would require about 70% of the writers who didn't vote for him to have done so for exclusively character-based reasons.

I have very little respect for the writers and think they are petty vindicative bunch

How many writers is this based on compared to the hundreds of voters? Dan has posted recently that he was surprised how open many of the people he encounters are, compared to the pinatas that get posted here (well, that last part is my interpretation, not his exact words).

1039: YMMV, but:

Regarding Bonds: "The U.S. government couldn’t prove he used illegal PEDs, and even if it had, he still would get my vote, as the commissioner’s office never nailed him."

Regarding Clemens: "Bonds’ fellow legend/outcast, his pitching equivalent in many ways, also outsmarted the Feds and also has a spotless official record."

Regarding McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro: "You get caught, you get dinged: The candidacies of Rafael Palmeiro (failed drug test, 2005) and Sammy Sosa (corked bat, 2003) are damaged but not disqualified by their baseball convictions. On this crowded a ballot, they don’t come close."

I should note that this is less absolutist than I somehow remembered it. And in the process of reading a LOT of ballot explanations, I appear to attributed to Davidoff something that somebody else wrote about Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez. And about lumping the "admitted" with the "caught." So my bad there. I'll have to figure out what ballot I was looking at - I think it may have been Klapisch's (another writer I usually admire, but disagree with about PEDs; see 1019).

Nevertheless, the ballot just struck me as making a strange distinction, based on a standard of proof far more stringent than seems necessary or appropriate for the task at hand. Deal with PEDs however you want, but don't draw meaningless distinctions based on whether things were "proven" in criminal proceedings. Or even by MLB - there comes a point where the evidence is sufficient regardless of legal proof - Bonds is the best example of this, as anyone who has read Game of Shadows knows. Clemens, IMO, isn't far behind.

For me, that would not disqualify them, either, but on that basis alone I don't think it separates them from McGwire/Sosa/Palmeiro, either...though there are other distinctions I can accept.

The character clause may well have spurred some writers to leave Allen off of their ballots, but given that he never reached 20% of the vote, I'm inclined to doubt that it was decisive in his exclusion; that would require about 70% of the writers who didn't vote for him to have done so for exclusively character-based reasons.

Technically it would have required 55% leaving him off for character reason.

I flip flop on this issue all the time, whether the character clause has hurt anyone for the hof, and Dick Allen is always the go to guy in the discussion. The thing about the hof vote, is that players gain momentum if they are arguably worthy. I think the people holding the vote back for him early, ultimately prevented others from joining it later.

I honestly cannot say that I have ever been fully convinced on either side of the issue, so I always try to be devil's advocate for one or the other.

Of course I don't remember Bill James and Posnanski's point that it was originally for inclusion. That is an interesting point that I missed previously.

Technically it would have required 55% leaving him off for character reason.

Allen peaked at 18.9% of the vote; he would have needed 56.1% more. 56.1% would be 69.1% of the 81.1% of the writers who didn't vote for him. Hence "about 70%."

How many writers is this based on compared to the hundreds of voters? Dan has posted recently that he was surprised how open many of the people he encounters are, compared to the pinatas that get posted here (well, that last part is my interpretation, not his exact words).

No clue.... individually I like a lot of writers, but as a group they don't impress me. You have the Neyer's of the world that is willing to call out his brethren but for the most part, they don't have the guts to actually challenge conventional thinking. Over the past decade or so, the numbers of writers I respect has grown....

Allen peaked at 18.9% of the vote; he would have needed 56.1% more. 56.1% would be 69.1% of the 81.1% of the writers who didn't vote for him. Hence "about 70%.

:P

As for the Edgar/Cash thing: Edgar has a massively better late career than Norm. I like Norm, but, jeez, a fifth of his career value is in one season--and that was not even in the time frame being discussed.

Of course he did, what does that have to do with anything? I was expressly saying it doesn't matter when a person produces their value (Cash produced most of his in his 20s, Edgar produced most of his in his 30s). My comp of Cash to Edgar is about what Edgar's 30s might have looked like had Edgar been required to play the field those years. Edgar was moved to DH to keep him healthy therefore I assume that if he had to play the field he would have been less healthy in his 30s. That would either manifest itself in less playing time, a greater/speedier decline in ability or both. If one assumes that Edgar would have produced as much offense while playing 1B, much less 3B, then the Ms made a pretty big mistake in putting him at DH.

And it's important to note that being able to hit at a rarefied level past the age of 35 is--well, exceptionally rarified.

I'd say that's completely unimportant. Being able to hit at a rarified level prior to the age of 25 AND after the age of 35 is exceptionally rare and important. Hitting at an exceptional level past the age of 35 when you did not hit at a rarified level before age 32 is rare but unimportant. (Not that he was a slouch through age 32 but guys with a 133 OPS+ through that age rarely turn into HoF candidates.)

Most of the position players who continue to produce after age 35 are among the all-time greats but they're among the all-time greats because they produced for 15 years before that too. Edgar is not in that group. Edgar is more in the Dick Allen group except Allen and most others in that group produced like crazy up to age 30 and little afterwards while Edgar is the reverse.

HoF position players with less than 20 WAR through age 29:

Stargell
High Pockets
Averill -- VC
Slaughter -- ww2
Lombardi -- C
Terry -- not a bad comp I suppose
Schoendienst -- VC, mix of manager
J Robinson -- extenuating circumstances
L Waner -- worst-ever HoF selection?
Ferrell -- C
Rizzutto -- SS

So, it's very rare. Stargell and Terry are reasonable comps so it's even happened before for a slugger.

There are meanwhile 36 HoFers who produced at least 50 WAR through age 30 (out of 47).* There are 46 (mostly overlap obviously) that produced at least 50 WAR in their first 11 seasons.

When Edgar produced was unusual, even for HoFers. How much Edgar produced in his prime was not unusual for HoFers. How much being able to play DH helped him excel in his 30s is unknown.

*Of those that didn't make it -- 7 will or would have sans PEDs, 2 likely never (Magee, Allen) and 2 not by voters (Andruw, Trammell). 5 of those who did make it were VC selections.

As to your odd list, I've added their WAR prior to age 35:

6--Cap Anson (53), Edgar Martinez (42), Honus Wagner (70), Willie Mays (120)
5--Babe Ruth (123), Barry Bonds (103), Hank Aaron (111), Ted Williams (86), Ty Cobb (120), Tris Speaker (104)
4--Chipper Jones (60), Eddie Collins (97), Stan Musial (103)
3--Charlie Gehringer (66), Darrell Evans (39). Deacon White (27), Jose Cruz (35), Lave Cross (28), Luke Appling (44),
Mike Schmidt (88), Nap Lajoie (65), Ozzie Smith (57), Pete Rose (65), Rafael Palmeiro (55), Sam Rice (29),
Steve Finley (30), Wade Boggs (72)

So Edgar is most similar to:

Chipper -- 18 ahead and a 3B his entire career
Gehringer -- 24 ahead and a 2B
Da Evans -- 3 behind and a 1B/3B, never gonna be in the HoF
Cruz -- 7 behind, a LF his entire career, never gonna be in the HoF
Appling -- 2 ahead and a SS
Lajoie -- 23 ahead and a 2B
Ozzie -- 15 ahead and a SS
Rose -- 23 ahead and an everything
Palmeiro -- 13 ahead, would have been HoF with the milestones Edgar doesn't have
Finley -- oh c'mon
Rice -- a not bad comp who played 80 years ago and had to go in by VC
19th C guys -- god only knows what WAR meant

So on that list, he's most similar in pre-35 production to Rice, Evans, Cruz and Palmeiro who were corner players, one of whom would have made the HoF with the milestones Edgar never reached, one by VC. He pulls well ahead of Evans and Cruz on post-35 production which is good but not automatically qualifying for the HoF.

From age 35 on, Edgar produced a robust 26.5 WAR. 43 players produced 26+ WAR through age 25. The maybe not HoFers (sans PEDs) are Andruw, D Wright, Pinson (35 WAR), Cedeno (35), Longoria, Allen, Fregosi, Raines, Magee (34) and Willie Randolph. If Randolph can produce 27.2 WAR from 21-25 and 65 WAR overall, why am I supposed to be impressed by Edgar producing 26.5 as an old DH and 68 overall? Andruw, Cedeno and Pinson are all top 20 all-time for WAR through age 25. Cedeno, Pinson, Andruw, Fregosi and Randolph had as many 5+ WAR seasons through age 25 (4) as Bonds (both), Bench, DiMaggio, Musial, Mays, Ripken, etc.

Was Edgar not "great" in his 20s?

Hell no.

You can't be serious Don. This is nuts.

Edgar in his 20s had only 2100 ML PAs. Edgar in his 20s was a minor-leaguer. Edgar in the minor leagues had a career 139 ISO. Edgar at the age of 23 put up a line of 264/383/390 at AA.

From the ages of 24-31, Edgar had a 133 OPS+ but in just 2600 PA. There are 209 ML players with at least 2500 PA and a 130+ OPS+ from ages 24 to 31, almost all of whom had to maintain it in more PA than Edgar. Among those players, Edgar is 174th in WAR. 18 of those played C or SS, Edgar behind all of them in WAR (closest is Hanley Ramirez who is still only 29). Another 43 were either 2B, 3B or CF and Edgar is 3rd from bottom in WAR. Just looking at the 3B:

Schmidt 154
Boggs 150
Mathews 149
Brett 148
Chipper 146
Rosen 142
Wright 138 (36 WAR, one year to go)
Santo 138 (55 WAR)
T Perez 135 (50% 3B, 36 WAR)
Bonilla 135
Rolen 130 (42 WAR)
Madlock 130

So Edgar kinda slides in at the bottom of this list if you ignore playing time. I will grant that he was better than Madlock and Bonilla due to being a better defender and probably Perez who had already shifted to 1B mainly but he had much less playing time than any of them obviously. Brooks doesn't show up because he didn't hit enough to qualify for this list.

Edgar certainly does not qualify as a great or even HoF-level 3B based on his work through age 31.

Very different reasons for their late starts but the best current comp for the pre-DH Edgar is probably Josh Hamilton -- 3151 PA, 136 OPS+, 24.6 WAR, mostly CF through 31, slightly below-average defender overall. Edgar of course creams him on OBP but you used OPS+. The WAR per 650 is 5.4 for Edgar, 5.1 for Hamilton. The WAR/650 is similar to Wright's but in about half the PA by the end of 2014 and Wright still has a lot of work to do to make the HoF as a 3B.

From age 32 on, Edgar hit like a young Allen or Cabrera for which of course he should be given full credit ... and treated pretty much like Allen or "bus" Cabrera except possibly for the MVP things and whatever extra/less you want to dock him for DH over 1B/3B.

EM 32-40: 5500 PA, 159 OPS+, 428 Rbat - 28 base/DP, 47 WAR, 47 oWAR, full-time DH
DA 22-30: 5500 PA, 164 OPS+, 375 Rbat + 11 base/DP, 52 WAR, 61 oWAR, over 600 starts at 3B
MC 23-30: 5400 PA, 161 OPS+, 462 Rbat - 31 base/DP, 45 WAR, 52 oWAR, over 600 starts at 3B

Allen adds a good bit less than Edgar outside of this but Allen has the slight career oWAR edge despite 1300 fewer PA (he's killed on defense). Cabrera will likely blow by Edgar for career WAR although it's far from certain at this point.

Back to the DH penalty ... Edgar has the fewest starts at 3B -- 530 vs 646 for Allen vs 680 for Cabrera. However, he was pretty good while they were pretty terrible. On dWAR, Edgar is -10 career; Allen is -17; Cabrera is already -12 and should end up something like -20. Even from 32-40, his dWAR was only -11 as a full-time DH. In 2011, Cabrera got 152 starts at 1B (7 at DH) and put up a respectable -3 Rfield and his dWAR was -1.3; in 1997, Edgar had 144 starts at DH and 7 at 1B (0 Rfield) and his dWAR was -1.3. That ain't right.

1044:

No. Everyone knew and appreciated that Allen was a great hitter. They didn't need WAR or OPS+. And they knew what he had done had been done in the second deadball era. And they nevertheless almost universally loathed him. The votes that he got were despite this, and that should tell you something about how he good a hitter he was and how strongly they felt. See Bill James on this. Read the writing of writers who actually covered him.

Again: plus, his defense was lousy. And thought to be even lousier, and thoroughly feckless and lackadaisical.

The parallel I keep thinking of for Allen is Manny. Great hitter. Terrible fielder. Incredibly divisive. Quit on team. Seemed indifferent. Different run environment, though. ;)

EDIT: Divisive not decisive

The parallel I keep thinking of for Allen is Manny.

He seems about halfway between Manny and Albert Belle to me - his career length is right in the middle, for instance.

Of course, halfway between Manny and Belle would have him playing center field for the mid-'90s Indians, which would be interesting to watch.

My favorite Dick Allen memory

Boo

Hell no.

You can't be serious Don. This is nuts.

Edgar in his 20s had only 2100 ML PAs. Edgar in his 20s was a minor-leaguer. Edgar in the minor leagues had a career 139 ISO. Edgar at the age of 23 put up a line of 264/383/390 at AA.

From the ages of 24-31, Edgar had a 133 OPS+ but in just 2600 PA. There are 209 ML players with at least 2500 PA and a 130+ OPS+ from ages 24 to 31, almost all of whom had to maintain it in more PA than Edgar. Among those players, Edgar is 174th in WAR. 18 of those played C or SS, Edgar behind all of them in WAR (closest is Hanley Ramirez who is still only 29). Another 43 were either 2B, 3B or CF and Edgar is 3rd from bottom in WAR. Just looking at the 3B:

That is certainly the most uncharitable way of looking at it Walt. Did Edgar knock up your daughter or something?

Edgar didn't get any serious ML playing time until age 27.
At age 26 in AAA he hit: .345/.457/.522 in 141 PA's
At age 25 in AAA he hit: .363/.467/.517 in 407 PA's
At age 24 in AAA he hit: .329/.434/.473 in 531 PA's

That's an easy 1000 PA's where he essentially showed he was the Edgar that showed up in the majors. If you rate that around the 5.4 WAR/ 650 PA you cited, he would be sitting in the mid 70's in WAR, over 40 WAA, and would be a slam-dunk HoFer.

Where is the mountain of evidence Clemens used?

Guilt by association with Andy Pettitte.

The rule has only been applied to perceived PED users...that is it.

As I've noted many times that's at minimum not clear. I think it's pretty clear that Hal Chase was excluded on character grounds. And the there are borederline cases like Bill Dahlen, Sherry Magee, Carl Mays and Dick Allen. Probably a few others.

In general it's been treated as something that can move a guy from just in to just out or vice-versa. Never applied to an overwhelmingly qualified player (if one accepts that being on the permanently banned list has always been an absolute disqualification), because there are obvious character issues to many of the very best players.

Gizmo is currently at 133 ballots as I write this, two days before results are released. Does anyone know where the Gizmo was last year at this stage? Seems to me we're going to come in well below 194 ballots this time. Wondering what writers disclosed last year that may not be this year? Also, if there is a larger % not disclosing this year as compared to last, does that bode well for Morris?

Also, if there is a larger % not disclosing this year as compared to last, does that bode well for Morris?

We're still awaiting the ESPN/MLB dump, which is more than 30 votes worth, if I'm not mistaken. That, plus some other late arrivals, will pull us close to last year's total.

And nothing bodes well for Morris. He's just too damn far away.

But who are the players that the BBWAA voted in during the initial eligibility process that support Pos's purported point??

Rabbit Maranville. Arguably Herb Pennock.

Seems to me we're going to come in well below 194 ballots this time.

Everybody crawled out of the woodwork to chime in on Bonds/Clemens last year.

Most have retired back into their coffins.

I don't know where the Gizmo was roughly 48 hours before the announcement last year, but I do remember that a pretty good-sized chunk came on the day of the official announcement (after the announcement), or possibly even in the few days after. I'm not sure if Repoz incorporated ballots released on the BBWAA website or not (kind of a separate bloc, useful for future years, but not exactly predictive).

If I had to guess, I'd say this year is one of the bigger samples, at this point in the process. We have only really had one (Chicago Tribune) of the big ballot dumps that usually come pre-announcement.....

I should add that, according to Leokitty's database (which begins in 2009) with the BBWAA public releases added in, there are only 280-290 voters who have ever been counted among the public ballots. Obviously Repoz collects some anonymous ballots as well (22 so far this year on Ryan's sheet), but at some point, you're reaching the saturation point among those who have historically been willing to share.

#906 He'll be listed as a DH for the peak lists. In his 5 best years by WAR he started 291 games at 3B (143 games started in both 1991 and 1992) and 420 at DH (16 at 1B). And the fact that Jaws etc treats him as a 3B is simply a method error.

He had under 4 "years" (ie 1,200 defensive inning) at 3B in a career that spanned 18 years.

#908 You don't have to look very hard to find clear evidence of Cap Anson betting on baseball. He was very open about it, and stories of his bets regularly made the papers.

Updating needed amounts with 133 ballots in;

Biggio - 73.4%
Piazza - 75.4%
Bagwell - 77.4%
Morris - 78.9%
Sosa - 4.4%
Palmeiro - 4.6%
Mattingly - 5.3%

ESPN votes are up

Maddux and Thomas get 17/17
Glavine gets 16/17 (dropped by Ian O'Connor)
Biggio 13/17 - just above 75%

Piazza 12/17
Morris and Raines 11/17
Bagwell 10/17
Bonds and Clemens 9/17
Schilling 7/17
Kent, Mussina, and Trammell 4/17 (ouch)
Edgar and McGriff 3/17
Lee Smith 2/17
Mattingly, McGwire, Palmeiro, Walker 1/17 (all different voters)

Sosa 0/17, but left off list of players not receiving a single vote

#917 There were serious accusations against Speaker and Cobb (and Smokey Joe Wood). Landis held a hearing on the matter. There are a lot of people who believe that there was a whitewash on the matter, but I think that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Landis. (It's complicated in that Landis did use this whole affair to destroy Ban Johnson, but the fact of the matter is that there really wasn't enough evidence against Speaker and/or Cobb. Smokey Joe Wood did change his story decades later, but Landis could only work with what was on the record, and Woods' version of events was basically consistent with the story told by Cobb and Speaker)

There were also serious accusations against Eddie Collins and Ray Schalk (accused of giving a payout to Bill James. In fact they gave him a fairly substantial amount of money for winning some games against a rival down the stretch). They'd have been suspended for a year under current rules. In fact the current rules date to this case, but unlike Buck Weaver (guilty knowledge) Landis didn't apply the rules retroactively. (and also said that this was the last case he'd examine on conduct prior to his tenure -- implicitly acknowledging that there was substantial corruption in the game in the teens)

There was a serious accusation against Frankie Frisch, High Pockets Kelly and Ross Youngs. Matter of record that Ban Johnson believed the accusation and felt that they should not be allowed to play in the World Series (1924) -- though it's surely worth noting that at that stage Johnson could politely be called a crank.

#924 The accusation was that it was a "fellowship game". They'd split the proceeds with the result negotiated in advance.

ESPN voters are up

17 ballots, total of 156 names; that's over 9 per ballot.

Maddux and Thomas were unanimous. Glavine missed out on one vote, from Ian O'Connor; O'Connor had a full ballot which also includes Morris and Schilling, and not Mussina.

Maddux and Thomas were unanimous. Glavine missed out on one vote, from Ian O'Connor; O'Connor had a full ballot which also includes Morris and Schilling, and not Mussina.

Piazza?

the ESPN ballot is in: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10231471/craig-biggio-tom-glavine-greg-maddux-frank-thomas-elected-espn-2014-baseball-hall-fame-ballot

Sosa - 4.4%

Sosa has been extremely quiet since he retired to the DR. I do know that he said that he would wait "calmly" for his induction into the Hall of Fame... ESPN is now reporting that there is a real possibility that he will fall below 5% this year, and the gizmo certainly has him hovering at the cut line. I wonder if we will hear "calmly" from him if he gets kicked from the ballot?

Totals out of 17:

Maddux 17
Thomas 17
Glavine 16
Biggio 13 (75% cutoff)
Piazza 12
Morris 11
Raines 11
Bagwell 10
Bonds 9
Clemens 9
Schilling 7
Kent 4
Mussina 4
Trammell 4
Martinez 3
McGriff 3
Smith 2
Mattingly 1
McGwire 1
Palmeiro 1
Walker 1
Sosa 0

Amusingly, the site fails to even mention Sosa among the players who got no votes.

11 of the 17 filled their ballots, and 3 more had 9 players listed. The other 3:

Michael Knisley (8): Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Piazza, Kent, Martinez, Smith
Pedro Gomez (7): Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Morris, Trammell, McGriff, Smith
Howard Bryant (4): Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Morris

I'm pretty sure Bryant is already counted in the Gizmo (along with a few of the others in the sample). I don't remember seeing Gomez before, though, and his ballot is... not one of the better ones.

!057 His minor legue numbers have a huge amount of air to let out. See Szym's zMLEs.

Calgary was an extreme hitter's park in a hitter's league. Or to put it another way, the team hit .287/.373/.435 in 1987, .289/.363/.440 in 1988 and .289/.356/.436 in 1989.

Now you can argue that you could expect a fairly smooth transition to the majors in that he was not taking advantage of an extreme home run park (24 HR in 3 years), but realistically all he'd have done is added a little bulk filler to his resume had he become the regular 3 years earlier.

Klapisch: Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina.

This would be my ballot exactly. Wow, nice job.

Sosa has been extremely quiet since he retired to the DR. I do know that he said that he would wait "calmly" for his induction into the Hall of Fame... ESPN is now reporting that there is a real possibility that he will fall below 5% this year, and the gizmo certainly has him hovering at the cut line. I wonder if we will hear "calmly" from him if he gets kicked from the ballot?

At least he can't claim the voters are anti-black.

1078 - Good point re: his minor league #s. I think it's clear based on his first 3 years (27-29) - with WARs of 5.5, 6.1, and 6.6 - that he was overdue for a call-up. Credit him an extra 500 PAs b/w 1987-1988 and 3 WAR seems realistic. I wouldn't call that filler but I suppose a larger point is that it wouldn't fundamentally change his HOF case which is held back because of DH + eh counting stats.

I think his late callup is a lesser issue than his hamstring tear. It's one thing if the hamstring tear happened naturally like Ken Griffey Jr's. Every player has to deal w/ injuries. His hamstring tear happened b/c Seattle played an exhibition game on crappy artificial turf in Vancouver. If that fluke event doesn't happen, he likely plays a few more years at 3B and gets back about a lost season's worth of AB in his prime.

Where is the line where missed time (and WAR penalties for DHing) should be credited vs. not? Below is a rough stab at the buckets. Given the circumstances of Martinez's injury, I think of it more as 'victim of an accident' and that should be factored into the analysis of the player. Net-net, while Frank Thomas had to play DH for health and bad fielding reasons, Edgar had to play DH (and take WAR penalties) because a preventable accident prevented him from playing the field during the latter half of his prime.

Definitely deserve credit
- War service time
- Victim of an accident - say, got shot on the street, car accident where they weren't at fault (e.g., Campanella), on-field accident like a beaning/comebacker (e.g., if Score's injury happened in his 10th year after putting up 40-50 WAR or if Conigliaro or Thon had had more years/success)
- Victim of a disease (e.g, Gehrig, Puckett)

Maybe deserve credit
- Was unfairly buried in the minor leagues
- Was suboptimally played in some way because of circumstances - e.g, the player didn't get starting time b/c their team was stacked, was move to a secondary position based on team depth (e.g., Torre was a brutal 3B and ideally should've stayed as C/1B)

Does not deserve credit
- Various little stints on the DL (Molitor, Trammell, Larkin, Walker) - if anything, maybe deserve an extra penalty for not being more durable.
- Declines based on standard injury types - e.g., Dawson's knees, Tanana blowing out his arm
- Off the field accident that was their fault
- Suspensions for breaking rules (PED, gambling, etc.)

12 for Piazza and 11 for Morris, out of 17 total?

RELEASE THE HOUNDS

- Victim of a disease (e.g, Gehrig, Puckett)


Why treat disease different than a chronic/debilitating injury?

How is Puckett's eyes going different than Mattingly's back going?

Edit: which is not to say Mattingly belongs in the HoF; he doesn't, even though he's my favorite player ever.

Puckett doesn't belong either. Charlie Keller is a better example. He belongs in the HoF before Puckett. He had legit HoF talent a legit HoF peak

Why treat disease different than a chronic/debilitating injury?

It is a very good question. Clearly the HOF treats sudden differently than chronic/slow-developing. Pete Reiser got HOF votes, and I am sure Tony C would have gotten them if he had been eligible. Whether that's rational or defensible is a different question.

How is Puckett's eyes going different than Mattingly's back going?

1. It is sadder.
2. It's not an injury that is caused by playing baseball. That is, Mattingly's back problems can (and probably should) be seen as a frailty that made him a lesser player. Puckett's eyes going can be seen as an unfair freak thing that robbed the world of this player's talent.

Sammy sosa isn't my idea of a great player, but I think he's getting a raw deal from hof voters

1. It is sadder.
2. It's not an injury that is caused by playing baseball. That is, Mattingly's back problems can (and probably should) be seen as a frailty that made him a lesser player. Puckett's eyes going can be seen as an unfair freak thing that robbed the world of this player's talent.

But why, beyond pure sympathy? (and Puckett didn't go blind). Great eyesight is as much a physical tool for ballplayers as a strong back.

Puckett's eyes deteriorated, Mattingly/Keller's back deteriorated. They're both medical conditions.

Sammy sosa isn't my idea of a great player, but I think he's getting a raw deal from hof voters

It's the ballot limit. He only got 11% of the vote in our mock election here at BBTF. At BB-Ref, you can sort the HOF candidates by various things. Sosa's 17th in career WAR, he's 11th in WAR7, he's 16th in JAWS. Heck, he's 10th in career OPS+, in a virtual tie with Moises Alou. Even setting aside the blanket assumption that he used steroids (which I agree is something of a "raw deal"), it's just really hard to defend him as one of the 10 best players on this year's ballot.

Snapper, suppose Puckett had to retire because he had tongue cancer. Would you see that as different than Mattingly's condition?

Puckett woke up one day - in the prime of his career - and couldn't see out of his right eye. Career over, just like that. Voters almost certainly saw this as a "act of god" type of tragedy that was not in any way related to his natural abilities. It has as much in common with Clemente's death as it does Mattingly's back problems.

It's the ballot limit. He only got 11% of the vote in our mock election here at BBTF.

I don't want to spoil the results but let's just say Sosa is doing a LOT better in the referendum where the ballot limit was eliminated.

Snapper, suppose Puckett had to retire because he had tongue cancer. Would you see that as different than Mattingly's condition?

I think cancer is a different, mostly because it's a real-life tragedy, not merely a baseball "tragedy".

Puckett woke up one day - in the prime of his career - and couldn't see out of his right eye. Career over, just like that. Voters almost certainly saw this as a "act of god" type of tragedy that was not in any way related to his natural abilities. It has as much in common with Clemente's death as it does Mattingly's back problems.

I don't see it as any different than a pitcher tearing his labrum, or blowing out his elbow, or a player having a bad back, and being done. Injury is injury, from my point of view. I don't know why sudden vs. chronic should have anything to do with it. It's all deterioration of physical tools.

There were also serious accusations against Eddie Collins and Ray Schalk (accused of giving a payout to Bill James.

That was very...prescient on their part. Might have helped move them up a few spots in the Historical Abstract.

Snapper - it's a fair point on why eye deteriation would be factored more than Mattingly's back. PreservedFish points are solid. I'd say it's because:

1) Rarity - Eye deterioration is rare and NOT caused by overuse from sports. Back/knee/arm/etc injuries are common.
2) Suddenness - Puckett went from a very good player to retiree overnight. Most degenerative conditions impact a career slowly. Minimized the perceived tragedy and makes it tougher to estimate the impact.

I'm not saying Puckett necessarily deserved to be in the HOF. He had 50.8 WAR and i'd guesstimate he'd have gotten about 10 WAR. 60 WAR with a so-so peak (37.4) is below or in the neighborhood of everal other likely non-HOF CFs like Lofton, Edmonds, Andruw, Reggie Smith (well, 50% CF), Jimmy Wynn. Personally, I'd vote them all in the HOF since I think CF is underappreciated but no doubt Puckett's first ballot nomination vs. these other chaps doesn't seem fair.

Sammy sosa isn't my idea of a great player, but I think he's getting a raw deal from hof voters

Isn't your quote kind of self-contradictory?

HoF voters have a cornucopia of (understandable) reasons for keeping Sosa off of their ballots.
1. PED smoke (if not outright fire)
2. Corked Bat, which speaks to character and probably buttresses those with PED beliefs
3. Luke-warm-to-downright-cold rate/counting/SABR stats (outside of HRs/RBI)
4. Lots and lots of eligible guys who don't have any baggage...

1. PED smoke (if not outright fire)

What smoke? the only smoke is "he felt like one."

The PED treating of Sosa is exactly the reason I have zero respect for the majority of the BBWAA.

I'll concede all the other points, but there is absolutely zero evidence to support Sosa as "PED smoke." You have one bogus New York times article that has never EVER been verified.... Sosa has exactly the same evidence against him as Jeter, Maddux or Glavine...with the exception, that Sosa enjoyed a natural decline phase that those others seemed to have avoided.

He wouldn't have made my ballot of course, because it's too crowded, but it doesn't negate that there is nothing to support PED smoke .

"2. It's not an injury that is caused by playing baseball. That is, Mattingly's back problems can (and probably should) be seen as a frailty that made him a lesser player. Puckett's eyes going can be seen as an unfair freak thing that robbed the world of this player's talent."

"But why, beyond pure sympathy? (and Puckett didn't go blind). Great eyesight is as much a physical tool for ballplayers as a strong back. Puckett's eyes deteriorated, Mattingly/Keller's back deteriorated. They're both medical conditions."

It's a great question. I don't know. How about Koufax's arthritis? And how is an accident any more-or-less of a justification than, say, a chronic condition? A genetic condition like a degenerative hip?

3. Luke-warm-to-downright-cold rate/counting/SABR stats (outside of HRs/RBI)

Again, we are talking about the BBWAA.... a body that gave Ryan Howard an MVP award, when he was the third most valuable player on his team because of his homeruns and rbi. Gave Andre Dawson an MVP for that same reason. This is a body that really doesn't read much more than avg/hr/rbi when it comes to evaluating value or a player.

Isn't your quote kind of self-contradictory? \

no. I am stating that while I am not enthralled with sosa's resume he merits induction by historical standards.

What smoke? the only smoke is "he felt like one."

The PED treating of Sosa is exactly the reason I have zero respect for the majority of the BBWAA.

So if we applied the Anton Chigurh coin flip test to Sosa -- right and you live, wrong and you get a fatal bullet square to the forehead -- and instead of "heads or tails," the question was "Did Sosa use PEDs as a player?," you'd go with "No"?

So if we applied the Anton Chigurh coin flip test to Sosa -- right and you live, wrong and you get a fatal bullet to the forehead -- and instead of "heads or tails," the question was "Did Sosa use PEDs as a player?," you'd go with "No"?

Not the person the question was addressed to, but my answer would be "Yes". Which is the same answer I'd give for Glavine, Maddux, Jeter, FThomas, etc.

I'm a huge Maddux fan, and I hate to think that he used steroids. But at the same time, I'd love it if at his induction, he confessed to regular steroid use.