User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.8649 seconds
45 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
The 2013 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
The 2014 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
Final: Jan.9 - 11:30 ~ 209* Full Ballots ~ (36.7%* of vote ~ based on last year) (*new ballot/pct. record!)
99.5 - Maddux
95.7 - Glavine
89.0 - F. Thomas
79.4 - Biggio
———————————
67.9 - Piazza
61.7 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
56.5 - Bagwell
54.5 - Raines
42.1 - Bonds
40.7 - Clemens
36.8 - Schilling
26.8 - Mussina
25.4 - E. Martinez
24.4 - L. Smith
22.0 - Trammell
15.8 - Kent
12.0 - McGriff
10.5 - McGwire
8.1 - L. Walker
7.2 - S. Sosa
5.7 - R. Palmeiro
———————————
4.8 - Mattingly
0.5 - P. Rose (Write-In)
Thanks to Butch, Ilychs Morales, leokitty & Barnald for their help.
As usual…send them in if you come across any ballots!
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for Monday, June 27, 2022
(38 - 11:27pm, Jun 27)
Last: The Duke
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - Crowning Champions and Pro-Rel
(261 - 10:55pm, Jun 27)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale
Newsblog: 2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(3398 - 10:23pm, Jun 27)
Last: Der-K's tired of these fruits from poisoned trees
Sox Therapy: Now That's A Road Trip
(44 - 10:18pm, Jun 27)
Last: Nasty Nate
Newsblog: Seattle Mariners acquire first baseman Carlos Santana from Kansas City Royals in exchange for RHPs Wyatt Mills, William Fleming
(13 - 9:35pm, Jun 27)
Last: Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome
Newsblog: Minnesota Twins pitching coach Wes Johnson exiting, reportedly for same position with LSU Tigers
(17 - 9:25pm, Jun 27)
Last: Cris E
Newsblog: Peacock to stream Royals-Tigers game without announcers
(15 - 8:28pm, Jun 27)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Eight ejected after wild brawl between Seattle Mariners, Los Angeles Angels
(11 - 7:50pm, Jun 27)
Last: pthomas
Newsblog: Rosenthal: MLB’s expanded playoffs not yet boosting competition and the risk of trading with the Guardians [$]
(5 - 5:24pm, Jun 27)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Manny, Pedro and Papi's kids are on the same team?! Meet 'The Sons' of the Brockton Rox
(5 - 5:22pm, Jun 27)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)
Newsblog: [Medium] Baseball’s Next Defining Innovation is Hiding in Plain Sight: Why Tracking the Path of Every Swing is a Must for MLB Teams
(3 - 4:48pm, Jun 27)
Last: Walt Davis
Hall of Merit: Hall of Merit Book Club
(5 - 12:59pm, Jun 27)
Last: progrockfan
Newsblog: Astros Combine to No Hit Yankees
(10 - 12:10pm, Jun 27)
Last: Ithaca2323
Newsblog: Cole Hamels Targeting 2023 Comeback
(13 - 8:53am, Jun 27)
Last: bachslunch
Newsblog: “Music makes the people come together”
(8 - 8:49am, Jun 27)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick
(38 - 11:27pm, Jun 27)
Last: The Duke
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - Crowning Champions and Pro-Rel
(261 - 10:55pm, Jun 27)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale
Newsblog: 2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(3398 - 10:23pm, Jun 27)
Last: Der-K's tired of these fruits from poisoned trees
Sox Therapy: Now That's A Road Trip
(44 - 10:18pm, Jun 27)
Last: Nasty Nate
Newsblog: Seattle Mariners acquire first baseman Carlos Santana from Kansas City Royals in exchange for RHPs Wyatt Mills, William Fleming
(13 - 9:35pm, Jun 27)
Last: Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome
Newsblog: Minnesota Twins pitching coach Wes Johnson exiting, reportedly for same position with LSU Tigers
(17 - 9:25pm, Jun 27)
Last: Cris E
Newsblog: Peacock to stream Royals-Tigers game without announcers
(15 - 8:28pm, Jun 27)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Eight ejected after wild brawl between Seattle Mariners, Los Angeles Angels
(11 - 7:50pm, Jun 27)
Last: pthomas
Newsblog: Rosenthal: MLB’s expanded playoffs not yet boosting competition and the risk of trading with the Guardians [$]
(5 - 5:24pm, Jun 27)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Manny, Pedro and Papi's kids are on the same team?! Meet 'The Sons' of the Brockton Rox
(5 - 5:22pm, Jun 27)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)
Newsblog: [Medium] Baseball’s Next Defining Innovation is Hiding in Plain Sight: Why Tracking the Path of Every Swing is a Must for MLB Teams
(3 - 4:48pm, Jun 27)
Last: Walt Davis
Hall of Merit: Hall of Merit Book Club
(5 - 12:59pm, Jun 27)
Last: progrockfan
Newsblog: Astros Combine to No Hit Yankees
(10 - 12:10pm, Jun 27)
Last: Ithaca2323
Newsblog: Cole Hamels Targeting 2023 Comeback
(13 - 8:53am, Jun 27)
Last: bachslunch
Newsblog: “Music makes the people come together”
(8 - 8:49am, Jun 27)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
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.
i don't support lee smith for the simple reason that less smith was a solid reliever who hung around a long time. smith had about 3 really good seasons in a career that lasted forever.
i can be a 'gold watch' guy but you have to have some kind moment or moments that show me something.
in 1984 when the cubs had a season for the ages smith held them back. he was at best mediocre that season.
he was held in such esteem by the red sox that they traded him early in the season after signing his twin jeff reardon in the offseason and then quickly had a big month and ended up winning the division.
and after 1991 he had some saves but you look at the numbers and he wasn't providing much real value. he was just a guy.
and it wasn't chance that smith was 20 games under .500 in his career. he must have led the world in blown leads several times.
lee smith was durable. hooray for him
You're right-it was better. Goose's apparent edge in the basic stats is likely almost wholly a function of ballpark and defense. Smitty's FIP- is 74, Goose's is 84, because Goose (I should say Goose's teams) has a 24 point edge in BABIP. Put Smitty behind the Yankees' (or Braves during Maddux/Glavine's run, etc.) and out of Wrigley Field, and he would definitely look like a much better candidate.
And I see that someone else ignored FIP for another pitcher-Phil Niekro. C'mon people you should know better than that...
Biggio - 73.4%
Piazza - 75.4%%
Bagwell - 77.4%
Morris - 78.9%
Sosa - 4.4%
Palmeiro - 4.6%
Mattingly - 5.3%
From personal experience, I've always felt guys like Biggio and Piazza were HOFers... Essentially because these guys were extremely valuable in a fantasy context. And they were this way for years and years. I've also found that when talking to less analytical fans, this "fantasy value" really clicks with them to help them understand greatness. Anyway, I just wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on it :)
whatever our differences in viewing lee smith as a general rule if you have to dig really deep to justify someone's hof case that should tell you the player likely doesn't qualify.
a blyleven didn't require his advocate to sift through fip and babip to explain bert's case. it was right there if someone was paying attention.
A lot of HOFers would have to play fantasy baseball for this to be a factor.
A few interesting tidbits from my Repoz/leokitty hybrid HOF Ballot Tracker:
- I added a "Projected Final" vote percentage which incorporates @baseballot's adjustment methodology.
- With 569 votes last year, 29 were needed to stay above 5%. Trammell is up to 30 votes this year. Martinez is at 27. Lee Smith has 24.
- Of 96 ballots that are both public and non-anonymous, 33 have both Morris and Raines.
- Mike Piazza has received 77% of the vote from those 96 fully public ballots, but is receiving only 59% support from anonymous ballots.
Oof. That is bad news.
Mark Gonzalez: Bagwell, Glavine, Kent, Maddux, Martinez, Piazza, Raines, Thomas
Phil Hersh: Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Martinez, Mattingly, Morris, Raines, Smith, Thomas, Walker
Fred Mitchell: Glavine, Kent, Maddux, Morris, Raines, Smith, Thomas
Paul Sullivan: Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Raines, Smith, Thomas
EDIT: I am disheartened by only 2 of the 5 Tribune writers managing to fill their ballots (Greenstein/Hersh) - and they all seem to have a fixation on "Chicago" guys. On the positive side, Morris picked up only 2 votes...
It's 22 ballots. I wouldn't read much into it.
Oh, sure, but the gizmo is all about trends and estimation. I'm one of the few who optimistically thought it possible he gets in this year, and this admittedly small-sample trend is simply a reality check to my own optimistic estimation.
And three out of four non-Piazza votes from the Tribune? It's over.
Also, Bagwell is getting much lower support in the anonymous votes. That trend when paired with the Piazza info suggests that many voters are withholding votes from Bagwell and Piazza based on PED rumors but do not want to state this. Morris is not doing much better in anonymous votes. I'm sure his vote percentage will increase significantly, but the gap to election is way too big at this point. Morris is toast.
It's 22 ballots. I wouldn't read much into it.
And it's already incorporated into the Gizmo.
I don't see any votes for Sosa there...
Edit: Looks like all the tribune guys are fully anti-PED, so that's why no Sosa. Smith and Thomas are the only other main Chicago guys (and Maddux but he's mostly Atlanta and everyone votes for him anyway).
Right, I knew that. I just think it shows a greater likelihood of a Piazza downturn than I was previously willing to accept.
You're kidding, right? That is EXACTLY what people had to do with Bert to make his case-dig deep into the statistics to show that he was in fact a much better pitcher than his W-L record showed. For you to say that it was otherwise-simply can't believe you'd try that tack. Smitty's in exactly the same boat, but one level higher now-you have to look beyond simple ERA+ measures to gauge his true talent level. Your example just goes to prove my point-thank you.
Didn't know if Repoz had already gotten this one.
Not really, they pointed to stats that people accepted and not some theoretical crap like fip, 1. his wins over his win/loss percentage 2. his complete games 3. his era (and era+) along with his innings pitched 4. his shutouts 5. his strikeouts. That was Bert's case, all of those stats are accepted as real stats and there was no need to bring in other stats that pretend that events should have happened differently.
The first person to go in the hof because of their fip, (or fWar) will be the day I stop caring about the hof.
Repoz stalks writers when they are out drinking.
229-103 1/3, 188-103, 158-73, 153-38 1/3, 148-83 2/3, 139-117, 138-21 2/3, 137-83 2/3, 136-49 2/3, 131-97 2/3
Gossage:
465-46 2/3, 244-133, 212-141 2/3, 195-79, 181-134 1/3, 179-93, 173-99, 172-87 1/3, 156-58 1/3, 132-38
That is a huge gap to close via ballpark and defense, particularly since ERA+ adjusts for ballpark. Can you give me anything more concrete than defense in the abstract? Is it demonstrable Smith's defense's were so bad, or Gossage's so great, you can get Smith in front of Gossage given this enormous discrepancy in ERA+?
I think a few voters gave Repoz their votes on condition of anonymity.
I thought you weren't a strict value guy? Should insanely good K:BB rates have some extra "greatness" value or whatever?
Drawback about era+ is it makes the gaps look much larger than they really are. Not saying that they aren't significant, but era+ really amps the discrepency. Comparing that 229 by Smith in 1983 to Gossage 244 in 1977 by era- and you get 43 for Smith and 41 for Gossage(lower the number, the better) That 212 for Gossage versus 188 for Smith translates into 53 vs 48 etc... Gossage has the clear advantage but it's not as dramatic as era+ makes it look.
Yeah, but Goose did his in 30-40 more innings.
Thanks for pointing out the extreme anti-PED stance of Trib writers. Sosa was NOT well-liked in Chicago amongst the writers/columnists - even more so after the corked bat incident, exacerbated by his performance before Congress and his petulance at the end of his years here.
I was going to point out that both Maddux and Thomas have been named on nearly every ballot everywhere so far. But remember, Maddux did play in Chicago for over 8 years and did win a CYA here. Also, the circumstances surrounding his departure after the 1993 season is STILL a sore spot for many (this writer included). Raines is (IMHO) a worthy candidate, but he was unanimous here in Chicago... Lee Smith a marginal choice and he got 4 votes (only Greenstein didn't put him on - and he posted a full ballot). It is CRIMINAL that three of the voters left a total of 9 spots open...
This is cool. Keep us updated on this.
Generally speaking good k/bb guys is going to already be good enough that you don't need to come up with theoretical nonsense to support their cause. Obviously the best example of this is Curt Schilling, and really his argument is strong enough without having to exhort to the nonsense of fip of fWar... It helps to mention his unearned run rate, but that is a problem with the construction of era and our century long acceptance of it. fip doesn't fix that problem.
I fully support more evidence for borderline candidates, but fip should never be used as a primary piece of evidence. If you are trying to separate two roughly equal candidates, then sure bring all the extra evidence you need, but saying that Lee Smith's fip is better than Gossages makes him a better candidate is so silly, that it more or less completely invalidates using fip ever again.
Don't get me wrong, I fully accept that there is a pretty clear line between Smith and Gossage, and if we have to have relievers in the hof, then Gossage absolutely belongs and Smith does not. I was just pointing out the flaw that I feel that era+ brings to the table. Love the concept and even love the numbers it produces, but I absolutely believe it overstates the differences among exceptional performances.
Well, Raines too. I don't think it's a co-incidence that he was on all 4 ballots.
ERA+ already adjusts for ballpark.
WAR adjusts for defense. bWAR has Gossage at 37.1 in his 10-year closing peak, vs. 24.7 for Smith. Again, not close.
I think fWAR is superior to bWAR on a seasonal basis, career I agree fWAR has very little value.
fWAR is superior on a predictive basis, but even on a seasonal basis it doesn't give credit to event sequencing, and BABIP and in-play SLG suppression. Even if those things aren't repeatable, they generate value in the actual season.
But on a seasonal level those things are much more likely to be luck rather than stuff the pitcher actually did well. It's obviously a matter of preference, but if I'm giving a Cy Young award I'd probably go with fWAR.
Edit: if Cy Young was more explicitly a value award, I might change my mind.
I bag on fWar, but I don't actually hate it, just don't accept it blindly either, it's a great tool for evaluating a trade/signging and how it might affect pitchers, provided that the evaluator analyzes what the pitcher brings to the table. Example Glavine constantly outperformed his fip as a Brave, and there is no real indication that his defense was that superior for his style, so when he went to the Mess, you shouldn't have accepted his fip as his future potential. In Glavines case, he outperformed his fip, every year he was a Met also, fip absolutely does not work on some players.
I personally prefer erc(component era...arguably the best stat to use to evaluate relievers), but nobody actually uses that.(only place I can find it is ESPN, and even then it still needs to be tweaked)
Rivera deserves to go into the HOF simply based on his ERA+. He is clearly in a league of his own.
I am very much against considering back-up pitchers as potential Hall of Famers, but would gladly make an exception in his case.
On the anonymous ballots: not only is it a small sample (22), I wouldn't equate (or extrapolate from) what that self-selected sample does to the Silent Majority, These anonymous voters may be anonymous because they know their ballot would generate controversy and comment. The Silent Majority isn't necessarily silent for that reason. In fact, a fairly significant chunk of voters who do not appear on leokitty's/Weird_Meat's database end up releasing their ballot, after the fact, on the BBWAA site (the last two years). Actually, Ryan, that (voters whose ballot is known ONLY by virtue of being released by the BBWAA) might be a decent sort of data to add to the anonymous guys, in order to come up with the anonymous/silent adjustment....
1 Mariano Rivera 1283.2 56.5 1115 10 82 60 652 286 1173 205 71 5103
Rivera deserves to go into the HOF simply based on his ERA+ of 205. He is clearly in a league of his own.
I am very much against considering back-up pitchers as potential Hall of Famers, but would gladly make an exception in his case.
I don't think non-repeatable equals luck. If a guy did a great job pitching with men on in a given season, he should get rewarded for that.
I plan on adding a section that includes ballots released after the results are announced. (Susan Slusser is one such voter, but I teased her ballot out of her this year!)
That's not necessarily what I mean. Basically the pitcher only has control over the pitches he throws and then after that it's up to the hitter, the defense, the umpire, ballpark, etc... I think strikeouts and walks, because they occur over a full count and occur over 3-4-5-6 pitches, are much more reflective of pitcher quality than balls put in play which occur over 1 pitch. The effective sample size is larger for strikeouts and walks than it is for balls in play, which mean they are more likely to be the product of good pitching rather than poor hitting, good fielding, etc.
If there was a way to take into account situational strikeouts/walks, I'd be in favor of that I suppose.
Fangraphs sucks in that you can't click the top header and have it put the stats in order, but here we go...I find Smith's 1982, 1980, 1987 and 1995 to be interesting as era- has a different take on those seasons than era+
Lee Smith-------------Goose
year__Era+___Era-__year___era+___era-
1991---158---64----1985---195----52
1994---153---68----1978---181----55
1988---148---69----1982---179----56
1982---139---71----1980---173----58
1980---138---75----1983---172----58
1987---137---71----1979---156----64
1995---136---72----1992---132----77
I would prefer Siera over fip. It at least accounts for flyball/groundball tendencies. As I said, I prefer component era over most other measurements, but 1. Nobody uses it 2. it also doesn't account for situational pitching, so it doesn't address the problem that post 843 points to, but unlike fip or Siera it doesn't hand wave actual events away.
I think him along with Wagner have legitimate arguments for being in the hof, both have better cases than Lee Smith, but I'm fairly certain that I have Wagner on the out line and would have to be convinced on Hoffman.
Nice work Ryan.
As a long-range favor, if you could link to the final results at the start of next year's Gizmo, that would be greatly appreciated.
JAWS says that Rolen is the 10th best third baseman of all time. Of the nine ahead of him, all except Chipper (#5) and Beltre (#8) are in the HOF. Ron Santo is #6.
#11 Edgar Martinez, and #12 Graig Nettles are not in, so he seems to close to the cut-off mark. Working against him is the fact that a high proportion of his value is defense and his relatively short playing career (not to mention his injury issues and inconsistent play after age 29). His 8,518 plate appearances is the fewest of all the top 12 third baseman making some of his counting stands seem a little pedestrian.
Edgar Martinez is not a 3B.
If someone isn't going to vote for Bonds and Clemens, this is basically a perfect ballot.
Kudos to Erardi.
As of today JAWS ranks Utley as the 13th best second baseman of all time, curiously just barely ahead of Biggio (53.6 to 53.3) who seems to be doing pretty well for himself in HOF balloting.
Biggio is ahead (64.9 to 58.2) in career WAR, but Utley is ahead (49.1 to 41.6) for peak seven seasons. Utley is ahead in OPS+ (126 to 112) and in dWAR (17.2 to -2.2).
Top Six Seasons:
Biggio 9.4, 6.5, 6.2, 5.5, 5.0, 4.6 = 37.2
Utley 9.0, 8.2, 7.8, 7.3, 7.2, 5.8 = 45.8
Biggio's final season at age 41 to get him over 3,000 hits resulted in a miserable -2.1 WAR. If we ignore this season his career WAR is 67.0 and his JAWS becomes 54.3 which puts him just ahead of Utley's current value and within 0.5 of Robbie Alomar.
The big issues that the voters will have, besides not recognizing the huge difference in defense is:
Biggio Utley
PA - Biggio 12,504 to 5,671
Hits - Biggio 3,060 to 1,410
As discussed it's doubtful Maddux will run the table:
100 - Maddux
97.6 - Glavine
91.1 - F. Thomas
That leaves the following players on the cusp and with a reasonable chance this year:
81.3 - Biggio
———————————
71.5 - Piazza
These players COULD maybe make headway with the nonpublished ballots. I would term them long shots although perhaps not shocking if they make up the ground:
64.2 - Bagwell
61.8 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
60.2 - Raines
These players, hilariously, will not make it yet again:
41.5 - Bonds
40.7 - Clemens
These pitchers hilariously sit well behind Jack Morris:
39.0 - Schilling
31.7 - Mussina
Deserves better:
25.2 - Trammell
I'm surprised Kent is polling this well, actually. Walker deserves better. I don't currently support Edgar myself:
24.4 - E. Martinez
22.8 - L. Smith
15.4 - Kent
13.0 - McGriff
11.4 - L. Walker
Voters: "Duh, I'm too dumb to think":
9.8 - McGwire
7.3 - S. Sosa
6.5 - R. Palmeiro
In danger, I suppose with the three above him, of dropping off:
———————————
4.9 - Mattingly
And I'd argue that they are paying the price for lacking integrity, character and sportsmanship - three of the 6 criteria to be considered by HoF voters...
It is hilarious. I am enjoying their continued exclusion very, very much. Couldn't happen to two nicer guys.
Steroid use does not implicate integrity, character, and sportsmanship, certainly not any more than amps use did.
But the writers who have not supported these players have shown that they themselves utterly lack integrity and character, making up new rules as they have, and for virtually the first time applying the character clause.
JAWS and Baseball Reference treat him as a 3B. He played 574 games at 3B with a dWAR of -9.7.
Morris first year on ballot 22%, 2nd year 19.6%. Both Schilling and Mussina are well ahead of Jack Morris.
You realize there are only 10 ballot slots, correct?
If so, Repoz must be busy 24 hours a day! How does he get any sleep?
I took it to mean it's ridiculous they got any votes at all, but perhaps your interpretation is correct.
Biggio has two strike seasons in that string. Adjusted to 162 games, it becomes:
CB: 9.4 6.8 6.5 6.2 5.5 5.0 = 39.4
Utley is basically a 6-year peak like Gehringer/Carew/Sandberg/Grich, plus 4 seasons that wouldn't make the top 10 in Lou Whitaker's career. Will be a tough call.
I just think it's unfair to lump him together with someone like Nettles, and call them both 3B.
I mean, Nettles played 2300 games at 3B, and never seems to have been worse than slightly below average (after age 36) while being a sublime fielder in his prime. Edgar was a DH they stuck at 3B for a while.
But yeah, he was certainly no Nettles.
Well, that means he's a shitty 3B, if he can't stay on the field.
Mariners made the right choice.
Sure, but I'm still going to downgrade Edgar heavily for not being able to stay in the field.
Jack Morris, 7.59 innings per Opening Day start (14 starts, 106 ip)
CC Sabathia, 5.41 innings per Opening Day start (10 starts, 54 ip)
Not important, just interesting. Not really generational either it seems.
On "greatness" vs. "value" -- you can also think of greatness as peak. The voting criteria even make it reasonably clear that the two aren't quite the same -- "playing record" and "playing ability" are both cited. Obviously a player needs to be "great" for some minimal amount of time -- the criteria make it reasonably clear that a player who is "great" for 10 seasons should qualify, the question is more whether greatness over 7-8 seasons (think Ernie Banks) should itself be enough as long as the person makes it to 10 years.
The "great more than valuable" HoFers include Banks, Campy, Koufax, Greenberg, Kiner, every C but Bench and some I'm less on board with (Puckett, Hunter, relievers). I'd also argue that Brooks, Ozzie, Aparicio, Maranville and Maz (by VC) are in because they were great at one aspect which goes over much better with voters than being very good at two things. I consider Pedro the greatest pitcher I've ever seen, folks older than me will likely cite Koufax for that honor and none of us particularly care that they couldn't maintain that greatness.
I brought it up in the specific context of Cs. The physical demands of the position limit both the in-season and career value that a C can produce but that shouldn't keep us from recognizing their greatness. This could still probably be captured in a value stat but something more like "peak value per PA".
Cuz I had his page open, I grabbed Edgar's age 32-38 and he had 40.5 WAR in about 4500 PA. It takes 8 years (including 94-95) of Piazza to get to 4500 PA but he amassed 46.5 WAR from ages 24-31. Preaching to the choir here I know. From 77-84, which also includes a strike year, Carter had 50 WAR in 4700 PA which I think might surprise a few around here.
You can also get at it by looking at WAA. Carter had 34 WAA in that span, Piazza 32, Edgar 25.
Edgar of course goes on to make up a lot of ground outside of those years (and that's not Edgar's WARy years exactly) but I'm pretty comfy saying he wasn't as "great" as those guys ... not that there's anything wrong with that.
They all did PEDs IN SECRET (with the possible exception of McGwire in 1998 - but he was injecting before then) which to my mind DOES tend to implicate their integrity/sportsmanship/character far more than anecdotal use of greenies (which apparently were right out there in the open). I am by no means excusing the use of illicit substances circa 1960, but pointing to that as an excuse to overlook the use of PEDs circa 2000 is a copout.
Which new rule did these writers "make up?" IIRC, the 3 criteria I posted aren't new. Now if you want to slam some of them for selective enforcement, that's cool - just bring the names and evidence of their malfeasance to the table... As for the "character" issue, I think that we can just agree to disagree.
And to put the 4500ish PA numbers for those three in context, Banks's 4500 PA "greatness" period was 52 WAR, 35 WAA.
The application of the character,integrity and sportsmanship is NEW.
Where was the writers outrage when admitted cheater Phil Niekro was on the ballot? How about guys like Ruth who used an illegal bat, and supposed PEDs(sheep testicles) I mean how can Ty Cobb's character be considered a positive? Heck wife beaters are going in as recently as 2014, yet they don't apply the character clause to Bobby Cox.
The rule has only been applied to perceived PED users...that is it. Kirby Pucket, a fully despicable human being with a relatively weak hof case goes in on the first ballot. Known consorted of gamblers such as Mays and Mantle are still revered to this day, even though they at one point received a suspension from baseball for their actions.
Really? You're going to use this as evidence?
First off both Mays and Mantle had already been inducted into the Hall when both took jobs working for Casinos. Secondly what does talking to human beings have to do with sportsmanship, character, or integrity.
That said, I do think it's meaningful that the players and MLB both clearly considered PED to be "more cheating" than other stuff was. Was it really "more cheating"? Quite possibly not. But, as long as it wasn't a placebo (which I don't think it was), I don't think that's the main question. We're mostly talking about intent, here.
At the same time, I find that most of the players involved have a "loophole", if you will, that I can accept. Bonds and Clemens are Hall of Famers even if you give them zero credit for the parts of their careers where they're believed to have been using. So they're fine by me. McGwire confessed, which I think is an important thing to encourage if we're ever going to come to terms with all this. So I'd vote for him (although not on this ballot since I simply don't think he's one of the 10 best eligible players.) Since I don't consider the Mitchell Report to be worth a crap, I don't dock Kevin Brown either. And I'm certainly not going to dock guys like Sosa, Bagwell or Piazza where there's zero concrete evidence. Right now, Palmeiro, who actually failed a test, is the only guy I'm docking. Which is fine with me, since I wasn't dying to put him in the Hall of Fame anyway. If Palmeiro did in fact get screwed by Miguel Tejada, then I'm doing him a (imaginary) disservice. Based on the track record of guys' excuses, I'll take my chances.
The really tough cases for me will be Manny, A-Rod, perhaps Braun if he has a Manny-type career -- guys who failed tests, didn't confess, and yet are way above the borderline based just on performance. I still have no clue what side I'll end up on with them.
The entire point is that nobody is utterly clean and pure of character. Mantle and Mays were "convicted" of breaking a baseball rule and were punished severely for it, indicating how important violating that particular rule is to MLB. Yet none of these writers, when invoking the character clause either know the history or care about it that much.
I mean if a writer says "I didn't get a chance, and mlb doesn't remove a player from the hof, but if given a chance today, I wouldn't vote for Mays and Mantle because they didn't display the proper character of a person for the hof."....Then I could take their little character clause argument seriously.
But instead you get "Greenies were used out in the open..." type of argument. etc.
Everyone who invokes the character clause, ONLY invokes it in regards to PED's of the "steroids" kind and not any other time.
Simple facts...roids was an open secret, most of the writers at the time knew it was going on and would pepper articles with code words like vitamins and best shape of his life crap, the writers didn't care one whit about it at the time, and it's massively hypocritical of them to go back and pretend they did. It was an open secret, the teams encouraged it, the league encouraged it (chicks dig the long ball) the fans encouraged it(going to watch batting practices) it was NOT a secret. It was kept hidden because it was illegal. (outside of Lincecum, are there many baseball players touting pot smoking?) (and the openness of greenies is more than likely vastly overstated)
I expect this will mean exactly zero for his chances in the actual Hall of Fame votes that will be held when he retires.
60.2 - Raines
This is actually slightly above his Gizmo number last year. If Raines can keep his support relatively constant on THIS ballot, that's extremely promising.
I think the failed test is enough to dock their numbers personally, but I don't think it's enough to keep them out of the hall if they are worthy. After all MLB basically said "this is the punishment for the crime that we see fit." (of course the problem I have with my own interpretation, is that if this was the NFL, and Vick was eligible, and they have a character clause like MLB does, there is absolutely no way I would ever vote for him, and I would rage a Lederer style campaign against him--hypocritical I know)
From a USA Today interview, dated 5/3/2005, with Tom House,former pitching coach of the Rangers and MLB player:
"House, perhaps best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run ball in 1974 in the Atlanta Braves' bullpen, said he and several teammates used amphetamines, human growth hormone and "whatever steroid" they could find in order to keep up with the competition.
"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey," House said. "We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses. That was the '60s, when nobody knew. The good thing is, we know now. There's a lot more research and understanding."
..."House, 58, estimated that six or seven pitchers per team were at least experimenting with steroids or human growth hormone. He said players talked about losing to opponents using more effective drugs.
"We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed," he said. "And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."
Steroids aren't new in baseball.It's foolish to act is if they are
CC Sabathia, 5.41 innings per Opening Day start (10 starts, 54 ip)
Not important, just interesting. Not really generational either it seems.
IIRC, CC is particularly bad in cold weather. Almost every year he does his best work in July/August and almost every year he gets knocked around in April. At least as a Yankee it seems.
You have got to be joking. They took jobs as celeb greeters at a casino, during a period in which neither of them were working in MLB. The "suspension", such as it was, was that they could not work in MLB while employed by the casino. When they stopped working for the casino, the "suspension" was lifted. There is absolutely nothing about the incident that speaks to character. They broke no rule, nor did they try to pull a fast one. Again, while holding no position in MLB, they took legal jobs that made them ineligible to work in MLB.
Is it your contention that no retired and currently inactive player can ever walk into a casino for the rest of his life, lest he be branded a cheater?
If you have a penalty for breaking a rule, then you are not only framing the penalty for breaking the rule...you are, in effect, stating what the cost of breaking the rule is. Then, it is up to the players to determine if the cost is too high to take a chance of breaking the rule. You get caught taking an illegal substance? You sit out an increasing number of games with each offense, including the loss in pay. If you do it long enouugh, you can be suspended for very long periods of time, right? There is abolsutely nothing in the rules about becoming ineligible for the HOF, or for annual awards, or anything else like that. If Ryan Braun's counting stats take a hit because he misses games, then that theoretically hurts his HOF chances, but outside of that, I (if I was a voter) would say that Braun (and others) have already paid the penalty. There is no double jeopardy in baseball.
That is a telling number, as most teams probably only had about 10 pitchers on the roster at a time. But it does point out one thing, it's always been known that steroids would most benefit pitchers the most, and it seems that was the case 30 or so years ago also. But it's the sluggers we are worried about.
If Maddux had performed the way he did as a hitter, would there be roid rumors following him around? The fact that it took so long for Clemens to get any roid rumors is somewhat indicative of what the public and writers perceive as the benefits of roids. To me, Maddux should be viewed in the same vein as Bagwell or Sosa.
My contention is that MLB had a rule and punished two heroic figures for breaking that rule. That rule was entirely in the spirit of the character clause that people are using to eliminate PED users. Mlb allowed them back in, and the writers never have peeped up about it since.
Again, it's the selective use of the character clause, when MLB has explicitly shown what it considers to be a violation of the character clause.
They were already in the Hall of Fame when they were hired as casino greeters.
Hold on. No one went back and told Mantle and Mays that their plaques were being taken down because they took employment with a casino. MLB has a long-standing rule that no one EMPLOYED BY/IN MLB can work with casinos. That's not a character issue, it's just common sense. Seems to me you're mixing up apples and oranges here.
And I addressed that. If a writer says if it was up to them, they would remove Mantle and Mays for the violation, then I would fully accept their character argument as being a legitimate argument.(you could say that if they would say the same about Anson or Ruth or Cobb or Puckett or Perry...etc) As it stands, it's nothing by whining hypocritical bs, by the same people that helped create and continue the "problem."
They weren't punished. They were told that as long as they worked for the casino, they couldn't work for MLB.
It absolutely isn't. It's similar to telling owners they can' be field managers. As long as you are doing A (working in a casino/owning a team), you can't do B (work in MLB/manage a team). It's like telling a judge he can't hear a case in which he has an interest in one of the parties.
Good for them, since it doesn't deserve a peep.
It wasn't a violation. How can you violate a company rule of a company you don't work for? You were in the service. If you were to go to Colorado and legally smoke pot, should your honorable discharge be revoked because you violated the UCMJ?
That is absolutely a character issue though. Why is Pete Rose banned for life? Joe Jackson? Because of the perception of consorting with gamblers(see Steinbrenner, George) Mind you, I don't have the hang up on this particular issue the way others do(Put Rose in, and maybe even Jackson, although Jackson is extremely hard to justify, his actions actually do cross a line)
again, my point is that the writers pulling this character issue thing, ONLY apply it for one thing, and one thing only. Their assumption of PEDs...and it's fully hypocritical bs. They aren't applying the character clause. They are replacing it with their own personal sense of morality(and maybe guilt since they are the biggest culprits in allowing this to happen) and masking it in a character clause. I think it's despicable, dishonest, and detestable.
Because he violated the rule
Because he violated the rule. The difference is, Mays and Mantle didn't violate the rule, in fact they couldn't violate the rule, because they weren't bound to the rule at the time.
Well technically both of them were hitting coaches at the time they took the jobs and had to quit.
And again.... I'm trying to bag on the absurdity of calling in the character clause. An absurd example that follows MLB's own actions is designed to show how stupid this selective use of this clause is. MLB cared more about association with a casino than it did about PEDs (And the writers cared even less about PEDs)
So golfing with high rollers is the same as taking steroids or gambling on your team?
To MLB's perception yes.
Of course we've talked ad nauseum about the other type of peds and forms of cheating which don't violate the character clause either. Again, it's only a specific type of PED's that has the hypocrites up in a dander.
To Bowie Kuhn's perception. Peter Ueberroth disagreed.
Not really, he disagreed enough to reinstate Mays and Mantle but to not get rid of the rule. In other words he said that everybody is equal, just some are more equal than others.
First off, MLB doesn't run the HoF, nor do they make the HoF's rules. Second, comparing a coach to an active player is absurd. Now if you want to speak to something like: Player A gets inducted into the HoF, 20 years later definitive evidence is found that Player A violated the cardinal rule (gambled on baseball - on games where he played) then YES, the HoF MUST pull down his plaque - period - just as if he was found to have done it before he'd been made eligible for the HoF.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main