Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

With no sure things, next year’s Hall of Fame ballot could be unpredictable

The 2020 Hall of Fame class is set after the Baseball Writers Association of America elected Derek Jeter and Larry Walker. They will join Marvin Miller and Ted Simmons, who were elected by the veterans committee in December.

For the new Hall of Famers, the celebration is on. For those whose candidacy will begin or continue on next year’s ballot, it’s time to look ahead. That’s also what we’re here to do.

Our first glance tells us there are a wide range of possibilities in 2021. That’s in part because the next crop of first-time eligible candidates is remarkably underwhelming. There’s not a slam dunk like Mariano Rivera and Jeter have been the last two years. In fact, there’s not a new candidate that appears likely to reach the 75 percent required for election now or in the future.

It’s also because there’s a group of returning candidates that haven’t been fully embraced by the voters. Curt Schilling had his strongest showing yet in 2020 at 70 percent. Will he finally make the big leap? Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are inching closer to 75 percent, but with only two years remaining on the ballot can they make up the necessary ground?

The Baseball Hall of Fame ballot discussion is over- long live the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot discussion!

 

QLE Posted: January 22, 2020 at 12:57 AM | 48 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, the future

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Walt Davis Posted: January 22, 2020 at 01:39 AM (#5918129)
Schilling is in for sure. The main question is how big will Omar's leap be. He picked up "only" 10 percent this year so he might not jump much but it looks like he will make it eventually.** Other than the post-purge year, B & C have never seen substantial growth and hard to see it now. Maybe a few will panic on the 2022 ballot which is their last year but it's Schilling, Omar and nobody else with a 2021 chance. I love the big Rolen jump, I do not like the big Wagner jump and I'm just confused by the big Sheffield jump. I'm surprised Abreu topped 5% and with such a weak ballot, he might secure himself a solid 10-15% next year and has a shot to stay on for the full 10. Interestingly, nobody in their final year next year.

I get 6.6 names per ballot this year. Jeter and Walker free up 1.76 of those slots, Jeter of course freeing up a spot for nearly everybody. (Or, on average, 4.8 carry over names per ballot.) Ryan hasn't put up the full count yet but the public set had only 30% full ballots, obviously the private set a lower rate than that so maybe 25% overall. Those folks are running out of names to add. I'll put the over/under at 6 names per ballot next year.

I still like Torii Hunter to do surprisingly well. Not "path to HoF" well but he gives me a mini-Puckett vibe.

** I'd "like" to see Omar stagnate but 2022 only brings Ortiz who I'm pretty sure will get in and won't take votes away from Vizquel anyway. (OK, ARod but I assume he'll get the B/C treatment) Beltran comes on in 2023 and he doesn't look like a sure thing at all with the Astros scandal and Vizquel will already be the top back-logger. In 2024, Beltre, Mauer and Utley might be enough to stop Omar if he's still there and I could see Mauer taking the top backlog slot if he's not elected (Beltre in obviously). Ichiro waltzes in in 2025, not sure who else is a first-time. I think slowing him down substantially is gonna take Rolen and Helton with big jumps.
   2. cookiedabookie Posted: January 22, 2020 at 06:11 AM (#5918133)
Omar will be inducted before 2024.
CC will be on the ballot with Ichiro, although he doesn't feel like a first ballot guy.
Sheffield went up because he was just off the ballot last year among big Hall voters or those who don't care about PEDs. He has a ceiling that is lower than 50%
   3. The Duke Posted: January 22, 2020 at 07:05 AM (#5918140)
All the interest will now move to the Vets committees. There are still multiple candidates from the last three eras. Looks like Parker and Garvey will go. Munson, Sweet Lou and Grich and Hernandez all seem like guys who should get votes. Oliva, Kaat, torre the player, Boyer. Lofton, Edmonds, Kevin brown. Lots of good names that should get more consideration
   4. flournoy Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:02 AM (#5918151)
Interestingly, nobody in their final year next year.



The ballot class that would have been in their tenth year was headlined by Bernie Williams, Vinny Castilla, and Tim Salmon. Williams stuck on the ballot for a second year, and everyone else failed to get 5% in their debut year.

torre the player


Given that he's already in as a manager, I don't believe he's eligible to be inducted again.
   5. Adam Starblind Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:38 AM (#5918160)


torre the player


Given that he's already in as a manager, I don't believe he's eligible to be inducted again.


Anti-NY bias.
   6. SoSH U at work Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:45 AM (#5918164)
Omar's in a good position, but it depends how strong the anti-Omar position is. He could have quite a firm ceiling to his support.

   7. kubiwan Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:48 AM (#5918169)
torre the player

Given that he's already in as a manager, I don't believe he's eligible to be inducted again.


Clearly he means Frank Torre. Or maybe it is just a typo for Mike Torrez.
   8. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:49 AM (#5918170)
I'm just confused by the big Sheffield jump


He was an excellent player, and people are finally remembering it.
   9. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:54 AM (#5918182)
If you like timelining, the voters are rejecting the best position player and the best pitcher ever. (If you don't like timelining, then they're rejecting the second-best position player and the maybe best pitcher ever.) And soon they're going to reject the guy with 117 WAR and 696 home runs. It's like they set out to design a terrible hall of fame.

Much better would be to have an exhibit in the museum explaining how PEDs were common during one era of the game - even mention Bonds by name if you want to - but don't embarrass yourself by not electing the game's most accomplished players.
   10. The Duke Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:56 AM (#5918185)
First I’ve heard of that. Joe torre has a great case for his playing years. Arguably one of the top 2-3 catchers of the 60s. I would think he could still go in as a player. Why should he be denied that right ?
   11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2020 at 09:59 AM (#5918187)
First I’ve heard of that. Joe torre has a great case for his playing years. Arguably one of the top 2-3 catchers of the 60s. I would think he could still go in as a player. Why should he be denied that right ?

I think once you're in, you're in. The HoF doesn't have a separate plaque room for managers. The only way to tell why someone is in is to read the inscription.
   12. The Duke Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM (#5918190)
I’m willing to bet we will see more vet inductees in the next 5 years than writer inductees. I do wonder whether the PED guys will clog up the “todays game” committee and make it hard for guys like lofton and Edmonds to get consideration. Getting 12 votes will be hard with McGwire and Sosa and bonds and Clemens etc on those ballots
   13. EddieA Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:06 AM (#5918199)
but don't embarrass yourself by not electing the game's most accomplished players.


and electing some that are closer to the above average/very good borderline than to very good/great (though the writers haven't voted Vizquel in yet).

   14. SoSH U at work Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:10 AM (#5918203)
Getting 12 votes will be hard with McGwire and Sosa and bonds and Clemens etc on those ballots


They have to get on the ballot first. McGwire has been eligible twice, but passed over.

   15. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:50 AM (#5918222)
First I’ve heard of that. Joe torre has a great case for his playing years. Arguably one of the top 2-3 catchers of the 60s. I would think he could still go in as a player. Why should he be denied that right ?


There aren't "wings" of the Hall of Fame. The idea is you're inducting a human being - Joe Torre, the human being, has already been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

The Plaque Room just has everybody's plaque - arranged in the order they were elected. Bowie Kuhn and Marvin Miller (well, eventually) and John McGraw (who was an excellent player, listed by the HOF as a "manager" but his plaque references both his playing career and his managing), Frank Chance (listed by the HOF as a "1st baseman" but his plaque opens with his managing credit). Joe Torre's plaque ends with a sentence about his playing career.
   16. . Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:53 AM (#5918226)
If you like timelining, the voters are rejecting the best position player and the best pitcher ever. (If you don't like timelining, then they're rejecting the second-best position player and the maybe best pitcher ever.) And soon they're going to reject the guy with 117 WAR and 696 home runs. It's like they set out to design a terrible hall of fame.


Have you actually read the voting criteria? Character, integrity, and sportsmanship are three of the six listed criteria voters are supposed to base their votes on. If anything, the voters are stressing pure playing record too much; it's pretty clear that the HOF criteria are meant to steer the voters toward electing players with not only good playing records, but also high levels of character and integrity.

It's pretty amazing to see this big faction of people spending all this time analyzing the Hall of Fame ballots and the voters' philosophy, and all the rest, without having seemingly the slightest familiarity with the actual criteria HOF voters are called upon to deploy. In reality, a voter could say, "I voted for this guy with 20 WAR because everyone said he was a great guy, he helped a lot of charities, everyone from owners to clubhouse guys loved him, everyone said he was a great teammate, and he had extremely high character," and that would be a "better" vote than a voter who said simply, "I voted for Player X because he had 72 WAR." There's literally nothing about the actual criteria -- as opposed to the criteria the faction imagines -- that would lead one to be surprised that a guy with a top-5 alltime playing record wasn't in the HOF.
   17. DanG Posted: January 22, 2020 at 10:59 AM (#5918236)
From the HOF website, Voting Rules History:
Character, Integrity and Sportsmanship

Implemented in 1945. Rule applies to how the game was played on the field, more so than character off the field.

   18. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:07 AM (#5918240)
Omar's in a good position, but it depends how strong the anti-Omar position is. He could have quite a firm ceiling to his support.

I think next year will be very telling for Vizquel. Getting over 50% with several more years is a strong position but it's not done deal for him. In 2017, Bonds and Clemens got over 50% in a year where the writers elected three guys. They have only inched up 7 percentage points since, though obviously they faced much stiffer opposition. At this point I can't see them making up the difference in their last two years.

Morris got over 50% in his 11th year. He didn't gain much the following year and ended up topping out at 67%. He faced a crowded ballot his final year which pushed him down to 61%, but he still had a few years there where he was one of the major focuses on the ballot.

If Vizquel clears 60% next year, that would be a pretty good signal that the writers are slowly coming around to his candidacy. If he's stuck in the mid 50s, I can see him wallowing on the ballot for several more years like Morris. The changing demographic of the eligible voters is not going to help him.
   19. . Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:09 AM (#5918241)
Character, Integrity and Sportsmanship

Implemented in 1945. Rule applies to how the game was played on the field, more so than character off the field.


There's nothing in the rule that says anything like that, so the non-binding snippet seems a bit off.
   20. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:14 AM (#5918244)
the non-binding snippet seems a bit off.


I don't really see how the "non-binding snippet" wouldn't cover Bonds' and Clemens' alleged doping anyway. That was very much an issue that affected "how the game was played on the field". Certainly, that comes into play for voters not voting for Curt Schilling because he's an ####### or not voting for Bonds and/or Clemens because of other alleged inproprieties (domestic violence and statutory rape, respectively, are the two I've heard mentioned). But if A-Rod isn't elected by the BBWAA (and I don't expect him to be), it will absolutely be because of the PEDs.
   21. . Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:16 AM (#5918246)
In a 2013 story for ESPN+, Buster Olney posted verbatim a historical piece by the HOF director of communications that, at least according to Olney, was supposed to be posted on the HOF website. (Maybe it was, I haven't checked):

Character, Sportsmanship, Integrity Long Included in Formal Rules for Election

From the first formalization of rules for Hall of Fame election proposed in 1944 and adopted in 1945, the National Baseball Hall of Fame has always called for "sportsmanship" and "character" as part of the necessary criteria needed to earn a spot in Cooperstown.

In August 1944, a Hall of Fame memo outlined the informal policy that had existed for Hall of Fame voting from its origins in 1936. Paul S. Kerr, then treasurer for the National Baseball Museum and Hall of Fame, stated that Alexander Cleland, instrumental in the voting process since the Hall's first election in 1936, listed general rules that "those worthy of Hall of Fame election should be selected from the ranks for ability, character and their general contribution to baseball in all respects."

While the necessary 75 percent of all ballots cast has been required for election from the beginning, so too appears the inclusion of character as a determinant for the Hall of Fame.

With the formal adoption of rules for 1945, as proposed in bylaws for the National Baseball Hall of Fame Committee in December 1944, the Committee authorized the BBWAA to "hold elections for the purpose of electing members to the Baseball Hall of Fame." The rules, which at the time called for elections once ever three years starting in 1945 and then later amended to elections every year starting in 1946, outlined the qualifications eligible candidates needed to have for consideration, having completed their active careers as players, even if they were still connected with baseball.

"They shall be chosen on the basis of playing ability, sportsmanship, character, their contribution to the teams on which they played and to baseball in general."

Though slight modifications have transpired in the nearly 70 years since, the model for Hall of Fame election has always remained one defined by character and sportsmanship.


   22. gef, talking mongoose & vexatious litigant Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:17 AM (#5918247)
But if A-Rod isn't elected by the BBWAA (and I don't expect him to be), it will absolutely be because of the PEDs.


... & the speciesism.
   23. Adam Starblind Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:20 AM (#5918251)
I do wonder whether the PED guys will clog up the “todays game” committee and make it hard for guys like lofton and Edmonds to get consideration.


Ballot Armageddon Part II!
   24. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:23 AM (#5918256)
even mention Bonds by name if you want to


Near the end of his career, Bonds copyrighted his name and so his strat-o-matic cards were just a nameless San Francisco left fielder. Video games used a fake name as a filler. Might be fitting to have a Bonds Hall of Fame plaque that describes his career but doesn't list his name.
   25. . Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:23 AM (#5918257)
A voter rejecting Curt Schilling for being an ####### and a poor representative would be entirely justified in doing so. These are naturally subjective criteria and voters will naturally differ in their interpretation of them, as the HOF was obviously aware when it consciously adopted the voting criteria that have now been in place, uninterrupted, for over seven decades.

Because of the far wider range of applicable criteria, and the natural subjectiveness of them, all of the analysis around here of "great ballots," "crappy ballots," and all the rest has been wasted energy, applying criteria that aren't even applicable to the task at hand. It's like analyzing Murray Chass's sociology test by bemoaning how bad he is at math.
   26. . Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:24 AM (#5918258)
If A-Rod goes in, what genus will he be on his plaque?
   27. Adam Starblind Posted: January 22, 2020 at 11:31 AM (#5918260)
If A-Rod goes in, what genus will he be on his plaque?


Stable genus.
   28. JRVJ Posted: January 22, 2020 at 12:41 PM (#5918308)
Schilling is in if he keeps his mouth shut and doesn't make any incendiary statements (both on regular and social media) until and after the 2020 U.S. Presidential elections.

Schilling being how he is, I strongly doubt that he'll manage to keep quiet when the Presidential campaign truly gets going.

Other than that, I don't see anybody else getting elected in January 2021. All possible candidates are too far way and there's nobody debuting with a reasonable chance of making it.

On a more general note, I was really excited by Rolen's progress this year, but the unannounced ballots killed him. Still, I think he's going over 50% next year, and one can see a path for him getting to Cooperstown in the next 3 to 4 years.

I don't think Vizquel has a path, even though he is already over 50%, and I doubt Sheffield has enough years left to get elected.
   29. HGM Posted: January 22, 2020 at 12:46 PM (#5918312)
A voter rejecting Curt Schilling for being an ####### and a poor representative would be entirely justified in doing so. These are naturally subjective criteria and voters will naturally differ in their interpretation of them, as the HOF was obviously aware when it consciously adopted the voting criteria that have now been in place, uninterrupted, for over seven decades.

Because of the far wider range of applicable criteria, and the natural subjectiveness of them, all of the analysis around here of "great ballots," "crappy ballots," and all the rest has been wasted energy, applying criteria that aren't even applicable to the task at hand. It's like analyzing Murray Chass's sociology test by bemoaning how bad he is at math.

Lmao
   30. SoSH U at work Posted: January 22, 2020 at 01:11 PM (#5918328)
I can only imagine how angry Elroy is that he didn't post 27.

Outstanding Adam.

   31. TJ Posted: January 22, 2020 at 01:19 PM (#5918342)
I have no problem with Big Hall votes for Omar Vizquel. As I posted on other threads, Vizquel does not lower the floor for HOF shortstops, he just reinforces it. What rankles me is voters who claim to be Small Hall types and then vote for Vizquel. If you are a Small Hall type, what is your floor at SS? Is it Jeter? Maybe Ozzie? If you really want to go only the immortals, Ripken? Whomever you choose, you cannot make a coherent argument that Omar Vizquel was as good as any of them. It simply isn't true.


My personal off-the-top-of-my-head Small Hall Gatekeepers:

C- Carter, maybe Berra.

1B- Foxx.

2B- Gehringer, Morgan if you want to be real picky.

SS- Jeter or Ozzie.

3B- Brett/Boggs/Chipper Jones, take your pick.

RF- Kaline.

CF- Griffey.

LF- Yaz.

SP- Probably Spahn.

RP- Rivera.

Who are yours?


   32. SoSH U at work Posted: January 22, 2020 at 01:25 PM (#5918345)
That list strikes me as a tiny hall voter.
   33. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: January 22, 2020 at 01:32 PM (#5918352)
yyyyeeeaaahhhh, I think of myself as a small-hall guy, and Jimmie Foxx is not the minimum requirement at first base.
   34. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2020 at 01:40 PM (#5918356)
I can only imagine how angry Elroy is that he didn't post 27.
Not angry at all - I am a lover of all celebrations of the glory of a good centaur reference.
   35. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2020 at 01:43 PM (#5918357)
That list strikes me as a tiny hall voter.
Yeah, that hall should be in one of those tiny houses they have on TV.
   36. Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" Posted: January 22, 2020 at 01:59 PM (#5918365)
That team in #31 is the inner circle of a even a small Hall of Fame. I'd say the gatekeepers of a small Hall are:

C: Gabby Hartnett or Bill Dickey
1B: Eddie Murray
2B: Bobby Grich (in an ideal world) or maaaaybe Ryne Sandberg
3B: Paul Molitor
SS: Barry Larkin
LF: Tim Raines
CF: Duke Snider
RF: Tony Gwynn
SP: Justin Verlander (if he retired today) or Jim Palmer
RP: Ideally no one. Otherwise, the lesser of Hoyt Wilhelm and Mariano Rivera

Manager: None (if you want to limit the Hall to players) or Bill McKechnie
   37. AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Posted: January 22, 2020 at 02:02 PM (#5918366)
hehe. congrats on 27.
   38. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 22, 2020 at 02:12 PM (#5918370)
Have you actually read the voting criteria? Character, integrity, and sportsmanship are three of the six listed criteria voters are supposed to base their votes on.
If Leo Durocher is in the Hall of Fame, those words obviously don’t mean much at all.
   39. TJ Posted: January 22, 2020 at 02:43 PM (#5918387)
That team in #31 is the inner circle of a even a small Hall of Fame. I'd say the gatekeepers of a small Hall are:


Yup, it's the inner circle of a small hall of fame, no doubt. It is a list of the best of the best, which is how too many HOF voters claim they vote. G, your list is almost exactly what I would term the Middle Size Hall of Fame, which is how I would approach HOF voting based on historical standards set by HOF inductions of the past. Any player as good or better than your list should be a no-doubt HOFer. My Middle Size list would be:

C: Gabby Hartnett.

1B: Murray, maybe Killebrew.

2B: Biggio or Sandberg.

SS: Boudreau.

3B: Molitor or Edgar (if you want to put them in as 3B). Santo if you don't.

LF: Raines or Billy Williams.

CF: Snider.

RF: Gwynn or Winfield.

SP: Marichal or Palmer (Koufax for peak cases).

RP: Gossage.
   40. Walt Davis Posted: January 23, 2020 at 02:15 AM (#5918577)
Omar's in a good position, but it depends how strong the anti-Omar position is. He could have quite a firm ceiling to his support.

I'd agree with this if he was facing the sort of ballots that Lee Smith faced (for example). But they'll have almost nobody else to vote for in most of the upcoming years. It is always possible that Omar will stagnate and Rolen and Helton will go sailing by him. Otherwise, there are gonna be a lot of ballots with only 1-4 names on them most years.

[Sheffield] was an excellent player

Sure but also one with some roid stink via Bonds who was widely considered a jerk by the writers and reportedly intentionally played sloppily so Milw would trade him (did he even vaguely admit it?) Generally players with that baggage don't attract many votes. Kevin Brown was of course an excellent pitcher and fell off immediately; Jim Edmonds was an excellent CF; Abreu was an excellent player at just over 5%. Sheff is now (slightly) ahead of Manny (an even better hitter but way more roid stink), Helton, Kent, Andruw and more than double Sosa (undeservedly more roid stink). I'm not questioning his quality, I'm questioning why is he now overcoming the sort of "peripherals" that usually set a player back. Maybe they've decided to ignore the offseason he partially spent working out with Bonds in the BALCO days.

#18: See my comment above. It's important not just to look at "he reached X percent", the question is what sort of ballots will he be facing and where does he rank among the backlog. If a couple of 1st ballot guys are coming onto the next ballot, generally nobody moves very much. If a better player at Omar's position (esp a better-fielding SS) were coming onto the ballot, Omar might well lose votes. But nobody is coming on next year, Bonds and Clemens might as well be ignored cuz nobody's changing their mind which makes Omar #2 on next year's ballot. Great spot to be in to make good progress. Then 2022 isn't great and 2023 is nobody again if Beltran is penalized (and he's not a particularly strong 1st ballot guy). So Omar will likely be the #2 guy next year and the top backlog guy in 2022 (so #2 overall) and 2023 (#1-#2 overall) and 2024 (when some competition does come on). That's a completely different world than the crowded ballots Morris faced at the end.

Have you actually read the voting criteria? Character, integrity, and sportsmanship are three of the six listed criteria voters are supposed to base their votes on.

Well, those are pretty much one criterion really since they're pretty much synonymous within a sport. Also as our historians have pointed out before, those were meant to be reasons to vote for an otherwise unqualified candidate (e.g. a war hero) not to keep bums out. But also nowhere in the criteria does it say or even suggest that "failing" a single "test" excludes you. They are to consider all those things and while Bonds/Clemens' characters/integrity/sportsmanship may be found lacking, their playing records are off the charts. If they were "disqualified" due to their sub-standard characters, the HoF should have disqualified them. So a voter "needs" to make the case that their characters were sufficiently negative as to swamp the fact they are both among the, what, top 10 players in history (at worst). Tough task.

   41. Rusty Priske Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:06 AM (#5918600)
My (meaningless) 2021 Hall of Fame Ballot

2021 is the first year in many that the 10 player limit on the ballot is enough. I still have a full ballot, but there are no 'I would if I could' players. This is it.

No new players. Mark Buehrle is the closest and he is not really a Hall of Famer.

Ballot (more or less in order)

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Curt Schilling
Scott Rolen
Manny Ramirez
Andruw Jones
Todd Helton
Gary Sheffield
Andy Pettitte
Bobby Abreu

Will any actually get elected? Schilling maybe? (THERE will be a skippable ceremony...)

Omar Vizquel being induction will be the worst selection in years. Worse than Harold Baines. Worse than Jack Morris.
   42. bachslunch Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:35 AM (#5918610)
Sure, I'll play:

Abreu
Bonds
Clemens
Helton
Andruw
Kent
Rolen
Sheffield
Sosa
Wagner

Manny and Schilling would be on a 12 person ballot. Probably.
   43. Lassus Posted: January 23, 2020 at 10:23 AM (#5918628)
Omar Vizquel being inducted will be the worst selection in years. Worse than Harold Baines. Worse than Jack Morris.

This is an interesting question. I know people feel strongly on this, but does everyone agree with this assessment?


Manny and Schilling would be on a 12 person ballot. Probably.

Schill seems a shitstain of a human being; but looking at the numbers, he's easily deserving. Manny has a (probably very) good argument, but not as good as Schilling.
   44. SoSH U at work Posted: January 23, 2020 at 10:57 AM (#5918645)
This is an interesting question. I know people feel strongly on this, but does everyone agree with this assessment?


No. Hal was worse.
   45. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:03 AM (#5918646)
I don't really see how the "non-binding snippet" wouldn't cover Bonds' and Clemens' alleged doping anyway.


You could in theory have a voter who doesn't care about PEDs, particularly given that they weren't actually banned by baseball pre-2004, but who didn't want to vote for Bonds or Clemens for character-based reasons because Bonds was accused of beating his wife (and mistress, IIRC?) and Clemens groomed a child into a sexual relationship.

Keith Law expressed similar sentiments in his ballot explanation, though he did end up voting for both.
   46. Rusty Priske Posted: January 23, 2020 at 01:19 PM (#5918729)
I would support not voting for Clemens over the child abuse than I would over steroids.
   47. "RMc", the superbatsman Posted: January 23, 2020 at 01:34 PM (#5918735)
If you like timelining, the voters are rejecting the best position player and the best pitcher ever.

"What the hell is timelining...?!" -- Babe Ruth and Lefty Grove (or maybe Walter Johnson)
   48. Walt Davis Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:46 PM (#5918916)
This is an interesting question. I know people feel strongly on this, but does everyone agree with this assessment?

Not really ... I'm not sure anybody can top Baines. OK, maybe the bad Waner (I have trouble remembering which is which, just like the voters!) But even beyond that ... The writers have a history of inducting "great" defensive SS even though they couldn't hit. On the surface, Omar fits just fine into this group. And while the fancy stats clearly don't rate him a great defensive SS, the GGs certainly do and nobody really knows how valuable his defense was (much less how valuable it was for Aparicio and Maranville).

Maranville: 11,000+ PA, 2600+ hits, 82 OPS+, 258/318/340, -229 Rbat, 130 Rfield, (GGs not around yet)
Aparicio: 11,000+ PA, <2700 hits, 82 OPS+, 262/311/343, -197 Rbat but one hell of a baserunner, 149 Rfield, 9 GG
Omar: 12,000+ PA, <2900 hits, 82 OPS+, 272/336/352, -244 Rbat, 129 Rfield, 11 GG

The only real difference among those guys is that Aparicio was credited with being a great baserunner. He is in particular close to Maranville who isn't credited with much baserunning value either. But Omar had 404 steals just 100 fewer than Aparicio so that's gonna look pretty similar. And although I don't think VC selections have much impact on voters, he's also quite similar to Mazeroski.

Now there aren't more than 10 voters who even know who Maranville is :-) and very few of them saw Aparicio play but still they're looking at Omar as a poor man's Ozzie which might be damning if Ozzie had barely squeaked in after several years on the ballot. But he sailed in and so being "not quite Ozzie" puts you in the conversation. The only real debate is how close to you have to be to Ozzie.

I'm a grumpy crank so I'm the kinda guy that doesn't think short relievers belong in the HoF (though can't get too upset about Mo) and neither do glove-only SS (though can't get too upset about Ozzie) so I am fine with the idea that none of Maranville, Aparicio, Mazeroski or Omar belong in the HoF. But as long as the first 3 are there, Omar does not look out of place.

I don't think I've ever looked (or noticed anybody else doing so) at HoFers ranked by oWAR. Omar is not good at 33 (that's were the lack of baserunning value kills him relative to Aparicio). That's pretty pathetic of course but ...

Maz 20
Rizzuto 29
Kell 35
Fox 37
Baines 41
Aparicio 42
Rice 46

Now Rizzuto missed some good years to the war and probably would have made it to 37-38 oWAR and is close to Omar in Rfield. Kell was an average defender with no business in the HoF. Fox is another 2B that looks a lot like Omar. As mentioned the gap to Aparicio is pretty much all baserunning. Rice and especially Baines were poor defenders. Now Aparicio and Rice are the only ones elected by the VC but Fox missed by just 2 votes. Omar fits in that group. Personally I'd throw them all out but as long as they're in, Omar fits.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDisciplining Astros not as easy for MLB as Altuve revealing a tattoo
(26 - 11:23am, Feb 19)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-19-2020
(18 - 11:21am, Feb 19)
Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios

NewsblogHow will the Red Sox market a Mookie-less team? - The Boston Globe
(69 - 11:20am, Feb 19)
Last: Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (February 2020)
(125 - 11:12am, Feb 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread 2020
(1379 - 10:56am, Feb 19)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(635 - 10:56am, Feb 19)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogRob Manfred offers little insight, shows contempt for reporters in press conference
(114 - 10:48am, Feb 19)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOakland Athletics off the radio waves in the Bay Area, commit to A’s Cast stream
(20 - 10:27am, Feb 19)
Last: Vitor Artur

NewsblogYankees’ Brett Gardner wants fan making bizarre sexual claims kept away from his family, MLB stadiums
(5 - 9:53am, Feb 19)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogFeinstein: In the Astros scandal, Rob Manfred has taken a bad situation and made it worse (WaPo)
(4 - 9:48am, Feb 19)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - January, 2020
(596 - 9:36am, Feb 19)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-18-2020
(34 - 8:03am, Feb 19)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

NewsblogWhitley's new strategy: Less work, more weight
(6 - 1:26am, Feb 19)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogPederson, Stripling back to work with Dodgers after no trade
(8 - 10:10pm, Feb 18)
Last: akrasian

NewsblogRosenthal: Carlos Correa rips Bellinger, passionately defends Altuve and says the Astros deserve their 2017 title – The Athletic
(78 - 8:43pm, Feb 18)
Last: bobm

Page rendered in 0.5561 seconds
46 querie(s) executed