Printable View
It's that time of year again. The 2015 Hall of Fame ballot is out, packed as ever.
A full 18 players are HoF worthy, in my opinion. Bolded are the 10 I'd vote for given the ballot restriction.
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
John Smoltz
Gary Sheffield
Craig Biggio
Mike Piazza
Jeff Bagwell
Tim Raines
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Curt Schilling
Edgar Martinez
Alan Trammell
Mike Mussina
Jeff Kent
Mark McGwire
Larry Walker
Sammy Sosa
I too would vote for 18 players, in fact we have the same 18, just not the same 10:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Curt Schilling
Jeff Bagwell
Mike Mussina
Larry Walker
Mike Piazza
Alan Trammell
John Smoltz
Edgar Martinez
Tim Raines
Craig Biggio
Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Gary Sheffield
Jeff Kent
The ballot has become insanely crowded and it's a shame that a lot of these guys will wind up on future Veteran's Committee votes because the BBWAA couldn't or wouldn't do their job, but whatever, I've wasted enough energy on this ridiculous traveshamockery.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on the 18, but I picked a few different in the ten.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'll admit that not putting Bonds in the ten is just because I simply don't like him. It had nothing to do with PEDs or the like; I didn't like him even before the allegations, even back in his Pittsburg days. I would vote for him if there were ten or fewer worthy candidates, but there's going to be a backlog for a while.
Was just looking at Delgado's stats. Very similar to Sheffield. Only difference was injuries ended his career early and he didn't get to hang around and accumulate more stats like Sheffield did and get to the magic 500 HR number. I'm surprised there's not more support for him out there.
Sheffield had 2290 more PA than Delgado did, which is 26.5% more. That's not an insignificant amount plus Sheffield had a 140 OPS+ and a 141 wRC+, while Delgado had a 138 OPS+ and a 135 wRC+. So, Sheffy was anywhere from 2% to 6% better offensively than Delgado over 26.5% more PA. It may not sound like much, but it's enough to put Sheffield in and keep Delgado out. They were both horrible defenders. Wow! Sheffield also stole 253 bases at a 70.9% clip (slightly below where you want to be, but impressive nonetheless).Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleWie
Yeah I guess..I'm sure it also hurts Delgado that he somehow only made two All-Star games. Amazing sometimes how the line between very good and HOFer can be so close.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
It also hurts Delgado that he wasn't as good as he was supposed to be back when he was a prospect. I suppose the same could be said about Sheffield, but it's true to a greater degree with Delgado. He was originally a catcher, remember?
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/bust...lloffamevoting
Insider only, but essentially Buster Olney is abstaining from voting because there are 15+ candidates on the ballot that he thinks belong in the Hall of Fame, and he's concluded that submitting a ballot without some of those players is doing a disservice to them, as his ballot would effectively be counted against multiple players he wants to be in.
The fact that any educated everyday baseball writer would seriously consider and follow through on abstaining from the Hall of Fame vote, while ridiculous ballots like Garry Brown's get counted is completely unacceptable. Hall of Fame voting is broken.
Smoltz, Biggio, Johnson and Pedro elected. Probably the best realistic result we could have hoped for.
Also, on a ballot with 18-20 reasonable candidates, 4 voters found room for Troy Percival. 2 voters found room for Tom Gordon. 2 voters found room for Aaron Boone. 1 voter found room for Darin Erstad. Such voting is incredibly irresponsible and should warrant the revocation of your voting privileges.
At the bottom of the BBWAA announcement, they say:
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...l_Hall_of_Fame, the 310 elected members is correct, as is the 119 BBWAA selections, but it counts 244 players. Anybody have a clue as to what the discrepancy is?Quote:
The Hall of Fame now has 310 elected members, including 215 players, of which 119 have come through the BBWAA ballot.
I could be wrong, but I think there are 215 MLB players in the HoF. Could the rest be players that played in other leagues like the Negro League, Japanese League, Cuban League etc? I have no idea, just spitballing.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
EDIT: Yup, 29 Negro Leaguers in addition to 215 MLB players equals 244 players. The 29 Negro Leaguers: Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, Buck Leonard, Monte Irvin, Cool Papa Bell, Judy Johnson, Oscar Charleston, Martin Dihigo, Pop Lloyd, Ray Dandridge, Leon Day, Bill Foster, Willie Wells, Bullet Rogan, Joe Williams, Turkey Stearnes, Hilton Smith, Ray Brown, Willard Brown, Andy Cooper, Frank Grant, Pete Hill, Biz Mackey, Jose Mendez, Louis Santop, Mule Suttles, Ben Taylor, Cristobal Torriente, and Jud Wilson
EDIT 2: Some of these guys were put in by NLC (Veterans Committee based on Negro League Career), some by SCNL (Special Committee on the Negro Leagues and the Pre-Negro League), and some by VC (Veterans Committee)
That was what I initially suspected, but I only looked at the inductees from the SCNL/NLC. I didn't realize that there were Negro Leaguers inducted through the VC.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
That's.... a really, really stupid group of players to exclude from your count of inductees, especially when you don't specify "MLB players" and include the Negro Leaguers in the overall count.
lol Curt Schilling claims he wasn't elected because he's a Republican and John Smoltz got more support because he's a Democrat...
Set aside the absurdity of his persecution complex, and this comment is still completely idiotic because... well... John Smoltz is pretty clearly a Republican.
Source? What I heard was that he said he lost votes because he's a republican (and outspoken one at that) which is probably true. We know voters hold back. Toes for dumb things and how outspoken schilling is has earned him a lot of publicity and many shake their heads at it. He's probably correct it cost him votes but show me where he said it cost him entry. And not him joking around with the host, where he seriously said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Here's a quote from the interview:Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
"Absolutely," Schilling said. "When human beings do anything, there's bias and prejudice . . . I don't think it kept me out, but I do know that there are guys who probably won't ever vote for me because of the things I said or did."
I knew that Schilling was an outspoken conservative, and as such most likely a Republican, but frankly I have no idea whatsoever what John Smoltz's politics are.
Agreed. He has donated to mitt romneys campaign However his wiki page says he's also held a fundraiser for a state democrat. Not sure of his political leanings and its poor of schilling to compare himself to him in anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
I think it's asinine to complain that he lost votes because of his politics. It's likely that he lost votes because he's a giant ass, which may be correlated with his political beliefs, but I don't think those beliefs cost him anything - though the way he expresses them may have. And yes, he didn't straight up say "I would've made it if I weren't a Republican." It's still a moronic notion to express.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Here's the quote about Smoltz.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
“I think he got in because of [Greg] Maddux and [Tom] Glavine. I think the fact that they won 14 straight pennants. I think his ‘Swiss army knife versatility,’ which somebody said yesterday, I think he got a lot of accolades for that, I think he got a lot of recognition for that. He’s a Hall of Famer,” Schilling said. “And I think the other big thing is that I think he’s a Democrat and so I know that, as a Republican, that there’s some people that really don’t like that.”
The whole conversation is stupid. Schilling does have a right to complain about the fact that Smoltz sailed in first ballot while he's struggling to get 40% of the vote, but he can make that complaint without seeming like an idiot with a huge persecution complex. He can make the complaint by pointing to their respective numbers which couldn't be more similar. He doesn't need to bring up politics at all.
Same Wiki article mentions his robocall in support of Rick Reed, as well as speculation about him running for office as a Republican. Here's a list of his political donations. And in 2004, when asked about gay marriage, he said “What’s next, marrying an animal?” There's no doubt whatsoever that Smoltz is a staunch Republican. He's just not outspoken about it, nor is he the same type of condescending ass when he does talk about his political beliefs as Schilling is.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Agreed. Just don't see the need to embellish and put words in his mouth, he does enough damage without the help and theres more than enough to criticize with what he actually said. I've seen a few headlines that also said something to the effect of Schilling claiming being a republican cost him entry. That's not what he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I think it a bit naive to think that his outspoken heavy right leaning political beliefs did not cost him any votes. I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say here...whether or not you think his outspoken political beliefs cost him votes. Seems like you said yes twice and no once in this same sentence so i'll say we agree with yes lol.
Quote:
It's likely that he lost votes because he's a giant ass, which may be correlated with his political beliefs, but I don't think those beliefs cost him anything - though the way he expresses them may have.
I'm saying that it's not the content of his beliefs that may have cost him votes, but rather the manner and tone in which he expresses those beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Wait.. What?! Now you're saying being a douche does cost you HOF votes?! You should be a politician the way you flip flop on your arguments! Lol...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleWie
I'm not sure why you're unable to grasp the simple distinction between "Personality may be a reason some individual writers refuse to vote for a player" and "Personality has not ever been the primary reason that a player was kept out of the HoF." To quote myself explaining this distinction (since apparently it needs to be repeatedly spelled out):
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I think it's possible that some individual BBWAA writers refused to vote for Curt Schilling because of his personality. POSSIBLE, not definite. I think it's absolutely NOT the reason that his voting results have been mediocre overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Limiting myself to only 10
Clemens
Bonds
Smoltz
Johnson
Raines
Pedro
Biggio
Bagwell
Mussina
Schilling
I gave Biggio the vote over Piazza because I want to get Biggio off the ballot so there are additional vote spots next year (assuming they don't expand to 12 possible votes) and because Piazza isn't in any danger of not getting in in the future, and because I figure Biggio will remain out ahead of Piazza this year on the ballot (which was right). So clear Biggio, so Piazza can get in next year.
If I had room, I would also vote for:
Walker
Trammell
Edgar
Piazza
So there are 14 guys in total that I would vote for this year.
Next year, you can add Griffey to my list, and remove anyone that gets in (subsequently it's Johnson, Pedro, Smotlz and Biggio, meaning I have to keep one guy off the ballot, since I have 11 out of 10. I'll give it to Trammell since it's his last year and last hope, and hold off on whichever of the two had enough to remain on the ballot, but has no chance of getting electing between Walker and Martinez in hopes that there can be a push in 2017).
Sosa, Kent, McGwire, and Sheffield seem statistically short for the hall to me
The average Hall of Famer has a 69 rWAR, anyone short of that threshold I feel needs a different reason to be pushed over the hump
As a position player, I'd hope you can be a top 15 player for your position, like Piazza 5th highest rWAR among catchers all-time
or Smoltz, being an Eckersley type with closing and starting time, suppressing his career WAR
Sheffield, Sosa, and McGwire are all one dimensional candidates.
All bat, nothing else. Which would be fine, if there was anything else to support them.
Sheffield has the 24th most runs created all-time, worst defensive metrics all-time and not really a lot of positional adjustment to help him either
Sosa is 64th in most runs created all-time, hanging out with Rusty Staub and Vlad and near Robbie Alomar who feels fringe to me in the first place, and he has the positional adjustment and base running to help him out.
McGwire is 79th in career runs created, and played first base
I can see a stronger argument for Sheffield because I think his defensive metrics can be called into question. But with a loaded ballot, I have no problem leaving these three off....especially when we compare them to the average hall of famer.
Kent has the 80th most runs created all-time, 8 less than McGwire, and one more than Stargell, Dawson, and Damon...and the 8th most among second basemen all-time
Kent is 17th in fWAR among second basemen, 16th in rWAR
With a loaded ballot, I feel it's okay for Kent to be held off for now, as he seems fringe at best as well.
WAR isn't the be-all, end-all, but being this far short of 70 WAR seems like great players who are just a bit short. Maybe I just want a smaller Hall of Fame.
There are a total of 99 players all-time with 70 rWAR
There are 134 players all-time with 65 rWAR
There are 179 players all-time with 60 rWAR
There are 230 players all-time with 55 rWAR
Other than catchers, I feel like you should at least top the 60 rWAR before having serious consideration for me. I want a slightly smaller hall, but I am good with special circumstances, with guys that could push themselves over, like Sheffield, who was such a fantastic hitter that you need to look at him more closely.
I get the sense that Schilling has the added stigma that Bagwell has an expected PED user, despite a lack of evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Add in that he was a douche
Add in that it's a loaded ballot
And I can see why he is lacking votes
I would vote for him before I would ever vote for Smoltz though, easily. Moose too.
Assuming that this is accurate AND that the median is close to the average, you do realize that it means that roughly half of the players currently in the HoF have less than that, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Correct, which is why a player below 60 is pretty much the bottom of the barrel.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
And as history continues, we continue to see additional players who will push this mark.
We will continue to see 100+ WAR players, raising the average WAR value as more of those players exist.
Johnson
Martinez
Smoltz
Piazza
Raines
Clemens
Bonds
Martinez
Trammell
I voted 9 on accident instead of 10. My 10th would be Bagwell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
So you're saying that roughly half of the current players in the Hall are "bottom of the barrel"?
And you do realize that no matter what statistical criteria we rank players by, half of the members of the HoF are going to be in the bottom half of the Hall's membership, right?
I'm not saying that at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
I am saying that half of the players in the hall of fame are below the average Hall of Famer, and the other half are above.
But as time continues, there will be more players in the 100+ rWAR range that get elected, than there will be guys in that 20-30 rWAR range, and the average Hall of Famer rWAR will continue to rise, it was at 65 not that long ago, now it's up to 69.
Meaning that having a base line of around 70 makes a little more sense, but if someone is in that 55-69 range, their resume should be considered certainly (and then I went on to explain why guys should qualify, primarily because WAR isn't a be-all, end-all stat, but also based on things like being a top 15 player at your position or so, or doing something unique that would drive that value down (like closing))
I'm not a fan of this argument. It's giving extra credit beyond the value the player produced for... what reason exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Well, catchers for example don't tend to create as much career WAR as other position players, partially because of the number of plate appearances, and also, partially, because maybe we don't understand catcher defensive metrics as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
And obviously, guys like Mariano and Hoffman were never actually given the opportunity to pitch more innings to give themselves more career WAR.
Of course, if they had been set up men their entire careers instead of closers, nobody would probably think twice about Cooperstown for them.
Catchers may be underrated in WAR, that's true, but there's arguments to be made that that is the case. An argument that relievers are underrated by WAR, though, is much harder to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Where do you stand on a guy like Sandy Koufax? 49.0 rWAR (53.2 pitcher rWAR - 4.2 hitter rWAR), but one of the greatest six year spans we've ever seen. He lights up the black ink category and kills it in the Hall of Fame Monitor too. It's a tough call. Dare I say that he's borderline? But is he borderline in or borderline out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Koufax is 53rd in career rWAR among hall of famersQuote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Which is mainly because he is 66th among hall of famers in innings pitched
Here are the guys behind him in career innings that started more games than they relieved:
Dizzy Dean
Candy Cummings
Hank O'Day
Two of these three are in as 19th century pitchers, and Dizzy arguably shouldn't be in at all, being a friend of Frisch though, he got in.
I mean, Koufax is all peak, I think that's obvious to everyone. There was no longevity because his career was cut short due to all of the arm injuries he had.
He also enjoyed an enlarged strike zone, pitching in one of the most pitcher friendly ball parks of all time, and did this with a raised mound.
Koufax, while obviously dominant, had a lot of things going for him to help him be that dominant.
I mean, I don't think it's any coincidence the year they raised the strike zone from the belt to the letters, that Koufax went from 1962 numbers to 1963 numbers. A great pitcher, but there were some things that he had at his benefit.
For me, he is obviously a borderline guy. He retired at 30. Not many hall of famers had a hall of fame career accomplished when they finished their age 30 season. Guys usually need to go on and compile some more years of some value to get there.
And honestly, would Koufax have gotten in if he hadn't been a bonus baby forced to develop at the big league level from the age of 19 where he got to at least pitch some innings? Today, if he was drafted, he would have sat in the minors for those first several years to develop, limiting his career innings even more.
Koufax is 16th in the Hall of Fame Monitor among pitchers
50th in standard
Black ink sees him 12th, while gray ink sees him 97th
He is obviously an exception in more ways than one.
Hank O'day was inducted as an umpire, and Candy Cummings as a pioneer/executive. FWIW.
Love this read as it further shows that Pedro is the GOAT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
further pushing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Fewest innings, even with great value, he didn't have exactly a long career.