HoustonGM's Personal Hall of Fame

[HoustonGM]

They can be disqualifiers:

From the BBWAA voting criteria:

A voter can certainly refuse to vote for said player because of his "doucheness"

This has literally never disqualified any otherwise qualified player, except MAYBE Dick Allen.

Sure it is, if the flaw was significant enough.

Ok, then an argument must be made.

[dickay]

This has literally never disqualified any otherwise qualified player, except MAYBE Dick Allen.

Theres been players who were not voted for by some writers along those lines...at least initially, then got in later. Writers may somehow feel that excluding them from initial ballots is a way of "getting back at them". Jim Rice comes to mind. I know many don't feel he's HOF worthy, but it took him years to get in and his numbers didn't change. He was tough with the media and the writers held it against him, years later changing their votes or other writers took their place and let him in. He was "disqualified", if thats the term of choice", for many of those years based largely upon items unrelated to baseball. This is not uncommon HGM.

[actionjackson]

The new players on the 2015 ballot that have made my personal Hall of Fame:

Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
John Smoltz
Gary Sheffield

Johnson becomes the first player to be "inducted" with an Arizona Diamondbacks cap, and Sheffield the first with a Miami Marlins cap.

Wasn't Sheffield arguably a more valuable player while with the LA Dodgers?

[dickay]

Wasn't Sheffield arguably a more valuable player while with the LA Dodgers?

only 3.5 seasons though.....tough one. I realize with Miami he was injured for a good deal of his time there as well and it wasn't much more. Weird for such a talent to have bounced around so much spending such little time in one place. In his case I really don't think anyone would argue what hat he wore...going with the Greg Maddux no team approach makes most sense.

if its just productivity though and not longevity, w/o question it should be LAD.

[actionjackson]

I don't think it's weird that he bounced around so much. He was from most accounts a complete a-hole. At least we know he won't be alone in that regard in the HoF.

[HoustonGM]

Theres been players who were not voted for by some writers along those lines...at least initially, then got in later. Writers may somehow feel that excluding them from initial ballots is a way of "getting back at them". Jim Rice comes to mind. I know many don't feel he's HOF worthy, but it took him years to get in and his numbers didn't change. He was tough with the media and the writers held it against him, years later changing their votes or other writers took their place and let him in. He was "disqualified", if thats the term of choice", for many of those years based largely upon items unrelated to baseball. This is not uncommon HGM.

I do not believe that at all, nor have I ever heard such, regarding why it took Jim Rice so long to get in. It took Jim Rice so long because he doesn't actually have a Hall of Fame case and it required Boston writers drumming up support and backwards old-timers wanting to take jabs at sabermetric thought and the high offense era of the 90s. That's how a lot of HoF voting goes. It takes most players years to get in, for various reasons. I've never heard of any case of a player taking a while to get in due to writers holding non-baseball things against that player. I don't buy for a second that a ton of writers thought Rice was deserving but waited a decade to vote for him because he was mean to them once.

Wasn't Sheffield arguably a more valuable player while with the LA Dodgers?

only 3.5 seasons though.....tough one. I realize with Miami he was injured for a good deal of his time there as well and it wasn't much more. Weird for such a talent to have bounced around so much spending such little time in one place. In his case I really don't think anyone would argue what hat he wore...going with the Greg Maddux no team approach makes most sense.

if its just productivity though and not longevity, w/o question it should be LAD.

I use a mix of factors, including both productivity and longevity, as well as any particular noteworthy feats of a player, to pick what "hat" they get. Basically, it boils down to what team I think most of a player's HoF case was built during. I think the "Greg Maddux no team approach" is pretty silly - well, at least for Greg Maddux. I wish to assign every player a "hat", though Sheffield's case is, I think, the toughest I've had so far, and would certainly be a good candidate for the "blank hat" treatment IRL. An argument could be made for either LAD or MIA. I don't know the particulars of the injuries Sheffield faced in 94 and 95, but I gave a slight boost in my value estimates due to those being shortened seasons, which makes the overall value between those two stints pretty close, so I gave the edge to Miami because he spent slightly more time there.

[dickay]

I do not believe that at all, nor have I ever heard such, regarding why it took Jim Rice so long to get in. It took Jim Rice so long because he doesn't actually have a Hall of Fame case and it required Boston writers drumming up support and backwards old-timers wanting to take jabs at sabermetric thought and the high offense era of the 90s. That's how a lot of HoF voting goes. It takes most players years to get in, for various reasons. I've never heard of any case of a player taking a while to get in due to writers holding non-baseball things against that player. I don't buy for a second that a ton of writers thought Rice was deserving but waited a decade to vote for him because he was mean to them once.

surprised you never heard of it, it was frequently discussed as a reason he wasn't voted in during his time on the ballot falling short. Heres the wiki, which admittedly isn't a great source but if wiki mentions it than there's likely some fire behind the smoke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rice

Rice's delay in being elected to the Hall of Fame stemmed in part from more current statistical analysis of player performance. This analysis suggested that Rice's HOF credentials might have been more questionable than they were considered during his career.[17] The delay may also have been related to his often difficult relationship with the media during his playing career, many of whom are still voting members of the BBWAA, and his career fading relatively early - he last played in the major leagues at the age of 36.[18]

wiki's reference: http://www.boston.com/sports/basebal...l_a_tough_out/

Bill Madden of the New York Daily News, a baseball writer since 1972, does not vote for Rice. Asked if Rice's nasty relationship with the writers had anything to do with his vote, Madden said, ''Not with me. I voted for Eddie Murray, and nobody was more rude to me than him. I would hate to think that's the reason people don't vote for Jim Rice."

Back in Rice's home state of South Carolina, reporter Bob Gillespie of The State, said, ''Most people here say, 'He didn't get along with writers, so people are taking it out on him.' "

Finally one last article discussing it;

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/sp...ll/27RICE.html

Another commonly mentioned to have been held out because of his attitude towards writers is one you put into your HOF, Joe Medwick.

http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/8fed3607

After waiting impatiently for 20 years, Medwick was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1968. “It was like a 20-year slump,” he said the day after his election. His long wait may have been caused by the antagonism felt toward him by many baseball writers, whom he often dismissed rudely when they approached him for interviews. By 1968 this animosity had been largely forgotten and he received votes from 84.8 percent of the writers casting ballots.

Finally you mentioned Dick Allen, another commonly associated with being held out because of his personality.

[HoustonGM]

Can you show me a writer who has stated that he withheld a vote from a player for multiple years, that he thought was otherwise qualified, because of the player's personality?

I don't buy that there is a vast contingent of writers that refuse to vote for multiple years for players they think belong in the Hall and then at some point decide to say yes.

Are there a couple individual writers that don't vote for people they don't like? Yeah, but I think generally those writers stick with that vote, and even if sometimes they change it, I don't think it's such a widespread phenomenon that it can account for 50% jumps over the course of a decade.

Absent the steroid issue (both on Sheffield's personal level, as well as ballot wide - meaning no backlog of overqualified players), I think Sheffield would likely have taken 4-6 years to get in.

[dickay]

Can you show me a writer who has stated that he withheld a vote from a player for multiple years, that he thought was otherwise qualified, because of the player's personality?

I don't buy that there is a vast contingent of writers that refuse to vote for multiple years for players they think belong in the Hall and then at some point decide to say yes.

Are there a couple individual writers that don't vote for people they don't like? Yeah, but I think generally those writers stick with that vote, and even if sometimes they change it, I don't think it's such a widespread phenomenon that it can account for 50% jumps over the course of a decade.

Absent the steroid issue (both on Sheffield's personal level, as well as ballot wide - meaning no backlog of overqualified players), I think Sheffield would likely have taken 4-6 years to get in.

u said you hadn't heard of it, I was just showing you that it's actually a pretty common theory and whether it happens or not, it is permissible under the guidelines set forth by the BBWAA. Three of the five listed voting criteria are things that have little to do with what actually took place on the field and more to do with the personality/makeup of the player. So being douche certainly can be a disqualifyer.

[HoustonGM]

u said you hadn't heard of it, I was just showing you that it's actually a pretty common theory and whether it happens or not, it is permissible under the guidelines set forth by the BBWAA. Three of the five listed voting criteria are things that have little to do with what actually took place on the field and more to do with the personality/makeup of the player. So being douche certainly can be a disqualifyer.

Ok well, even if Jim Rice and Joe Medwick waiting years before election due to a large segment of writers withholding votes on the basis of their personality was true, it was NOT a disqualifier - it just caused a delay in election.

Dick Allen is the only case where an argument can be made that his personality actually held him out of the Hall, but even that case is relatively weak given that Allen is borderline as it is and has various statistical issues working against his already borderline record.

[MichelleWie]

Ok well, even if Jim Rice and Joe Medwick waiting years before election due to a large segment of writers withholding votes on the basis of their personality was true, it was NOT a disqualifier - it just caused a delay in election.

Dick Allen is the only case where an argument can be made that his personality actually held him out of the Hall, but even that case is relatively weak given that Allen is borderline as it is and has various statistical issues working against his already borderline record.

What about Albert Belle? He compares very similar to Dick Allen. I know he is prolly not a HOFer but I think he is very very close. He got almost no consideration. You would have thought he would have at least hung around the ballot for awhile. I'm sure him being a douche was why he got almost no votes.

[dickay]

Ok well, even if Jim Rice and Joe Medwick waiting years before election due to a large segment of writers withholding votes on the basis of their personality was true, it was NOT a disqualifier - it just caused a delay in election.

Dick Allen is the only case where an argument can be made that his personality actually held him out of the Hall, but even that case is relatively weak given that Allen is borderline as it is and has various statistical issues working against his already borderline record.

ugh, ok Mr. Semantics. It's a disqualifier until it isn't lmao. You win.

btw, "disqualified" was your word in response to me saying that "doucheness" can be reason for a writer not to vote for said person. If you literally meant that the person never got into the HOF, than you are arguing something nobody ever said.

[kenny1234]

Interesting - I disappear for almost 3 years, and when I come back the 2 of you are still bitching at each other. Good to see some things don't change.

[HoustonGM]

What about Albert Belle? He compares very similar to Dick Allen. I know he is prolly not a HOFer but I think he is very very close. He got almost no consideration. You would have thought he would have at least hung around the ballot for awhile. I'm sure him being a douche was why he got almost no votes.

Belle had an extremely short career. He was a bat-only player without any milestone counting stats or major awards or records. I wouldn't expect him to get much support regardless.

Look at Ralph Kiner for a player with a very similar overall statistical profile... except Kiner actually had records, a higher peak, and a lot more black ink.... plus was a popular announcer and had a sterling reputation. He started off with basically no support and it took him nearly the full 15 years on the ballot to get elected. Belle had no shot at election, even if he was the world's nicest guy to the media.

ugh, ok Mr. Semantics. It's a disqualifier until it isn't lmao. You win.

btw, "disqualified" was your word in response to me saying that "doucheness" can be reason for a writer not to vote for said person. If you literally meant that the person never got into the HOF, than you are arguing something nobody ever said.

My original statement was that it has never disqualified somebody from the Hall of Fame, except arguably Dick Allen. It's beyond clear that I'm saying it has never kept anyone out of the Hall of Fame, not that it has never been the reason an individual writer didn't vote for a player.

Yes, individual writers make individual votes with stupid reasoning like "This guy's personality sucked." My argument is, and has been, that this is not a large enough contingent of writers to have a meaningful effect on the voting, and that on the overall scale of BBWAA voting, players have been voted in or held out only on the basis of their playing career, and never on the basis of their personality or the way they acted.

[dps]

Ok well, even if Jim Rice and Joe Medwick waiting years before election due to a large segment of writers withholding votes on the basis of their personality was true, it was NOT a disqualifier - it just caused a delay in election.

He made the Hall as a manager, not a player, but his being considered a douche is probably what made Durocher a posthumous selection.