2011 Hall of Fame election

January's BBWAA ballot:

Roberto Alomar, Carlos Baerga, Jeff Bagwell, Harold Baines, Bert Blyleven, Bret Boone, Kevin Brown, John Franco, Juan Gonzalez, Marquis Grissom, Lenny Harris, Bobby Higginson, Charles Johnson, Barry Larkin, Al Leiter, Edgar Martinez, Tino Martinez, Don Mattingly, Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire, Raul Mondesi, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, John Olerud, Rafael Palmeiro, Dave Parker, Tim Raines, Kirk Rueter, Benito Santiago, Lee Smith, B.J. Surhoff, Alan Trammell, Larry Walker.

Veterans Committee ballot:

*George Steinbrenner
*Vida Blue
*Dave Concepcion
*Steve Garvey
*Ron Guidry
*Tommy John
*Al Oliver
*Ted Simmons
*Rusty Staub
*Billy Martin
*Pat Gillick
*Marvin Miller

Here's who is on the committee:

Hall of Famers
*Johnny Bench
*Whitey Herzog
*Eddie Murray
*Jim Palmer
*Tony Perez
*Frank Robinson
*Ryne Sandberg
*Ozzie Smith

Executives
*Bill Giles
*David Glass (what the fuck)
*Andy MacPhail
*Jerry Reinsdorf

Veteran Media Members
*Bob Elliott (Toronto Sun)
*Tim Kurkjian (ESPN)
*Russ Newhan (LA Times)
*Tom Verducci (SI)

I'm sure they'll find a way to fuck Marvin Miller again this year

On the merits: Alomar, Bagwell, Edgar, McGwire, Palmeiro, Miller, Gillick

Wouldn't bother me a bit, even if they probably wouldn't be on my own ballot: Blyleven, Raines, Trammell

(You can now berate me for thinking Edgar Martinez should go in ahead of Tim Raines.)

Close: Smith, Walker.

Who I'd actually vote for, in light of what we know and, for the time being at least, what I suspect: Alomar, Edgar, Miller, Gillick.

pretty sure Miller doesn't want in at this point; he asked (formally or not) to be removed from consideration.

Didn't know that--good for him. "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"

bagwell and blyleven are the 2 no-brainers here

alomar, larkin, edgar, raines would all be cool too

I missed Larkin; I should have added him to my "Wouldn't bother me a bit, even if they probably wouldn't be on my own ballot" category. (I've always been bothered by how many partial seasons he had--by my count, he only reached 140 games seven times--and I don't think he was the best choice the year he won his MVP. But obviously he was often a great player.)

Contradicting yourself in record time; I guess Larkin would bother me, a bit.

surprised PED McCarthyism hasn't touched Bagwell. Look at his rookie card sometime.

But I think it has touched him--even Neyer alluded to that yesterday. (I don't really think it's McCarthyism to suspect Bagwell of having used PEDs--even your own post points to some circumstantial evidence that's hard to ignore. As was, in retrospect, his sudden transformation in 1994 from Mark Grace into Jimmie Foxx, and as was his body completely breaking down post-testing.)

You've got to stop yelling "McCarthyism" at anyone who doesn't share the "Steroids? So what?" viewpoint. There is room for a legitimate difference of opinion on this matter.

man can't grow a goatee like that without PEDs (see also: gagne, mcgwire, possibly buhner)

Not to mention all those people in Pearl Jam and Alice and Chains--PEDs, every one of them.

"In," not "and"--two bands, not three.

I think it's baseball witch-huntery when the case is reduced to "look, he's bigger"

No, it's "look, he's bigger" and "geez, his slugging percentage just jumped 250 points all of a suddden."

Anyway, let's not have this argument for the nine millionth time. Again, my only point: people see this issue differently.

how did Raul Mondesi make this list?!

i think anyone who played 10+ seasons is eligible?

I think they winnow a bit, but not much

That's right:

http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/rules-election/future-eligibles

Thinking of some of the names I've seen on the ballot over the years, Mondesi wouldn't be anywhere near the worst--last year there was Greg Vaughn, Dunston in 2008, Bobby Witt and Scott Brosius in 2007, etc.

Thinwall: don't forget, we only saw the late-stage Mondesi in Toronto, and you're right, not pretty. He had a few pretty solid years in L.A., though.

what!? no wayne tolleson?

Dave Fleming, a contributor to James's site, has a round-up of all the new names on the ballot. We were talking about Mondesi upthread; Fleming gives a good summary of how, early in his career, Mondesi actually looked like a potential HOF'er (especially doing his hitting in Dodger Stadium):

At the end of 1997, you would’ve thought Mondesi was a good candidate for the Hall of Fame. He was 26 that year...he hit .310 with 42 doubles, 30 homeruns, and 32 steals. He won his first Gold Glove in the outfield. His on-base percentage jumped from .334 to .360. He had 100 homeruns on his career, hadn’t had any injuries. His most comparable player was Billy Williams. Then Freddie Lynn. Then Dave Parker.

He didn't get better...

And it goes on from there.

Charles Johnson was one of those guys that was really hyped up big when he was coming out of Miami-U. The guy had the glove, but he never hit at all like they expected him to be able to do.

John Olerud is hard one to figure, that dude was generally good player, but he has a couple of years where his batting average spikes like 50 points above the norm.

B.J. Surhoff seemed to play FOREVER and played a ton of different positions.

Larry Walker probably won't make it into the Hall, but he was a heck of a ballplayer and he had one sweet swing.

wasn't he an epic prick? (not that it has any bearing)

I'm really interested in the Walker vote. I think he'll be a test run for Helton, even though I know there's a lot that's different about them--just in terms of how much voters are going to penalize anybody who ran up numbers in Colorado. One thing about Walker: in his MVP year, he actually had more home runs (29-20) and a higher slugging pct. (.733-.709) on the road than at home, although his BA and OBP were higher in Colorado.

Was he really a bad guy? I've never heard that--the first thing that I think about is how funny he was hitting against Johnson in the All-Star Game.

Walker is borderline for me, and like you said, he wasn't helped by Coors nearly as much as people think. And Walker was a great hitter before and after he left Colorado, which wasn't the case for a lot of other guys.

You and I may have a small nationalistic bias here...James once wrote that Walker would have been the perfect 1950s Yankee.

xp but wasn't Olympic also a notorious hitters ballpark?

Larry Walker's problem was that he didn't stay healthy. All his rate stats look amazing, but he only got to 150 games ONCE in 17 years which dinged his counting stats badly.

You're right--never realized Walker's GP were so spotty. Lack of 150-game seasons is really the main problem I have with Raines and Larkin.

and the winner is Pat Gillick. MM one vote shy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/news/story?id=5890610

Pat Gillick Elected To Hall Of Fame
Tim Kurkjian on Pat Gillick election to the Hall of Fame and George Steindrenner missing out

lol boston fans epsn bias

I'm on the fence with Steinbrenner, but any Jays fan is going to be thrilled about Gillick.

from marvin miller's statement:

"It is an amusing anomaly that the Hall of Fame has made me famous by keeping me out."

Gillick's a great choice, I'm glad he's getting his due. And to think that Jays fans used to ridicule him in the 80's (his nickname for a while was "Stand" Pat Gillick) when the team couldn't get over the ALCS hump.

It seems like Gillick got voted in because he was the safe, non-controversial choice, i.e. committee members wanted to vote for somebody but wanted to stay clear of a potential Miller/Steinbrenner shitstorm, so they chose Gillick. I'm not saying that Gillick isn't deserving, but for instance someone who wouldn't vote for Steinbrenner because not enough time has passed to "put his career into perspective" can't justify voting for Gillick now.

Steinbrenner is such a tough call for me. He did good stuff, and he did heinous stuff--and I don't mean the serial firings, but things that were actually criminal. His bad stuff is probably far worse than the PED users I prefer to put on hold for the time being. Supposedly he was great helping out players and former employess were down on their luck, and he seemed to soften in his later years (perhaps with one eye on the HOF). I honestly don't know if he should go in or not.

I think every executive/owner in the HOF did very good and very harmful things (OK, maybe not criminal things, but did Steinbrenner affect the integrity of the game by giving illegal campaign contributions? I can't see how.)

When somebody dominates baseball headlines for 30+ years, I don't see how he can NOT go to the HOF.

he's bigger than the hall.

I could see where illegal campaign contributions could maybe get you some favorable zoning regulations or something like that at some point, but basically, no, there's no direct connection to the integrity of the game. (Beyond the obvious, that you're a powerful owner who has very little integrity.) And I basically agree that dominating the headlines for a long period of time is a strong argument for induction--with the obvious caveat that mostly you should be dominating for positive things, like winning championships. Marge Schott dominated the headlines for 5-10 years, and you wouldn't want her anywhere near the Hall. Were Steinbrenner's headlines on balance for positive things, things that benifitted the game? I don't know--probably.

i was reading a book of compiled public apologies. Marge Schott had two entire pages.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/12/07/marvin.miller.hof/

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aqc4QTMoPrdtdDQxaDYzd1lLOGpOdUdrcnNNNWNXa2c&authkey=CPyuwqIJ&hl=en&pli=1#gid=5

ballot tracker

My man

keithlaw keithlaw
Without a doubt. RT @Sbennett15: @keithlaw You think Lou Whitaker was HOF-worthy?

keithlaw keithlaw
If I had a #HOF ballot, I'd vote for Alomar, Blyleven, Raines, Edgar, Bagwell, Larkin, and Trammell.

Szymborski:

I'd vote for Kevin Appier before Morris.

To get to Morris's 105 ERA+ in the 1228 missing innings, Appier would have had to pitch 1228.2 innings of 6.23 ERA baseball.

Does anyone think that 1228.2 innings of 6.23 ERA baseball would have enhanced Appier's career value?

To match Jack Morris, Kevin Brown would have had to throw 567.2 innings of 7.92 ERA ball.

And for Dave Stieb, he'd have been as "valuable" as Jack Morris with 928.2 innings of 5.86 ERA.

For Morris to match Blyleven's IP/ERA+, he would need 1146 IP of 2.04 ERA ball.

So essentially, if you vote for Morris and not Blyleven, you are saying that 1146 IP of 2.04 ERA ball has negative value.

1146 IP of 2.04 comes to 4 and a half seasons of 254.2 IP with a 207 ERA+

Derek Lowe to match Jack Morris - 1495.1 innings of 4.88 ball. Above replacement now, but any HoF should be crushing Lowe.

B-b-b-but Jack Morris was so good that he could pitch to the score!

would Morris be the worst player in the hall if he gets in? There'd at least be a decent argument for it, right?

Maybe of the modern era but there are plenty of lousier old tyme-y players in there.

maybe worst non-VC selection then.

are bonds and clemens up next year or the year after?

Debatable whether Morris is worse than Rice or Brock actually.

Bill Mazeroski being in the HoF is really inexplicable, isn't it?

Yeah, I was just pondering Maz the other day. Makes some measure of sense if you consider him the greatest defensive 2B ever, which a lot of people do, but that bat... yeesh.

i've seen reasonable defenses of mazeroski based on what we know about his fielding. don't think i'd agree though

not a Morris supporter, but Rice and Dawson are worse

Neyer dealt briefly w/ Bagwell juicing suspicions today

Morris is wayyy worse than Dawson. It's not even close.

Dawson is 178th career in WAR for nonpitchers, Morris 140th for pitchers. Let's say neither is inner-sanctumm.

That's a deceptive way of putting it, Morris' career WAR is 39.3 vs Dawson's 57.0 - Dawson's a credible candidate if you're a big hall guy, but even the hugest of halls shouldn't have room for Morris. Jamie Moyer has a better case than Morris (and in fact most every argument you can make for Morris can be made for Moyer)

btw here's a really good fake ballot:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/12/21/1888629/the-2011-hall-of-fame-ballot-graphically

Was Morris that middling? It's kind of hard to separate the fact that he was actually viewed as being a #1 pitcher for a time with the fact that statistically he was pretty pedestrian for most of that period of time. Plus Moyer didn't have any post-season heroics equivalent to Morris 1991 Game 7 which like it or not voters tend to remember.

Those graphs were really interesting. I was already sold on Bert but now I'm extra mad that he's not in.

I'm sort of an agnostic on Morris; he'd be at the outer edge of questionable choices, but I buy into more of that phony intangible stuff than you guys do, so I could live with it. That line about pitching to the score killed me too, though. Jack: "We've got a 7-0 lead, so I think I'll go out and give up five runs--I'll still get the W, and I'll prove to those sabermetric fuckers that I'm not about numbers."

I can't understand how "pitching to the score" doesn't just mean "recklessly complacent when not under pressure". I didn't watch any baseball in Morris's era but everything I've read about the man indicate he should be kept out of New York State, let alone Cooperstown.

Just to clarify: Jon Heyman used the pitching-to-the-score line in earnest the other day explaining his vote for Morris. I realize Heyman isn't actually referred to above.

I'm convinced Heyman's trolling when it comes to Morris because of all the negative attention he's received for voting for him in the past. He changed his mind about Raines after being exposed to some persuasive arguments, but with Morris he's just building a pillow fort and saying "fuck you nerds"

Ken Davidoff's ballot appears to be the best this year (and he had last year's best too):

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ken-davidoff-s-baseball-insider-1.1278117/my-2011-hall-of-fame-ballot-1.2564041

Alomar, Blyleven, Bagwell, Kevin Brown, Larkin, Edgar Martinez, McGwire, Raines, Trammell, Larry Walker

Brown and Walker are really borderline to me. Davidoff clearly likes the idea of a big hall.

KLaw:

"I think Blyleven gets in. I don't think (Bagwell or Walker) gets in this year, but would vote for Bagwell. Anyone else think this apparent surge in support for Jack Morris is a bunch of dinosaur voters angry that Felix Hernandez and Zack Greinke won Cy Young Awards with historically low win totals? "They say pitcher wins don't count? I'll show them!" I imagine the majority of Morris voters write his name in ALL CAPS. In crayon."

Blyleven's backers sometimes will also act astounded or even apoplectic over the fact that some, including myself, support Jack Morris over Blyleven. Morris' career totals generally aren't as good as Blyleven's. But with Morris, to some degree, you had to be there. And I don't mean just Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, which was indeed one of the more remarkable and important performances in baseball history, when Morris pitched all 10 innings to win 1-0 and deliver his hometown Twins a championship.

Morris was arguably the best pitcher in the 1980s. He was the ace of three World Series-winning franchises, and while Blyleven also pitched very well in the postseason, he was never the ace. So it wasn't just sportswriters, it was his own managers who didn't appear to see him as one of the greats of the game.

If you wanted to win a big game in that era, you wanted to give the ball to Morris. He received Cy Young votes seven times, MVP votes five times and made five All-Star teams. His impact was deemed greater than Blyleven's at the time, and those judgments I believe were correct or close enough to correct. Morris' percentage of "yes' votes has risen from 22 percent to 52 percent, but he doesn't have the Internet campaign going because his career stats don't tell his story.

Morris has a high lifetime ERA, 3.90. But some of that is due to the 6.19 and 5.60 marks he put up in his final two seasons. And part of it is due to him pitching to the scoreboard, which the very best pitchers could do.

In the end, the best are not defined by being consistently good and sticking around long enough to post totals beyond their actual impact. That's what Blyleven did.

I was there -- literally there several times. Not once did I think I was watching a HoF pitcher. I can't even recall a broadcaster, local or national, mentioning Morris and the Hall in the same sentence.

In each of Morris' three championship seasons, he was out-pitched by a teammate. (Perhaps Petry, Tapani, and Guzman were -- like Blyleven -- *cough* better garbage-time pitchers.)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_heyman/12/20/hall.blyleven/index.html

yeah it's all retroactive rewriting of the narrative...Morris became the best pitcher of the 1980s on october 27, 1991.

Now that I think back on it, the tag that people would always hang on Morris was "winningest pitcher of the 1980s." You'd hear that constantly. And that's factually true; he won more games than anybody in the '80s. But it was just a fluke of the calendar--there weren't many people who actually thought of him as the best pitcher in the game, except for maybe a brief moment during the Tigers' big year in '84. That was the year Morris started off 8-0 or something--it may have even been the year before. Anyway, the "best pitcher in baseball" timeline went something like this: Carlton as the decade started, possibly Stieb by around '83, then Gooden, then Clemens as he took off and Gooden took a step back. And that was pretty much it--even when Hershiser was lights out in '88, Clemens was still the guy. I honestly don't think sportswriters or even many fans outside of Detroit seriously thought that Morris was the best pitcher of the decade at the time.

Not surprisingly, it was '84: at the end of May, he was 10-1 with a sub-2.00 ERA. (Check his stats the rest of the way, for one of the greatest teams of the decade--not pretty.) For those two months--post-Carlton's dominence, Gooden just starting out--he was thought of as the best pitcher in baseball. And that's it.

Morris was also the third losingest pitcher of the 1980s.

The Tigers didn't really NEED a win on any of those 119 days/nights.

That was the other amazing thing about Jack Morris: He pitched to the calendar.

He was a remarkable man with a remarkable mustache.

Also from the Heyman article:

"Simply put, there were pitchers who had better seasons, from Jim Palmer in 1973 to Bret Saberhagen in 1985 and 1989, two pitchers who won Cy Young awards in in years Blyleven finished in the top 10 of the balloting."

Only someone completely blind to every stat other than W-L could think that Jim Palmer ACTUALLY had a better year in 1973 than Blyleven did btw.

Here's a good post on Morris from another board:

The thing that irks me so much about Morris is that so many of his contemporaries were demonstrably better and didn't even get a second glance. Rick Reuschel was a vastly superior pitcher over almost the exact same time and got two fucking votes. David Cone has a perfect game, a slightly better postseason record than Morris, and 16 points of ERA+. He lasted a ballot. Bret Saberhagen was even better than Cone and got 7 votes in an election where Morris got 202. Jim Kaat has over 700 more innings - three full seasons - was better per inning, and has more wins. He never cracked 30 percent. Dennis Martinez has almost as many wins, pitched more innings, and was slightly better. He lasted one ballot. Frank Tanana has essentially the same case as Martinez: more innings than Morris, a negligible amount fewer wins, and slightly better quality. Tanana never even got a vote.

There's just no rhyme or reason to why Jack Morris and not these guys or ten others.

It's Christmas, Alex in SF, and we don't want to start down the rabbit hole, so I'll just raise this point once and let it go: I don't think it's that far-fetched to make a case for Palmer over Blyleven in '73. Palmer wins on the old fuddy-duddy stats, yes: 22-9, 2.40 vs. 20-17, 2.52. And I think you're right, probably most voters never got past that. But Palmer also had a much better H/9 rate: 6.83/9 vs. 8.20/9. Palmer also gave up quite a fewer unearned runs, six to Blyleven's 18, and James always argued that that was an important thing to take note of. (A whole separate argument, I know--just saying.) Blyleven's K/BB ratio was much better--3.85 vs. 1.40--and that's a big point in his favor. Blyleven also had more IP (325), more CG (25), and more shutouts (9). But even there, Palmer's totals were impressive: 296/19/6. (Does all that sound like science-fiction now, or what?) I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to call it a wash, okay, I could go with that. But I don't think a vote for Palmer was an uniformed one. I do think it's silly that Blyleven placed behind Hunter, Wilbur Wood, and Jim Colborn. (I'll give Ryan a pass since he broke the strikeout record that year, and it's just a fact of life that voters are going to be swayed by something like that.)

Hey it's someone!

Basically you are giving Palmer credit for a lot of stuff that he had no control of (like having a better team defense.) All the stuff that Palmer actually could control (like how many SOs, BBs, innings he threw) Blyleven was much much better at doing. B-R WAR has Blyleven as a full three wins better (BPs version three and a half wins better.)

Not sure why I ever promise to let something go!

I know that H/9 isn't the pure stat it might once have been thought of as, but is the assumption now that it's 100% defense-dependent and has little or nothing to do with the pitcher? If so, I really am behind the times. Also, aren't IP, all things being equal (as in two durable, healthy, highly effective starting pitchers), ultimately determined by the manager? Baltimore had a much better 1-2 out of the bullpen that year, so I'm sure Minnesota's manager was inclined to push Blyleven a little harder--not sure he should get that much extra credit for what must be the ultimate in a bulk counting stat. (I also realize that the better-bullpen argument works just as much against Palmer in weighing a Cy Young candicacy.)

I'm not arguing that there's not a good case to be made for Blyleven. I'm arguing against the idea that making a case for Palmer constitutes some kind of blindness.

"I know that H/9 isn't the pure stat it might once have been thought of as, but is the assumption now that it's 100% defense-dependent and has little or nothing to do with the pitcher?"

No it's not thought of as being a 100% defense dependent, but it is very defense dependent.

Regardless of the whys, Blyleven pitched 30 more innings. Yes, I think he gets credit for it.

I think making the blanket statement that "Palmer had a better season" means that, yes, Jon Heyman is basically some kind of blind person.

But it was just a fluke of the calendar--there weren't many people who actually thought of him as the best pitcher in the game, except for maybe a brief moment during the Tigers' big year in '84.

It's like Mark Grace leading the 1990's in hits. I'd like to see somebody argue that Mark Grace was the best hitter of the 90's.

There are probably crazy people out there who think that racking up singles does = best hitter.

like 'hit king' Pete Rose.

(Yes, i know he had XBHs)

NoTime: I'd be interested in your perspective on the '73 A.L. Cy Young vote. It's not so much a case of who should have won as it is slam-dunk for Blyleven vs. room for disagreement.

Lol framing the debate honestly.

Give me a break, Alex. Your very own words from above: "Only someone completely blind to every stat other than W-L could think that Jim Palmer ACTUALLY had a better year in 1973 than Blyleven did btw." Followed by: "I think making the blanket statement that 'Palmer had a better season" means that, yes, Jon Heyman is basically some kind of blind person.'"

Can't wait to hear you explanation of how either statement is substantively different than saying it was a slam-dunk for Blyleven.

By all means, let's have a debate about the debate.

i don't necessarily blame voters in 1973 for thinking Palmer had a better season; I do blame Jon Heyman, in the year 2010, for thinking Palmer had a better season.

Wait do you actually think that Jon Heyman took an look at what both players did during 1973 and came to the reasoned conclusion that Palmer had a better year by any metric? I've seen nothing that Heyman's written that indicates that he's capable of that kind of analysis.

xp I agree.

I was looking at the disagreement between us two, not Heyman. You wrote that only a person blind to everything except W-L would conclude that Palmer had a better year than Blyleven, I came on and said that it wasn't out of the question that someone could arrive at the conclusion that Palmer deserved the Cy Young. I had a couple of numbers on my side, you had a couple on yours. You don't place much validity in mine, which is fine. So that's how I presented the disagreement: one person thinks Blyleven clearly had a better season, the other person says there's room for disagreement. I don't see how that's a distortion, and think your lol-derision is very disingenuous. I'm not even talking about Heyman at this point, and I have no interest in trying to read his mind as to how he arrived at his conclusion.

I had a couple of numbers on my side, you had a couple on yours.

You had two numbers, H/9 and unearned runs, and conceded pretty much every other stat that matters. I'm just not seeing how you can call that a "wash"

If you discount W-L and ERA altogether. Big surprise: I don't.

I hadn't thought about the '73 vote at all before today, but I agree that it's not a slam dunk for anyone, and Palmer's not such a bad choice. Blyleven finishing 7th makes sense considering that he had to split the "great year on a mediocre team" vote with Nolan Ryan, who only set the all-time single season K record. (I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm saying it makes sense ... a lot of voters would have seen them as equal in IP, CG, HR rate, with a slight edge in ERA for Blyleven. And they are more or less equal until you look at park effects).

Clemenza, when are you going to promise to let the disagreement about the disagreement go? New Years?

If you discount W-L and ERA altogether. Big surprise: I don't.

― clemenza, Sunday, December 26, 2010 6:16 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

You really count wins? They actually mean something to you?

As I've written more than once: I've only completed three-quarters of the journey towards the great god WAR. I still place varying degrees of value in things like W-L, ERA, and H/9, especially if it's Jim Palmer. If Palmer goes 22-9 with a 2.40 ERA, my first instinct is not to assume it must be smoke and mirrors; I figure that's probably a reasonably accurate barometer of how well he pitched.

Thank you. And that's why I asked for NoTime's thoughts; I find he's a little less doctrinaire about these things than some of you.

Alex, you're every bit as stubborn as I am. That much we have in common.

but specifically, what do you value about wins?

"As I've written more than once: I've only completed three-quarters of the journey towards the great god WAR. I still place varying degrees of value in things like W-L, ERA, and H/9, especially if it's Jim Palmer."

I bet you bought a lot of Jockey briefs.

I don't consider myself particularly doctrinaire - I've been slow to take to stuff like xFIP and I'm underinformed on a lot of stuff - I'm just genuinely curious what it is that you GET out of W-L! I wouldn't shit on a casual fan for buying into the importance of wins & ribbies, but I don't think that describes you.

And just to clarify, once more: the argument is not that Blyleven shouldn't have won. I conceded, many posts ago, that there's a case to be made for Blyleven. The argument is against the idea that you'd have to be blind to vote for Palmer.

What do I value about wins...that when a pitcher has a 2.40 ERA to go along with the 22 wins, the 22 wins probably serve a function as a rough estimate of how well he pitched. We're not talking about a guy who won 24 games with 3.50 ERA, as sometimes happens; that's fairly easy to interpret as big run support. I might ask you: what is the disconnect you see between the 22 wins and the 2.40 ERA?

It's not the disconnect between the 22 wins and the 2.40 ERA that concerns me, it's intimating that Palmer has an 'advantage' because he has 22 wins to Bert's 20.

Yeah I want to be clear my argument was never with the original Cy vote itself (who cares it was 37 years ago) it's with the idea that someone can look at both these two pitchers lines now and somehow come to the conclusion that Palmer actually pitched better that year (not that the Orioles had a better year or the Twins stunk or whatever).

We disagree; I think you can conclude Palmer had a better year. We're at an impasse.

I will mention in passing an exchange from "Hey Bill" after the Felix vote (and do something I said I wouldn't do, quote at length):

"Post-Felix's Cy Young, some people want to basically declare pitcher wins a dead statistic. My opinion is that while seriously flawed on a seasonal basis, wins over the course of a career mean an awful lot -- that if I could have any one set of stats for a pitcher over his career, it's wins and losses. Above all, they're era-adjusted, since the aggregate total is always .500. There are a few pitchers for whom wins and losses are misleading, but that's the case with everything, unless you want to make complicated adjustments.
Asked by: Mac
Answered: November 23, 2010

Well, that's right, that wins and losses over the course of a career are a fairly reliable stat, because the biases generally even out. There are always exceptions. David Wells. But this year's contest was an unusual contest, because the offensive support for the best pitcher in the league was so exceptionally poor."

I don't actually even understand looking at ERA and not something like ERA+ (which isn't perfect but at least it tries adjusts for the offensive environment).

I don't understand the point of quoting that exchange in the context of this discussion.

yeah what does career w-l matter?

Jim Palmer's B-R page btw made me laff:

BareNecessities.com sponsor(s) this page.

Find Jockey Elance underwear (and 120 other great brands for men and women such as Calvin Klein, Spanx, Emporio Armani, etc.) at BareNecessities.com!

yeah what does career w-l matter?

I quoted it because you guys are often saying--or at least implying--that pitcher wins mean nothing. It's relevant in that James clearly disagrees.

I was interested in whether or not Blyleven and Palmer faced each other in '73. They did, August 21 in Baltimore. The Orioles won 2-1 in the bottom of the 9th. Loss for Blyleven, no-decision for Palmer. Blyleven: 8.1 IP, 10 hits, 2 walks, 3 Ks, two earned runs. Palmer: 7 IP, 4 hits, 3 walks, 5 Ks, one earned run. Both game scores were middling: Blyleven 56, Palmer 63. No, I don't think this has great significance. I just think it's interesting that they did square off, and it was a great pitcher's duel.

ok, well i was trying to stick to the context of a single-season comparison so

Clemenza, just curious - do you read any significance into Palmer winning 22 games vs. Blyleven's 20?

Absolutely, W-L means less in any one season than over the course of a career. But what I'm trying to say is that W-L is like any other stat: it can have meaning if you approach it with some common sense and some context, even in the course of a single season. And if a great pitcher goes 22-9 with the ERA and H/9 to back it up--humour me for a second and pretend those metrics aren't completely useless--then that's not a meaningless, or even misleading, stat. It's a roughly accurate reflection of how well he pitched.

Palmer's two extra wins? No significance whatsoever. Palmer was on a much, much better team. I do place some value in Palmer's much better winning pct., seeing as he also had the lower ERA. But to really get a fix on that, you'd have to go through their seasons game by game, check cheap wins and tough losses, etc.

I should have made that clearer: when I say I give Palmer credit for his record, I mean 22-9 as opposed to 20-17, not the 22 wins in isolation. Don't worry, I do understand that Blyleven's near-.500 record is not a fair representation of how well he pitched. Does that make him Felix Hernandez to Palmer's C.C. Sabathia? I can't make that leap when Palmer has the lower ERA.

it's .12 runs!!

It's not a leap when every single defense independent metric shows that Blyleven had a far superior year.

I care so much more about whether Raines or Alomar get in.

Well, I know it's just 0.12 runs; the point is, he does have an edge, which vitiates the idea that Palmer's W-L record is an illusion.

Guys, I have to go (want to watch Wendy and Lucy...). Enjoy these discussion, provided you don't get condescending, or move the goalposts mid-argument. I did take the time to check quality starts, and the two are fairly even. (My guess is you discount the whole idea of quality starts, but again, I see them as a quick and roughly accurate barometer of effectiveness.) Blyleven had 29 QS in 40 starts, a pct. of 0.725; Palmer was 29 out of 37, a pct. of 0.784 (he made one relief appearance in '73...and actually earned a save).

Okay, I rest my case: Palmer trounced Blyleven in saves, 1-0. Game, set, and match to Palmer.

(Go, Robbie!)

"Well, I know it's just 0.12 runs; the point is, he does have an edge, which vitiates the idea that Palmer's W-L record is an illusion."

Saying that something is meaningless /= something is an illusion.

Use Your Meaningless

The Future of a Meaningless

Grand Meaningless

You're right--doesn't work.

Absolutely, W-L means less in any one season than over the course of a career. But what I'm trying to say is that W-L is like any other stat: it can have meaning if you approach it with some common sense and some context, even in the course of a single season. And if a great pitcher goes 22-9 with the ERA and H/9 to back it up--humour me for a second and pretend those metrics aren't completely useless--then that's not a meaningless, or even misleading, stat. It's a roughly accurate reflection of how well he pitched.

just so i have this straight - if W-L is backed up by other stats, it's useful. if it's not backed up by other stats, it's not useful.

I'd put it this way: if W-L is backed up by other stats, it's a roughly accurate reflection of how effective the pitcher was; if it's not backed up (i.e., in sync with) other stats, it's not. If you want to use the word useful, I guess that's more or less what I mean.

If you don't buy that, though, you could try Alex's formulation. W-L record is meaningless (not an illusion, just meaningless), so:

Felix Hernandez's 13-12 (2.27) record last year, and
Steve Stone's 25-7 (3.23) record in 1980, and
Jim Palmer's 22-9 (2.40) record in 1973

are all equally meaningless. My reading would be that two are distorted, and an ounce of common sense tells you which two, and one is pretty accurate. You might also ask yourself how the meaninglessness of Palmer's W-L record seems to more or less jib with the 22-9 W-L record. Random meaninglessness?

Jibe. Jibbing is anatomically impossible.

Let me try that again...sorry, late: ask yourself how the meaninglessness of Palmer's 22-9 W-L record seems to more or less jibe with the 29/37 quality starts.

i guess then i don't know why you would even look at w-l when you could get closer to the source? besides, it's not so wacky that stone could have that record with that era until you look at 1) when he was playing and 2) some of his component stats, which are not impressive at all

basically if the w-l jibes w/things like era and qs%, you can feel good about your defense of certain trad stats?

Do you guys have each other on speed-dial or something?

As I've said before, I like to look at everything. Everything--there's no stat I don't want to look at.

ok but i still don't think you've explained what single season w-l adds to the discussion--you're saying it's either a crisp photocopy or a fuzzy photocopy, but it's still a photocopy of better source material.

Why do we keep getting off course? My original point, 539 posts ago: it's not a sign or blindness, derangement, or a secret plot to turn back the clock 40 years to say that you can make a case that Jim Palmer was a deserving Cy Young winner in 1973.

you can make that case! it's just not a very strong case!

it's almost like... the case a blind person would make!

Says you, says Alex, says PTT. I disagree. But we don't need to turn every disagreement into me having to defend a century of how they used to determine these things.

To make your case, you have to throw out W-L record, winning pct., hits-per-nine innings, and quality starts; to say that there's no case to be made for Palmer, you have to pretty much disregard every one of those things. You're okay with that. I'm not. It's that simple.

And ERA--that too.

But we don't need to turn every disagreement into me having to defend a century of how they used to determine these things.

the only thing you do that actually annoys me is act like you don't love this

I said a few posts ago that I enjoy these disagreements, provided we keep everything civil. What I don't like is when I feel like I'm standing there with five guys circled around me yelling "Heathen!" It gets quite wearing at a certain point.

i mean really man, you get a kick out of the lone-clemenza-crying-in-the-wilderness thing--and that's ok! but drop the defensive ish.

anyways, you won't let us actually debate the merits of wins and win % and i think we all know where we stand there. qs is a great shorthand stat--palmer has a slight age but blyleven pitched 3+ games more in innings, let's call that a wash. they both were really good at suppressing home runs that year, but bert was slightly better. h/9 is a terribly defense-dependent number, i really prefer to look at ks, walks, and k/bb--that's where palmer posted a 1.4 which, if i'm being uncharitable, is actually fucking terrible. blyleven housed this stat with a 7.1!

age=edge.

i'm glad you enjoy! this has not been uncivil, and i don't think i'm crying heathen--i'm skeptical of both strains of baseball orthodoxy.

Call All Destroyer: Please don't tell what I like and what I don't like. You haven't got a clue. Let's just say I sometimes hold back from saying certain things I'd like to say.

Blyleven had a huge edge in K/BB ratio, absolutely. I don't think H/9 is nearly as defense-dependent as you folks have all decided it is. (No more that I think it's a coincidence that Koufax, Ryan, Martinez, Clemens, and so many other pitchers like that had such amazing luck with their defenses.) So you get one, I'll take the other. Pitching does not begin and end at K/BB ratio for me. I mean, apparently not many of those walks Palmer gave up came around to score.

yeah that would be called strand % and it's another thing pitchers have no control over.

but i'd hate to cause you to repress any more than you have to so i'm excusing myself now.

Much appreciated.

yeah that would be called strand % and it's another thing pitchers have no control over.

Wasn't referring to relief pitchers, I meant the ones Palmer himself prevented from scoring. I want to believe that at least you won't try to argure that Palmer has no control over that, but at this point, I can't be sure of anything.

was bagwell ever linked to PEDs in any way? or are all the writers not voting for him based on PED suspicion a foreshadowing of an entire decade of no HoF inductions

Strand rate has nothing to do with relief pitchers btw. Palmer has some control over it. He also got fairly lucky and had a good defense behind him.

Was curious and Jim Palmer's BABIP was .236 in 1973 (his career was .255 and he had many years in the .240s). Blyleven's was a whopping .298 in the same year (and .289 for his career.)

Not Bill James but this guy makes the 1973 pretty well:

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/baseball_beat/002654-print.html

Should have said he had a great defense behind him up there btw.

I'm back to bring more sunshine into your lives.

The Lederer piece is very good. (Was he once a major-league ump, or am I misreading that?) BABIP is still fairly new to me, but I take it that the argument is that it's something that evens out over time, as a low BABIP has a large element of good luck, and a high one the opposite. If so, that's a good argument for Blyleven in '73 (less sure of how good it is when comparing two long careers, since presumably a career takes care of the luck evening out part). I think his long role call of Blyleven's case in '73 is a little bit disingenous in that he leaves off H/9, leaves off unearned runs, leaves off pct. of quality starts, and doubles up in a way by listing K/9, BB/9, and K/BB--probably the latter is enough. But it's a really good piece. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure James is firmly on the side of Blyleven's induction, as you would expect. Having now been caught up in one of these Blyleven arguments myself, I'm sure I won't be alone is being glad when he finally does go in next week (or whenever).

Bagwell: PED suspicion, I think--there's never been anything official. And I think he does foreshadow what's on the way. Wouldn't be surprised if I-Rod receives similar treatment, although at least five years will have passed by then, so maybe not.

"was bagwell ever linked to PEDs in any way?"

I think the line of thinking is "LOOK AT HOW BIG HIS ARMS GOT!!"

"or are all the writers not voting for him based on PED suspicion a foreshadowing of an entire decade of no HoF inductions"

Yes.

Re: Bagwell, everyone who hit well for a sustained period of time during the 90's is under suspicion for using PED's. I still think all of this will sort itself out in the long run, with Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc. all getting elected. If it doesn't, and we're left with a 15-year hole of HOF-elected hitters, with Ichiro and Jeter as the exceptions, then we might as well blow up the HOF right now.

You might also ask yourself how the meaninglessness of Palmer's W-L record seems to more or less jib with the 22-9 W-L record. Random meaninglessness?

W-L isn't meaningless, but I think you're failing to grasp (or to communicate) the point that W-L provide us with any information that we couldn't learn from other, more relevant stats. Most good pitchers have good W-L records, of course. But there will basically never be a case where you'll want to use W-L on its own to argue that a guy pitched better or worse as indicated by a bunch of other stats.

W-L is more meaningful for starters who throw a lot of innings, e.g. Roy Halladay's W-L record is more representative of how well he pitches in comparison to most pitchers, because he throws 7+ innings almost every outing and completes 25% of his starts, so the W or L is a lot more dependent on how well he pitches as opposed to the hodgepodge of bullpenners that come into the game after him. But again, you can learn about how good he is by looking at other stats, even (especially!) traditional ones like IP and CG, plus QS, QS%, Game Scores, etc. -- without having to resort to looking at W-L.

Don't disagree with any of that--at least you agree it's not meaningless.

I was probably being needlessly preemptive in bringing it up. My point was--and maybe I didn't communicate this well--that there's not an equivalency in saying Blyleven's 20-17 record doesn't indicate how well he pitched (very true) any more than Palmer's 22-9 record indicates how well he pitched (not true). And I think the high percentage of quality starts by Palmer bears that out.

One thing that's started to interest me in the course of this discussion is why Palmer's K/BB ratio was so poor that year. He was better for his career (1.69), but that's still not great. His career WHIP is good--top 100, not too far behind Clemens and Johnson, a little ahead of Halladay and Gibson (and Blyleven)--but I'm guessing that's one of the least impressive career K/BB ratio for a guy with a career ERA under 3.00. I know--great defensive team, and generally a good pitcher's era (not sure about the park). But Palmer does seem like an atypical combination of plusses and minuses.

I think the problem is that most people who use W-L as an evaluative tool do it much less thoughtfully than you do. Every reasonable person who clings to it makes it harder to argue with the Jon Heymans of the world.

Honestly, not clinging to it. Just accept it as a fact of life, and find it has its uses if you provide some context.

You mentioned Alomar upthread--do you think he just gets over, or will he be in the 90% neighborhood? As disappointed as I was when he missed last year, I think it's great that he'll go in with Gillick.

"And I think the high percentage of quality starts by Palmer bears that out."

The 5% difference in quality starts clearly indicates that his 22-9 record indicates how well he pitched, right-o. Not the Gold Glove quality defense behind him (to be fair a small part of this might have been Palmer, who I believe was known as a very good fielding pitcher). Or the top of the AL offense which scored 4.65 runs a game?

Can someone find GB/FB rates for Palmer's career? This data doesn't seem to be available, but I am guessing that with that K/BB ratio he was more of a groundball pitcher who relied heavily a high-quality infield to suppress hits (nothing wrong with this btw, it's still a repeatable skill, but lets not pretend that if Palmer was backed up by not-Grich-not-Belanger-not-Robinson he would have been quite the pitcher he was.)

Multi-year park factors on B-R kind of show Memorial Stadium as being pretty neutral btw.

Metropolitan Stadium by contrast was pretty hitter friendly.

Geez, Alex--and I'm the one who's supposed to be enjoying this never-ending argument?

Which is why Blyleven has slightly a higher ERA+ for 1973 even though Palmer's ERA is .12 lower.

I think we are all enjoying it! Or at least we enjoy it more than we enjoy doing our jobs hah.

You mentioned Alomar upthread--do you think he just gets over, or will he be in the 90% neighborhood? As disappointed as I was when he missed last year, I think it's great that he'll go in with Gillick.

He spat on an umpire, so I'm not sure he'll ever get in.

I'm a teacher, so I've got the week off...If I can track down James's definition of a "cheap win" (or if anyone here remembers it), I'll check to see how many cheap wins Blyleven and Palmer had. With all those quality starts by Palmer, the big offensive support may have been somewhat superfluous, not sure. Checking cheap wins would help answer that.

Don't worry about the umpire-spitting. Time and steroids took care of that--he's goin' in.

Are you part of Bill James's publicity department?

lol the Bill James name-dropping is a bit much, I agree.

I am his publicity department; he pays me half a million a year, plus all the O'Henry bars I can eat.

From Hardball Times:

19. Jim Palmer (196 WSAB/312 WS): Palmer won three Cy Young awards and led the league twice in ERA, but he never came close to leading the league in strikeouts or giving up the least walks per nine innings. No, Jim Palmer was the master of the LOB (Left on Base) and BABIP (see the graph).

With runners in scoring position, Palmer's batting average allowed sank from .230 overall to .213. With two outs and runners in scoring position, it sank further to .207. Many great pitchers pitch better with men on base, but Palmer's performance was better than most. And that BABIP? I think you can chalk up almost all of it to that wonderful Orioles defense; the team BABIP during the years Palmer pitched was around .260—only slightly higher than Palmer's career mark of .255.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-all-time-best-pitchers/

When I write about baseball, I inevitably refer to James; when I write about film, sooner or later I quote something by Kael. Both had a huge influence on me. They're just sort of there.

Palmer pitching so well with runners on base is interesting. I guess you can attribute that to luck, but if he was able to do it consistently over the course of his career, might not a simpler explanation be that he just performed really well in such situations? (God, no--I've just opened up the "clutch player" Pandora's Box. God have mercy us on all.)

I don't think it's luck, but I am very curious how he managed to do so. I think it's way too easy to explain away statistical variances with words like "clutch".

I do think that Palmer was very lucky to play in front of the defense he did for his career btw.

230--->213 is what, one hit over 200 ABs tho?

I get the feeling you're envisioning a career of Palmer loading up the bases, followed by three screaming line drives to Robinson, or an acrobatic unassisted triple play from Belanger. I guess we'll never know. A lot of people pitched for Baltimore from 1966-1983. Palmer's the only one who's in the hall. The thing that really bothers me is that it wasn't enough for god to give Palmer all that defense and all that run support and all that mysterious clutch ability; he made him look like a movie star, too. Fuckin' god.

"I get the feeling you're envisioning a career of Palmer loading up the bases, followed by three screaming line drives to Robinson, or an acrobatic unassisted triple play from Belanger."

I get the feeling you have no idea how the game of baseball is actually played when you say things like that.

"230--->213 is what, one hit over 200 ABs tho?"

Yeah it's pretty minuscule over a season. I think his point is that over the course of Palmer's entire 15000+ batters faced it's a little more significant.

Alex, Alex, Alex...Alex.

Do you understand that once contact is made between a bat and a ball a pitcher has a very limited ability to control whether or not that ball becomes an out or a hit? And having three great defensive ballplayers who are more likely to turn those balls into outs is a huge advantage? You seem to be pretending that I'm saying the Orioles were some kind of science-fiction defense.

Again, try to keep it civil.

I do understand all of that--I just don't think the defense is more important than the pitcher himself, or that the difference between teams is going to affect the pitcher's stats to the degree that you do. Maybe it comes down to the difference between you saying "huge advantage" and me saying "an advantage."

"Again, try to keep it civil."

I'll try if you do, kay.

I would love for you to find one post where I've personalized this.

I did get mad at god a few minutes ago--I did get personal with him.

"I do understand all of that--I just don't think the defense is more important than the pitcher himself, or that the difference between teams is going to affect the pitcher's stats to the degree that you do."

I think it depends on the pitcher (pitchers who strike lots of guys out don't depend on their defense for as many outs) and the defenses (obv the 1973 Orioles were extremely good). Lederer has the FRAA stats above. The 1973 Orioles were 137 runs better than 1973 Twins. Conservatively let's say 1/5 of that advantage was Palmer's. That's 25+ runs that the Orioles defense saved him which is the difference between a 2.40 ERA and 3.16 ERA.

"I would love for you to find one post where I've personalized this."

This stuff is all in the eye of the beholder isn't it?

That's a fair argument. I had to go back and reread, but I think I get it, even though I don't know how fielding-runs-saved are calculated. One huge weakness I have in analyzing baseball--I've admitted this on this board before--is that I don't have any feel for analyzing defense, beyond the usual "I saw Robbie Alomar make a lot of phenomenal plays" perspective of a fan.

You've made a very good case for Blyleven as the league's best pitcher that year. My only argument--ever--was that thinking that Palmer was the best does not indicate blindness. I don't think you'll agree--you'll say it's an obligation of anybody who voices an opinion on the subject--but to me, when you have to start digging into BABIP and FFRA, that indicates there's room for disagreement. It's not like Pete Vukovich winning in 1982.

Please let's bring this to a close.

We need Dr. Morbius to bring back the love and the warmth to this board.

"That's a fair argument. I had to go back and reread, but I think I get it, even though I don't know how fielding-runs-saved are calculated."

I'll be honest I'm not sure either, esp. when you get back that far.

"It's not like Pete Vukovich winning in 1982."

Not at all. Palmer was a great pitcher and he had a great year. Blyleven had a pretty clearly superior year, but I don't think Palmer winning was criminal by any stretch and in the context of the 1973 vote I think it's entirely understandable why he won.

i think the one nice thing about HoF voting is that you're considering entire careers, which contain large enough sample sizes that some of the 'fuzzier' rate stats like ERA and range factor start to approach actual talent level, and it's not as statistically blasphemous to make judgments based on them.

I have no dog in this hunt! '73 was all about Tug McGraw and that bounceback double at Shea vs the Pirates for me.

I would agree that good pitchers having good seasons tend to rack up wins. It's not meaningless. But it's not a coincidence that Albert Pujols gets a lot of RBIs either, y'know? It's just not a great description of why he's good or what he does well, is all.

thats probably the simplest line about pitching wins and RBIs - they're a byproduct of greatness but not an indicator of greatness

I imagine you'll find this amusing and pathetic at the same time--three days ago, I even managed to mention Bill James in my Nicki Minaj comment for Pazz & Jop.

Did you quote something from his website in it? Cuz that's a no-no. ;)

Yes--James did a rundown of Nicki Minaj's BABIP for the first half of 2010.

Put your hand up on my hip. When I dip you dip ba bip.

If Nicki Minaj ever asked me to put my hand on her hip, I think I'd have several heart attacks.

I imagine you'll find this amusing and pathetic at the same time--three days ago, I even managed to mention Bill James in my Nicki Minaj comment for Pazz & Jop.

― clemenza, Monday, December 27, 2010 7:21 PM (23 minutes ago)

please tell me obama made an appearance as well :p

Actually, with great sadness I skipped Barack this year; mentioned him on 2009's, and more than once on 2008's of course. I'm looking for a big year and many mentions on 2011's.

I get the feeling you're envisioning a career of Palmer loading up the bases, followed by three screaming line drives to Robinson, or an acrobatic unassisted triple play from Belanger.

Trivia: you guys probably know that Palmer never gave up a grand slam in his career? I think he has the most IP of any pitcher who never gave up a slam. I don't know how much of this is skill (Palmer's HR/9IP rates were low throughout his career, maybe he threw the ball in the dirt every time he loaded the bases and would rather give up a walk) and how much was luck (most of it, probably) but it's interesting.

Also, Palmer's low K/BB is misleading because skyrocketing K rates (and K/BB over 2.00 for even the most pedestrian middle reliever) are a relatively recent thing. His 1.7 is probably equivalent to 2.2-2.3 today. Of course that makes Blyleven's 3.85 in '73 all the more impressive. But even he and Seaver were in the 2.5 - 3.0 range in most years.

I think I did know that about the grand slams at one time but had forgotten. I don't know how much would be luck and how much design. Might be interesting to see if he gave up a greater-than-usual number of bases-loaded walks.

Alex, you'll be glad to know I found someone who agrees with you pretty much 100% on the '73 Cy. I've mentioned him before: Steve Rubio, an early Prospectus guy who keeps a blog. I was interested in his perspective, so I wrote him yesterday. (To head off all enquiries: yes, I'm also employed as Steve's publicity department.) Here's the link:

http://begonias.typepad.com/srubio/2010/01/which-is-dumber.html#comment-6a00d8341c996253ef0148c71da368970c

(You've got to scroll down through the comments.)

The good news: I think I lost three pounds during the epic '73 Cy debate.

Just before someone else points this out--found someone outside the board who agrees with you. Obviously you've got 100% agreement in here.

Haha I like that Steven Rubio has a Pauline Kael quote right in his headline.

There's probably no point in belaboring how weak Morris's case is, but Posnanski takes it on today:

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/12/29/hall-of-fame-the-second-round/

He does seem to be more favorably disposed towards Lee Smith's candidacy than I would have expected.

Yeah Sutter getting in has kinda screwed up how anybody evaluates HoF relievers hasn't it.

The Sutter selection mystified me--more even than Rice or Dawson, who at least make perfect sense to the stodgy traditionalist half of me. Sutter's window of greatness lasted eight seasons, during which he was only truly dominant in one or two of them. He did popularize a pitch, won one Cy Young, and (I think) signed a historically large contract with the Braves. Beyond that, I'm stumped.

Nine seasons--with one very poor one in amongst the nine.

Yeah but they are all pretty baffling really (I mean Dawson makes sense if you have Rice already, but otherwise.) I hope Sutter getting in doesn't cause a whole ton of relief pitchers to get voted in.

I don't think so--I think Rivera and Hoffman have already taken care of that. Rivera obviously (probably one of those 95%+ guys), and I expect Hoffman will go in to. And they'll be the new standard of excellence, rather than Fingers or Eckersley; a closer won't necessarily have to be Mariano Rivera to get in, but he'll have to have a very strong resume.

What about Wagner?

I guess I'm not so certain that the bar hasn't been lowered so now quality durable closers aren't more likely to get in.

We kicked around Wagner on another thread (I thought his case was pretty good, no one else seemed to think so--surprise!)...He may sneak in, yes. But with Rivera and Hoffman on the horizon, I don't think you have to worry about a deluge. Smith's stalled support would seem to bear that out. As Posnanski says, one of the main obstacles for a closer right now is how overloaded the next few ballots will be. I think even the strongest closer would have to catch a year where 1) there are no formidable new names, or 2) the only formidable new names will have the steroid issue to dodge. Even if both those things are true, there will probably be people like Larkin hanging around from previous ballots. (Not talking about Rivera or Hoffman, obviously.)

I think Hoffman could struggle to get in. He piled up saves on a bad team and struggled in the playoffs. At the very least I could see him waiting a few years.

I think Hoffman'll probably get in. It might take a couple of years but eventually there'll be a down year and someone'll have to go in.

With Sutter, wasn't it commonly accepted that was voted in because of the split finger fastball? Hardly anybody argued that he was deserving based on his pitching line alone. Obv you can't quantify "inventing/popularizing a pitch" in terms of WAR or whatever, so his candidacy wasn't like most others'.

Smith has no shot, he might have held the saves record at one time but saves have been largely de-mythologized since he retired, and I think it's understood that once you get past his raw saves numbers, he wasn't a dominant pitcher (I think I called him the Harold Baines of closers on another thread).

Hoffman has the counting stats and a lot of dominating seasons, he's definitely in. He's really well-liked by almost everybody so I'd be surprised if he has to wait more than three years to get elected.

Juan Gonzalez: I got a very nice and glossy brochure in the mail a couple of weeks ago that made the Hall of Fame case for Juan Gonzalez. Well, it was in my mailbox … but it went on the DL before I could get it into the house.

cheap and obvious joke but still many LOLs

Posnanski's such a good writer. He's smart, he's funny, and he writes really well. He reminds me of this other guy...can't remember his name.

Barack Obama

:)

Is that true about Sutter? I honestly didn't know that. I knew that the splitter was part of what got him in, but I didn't realize it was the main reason. I wonder if writers tried to make the same argument for Maury Wills, who rescued the stolen base from oblivion. (Don't worry, I don't think Wills should be in the Hall of Fame.) I checked his support, and he stubbornly stayed on the ballot for the full 15 years, bouncing between a low of 13% and a peak of 40%.

Maybe not the best parallel, because I think Wills had a drug issue to contend with.

Posnanski's such a good writer. He's smart, he's funny, and he writes really well. He reminds me of this other guy...can't remember his name.

Alex in SF?

Which is a good time to say Happy New Year, Alex; you've been a worthy sparring partner these last few months (even when it seemed like last few years).

I wouldn't say it was the main reason, but almost every pro-Sutter column thought that he was a borderline candidate at best, but if you give him credit for the SFF then it pushes him over the top. He probably got elected just in time too (re: Pos' discussion about Smith and the saves record) because I think that 300 saves was still considered something of a milestone number which helped people feel justified in voting for him.

xpost

Talk about devaluation--300 saves means about as much on a HOF resume right now as 200 home runs does for a first baseman.

I just thought of another part-time reliever who will likely get in within the next few years: John Smoltz. Special case, obviously.

I wonder what would have happened to Smoltz if he hadn't become a reliever actually... would he have stayed healthy enough to return to starting? Either way he seems like a shoe-in to me esp. with the postseason success.

And that's really the thing that's lacking for both Wagner and Hoffman. It's one thing to rack up insane save #s during the regular season, but writers tend to remember when your 2.31 career ERA blows up to 10.03 in the postseason.

I imagine (among other things) it'll matter for Wagner, but I can't see post-season making much difference for Hoffman--no more than it held back Winfield or Murray (his three World Series, I mean). Not that Hoffman's in their league, but I think in the context of a reliever, his credentials are more than solid enough. We'll see. Something I tried to argue on another thread was that, to me, sample size matters. I look at Hoffman's postseason stats and I see good numbers for 11 playoff games and one awful World Series ('98). But he pitched two innings in that Series; I can't imagine keeping out a guy for two horrible innings in a four-game sweep.

More damaging to Hoffman might be that sudden-death game against Colorado he blew in '07. I don't think that will hold him back in the end either, though.

Hoffman had his first great season at age 26, and his last at age 41, with several excellent seasons in between. It's hard to say that a guy with that kind of peak + longevity isn't a HOFer (unless you discredit the closers' role completely).

Wagner's problem isn't just his 10.00 ERA in the postseason, but that he and the teams he played for were perceived as chokers, even in the reg. season. He's never had the reputation of a great player, except for the years when he was striking out nearly 15/9IP.

Same here. Denying Hoffman HOF entrance would mean you're essentially setting the bar at Mariano Rivera--which, in the context of closers, means setting the bar at Babe Ruth.

Yeah I wasn't arguing that Hoffman shouldn't be in the hall, just that he's decidedly lacking the kind of post-season heroics necessary for him to be viewed as a first ballot shoe-in (which I think most people view Smoltz and obviously Rivera as).

And Wagner's case is actually probably better than Hoffman's statistically (and way better than Lee Smith or Bruce Sutter).

Haha obv I can't decide what I think about this since just X posts above I was complaining about a bunch of closers getting in, but really Wagner case looks better than I ever thought it did, esp. since he did a lot of this in hitters' parks (unlike Hoffman, who got to play most of his games in stadiums that were offensive death zones.)

Also kinda hard to believe Wagner is retiring, but I guess over the years he's been beat up a bit.

I've been mulling over post-season on a HOF resume. I'll try an analogy for how I view the relationship--not sure you or anyone will agree. (Maybe I should preface everything I say on ILB with that.)

Every math test I give to my grade 6s, I try to include a bonus question worth up to 5%--you get it, you get the marks, you miss it or don't try it, no big deal. Obviously, it's more challenging than the rest of the test. To me, the post-season is the ultimate bonus question. For guys like Smoltz or Schilling who get it, they move up 5%. In terms of the HOF, where 75% is a pass, maybe that moves them from 80% to 85%; maybe it's superfluous. Maybe it moves them from 73% to 78% and puts them over the bar--if so, I think that's perfectly valid. (Mariano's the kid who gets 97% on the test, then gets the bonus and jumps to 102%. I have one kid like that every year.) For the Hoffmans and Wagners, though, I don't want to dock them 5% because they messed up the bonus--especially if it's going to mean they drop from 78% to 73%. Just like I wouldn't want to penalize Ernie Banks, who, through no fault of his own, never got to try the bonus question.

Actually, it's more like you're rewarding Ernie Banks in relationship to a Billy Wagner--Banks never got a chance to mess up (again, not his fault), so he was never in a position to lose that 5%.

I kinda agree, but Wagner was really pretty awful in a number of series and closers are really supposed to be about those kind of high-leverage situations (I mean you aren't paying them just so they can protect three run leads, right?).

"I kinda agree"--my work is done!

I have to admit I'm naturally ambivalent about the candidacy of non-Rivera relievers, but it wouldn't bother me if Hoffman got in and I'd probably listen to an argument for Wagner too.

Yeah that's kinda how I feel too and that may be why I am more receptive to the argument that closers who blow a lot of post-season games should be penalized since such a major part of the argument for even having a closer is that should be stellar in precisely those kinds of situations than I would be normally.

More seriously--the argument I made on the other thread--Wagner was dreadful, but to me, it's still 11.2 innings. And I do understand that a closer's post-season sample size is inherently going to be smaller. I'm just more comfortable giving weight to post-season performance when you're dealing with a Smoltz or a Schilling (or a Rivera/Fingers), where it's a much larger number of innings. But I understand your point about Wagner: if you can't come up big when it counts most, what's the point of a closer?

^^^ I don't buy that argument, small sample sizes are small sample sizes. It's like when Bonds and A-Rod were winning MVPs but hitting badly in the postseason -- if you don't come up big when it counts most, then how are you the MVP? Etc.

I agree that the postseason is kind of like the bonus question on the test, although I think it's more important now that there are three rounds and eight teams (soon to be more). When you play up to 19 postseason games against three different teams, it's that much more impressive if you can dominate.

You can't link the MVP with post-season performance, though--don't they file their ballots immediately after the regular season ends to avoid that very thing?

I'm not talking about the MVP vote specifically, it's about ANY team's best player who's expected to come up big in the postseason or else he's not a leader/a "real Yankee" or whatever. I don't think the sample size issue is all that different for closers, although it's true that closers' innings are almost always high leverage and his failures are more likely to be remembered than the star 1Bmen going 0-5.

I think it's a little more than just "likely to be remembered" though. I mean the closer position most times is pretty meaningless. It's one inning and often not a terribly high leverage inning at that. And because they log so few innings the best closer's value is pretty much inherently tied up in this idea that their added value is provided by finishing the game when a "normal" reliever wouldn't be as likely. So I don't think it's unfair to ask when you are going to be voting closers into the Hall well how did they actually perform in their highest leverage situations.

The Bonds/A-Rod criticism is a little different because the issue here isn't really is X the MVP, it's can X be considered one of the very bestest players (regardless of their regular season #s) ever if they don't always hit like Reggie Jackson or whomever in the post-season. Also we happen to hate these two guys so we'll look for any excuse to complain about em.

The way probability works means the sample sizes of postseason are pretty much NEVER large enough for any meaningful inferences to be taken. Player A is borderline HOF-worthy but had disappointing postseason stats in a dozen innings or at-bats? It's statistically meaningless and should be discounted.

As indicated above, I basically agree. I'd definitely make exceptions for the names I mentioned. John Smoltz had 209 post-season innings (sorry for the shorthand, but 15-4, 2.67); that's a full season. Schilling had fewer, but he's still at 133.1 innings (11-2, 2.23). Rivera, of course, is off the charts: 139.2 innings (what's that? two full seasons?), 42 saves, 8-1, 0.71. Fingers had 57.1 innings (9 saves, 4-4, 2.35)--seemed like a lot at the time, but without the extra round of playoffs, he's kind of dwarfed by Rivera. I'm sure there are a number of hitters with similarly large sample sizes, possibly even one or two who weren't Yankees.

The way probability works means the sample sizes of postseason are pretty much NEVER large enough for any meaningful inferences to be taken.

This is not how probability works, sorry.

The way probability works means the sample sizes of postseason are pretty much NEVER large enough for any meaningful inferences to be taken. Player A is borderline HOF-worthy but had disappointing postseason stats in a dozen innings or at-bats? It's statistically meaningless and should be discounted.

it's statistically meaningless insofar as it tells us little to nothing about the player's actual talent level. it does have meaning though: the meaning is that the player played poorly in that particular postseason. what you want to make of that is up to you, though i personally don't think we should be discounting a player's hall of fame case based on one or two bad postseason series

My new look for 2011: instead of Annoying Clueless Guy, I'm going to be Mr. Sagacious Who Sees All Sides of an Argument. Ciderpress, you make some good points. Mark C, I see where you're coming from. NoTime, I'd never quite looked at the issue like that before.

I dunno, I've been reading Stephen Jay Gould explaining how probability relates to sport (with DiMaggio's 56-hit streak as the "one true outlier" example) so I think I have a fair idea.

Let me try and simplify it for you. Small sample sizes can be and often are "accurate" (assuming this is measurable in a meaningful way of course) but they are also often entirely misleading when taken out of context, hence the Pujols argument. So while it's quite possible that many postseason samples ARE representative, there will be a significant number which simply aren't. A-Rod is not a worse player because his post-season stats are/were poor, it's just the way the numbers mislead.

So, in short, with small potseason sample sizes you'll get a) numbers that falsely denigrate a player's skill level, b) numbers that give a false impression of clutchy HOF-worthiness and all that bollocks and b) a likely majority of numbers that are broadly in line with the player's career stats. There are enough of both a) and b) to render meaningless almost all postseason stats oout of context, those quoted by Clemenza possibly excepting.

Is that better or would you like to post another empty one-line dismissal?

i do love the potseason.

Tim Lincecum, the very definition of versatility: good for the postseason, good for the potseason.

But I understand totally; on an ILX thread, I just posted something that made passing mention of "Obabma's children."

A-Rod is not a worse player because his post-season stats are/were poor, it's just the way the numbers mislead.

This isn't really on topic, but this is also wrong, his numbers were NOT misleading. Like ciderpress said, the outcome of any at-bat is determined by a player's true talent level. This still leaves plenty of room for slumps and hot streaks. People wrote about A-Rod's postseason slump like it had been going on for his entire career, when in fact it was like four series spread over a couple of years. Before and after the slump, he was excellent (and the "before" included postseason games with the Yankees). The only people doing the "misleading" were the ones who were pretending that the '06-'07 postseason represented the "real" him, as opposed to the guy with the .950 career OPS or even the guy with the .850 career postseason OPS (which is approx. it was at the end of '07).

Anyway, (to Mark C again), I agree with much of what you wrote, but it's not as difficult as you think to get a reasonable sample size. Sure, if a guy goes 1-12 in a DS and his team gets swept, then that's not representative of anything. But 20-30 games is more than enough -- that's about two postseasons (obv there are caveats ... if a player goes to the postseason twice, ten years apart, then it might not be fair to lump together his stats since his "true" abilities likely changed over the years).

Look at it this way: we can calculate the probability that a "true" .250 hitter hits .400 during the postseason (15 games or so), it's probably in the range of 1-2 percent. OK, real players don't always behave like coin flips, they're streakier than that, and there are plenty of other factors to take into account (ballparks, opposing SP's, righty/lefty matchups). But as a first approximation it's a not a bad number, and seems reasonable -- with the number of teams + players in the postseason every year, chances are good that there'll be one or two 2010 Cody Ross's every year. Even one year sample sizes can be representative for the most part, if they weren't then you'd have a lot more scrubs hitting like stars and vice versa.

We can make a similar argument for, say, pre-2002 Barry Bonds in the postseason -- what's the probability that a Barry Bonds hits .200 or whatever over four postseason series? Again, it's probably around 2 percent. It's not likely to happen, but it will happen to a few (and only a few) all-time great players.

Sorry--once again, I sought out you-know-who's opinion. I feel like I'm a kid out at recess, running off to report something to the teacher every five minutes, but some interesting debates arise on here, and when they do, I automatically think, "Wonder what James would say?" (Just like every time I come out of a film that evokes strong feelings in me, the thought "Wonder what Kael would have thought of that?" invariably crosses my mind.) Anyway, this time he wasn't helpful at all:

Bill -- Any thoughts on the relationship between post-season performance and a closer's HOF candidacy? We've been debating Billy Wagner's case. View #1: Sample size matters, and you can't base anything on 11.2 innings. View #2: The nature of a closer's job is different--they're supposed to come up big when it matters most. (View #3 is called Mariano Rivera--post-season's the difference between getting 98% of the vote and 99%.)
Asked by: Phil Dellio
Answered: January 2, 2011

Or Rollie Fingers. Fingers is in the Hall of Fame mostly because of what he did in post-season, I think. I don't have a theory to explain here.

I also e-mailed him a few days ago on the whole Blyleven/Palmer thing, but he never took that one up.

You guys would like the third part of Posnanski's HOF series, where he advocates at length for Blyleven, Bagwell, McGwire, and Raines (and again takes on Heyman). The results are announced in a couple of days. One thing I read that surprised me: assuming Blyleven goes in, he'll be the first pure starting pitcher named since Ryan in '99. (Eckersley went in along the way.) That seems like a lifetime ago--didn't realize it had been so long.

I've been following Posnanski's posts, he's been great as always.

FWIW, I disagree with you re: Fingers. He was arguably the first "modern" closer in that he was the main guy that teams called on 60-70 times a year to get outs in high leverage situations. His usage patterns weren't the same as circa post-1990 closers (he didn't finish about 200 games that he relieved in), but he more or less defined the role during his era. And when he retired, 341 SV seemed like a million.

His overall postseason stats actually aren't all that great (his rate stats are nearly identical to his reg. season rate stats) but in his three WS he pitched in almost every game and was brilliant. But I think he'd have easily made the HOF even with a lesser postseason record.

One quick indicator of how much usage patterns have changed from Fingers to Rivera: post-season, Fingers had 8 decisions in 57 innings, Rivera has 9 in 140.

I think it's James you're disagreeing with; I don't have any problem at all with Fingers in the HOF, it's Sutter who puzzles me. Not to sound like Jon Heyman, but while they were active, Fingers actually felt like a hall of famer, whereas Sutter never did. Putting that aside, though, there are the reasons you mention, plus his candidacy was obviously bolstered by the Cy/MVP year (irony: another year where Blyleven led in pitcher WAR).

And, if you ask me, a really cool moustache is worth more than popularizing a pitch.

Just to preempt everyone pointing out how bad a choice Fingers was in '81, and that it should have been Henderson and Blyleven...Well, that was during the brief window when I was in university and not paying much attention to baseball, so I don't have anything in the way of personal recollection. I wouldn't disagree, though. The only thing I'd point out is that it was the split-season strike year, and that weird circumstances are liable to produce a weird Cy Young and MVP vote.

The '81 Cy is defensible. The '81 MVP is kind of silly, but it was a silly year and there are definitely worse MVP votes.

blyleven's gonna be real close i think...i have yet to see a public ballot of a previously-anti-blyleven voter changing their mind

http://www.tmarchman.com/ic/2011/1/4/the-hall-of-fame-is-a-bullshit-personality-contest.html

What the fuck is with this Jack Morris shit? Don't give me some line about how you had to see this guy; I cared a lot more about baseball when he was pitching than I do now and I never thought he was a big deal and never knew anyone who thought he was a big deal. I know everyone likes to pretend that before the newfangled interwebs no one knew anything about numbers, but hell, when I was a nine year old kid trading cards with my buddies on the other side of Jamaica Avenue I knew there was something funny about the way he would win 17 every year with a 3.40 ERA, the same way I knew it was funny that Orel Hershier could go 23-8 one year and 15-15 the next despite having the same ERA each year. The only thing noteworthy about Morris was that ridiculous porno mustache. Looking at it was depressing, like watching shitty, badly lit cop shows or looking at gutted factories along the Cuyahoga. I remember That Game Morris pitched, and while that was a big deal, it was way more in the line of watching a journeyman get his moment of glory than watching some big-dicked stud do what everyone had known he was going to do all along.

great post--worth reading the rest

it was way more in the line of watching a journeyman get his moment of glory

I joined a Fantasy League in 1991 and in my final draft slot on draft day (the old school kind where we all had to meet in person at somebody's house :)), I picked Oddibe McDowell and Jack Morris. Remember, this was the final round, and everyone was down to picking fliers for $1 to pad out their rosters. Even in that context, all the other guys laughed and made fun of me for picking two such obviously useless players.

So yeah, Jack Morris was considered totally washed up by the start of the 90's.

And before anyone here laughs and accuses me of being the jaymc of fantasy baseball drafts, I remember absolutely nothing else from that day -- I haven't the slightest clue who I picked at any other point in the draft.

i feel like its kinda appropriate that the BBWAA website looks like it was designed 15 years ago

I dunno, I've been reading Stephen Jay Gould explaining how probability relates to sport (with DiMaggio's 56-hit streak as the "one true outlier" example) so I think I have a fair idea.

I don't know anything about baseball but this seemed really interesting and I like sportsmath. Are there any more details? I couldn't find anything abou this on the internet.

Hey Greg! It's called "Triumph and Tragedy in Mudville" and it's a collection of Gould's baseball writings, with a significant crossover with maths and science as you'd imagine. I found it in a discount bookshop for £2.99 so I doubt it's rare!

Blyleven and Alomar are in.

thank god

yay

Roberto Alomar 523 (90.0%)
Bert Blyleven 463 (79.7%)
Barry Larkin 361 (62.1%)
Jack Morris 311 (53.5%)
Lee Smith 263 (45.3%)
Jeff Bagwell 242 (41.7%)
Tim Raines 218 (37.5%)
Edgar Martinez 191 (32.9%)
Alan Trammell 141 (24.3%)
Larry Walker 118 (20.3%)
Mark McGwire 115 (19.8%)
Fred McGriff 104 (17.9%)
Dave Parker 89 (15.3%)
Don Mattingly 79 (13.6%)
Dale Murphy 73 (12.6%)
Rafael Palmeiro 64 (11.0%)
Juan Gonzalez 30 (5.2%)

THT guy called it pretty close.

at last another Met in the Hall!

The rest:

Harold Baines 28 4.8%
John Franco 27 4.6%
Kevin Brown 12 2.1%
Tino Martinez 6 1.0%
Marquis Grissom 4 0.7%
Al Leiter 4 0.7%
John Olerud 4 0.7%
B.J. Surhoff 2 0.3%
Bret Boone 1 0.2%
Benito Santiago 1 0.2%
Carlos Baerga 0 0.0%
Lenny Harris 0 0.0%
Bobby Higginson 0 0.0%
Charles Johnson 0 0.0%
Raul Mondesi 0 0.0%
Kirk Rueter 0 0.0%

wow, kevin brown one and done.

jonmorosi Roberto Alomar (90.0) and Bert Blyleven (79.7) are in the Hall of Fame. #BlueJays #Padres #Indians #Twins #Angels #MLB #baseball #professionalsports #athletics #outdoors #physicalactivities #exercise #spring #summer #fall #autumn #fightobesity #nationalpastime #pitchers #infielders #facialhair #broadcasters #spittingonpeople #Cooperstown #NewYorkevents #tweets #Twitter

#hashtagabuse

kevin brown is a dude who may in fact have done enough to make the HOF, especially during the era in which he pitched. and yet juan gonzalez remains for another year.

KenDavidoff Alomar drove himself to Rogers Centre today in his '06 Rolls Royce. Looks a little like the Batmobile. #BlueJays

Olerud's stats stack up better than you might think

Rich Lederer's work is now done. He can go back to his home planet.

Woo-hoo! Roberto's the best player I ever saw on a regular basis. I know some writers who've looked at his defense closely have questioned his reputation, and I'm sure there's merit to that. And the way he chose to leave Toronto was not pretty (he basically sulked his way out of town). But for those first four or five years, I've never enjoyed watching a player more.

he's going in as a J, right?

I don't think there's any doubt. The player's don't get to choose anymore, the league does (credit to Dave Winfield's auctioneering...). Not to diminish what he did in Cleveland and Baltimore, but to me it's not even close.

So glad we can debate about something else next year.

I predict next ten HoF cycles will all be stupid PED arguments sadly.

So glad we can debate about something else next year.

Here here to that. The Blyleven time-bomb has been deactivated.

uh, ya - what Alex said.

That's a point I've tried to make when people say something like, "At least we're past the steroid issue now." No--it's just about to enter its most contentious, nastiest, most never-ending decade yet.

all the people who were stanning hard for blyleven are gonna turn their attention to raines now i think

Let's hope so.

http://www.tmarchman.com/ic/2011/1/5/kevin-brown-gets-the-call.html

jeff pearlman seems like such an intolerable douchebag.

http://www.jeffpearlman.com/my-2011-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot/

So glad we can debate about something else next year

Jack Morris' best (and for all intents and purposes last) chance to get elected? Felix Hernandez was soooo 2010, pitching to the score will make a comeback in '11.

How did McGwire lose 5% of the vote since last year? There were people who had no problem voting for him before who have dropped him now that he's confessed?

Pearlman:

John Olerud—Yes to the helmet, no to the player.

Yes to brain aneurysms, then!

Jeff Pearlman doesn't actually have a vote, right?

i feel like the hall vote is the only thing giving these writers something to live for. it's a lot like pazz and jop.

The only time the steroids thing will really come up is when Bonds and Clemens become eligible. The rest of the big guys have no shot, sadly.

As a Pazz & Jop voter, I know that that's the only thing that keeps me from killing myself.

jeff pearlman seems like such an intolerable douchebag.

http://www.jeffpearlman.com/my-2011-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot/

― omar little, Wednesday, January 5, 2011 4:04 PM (57 minutes ago) Bookmark

heh, i was actually gonna link to some pearlman stuff yesterday. you have no idea how deep this rabbit hole goes, dude... pearlman's literally been telephoning the mothers of people who were trolling him

How did he get their #s?

i hope that's true~

Sounds like Pearlman to me. Ugh

Did I read it wrong or is he denigrating his mother's lasagna.

it's still a mystery, alex

he's been posting... interesting stuff about bagwell and then getting into twitter wars about it

http://www.jeffpearlman.com/jeff-bagwell-and-why-i-disagree-with-joe-posnanski/
http://www.jeffpearlman.com/bagwell-ii/
http://www.jeffpearlman.com/bagwell-iii/

But, alas, Joe’s still right—perhaps Jeff Bagwell never used. Perhaps, as dozens upon dozens of his teammates turned to steroids and HGH throughout the 1990s and early 2000s (Reality: No two teams in baseball had more PED connections than the Texas Rangers and the Houston Astros), Bagwell looked the other way and continued to pop his GNC-supplied Vitamin C tablets. Maybe, just maybe, that happened. But, as the game was being ruined in his very clubhouse, where was Bagwell’s voice of protest? Where was Jeff Bagwell, one of the best players in baseball, when someone inside the game needed to speak out and demand accountability? Answer: Like nearly all of his peers, he was nowhere. He never uttered a word, never lifted a finger (Now, once he retired, he was more than willing to defend himself and speak up for the sport. Once he was retired).

This, to me, is why we are allowed to suspect Jeff Bagwell and, if we so choose, not vote for him. The baseball players have cast this curse upon themselves—A. By cheating (And the usage of PED was, factually cheating. I don’t care how often you say, ‘It wasn’t outlawed by baseball’ blah blag blah blah. In the United States, the obtaining and usage of HGH and steroids without a proper perscription is illegal. And ‘proper perscription’ does not merely mean one given by a doctor. It means one rightly given by a doctor for a necessary medical condition); B. By not standing up against cheating and doing everything to assure a clean product.
If he did use, Jeff Bagwell deliberately sought an advantage over other players—an illegal advantage.

If he didn’t use, Jeff Bagwell, stood by and watched his sport morph into WWE nonsense.

So, again, Joe’s right: Statistically, Jeff Bagwell is a Hall of Famer. And, on a personal note, he was always an approachable and nice guy. But, dammit, thanks to baseball’s meekness (for lack of a better word), Hall of Fame voters (I’m not one, for the record) have the right to suspect anyone and everyone from the past era. They have the right to view muscles suspiciously; to question a guy putting up six-straight 100-plus RBI seasons in the heat of PED Madness; to wonder why—when, oh, 75 percent of players were using–one extremely succesful, extemely large, extremely muscular man wouldn’t.

Did Jeff Bagwell use PED?

I don’t know.

Do I have the right to hold his era against him?

Damn right I do.

to his credit he has been very open to opposing POVs

is Pearlman a real person with a vote or is this a put on by The Onion?

he doesnt have a vote, hes just A Guy With An Opinion

but he's definitely not created by a team of writers?

http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/img/IMG_3578.jpg

Oh, that guy.

Am I the only one who thought the steroid era was fucking fun as hell, or

it was like a night of extremely heavy drinking that kind of gets worse and worse

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/is-the-hall-of-fame-too-small/

Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven were inducted into baseball’s Hall of Fame this afternoon, becoming the 234th and 235th players so honored.

Pretty sloppy, Nate. Election ≠ induction.

Nice Silver piece. It sounds crazy, but of his two remedies, I think my inclination would be to start kicking some of those guys from the '30s out. I basically like the two or three guys a year, 15-year-window system. Larkin didn't go in this year, but he'll probably go in next year. Blyleven's case took forever, but it was resolved favorably too. I just don't think the HOF would be as interesting or as meaningful if they started to induct six or seven guys a year. But I understand the pct.-of-active-players argument.

I don't give a rat's ass about the Football HOF, but don't they usu put in 6 a year?

yup. tho they have their probs too (disproportionate representation of players who handle the ball)

I'm too much of a baseball fan to have any perspective, but is it fair to say that the football HOF isn't as big a deal with the public at large (i.e., doesn't inspire as many heated arguments, controversies, etc.)? I don't know for sure that that's true, and if it is true, I don't know if the comparatively low number of baseball inductees is part of the reason.

(Up here in puck-land, the hockey HOF sometimes inspires heated disagreement. I'm not a big fan, but I know that people have been arguing about Paul Henderson and Doug Gilmour for years.)

yeah that's fair to say--football has nowhere near the obsession with history that baseball does

I read yesterday that DiMaggio's 88.8% in 1955 was the highest-ever for a second-year-on-the-ballot pick. It's kind of an afterthought record, but in any event, Alomar beat that today with an even 90.0%.

I heard a nice quote from Alomar on the radio this morning, but I can't find it; he wants to go in as a Jay. (I'm not naive enough to think it's all violins and flowers--he also knows that his marketability is greater here than anywhere else. It was nice to hear anyway.)

Player preference doesn't actually matter now does it? The Hall decides what team they go in as, right?

I believe they say they 'consider' his pref.

"cap on plaque," not "go in as."

nobody knows if Lefty Grove has a Boston or Philly cap on his plaque, do they? or if it has no insignia?

I found the quote in the Toronto Sun:

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/baseball/2011/01/06/16778776.html

It's been the league's choice ever since Winfield basically tried to sell himself to the highest bidder, primarily to screw over Steinbrenner, I think. I can't remember if the league stepped in that year, or whether the rule was put in place the following year.

Can't think of any reason why the league wouldn't go with Alomar's preference in this case.

wasn't it in Wade Boggs' Devil Rays contract that he'd have a TB cap?

He went in well after Winfield, so I don't think that'd be an option. I don't know--maybe the provision was there, but I doubt that they got away with it (they definitely shouldn't have).

btw, Lefty Grove has a B.

http://baseballhall.org/hof/grove-lefty

all the people who were stanning hard for blyleven are gonna turn their attention to raines now i think

Posnanski agrees, although for a different reason: "I guess Raines’ best hope is that in the steroid cloud he will become a cause celebre, an anti-steroid option, sort of the way Jim Rice did." Raines as the next stop for Blyleven's support makes more sense. Msny writers will look for anti-steroid options, but I think they'll find them in players who put in most of their time during that era--someone like Jeff Kent might benefit. Raines' window of dominance pre-dates steroids; I don't see a connection there.

I think he's saying that writers will ignore steroid era players altogether and say "hey you remember back in the 80s when the only drugs players were doing were cocaine? That was a clean golden era and Tim Raines was a darn good ballplayer."

That crossed my mind, too: Raines is perhaps not the ideal anti-drug option. (Better than Jerry Garcia, not as good as Huey Lewis.)

ha ha ha!

Better or worse than Paul Molitor?

Forgot all about Molitor. The Pirates, Expos, and Royals all had a major cocaine problem--anyone know if Stargell, Dawson, or Brett were ever implicated in any way?

well the thing is with coke - i don't see it as "performance enhancing" in the least.

unless your performance amounts to hanging out in the men's room and endlessly yammering like an asshole.

Remember Brett's reaction to having his HR discounted in the Pine Tar Game? I thought his head was going to explode. If that's not the reaction of a man who did more coke in the 70's and 80's than every member of Fleetwood Mac put together, then I don't know what is.

Full disclosure: I have just as much evidence of this as I do of Jeff Bagwell being on steroids.

Neyer on the coming ballot logjam (ie, 21 strong candidates by 2015):

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6738/change-will-roll-into-the-hall-someday

(Paraphrasing Krusty on Mel Brooks) Fleetwood Mac did coke!?

hey did anyone see jon heyman's weird "New Year's resolutions for 50 of the biggest names in baseball" article?

17. Bert Blyleven. I will consider myself fortunate when I am voted into the Hall of Fame, and understand that while I had a great career, I am not Tom Seaver or Steve Carlton but rather Don Sutton and Phil Niekro, near-great pitchers who were borderline candidates who gained enshrinement. I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability and helped me rise from 14 percent of the votes in my second year of eligibility to more than 75 percent and act gracefully upon hearing the expected good news.

"know your place...bitch."

was kind of surprised to hear Heyman say he'll vote for Bonds and Clemens

fwiw, ran into a Minnesota fan at SABR con a few years ago who was absolutely sick of what he thought of as Blyleven's self-promotion.

I'm glad someone mentioned that. Blyleven's not the only one--Gonzalez sent out a brochure! I understand to a degree, in that there's a lot at stake in terms of a lot of things. But I'm guessing that Willie Mays and Johnny Bench didn't have to send out brochures.

haha well there's an obvious reason they didn't have to! maybe that's what you're getting at..

Yes--although it may also say something about celebrity culture in general (i.e., I wouldn't be surprised if even overqualified players start sending out promotional material within a few years).

"For your consideration: Mr. Ruth once hit more home runs than every team in the league except his own..."

Did anyone actually claim that Blyleven was better than Seaver or Carlton (more importantly did Blyleven claim he was better than those guys)?

WAR-oriented posts on Whitaker and Trammell:

http://www.detroittigertales.com/2011/01/another-test.html

Numerically, Sandberg had only 63 WAR for his career which is 11 less than Whitaker. Sandberg had seven years of four WAR or above, while Whitaker had 14. On the other hand, Sandberg had four years of seven WAR or greater and Whitaker never had more than six WAR.

Sandberg made the Hall of Fame and Whitaker was left off the ballot by virtually all voters. This might be an indication that the voters favor peak value over career value or it could be that Whitaker's lack of a monster year gave them the impression that he wasn't a great player. Personally, I don't think it's necessarily wrong that Sandberg is in the Hall of Fame and Whitaker isn't. I value longevity and peak equally and can see the arguments on both sides.

What bothers me is that Whitaker received no support at all while a comparable player received votes from the vast majority of voters. That is not right for arguably the 8th most valuable second baseman ever.

http://www.detroittigertales.com/2011/01/trammell-not-getting-his-due.html

Trammell is not getting as much backing as other comparable shortstops. With 69 WAR, he is just one WAR short of Hall of Famers Ozzie Smith and Pee Wee Reese and probably soon to be Hall of Famer Barry Larkin. Trammell is similar to all three in terms of number of good years and great years. He is also one behind Hall of Famer Lou Boudreau who had a shorter career but a higher peak. The next three on the list - Bobby Wallace, Luis Aparicio and Joe Tinker - are also enshrined in Cooperstown. Tinker went in at the same time as Chicaco Cubs doubleplay partners Johnny Evers and Frank Chance.

How many of the following catchers should be in the Hall of Fame (strictly based on their achievements as players)?

Ted Simmons
Lance Parrish
Joe Torre
Ivan Rodriguez
Mike Piazza
Jorge Posada
Javy Lopez

1-3 imo:

easy yes: pudge
borderline: torre, piazza
not quite: simmons, posada
not close: parrish, lopez

Joe Torre is usually not even mentioned when Hall season comes around. Why do you like him more than Simmons (for example)?

actually i forgot that torre moved off of C that early, i'd probably drop him down a notch

Among eligible catchers, only Piazza has a higher career SLG than Javy Lopez. Lopez is ahead of Fisk, Berra, Bench, etc. His career OPS is 7th all time, ahead of Bench and Fisk and on par with Berra.

Lopez never walked at all, I see. Hmm.

lopez also has about half the career WAR of joe torre or ted simmons

i know WAR isn't the be-all end-all but when someone's off by a factor of 2 they probably didn't have close to the same career value

upon further investigation that's mainly just because he only played 10 full seasons (and a few other partial ones)

you could argue he had a HoF worthy peak but he's basically the jim rice of catchers

Did Torre move to third to make room for Simmons, or would they have moved him either way?

javy's 2003 must be one of the most ludicrous outlier seasons of all-time

The guy I'm really interested in is Posada, who will probably get in due to being a Yankee, but I'm not convinced he's worthy.

Then again, it seems like catcher is underrepresented in the Hall.

how in holy hell is Piazza "borderline"? easily one of the 5 best offensive catchers ever, maybe the best after WW2.

His poor defense doesn't give you pause at all?

i'd gladly put him in, i just don't think he'll be as much of a slam dunk as pudge when voting comes around on them

xp, no. Bill James once said if it wasnt for SB/CS, no one would hate on Piazza's defense.

i think pudge is gonna suffer from the steroid blacklist bullshit. piazza too, maybe, but not as much.

we pretty much know Rodriguez took PEDs, not the case with Piazza. (not that I care)

I don't see how Piazza can be anything but an easy yes.

I've always thought Piazza should have won one, maybe two MVPs. Absent any complicating factors (he artfully says), he deserves to be first-ballot automatic.

James just concluded a four-part series on this year's candidates. Most eye-opening statement (which intuitively I don't agree with, and I watched him regularly for many years): "In my analysis, John Olerud rates as an obvious Hall of Famer." Part of his argument: "If John Olerud had drawn 500 fewer walks in his career but hit 325 more singles (in 325 more at bats, thus the same number of outs), he would still have had about an average number of walks, and his overall value would have been the same--but his career batting average would have been .324...If John Olerud had hit .324 in his career, I suggest, his value would have been considered self-evident, and people would think of him as a Hall of Famer. He would have scored about 50 less runs; he would have driven in about 70 more—which would have given him six hundred-RBI seasons, rather than three." That seems like kind of a weird argument to me.

if he could fly and had heat-ray vision....

It's not exactly weird (people really don't value walks as much as they should) but I think even if Olerud hit .324 for his career he still wouldn't have been thought of as a slam dunk HoF candidate.

Of course a lot of statheads argued that Will Clark was a slam-dunk too so....

I thought James' argument was weird not for the premise that walks are really valuable, which of course they are, but for the idea of taking a player and saying, "Let's take away these things from his record, and we'll instead replace them with these things over here." I understand his point, but I bet there's a pretty long list of players you could transform into Hall of Famers using that method.

Well sure but all of them would have been guys like Grich and Santo who James would have been really into too!

Joe running with this idea btw:

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/01/19/trading-500-for-325/

Is Posnanski obsessed with Bill James or something? He mentions the guy constantly.

He mentions other people too. ;-)

Another self-deprecating joke lost to history.

heh, i was actually gonna link to some pearlman stuff yesterday. you have no idea how deep this rabbit hole goes, dude... pearlman's literally been telephoning the mothers of people who were trolling him

― Princess TamTam, Wednesday, January 5, 2011 5:04 PM (2 weeks ago) Bookmark

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/21/pearlman.online.civility/index.html

The words were snarky and snide and rude. His final message, however, left an extra special impression: "I got caught up in the anonymity of the internet. I'm sorry and here is a legit post with my criticisms." Upon opening the pasted link, I was greeted by a nasty pornographic image that would make Sasha Grey vomit into the nearest trash can.

When I later noted to Matt, via Twitter, that my 7-year-old daughter happened to be next to me when I clicked on the picture, he wrote: "lmao. You're so full of ----."

Well, it ain't the real Hall of Fame, but I'm happy for him anyway:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/terminator-two-others-enter-canadian-baseball-hall-fame-20110124-093240-014.html

I don't know if Thinwall or NoTime remember this, but when people started calling Henke "The Terminator," they'd already been calling Reardon that. I distinctly remember not liking it for that very reason--what good is a second-hand nickname? It stuck, though, and I got used to it. My first choice would have been something I heard soon after Henke arrived from Texas: "The Canadian Goose."

Goosinator.

Or the Tominator. Or Torontinator. We'll get this corrected yet.

I'll post this here rather than the Yankees thread...which I've never been on; I'm afraid people will yell at me.

Does anyone see Andy Pettitte as a Hall of Famer? I hear that all the time, but I just don't see it. 240 wins and a very good winning percentage on very good teams. Mediocre ERA, more than a hit per inning, decent K/BB ratio. He's got something of a postseason reputation, but his postseason plusses and minusses are remarkably similar to what he compiled in the regular season. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to prove that he was a superior pitcher to Jack Morris, but a quick look at his career box, and you might see some Jack Morris.

Joe Sheehan has a long thing on Pettitte and the HOF up. His final paragraph: "On traditional metrics, Pettitte may not look like much. His career is relatively short for a Hall of Famer, he didn't rack up lots of awards or award votes, and his statistics are not overwhelming. However, accounting for the usage patterns and offensive levels of his day, as well as the increased importance of the postseason relative to the regular season--and his work in those games--the case for Pettitte becomes clear: he is a Hall of Famer."

I took a closer look, and while he maybe looks a little better than I first thought, I still don't see HOF. A couple of great seasons and a few good ones, but for me he comes up short whether measured by peak value or career value.

Neyer's take:

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/2/3/1973029/andy-pettitte-retiring-baseball-hall-of-fame

Pettitte deserves a nice spot in the yankee ring of honor or whatever, but he's not a HoFer. he just didn't have the peak.

I think I intuitively have an easier time adjusting hitters from that era in a downward direction than I do making the necessary adjustments in the other direction for pitchers. (Pitchers who aren't at the level of Maddux and Martinez, anyway--I recognize immediately how extra phenomenal their accomplishments are.) So I get stuck on Pettitte's ERA and H/9, when he probably is more or less a good comp for Catfish Hunter--who many now view as a marginal HOF'er, but someone where I don't bat an eye.

it's still going to be lol when pettite does better on the ballot than every other admitted/suspected ped user

That's bcz he's a gamer (whose postseason stats reflect his regular-season stats).

he's a gamer, he's a winner, he's a man of deep faith

Agree with you totally there. I've made it clear that I'm still on the fence as to PED usage; I think it's silly, though, when a player's reaction to being found out becomes part of the equation. Pettitte bows his head remorsefully and says "Aw, shucks," and it's forgotten about; Palmeiro waves an admonishing finger and lies--in a place where people fudge numbers and knowingly tell fibs every day--and he's an outcast. (And after he lies, he goes in back and signs autographs for the people who are so outraged by his lying.) With Clemens and Bonds, where you may be lying to a Grand Jury, that's a separate issue. Otherwise, I don't think how remorseful you are, or how well you fake sincerity when apologizing, should matter at all.

(In my everyday life, when kids do stupid things on the schoolyard, I often let the kid who says "Sorry, I won't do it again" off with a warning, whereas those who lie or get argumentative, they're the ones who are more inclined to end up in the office. So I'm a hypocrite on this matter.)

eh that's not hypocrisy, that's the difference between kids and adults

(Bows head remorsefully, puts theory to test):

CAD, I would like to apologize for our run-in on the Blyleven-Palmer matter a few weeks ago.

There's a Pettitte HOF poll up on baseballreference.com:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9854

I haven't waded through the comments yet (140 and counting). Right now, it's close to an even split on whether he'll actually get in: 48% yes, 52% no. As to whether he deserves to get in, not so close: 28% yes, 72% no.

His Yankee career should mean he loses say 10% from his W total before the rest of his stats are even considered. Would 220 wins qualify?

i think pettitte's gonna have a jack morris-like run towards the HOF and like morris he may get in, may not. the wild card is definitely how folks view his PED use. it's kinda funny how he's regarded as this noble figure whereas clemens is regarded as a total d-bag (of course pettitte just seems a lot classier and chill than rog, who is basically MLB's version of lance armstrong (w/floyd landis' low-level ability at navigating his own troubled waters.)

)

CAD, I would like to apologize for our run-in on the Blyleven-Palmer matter a few weeks ago.

― clemenza, Saturday, February 5, 2011 11:13 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i'm sorry too clem :)

(Everybody sing gently) Kumbayah, my lord, kumbayah...

It's hilarious how some people will wave off Pettitte's PED use and say he's a HOFer, but turn around and say that McGwire shouldn't be in the HOF because PED's OBVIOUSLY were the reasons he hit all those HRs and OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have put up HOF numbers otherwise.

Anyway, Pettitte is no HOFer -- he had two, maybe three Cy Young caliber seasons. There were probably 30-40 other pitchers in the past twenty years who had better five-year peaks than him.

more Pettitte pettifoggery:

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/2/7/1980801/andy-pettitte-and-the-hall-of-fame-redux

Posnanski's turn:

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/02/06/pettitte-junction/

Ryan (Boston)
Re: Pettitte and the HoF. So we are all in agreement that voters only care about PED use if it involves muscley hitters blasting homeruns, yes?

Klaw (1:01 PM)
You're not giving writers enough credit. It's a complicated calculus, involving other variables like contrition (real and perceived) and ethnicity.

so, gary sheffield has officially filed his retirement papers. HE says he deserves induction, but what's new, i guess?

Sheffield case depends on two things: 1) how important do you think the PED allegations are and 2) how much weight you give to his mediocre/lousy fielding. His case is better than Pettite's though.

I don't know what I think about Sheffield. He definitely had one HOF, near-Triple Crown year pre-PED (1992). James ragged on him for years, then, after he started working for the Red Sox, did an about-face and wrote a long thing about how he never realized how great Sheffield was until he saw him up close.

What's to rag on? At the very least the dude was very amusing. That said as all bat no glove OFers go, I'd rather have Manny being Manny. What's interesting is that Sheffield was a real athlete (I believe he came up as a SS, I believe) so his defense ineptitude (assuming the #s are argument) isn't the usual bad body/lead feet stuff you see so frequently.

# are accurate, ahem

Yeah, Sheffield was SS/3B until '94.

Sheffield's also one of the few dudes who was in the Little League WS and went on to be a big league All Star, I think.

sheffield's year to year Rfield column on bbref is a sight to behold

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sheffga01.shtml#batting_value::none

with average defense for his career he would have been over 80 WAR which is pretty much an inarguable HOF lock, dunno what to think of him now

63 is considered sort of borderline, no?

I think what James used to criticize Sheffield for (I'd have to go back and check) was the same thing a lot of people criticized him for: deserved or not, he had a reputation as a malcontent who bounced from team to team. I'm always a little wary of such charges when levelled against a black player; anyway, I have no idea whether there was some validity there or not.

xp yeah, literally everyone at 70+ bbref WAR is in or will be in except for Rose, but as soon as you drop below 70 you hit all sorts of guys who are considered borderline, like Trammell and Whitaker and Edgar Martinez and such.

sheffield was great almost up until the end, and i forgot how eye-popping his first half was in '07 (the second half was so poor that his overall numbers that season are merely "ok" compared to the rest of his career):

1st half

82 games
78(!) runs
21 hr
58 rbi
52 bb
.303/.410/.560

2nd half

51 games
29 runs
4 hr
17 rbi
32 bb
.203/.324/.299(!)

clemenza - i don't want to start this kind of argument, but what does the colour of his skin have to do with his being a malcontent (or not)?

It seems like black players get that label a little easier than others, though obv in Sheff's case he really earned it

yeah we don't really need to have this conversation because sheff was truly and actually a malcontent who bounced from team to team

Maybe my post wasn't clear...I have no idea whether Sheffield was a malcontent or not; historically, black players have been deemed malcontents far more readily than white players, and I was saying that, for that reason, I'm a little skeptical when that charge gets levelled at a black player, even today. Two famous examples: Dick Allen and Clemente. Another example you'll know, Thinwall: George Bell.

do you consider the "adam dunn hates baseball" rep to fit sort of into the malcontent category? obviously, he doesn't TOTALLY fit in here, but just curious.

i guess black guys might get that label more often - but you still have your Kents and Pierzynskis too.

Those guys were hated more by their teammates than the press though. I think players hate other players equal opportunity.

i think everybody enjoyed seeing AJ get punched in the face.

the "adam dunn hates baseball" rep -- you're talking about JP Ricciardi's rep here?

add "jd drew shows no emotion" to that list

there's probably some kind of "real yankee/false yankee" list that can be moderated by mike mussina

question re: ricciardi/dunn?

how so? was it ricciardi that first said that? it's certainly caught on.

i think the other big one is the lazy latin ballplayer. oh, my...the vile stuff i used to hear on philly radio about abreu. oof.

re: Ricciardi - yes it was.

here in Toronto it sort of caught on as a "Ricciardi flapping his gums when he probably should have just shut the fuck up" mantra.

I think with Clemente, the writers got on him for being a hypochondriac. And they insisted on calling him "Bobby," even thought he made it clear he wanted to be called Roberto. (Similar to Dick/Richie Allen.)

"here in Toronto it sort of caught on as a "Ricciardi flapping his gums when he probably should have just shut the fuck up" mantra."

I think that was how it caught on everywhere. Even if it was true (and by all accounts it's not) why the hell are you getting a debate with a fan on talk radio about this?

because Ricciardi loves to hear his voice.

only saw about 20 secs each of Bert and Robbie.

Kahrl on overlooked candidates from the '80s:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/14104/stars-of-the-forgotten-80s

kind looking forward to a billion words being written on Barry Bonds soon

IMO he clearly deserves to be in but sadly he probably won't make it right away

Pos posted something on his blog about "The Future of the HOF", I'm really looking forward to all the 2013-5 craziness.

Neyer predicting Larkin and Santo for next year.

Larkin's inning in the booth last night during the game smelled pretty campaigney.

btw the HOF shunted the Frick, Spink, and Buck O'Neil award winners to a separate Saturday ceremony.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=14600

Roland Hemond comes to the SABR convention every year.

Pos posted something on his blog about "The Future of the HOF", I'm really looking forward to all the 2013-5 craziness.

Just read that. IMO Schilling and Biggio are probably going to get in. Piazza should but if the voters didn't vote in Bagwell, who knows? If Barry gets in, that opens the gates to guys like Clemens, Sosa, McGwire, etc. I hope people's stance on steroids has softened by then. I mean yes he cheated and all but he did so in an era of cheaters and even then was far and away one of the greatest hitters ever. Posting an OBP of .600 in your late-30's is impressive regardless of how much HGH you pump into your veins.

I guess this is like yelling at clouds, but: besides loving all the adulation in Toronto for Alomar right now, there's a small part of me that's been amused. I went to a couple of Jays games during Alomar's time with Baltimore and Cleveland, and I made it a point to clap during his every AB (stood up a couple of times too). I was of course surrounded by booing and hissing on all sides. I was unhappy with the way he handled his exit from Toronto too (was also amused by Alomar's current contention that he never wanted to leave Toronto--he was dying to get out in '95, and pulled all sorts of stuff to expedite that happening), but at a certain point, certainly by the time he got to Cleveland, let it go. He's the greatest Blue Jay we've ever seen*, I used to think--why are you still booing?

(*Will likely be passed by Halladay, eventually; some would probably say that's already happened.)