hall of fame, next vote...

Hall of Fame Ballot 2004

Bruce Sutter was the pitcher that brought back and popularized the split finger fastball, which considering how popular a pitch it has become in the past 25 years, it is something that he should get some credit.

"Boggs, for instance, is not a classic Hall of Famer, in my eyes, despite his 3,000 hits; he was a very, very good player, but not a dominant player."

Appearantly Buster forgets the mid 80s when Boggs career batting average was at .355 or so, he won 5 of 6 batting titles and his on base percentage was at a SABERMETRIC stoner high. He also won two of those batting titles by more than twenty points! After age 32, he only once hit over .330, but a bunch of players peak around that time in their career. Boggs average with runners on base and the bases loaded is also off the chart.

Oddly enough, I don't think Boggs was quite the same player after that whole scandal with Margo Adams broke. I think opposing teams quit putting chicken on the buffet when Boston was in town or something.

I think it would be interesting to know how many hits Boggs would have put up if he would have been brought up in 81, when he was 21 instead of 24. Boggs always claimed that he was just a good a hitter at 21, but since he played 1b was always behind Yaz in the depth chart and never got the chance to play in the bigs until he learned how to play 3b. He didn't get called up in 84 until they were wracked with injuries, then he hit over .400 for a month or so and stayed in the lineup from then on.

I grew up mostly watching NL baseball, but Boggs was one of my favorite players to follow and watch hit. Maybe not as fearful as some of the great power hitters of his day, but like Tony Gwynn, he was one of those hitters that seemed to dumbfound pitchers on how to get them out.

Earl OTM about Boggs, the guy was an offensive powerhouse.

It's the usual BS with guys like Sandberg -- 2B and 3B are underrepresented positions in the HoF because their offensive numbers aren't at the level of 1B or OF, they're not remembered for being "flashy" like SS, and they're not "on-the-field leaders" like C. Sandberg is a no-brainer.

Gossage should be in, I hear the arguments for Sutter that he wasn't great for as long as some other guys, but a) he was dominant for about the same length of time that Mo Rivera has been (and a lot of people consider him a future HoF player -- yeah, I know Mo's postseason performance is part of that, but still), and b) he INVENTED a pitch, which is a damned significant contribution to the game.

The Blyleven arguments boil down to the fact that he WAS great, but was pitching for bad teams. I think people are wising up to the idea that there are guys like Sutton who are in only because they pitched for good teams.

That season I remember seeing Jack Morris throw a no hitter on TV against the White Sox as it was the game of the week Saturday Afternoon on NBC. I can remember my dad was working in the garage and coming in every so often to check it out how the game was going, as he joked after the first inning or so wouldn't it be funny if he threw a no hitter.

But if that were the case, there'd be 80 or 90 members, except for what, 240 now?

By the established standard, Blyleven belongs. If you're "very good" for long enough (BB was in the top 10 in league Adjusted ERA 11 times from '71-89), that's worth 5-6 years of dominance (the peak vs career, Koufax vs Spahn argument). There was some research I read in the last year that showed Bert didn't suffer quite as much from his teammates' inadequacy as generally thought, but it wasn't enough for him to drop off my "ballot."

>The funny thing about Morris, as I recall, is that he always seemed to pitch just good enough to stay ahead.

"I know not seems..." I'll try to find a link for you, Thermo, but someone recently did a study of Morris's career in this regard, and it showed *no* special ability to pitch that way. He threw 1150 fewer innings than Blyleven and his career ERA was only 5% better than the league's (Bert 18%) -- that's not a negligible difference. Morris had a good career, but not a HOFer.

I'd vote for Gossage on greatness and longevity, Sutter on peak and pioneer role, close but unconvinced for Lee Smith. Rest of ballot: Boggs, Sandberg, and TRAMMELL, most deserving SS of that era below Ozzie. Dawson and Rice fall short.

It's sad that the Vets Committee process has obviously been fucked up to the point where they may never elect anyone, as I fear Ron Santo will die before his deserved induction.

I'm not sure that would be worst thing ever actually, but my problem with Blyleven is that during his time he was never really recognized as being one of the best in the game. He wasn't voted to All Star games, he didn't make Cy Young top 10s, he wasn't talked about as being a great pitcher. And I think that hurts him. NOW if the reason why none of those things occurred was that he toiled entirely in obscurity for shitty teams and if he'd been on the Dodgers, the Red Sox, the Yankees and the Reds for those years instead that there would be a complete about face and he'd be considered among the best pitchers of his era, well all I can say geez that's bad luck for Bert, but I think that's a hard argument to make conclusively.

MIR, here's a 4-year-old Neyer column on Blyleven... Alex, I think it's conclusive:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2000/1213/943398.html

And he later wrote:

"Blyleven was, over the course of his career, a better pitcher than Ted Lyons or Early Wynn or Bob Lemon or Red Ruffing or Rube Waddell or Red Faber or Catfish Hunter or Lefty Gomez, all of whom are in the Hall of Fame... It's not Blyleven's fault that he generally pitched for unspectacular teams that played in hitter's parks. In fact, Blyleven pitched for 22 seasons, and in only four of those 22 seasons did Blyleven's home ballpark favor the pitcher, statistically..."

And to appeal to the butch old-timers: 242 complete games!

Four of 'em (third twice).

http://baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1815

It concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that he could.

That's the article I meant, MIR, thanks.

I think he's written a couple of other columns on Blyleven, maybe I can find them ...

Those are some mind-numbing stats!

This, and many other articles stating his HoF case are collected -- where else? -- on Blyleven's web page:

http://www.bertblyleven.com/hall_of_fame.shtml

xpost -- yeah, the Morris article is a bit of a numbers slog, but it's well done.

Enough, believe me. And I saw him compare him to two HOF pitchers, one of whom is IMO a mistake and the other who is basically in the Hall because he had a zillion strikeouts and a slew of no hitters. Compare him to Carlton or Seaver or Hunter or any of the really great pitchers from his era, if you want to make your point (that this guy is getting job) don't just claim he was "better than Don Sutton" cuz my response to that is so the fuck what.

That second ESPN article is much better btw and makes a pretty good case.

No, Bert is not Seaver or Carlton.

He played for fifteen years, and he had about four great years, four good years, and the rest were downright BAD. If he'd pitched for anyone other than the 70's A's and Yankees dynasties, there's no way he'd be anywhere near a serious HoF discussion.

See this is where I get the impression that cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats lies a little. For 5 years (71-75), Hunter was probably hands down the most feared pitcher in baseball. No he might not have been Koufax, but he was still by all accounts pretty amazing. Those five years count for more to me than 20 some odd years of just pretty good workmanlike pitching (I will admit that these breakdowns of Blyleven's stats are making a pretty case that he was better than that.) (I do have to wonder WHY if Bert was so great, he um didn't get snatched up by better teams? I mean that can't all be bad luck, right?)

Postseason Pitching

Year Round Tm Opp WLser G GS ERA W-L SV CG SHO IP H ER BB SO
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
1970 ALCS MIN BAL L 1 0 0.00 0-0 0 0 0 2.0 2 0 0 2
1979 NLCS PIT CIN W 1 1 1.00 1-0 0 1 0 9.0 8 1 0 9
WS PIT BAL W 2 1 1.80 1-0 0 0 0 10.0 8 2 3 4
1987 ALCS MIN DET W 2 2 4.05 2-0 0 0 0 13.3 12 6 3 9
WS MIN STL W 2 2 2.77 1-1 0 0 0 13.0 13 4 2 12
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
3 Lg Champ Series 2-1 4 3 2.59 3-0 0 1 0 24.3 22 7 3 20
2 World Series 2-0 4 3 2.35 2-1 0 0 0 23.0 21 6 5 16
5 Postseason Ser 4-1 8 6 2.47 5-1 0 1 0 47.3 43 13 8 36
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+

He didn't get many chances, but Blyleven pitched well in the playoffs and was a part of two World Series Champions.

Many of his best years came before free agency, so he didn't have much choice in the matter.

Even with free agency, it's only during the last ten years or so that all the best players end up on big-market winning teams at some point, since eventually those are the only teams that can afford them. If Jaret Wright can bounce around for a while, have one good season after a slew of crappy ones, and end up with a multi-year deal from a perennial contender, then Blyleven would have ended up playing for more winning teams too, if he was playing today.

Even so, every era has a few great players who toil away in relative obscurity. Look at Bobby Abreu, or even Carlos Delgado. If Delgado goes to the Mets, maybe in 20 years people will be saying "if he was so good, why did his teams always finish in third place?"

Alex, nobody's saying Hunter wasn't GOOD, just that Blyleven was better for MUCH longer, and that "good press" shouldn't be a measure of excellence. And I don't see Hunter '71-75 being "amazing" ... His most "impressive statistics" are wins (ie, having good teammates) and innings pitched (which blew out his arm, as MIR says). I think he got extra credit for the pennants and the sexy nicknames. And it's cute how you use high Cy Young finishes as relevant to Hunter, not relevant for Blyleven. (Also, I don't see Hunter's status as the first Big Splash free agent being relevant; see Marvin Miller's book for how clownishly Catfish handled that situation.)

The "cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats" is the most reliable evidence there is. Not "what you heard" (from Joe Morgan?). And it isn't so much that Blyleven toiled for bad teams (they were more often mediocre), but pitched in hitters' parks.

I hope it happens soon so that he lives to attend his own induction.

It's not lookin' good for Marv, MIR -- when the Vets voted last in '03, no one came close to getting 75% ... and of the 60 votes required for election, Miller got 35. He got three FEWER votes than Walter O'Malley -- or as we call him in Brooklyn, Satan.

Miller and other non-players are on the "composite" ballot. Here's this year's players' ballot:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/2005/2005_vc_candidates.htm

The only one I'm sold on is Santo, but Dick Allen and Tony Oliva have decent cases -- as does Curt Flood for courage and legal pioneering.

Mickey Lolich won't get in the Hall, but his pitching in the 68 World Series may be the best performance ever in the fall classic by a starter. The guy out pitched Bob Gibson in Game Seven on TWO days rest. ESPN Classic was showed that game a few months back and it was great. Harry Caray was doing the play by play.

While I don't know if he is good enough player to make the hall, Al Oliver had a pretty good career and never gets put on these kind of lists.

My general point is that "b...b...but he was a bit of an asshole" is a criticism that's used far too often despite being irrelevant most of the time. As long as the guy didn't compromise the game of baseball (Pete Rose being the most obvious example) then I couldn't care less if he was moody and didn't get along with everybody. If he could bring it on the field, then that's the most important thing.

(xpost)

Haha I need to learn to check baseballreference.com before I say stuff sometimes.

Example #2: replace "Reggie Jackson" with "Barry Bonds" in the above paragraph.

Or consider the Yankees and Red Sox of the last few years. When the Yankees were winning, they were "professional" and "disciplined". Their lack of comaraderie was viewed as an asset, i.e. "they're all business when they take the field". OTOH, the Sox were drama queens who didn't know how to win when it counts.

Fast forward to this past year. The Yanks are up 3-0 and they're winning because they're the professionals who respect the game and know how to win. Five days later, the exact same guys are described as "cold" and "unemotional" and that's why they lost. In the meantime, Manny and Pedro's weird quirks and selfishness are ignored, and suddenly all the drama becomes an asset because the Sox are "loose", "having fun", and "relaxed", and that's why they won.

I guess I should have known, but I didn't realize you could reset the clock once your ballot window had expired. I don't think they'd be doing Bonds a favour, though, just setting him up for another 10 years of purgatory.

Lads i have just been to the hall of fame. I had fun

First time?

Second walk, timely DP.

Oops.

Ya first time; may never need to go again unless im reaaaaaly close bc its a shitfuck to get here

Corey Seager has really picked it up after a slow start. He's 30 now, and getting close to good-bet territory, I'd say (giving him some extra credit for his post-season heroics). Needs maybe two or three AS-level seasons, and two or three scenery seasons after that?

Noticed that Salvador Perez now has 269 HR and 900 RBI. Catchers with 300/1000: Piazza, Fisk, Bench, Berra, Parrish, Rodriguez, Carter. All of them in the Hall except Parrish (can't remember how long he lasted on the ballot). If Perez gets to 300/1000--he's only 34, so he should--and you add in the five GG, numerous ASG, and the WS win, I have to believe he'll go in, even though his WAR will likely be under 50.

I thought Perez was way older than 34!

Double checked: 34 years, 107 days. Came up when he was 21.

I have to believe he'll go in, even though his WAR will likely be under 50.

ooooooof, i don't know. WAR isn't everything, and of course it's especially a work in progress for catchers. but i just looked up perez, expecting to see like 30 or 40, and he's at 17.6 fWAR! for comparison, yadi wound up at 55.6. more importantly, perez ranks behind 5 other active catchers in fWAR, including grandal with 39 (!), realmuto, the elder contreras, d'arnaud and will smith.

war doesn't end any discussion, there are many factors in the HoF that about more than stats, and i think that's a good thing. but, i think WAR is helpful when it leads you to look closer at a player beyond the headline stats and consider WHY they're being penalized in a stat or fare worse in it than others. for perez, you're right, he has nearly 300 HR, nearing 1000 RBI, those are the big round numbers that i once paid attention to, as well. so, why is perez already behind 5 other active catchers in fWAR, despite his long career and home runs
and playing all the time?

his hitting has been about average (103 wRC+) over the course of his career. great power in recent years, but like yadi, he can't take a walk and he's slow as fuck. you might think "yes, but that's good hitting for a catcher", and yes, that's right, i think carrying an average hitting line is great for a catcher (yadi wound up with a 97 wRC+ despite some superlative offensive seasons in the early 2010s). the problem is, "for a catcher" implies that the catcher is a plus defender. perez was an average to below average catcher, defensively, consistently not great for his entire career and of course getting worse as time passes. he looks bad in career WAR because he didn't provide above-average production on offense or defense. he just hit a bunch of HRs

it's his defense. it has long graded out as average to slightly below average. catcher, more than any other position, is tilted toward defensive value - it's hard to find a great, above-average, or elite defensive catcher who can also hold their own at the plate. so if you hang at catcher and you're below average defensively, you have to be an offensive machine. perez has been great in some years, he has great power and

it's not his defense. overall, it has graded out to be worse than an average MLB catcher. since catcher is a weak batting position, relative to the rest of the lineup, usually defense is the

oops, please delete the last two paragraphs - meant to erase those before posting. believe it or not i sometimes do little drafts before these horrible posts

it's weird, bWAR dings Yadier a bit, he's around 42, and Salvy is around 35(!). maybe his HOF path will depend on which site the voters visit.

it also grades him as a good defender, which probably shows some level of imperfection in how defense is measured behind the plate.

Will have to revisit...he does okay with bWAR: ~35 right now, should end up around 45-50.

yeah, i'd be curious what people who saw perez play more frequently have to say about his defense! i only got to see him play a handful of times

fWAR did a big revamp to catching WAR a year or two ago, and i remember that yadi got a huuuuuuuge boost for certain seasons. in particular, his 2012 season suddenly became monstrous and MVP-like because of a boost to his DEF.

i don't think perez fared well in that change to fWAR/catcher value

At the very least, he seems like a guy who'd go in via the VC down the road.

anyway, sorry to drag it into WAR crap - like i mentioned, i do understand and respect that the HoF is about more than all that. and perez has been a lifelong royal, heavy respect for that

That's what I think will give him an edge with the VC (along with the round numbers and the GG/ASG/WS honours): reputation as a team leader, and maybe the one-team career, which I suspect is a positive. The VC has rescued a couple of WAR guys (Ted Simmons and Trammell), but mostly it catches players who fall short on WAR but were thought at one time to be headed for the HOF (McGriff, Hodges, Kaat, Oliva, etc.--long list).

Salvy is far below Posada and slightly below contemporary JT in JAWS. Munson is 11th all time and not in.

I fully expect Munson to be reevaluated when Posey goes in; they are so similar in so many ways.

Except the death and being unpleasant part

Wasn't he the lovable curmudgeon on a high-priced glamour team?

i would say he was an unpleasant redass on a high-priced team of psychos but flags fly forever

Found this old SI piece: "prickly."

https://vault.si.com/vault/1976/09/13/hes-a-dish-only-behind-the-plate

Actually just ordered Dan Epstein's book on Ron Blomberg and Munson a few days ago.

Anyway, outside of personalities (think I posted about this when Posey retired):

Posey - ROY, MVP (1.63 MVP share), 3 WS, 1 GG, 5,607 PA, 44.8 bWAR (5.3/162 games)
Munson - ROY, MVP (1.50 MVP share), 2 WS 3 GG, 5,344 PA, 46.1 bWAR (5.2/162 games)

Posey was the better hitter, for sure.

an unpleasant redass on a high-priced team of psychos

I would watch this miniseries

You're in luck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bronx_Is_Burning.

Well shit! 7.8 on IMDB!

I've seen it. It held my attention (had already read the book), but as I remember it, some laughable performances in there.

Some FB thing, easy to cut and paste:

https://i.postimg.cc/DzPxhCnW/hof.jpg

Obviously they're too cautious re "could retire today"--you could add another five from the "probably" group--and some from their bottom group could be moved up. Don't think I'd put any closer above "there's a chance" at this point.

Not looking fwd to janssen and kimbrel discourse

Also yelich is a hard no way. Hes not there in peak, war total or jaws qnd dont see him moving that needle

Also a PED issue, no?

N ur thinking of braun

I’d put Trea Turner ahead of Clase or Yelich in terms of HoF odds

(xpost) Right...If Yelich were in the middle of a five-season run where he was playing at an AS level, I'd say he's in decent position, but that's not the shape of his career.

i would kinda also think that kimbrel is shooting his own dick off by continuing to play but this line just sucks to look at regardless

Career WAR | 19.4 7yr-peak WAR | 21.4 JAWS | 20.2 R-JAWS | 1.9 WAR/162

Average HOF RP (out of 8):

39.1 career WAR | 26.0 7yr-peak WAR | 32.5 JAWS | 29.7 R-JAWS | 2.5 WAR/162

Kenley is not better.

22.2 career WAR | 16.0 7yr-peak WAR | 19.1 JAWS | 22.7 R-JAWS | 1.7 WAR/162

Average HOF RP (out of 8):

39.1 career WAR | 26.0 7yr-peak WAR | 32.5 JAWS | 29.7 R-JAWS | 2.5 WAR/162

Not looking fwd to janssen and kimbrel discourse

― Its big ball chunky time (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, August 30, 2024 1:29 PM (four hours ago)

I'm going to enlist Dana Bash to grill you on this flagrant flip-flop.

Kimbrel has been a plain bad closer since 2018, one half season with the Cubs notwithstanding. Kenley just doesn't really rise to some level that transcends being a closer, either. their value overall is so much less than, idk, Jason Heyward.

Definitely move to "it's gonna be close": Ramirez, Soto, Alvarez, Lindor. (And if you wanted to argue for "probably," I wouldn't disagree.)

yeah soto just seems like the kind of guy who will be putting up 5-7 WAR seasons for the next 10 years

Tbf, that average hall of fame RP WAR is probably inflated a little because Hoyt and Eck were starters for a while. I’d think if you just took their years as actual relievers, the avg career war would be under 30

Not having a great year, but I realize that one obvious omission from the "Too Early" group is Xander Bogaerts. No fewer than six HOF'ers on his Similarity Score list through age 30, and at 40.5 bWAR, he's ahead of Bregman and Seager and other guys who are younger. Five Silver Sluggers, MVP support in five seasons. He has to turn it around next season, and he's got a ways to go, but he's in just as good a position as some of the players listed there.

Kimbrel has been a plain bad closer since 2018, one half season with the Cubs notwithstanding

:|