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.

oh god i’m sorry, i goofed.

jay jaffe’s the JAWS guy - i enjoy reading him!

i’m terribly sorry that i was thinking of jayson stark

I agree with mookie's point about the post-BBWAA process being influenced by cronyism and impossible to decipher, high-school clique-like political alliances. Why does Whitaker keep getting snubbed? I can only assume that he doesn't have the "right" friends, whereas someone like Harold Baines did.

However, righting some of the wrongs of past BBWAA elections is better than righting none of them. The selection/election process is flawed, but most of these players do deserve a closer look.

I have never really understood why the standards and arguments are completely different in other HOF's. Take someone like Jack Morris, I don't know who his NFL equivalent is, but whoever it is would be a slam dunk football HOFer. He was a "winner", was a star on three championship teams, he was a "gamer" with a good work ethic who always wanted the ball, was respected everywhere he played, and had a longer career than most of his contemporaries. There would be no disagreement.

i find the whole process capricious and hateful in the way it implicitly shits on great players who didn't quite make it

I'm sure it does feel like a slight (but short of an insult, I would think) to a lot of players who fall just short. As a fan, I know I've never, not even once, adjusted my view of a player based on HOF status. I don't elevate players who get in, and I don't downgrade anyone who doesn't--my views on near-misses such as Dave Stieb, or John Olerud, or Thurman Munson are the same as they ever were (and won't change should they one day get in). I agree that the near-misses tend to fade from the conversation over time.

It's like the Academy Awards. Most of my favourite films were never even nominated, much less won one, and I couldn't care less. When one does win something, I enjoy that without attaching any significance whatsoever.

Jack Morris is probably the equivalent of a running back who sticks around forever and never gets injured and averages 3.4 yards per carry.

i always thought Rich Gannon was the Dave Stewart of the NFL.

The official 2026 Hall of Fame ballot with 12 new candidates: Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltrán, Ryan Braun, Mark Buehrle, Shin-Soo Choo, Edwin Encarnación, Gio González, Alex Gordon, Cole Hamels, Félix Hernández, Torii Hunter, Andruw Jones, Matt Kemp, Howie Kendrick, Nick Markakis, … Daniel Murphy, Dustin Pedroia, Hunter Pence, Andy Pettitte, Rick Porcello, Manny Ramírez, Álex Rodríguez, Francisco Rodríguez, Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley, Omar Vizquel, David Wright.

I copied the above from Boob Nightengale so if anything is wrong above it’s his fault

Noted GREEK IN BASEBALL klaxon for clemenza with Markakis on the ballot.

Nick Markakis isn’t a HOFer but “Nick Markakis takes strike one” is a HOFer.

nick markakis is one of those surprising counting stat guys (2388 hits!)

if david wright could have had just oooooone more good year before injuries wiped out his career, he might have made it

(xposts) Thanks--he was actually my dad's (Greek) best friend's (non-Greek) player, or at least his favourite player on his favourite team, the Orioles...With A-Rod and Manny (presumably) still in purgatory, I guess the three to watch are Beltran, Utley, and Andruw. The hightest WAR debut is Hamels, and I can't see him ever getting in, fine pitcher though he was. Utley's obstacle is peak vs. career, Andruw's is the slower acceptance of defensive stats. vs. offensive stats. I'd say both those are moving in their direction and that they will get in--although Andruw only has this year and next. I think Beltran will go in this year.

Left out the first "favourite" there.

The tracker is up and running (two votes in): https://www.bbhoftracker.com/

VC inductees are announced tonight. Posnanski--based on conversations he's had, I interpreted him to mean--says Kent is the most likely and Delgado (my non-PED pick) an extreme longshot.

Right he was--Kent. Not sure how that will be received.

If nothing else, the outcry over Whitaker not being in will grown exponentially louder and almost guarantee he goes in the next time his committee meets, and may help Utley, too. (Mind you, I thought McGriff's induction would guarantee Delgado went in next time too.)

xp reaction I’ve seen is anger at Kent not Bonds but that’s a limited sample of younger people on bluesky

That's primarily who I was thinking about, Bonds. He'll be gracious, I expect, but how he really feels is another matter.

Kent is basically a similar case to Ortiz, so not a *bad* pick as much as a guy who shouldn't have necessarily been enshrined before others who still await the call.

I saw one writer predicting Valenzuela would get the call, which would be a pretty terrible choice. even among '80s lefties he's just very midrange.

That's it--in a vaccuum, there is a decent old-school argument for him. It's the looming omission of Whitaker (just limiting it to second base) that makes things awkward.

Heartened to read that Delgado finished second, with 9/16 votes. Another case where the argument is more old-school, but I do think he should be in.

No surprise: all three PED guys under 5 votes.

i wasn't aware of the new rule that if a committee pick gets fewer than five votes twice, they're out of luck.

I don't even know what they're voting on anymore. The old veterans committee was scrapped because it was all cronyism and led to the election of too many undeserving and borderline candidates. How is this any better? Noted asshole Jeff Kent is in, but noted asshole Barry Bonds can't even get close, Harold Baines gets elected as a favour to Reinsdorf, Mattingly and Murphy get their cases heard for the 50th time while Lou Whitaker never gets on the ballot. It's all a bunch of political BS now.

You were a little more stoic upthread...Is it any worse than the Rock and Roll HOF, the Academy Awards, the Nobel prizes, or anything else where people subjectively vote? The VC is a mess, but I think the writers have been really good, and getting better, the last decade-plus. Whitaker will get in.

The writers are way better now than even 10-15 years ago. I can't think of a single bad selection during that time frame.

It's the VC vote that's become an embarrassment, and what's more, it detracts from the prestige of the BBWAA vote. Most of them take the vote really seriously and a player gets his case "heard" by hundreds of writers x 10 years on the ballot = thousands of times.

Then the VC or whatever they're called overrides the whole process, in a single vote by a handful of people. And the players on the ballot are seemingly chosen at random. Seriously, why does Mattingly get so many chances and twenty other notable players from the same era never make the ballot? If you hang around baseball for long enough then they'll elect you out of ... pity? Excess familiarity?

Don't disagree with any of that. The VC could be really useful if they focussed on the Whitakers and Loftons and Stiebs who were overlooked by writers 20 and 30 years ago. (And sometimes they do fulfill that function, like with Trammell.) But they don't. As Posnanski I think correctly pointed out today, they mostly focus on one or two big bulk statistics: Harold Baines's hits and RBIs, Kent's most-HR-by-a-second-baseman, Lee Smith's saves, etc.

i wish the vets would vote in someone that just did cool under the radar stuff, like all those stories about people setting each other's shoestrings on fire in the 60s and stuff - if they refuse to understand anything more than counting stats they should elect the guy who leads in that category

they should all establish a hall of guys who used peds but were also better than everyone else

elect pre-mid-90s bonds to the normal hall of fame, post-mid-90s bonds to the ped hall of fame

The VC should be transformed into something like a Second-Look Committee, comprised of a dozen of the best writers/historians (with no affiliation with MLB) who--I believe--fall halfway between new-school and old-school. So they need to know about analytics, but at the same time understand the more sentimental arguments for someone like Dave Parker. My ideal SLC voter would be--yes--Posnanski.

Not just know about analytics, that's not strong enough; understand them and respect them.

Not that I don't like the multiple HOFs idea--a PED HOF, a hotfoot HOF, a greenie HOF, etc.

The only difference between the PED HOF and the “real” HOF is the guys in the latter who were either never caught or skated away without repercussions 😎

You're thinking of one or more of the following, I assume: Piazza, Bagwell, Ortiz, I-Rod?

Another thing that should be resolved, if there is indeed an answer: who is the HOF for? I think James quoted Robin Yount on that question in his HOF book (unless he was quoting Yount on the ASG). Is it for the players, or the fans, or "the game" (whatever that might mean)...some combination is the obvious answer. If it's mostly for the fans, they should poll fans on the PED/HOF issue. My guess, based on the social media din that continues to this day, is that they run about 50/50. What to do you do then?

Offer each side an option to kill both candidates and see who chooses to spare both

Very Shirley Jackson.

XPs Ortiz and Piazza yeah

is it juicing if bryce harper has his blood replaced with juicer blood?!

The VC could be really useful if they focussed on the Whitakers and Loftons and Stiebs who were overlooked by writers 20 and 30 years ago. (And sometimes they do fulfill that function, like with Trammell.)

Trammell's case was weird in that the BBWAA was dead set on keeping him out (he peaked at 41 percent in his last year), his case never built any momentum over 15 years on the ballot, and then the VC just went "f this" and voted him in by a landslide two years later. And then all the people who were against his induction for all those years (literally 75-80% of the writers) all seemed cool with it!

There are so many 70's and 80's hitters who had 4-5 dominant years and a bunch of OK ones (Murphy, Mattingly, Parker, Rice) ... and are/were constantly in and out of HOF discussions. But their pitching equivalents are the likes of Stieb, Saberhagen, Hershiser, Gooden who also won the awards and the WS titles (except for Stieb :( ) and they can't get close to a ballot. We're seeing a similar generation of guys now -- Kluber, Santana, Felix, Price, and probably deGrom when he retires. Santana is already one and done.

Just wanted to get that out there. Essentially we agree -- there is so much more they could be doing, and they don't.

As a pretty casual fan whose years of peak interest encompassed Santana’s peak, his being one and done shocked me

The arbitrary nepotism on the VC is a big problem; your prospects rise and fall according to how many personal relationships you have with the committee that particular year.

maybe the VC would work better if they could elect players to return to the ballot and the writers can vote on the Kents and Loftons etc along with the regular ballot players.

Good idea

That would be good, yes--then tighten the window for any player on his second go-around (maybe in increments: you must clear 25% your first year, 50% your second, then you get a third year to hit 75% or that's it, permanently).

i also assume btw that with this current trend of enshrining pretty good players, that there are a lot of current guys we're not even thinking about for the HOF who will get in, or at least get a lot closer than we imagine.

Matt Chapman and Marcus Semien would seem to be that kind of guy.

Abreau might have a chance when the VC gets to him. Tho he isn’t the type of player the vc seems to fawn over

3B is a perennially underrated position when it comes to the HOF, even the really good ones from this era (Beltre, Rolen) weren't viewed as serious HOF contenders until they were well into their thirties.

Abreu never finished higher than 12th in MVP voting, he's not the kind of player that people get excited about. He's kind of like Johnny Damon -- good OBP guy, good base stealer, decent power, definitely someone you need on a championship level team but not really a big star. And I don't see anyone making a case for Damon any time soon.

I missed this, but Posnanski must have written he was going to compile a list of 50 guys who should be in the Hall ahead of Kent. I can see that...also wonder if you could come up with a list of 50 guys who were already in there and worse than him. The first list would probably be easier, but I think you'd have enough for the second. Kent must be close to the median.