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.

This is a really interesting crop of first ballot players. Obviously Ichiro is a no-brainer, but at least half of them had legitimate 4-5 year HOF peaks. Pedroia would have cleared the bar easily if he hadn't gotten injured. CC wasn't an elite pitcher after his age 31 season and was a compiler after that, but a lot of people argue for Andy Pettitte and he was far, far better than Pettitte with similar career numbers. Felix was unquestionably a HOFer in his 20's and then fell off a cliff, but so did Andruw Jones and he's probably going to get in soon.

he was far, far better than Pettitte with similar career numbers

Far better at his peak, that is.

Ian Kinsler is a guy who might not deserve to make the Hall of Fame but when you look at his career, playing 14 seasons and putting up 4.6 bWAR per 162 games is pretty impressive.

Pedroia was even better obv, i’m a bit more pro when it comes to his case, he had a great career that was cut short by injury, I think one could argue he belongs in based on what he accomplished, kind of like Kirby Puckett.

Sabathia is a weird case, I don’t actually think he’s that much better than Andy Pettitte, I think they both wind up in the realm of guys who had very good careers with several Hall-worthy seasons apiece.

in within first few years: Ichiro Suzuki, CC Sabathia

catchers who will have to wait a while: Russell Martin, Brian McCann

hall of famers who were destroyed by injuries in their 30s: Felix Hernández, Hanley Ramirez, Troy Tulowitzki

King Felix might make it anyway

for the catchers a lot depends on what you think about catching stats and "value" and all that shit

God help me RM seemed HOF worthy to me at the time whereas McCann the Tiger did not

Closer look, and Felix is a no. Great peak, right on track till he's 30, but that's basically it.

― clemenza, Monday, November 18, 2024 2:03 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

consider that he threw a PG on my birthday and i was having a shitty day working late but my friend warned me and i got to watch the last couple innings on my second screen. work this into your HOF analysis please

I’m sure all these guys will get in via some eras committee down the road

(xpost) Have added a WMA to my rigid HOF screening process.

Tracker up and running with six votes:

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=F2E5D8FC5199DFAF%2169204&authkey=!ACe58mCXDocB0Ls

We can maybe infer that CC's going in (6/6), Felix isn't (0/6), and Andruw might (3/6).

Pedroia is like so many good second basemen where their career falls off a cliff at age 32-33.

Pedroia is like so many good second basemen where their career falls off a cliff at age 32-33.

Injuries? That's what I remember.

Also: Wagner at 5 and Beltran at 3

Relevant to the HOF...Posnanski has a long thing up today on "fine starts"--Game Score of 58+; obviously needs a better name--as a replacement for wins. He starts from the fact that Tommy John had 288 wins and 288 fine starts. A couple of lists.

Leaders, post-deadball:

1. Nolan Ryan, 452
2. Roger Clemens, 410
3. Don Sutton, 389
4. Steve Carlton, 385
5. Gaylord Perry, 381
6. Tom Seaver, 379
7. Greg Maddux, 377
8. Warren Spahn, 368
9. Phil Niekro, 354
10. Randy Johnson, 353

Where it really helps is with starters this century. Active and recently retired leaders:

1. Clayton Kershaw, 277
2. Max Scherzer, 273
3. Zack Greinke, 265
4. CC Sabathia, 240
5. King Félix Hernández, 216
6. Gerrit Cole, 190
7. Chris Sale, 184
8. Jacob deGrom, 155

Highest Career Fine-Start Percentage (minimum 200 starts)

1. Jacob deGrom, 71.1%
2. Clayton Kershaw, 64.6%
3. Chris Sale, 63.0%
4. Pedro Martinez, 61.9%
5. Sandy Koufax, 61.8%

Mark Buehrle remains a kind of interesting case especially if we're lining him up next to CC, who has 37 more wins but played for longer.

162 game average on BBR --

Buehrle is at 14-11, 4.0 bWAR, 221 IP, 126 K (3.81 career ERA)

CC is 15-10, 3.7 bWAR, 217 IP, 188 K. (3.74 career ERA)

both average out at 2 CG and 1 SHO.

fangraphs does give more of an edge to CC in terms of WAR, but it's interesting anyway.

Andy Pettitte is probably a better comp to Buehrle than CC, but interesting how close they all are in some ways. and all better than Jack Morris obv.

I think Morris would be a useful test case for the fine-starts concept; I bet he comes in lower than his win total for his career. (Started to count them myself, but didn't get past 1978--incomplete Game Score information back then, too lazy to start doing that myself.)

CC and Ichiro were both at 100% for a dozen ballots, but now CC is 12/13. Bruce Jenkins voted for Ichiro, Vizquel, Manny, and A-Rod.

it's cobra time

Wow--surprised they'd go for Parker over Tiant. But I get it; they've made that mistake time and again, passing over a player who's still alive.

Jesus, Tiant didn't even get five votes.

Long Soto post yesterday from Posnanski yesterday, long HOF post today. The HOF post is all over the place, of course: "I'm happy, but..." Happy for Parker, but Dwight Evans. Happy for Allen, but he's gone. Etc. And he think it's time to remove Tiant permanently--not because he's not deserving, Posnanski's a big advocate, but because he's been on ballots 20 times now and never drawn any support, and at a certain point, enough.

Yesterday--did I make that clear? (Posting while with a difficult grade 5 class.)

Jay Jaffe writes that Russell Martin's pitch framing was worth > 20 wins during his career, making him a clear HOFer:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/jaws-and-the-2025-hall-of-fame-ballot-russell-martin/

I am definitely open to these new metrics for evaluating catchers.

I'm always open to new stats, but in that specific case, I have a hard time seeing Martin as a HOF'er. (Haven't read the piece yet.) I just don't think he hit enough. Baseball's 50% offense, and the other 50%, the run prevention part, I don't know--30-35% pitching, 15-20% defense? I'm sure Martin is as much or more of a HOF'er as Bill Mazeroski, but I don't think Mazeroski should be in the HOF either.

agreed. i don't doubt his pitch framing was very good, but was he "famous" for it? no one went to a game to see the guy frame pitches, and outside of analysts and stat-heads, i don't think his skills were really all that revered. maybe if he was a borderline case, i could see that pushing him over; but as you said, his bat just wasn't good enough to get him close.

the argument for him might be strengthened if you compare him to Yadier Molina, he was a better hitter than him and maybe the pitch-framing brings him closer to him behind the plate. fwiw BBR has Martin at 38.9 career WAR/3.7 per 162, Yady at 42.1/3.1 per 162. On Fangraphs they're basically equal in WAR, 54.5 and 55.6 respectively, but Martin played in 533 fewer games and a couple thousand fewer plate appearances. however I'm also agnostic on Yady, who seems like a guy who is more a vibes HOFer than an actual HOFer.

If we’re talking vibes i always thought martin was cool. Yadi was cool too (admitted under protest) but martin’s whole thing for me was “this is an elite athlete! A catcher who dicks around at shortstop for kicks,” whereas yadi was more of a bulldog. They do different things. Im a big hall guy tho so

Baseball's 50% offense, and the other 50%, the run prevention part, I don't know--30-35% pitching, 15-20% defense?

Yes, that's baseball as a whole. But if we look at individual positions? For a non-premium defensive position such as 1B, it's probably 95% hitting, 5% defense. It's always great if someone can add more on defense, but realistically that's what you're looking for from a first baseman.

But a catcher? Maybe it's 40% hitting, 30% defense, 30% in-game management (incl. pitch calling, directing the defense, controlling the running game, pitch framing, probably 50 other things ...). You could argue for a different breakdown, but the point is that for everything besides hitting, we don't really know how to evaluate catchers.

For instance, check this post and link from five years ago on this thread about Yadi.

I don't have a good feel for catchers who are on the fence. Bench and Piazza and I-Rod are easy. Martin and Molina for me are like Jim Sundberg, who I have a hard time thinking of as a HOF'er. But they're all bunched together on the bWAR catcher list. Which doesn't factor in pitch framing, I take it. If Salvador Perez can have two or three more seasons like his 2024, I like him better--but he doesn't do especially well with WAR.

Weirdly enough, Martin's most famous defensive moment was the throw back to the mound that almost cost the Jays the bat-flip game. (Nothing I'd factor in, obviously, just a strange footnote.)

big thing in my mind with Martin vs Molina, is the World Series(s) and the fact Molina was on one team his entire career. not that being on one team making a difference in talent - but it def helps his "fame-yness" factor a lot when he was the constant over 19 years, 13 playoff runs, 4 world series and 2 rings.

also career playoff slash line...
Molina: 104 G, .273/.326/.357/.682
Martin: 54 G, .191/.306/.327/.633 and hitting a bat with a throwback that lead to one of the wildest chain of events i've ever seen in the playoffs

Jaffe makes the case that Martin was valuable because he moved around and his teams won when he arrived. The Pirates and Jays broke 20-year playoff droughts when he signed with them.

Baseball's 50% offense, and the other 50%, the run prevention part, I don't know--30-35% pitching, 15-20% defense?

don’t agree with this framing (no pun intended). baseball is 100% scoring more runs than the other team. that said I just don’t know if I trust the framing numbers

I think the basic 50/50 split is rock solid: 50% scoring runs, 50% preventing runs. That's how you score more runs than the other team.

Sabathia looks pretty certain now, I'm cool with it.

it's kind of a joke how well Vizquel and Rollins are doing vs Pedroia, Abreu, Kinsler...I'm still not saying Kinsler was a HOFer but he was probably several more peak seasons away from being a Lou Whitaker-type case. The more I think about Pedroia the more I kinda think he belongs, maybe less in a Puckett way like I said previously but more in a Posey way. Abreu seems like a guy who will stick around the full ten years and maybe get some Vet committee love down the road.

Meaningless, but I'm interested in whether or not Ichiro is unanimous. Strategic voting during the logjam a decade ago isn't a credible explanation anymore for not voting for someone.

perspectives of yore:

https://sabr.org/journal/article/is-pitching-75-of-baseball-expert-opinions/

This article was written by James K. Skipper Jr.

This article was published in 1980 Baseball Research Journal

weird to note that Pettitte and Buehrle have picked up 4 and 3 votes apiece at this point in the voting (just under 10% of the ballots are in the tracker.) I'm guessing it might have a bit to do with voters taking a look at them lined up next to Sabathia and thinking they weren't so far off in a lot of respects.

Utley has picked up 2 votes but lost 3, which is weird.

About 1/8 of the way through:

https://www.bbhoftracker.com/

There sure are some good players in that zero-votes group.

https://i.imgur.com/5CxPZAn.jpeg

(it is a real shame we had so many seasons of wildly-overpaid-albert-in-decline because he was a fucking beast)

Interesting: Beltran has picked up 12 votes, only lost one, and sits at 78.5% right now.

King Felix looks like he’s not just going to be returning to the ballot, but he’s received a pretty healthy amount of support. Pedroia is looking safe too.

Utley gaining 9 votes but also losing 5 is weird. Whatever the case I think he’ll eventually get voted in because that peak is pretty undeniable.

Just shy of 25%; could have five guys go in, but Beltran and Jones are pretty iffy.

https://www.bbhoftracker.com/

Glad Torii Hunter finally got a vote--50 WAR, 350 HR, 9 GG. I know he didn't deserve them all, but I wonder how many, say, 300 HR/5 GG-players there are?