hall of fame, next vote...

Easy to look up:

ERA, 1st inning (career): 4.58.
ERA, all other innings (career): 3.34.

You're exactly right.

I can't see Mussina falling off. He just needs 5%--55 or 60 votes. There are surely that many sportswriters, new-stat-leaning guys, who realize how good he was. My guess is that he holds around 10-20% for a few years, starts building, gets in when the logjam clears.

I agree with Earl about luck and timing. Glavine's best year was 1991, when he had an 8.5 WAR; no starter was close, and he won the Cy Young going away. Mussina's best year measured by WAR was 1992, a year later, with 8.2; he finished fourth in Cy Young voting. But even if you cast aside Eckersley, who won that year, and McDowell, who for some reason finished second, there was still Clemens in third, with an 8.8 WAR. I know WAR wasn't even around then...in the context of 1992, Clemens had the same number of wins, more strikeouts, a lower ERA. Mussina just wasn't going to win--bad luck.

obviously 5% of voters would want to vote for him, that isn't the problem. the problem is whether or not those new-stat guys are going to put him in their ten. those stat guys are same ones reserving spots for all the controversial players, either the roiders or the more borderline guys close to running out of time. moose has more of a chance on the ballots of the old guys leaving off bonds/clemens/sosa/mcgwire/bagwell/piazza // raines/trammell/martinez/walker/schilling. and that's still leaving out maddux/thomas/biggio/glavine and, for some fucking reason, jack morris, all of whom will be occupying half the spots on a great number of lists.

mussina isn't a terribly unique case but he seems the best and most likely representative for the type of player who'll fall through the cracks, who definitely wouldn't if there wasn't a name limit.

the concern is valid and raising the issue of being limited to 10 names is worthwhile but i really, really doubt he doesn't get 5% of the vote

impt to make a big deal about it in case any passing stat nerds here have a bbwaa card, DON'T FORGET

real problem is i think at least one deserving guy is gonna get left off, if not him it'll be someone else. honestly kenny lofton should've gotten a fighting chance last year but this year he'd be even more toast.

I think two or three deserving (or at least deserving of consideration) guys fall off the ballot. This could be it for McGwire and Palmeiro -- even the people who voted for them in the past might have to bump them to make room for the no-doubters like Thomas and Maddux. Fred McGriff and Larry Walker are borderline HOFers and deserve to stay on the ballot but they each drew only about 20% last year so this might be it for them too. Even their biggest boosters can't claim they're one of the best ten players on the ballot. Of course some people will vote strategically (e.g. not voting for Maddux because he'll get in anyway) but it's nearly impossible to coordinate that to ensure that anybody gets elected or stays on the ballot another year. Basically it's going to be a huge mess.

walker is actually 9th in both fWAR and bWAR

McGriff was my favourite Blue Jay before Alomar, but after some hedging, I see now he really has no case for the HOF, other than the downward-spiral argument that there are worse players in there.

I'd hate to see Walker drop off, though--he deserves to be in, I think. He's right at, or close to, the average HOF right fielder by a number of measures:

Career WAR = 72.6 (average = 73.3)
7yr-peak WAR = 44.6 (average = 42.9)
JAWS = 58.6 (average = 58.1)
HOF standards = 58 (average = 50)
Black Ink = 24 (average = 27)

He's farther below in Gray Ink, and he's not as far above on the HOF monitor as I thought he'd be (148). All in all, though, he pretty much sits in the exact middle between Babe Ruth and whoever the worst right fielder in there is.

The '97 MVP is worth some close analysis--good arguments for him, Piazza, and Biggio. (Think I would have voted for Piazza, although WAR gives it to Walker.)

I like how he finished up, too. If you combine his last two years for the Cardinals you get:

545 PA
95 runs
79 RBI
26 HR
65 BB
.286/.387/.520

In the non-Bonds universe, pretty solid for 37/38. (He did have a brutal post-season in 2005, after a really good one in 2004.)

walker was a beast, lived watching him. I first noticed him in some game against the cubs when he was w Montreal. Phe gunned someone down trying to go from first to third via the most spectacular throw I've ever seen.

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-the-hall-of-fame-debate-peds/

Between Posnanski and Gammons, this may be getting close to critical mass. There's real impatience there, and I think it matters in terms of the HOF taking action that the exasperation is coming from voters (as opposed to Neyer or someone who doesn't--obviously they deserve a lot of credit for moving the debate along).

‏@philgrogers
I strongly feel only @gregmaddux will be elected. Totals for Morris & others will decline due to overcrowded ballot. System's broken.

Depending on "others," sounds fixed to me.

Oh, wait -- missed the "only" part.

Jay Jaffe's would-be ballot:

On: Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, Martinez, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Thomas

Off, with sincere regrets: Biggio, Schilling, Trammell, Walker

http://mlb.si.com/2013/12/31/jaws-and-the-2014-hall-of-fame-ballot-my-10-very-hard-choices/

Coin flip between Mussina (82.7/123) and Schilling (80.7/127) in terms of career WAR/ERA+, but if forced to choose, I think I'd go with Schilling: more dominant peak and, yes, post-season (where Mussina wasn't bad). Both belong, though.

Haven't read it yet: Posnanski's "Massive Hall of Fame Post."

http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-massive-hall-of-fame-post/#more-1407

The short version: Raines, Biggio, Clemens, Bonds, Glavine, Schilling, Piazza, Bagwell, Thomas, Maddux. So compared to Jaffe, he swaps Mussina for Schilling, Martinez for Biggio.

I would vote Posnanski's list over Jaffe's although the Schilling vs Mussina argument is essentially a toss up I give Schilling the edge because better peak, better post-season even though Schilling is a complete dickhead and Mussina seems like a cool guy.

I'd go with Schilling as well. i'd also pick Martinez over Glavine.

My 10: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Piazza, Schilling, Bagwell, Walker, Biggio, Bonds and Clemens. Last two...I'd want their plaques to indicate that they played at a HOF level for the first decade-plus of their careers, winning three MVPs and three Cy Youngs between them, at which point they began to post freakishly superhuman stats at a point where most players start a natural decline, and that there was a strong likelihood that these numbers were chemically assisted. Something to that effect.

*was a notable asshole

there was a strong likelihood that these numbers were assisted by expansion

... of necks

;p

A little bit, sure. But an .809 slugging percentage between the ages of 36-39? An ERA+ of 146 between the ages of 40-44? Because each league added a team in 1997?

In the interest of fairness, Hoyt Wilhelm had an ERA+ of 169 from 40-44 (his peak, pretty much), and their IP weren't as wildly different as you might think--582 for Wilhelm, 849.2 for Clemens. But the difference between a knuckleballing closer and a power-pitching starter is obvious. Also checked Ryan (121) and Randy Johnson (119) for their 40-44 seasons.

in jaffe's column, how can sosa have a bolded JAWS but a negative margin? doesn't the bold indicate he's above the standard?

also jaffe gives piazza extra credit for being a catcher...something WAR already does

Isn't catcher WAR kinda crazy though? Isn't that the one position that the positional adjustments and defense parts they're kinda "um sure". Also giving someone a little extra credit for being one of the top five players at their position (and the greatest offensive force) seems fair to me.

I think the bolding on Sosa is messed up. His 7 year peak is above standard and should be bolded (it's not). His JAWS below and shouldn't be bolded (it is).

joe p's blurb on mcgwire is pretty persuasive. it makes me sad that sosa won't be a HOFer too -- like every other 9 or 10 year old in 1998, i idolized those two. (and griffey, and jeter...)

I was 13 and I hated all those homos

http://deadspin.com/according-to-exit-polls-these-four-players-will-make-t-1493372772

I just felt a hell of a lot older, k3v and H4A.

i was actually 8 or 9 in 98, depending on the part of the baseball season

Isn't catcher WAR kinda crazy though? Isn't that the one position that the positional adjustments and defense parts they're kinda "um sure". Also giving someone a little extra credit for being one of the top five players at their position (and the greatest offensive force) seems fair to me.

― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:42 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's one thing, but another thing catcher WAR doesn't adjust for is actual career length. well lol of course not, but if everyone's cool with mo's 40 WAR being a surefire HOF case, and hoffman's probably gonna get in at 23, rollie's already in at 23 and hell even billy wagner might have a chance (in a different era) at 23 (apparently the magical number), why can't catcher attrition and lower AB-per-season totals also be handicapped? wrt both WAR and traditional milestones

btw i haven't read the jaffe thing and i have no idea what you're all talking about i'm just VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT CATCHERS GETTING INTO THE HALL OF FAME

i think that's kind of nonsense tbh, catchers who play 120 games a year only provide value for those 120 games! i don't see why there has to be an adjustment for that

should there be an adjustment for pitchers who only pitch 70 innings a year

that's a lot less, proportionally

also 120 is way low as an average for a good catcher who doesn't spend heinous amounts of time on the DL

But it's not just that they only play 130-140 games a year. It's also that they tend to fall apart younger. And like I said above I really do think catcher is the one position where the positional adjustments are kinda wacky. Like for example in 1997 when Larry Walker won MVP over Piazza bWAR thinks he was nearly a ten win player. Piazza and Walker basically have the same oWAR (which also seems a bit nuts because they played virtually the same # of PAs and Coors had a multi-year batting Park Factor of 122! vs 93! for Chavez Ravine). But in 1997 there were SIX catchers who had the minimum qualified # of PAs according to Fangraphs and while some of them had good years it was NOTHING like Mike Piazza's year and in that # of PAs. According to Fangraphs there were 12 dudes who were 2 win catchers in 1997. There were 23 RFers though! I'm sure there is an explanation for this but frankly it strikes me as hard to believe that you would not be able to find replacement for Walker's production at Coors at RF far easier than the same for Piazza's at Chavez.

any decent hitting C in the AL is going to DH a little too.

woa xpost

VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT CATCHERS GETTING INTO THE HALL OF FAME

otm

should there be an adjustment for pitchers who only pitch 70 innings a year

that's a lot less, proportionally

― my whole family is catholic so look at the pickle i'm in (zachlyon), Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no? this is my point

This is kind of a does Ray Guy belong in the NFL hall thing.

which ray guy of course does

Totally. That said most relievers IMO don't.

i generally try to avoid hof discussions because people are such assholes about something that should be celebratory. but man, murray chass is really plumbing new depths of awfulness

wow mo is a 40-win player by fWAR and a 57-win player by rWAR

Yeah it's kind of odd because FIP seems like it should really love Rivera (good SO rate, ridiculously low # of homers, low # of walks) but fWAR is very cruel to him.

yeah idgi

If those Think Factory numbers hold, I would think Mussina would be in good position for the future with 35%. Morris is going to drop off; Bonds and Clemens just aren't going in unless there's a complete reversal on PEDs in the near future; Raines, deserving as he may be, looks destined for the Veteran's Committee. I know that more sure-things are coming onto the ballot the next five years, but I still think both he and Schilling will climb slowly until they hit just the right year.