hall of fame, next vote...

Just a gut feeling--he'll get a pass on the PED issue (enough of one, anyway), and Edgar paved the way for first-ballot.

yeah he’s in first ballot I think. certainly within 2-3 years

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=F2E5D8FC5199DFAF!39939&ithint=file,xlsx&authkey=!AK9u16pmWGGlQsI

First ballot in--defiantly pro-PED/MAGA.

The rest of my life is going to be annoying

welcome to middle age

Not great so far!

these early voters are some real sickos

To vote for Clemens but not Bonds... I don't get it

This one's something else:

https://www.delcotimes.com/2021/11/28/mccaffery-jimmy-rollins-ryan-howard-passed-hall-of-fame-eye-test/

true sicko

this is one of the most hilarious pieces of baseball writing i've ever read

So writers it must be, for they are relied upon for their eyes, their guts, their contacts, their experiences, their objectivity. And ultimately, they get it right, even if it sometimes takes a while. Even the system itself has enough firewalls to ensure Derek Jeter makes it to Cooperstown, even if some rogue voter chooses not to include him on a ballot.

It is under that system, then, that Jimmy Rollins and Ryan Howard are each one checked-ballot closer to Cooperstown than they were on Thanksgiving Eve. Though neither is projected to be named on the 75 percent of completed ballots necessary for induction, Cooperstown would be emptier without their presence.

They were cut-above superstars for a NL East dynasty, ultimate professionals, big-game performers, steroid-free competitors who not only generated statistics as alluring as many already in the Hall of Fame, but never brazenly broke a rule. In the case of Howard, he belonged in the Hall of Fame alone for running out a ground ball to end a playoff series with one of his Achilles tendons dragging six feet behind.

Those first two votes, then, were simple: Rollins? Check. Howard? Check.

listen, everyone. i'm the expert here. and since i am the expert, you can rely on me for my guts, as well as my objectivity. i've got it all. and that's why ryan howard is a hall of famer. next

My memory's awful--who's the guy who continued to pitch in a playoff game this year after hurting himself badly? He has to go in too under the Ryan Howard rule.

Jimmy Rollins would be a poor choice, though not a completely indefensible one viewed in a vacuum (i.e., ignoring all the better players who aren't in there).

i remember thinking of jimmy rollins as a great shortstop, not quite a hall of fame one. but the ryan howard pick is just hilarious. that was one of the worst contracts in baseball, until he retired. from 2010-2016, he was worth a total of 0.8 fWAR, with negative numbers in 4 of those 7 seasons. and even his early glory days were marred by his piss poor defense. it's a vote that makes no sense unless you declare your gut to be correct and then go with your rong gut

to be fair, ryan howard does have 200+ more homers than buster posey ;)

"NL East dynasty"

Die nasty.

that article makes me pine for a point-by-point Fire Joe Morgan takedown. Get back to your roots, Michael Schur!

i know i already quoted this above, but this is outstanding

So writers it must be, for they are relied upon for their eyes, their guts, their contacts, their experiences, their objectivity. And ultimately, they get it right, even if it sometimes takes a while. Even the system itself has enough firewalls to ensure Derek Jeter makes it to Cooperstown, even if some rogue voter chooses not to include him on a ballot.

ah yes, the burden of the writer! the burden of having to come up with the perfect example to illustrate a writer's point. ultimately, writers get it right. like, say, derek jeter, first ballot hall of famer, the exact opposite of what the writer was talking about in the previous sentences

i feel dumber for having read that piece.

i have to respect it. half of being a modern sports columnist is homerism and the other half is trolling, and i can’t imagine the last time the delaware county times got this many hits on a story

too many multiple-sentence paragraphs tho

jon heyman votes: bonds, andruw, jeff kent, rolen, schilling

clown ballot, bro

Same nonsensical disconnect as that other guy, but in reverse: Bonds but no Clemens.

The Veterans Committee voted today: Minnie Miñoso, Buck O'Neill, Gil Hodges, Jim Kaat, Tony Oliva, and Bud Fowler are all going in.

https://www.mlb.com/news/2021-hall-of-fame-committee-election-results

Hodges seems pretty iffy to me: his WS win as a manager was his one successful season out of nine, and his 10 closest player comps via Similarity Score do not include another HOF'er. He was one of Roger Khan's boys of summer, though, and I guess that finally got him in. Oliva was great for eight years; Kaat was the opposite, good for 40, or however many he played.

Dick Allen fell a vote short.

Two years now. I called Dick missing again because he had the best case out of all of them for the Hall (maybe O’Neil) - so of course the lunatics in the vets committee would fuck it up.

O’Neill had by far the best case imo, but yeah Dick Allen was robbed

O’Neill had by far the best case imo, but yeah Dick Allen was robbed

If you compare Allen to Hodges, it's not really close. Both played first base (Allen played 3rd early on):

Hodges: .273/.359/.487, 120 OPS+, 43.9 bWAR
Allen: .292/.378/.534, 156 OPS+, 58.7 bWAR

Give Hodges credit for managing the '69 Mets. People used to knock Allen as a clubhouse problem, but that's really gotten a second look over the years--there seem to be very few holdouts on that point now (James unfortunately one of them).

Still not close.

Oliva and Kaat are borderline too, but they are alive, so that's nice.

Minoso absolutely deserving and I’m relieved he finally made it.

Lost in all of the hubbub over who was/wasn't elected is this:

The Rule of 2,000 has been broken, as Tony Oliva had "only" 1,917 hits, making him the first candidate whose career took place during the post-1960 expansion era with <2000 to be elected by either BBWAA or committee.

— Jay Jaffe (@jay_jaffe) December 6, 2021

That benchmark will be obliterated when Posey comes up for induction.

The Hall of Guys That Were Decent Enough I Guess.

secretly, jay jaffe is like "hahaha, now i can amend all my annual pieces on all of the hall of fame candidates to discuss the role of the recently obliterated Rule of 2000, ahahaha"

Hodges was inevitable, I guess. He was like Anthony Rizzo, a key offensive player on a very famous team that won an all-time memorable championship. If you're a Big Hall person then he's a perfectly reasonable pick, even if there are others more deserving (like Dick Allen, whose time will come).

I think the real lesson of the Oliva and Minoso elections is that voters are finally giving more weight to peak value than career value, and it's about time. From the 70's until about ten years ago basically any player without 300 wins or 3000 hits could be in for a long wait. I'd rather have a Hall of Short Term Superstars than a Hall of Very Good for a Long Time. The HOF can be both (and in fact is) but if I had to choose, that's what I'd prefer.

I lean that way too (with something like Jay Jaffe's 7-year window for peak as a floor; I wouldn't want to induct Josh Hamilton).

I don't know how much I'd read into Veteran Committee inductees, though. They inducted Baines two years ago--about as un-peak a selection as you can get--and this year Kaat, also much more a career value pick. I think the VC picks have more to do with who's on the panel, and lifelong affiliations. Carew and Schmidt, both teammates of Kaat, were two of the 16 voters this year; there may be other connections I'm not aware of.

The writers may be moving in a peak direction, but I think they still lean towards career. The fate of Andruw Jones might be instructive one way or the other.

Didn't know Buck O'Neil and Joe Carter had some history:

https://www.mlb.com/news/joe-carter-lee-smith-discuss-buck-o-neil-hall-of-fame-election

It's true that the Veterans Committee makes iffy career value picks as well, but that doesn't affect the notion that (as Jaffe noted, and I think he's correct) the door is slowly opening for more peak value candidates.

Posnanski's Top 10 not in the Hall:

No. 1: Curt Flood
No. 2: John Donaldson
Nos. 3 and 4: Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens
No. 5: Dick Allen
No. 6: Lou Whitaker
No. 7: Scott Rolen
No. 8: Dwight Evans
No. 9: Dale Murphy
No. 10: Tommy John

someone is going to have to explain the case for John Donaldson for me (i don't disagree, just a blind-spot in my baseball knowledge).

Same with me, sorry to say. (He's got a name that was tailor-made for a backup catcher with good defense and a .230 batting average, but I know he wasn't that.)

Joe's entry is reasonably short.

No. 2: John Donaldson

Sunday’s Hall of Fame announcement was so joyful, such a bounty of good news, that it’s too easy to overlook the disappointments. John Donaldson so obviously belongs in the Hall of Fame. He should have been elected many, many years ago. It has taken the extraordinary efforts of a man named Peter Gorton and many Donaldson Network volunteers to catalog Donaldson’s overwhelming achievements in Black baseball, starting a decade before Jackie Robinson was even born.

The Donaldson Network has verified that as Donaldson barnstormed around America in those years before and after the Negro leagues were founded, he won more than 400 games, struck out more than 5,000 batters and threw many, many no-hitters. They uncovered dozens of stories that referred to him as “the greatest pitcher in the world.” They highlighted a quote from J.L. Wilkinson, the white owner of the Kansas City Monarchs who probably saw Satchel Paige pitch as much or more than anyone: “Paige is a great a pitcher all right … but Donaldson had more stuff.”

Buck O’Neil used to say that Donaldson was the pitcher who showed Paige what was possible.

Donaldson received eight out 16 votes on Sunday … and I feel confident that when his name comes up again on the ballot, he will get elected. The thing is, the Early Era Committee is not scheduled to meet again for another 10 years.

I was thinking about Dwight Evans, who was the atypical player who peaked late: his best years were from age 29 to 35 or 36. Does a late peak help or hurt? I can see an argument on either side. It hurts because by the time you peak, a lot of sportswriters have probably decided you aren't a HOF'er (the opposite transpired with Jim Rice). But it could conceivably help, too, in that your best seasons are still relatively fresh in voters' minds.

Ya, I’d think a hot start to a career would be the most helpful. You’re a “superstar” much longer than someone who peaked later (as far as establishing a narrative is concerned).

Bonds and Clemens, both in their final year on the ballot, are at just over 80% right now. I know that means nothing--only 27 ballots, and they always start strong.

I was thinking that MLB might actually be hoping they get in this year. With absolutely nothing to keep baseball a topic of conversation over the winter, the amount of publicity attached to Bonds and Clemens getting elected would be a gift.

Nightmare scenario, especially for the BBWAA: Clemens elected, Bonds falls short. There'd be a lot of 'splaining to do there.

hoooooly shit that would be a shitstorm

the individual writers who vote for one but not the other usually have some specious story about how He Was Hall-Worthy Before I Think He *Really* Got Into Steroids