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.

Verlander's there, Greinke and Kershaw are about to be, Scherzer's close to a sure bet, Sale has a good shot, and Hamels, deGrom, Strasburg, Cole, Nola, and who knows who else are making realistic progress.

Hamels seems like at best an extreme long shot and at worst a no-brainer to be outside the HOF. His WAR is good but I don’t think any voters are gonna be inspired to look closely at him, barring a late career renaissance. He’s kinda the Ian Kinsler of hurlers.

Despite my comments CC is one of those guys who could get in and I’d be totally okay with it, he was obviously great for a period of time and while not up there with some of these guys it’s not like he’s Jack Morris. A compiler in a lot of ways but ultimately, whatever. Definitely Pettitte-like for his career but yeah, better.

What I mean by on the fence--if he gets, I'm fine with that. Honestly, I can't even get worked up about Harold Baines' induction. As I've said before, I simultaneously a) find HOF arguments extremely interesting and b) just don't care.

In relation to CC, though, I wouldn't be so quick to discount Hamels. Except for wins (huge advantage CC) and IP (ditto), Hamels has him beat in some key categories: WHIP, K/BB, ERA, ERA+, and FIP. He's just barely behind in bWAR (62.5-58.7), and--the key difference--Hamels is still pitching pretty well. Hamels is a free agent, so I don't know where (or if) he'll land, but he pitched 140 effective innings last year at age 35. His peak (2010-2014) is, as Karl Malone might say, a little less peaky than CC (27.2 bWAR, 5.4 per season), but for his career, he's been more consistent than CC.

Jaffe's assessment of CC sounds right: "...while he’s a bit short in the JAWS department, his milestones and the esteem with which he’s held will probably win the day."

http://blogs.fangraphs.com/cc-sabathias-storied-career-reaches-a-rough-ending/

Per Fangraphs, he’s as good as Glavine.

fp for bumping during a championship game

.... and not mentioning Altuve.

The Hall of Fame’s 2020 Modern Baseball Era ballot features Dwight Evans, Steve Garvey, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Marvin Miller, Thurman Munson, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Ted Simmons and Lou Whitaker. Results to be announced Dec. 8 on @MLBNetwork #HOF2020 https://t.co/xlF1wuPg15 pic.twitter.com/jCrDFWqyMP

— National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum ⚾ (@baseballhall) November 4, 2019

some of the nominees deserve it by any standard (miller, whitaker, a couple borderline cases), and almost all deserve it by the harold baines standard

So happy that Anthony the cop from states island finally gets to celebrate Donnie baseball’s HOF entry

Baseball Reference career WAR:

Marvin Miller- Literally BILLIONS $$$ in the players pocket.
Lou Whitaker 75.1
Dwight Evans 67.1
Tommy John 61.5
Ted Simmons 50.1
Dale Murphy 46.5
Thurman Munson 46.1
Don Mattingly 42.5
Dave Parker 40.1
Steve Garvey 38.1

If you think star power especially in the 70s and 80s, you would probably flip that list.

Bobby Grich 71.1
Bobby Bonds 57.9
Chet Lemon 55.6

Chris Speier is a player who I remember as a longtime coach and remember his baseball cards, but he was a better player than I thought. He was pretty awesome when he first game up, check out his 1972-74. I guess I was thinking he was a hitter like other longtime Giant shortstop Johnny LeMaster, who definitely was a good with the glove not the bat.

That's a good ballot in that three of the players have had very vocal support from saber-leaning advocates (Whitaker, Evans, and Simmons), John and Murphy have had longtime, more traditional support, and Munson does well analytically for a short career (5.1 WAR per 650 PA on Baseball Reference). Garvey, Parker, and Mattingly are the more old-school, black-ink/RBI kind of players who don't do especially well analytically, but Parker and Mattingly had great, meteoric peaks, and Garvey...was consistent through the '70s.

Obviously Miller should have been inducted long ago.

It’s pretty interesting as a baseball fan to see how the ‘80s stars have fared. When I was a kid, Murphy and Mattingly, Parker and Garvey were to an extent legends at that point, and Dwight Evans was this consistently great hitter and had that cannon arm. And none of them got close to getting in. I think there’s sort of a bit of backlash not against the analytics movement but in terms of how many of those guys were overlooked. You probably saw that with Baines and Smith getting in and if they got in, no way most if not all of the above guys do as well. I’m squarely “pro” on several, neither here nor there on others, and Steve Garvey just seems like a key party Michael Young to me.

Funny (had to read that last sentence twice before I got it). The best defense I can make for Garvey--clearly he was wildly overrated in his heyday--is the same one you'd make for the wildly overrated Joe Carter: predictability/consistency/durability. You knew Garvey and Carter would play every day, and you knew you could pencil in 200 H/100 RBI for the former, and 30 HR/100 RBI for the latter. I know--the durability and the bulk numbers work in tandem, and both guys killed you on OBP and defense (seem to remember that Garvey's gold gloves were a joke). But as James wrote in one of the Abstracts (or a little later, maybe, back-stepping a bit on Garvey), GMs try to put together a million moving parts to get a winning team, and if one of those parts is close to 100% reliable, that's valuable in and of itself.

Got looking closer to understand the difference in WAR between Dwight Evans and Dave Parker. Looking at the WAR numbers on their site, Parker definitely drags in d-war later in his career, but surprisingly Evans d-War numbers are not really as good as one might expect. Pretty much both of them were considered of having one of the best throwing arms in the game at one point in their career and both spent considerable time at first and DH (less for Dewey though). The big thing seems to be the o-war numbers Dewey put up between age 35-40 being where he passed up Parker by so much.

The thing that catches me is comparing straight 1985 and 86 between both of them. By surface numbers, both had good season but it seems that Evans with 50 walks and more runs yet somewhat comparable other numbers (Parker has a higher slugging 1 season), his O-War is like twice as much.

i am by no means going to campaign for dave parker, but

MVP
two batting titles
three gold gloves
three silver sluggers
seven all-star games
that fucking throw in the all-star game
greatest nickname
greatest baseball portrait
greatest surname

Also (Wikipedia): "In the early 1970s, as a member of the Pirates AAA minor league ball team Charleston (WV) Charlies, Parker hit a home run that landed on a coal car on a passing train and the ball was later picked up in Columbus, Ohio."

Even after his death, Miller was rejected twice by these committees so it's not a slam dunk he'll be elected this time.

When I was a kid, Murphy and Mattingly, Parker and Garvey were to an extent legends at that point

Definitely, it was generally assumed that they were slam dunk future HOFers at the time. As good as Evans and Whitaker were, they weren't superstars, so if they're elected then the old school voters will say how can they be in but Mattingly isn't, and they'll have a point. There's a strong peak value vs career value argument to be made.

that fucking throw in the all-star game

Had to look into this--my first year of university, so I doubt very much that I watched that year. I assume you mean throwing Downing out at home. There were two great throws he made that game--he also threw Rice out at third trying to stretch a bloop double.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PH6XJypKno

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PH6XJypKno

Oops.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jn9e1f0pa4

Definitely, it was generally assumed that they were slam dunk future HOFers at the time. As good as Evans and Whitaker were, they weren't superstars, so if they're elected then the old school voters will say how can they be in but Mattingly isn't, and they'll have a point. There's a strong peak value vs career value argument to be made.

― NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, November 5, 2019 1:20 AM (ten hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

also as far as the '80s go, a lot of the great starting pitchers from that decade have also largely been locked out from the Hall. i think the only truly "his peak was the '80s" pitcher who's in is Morris, right? Clemens obv not in now, Ryan was very good but the '70s is where he dominated, Carlton won a couple Cys early that decade but he was a '70s guy, Blyleven wasn't as great as he was in the '70s, Sutton and Perry and Jenkins and Palmer and Niekro were occasionally effective but winding down etc. the reasons have a bit to do with injuries and shorter careers, it's less a protest i'd make and more an "interesting note" and "unfortunate fact".

I think Dave Stieb still has a very, very good argument. Steve Rogers is a guy I remember thinking felt like the best pitcher in the league, but his career was short. Gooden obv an all-timer for a minute. Soto, Saberhagen, Viola, Hershiser, Sutcliffe, Tudor, Valenzuela, etc....these guys had some peaks that were HOF-level. cf a whole lot of Cliff Lee/Johan Santana/Tim Lincecum/Brandon Webb/Chris Carpenter/Adam Wainwright types. Not a lot of supreme inner circle HOF types.

this will come out looking great, right? fWAR leaders, 1980-1989

Rank	Name	WAR	W	L	IP	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	BABIP	LOB%	ERA	FIP
1	Nolan Ryan	43.7	122	104	2094	9.31	3.84	0.55	0.27	72.30%	3.14	2.83
2	Bert Blyleven	37.7	123	103	2078.1	6.41	2.41	0.92	0.281	73.20%	3.64	3.56
3	Jack Morris	36.9	162	119	2443.2	6	3.16	0.97	0.262	73.70%	3.66	3.9
4	Dave Stieb	36.4	140	109	2328.2	5.33	3.19	0.71	0.256	74.10%	3.32	3.78
5	F Valenzuela	36.2	128	103	2144.2	6.9	3.52	0.56	0.276	73.20%	3.19	3.21
6	Roger Clemens	35.5	95	45	1284.2	8.51	2.6	0.67	0.281	74.70%	3.06	2.79
7	Mike Witt	34.5	109	104	1945	5.87	2.98	0.77	0.287	71.10%	3.78	3.62
8	Dwight Gooden	34.3	100	39	1291	8.14	2.64	0.45	0.276	75.60%	2.64	2.53
9	Steve Carlton	34	104	84	1732.1	7.55	3.28	0.7	0.291	71.60%	3.48	3.19
10	Bob Welch	32.5	137	93	2082.2	6.3	2.88	0.67	0.273	74.70%	3.21	3.35
11	Bret Saberhagen	29.6	92	61	1329	5.89	1.75	0.71	0.275	72.60%	3.23	3.11
12	Mike Moore	28.7	85	107	1698.2	5.88	3.27	0.85	0.289	69.70%	4.13	3.83
13	D Eckersley	28.7	88	88	1593.2	5.7	1.71	0.96	0.277	69.90%	3.89	3.48
14	Rick Rhoden	28.5	109	100	1918.1	5.12	2.8	0.65	0.292	72.30%	3.65	3.53
15	Rick Reuschel	28.3	97	82	1616.1	4.68	2.17	0.55	0.283	72.60%	3.27	3.3
16	Frank Viola	28	117	98	1858	6.23	2.65	1.06	0.285	73.10%	3.84	3.84
17	Ron Guidry	28	111	72	1639.2	6.18	2.26	0.99	0.28	73.60%	3.66	3.57
18	Orel Hershiser	28	98	64	1457	6.25	2.68	0.46	0.264	74.80%	2.69	3.01
19	Mike Scott	27.7	114	90	1803.2	6.61	2.68	0.7	0.269	71.30%	3.42	3.24
20	Floyd Bannister	27.1	112	109	1890.2	6.45	2.93	1.11	0.274	71.80%	3.98	3.95

....almost. move the column headers for WAR and everything else one to the right, please.

but anyway, floyd bannister was not a name i expected in the top 20!

Mike Witt!

I guess Ryan was maybe better in the ‘80s? Weird though I mean at least half a dozen of the other non-HOF guys felt like the best pitcher in the game for a minute or a bit longer. Saberhagen was incredible.

Between the early-mid 70's Carlton/Seaver/last of the 300 IP hurlers era and the 90's Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz era, a lot of pitchers were great for a few years and flamed out. There's also Ron Guidry in addition to the guys you named. I don't know if they've been locked out of the Hall, but something weird was happening in the 80's where all the best pitchers had no longevity and somehow only Jack Morris and Frank Tanana were left standing. There are too many of these pitchers over too many years to say it's just a coincidence, but I've never seen a convincing explanation. One explanation: for or most of baseball history, even the very good teams were built from stars and scrubs, and there were always weak hitting middle infielder types who you could get out without using maximum effort. That was changing by the 80's, but it was before the more modern understanding of pitcher development with pitch counts and innings limits, so a lot of great pitchers simply flamed out too soon. And that's how we end up with Jack Morris as the HOF representative for the era. How can this be corrected? I'm not sure.

The 80's were so messed up that Vuckovich, Hoyt, and a whole bunch of closers all won Cy Young awards, but Dave Stieb didn't. Stieb was still great into his 30's and was settling into that Maddux post-2000 phase of his career where he could pitch forever and get by on his smarts, but the back injury ended his career almost overnight. Even so, he's got a better HOF case than most of his peers.

As a kid I always thought Stieb was the best pitcher in the AL maybe because it seemed like he started every all star game during his peak (I’m definitely aware he probably didn’t btw). However he didn’t have enough wins and also his mustache was not Earnhardty enough to impress sportswriters like Morris’ did. But his five best bWAR seasons are way beyond Morris’ best.

and yet, he ended up with the second most wins of the 80s (140)! basically it just comes down to the mustache

wins were hard to come by in the '80s! if Stieb stuck around for another 4-5 seasons injury-free and cleared 200 he'd have that plus i'm sure a vv solid career WAR. or he might fall into Kevin Brown purgatory.

i'd be curious to see if in the future some other guys with these amazing brief meteoric peaks get more consideration. i'm not opposed to the notion that peak value should be heavily revisited when it comes to guys like Hershiser and Will Clark and other stars from the '80s.

orel doesn't really have the overall numbers but i think there's a lot to be said for having that scoreless streak + being the only guy to win NLCS/ALCS/WS MVPs etc

he may have really hurt himself by trying to squeeze out that last season (24.2 IP, -2.0 bWAR!)

You can make a career argument for Will Clark, too, if you don't penalize him for retiring at 36 instead of padding his numbers--his bWAR is 56.5. Actually, if you look at his career box, I think he's more of a career than peak guy (three or four years tops).

Clark had the misfortune of seeming to have peaked early and instead of becoming this perennial 35-40 homer guy, he wound up being a perfectly excellent John Olerud-type first baseman in an era when his contemporaries like Palmeiro and McGriff really padded their power stats, and younger hitters like Bagwell and Thomas put up those Jimmie Foxx stats across the board. he didn't really decline as much as he missed some time due to injuries. he was pretty consistent up to the end, he was always a great and patient hitter. if anything i think his outlier power season in 1987 made his subsequent career seem disappointing rather than borderline HOF.

would be curious to see how many players set a career high in homers in '87.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJq7bOxUwAA_Fwh?format=png&name=small

vote jose valverde

Incredible to me that cliff lee has been retired for 5 years

seems probable that only one player from this list will make it, w/the next most likely i think remaining Walker (who really needs a push and a campaign he may not receive) followed by Schilling, who is still such a piece of shit that i think ppl might make him wait awhile longer.

Walker needs a really big push, I don't see it happening and it is tragic.

it's so crazy to me that it's completely non-baseball-related stuff that's keeping schilling out

b-ref's sean forman says he's not voting for jetes (because he will vote strategically for 10 players who need it more)

Putting PED guys to one side (because I hate talking about the subject), I'd vote for Jeter, Schilling, Walker, and Helton. I'm on the fence with Rolen; not sure why, but there's something that seems diffuse about his career. If he goes in eventually, that's fine.

My Just Jeter Hall of Fame ballot for 2020. #keepthehallsmall pic.twitter.com/lFEOfqLhxO

— steven marcus (@newsdayalum) November 21, 2019

an excellent reason for someone to vote for ten, excluding Jeetz

I hope Jacques Doucet gets the Frick award. He is the greatest ambassador of baseball to the french language, his work is heroic and having met him multiple times, a truly nice person.

steven marcus was the drummer in Gay Dad.

not sure where to post this, but this list is made up of a bunch of current and future hall of famers, so

https://i.imgur.com/o14Z2Dm.png

https://i.imgur.com/piRPuiy.png

besides the fun of seeing guys like Gene Tenace in the top 50, it's also interesting to look at the top fWAR list and look for the outliers, although i guess it's players you'd mostly expect.

for example, derek jeter (42nd by fWAR, 280th per PA) eddie murray (48th fWAR, 316th per PA), pete rose (35th WAR, 409th per PA), dave winfield (111th fWAR, 459th per PA)

shoutout to trot nixon, with 22.4 career fWAR, but coming out ahead of hall of famer craig biggio by WAR/PA

#43 Russell Martin, I was not expecting that.

This list uses total WAR (offense and defense), which makes WAR/PA (implies offense only) a bit misleading.

A few catchers i wouldn’t have expected and also a good amount of 3rd basemen.

I gather from a local sportswriter that other voters are submitting Jeter-only ballots? He seemed to hint there were a few. That's so ridiculous.