hall of fame, next vote...

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=halloffame/roundtable/041222

how do you rate the arguments contained herein?

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 23:29 (fourteen years ago) link

I don't think Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Lee Smith and Bert Blylevyn were Hall of Famers. Morris, Sandberg, Sutter and Goosage have much better arguments in their favor, but of the lot only Sandberg has to me to have really unimpeachable arguments (i.e. he was clearly the best 2nd basemen of his era and one of the best 2nd basemen ever.) Morris was a monster and at his best (which he was for a large part of 80s) he was one of the best pitchers in baseball, but his numbers aren't incredible and even though that shouldn't matter, it will. Sutter burned out too quick, only seven really great years even though when he was at his height he probably had more impact on any given game than maybe any of these guys. Gossage was around FOREVER and he was also amazing, but I'm not sure he was really as good as Fingers, Eck or Sutter and if he was as good how long he was. That hurts him a little, but really he should be in the hall. I think relievers belong in the Hall, BUT I think they really have to have great #s and either hang around forever at a really high level (like Fingers, Gossage and Riviera) or have had a really respectable career as a starter to boot (like Eckersley).

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 23:50 (fourteen years ago) link

For the record I am glad that Blyleven didn't win 300 games, because his "automatic" inclusion on that basis would be even more ridiculous than Sutton's. You get some points for longevity, but the hall really should be reserved for players who were at some point GREAT, not players who just managed to play pretty good for a long period of time.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 23:57 (fourteen years ago) link

Here is the link for anyone who hasn't read last years HOF thread.

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 Nash (earlnash), Thursday, 23 December 2004 01:02 (fourteen years ago) link

The Page 2 discussion was really good.

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.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 01:29 (fourteen years ago) link

Rob Neyer's done some great columns on Blyleven, I don't have the time to look for them now ... maybe someone else has a link to them?

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 01:29 (fourteen years ago) link

Rivera's been dominant for longer than Sutter at this point (by two more years), MIR. And Rivera wouldn't even be mentioned as a future HOFer if it weren't for the postseason stuff.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 03:04 (fourteen years ago) link

The funny thing about Morris, as I recall, is that he always seemed to pitch just good enough to stay ahead. If his team had 7 runs he'd give up 6 and if his boys only managed 1 run he'd throw a shut-out. It was the weirdest thing.

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 23 December 2004 03:07 (fourteen years ago) link

The 1984 Tigers never get much call when they talk about great all-time teams, that team didn't really have any "superstars" but they were really deep and talented team. I think Sparky Anderson platooned at about half of the positions. Lance Parrish, Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker all three also had really good careers and don't get quite the props that they deserve.

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.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Thursday, 23 December 2004 03:42 (fourteen years ago) link

>the hall really should be reserved for players who were at some point GREAT, not players who just managed to play pretty good for a long period of time.

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.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 14:52 (fourteen years ago) link

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
Well even if that's true & it debunks my theory - it at least means someone else has noticed!

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 23 December 2004 15:32 (fourteen years ago) link

"But if that were the case, there'd be 80 or 90 members, except for what, 240 now?"

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.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 16:17 (fourteen years ago) link

That Bert was named to only 2 All-Star teams just shows how debased that is as a criterion.

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!

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:41 (fourteen years ago) link

>he didn't make Cy Young top 10s

Four of 'em (third twice).

http://baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:47 (fourteen years ago) link

When you start out your argument claiming that Blyleven was a better pitcher than Sutton (who wasn't even close to a great pitcher and doesn't deserve to be in the Hall IMO) and Ryan (who was a complete statistical anomaly and does deserve to be in the Hall for that, but was also not a great pitcher) you've already undercut your case tremendously, Rob.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:58 (fourteen years ago) link

Here's the BP article about Jack Morris that attempts to determine where Morris had the ability to pitch to the score:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1815

It concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that he could.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:59 (fourteen years ago) link

to determine *whether* Morris had the ability to pitch to the score

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:59 (fourteen years ago) link

I'm not sure how many pitchers in history meet your def of "great," Alex -- let's deal with the Hall you have, rather than the one you wish to have -- but the argument he makes is that Blyleven was better than several HOF pitchers, and comparable to *many* others. And he was.

That's the article I meant, MIR, thanks.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:07 (fourteen years ago) link

Alex, to be fair to Neyer, he didn't bring Sutton and Ryan into the discussion. He was responding to the examples of Sutton and Ryan as mentioned in the reader's letter.

I think he's written a couple of other columns on Blyleven, maybe I can find them ...

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:13 (fourteen years ago) link

Thanks for the link.

Those are some mind-numbing stats!

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:14 (fourteen years ago) link

Michael Wolverton makes the case for Blyleven:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2002/0728/1411078.html

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.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:21 (fourteen years ago) link

"I'm not sure how many pitchers in history meet your def of "great," Alex"

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.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:38 (fourteen years ago) link

getting jobbed, ahem.

That second ESPN article is much better btw and makes a pretty good case.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:40 (fourteen years ago) link

Catfish "really great"? Come now... talk about a guy who lucked out. Look at Hunter vs Blyleven (or Sutton, for that matter) and tell me how Hunter's better.

No, Bert is not Seaver or Carlton.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:58 (fourteen years ago) link

Bert's website is great btw. He should get in just for having that.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 19:04 (fourteen years ago) link

Well I didn't see Hunter, but the perenial All Star games, the Cy Young, the top 4 in Cy Young voting four times, the fact that he supposedly one of the most respected pitchers of his era, the postseason accolades, the biggest free agent coup ever for his time and the very impressive statistics kinda indicated to me that he might have been good. Obv you know better though.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 19:48 (fourteen years ago) link

All that stuff about Hunter is true, and of course that's why he got in. Looking deeper into the numbers though ... he pitched in extreme pitchers parks for his entire career, played for great teams, and generally didn't have great ERA's (he was in the top 3 three times, but never in the top 10 otherwise). He threw a lot of innings, but was overworked at a young age which is why he was washed up at 30, which is hella young for a HoF'er.

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.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 20:51 (fourteen years ago) link

"He threw a lot of innings, but was overworked at a young age which is why he was washed up at 30, which is hella young for a HoF'er."

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?)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:23 (fourteen years ago) link

Burt Blyleven:

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.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:37 (fourteen years ago) link

I seem to remember Bert looking pretty good in the series with the Cardinals (aka the original You Don't Win If You Don't Play At Home series.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:48 (fourteen years ago) link

I do have to wonder WHY if Bert was so great, he um didn't get snatched up by better teams?

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?"

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 22:54 (fourteen years ago) link

Nobody says that about hitters (as their stats aren't at all dependent on their team being good.) They just look at the stats and marvel that nobody noticed at the time.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 23:22 (fourteen years ago) link

I have no idea why previous subjective honors (Cy Youngs, All-Star selections) would be used as criteria for another subjective honor.

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.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 26 December 2004 03:58 (fourteen years ago) link

Speaking of Marvin Miller, what are the odds of him getting in this year (the nu-Vets Committee votes this year, right?).

I hope it happens soon so that he lives to attend his own induction.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 26 December 2004 08:04 (fourteen years ago) link

blah blah blah. my opinon is better than your opinion and i have proof! blah blah blah.


otto midnight (otto midnight), Monday, 27 December 2004 07:32 (fourteen years ago) link


I generally agree, OM. HOF debates generally bore me, especially when one side is "he was MONEY" or "folks sure wrote boilerplate hosannas about him in the '70s."

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.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 14:28 (fourteen years ago) link

Rocky Colavito was a bit like Jim Rice, he hit like he was going to the Hall until he hit his early 30s, then it was over. I have a dog eared card of his when he played in Cleveland.

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.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Monday, 27 December 2004 16:38 (fourteen years ago) link

I don't think it looks good for anybody to get voted in by the nu-Vets committee anytime soon ... as Morbs said, nobody came close to getting 75% last time. If they go through two or three voting years with nobody getting elected, they'll probably change the rules.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:12 (fourteen years ago) link

Al Oliver was just "pretty good," ie a hitter not any more suitable for enshrinement than Rusty Staub or Vada Pinson. (His top BaseballRef comparables are Steve Garvey and Bill Buckner -- same story.)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:29 (fourteen years ago) link

Just out of curiousity how old are you Dr Morbius?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:43 (fourteen years ago) link

Exactly 5 years younger than Jesse Orosco!

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:55 (fourteen years ago) link

(I suspected as much.) Anyway, I was talking with my family about Blyleven this weekend and apparently he had a reputation of not being particularly well-liked and kind of an odd duck to boot (although I'm guessing that being Dutch was probably considered totally bizarre enough for a lot of people.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:05 (fourteen years ago) link

Al Oliver didn't walk much

Riot Gear! (Gear!), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:22 (fourteen years ago) link

I hear that a few people didn't like Ty Cobb either.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:27 (fourteen years ago) link

Yes well luckily for Cobb he was a couple of generations removed from the people who were voting on his HOF induction so his jerkiness was more anecdotal than personal.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:38 (fourteen years ago) link


Cobb's last season: 1928
Inducted into HOF: 1936

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:15 (fourteen years ago) link

Cobb retired in 1928 and was elected in 1936. So many of the voters would have seen him play.

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)

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:16 (fourteen years ago) link

It wasn't a criticism. I was just pointing out that it might be a reason why he'd been snubbed (that and of course that people are overly fixated on 300 wins, which is also not a very fair reason.) Of course, people who can't read for shit might have trouble distinguishing the two.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:21 (fourteen years ago) link

"Cobb's last season: 1928
Inducted into HOF: 1936"

Haha I need to learn to check baseballreference.com before I say stuff sometimes.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:23 (fourteen years ago) link

And I didn't say that YOU specifically were the one doing the criticising. I was saying that anyone who would withhold a HoF vote in part because they felt that player needed an attitude adjustment are themselves in need of an attitude adjustment.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:33 (fourteen years ago) link

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.

omar little, Saturday, 19 October 2019 20:19 (one month ago) link

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.

clemenza, Saturday, 19 October 2019 21:19 (one month ago) link

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/

clemenza, Saturday, 19 October 2019 21:29 (one month ago) link

Per Fangraphs, he’s as good as Glavine.

Van Horn Street, Sunday, 20 October 2019 04:10 (one month ago) link

fp for bumping during a championship game

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 20 October 2019 04:55 (one month ago) link

.... and not mentioning Altuve.

FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Sunday, 20 October 2019 05:09 (one month ago) link

two weeks pass...

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

mookieproof, Monday, 4 November 2019 19:01 (one month ago) link

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

at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Monday, 4 November 2019 19:10 (one month ago) link

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

Its big ball chunky time (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Monday, 4 November 2019 19:13 (one month ago) link

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.

earlnash, Monday, 4 November 2019 21:28 (one month ago) link

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.

clemenza, Monday, 4 November 2019 23:52 (one month ago) link

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.

omar little, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 00:43 (one month ago) link

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.

clemenza, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 01:16 (one month ago) link

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.

earlnash, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 01:20 (one month ago) link

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

mookieproof, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 03:05 (one month ago) link

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."

clemenza, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 05:23 (one month ago) link

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.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 09:20 (one month ago) link

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

clemenza, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 13:34 (one month ago) link

Oops.

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

clemenza, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 13:35 (one month ago) link

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.

omar little, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 20:07 (one month ago) link

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

at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 5 November 2019 20:29 (one month ago) link

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

at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 5 November 2019 20:30 (one month ago) link

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

at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 5 November 2019 20:30 (one month ago) link

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.

omar little, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 20:43 (one month ago) link

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.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 20:47 (one month ago) link

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.

omar little, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 20:53 (one month ago) link

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

at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 5 November 2019 21:03 (one month ago) link

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.

omar little, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 22:27 (one month ago) link

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.

omar little, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 22:33 (one month ago) link

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!)

mookieproof, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 22:45 (one month ago) link

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).

clemenza, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 23:43 (one month ago) link

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.

omar little, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 23:56 (one month ago) link

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

omar little, Tuesday, 5 November 2019 23:56 (one month ago) link

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

vote jose valverde

mookieproof, Monday, 18 November 2019 17:11 (three weeks ago) link

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

Its big ball chunky time (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Monday, 18 November 2019 17:16 (three weeks ago) link

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.

omar little, Monday, 18 November 2019 18:33 (three weeks ago) link

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

Van Horn Street, Monday, 18 November 2019 19:14 (three weeks ago) link

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

na (NA), Monday, 18 November 2019 19:50 (three weeks ago) link

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

mookieproof, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 16:17 (two weeks ago) link

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.

clemenza, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 21:02 (two weeks ago) link

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

— steven marcus (@newsdayalum) November 21, 2019

mookieproof, Thursday, 21 November 2019 22:01 (two weeks ago) link

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

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 21 November 2019 22:51 (two weeks ago) link

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.

Van Horn Street, Friday, 22 November 2019 18:35 (two weeks ago) link

steven marcus was the drummer in Gay Dad.

Andy K, Saturday, 23 November 2019 00:05 (two weeks ago) link

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

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Sunday, 24 November 2019 17:17 (two weeks ago) link

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)

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Sunday, 24 November 2019 17:35 (two weeks ago) link

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

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Sunday, 24 November 2019 17:37 (two weeks ago) link

#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.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Sunday, 24 November 2019 20:12 (two weeks ago) link

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

FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 25 November 2019 04:59 (two weeks ago) link

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.

clemenza, Monday, 25 November 2019 15:40 (two weeks ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.