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.

Interesting point in the essay: Evans, Bobby Grich, and Buddy Bell were all great in the '81 strike year, any one of the three could have won the MVP won by--when they still did things like that--Rollie Fingers, and that that might have pushed him into to the HOF. I checked '94, and I don't think there was anyone where that was true; Lofton had more bWAR than Frank Thomas, but even today, I'm pretty sure Thomas would win.

Source: Numerous National Baseball HOF voters have reached out to the Hall hoping to amend their ballots, removing their votes for Curt Schilling after he supported the seditious acts in Washington D.C. 2 weeks ago. HOF officials are concerned about the precedent this could set.

— M@ (@MattSpiegel670) January 21, 2021

More like what did curt do in the last 72 hours

Because it’s likely nothing he hasnt said before

Like, who did they think he was?! But mainly lol. I hope they let them.

yikes

That's amazing. My first reaction was Thermo's above, but I guess everybody has their line (he crossed Posnanski's and Jaffe's before this). Can't remember who it was, but I read somebody a few weeks ago who said it was his last vote because he was exhausted having to wrestle with stuff like this.

idk if he's really bowing out, but rosenthal mentioned his exhaustion with it

That was it. "Right now, I’m reconsidering everything, including whether I still want to vote for the Hall of Fame"--not dropping out, but considering doing so.

I’ll take his vote

"Character" is one of the key merits and Schilling failed that test on multiple occasions. I'm sure many of the current HoF are equally if not even more repellent than Schilling but this is an era where consequences are harder to dodge.

Curious what James thinks about this, but I think I already know the answer.

I was thinking the announcement was on the 31st, but it's tomorrow. I wrote about Shilling on my home page. He'll probably fall short, but brace yourself for the possibility he gets in: he's just above 75% with close to half the vote on the Tracker.

i'm going to barf is he gets in. i wanted to go there with my kids one day when they're old enough - but it would be enough to kill that idea.

I don't get that, Thermo. He's one guy--you can easily avoid his plaque. The bloody sock is probably already in there, as are Yawkey, Cobb, and others. Or, if nothing else, you can use his presence as what my former job likes to call the "teachable moment."

(Your second sentence, I mean--I get the first.)

I was just reading this David Schoefield post from today:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30777119/2021-baseball-hall-fame-everything-need-know-ballot-reveal-day

I think I knew about Helton's two DUI's; I didn't know about Andruw Jones' domestic violence arrest. "Character counts" is a great idea, but I don't know--do they really want to go down this road? It's so murky. (And for the nine millionth time, I'll add that whatever issues I have with PEDs, none of them, in any way, shape, or form, have to do with character.)

I actually didn’t know about Helton’s DUIs

Schoenfield should expand that list and include the guys who are in the Hall already. They don't all stack up super great. The idea of there being a moral test to join the company of Ty Cobb...

Ty Cobb tho, played in a very different time and i feel like separating the fact and fiction of who he was today is rather tricky.

any hall of fame is going to be full of some HOF assholes

Posnanski's ballot is entered on the tracker now, though he hasn't posted anything on The Athletic: Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jones, Manny, Rolen, Sheffield, Sosa, Wagner. He dropped Shilling, but didn't replace him with anyone else.

yeah, it's murky. but so are the purely baseball judgments.

i think it was jaffe who went into detail on this in his schilling piece, but: no one is owed induction and schilling was well-compensated for his baseball prowess. as was pete rose.

the hall is about what and who we want to celebrate. like clem said, the bloody sock is probably already there, so it's not like schilling will be erased from baseball history if he doesn't get in. and just because ty cobb is there doesn't mean we have a duty to induct further assholes.

voters will draw lines in different places, but that's why there are a whole bunch of them. in any case, i presume the veteran's committee will be more sympathetic to schilling than the writers, if it comes to that -- i don't think schilling has supported murdering ex-players

give it time.

yesssssss

Good day for Thermo's daughter. Schilling ~ 71%, Bonds and Clemens ~62%, Rolen just over 50%.

There's no way Schilling gets in his last year after what happened three weeks ago. I suspect he'll have a tough time with the Veteran's Committee too--aren't they, in general, bigger on character-counts than even the writers?

Scott Rolen's character seems pretty good why isn't he in ffs.

Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley are on the floor of the senate right now, trying to get the vote de-certified...I googled Schilling for some reaction and came across a letter he posted yesterday on Facebook (and linked to on Twitter--I thought he'd been kicked off). I only skimmed it--it's long and rambling. Obviously, I feel bad for him re his wife, who's in the middle of chemotherapy. Elsewhere, there's a real passive-aggressive self-pity going on: "I don’t think I’m a hall of famer as I’ve often stated but if former players think I am then I’ll accept that with honor." Read at your own risk.

https://www.facebook.com/1044701480/posts/10223220822362596/?d=n

Nah I'm good.

Recent good read on a vote given for player's character.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/1/26/22249356/commentary-why-i-voted-for-latroy-hawkins-on-my-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot

I didn't read that Schilling thing closely enough: he's asked to be removed from the ballot.

https://www.tsn.ca/curt-schilling-requests-removal-of-his-name-from-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot-1.1583338

Very Trumpian way to short-circuit falling short again.

I liked the way that writer defended his Latroy Hawkins vote, but he's a little schizophrenic--he also voted for Schilling.

I suspect he'll have a tough time with the Veteran's Committee too--aren't they, in general, bigger on character-counts than even the writers?

baseball players as a whole are conservative as fuc. for every dexter fowler or jason heyward there are half a dozen aubrey huffs or adam laroches. i don't think 'character' will mean the same thing to the veterans committee that it does to the writers

anyway, fuck him -- i'm just happy he didn't make it for now

xp hmm article has ?3 sentences about LH; seems mostly about other players...and giving schilling et al the benefit of the doubt

James's idea (posted as a poll on Twitter): "Suppose the HOF vote had 4 committees: BBWAA, Players, Executives/Analysts and Historians, and suppose you had to pass a test to serve on any committee (as well as other credentials). Suppose that 75% means getting a majority from 3 of the 4 committees. Better system, or not?"

not

curious as to what executives/analysts means, tho, and how it differs from the rest

"Analysts" would seem to align better with the BBWAA, and just call it media.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but a majority is too low--you'd get four or five inductees most years, I would think. I'd put it at 60%, or two-thirds. I thought three or four years ago that things were going to improve: the logjam was gone, and it was clear that the main group of PED players weren't going in (which at least meant that that debate wouldn't drone on). But it feels really messy again.

The BBWAA thinks that (alleged) drug use is a bigger crime than the stuff that Schilling says? IDGI.

Cronyism on the various HOF committees is more out of control than at any point since the 60's. Maybe people will look at Schilling's comments and take it as a sign that the process needs to change (yet again).

>The BBWAA thinks that (alleged) drug use is a bigger crime than the stuff that Schilling says?

yes AND capitol insurrection was jan 6th and ballots were due Dec 31. I would think there would be SOME attrition if ballots hadn't already been mailed. Nevertheless...

Scott Rolen's character seems pretty good why isn't he in ffs.

― Van Horn Street

he had a big jump in votes this year (52.9%, up from 35% or so), and jay jaffe seems to think he's on a glide path to election in a couple years

I think he's a sure-thing, just not sure when. He may get held back by Ortiz next year; in 2023, Beltran comes on, in 2024 it's Beltre.

I’m excited for Beltre. Dude had such a productive golden years to his career.
I hope his plaque has a hand reaching for his head off to the side.

With Rolen, I didn’t realize his career WAR had made it into the 70s (just). A few GG and all star games, a ROY - but only finished top ten in MVP once and never led the league in any notable offensive category ever (I find the later kind of surprising).

Hey Curt: What Hall of Famer said 12 Swiss Jewish bankers ruled the world, the last 8 US presidents were “traitors” and AIDS was hatched in a Maryland lab in order to kill gays and blacks and still got 95.82 pct of the vote? A: Steve Carlton. P.S. I voted for him and for you.

— Bob Ryan (@GlobeBobRyan) January 28, 2021

bob . . . thanks

What a steaming pile of a hot take.

"Freedom of speech got your ass out of Cooperstown, bro'"

The Straw that Stirs the drink has spoken.

I think with Schilling you really have to talk about what a nonentity he was in his twenties. He had a few very good seasons on some bad Phillies teams, especially age 30 and age 31, where his strikeout rate dramatically improved over what he showed in his twenties. In his first all-star appearance at age 30, he was the Phillies' only all star. He was basically Jason Schmidt, the ace of a bad team.

How many guys in the Hall of Fame had zero all star appearances prior to age 30?

probably a good amount of guys that retired before 1933.

I thought of two that check out, although for obvious reasons they're almost the exceptions that prove the rule: Phil Niekro and Hoyt Wilhelm.

How many guys in the Hall of Fame had zero all star appearances prior to age 30?

i think adrian beltre might fit the bill, once he gets in.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/beltrad01.shtml

if i'm reading that correctly, he didn't make an all-star team until age 31, despite finishing 2nd in the MVP race at age 25 with the dodgers