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.

Sorry Kimberly

in defense of kimberly, with the way these guys are maniacal about their 'routines', it can't be easy to miss spring training and several months of the season, throw 3.2 innings in triple-a and then just show up in cubs save situations. (also his HR/FB is 28.6%, which is just unreasonable, either through bad luck or juiced balls)

that said, he's not a hall of famer, is definitely trending downward, and has the dumbass hanging arm/facial hair

Kenley Jansen is also a 1-team player at least so far. He's got a decade with the Dodgers this season. It will be a big deal for him and Kershaw if the Dodgers finally win it all this year.

Two or three years ago, I thought one of the three would emerge to have a chance--with the caveat that they'd have to add some major post-season success to their credentials. Not any more. The biggest part of what I thought they had going for them--where they even eclipsed Rivera--was in their unprecedented H/9 and K/9 ratios. Year-in and year-out they were under 5.0 H/9 and up around 15.0 K/9. I figured if one of them could keep that up for another five or six seasons, he'd have a chance.

And then Hader comes along, and such numbers aren't unprecedented anymore. And probably some other reliever will come along and put up a season where he's under 4.0 H/9 and up around 18.0 K/9. I don't know where they hit the wall on that, but I'm back to thinking Rivera will be the last in a long while.

a big part of what made rivera special was his consistency and longevity. i don't think it's so much about new thresholds of reliever greatness (12 K/9, 15, 18), it's about keeping it up year after year for an insane amount of time (like rivera). even then, rivera only managed 39 WAR (which is INCREDIBLE for a full time reliever) over his career. just like DHs, relievers have to be the elite of the elite to make the HOF because they're just not affecting the game for enough innings compared to position players and SPs

hader is pretty incredible right now. he needs to keep up this pace for another 10+ seasons to have any chance

Absolutely. Until his last couple of seasons, I thought Kimbrel did have that consistency; from 2011 to 2018, he's pretty solid the whole way (couple of minor blips). He just needed to add the longevity.

But he had a lousy post-season, and this year had been a nightmare.

If part of the reason Rivera is in the hall is because of his shutdown rep in the postseason I think Kimbrel and Chapman haven’t exactly done much to stand out in that respect.

the way things are going, we'll need to weigh K/9 and HR/9 against the league environments to compare across eras

I'd love to see the progression of the K/9 record for relievers. The starter record is still held by Randy Johnson in 2001, so that's been locked in for almost 20 years. The relief record is probably a relatively steep line up for a decade or two. But I can't find anything online.

Chris Sale seems to have the starter k/9 record at present? 11.1 vs Unit's 10.6 (Scherzer coming up a little shy at 10.5). And actually Darvish is #2, Strasburg #4, Scherzer at #5 (Cole is #11 despite having only had two seasons w/more K than IP, which shows how eye-popping his K rate's been over the past couple seasons).

Career, it's Sale; Johnson's single-season mark has been surprisingly resilient through the strikeout boom, though. Johnson (6), Scherzer (3), and Sale (2) hold more than half of the 20 best seasonal marks.

Somehow missed the “2001” — RJ was insane during that era.

Can Edwin Encarnacion and Nelson Cruz pad their juiced ball counting stats enough to get some HOF support? Both are late blooming DH-types who won't stop hitting. Edwin has a reasonable shot at 500 HR/1500 RBIs (assuming his current wrist injury doesn't ruin his power stroke).

If David Ortiz is the standard bearer for the DH with a 15-year peak, and he's not considered by many as a shoo-in, then Cruz and Encarnacion don't have a chance. But who knows how this era will be viewed in 10-15 years time.

My own sense is that Ortiz is a shoo-in, and that Encarnacion and Cruz have virtually no chance, with or without 500 HR. I think Ortiz's spectacular finish and--overrated in the aggregate though they may be (his ALDS and ALCS stats aren't anything special)--post-season numbers will count for a lot when he goes on the ballot, plus his seasonal numbers are clearly better than both.

Very similar, though, in how all three basically don't get started until they're 27-28.

(I don't just mean Ortiz's last season, although that was highlight--more like his sustained bounce-back after 2009, when he looked close to finished.)

I think Ortiz has is beloved enough that the bit of smoke around his alleged positive PED result will be overlooked. Which is unlike virtually every other PED guy. Plus the whole speech after the Boston Marathon bombing, and some more recent events too.

Before the so-called steroid era, 500 HR was automatic, and the HOF is full of guys in that 400 HR, 1400 RBI range whose peaks were about as good as Edwin and Cruz's are. If Jim Rice is in (and yes, he's a weak inductee) then aren't these guys worthy of serious consideration.

I personally think they don't "feel like HOFers" but their stat lines are getting interesting.

i think the real question is: can any of these touch harold baines??

neither of these guys are anywhere near ortiz, tho, and cruz needs another three seasons like this one just to get to 500 -- 2.5 of which would come after turning 40

ortiz was a top-5 mvp finisher in five straight seasons; neither cruz nor edwing have done it once. if we're gonna ride for mediocre fielders who didn't quite get to 500 let's go back and get crime dog before either of these two

I said this earlier (probably on this thread), but I think Martinez's induction helps Ortiz too. Edgar was the better hitter--a little better in OPS+, 13 games better in career WAR. (Helped by some positive defensive numbers very early in his career; there's some evidence there he would have been at least an adequate third baseman if they'd just left him there.) For as long as Edgar wasn't in, I think there would have been enough writers conflicted about voting for the second-best DH ever to keep Ortiz under 75%.

These guys hit with more power and probably had a better peak season, but Baines was a more complete hitter and did it for a longer period of time.

I'd put them probably with guys like Richie Sexton, Greg Luzinski or Don Baylor. Baylor won an MVP. Don't think either one is better than the Crime Dog.

Ortiz is "Big Papi", the guy is a huge star. Good lord the guy is like King Arthur as he pretty much killed the Yanks and the curse dead himself.

The wild thing about Encarnacion is that ANYONE could have had him for pretty much nothing at at one point, as he was put on waivers I think twice. He then turned around and hit like 250 home runs. Nelson Cruz pretty much came out of nowhere to win a couple AL HR crowns too, which is also notable.

Kinda too bad that Eddie could never figure out the throw from third base, as Encarnascion seemed to be pretty decent about picking it at the hot corner in Cincy. I remember more than a couple times him doing this amazing stop and then throwing the ball into the 3rd row. Reds could have used that big bat he had later on with Jay Bruce and Votto. Reds at one point wanted to extend him and then he went into a funk and got traded for Rolen. Don't even think the Blue Jays saw him busting out like the did, them bringing him back after releasing him looks pretty smart in hindsight.

That was the Jays MO somehow. Bautista was similar, in that most of baseball saw little to no value in he guy before his breakout.

whatever bautista did during the winter of 09-10 should be studied by scientists and historians

Andrés Galarraga is another player somewhat similar career arc/stats to Encarnacion and Cruz, he had the Mile High boost too but did continue to hit after he left Denver. He had a couple decent years in Montreal and then seemed like he was kinda done before breaking out with the early Rockies clubs.

Cruz and Encarnacion are incredible power guys and a lot better in many respects than your Kingman/Deer/Incaviglia/Dunn/Reynolds types, the guys many may view them as similar to. Better in terms of being well rounded at the plate, not too shabby in the BA dept, they walk a bunch, they’re totally dangerous, smart hitters. A cut below non-HOFers like Crime Dog but that’s nothing to be ashamed of really.

Galarraga is a good comp, he was a superior batter and while he didn’t walk that much his hitting was good enough to give him a good career WAR. He was no Bichette that’s for sure.

the HOF is full of guys in that 400 HR, 1400 RBI range whose peaks were about as good as Edwin and Cruz's are

Players I can find in that range (eliminating cases like Bench and Berra and DiMaggio, where it's a moot point): Willie Stargell, Vladimir Guerrero, Billy Williams, Orlando Cepeda, Johnny Mize, Andre Dawson, Duke Snider, Jim Rice, Tony Perez. Rice and Perez are in the same range as Cruz and Encarnacion; less so the others, I'd say.

Just to be clear, when I wrote the "HOF is full of guys" in that range, I didn't mean a majority of the HOF, I was thinking about exactly the kinds of players you named. It's not a small number, and even though Dawson and Rice might be considered borderline HOFers, they were great players and huge stars.

Cruz and Edwing were never really huge stars, didn't get the MVP support and so on, but their rate and counting stats are those to some HOFers. I'm not really sure what to make of it myself.

but their rate and counting stats are *close* to some HOFers

jaffe goes through some of the bigger names making moves:
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/weve-reached-peak-mike-trout-again/

I think the biggest HOF season this year has easily been Greinke's. He started the year at 187-118, 3.39, 61.1 WAR. You never know at that age--if quick decline had set in he might have ended up on the bubble, shy of 200 wins and somewhere around 65 WAR. But he's been great this year and has two more seasons at least in Houston; he looks solid for 225+ wins and 70-75 WAR, plus he'll have a chance to have a big postseason or two. I'd say he's getting closer and closer to a sure thing.

I know you guys live/breathe these sites' analyses as gospel, but I simply cannot (esp. after that radical recalculation for catchers a scant 5 months ago) trust any Defensive WAR #s and when FG/BA come out with these clicky-pieces comparing today's players vs. pre-statcast legends. (Offensive #s, sure, I'm right there, far less foggy/subjective).

I try to not to talk him up on here but I have a buddy who works for a (very good) club and he rolls his eyes whenever anyone in our group of friends brings up this "hobbyist" stuff to him. He feels like the open source sites are (my paraphrase) "on the right track but ultimately no more than entertainment for the more than casual fans & writers". His club has developed their own proprietary systems and metrics and says that even the top open source analysts are ~10 years behind their club's tech. No names but they are +250 to win the WS as of this morning.

the Lindbergh-Sawchik book has disposed me to root against that team (as soon as they dispose of the Yankees)

all models are wrong, some are useful

WAR is a constant work in progress, and I have no doubt that MLB teams aren't spending huge money on analytics to learn about what they could read on Fangraphs for free.

These are totally different things though -- in discussing the HOF, we're looking at past performance by the top 1% of players. Teams are interested more in future projections for everyone in baseball, including minor league prospects. Of course they're going to use different analytics tools!

*Marlins management takes a second look at $1 million line item to revisit Harold Baines’ hall of fame case*

Ha!

all models are wrong, some are useful

Doesn't address Jersey Al's points.

WAR is certainly a better framework for understanding player value than anything else publicly available

Maybe the Hall of Fame vote should only be decided by quants on the astros lol

xp - I have thought that might be the case at times. Other times, I look at the numbers and think something is wrong and I wonder about why and the extent to which other things that might be less noticeable are also skewered.

I don't know if you guys are interested in one I was looking at the other day. Minnie Rojas is said to have been worth 1.8 WAR in 1966, but only 0.8 WAR in 1967 when he pitched 37.1 more innings, had a lower ERA, finished 31 more games (leading the league), had about the same WHIP, lower FIP, lower SO/W.

The only thing I could think of is that maybe total offense was down in the AL in '67? But I checked, it was down, but only about 4-6% overall.

Fangraphs has him at numbers that are completely different: 0.1 WAR for '66, 0.7 WAR for '67. Bill James has him at 9 Win Shares for '66, 16 WS for '67.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rojasmi01.shtml

that seems inexplicable

why were you looking at him, though?

team defense might be a reason, since bWAR includes that. the Angels in '66 had a worse defense by dWAR numbers, winding up with a negative team number, which could mean Rojas had to bail himself out more vs being bailed out by their better defense in '67.

I collect cards, have his '67 and '68 Topps. Interesting guy, came over from Cuba, short career.

Defensive difference between '66 and '67 teams is calculated as a total of 4.8 dWAR. Rojas pitched about 8.5% of the team's innings that year which would mean about a 0.4 difference in team defense when he was on the mound, right?

looks like he did give up 45 runs in 1967 (36 earned) vs 28 R/27 ER in 1966. So while his performance ERA-wise was better he could be getting dinged by the unearned runs maybe?

i have no idea if caught stealing rates are incorporated in pitcher WAR, but i can't imagine it mattering this much

this seems like the sort of thing you should ask a chat session and report back! except the fangraphs ratings seem reasonable, and they're the ones with all the chatz

dinged by the unearned runs

I don't know, I look at those games and yeah, he gave up some hits and walked some guys in those situations but we were already noting his WHIP being almost the same in more innings pitched, etc.

except the fangraphs ratings seem reasonable

Would have to look at whether or not he was really replacement level in '66.

Cruz went off yesterday, a HR and three doubles.