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.

I was thinking Lance Parrish might be a good analog for McCann. The list on Baseball Reference looks about right.

Brian McCann Similar Batters

Jorge Posada (894.9)
Lance Parrish (891.0)
Bill Freehan (879.3)
Javy Lopez (868.9)
Benito Santiago (860.5)
Jason Varitek (847.9)
Russell Martin (839.7)
Ernie Lombardi (831.1) *
Darrell Porter (830.2)
Sherm Lollar (827.8)

and fwiw, we know that the clubs have more advanced data than is publicly available, and good framing catchers do not seem especially valued in the market -- at least not enough to pay a premium for it

― mookieproof, Tuesday, October 15, 2019 4:08 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

There is two things I want to mention: 1, I think we nerds ignore how much salaries are determined by marketability rather than advanced metrics. 2, undervaluing by ownership might just be more sinister than discussions about skill evaluations.

Absolutely agree that it is getting frustrating WAR allows for less and less catchers across different eras/ballparks/offensive factors etc.

As for '67-68 Cardinals' "mystique"... the reason they dominated MVP voting is that the BBWAA seemed even lazier when there was a 10-team single pennant race. ie 1) pennant winner 2) basic counting stats 3) "intangibles" that could be made up on the spot. Ballot done.

While they were one of the more integrated teams to win at that point, I find the '50s Dodgers and '70s Pirates more compelling on that score.

Salaries are also determined by star power (sells merch/seats) which is why teams tend to overpay for over-the-hill talent.

I'll keep saying it until you guys ban me: defensive WAR is fool's gold. It pains me how much the BBWAA have relied/will rely on such a flawed metric for end of year (and HOF!) votes.

speaking of banning, who are the ILB mod(s)? just the dearly departed steve shasta?

I'll keep saying it until you guys ban me: defensive WAR is fool's gold. It pains me how much the BBWAA have relied/will rely on such a flawed metric for end of year (and HOF!) votes.

― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 11:49 AM (nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Do you mean that we will never figure out good metrics for defensive evaluation or that right now those evaluations are inadequate?

i don't think defensive WAR is a bedrock stat for the writers; it is a factor among many in which they judge a player's defense

That McCann/Pujols '08 fWAR thing above is...

I don’t really trust any of the defensive catching metrics

shouting at guys who jog to first on pop-ups counts as an extra out, which fWAR accounts for.

The '64-'68 Cardinals had mystique--deserved or otherwise, that's just a fact. I was aware of that as a young fan in the early '70s, having read Roger Angell's accounts of the three World Series they were in. The Dodgers of the '50s had more, sure--tied in with a certain book--but the Cardinals had their own.

http://media1.fdncms.com/riverfronttimes/imager/u/blog/2573864/si_comparison_covers.jpg?cb=1454773020

so, cc sabathia

Epic career, but no. He had a Cy Young and made it to 3,000 Ks - best thing he had going for him was spending 10 years on the Yankees. Got him a lot of wins and post season games. But he never dominated or lead in much else aside from just pitching a lot. If he’d spent the last 10 years on the Twins, I don’t think he would be getting the same hof attention.

One man's "mystique" is another's "lotta press."

CC fairly close to Don Sutton's BWAR, while pitching a third less innings.

close comp to Drysdale too

Are you saying the Cardinals didn't have it or that it doesn't exist at all? A lot of press could just as easily explain Babe Ruth or Michael Jordan.

Obviously, Sutton's in for the 300 wins--if he'd fallen short, he'd probably be out there with Tommy John and Jim Kaat. (Sabermetrics rescued Bert Blyleven; I doubt that would have happened with Sutton, who's ahead of John in WAR but still short of 70.0.) Maybe, if WAR sticks around, a widely recognized benchmark will be established--70 seems to be the number right now for Jaffe-types. Sabathia's at 62.5, right where Kaat is. I'm on the fence with CC, and I think he'll be one of those guys who starts in the 40-50% range, and then, who knows.

Drysdale's in for...mystique!

Don’t forget to the fun name factor (1.01x)

Don’t forget to add all the words to your sentences, either

I don't know what Mystique (TM) *is*, other than it didn't get its Yankees tickets this week.

i keep going back and forth on CC, bc he did have a decent string of peak seasons but at the same time he does really seem sometimes like he's closer to a David Wells type than a Mike Mussina type, when looking at his entire career.

def not quite in Mussina's tier, careerwise

i don't want to mutter "compiler" but if we discuss peak there are a lot of pitchers out there who were much better and didn't last long enough at a diminished level to build up the career totals. Johan and Felix, to name a couple.

agnostic on his induction, but i kinda believe all hall of famers should have had a transcendent period during which they were, however fleetingly, the best in the game. and for cc, that second half with the brewers in 2008 counts.

CC was arguably not even the best lefty Cy Young winner Cleveland had during the '00s.

i thought for awhile he was going to wind up similar to Verlander, in that both had these good early indoctrination periods where they mastered their inherent talents before they peaked and won the Cy, followed by a depressing early decline, but Verlander's was just a blip on the radar and a bit of a mirage. CC wound up just having this very good middle period and a decline marked by occasional fine performances and outright terrible ones.

for me i guess the closest comparison is maybe Pettitte? a really fine and occasionally great pitcher who seems just outside HOF-worthy (though CC was better than Pettitte in terms of a consistent peak).

agnostic on his induction, but i kinda believe all hall of famers should have had a transcendent period during which they were, however fleetingly, the best in the game

Mostly agree with this, except 1) I think you can play/pitch at a slightly lower level if you do it long enough (something like Palmeiro, I guess), and 2) for me, Sabathia's transcendent period is too fleeting--I'd want two or three seasons where you're viewed as one of the best (half-dozen?) in the game.

i, too, prefer hall of famers to achieve transcendence (i'd say "among" the best in the game, not necessarily the very best) - the lower the height of peak transcendence, the longer it has to last. and then take that and divide by 5

and then there's the VC and Harold Baines

wow i don't think there's any need to bring venture capital or the viet cong into this

The Victory Condition for HOF has been lowered to “be at least as hall of famey as Harold Baines, at the very minimum”

Harold is a HOF with so many career highlights, baseball card companies had trouble narrowing it down to just one to cite

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/Images/Cards/Baseball/594/594-232Bk.jpg

hall of fame, next vote i care about... Bonds and Clemens

appreciate that they included a photo of harold getting fooled by a changeup

That card's perfect for Brendan C. Boyd's The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book. "Harold & his wife have 4 children." Not to diminish the importance of repopulating the world, but I somehow can't see that turning up on Willie Mays' or Greg Maddux's card.

If CC doesn’t get in, the bar for the new generation is going to be really high. Pitchers with 70+ WAR won’t come up like it used too.

Great pitchers are the exception to whatever prevailing trends are around, so I don't know if usage patterns will much affect the existence or 70+ guys or not. 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.

Not sure how that would compare to a snapshot of 1998 or 1984...There'll be more than that lost '80s generation of starters, for sure.

I don’t see how pitchers pitching fewer innings *couldn’t* lead to fewer guys passing a certain threshold...WAR is a counting stat after all

I'd want two or three seasons where you're viewed as one of the best (half-dozen?) in the game.

From 2007-9 he was certainly one of the best two or three pitchers in the game.

(xpost) I should have been clearer--when a Verlander or Scherzer comes along, they don't follow the prevailing trends.

He averaged > 6 WAR from 2007-2011, he was as dominant and consistent (230+ IP) as anyone in the game at his peak.

xpost

(xpost) True:

Sabathia -- 18.2
Greinke -- 18.0
Lincecum -- 17.5
Halladay -- 16.7
Santana -- 15.4
Beckett -- 14.8

I used the bWAR total for those three years (checked about a dozen pitchers...may have missed someone).

I have one foot dangling off the fence, pointing in the direction of Cooperstown.

he was as dominant and consistent (230+ IP) as anyone in the game

Consistent definitely. Dominant relative to the league--he totals 30.4 bWAR for those five years, 6.1 a year, which is a moderate HOF peak.

You're making a good case...maybe the thing that gets in the way for me is that he's only somewhat effective after the age of 31. Whether it should or shouldn't be, that's always a stumbling block for me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per Fangraphs, he’s as good as Glavine.

fp for bumping during a championship game

.... and not mentioning Altuve.