hall of fame, next vote...

Yeah, I bet Piazza gets more of a steroids penalty from Hall voters than Pudge will

I think Rodriguez is going to be treated with more suspicion. The arc of his career seems more in line with PEDs to me--he had this four- or five-year burst of offensive production starting in '99 that didn't quite fit with the rest of his career. (Looked at one way; you could also argue that there was steady improvement over a number of years leading up to 1999.) Piazza was pretty great right off the bat, and his production was fairly consistent for the next decade.

I'm not sure that any hitter who debuted in the 90's will be elected on the first ballot (except Jeter). Rodriguez might have a chance because of his defense and his MVP award. But you're right about his "career arc" looking suspicious (I don't care, but lots of other people do), that will hurt his case for sure.

Yeah, I don't think the writers care about the career arc. They care about Piazza being a big muscular guy who hit tons of homers. While Pudge is a smaller guy who was a defensive whiz. The only guys who ever seem to get any steroid grief are the guys who hit tons of homers (and Roger Clemens).

Well Pudge is going to have the benefit he is going to come up in 2018 after many of the big names have already gone up and gotten turned down. That Rangers clubhouse is probably one of the most suspect ones though tied to the scandal...probably up with SF, Houston, SD and the NY ones (although I don't remember a whole lot Mets per say getting mentioned as Yanks by rumor).

I don't remember anything coming up about Piazza persay. Maybe it did and I just don't remember compared to the big ones.

(xpost) The only problem with that theory is that Piazza hit 35 home runs as a rookie in 1993; his career high only nudged up to 40, and between '93 and 2002, he was in that 35-40 range six times. Rodriguez, by contrast, went 35-27-25 during his peak, and otherwise only barely hit more than 20 twice the whole rest of his career. If the sportswriters are indeed doubling as detectives, I suspect Rodriguez's batting line is the one they're going to look upon with more skepticism.

On the other hand, Rodriguez was playing before Pizza, and, because he retained defensive value, he also outlasted him by four years--I'm sure that will weigh in Pudge's favour. We'll see. I'd never thought about NoTime's theory that no hitter (except Jeter) who debuted in the '90s will make it first ballot, but I think he might be right; I haven't come up with any counter-examples yet.

"Rodriguez was playing before Pizza"--he predates hot dogs and nachos, too. Guy's been around forever.

@Kurkjian_ESPN
Pudge caught Nolan Ryan, who was born in 1947, and Stephen Strasburg, who was born in 1988. Amazing

I've never heard Piazza and roids get talked about. Lots of Pudge talk - but, as noted, his career lasted long enough for a lot of the stink to dissipate.

Assessing I-Rod:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/cliff_corcoran/04/20/ivan-rodriguez-retirement/index.html?sct=mlb_bf3_a5

Just looking over something I wrote a while back, and I realize there are in fact three hitters who debuted in the '90s who I think have a pretty good shot at first-ballot induction: Thomas, Chipper, and Vlad. I'll throw in Piazza, too, for a total of four.

I've never heard Piazza and roids get talked about

scurrilous BACNE anecdotes.

I get lots of back-pimples and I've never touched a steroid outside a couple of months treatment for psoriasis 20 years ago. Irrelevant, yes, but equally and just as valiudly anecdotal.

we're not talking about reality, we're talkin the BBWAA

Thomas is still widely seen as a failure for the second half of his career. I don't expect him to be first-ballot.
Chipper - maybe. He's a baseball writer's wet dream.
I'd bet more money on Vlad not getting in than getting in on the first ballot.

I've never heard Piazza and roids get talked about

scurrilous BACNE anecdotes.

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, April 27, 2012 1:16 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Also a gay, iir my slanders correctly

Just looking over something I wrote a while back, and I realize there are in fact three hitters who debuted in the '90s who I think have a pretty good shot at first-ballot induction: Thomas, Chipper, and Vlad. I'll throw in Piazza, too, for a total of four.

― clemenza

i think that seems about right, at least for the first three. chipper no doubt of course, thomas should be a 95%+ finisher but it'll be more like 85%. a couple of decent high mvp finishes in his post-glory years, epic numbers, the only player who volunteered to speak to the mitchell report folks iirc. i think his decline is gonna play to the writers like griffey's did: almost an example of his trustworthiness or some such bullshit like that.

vlad is gonna be close but i think he does it.

Also a gay, iir my slanders correctly

but a gay Republican, even if he didn't sleep with wasn't pals w/ Rush Limbaugh like George Brett.

Vizquel:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/29182/omar-vizquel-and-the-hall-of-fame

I didn't fuss too much over my "no" vote--he seemed viable for about five minutes after his strong '99 season.

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 (7 years ago) Permalink

:/

This bit from Verducci seemed far-fetched to me at first, and it still does to an extent, but he does provide some context:

But what if (Bochy) wins another World Series? Indeed, you might say this World Series brings Cooperstown into play for the winner, be it Leyland (1,676 wins and 17 games over .500 in a 21-year managerial career with one World Series championship) or Bochy, who also looks to get his second title. One of them will become the 14th manager to win more than 1,400 games and multiple World Series. All of them are in the Hall or assured of going in except Houk. Bochy is far from wrapping up his career. He's only 57. The point is that he has quietly amassed a resume that is headed toward some serious Hall of Fame consideration.

17 games over .500! Quite an accomplishment!

Not saying that Leyland isn't a good manager but the argument that he's basically won just slightly over half his games is pretty funny.

I basically agree--like I say, seems farfetched. It was just his "Only 14 managers..." bit that caught my eye. (Leyland's got the sagacious, chiseled face of a HOF manager, but then so did Roy Hartsfield.)

He does completely have the look down. Way more than Bochy who basically just looks like a mean drunk. I could get behind a HoF for Leyland based on him being the most manageresque looking manager.

has to be smoking on the plaque

Totally. Also play by Harry Dean Stanton in the movie about Miguel Cabrera's Triple Crown season.

"You have won some salted meats and a bottle of Rebel Yell!"

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/97/97ngrizzled.phtml

I have a dream that baseball managers will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the success of their teams, but by how really wise and wrinkly they look.

http://static.foxsports.com/content/fscom/img/2011/06/26/062611-MLB-Detroit-Tigers-Sparky-Anderson-PI_20110626165052600_335_220.JPG http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/001/621/836/Casey-Stengel_original_crop_exact.jpg?w=340&h=234&q=75

http://nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/jack-mckeon-marlins.jpg?w=320 http://nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/jim-leyland1.jpg?w=320

Tim Hudson:

http://mlb.si.com/2013/05/01/tim-hudson-braves-win-200/?eref=sihp

A longshot, though I wouldn't completely count him out yet. Five percent chance, maybe? The best thing in his career box is the lifetime .650+ winning percentage, but the number of voters who care about such things dwindles a little bit more each year. May end with a WAR over 60.0.

i would say he has almost zero chance, especially if someone like curt schilling has trouble getting in. hudson doesn't have anything, for lack of a better adjective, 'legendary' about him like schilling does.

I'd definitely agree that if it's a long slog for Schilling, Hudson's a non-starter. Without thinking about it, I'd probably already subconsciously voted Schilling in. But you're right, he started off at a fairly modest 38% this year. We'll see what happens the next three or four years.

I'd probably file Tim Hudson in the hall of very good. The guy has been very consistently solid, can't argue he would be a good guy to have on your staff for a decade. Hudson's lost a season or two to injury over his career, which takes down his total counting numbers. That said, I think the way the guy pitches on guile and control, if he can avoid more injuries he could still pitch for a few more years and the Braves are setup to be a pretty good club for the short future.

hudson was i think the first of the billy beane-cultivated "ace" pitchers to arrive in the majors and in the wake of the big splashes made by zito, mulder, and harden he ended up lost in the shuffle and pretty underrated. never as flashy as those three, never a big K guy, but still often the best guy on the staff. obv ended up being the best in the long run. since he arrived, what righty SPs have been better? halladay, verlander, king felix, and the peaks of a couple others i guess? he's good.

thought Harden came after Zito/Mulder/Hudson?

he did.

Hudson's case is probably closest to Mussina's -- very good for a long time but never really had the star aura about him. Mussina's peak and career numbers are better though, so if he has trouble getting in then Hudson has no chance.

yeah harden was '03 so he was a couple years after those big 3, but he was definitely another oakland ace in the making who made people forget about hudson, it seems, or at least made them a lot more comfortable about dealing him. all i remember about harden was how good he was in 2008, especially with the cubs.

This is fairly obvious, but nice summary lifted from James's site of how rookie age relates to HOF chances:

# of Players   Rookie Age   Hall of Famers   Pct.
    3	          18	          1	     33%
   11	          19	          3	     27%
   48	          20	         12	     25%
  111	          21	         10	      9%
  172	          22	          7	      4%
  202	          23	          8	      4%
  212	          24	          2	      1%
  135	          25	          0	      0%
   67	          26	          0	      0%
   26	          27	          0	      0%
   12	          28	          0	      0%
    5	          29	          0	      0%
    2	          30	          0	      0%

Doesn't include active players--Ichiro will almost certainly add a hall of famer towards the end of the chart, but he's a special case that doesn't change the relationship at all.

who are the players who that sample is drawn from?

who = from which

Good question. It can't be inclusive, can it...let me check.

1) All players who played before 1950 (even one game before 1950), and

2) Players who have played since 2011 (2011, 2012 or 2013), since those player may not yet have complete careers.

3) All players who played less than 800 games in their careers.

This third elimination creates a major selection bias in the data, which makes these players who are studied here quite different from all rookies, and limits our ability to generalize what we learn from doing this. (On the other hand, not restricting the study group would cause other problems which, in my judgment, would be much worse, so...six of one, half-dozen of the other. Doing the study this way, you learn quite a bit but you can’t generalize it reliably because of the selection bias. Doing the study the other way you wouldn’t learn anything to begin with.)

I'm too tired to try to make sense of that.

I assume the three criteria are the exclusions, right? So everyone else (played post-1950, career started pre-2011 and played more than 800 games) is the sample?

That'd be it, yeah--all I had to do was glance at some of the names included (e.g., Mantle) to figure that out. The study had to do with a reader question about the predictive value of rookie seasons--the HOF stuff came out of that. I'd link to the whole thing, but it's behind the paywall.

is that for players who played a full rookie season, i'm guessing?

I think so, but I scanned the piece and couldn't clarify that. I think I remember a line about "true rookie season."

Jay Jaffe's HOF favourites, by position, among active players:

http://mlb.si.com/2013/07/26/who-is-cooperstown-bound-a-look-at-active-players-with-strong-hall-of-fame-cases/

I don't know if Cooperstown will ever get over its third-base blind spot, but if you throw in Wright and Longoria, I'd say there are four pretty strong candidates right now.

Voters gonna have to get real sabermetric for Utley unless he lasts til 40.

I wonder what the TV ratings will be like to hear the great-grandchildren of Hank O’Day, Jacob Ruppert and Deacon White.

Tom Cheek got his posthumous Frick Award today, so that's getting coverage here. But that's not induction--all you get is your name on a plaque that's kept in the supply cupboard.