Handicapping the 2013 Hall of Fame Ballot

[FedEx227]

The fact that Biggio, Raines, Trammell and to some extent Bagwell will be left out is beyond belief.

here's my final "ballot":

1. Biggio
2. Raines
3. Piazza
4. Bagwell
5. Bonds
6. Clemens
7. Schilling
8. Trammell
9. Walker
10. Martinez

[JimLeavy59]

Baseball is weird.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I get Bonds & Clemens, I really do. I don't agree, but respect why people don't vote for them.

I get why they don't vote for Raines, Walker, Biggio, etc. Hard markers, old standards, fine. Entitled to whatever standards you choose when it comes to stats. I accept it.

But Mike Piazza isn't a hall of famer, based on nothing more than speculation. This I can not accept.

[FedEx227]

He may have had back acne, THATS ENOUGH FOR ME.

That's the most galling thing for me this year. Cool, you don't want to do the roid guys, fine, whatever. Why the fuck are Tim Raines and Biggio still on the outside looking in? Why the hell is Bagwell not there? Trammell is still on the outside?

You want to send a message to the 90s but leaving out deserving guys in the 80s? Fucking christ.

[Senser81]

Interesting initial write-up, Dell. I agree with a lot of what you said, especially about Lee Smith. The guy was never "lights-out" as a closer...it was more like a "I hope he makes it through this one" every time (kinda like Ron Davis). I don't see how he is a HOFer.

I disagree with your "ethical dilemma" comment. To me, the only true ethical dilemma is Bagwell, because he has HOF numbers but its just not clear whether he did steroids or not. Thats the dilemma. For guys like Sosa and Bonds, there is no dilemma, because you know there were on steroids so its simply a choice of whether or not you think they should be in the HOF. Hope that made sense.

Here would be the guys I would vote "yes" for...


Biggio
Bagwell
Piazza
Clemens
Bonds
McGwire
Raffy
L. Walker
S. Sosa

[MrBill]

So nobody got in for the first time since '96? Baseball writers & HOF voters take themselves way too seriously :lol

[Goober]

How the hell did Kenny Lofton not even get 5% of the vote? Unbelievable.

[mgoblue2290]

What I don't understand is how next year or in a few years, some of these guys will get in. As if somehow, by not playing, they are more deserving. Something also tells me, that if you asked these guys if they feel like Biggio deserves to get in, more than 75% would say yes but they probably feel like he doesn't deserve first ballot status.

[Goober]

What I don't understand is how next year or in a few years, some of these guys will get in. As if somehow, by not playing, they are more deserving. Something also tells me, that if you asked these guys if they feel like Biggio deserves to get in, more than 75% would say yes but they probably feel like he doesn't deserve first ballot status.

I would say that Biggio, Raines, Bagwell, Piazza, Bonds and Clemens all get in eventually. I don't think anyone else has a chance. If Alan Trammell hasn't gotten there yet, he won't in the next 3 (?) years, not with all the other names coming onto the ballot. There will be way more then 10 worthy names on the ballot, and some of these guys will get lost in the shuffle for sure.

[Senser81]

What I don't understand is how next year or in a few years, some of these guys will get in. As if somehow, by not playing, they are more deserving. Something also tells me, that if you asked these guys if they feel like Biggio deserves to get in, more than 75% would say yes but they probably feel like he doesn't deserve first ballot status.

Agree that the whole "1st ballot status" is kind of lame, especially because there is not special "1st ballot wing" in the HOF. Once you are in, you are in. In Biggio's case, I think he's probably the worst of the 3000 hit candidates to date. But I'd also be interested in knowing how many of the 3000 hit guys WEREN'T 1st ballot guys. I would guess that they all were.

I have no problem with no one getting in. I know the NFL has a minimum amount, which is kind of weird, and perhaps has led to terrible choices like Floyd Little getting in. I have a bigger problem with idiots voting for guys like Aaron Sele. Happens every year. Whats even more amazing to me isn't the lone guy who votes for Jim DeShaies, its the 5 guys who vote for Rick Honeycutt or the pocket of 30 guys who votes for Bob Boone...WTF?

They had a HOF voter on the radio this morning, and he said its not fun anymore, and one of the reasons he gave was that he "was getting tired of having to defend his selections". Beg pardon, but isn't that kind of the whole point of the process? If you are given the responsibility to vote, shouldn't you be expected to give a reason for your vote?

[Senser81]

I've heard this pro-Bonds/steroid argument this morning...that the Baseball HOF should be a museum which portrays the history of the game thus guys like Bonds should be in because they are a part of baseball history, but thats not really what this is about IMO. The Baseball HOF has artifacts and other historical footnotes about the game's history, but this is about voting in the most deserving players. Its two different things. If someone were to write a book titled "The History of Baseball", and another person were to write a book titled "Baseball's Greatest Players", would the two books be exactly the same? Of course not. The history of baseball doesn't consist entirely of great players.

So if a guy feels that Barry Bonds isn't deserving of the HOF, I don't see how that should by trumped by some "history of the game" tangent.

[jms493]

Why Shilling should be in the Hall of Fame....written by our old friend Hellisan. BAN ME OR FACE ME!!!

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/klo2j9

My take on why Curt Schilling should be in the HOF - Post Haste! @gehrig38 #HOF #MLB - WHY IS THIS EVEN A CONVERSATION? On Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2013, I called Coach Kentera, the late night sports talk show host on the San Diego radio Station the Mighty 1090, to lobby for the HOF candidacy of Curt Schilling. Coach said he didn't consider Schilling even a moderately good HOF candidate - far below Jack Morris. I made a lengthy argument for Schilling, and I told him that if I made a list of all players with a better winning percentage than Schilling's, it would be a short one. He told me to go ahead and make up the list, so what the hell.....

My list can be found on google docs, here: It's sorted by Winning Percentage, as per my discussion with Coach Kentera, but I will discuss some other things below:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq44CDoO6RYadDNVY0pzTkJyeGJlOXVZWFFTMHlhZnc#gid=0

I began my list by going to baseball reference and sorting by all players for games started. Schilling is 88th all time with 436 games started. That should hardly be a disqualifier, because there are already 61 pitchers in the Hall of Fame, many of whom were nowhere near as dominant as Schilling and didn't have to pitch in the Steroid Era.

First please note, I did not compile stats for any pitchers that pitched before the modern era. The modern and dead-ball eras are just too dissimilar, from huge strike zones to tiny ones, and when pitchers were seemingly just throwing it up and letting the defense do the work to today, where strikeouts are so necessary to a pitcher's success.

Of these modern era pitchers, I compiled all pitchers that pitched at least 400 games to start with, then made sure to add some notable active players such as CC Sabathia, Halladay, etc.

Here is the entire list of players within this list that had a higher career winning percentage than Schilling:

Whitey Ford
Pedro Martinez
Roy Halladay
Roger Clemens
Tim Hudson
CC Sabathia
Randy Johnson
Mike Mussina
Jim Palmer
Dwight Gooden
Andy Pettitte
Juan Marichal
Bob Feller
Bob Lemon
Greg Maddux
David Cone
David Wells
Tom Seaver
Tom Glavine

I will admit, I thought Schilling would be a few spots higher on the list, like 10th to 15th instead of 20th. Still, Schilling had an identical winning percentage to Warren Spahn, and better than Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton, and Don Drysdale among others. As you know, pitching success in the modern era is more than just looking at ERA. The pitcher can control how many hitters he strikes out and walks, and a lot else is up to luck, and the era he pitches in. In striking out hitters and avoiding walks, Schilling is among the best ever.

Within this list of 83 players I have compiled, he is:

5th in Career WHIP behind Pedro Martinez, Juan Marichal, Tom Seaver, and Catfish Hunter

5th in Career BB allowed per 9 IP behind Juan Marichal, Greg Maddux, Roy Halladay, and David Wells

4th in career K per 9 IP behind Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Nolan Ryan

FIRST ALL TIME in terms of strikeouts per walk. In the modern era, erasing batters from the game with the strikeout is the single most exciting and effective way to get through a lineup. The hitter can't get a swinging bunt for a base hit if he strikes out. Similarly, avoiding walks is also a primary way to succeed - homers become solo homers instead of two and three-run jobs. How can a pitcher considered the BEST OF ALL TIME in this category not be at least looked at seriously for the Hall? Are you kidding me?

Schilling is only 40th on the list in career ERA, but his career coincided almost exactly with the Steroid Era, year for year. The toughest era in history to compile an impressive ERA (this is what makes Pedro one of the best P of all time and a sure-fire, cinch-lock Hall of Famer with fewer wins that Schilling). When you look at ERA+, which compares the player's ERA to the league average, he is much better - 10th on the list behind Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Roy Halladay, Whitey Ford, Greg Maddux, Tom Seaver, Bob Gibson, Kevin Brown.

So we know players cannot control some things. They're not entirely in control of when their career starts (Schilling wasn't given a chance to start until he was 25) what role they play (he started his career as a reliever) and health, where he struggled a lot early in his career to stay healthy. Despite this, I think he is a Hall of Famer. Add on the following accomplishments and he becomes a sure-fire HOFer for me. Wins, while a fun stat to look at for great pitchers, shouldn't be the only thing you look at. Some of the players from the dead ball era have tons of wins but weren't much better than .500 for their career.

*Second in Cy Young voting three times, Top 5 four times
*11-2, 2.23 ERA, .846 win percentage in playoffs - 0.968 Career Playoff WHIP, 4.80 K/BB in Playoffs. He clearly relished the chance to shine on the big stage, with career playoff marks that are superior to such reknowned playoff pitchers as Jack Morris and John Smoltz.
*Bloody Sock - It's called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Good

Don Drysdale is a pitcher that most seem to agree should be in the Hall. To me he's easily good enough to be in, but Schilling is superior in almost every regard.

In the final reconciliation of the facts at my disposal, it's an absolute joke he didn't get in. And I'm even more offended at the number of people who call themselves experts who don't realize how incredibly well this man plied his craft.

[Senser81]

I don't really buy the win% argument, because too many non-HOF caliber guys populate the list, but I did not realize Schilling had such a dramatic K/BB ratio.

[FedEx227]

Agree that the whole "1st ballot status" is kind of lame, especially because there is not special "1st ballot wing" in the HOF. Once you are in, you are in. In Biggio's case, I think he's probably the worst of the 3000 hit candidates to date. But I'd also be interested in knowing how many of the 3000 hit guys WEREN'T 1st ballot guys. I would guess that they all were.

I have no problem with no one getting in. I know the NFL has a minimum amount, which is kind of weird, and perhaps has led to terrible choices like Floyd Little getting in. I have a bigger problem with idiots voting for guys like Aaron Sele. Happens every year. Whats even more amazing to me isn't the lone guy who votes for Jim DeShaies, its the 5 guys who vote for Rick Honeycutt or the pocket of 30 guys who votes for Bob Boone...WTF?

They had a HOF voter on the radio this morning, and he said its not fun anymore, and one of the reasons he gave was that he "was getting tired of having to defend his selections". Beg pardon, but isn't that kind of the whole point of the process? If you are given the responsibility to vote, shouldn't you be expected to give a reason for your vote?

Yes, most of the BBWA is made of writers (apparently journalists) who want to have an opinion but refuse to acknowledge counters to their opinion or challenges to their opinion. It's fantastic really.

[Senser81]

Yes, most of the BBWA is made of writers (apparently journalists) who want to have an opinion but refuse to acknowledge counters to their opinion or challenges to their opinion. It's fantastic really.

True. You might know the HOF voter I was referring to....Barry Rozner.