Handicapping the 2013 Hall of Fame Ballot

[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.

 

[FedEx227]

I listened to him today and he sounded like a moron. Then they brought Heyman on!

 

[Senser81]

I listened to him today and he sounded like a moron. Then they brought Heyman on!

It seems like if they talk to a writer for a few minutes every couple weeks, thats fine. But when they make guest hosts out of writers, and let them ramble for an entire morning, they invariably sound like idiots.

 

[FedEx227]

Rozner sits in for Boers every so often and he's usually not that bad. He's just not that smart of a baseball mind but he's relatively entertaining.

 

[Senser81]

Rozner sits in for Boers every so often and he's usually not that bad. He's just not that smart of a baseball mind but he's relatively entertaining.

True, I would much rather have Rozner than Boers.

 

[EmpireWF]

Bill Madden essentially wrote everyone whining about what happened needs to stfu. My deal with his explanation (which is he wants to wait in case we find out Piazza was using) is it's ridiculous. He actually said he had concerns with the fact Piazza pushed his books release until after the HOF vote.

Really?

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.

The argument goes that the HOF is about the greatest players in the game. Nobody can say Bonds and Clemens weren't the best of their generation. So, by not voting for them, it's about personal vendettas and not about putting the best in.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

It's a fucking museum.

I used to be a hard marker, but now I don't give a fuck. These writers need to get off their high horse.

People have it backwards. Putting in the wrong guy every now & then doesn't kill the credibility, leaving out Mike Piazza or Jeff Bagwell does.

 

[dell71]

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.

For a long time, I've been saying that whether this guy or that is "1st ballot" HOFer is utter nonsense. Like Senser said, there's no special wing for it. Either a guy belongs in the Hall or he doesn't.

Piazza not being voted in is absolutely absurd.

Biggio is definitely the first guy with 3K hits not to go in on his 1st ballot at least since WWII.

Schilling belongs.

 

[Senser81]

The argument goes that the HOF is about the greatest players in the game. Nobody can say Bonds and Clemens weren't the best of their generation. So, by not voting for them, it's about personal vendettas and not about putting the best in.

But the counter-argument is that the voters aren't putting in the "greatest" players, they are putting in the "most deserving" players. The distinction being that guys like Bonds, Clemens, Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, etc. are, for one reason or another, not deserving of the HOF. In other words, when a voter looks at the names on the ballot, his question is "Does this guy deserve to be in the HOF?", not "Was this guy a great player?".

I don't agree with that counter-argument, but I do understand it. Just sayin.

 

[FedEx227]

Here's the god damn list they should be using:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
2. Was he the best player on his team?
3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Which if you want to have fun and still support Morris, run down that list. A buddy and I did it and Morris has probably 6 of those.

 

[EmpireWF]

But the counter-argument is that the voters aren't putting in the "greatest" players, they are putting in the "most deserving" players. The distinction being that guys like Bonds, Clemens, Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, etc. are, for one reason or another, not deserving of the HOF. In other words, when a voter looks at the names on the ballot, his question is "Does this guy deserve to be in the HOF?", not "Was this guy a great player?".

I don't agree with that counter-argument, but I do understand it. Just sayin.

You don't agree with it like most logical thinking people because it's stupid.


...I'll presume.