Hall of Fame Ballot

[MFS62]

Edgy, we get into this same discussion every time Martinez' name comes up.
I would have voted for Frank Thomas, and I would vote for Big Papi.
I said "in this case" and I mean it. He stopped playing a position after about his first 8 years in the majors (only about 25% of his at bats), and went on to play 10 more years with very sporadic position play. I just don't think Martinez earns my vote.(if I had one).

As Dennis Miller used to say, "That's just my opinion and, I may be wrong."
But from the numbers above, about 15 % of eligible voters share that opinion, as do some of the other CPF-ers.

Later

[Edgy MD]

MFS62 wrote: Edgy, we get into this same discussion every time Martinez' name comes up.

Well, if you choose to make a point of it, that's what you choose to do.

MFS62 wrote: But from the numbers above, about 15 % of eligible voters share that opinion, as do some of the other CPF-ers.

Not voting for Edgar Martinez is not the same as excluding him outright because he's a DH.

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: He's also one of the greatest players ever to wear a pair of underpants. who is the greatest player to regularly "go commando"?

Kevin Mitchell, I would think.

[seawolf17]

Nymr83 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: He's also one of the greatest players ever to wear a pair of underpants. who is the greatest player to regularly "go commando"?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

There's almost no good time not to bust out the Harvey bathrobe series but that was an especially good one. I am LOLing at the office

[Edgy MD]

Is voting for a one-inning reliever OK?

[Guest 41Forever]

The ballot tracker as of right now:

Chipper Jones - 98%
Jim Thome - 96%
Vladimir Guerrero - 94%
Edgar Martinez - 79.5%
Trevor Hoffman - 78%
Roger Clemens - 73%
Barry Bonds - 72%
Mike Mussina - 70%
Curt Schilling - 67%
Larry Walker - 40%
Omar Vizquel - 25%
Manny Ramirez - 29%
Fred McGriff - 15%
Sammy Sosa - 14%
Gary Sheffield - 12%
Scott Rolen - 10%
Billy Wagner - 10%
Andruw Jones - 7%
Jeff Kent - 8%
Johan Santana -- 1.6%
Johnny Damon -- 0.8%


This is with 119 ballots. My guess is that Martinez and Hoffman will fall short, giving us a class of three, (plus Morris and Trammell)

Surprised to see Clemens and Bonds on the cusp. For all the love I'm reading for Rolen, he's barely in double digits. A little surprised that Johan, despite two unanimous Cy Youngs, could be a one-and-done guy.

[Benjamin Grimm]

41Forever wrote: Surprised to see Clemens and Bonds on the cusp.

I'm surprised too. And displeased as well.

Has Mark McGwire's time on the ballot expired?

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, the old 15-year rule got scrapped, and MM fell off after 10, trending downward over the course of his eligibility.

2007 23.5%
2008 23.6%
2009 21.9%
2010 23.7%
2011 19.8%
2012 19.5%
2013 16.9%
2014 11.0%
2015 10.0%
2016 12.3%

He's missing out on the newfound tolerance those labeled as juicers, but who retired later, have found.

[seawolf17]

Edgy MD wrote: He's missing out on the newfound tolerance those labeled as juicers, but who retired later, have found.

Once Bonds and Clemens get over the hump, he'll follow as some sort of vet's pick.

[nymr83]

Johan is suffering from the ballot glut - he had a Koufax-ian run of dominance, a 5 year peak like almost nobody has achieved. keep him on the ballot!

[Valadius]

Looking at the numbers and the historical trends, my gut tells me we get a class of 4 - Jones, Thome, Guerrero, and Hoffman. Martinez falls just short with one year left to go. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised and Martinez makes it.

[Guest 41Forever]

I noticed a couple of things while looking at the Hall of Fame ballot tracker today.

First, I saw that of the 163 ballots recorded so far, the average number of players per ballot was 8.99. I was happily surprised by this, since we all know of the writers who provoke outrage by not voting. Then I got curious about who might be dragging down that average.

Prepare for some outrage.

Bill Livingston of the Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com votes for just two players, Jim Thome and Omar Vizquel.

Confronted with the usual ballot of suspected steroid abusers who were eligible and other players who were never mentioned in connection with the performance-enhancing drugs, I said last year that I had had enough of Major League Baseball's refusal to make any ruling on the steroid era to guide voters. Most writers refused to vote for the usual suspects - Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, the whole rogues' gallery. I spent a couple of years voting for all of them, because the inconvenient truth was that rampant cheating actually did take place, that these players were the best of a corrupt era, and that the head-in-sand approach to a time of widespread corruption solved nothing by ignoring the problem. The trouble with that, of course, was it crowded out players who were probably clean. Abstention, I decided, was the way out, but it had to be principled abstention, informing the Hall of Fame why on my ballot I could not vote for anyone. I felt the same moral purity that I am sure people of dreamy political ideology felt who voted for alternative candidates and thus enabled the Presidential election result of 2016. Now the debate wasn't so much about the head and the reasonable objection I had to failure to set criteria for the steroid era or even try to define it. Now it was a recollection of how happy were the 1990s here when the Cleveland Indians had an All-Star at every position, went to two world Series, dominated their division, and, in the vacuum left by the deserting Cleveland Browns, won back the love of the city. How in good conscience could I not vote for Omar Vizquel, the best shortstop I ever saw, the winner of a Fort Knox vault full of Gold Gloves, the defensive mainstay of those slugging teams? Vizquel is one of my favorite players in any sport ever. How were 600-plus home runs by Jim Thome not enough, for all that he traveled the land as a mercenary after saying they would have to tear the Indians shirt off his back? On the rest of the field, I didn't make a call due to the absence of policy on the steroid era.

Then there were a couple guys voting for four. Steve Marcus of Newsday voted for Guerrero, Hoffman, Chipper and Thome.

And, our old friend Murray Chass, who, a year after a blank ballot, voted for Guerrero, Chipper, Martinez and Thome.

Chass' column is worth reading, if for nothing else his exaggerated sense of self-importance and the way he attacks a radio guy, calling him a jerk while displaying jerky qualities himself. Chass gold.

AFTER BLANK BALLOT, WHAT NEXT? After my infamous blank Hall of Fame ballot last year, I seriously considered an even more striking gesture this year. Having absolutely nothing to do with the blank ballot, I seriously considered giving up voting for the Hall of Fame altogether. Before taking up that issue, though, I want to get back to the blank ballot and the reaction to it, especially from a jerk of a television commentator named Casey Stern. Stern had a radio show and thought it would be great fun to ridicule me for submitting a blank ballot. Stern, however, was either too lazy or too dumb to do his homework. He reacted as if my blank ballot was the first ever submitted in a HOF vote. Had he cared to find out and was not out just to have childish fun at my expense, he would have learned that my blank ballot was not the first submitted last year. He also could have found out from Ryan Thibodaux, the master of HOF voting record keeping, that eight blank ballots had been cast in the previous five years. That information, though, would have spoiled Stern’s play day. When I tried to reach Stern to enlighten him, I was told he was on vacation, and he never returned my calls. This is a class guy, an announcer who was once so careless between innings of a playoff game that he uttered a notorious “M.F.” into an open microphone. As I said, a real class guy. Now about that blank ballot, if memory serves me correctly, three former players were elected – Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines and Ivan Rodriguez. If I had voted for anyone, I would not have voted for any of that trio. I have been clear in my position on cheaters. I don’t vote for them. Whether or not they have been caught using steroids or other PEDS, Bagwell and Rodriguez have long been associated with steroids. Raines was an admitted cocaine user. Cocaine might not do for a player what steroids do, but they are and have been illegal, and Raines testified under oath that he began sliding headfirst because he kept a packet of cocaine in his back pocket and didn’t want to mess it up by sliding on it. Honesty on the witness stand does not excuse a player’s use of illegal drugs. So much for last year’s ballot. As I said, there wasn’t going to be a ballot this year. As I wrote here recently, I don’t think any writers should be voting for the Hall of Fame. Jane Forbes Clark, its chairman and gatekeeper, doesn’t deserve our assistance. Among other reasons for that view, she has kept Marvin Miller out of the Hall for more than 15 years, and that is unconscionable. So I initially ignored the ballot on my desk, planning to do nothing with it but keeping it for reference when results are announced Jan. 24. But I bungled my plan, mentioning it to my youngest son and oldest grandson. Separately, they made a strong case for not executing my plan. I kept the ballot on my desk and three days before the deadline invited them to register their best arguments. The result: I voted. HOF Vote (2017-12-31)But whom did I vote for? All I can say is, if Edgar Martinez, Chipper Jones, Vladimir Guerrero and Jim Thome ever used steroids, I have never heard about it. Martinez is the only vote worth explaining. In his first eight years on the ballot, I didn’t vote for Martinez but in retrospect probably think I should have. But then, had I voted for him a year ago, how would Stern have filled his air time? I was about to seal the envelope when I decided to rethink Jones, Guerrero and Thome. I didn’t want to vote for four; that’s at least one or two too many to be inducted in a single year; it dilutes the honor. But I found it difficult to separate the three additions to my ballot. Many, if not most, writers these days would find it easy to vote for four players. They would find it easy to vote for 10 and more, if they could. I strongly disagree with that thinking. There is just no way 10 players are good enough to be worthy of induction. Writers who vote for 10 are taking the easy way out. They don’t want to take the time and effort to separate the players into the best and others. The Hall of Fame should be for the elite of the elite. Otherwise the honor is diluted. We can disagree on whom we think the elite of the elite are, but one thing I know is they aren’t all of the players on voters’ lists of 10. A few years ago Hall officials pared the voting rolls by about 100, knocking off older writers who were no long active or covering baseball on a daily basis. That was a mistake. I know of several writers who are no longer working but covered the players who are now eligible for the Hall of Fame. They would serve as more intelligent and conscientious voters than many of those voting. I am in the group of writers who have been stricken from the voting rolls, but I understand I am exempt because I won the J.G. Taylor Spink award about 15 years ago. I frankly don’t think the award warrants an exemption. I’d rather that it gives me the right to designate two or three writers who should still be voting. Maybe that will happen when Miller is elected to the Hall.

[nymr83]

First, I saw that of the 163 ballots recorded so far, the average number of players per ballot was 8.99. I was happily surprised by this, since we all know of the writers who provoke outrage by not voting. Then I got curious about who might be dragging down that average.

I strongly suspect that the guys whose ballots are known ahead of time skew younger and tend to be more in the "more is merrier" camp. the ballots with one or two votes tend to not get published ahead of time.

Bill Livingston of the Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com votes for just two players, Jim Thome and Omar Vizquel.

seriously, strip this clown of his ballot.

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: I strongly suspect that the guys whose ballots are known ahead of time skew younger and tend to be more in the "more is merrier" camp. the ballots with one or two votes tend to not get published ahead of time.

The older guys tend to be semi-retired and not have a regular outlet to post their ballots in.

[Guest 41Forever]

I was pleased that so many guys were turning in ballots with 10 selections.

[Guest sharpie]

Manny Ramirez was pretty key on those Indians teams of the '90's. Livingston should've found a way to vote for him, too.

[Guest 41Forever]

sharpie wrote: Manny Ramirez was pretty key on those Indians teams of the '90's. Livingston should've found a way to vote for him, too.

Good call. And I thought this was a cheap shot:

How were 600-plus home runs by Jim Thome not enough, for all that he traveled the land as a mercenary after saying they would have to tear the Indians shirt off his back?

Thome played 12 seasons for the Indians, so it's not like he rushed out of town as fast as he could. And he was trades three times, so not all of that "traveling" was his call. It's like these guys have to find a way to tear someone down even while building him up.

[Zvon]

I thought Thome only topped 500. I must have heard that he passed 600!

[Zvon]

If I add Thome will that mess things up? Actually, 500 should have gotten my vote. (^See Rick James meme above)

[Guest 41Forever]

http://www.mlive.com/tigers/index.ssf/2013/01/will_jack_morris_make_the_hall.html

This popped up on Facebook today -- with some familiar faces involved. Turns out we were off by a few years. Was nice to have Phil Regan involved.

[Edgy MD]

I tend to think that Bonds was Hall-worthy when (it's generally accepted) he started juicing. I tend to think Clemens wasn't quite there. So I tend to disagree that Clemens is just as worthy as Bonds. Following 1996, the Sox recognized that he was declining, and as he moved on the Jays, he needed one or two more excellent seasons to put him over the top. He started juicing and had, like, seven or eight.

In fact, shelving the whole issue of PEDs, I disagree that Clemens is just as worthy. Bonds was unstoppable.

[dgwphotography]

seawolf17 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: He's missing out on the newfound tolerance those labeled as juicers, but who retired later, have found. Once Bonds and Clemens get over the hump, he'll follow as some sort of vet's pick.

God, I hope not. Without the Steroids, he's Dave Kingman

[Ceetar]

What's Dave Kingman without the steroids?

[Guest 41Forever]

Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe is voting for just three players -- Vlad, Thome and Chipper.

Three guys. That’s it. I don’t want the Hall of Fame to turn into the Hall of Very Good. I’m not coming down off the Steroid Wall, which is an increasingly difficult and unpopular position. And I’m not letting the analytics army tell me that WAR is the perfect barometer for Hall worthiness.

I think Hoffman is going to fall just short again, for reasoning like this:

Trevor Hoffman is going to Cooperstown this year. He was five votes short last year. So it’s done. He will be in a large class with Thome, Jones, Guerrero, plus ex-Tigers Jack Morris and Alan Trammell, who were selected by a veterans committee last month. But I don’t vote for closers unless they are Rich Gossage (three-inning guys), Bruce Sutter (changed the game with a unique pitch), or Mariano Rivera (the greatest of all time). There are simply too many cheesy saves these days. Hello, Craig Kimbrel. I don’t vote for Edgar Martinez, not because he was a DH, but simply because he falls a little shy as a dangerous hitter. Martinez should not be penalized because he was on a team with Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez, but he fails simply on my Potter Stewart “I know it when I see it” test. Sorry, Edgar fans.

Of course, his colleague Rob Hohler is the one voting for Johnny Damon.

Cue the ridicule. I’m voting for Johnny Damon. His body of work is borderline at best for induction into the Hall of Fame. But voters have long shown their standards are as squishy as Silly Putty, and I’m straying from convention this year to recognize Damon’s transformative role in Red Sox history.

Looking at the ballot tracker, I think Andruw Jones will join Johan in the club of players unjustly bounced after one year on the ballot.

[Edgy MD]

I realize Gossage played a million years and spanned eras, but to describe him as the last of the three-inning closers is less true than it is to describe him as the first of the one-inning closers.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

That, um, honor belongs to, like, Franco or Eck, no?

And if you're voting for closers... well... these guys don't seem to register that in every other way but counting stats, Wagner was a significantly more dominant closer than Trevor Hoffman.

[Edgy MD]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: That, um, honor belongs to, like, Franco or Eck, no?

Gossage was pulling off the one-inning act while Eck was still starting and Franco was trying to get Chris Mullin to hang out with him at St. John's.

[metsmarathon]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: And if you're voting for closers... well... these guys don't seem to register that in every other way but counting stats, Wagner was a significantly more dominant closer than Trevor Hoffman.

it's not the be-all, end-all, but if you look at fangraphs, and run tehir war graphs tool, where it stacks their seasons from most to least fWAR, you'll find that billy wagner's curve is below trevor hoffman's for all but one data point. meaning wagner's best season was better than hoffman's best season. but hoffman's second-best season was better than wagners second best, and hoffmans third best was better than wagners third best. so on so forth.

the difference is within the margin of error for war, to be sure, but it's just not true to say that wagner was more dominant than hoffman. except if you're measuring fastball velocity, i guess.

OE: hmm... wagner does have a far better ERA, ERA+. unsure how the WAR calculation is coming in so evenly. maybe it's the higher walk rate...?

[Edgy MD]

I'm not particularly comfortable with WAR for relievers. A big part of WAR is to treat all events as equal (all homers as equal, all walks ... etc.), no matter the context. I tend to be distrustful of that, but accept it. But with guys whose whole role is about situations (pinch-hitters, spot relievers), it's seems deeply unreliable.

That may be largely ironed out when comparing two guys with essentially the same role, but I still am slow to surrender.