Hall of Fame Ballot

[Guest Edgy DC]

Four Mets among the first timers. Enjoy it. Hershiser and maybe Gooden will see a second year. But I doubt that latter guy.

When did Keef fall off? (Checking. He got 4.35% in 2004.)

Rick Aguilera
Albert Belle
Bert Blyleven
Will Clark
Dave Conception
Andre Dawson
Gary DiSarcina
Alex Fernandez
Gary Gaetti
Steve Garvey
Dwight Gooden
Rich Gossage
Ozzie Guillen
Orel Hershiser
Gregg Jefferies
Tommy John
Doug Jones
Don Mattingly
Willie McGee
Hal Morris
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Bruce Sutter
Alan Trammell
Walt Weiss
John Wetteland

This actually isn't a strong ballot.

I rank them like so.

I give a Yea.

Bert Blyleven
Rich Gossage
Bruce Sutter

***
Nay

Alan Trammell
Andre Dawson
Dale Murphy
Jim Rice
Steve Garvey
Dave Conception
Dave Parker
Lee Smith
Orel Hershiser
Tommy John
Rick Aguilera
Albert Belle
Will Clark
Don Mattingly
Jack Morris
Willie McGee
Dwight Gooden
Gary Gaetti
John Wetteland
Walt Weiss
Gregg Jefferies
Ozzie Guillen
Doug Jones
Hal Morris
Alex Fernandez
Gary DiSarcina

[duan]

I'd add Trammell to the yays.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I might at that. Stupid Ripken.

Besides, Whittaker got tossed on the heap. Why do it to Trammell also?

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I'd vote for Bruce Sutter. And maybe that would be it.

[Frayed Knot]

A ballot weak with newbies is often good news for long-time 'just missing' types (or so the theory goes).
Perhaps that's good news for the Blyleven, Sutter & Gossage rooting sections.

[Guest sharpie]

Didn't Andre Dawson come awfully close last year?

[Guest Edgy DC]

The publicity around the ballot doesn't seem to have officially begun, but I expect that the story of this year's ballot will be that Pete Rose's eligibility with the BBWAA has expired.

[HahnSolo]

I'd give yays to Goose, Rice, Sutter and Trammell.

[Willets Point]

You Trammel voters are going to get brownie points with Ms. Tiger.

]The publicity around the ballot doesn't seem to have officially begun, but I expect that the story of this year's ballot will be that Pete Rose's eligibility with the BBWAA has expired.

Except that he's never been eligible to start with. What a conundrum.

[Vic Sage]

[u:7a975d5067]My revised rankings[/u:7a975d5067]

In light of Mr.Dickshot's Albert Belle comment, i went back and looked at my rankings, and annotated them to show how many categories used by Baseball Reference (the 4 HOF criteria categories referenced by JD) that each player scored above the "average" HOF player in each particular category.

Here are the categories and average HOF scores:

Black Ink Test = 27 (pitchers = 40)
Gray Ink Test = 144 (pitchers = 185)
HOF Standards = 50
HOF Monitor = 100

I also noted how many of the top 10 similar players listed for each player are in the HOF.

I've included the numbers for relief pitchers, too, but these numbers just don't seem relevant as criteria for assessment of the modern closer.

[u:7a975d5067]YES[/u:7a975d5067]
Bert Blyleven [3/4 tests; 8/10 HOF sims]
Rich Gossage [1/4; 2/10]

Blyleven's stats are undeniable, exceeding the average HOFer scores in 3 of the 4 tests. 8 of the 10 most similar pitchers are in the HOF, including the top 3 most similar (Sutton, Perry and Jenkins). The only argument against him is that his peak was not significant enough or long enough to justify election, and he was a mere "accumulator" of stats.

My view is that if your amongst the top guys at your position for at least 5 years, and if you're at least excellent for 10 years overall, then you're due consideration. With Blyleven, what i see is a guy who was in the top 10 in WHIP 11x; top 10 in Adjusted ERA+ 11x and top 10 in Cy Young voting 4x, and he accomplished this over the course of a 20-year period (eg, he finished 4th in ERA+ in both 1971 and 1989, and was in the top 10 9x in between). He also pitched well in the post-season, going 5-1 with a 2.40 ERA, helping 2 different teams win WS titles.

I'm not a big Sutton fan either, but Blyleven was better. Sutton was hardly ever the #1 pitcher on his own staff, and he did nothing in the post-season. While Blyleven is certainly not a 1st Tier / 1st Ballot HOFer, you have to squint really hard while bending over backwards to argue that Blyleven doesn't deserve eventual election.

As for Gossage, based on both peak performance and duration of effectiveness throughout his career, or any other criteria one can imagine ("fame", "intimidation", whatever), he is a HOFer. Sutter is a closer call because his career, though with a very high peak, was of limited duration. I can see it going either way with him. As for Smith, he had a long career and compiled stats, but his peak was not distinct enough to get him in.

[u:7a975d5067]BORDERLINE[/u:7a975d5067]
Jim Rice - probably yes [3/4; 4/10]
Andre Dawson - probably yes [2/4; 5/10]
Jack Morris - probably no [2/4; 6/10]
Dale Murphy - probably no [2/4; 1/10]
Dave Parker - probably no [2/4; 2/10]
Albert Belle- probably no [2/4; 1/10]
Alan Trammell - probably no [1/4; 2/10]
Lee Smith - probably no [1/4; 1/10]
Bruce Sutter - probably yes [0]

I moved Belle up into the borderline category. I think there are solid arguments for Rice an Dawson, but Morris, Murphy, Parker and Belle come up just short, IMO. Trammell only enters the conversation because he put up his numbers as a GG SS.

[u:7a975d5067]FILL OUT THE BALLOT[/u:7a975d5067]
Dave Concepcion [1/4; 3/10]
Tommy John [1/4; 6/10]
Don Mattingly [1/4; 2/10]
Steve Garvey [1/4; 1/10]

[u:7a975d5067]GOOD-BYE, ALL-STARS[/u:7a975d5067]
Dwight Gooden [0; 1/10]
Ozzie Guillen [0; 2/10]
Orel Hershiser [0; 2/10]
Rick Aguilera [0]
Will Clark [0]
Gary Gaetti [0]
Gregg Jefferies [0]
Doug Jones [0]
Willie McGee [0]
Walt Weiss [0]
John Wetteland [0]
Gary DiSarcina [0]

[u:7a975d5067]AN HONOR JUST TO BE NOMINATED[/u:7a975d5067]
Alex Fernandez [0]
Hal Morris [0]

[Guest sharpie]

Actually, DiSarcina made an All-Star team so he gets to be on the Goodbye All-Star Team.

[duan]

I should also point out that I wouldn't go with Sutter at all

[Guest Edgy DC]

That's because you never saw a three-inning save of a one-run game.

[duan]

pitched for 12 seasons ; 4 of those with above average era.

I think there's no doubt that he was a 100% exceptional reliever in 3/4 seasons but that he doesn't show the kind of longevity in his excellence that I'd like.

His career value isn't that dissimilar to Armando Benitez'.

[willpie]

Yeas:
Alan Trammell
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Rich Gossage
Especially Trammell and Dawson; short memories abound, evidently. When I was a kid, everyone knew those guys were going to the HoF when they retired. Sucks to see them languishing like this.

Maybes:
Steve Garvey
Jack Morris
Lee Smith
Bruce Sutter
Don Mattingly

The rest: Nay

[Guest Edgy DC]

]His career value isn't that dissimilar to Armando Benitez'.

I think we're a long way off from sorting out and quantifying the career value of relief pitchers. I also think we have to go a ways towards differentiating the role value of earlier generations of relievers--- like Wilhelm and Face --- from the generation of Fingers, Gossage, and Sutter, and from their heirs in the eighties and nineties.

It's as complex as sorting out the difference between pitchers of the pre-1900 pitchers who started most of their team's games from those who would follow and pitch in small rotations, from those again who would follow and pitch in larger rotations.

[nymr83]

Blyleven definetaly.
Sutter, Rice, Trammell and Gossage maybe.
everyone else no.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I've thought about it some more, and if I did have a ballot, I'd only check one name: Sutter.

I don't think Blyleven belongs. Dawson maybe, but I wouldn't vote for him. I think the Hall of Fame is already overstocked, and anybody who's a maybe doesn't get my vote.

Sutter was a player who changed the game. He was one of the first modern dominant relievers, and when he entered a game you knew your team was in trouble. (I remember him blowing a save against the Mets and thinking I had witnessed the unthinkable. I'll have to see if I can find the game on UMDB. I somehow think John Stearns was involved in the Mets comeback.)

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Accumulated Statistics. Bert Blyleven was never an especially feared pitcher, he was just pretty good for a long time. Those kinds of guys, in my opinion, don't belong. And if it were possible to purge the Don Suttons and Phil Niekros, I'd be all for it.

[Guest HappyRecap]

I don't remember Sutter too much probably since the only chance to see him pitch would be either Monday Night Baseball when they had it or when his team came to town. But from all reports, he was dominant.

I think Gossage should get in as well but overall when you start talking about these relievers, it is a slippery slope.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think the ship has long since sailed on the notion that we're literally honoring fame. Bobby Richardson has been retired for 39 years and he's still more famous than many guys in the hall like Bid McPhee or Judy Johnson.

It's all a slippery slope.

[Frayed Knot]

Blyleven & Sutter represent two opposite sides of an argument: the guy who was very good for a long period vs one who was dominant but had a much shorter prime.

I'd put Burt in before Bruce.

[Guest HappyRecap]

Bill Mazeroski. Nice long career but no way a HOFer.

If it was defense that got you in then when is Rey Ordonez eligible? Boy, it even hurt to type that name.

[duan]

Edgy DC wrote: I think we're a long way off from sorting out and quantifying the career value of relief pitchers. I also think we have to go a ways towards differentiating the role value of earlier generations of relievers--- like Wilhelm and Face --- from the generation of Fingers, Gossage, and Sutter, and from their heirs in the eighties and nineties. It's as complex as sorting out the difference between pitchers of the pre-1900 pitchers who started most of their team's games from those who would follow and pitch in small rotations, from those again who would follow and pitch in larger rotations.

Sure; I'm basically with you on that. HOWEVER there was a very interesting article on this in relation to the 2005 class

Relievers

Despite having jobs no more difficult than those of NFL placekickers, late-model one-inning closers are exalted by the media. But their fireman predecessors, who often pitched two or three frames at a clip, get little love from the Hall of Fame voters. That contradiction is a direct response to a usage pattern geared towards limiting the team's best reliever to situations where he can receive a statistical cookie, a save, rather than in tie games, when the outcome may be on the line but the save rule doesn't apply. Thus an 80-inning/40-save closer is held in higher esteem that a 110-inning/25-save stopper.

We shouldn't be fooled by high save totals; it's the runs that matter, and due to the limited innings they throw, the Davenport numbers tell us that it's nearly impossible for the best late-model relievers to be more valuable than the best everyday players or starting pitchers. Annual WARP totals above 10.0 are common for elite players at their peaks, but the best closers top 8.0 only in a rare Mariano Rivera/Eric Gagne-caliber year.

To address this problem while still finding room to reward the bullpen's best, last year I devised a solution to address the relievers on the Hall ballot based on the concept of leverage.Research by Tangotiger using play-by-play data and a Win Expectancy Matrix has shown that good relievers have a quantifiably greater effect on the outcome of a ballgame than starters. Because of their timing late in close games, the results of the plate appearances against them are magnified by some factor, which is called the Leverage Index. A starting pitcher will have a Leverage Index very near 1.0, but an ace reliever might have one approaching 2.0, meaning that the batters he faced were twice as important to the outcome of a ballgame.

We don't have uniform play-by-play data to calculate Leverage Indexes for each reliever on the ballot and in the Hall, but we have more or less complete LIs for three of the ballot's top relievers, ranging from 1.6 to 1.9. In light of what we know and don't know about LIs, my suggestion was to examine the conclusions we came up with if we set a JAWS standard for relievers that's 70 percent that of starters--the equivalent of a 1.43 LI, by which we could theoretically multiply a player's contributions to produce a level of equivalence. We'll call this the Point Seven Solution.

PRAA PRAR WARP PEAK JAWS
Gossage 236 781 84.4 35.0 59.7
Smith 259 734 80.0 32.6 56.3
Montgomery 183 513 57.4 34.3 45.9
Sutter 175 521 57.0 32.1 44.6
AVG HOF P 205 964 95.1 43.6 69.4
RP 70% 144 675 66.6 30.5 48.5
Bruce Sutter holds a historic spot in the evolution of the reliever, and an even more important one in the evolution of pitching in general. Sutter came up with the Cubs in 1976, and by the next season he was lights out, pitching 107 innings with a 1.34 ERA and 129 strikeouts while posting 31 saves. Credit for his success was due largely to mastery of the split-fingered fastball, a pitch unfamiliar to big-league hitters. Sutter didn't invent the splitter, but was the first successful practitioner of it. The innovations around Sutter didn't stop there. Prompted by his ace reliever's tendency to wear down as the season went on, in 1979 Cubs manager Herman Franks decided to limit Sutter's usage mainly to close games when his team was ahead--in other words, save situations. Sutter tied the National League record with 37 and won the Cy Young, thanks to a 2.22 ERA/101-inning season.
After five stellar seasons in Chicago, he was traded to the Cardinals, where he posted three strong years as well as his first subpar one. He was an instrumental piece of the 1982 World Champions, saving 36 games in another 100-inning season and notching a win and two saves in the World Series. In 1984 he set a career high of 122 2/3 innings and an NL record with 45 saves while posting a 1.54 ERA. Coincidentally or not, that was his last effective season. Lured by Ted Turner's cable riches, he left for the Braves via free agency after 1984. But in Atlanta his shoulder broke down, and he was never the same pitcher again. He pitched 152 innings of 4.55 ERA ball for Ted's $10 million, and was done at 35.

The traditional case for Sutter is that in addition to being attached to two notable innovations, he was one of the few relievers to win a Cy Young, a six-time All-Star who threw a lot more innings than today's closers. Excluding the strike year of 1981, he averaged 104 frames a year from 1977-1984. But despite three years in the vicinity of 8.0 WARP, the Davenport numbers leave him below our Point Seven standard. That's surprising given his dominance of NL hitters, but it aptly illustrates the limited impact of even a 100-inning-a-year role and the difficulty of maintaining that level. Unless he's given extra credit for the pitch he didn't invent, Sutter's claim on the Hall of Fame isn't all that strong. No vote for him here.

After breaking in as a Cincinnati Red, Jeff Montgomery spent 12 years as an institution in Kansas City, inheriting the closer role once held by the lamentably late and undeniably great Dan Quisenberry. In 1989, his second year as a Royal, Montgomery posted a microscopic 1.37 ERA in 92 innings. He was dominant over the 1989-93 span, averaging 89 innings a year with an ERA+ of 184 while striking out 8.0 batters per nine innings. As his fastball lost its zip, he became less effective, but still held the closer role for another six years, the last one marred due to a hip injury. Ultimately, his JAWS numbers are about the same as Sutter's but without the innovation. We'll be seeing a lot more of his 300-save ilk in a few years, so it's best not to marry the first one that comes along.

Physically intimidating Lee Smith stepped into the large shoes vacated by Sutter in Chicago and did a very credible job in six years as their 100-inning per year closer. From 1983-1987, he finished in the top five in saves every season, leading the league once. Traded to Boston after 1987, he continued to post high-quality seasons, though his workload and save totals dipped a bit. Traded again to the Cardinals, he flourished, topping Sutter's NL save record and recording 160 saves in parts of four seasons--taking over the all-time lead in that category--before packing his bags again. Through five more stops, the innings began to take a toll on his body, and his managers limited his usage to about 50 frames a year, one inning at a time, to keep him effective. He spent his last two seasons in a setup role, with diminishing returns, finally hanging it up in 1998.

From a traditional standpoint, Smith's case starts with his status as the all-time saves leader, his seven All-Star selections, and an amazing string of consistency which followed him to virtually every stop on his 18-year ride. Until his final 22-inning season, his ERA+ was always better than league-average--32 percent better for his career. On the down side, his teams never went farther than an LCS, and he got bombed in his brief postseason appearances, blowing two ballgames in best-of-fives. His Davenport numbers are above the Point Seven standard for relievers, particularly due to his career length, and he's well above the Hall average for PRAA without any adjustment for his low inning totals, an impressive feat. Even if we raised the relievers' standard to 80 percent, he'd still be above it. A vote under this system is quite reasonable.

If we're talking about standard-setting relievers, Rich "Goose" Gossage carried the mantle for a decade, pitched in the majors for another decade, and ten years later is still held up as a yardstick for dominant relievers. From 1975-1985, excepting a year-long failed experiment as a starter, Gossage blew hitters in both leagues away, helped his teams to three pennants, made nine All-Star squads and kept his ERA well under 3.00 every single year. He came up with the White Sox, emerging as a force in 1975 when he threw 141.2 innings with a 1.84 ERA , 130 strikeouts and a league-leading 26 saves. After a 9-17, 3.94 ERA season as a starter, the Sox traded him to Pittsburgh, where he had an even better year with a 1.62 ERA. That prompted Yankee owner George Steinbrenner to throw big bucks at him--six years, $2.75 million--despite the fact Steinbrenner already employed the reigning Cy Young winner, Sparky Lyle. But with his 100-mph heat, Gossage usurped Lyle's role as the Yankee stopper. He was brilliant in his six pinstriped seasons, posting a 2.10 ERA (a 183 ERA+), saving 25 games per year, striking out about a batter per inning, and averaging 86 innings annually despite a Bronx Zoo-brawl injury in '79 and the strike in '81.

Gossage left for San Diego via free agency after 1983, and the move paid dividends with an '84 World Series berth. He was the go-to man in the Padre pen until '87, but upon a trade to the Cubs after that season, began the familiar trudge of the past-prime reliever, not quite settling in a setup role, making five more stops (including a cameo with the Yanks) and spending 1990 in Japan. He topped 50 innings only once in that stretch, mostly due to injuries, but he held his own when he did pitch.

Gossage's case as a Hall of Famer is a reasonable one on the traditional merits; that decade of dominance resonating in the public mind thanks in part to a lot of postseason exposure (19 games, 31.1 innings, 2.87 ERA). Based on the number of innings thrown and his better-than-average ERA, a solid case can be made for him as the second-best reliever ever behind Wilhelm. His Davenport numbers are just as strong. Gossage's two best years are an off-the-charts 10 WARP; by peak, career, and JAWS numbers he's better than many starters in the Hall, and his PRAA is above the Hall average. Furthermore, he compares favorably with the two enshrined "pure" relievers, Wilhelm and Fingers, with the highest peak among them by a healthy margin:

PRAA PRAR WARP PEAK JAWS
Wilhelm 259 900 92.6 29.5 61.1
Gossage 236 781 84.4 35.0 59.7
Fingers 137 688 75.1 31.1 53.1
Gossage would be above our standards bar even if we raised it to 85 percent. He's got the best case of any reliever on this ballot and deserves a plaque in Cooperstown.
With Bert Blyleven, Lee Smith and Rich Gossage joining Wade Boggs, Ryne Sandberg, and Alan Trammell, the JAWS method has flagged six players on the 2005 Hall of Fame ballot as meeting the standards of the enshrined. Boggs is a lock to gain election this year, and Sandberg might surge over the top, but it's likely that the worthy pitchers will be shut out. We'll know in the first week of January whether the BBWAA voters can distinguish the Hall's contenders from its pretenders.

[Guest Edgy DC]

A lot of terms (JAWS, for instance) that I'm unfamiliar with, and can't teach myself right now. So I won't retort. But thanks.

[MFS62]

Edgy DC wrote: The publicity around the ballot doesn't seem to have officially begun, but I expect that the story of this year's ballot will be that Pete Rose's eligibility with the BBWAA has expired.

There's a vote going on at the ESPN website.

They are apparently unencumbered by the real ballot, because the leading vote getter (over 70%) is Pete Rose.
And Don Mattingly is second.

Back to our thread, I'd toss a coin on Jim Rice (I can be convinced both ways) and vote for Doc Gooden, just to keep his ship afloat. His "dominance at his position" was Koufax-esque in terms of time. But I guess more voter sympathy goes to the natural (arthritis) career ending infermity than a self imposed one (substance abuse).

And, Edgy, as for the "Fame" arguement, I still consider it. One way of voting I've heard about is "When you think of an era in baseball, is this player one of the first five (pick your number) players who you think of?"
I look it as "would I have made a special trip out to the ballpark and paid money to see him play?"
In that regard, I would have voted for Dick Allen and not for Al Kaline, who was as dull as dishwater.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, such a Hall of Fame would have Bucky Dent over Barry Larkin and Deion Sanders over Tony Gwynn. I don't really think a dull personality or a relative paucity of publicity were ever meant to be disqualifier.

[seawolf17]

HELL YES:
Dale Murphy
Jim Rice
Bruce Sutter
Andre Dawson

MAYBE YES:
Bert Blyleven
Rich Gossage
Alan Trammell
Don Mattingly

HELL NO:
Rick Aguilera
Albert Belle
Will Clark
Dave Concepcion
Gary DiSarcina
Alex Fernandez
Gary Gaetti
Steve Garvey
Dwight Gooden
Ozzie Guillen
Orel Hershiser
Gregg Jefferies
Tommy John
Doug Jones
Willie McGee
Hal Morris
Jack Morris
Dave Parker
Lee Smith
Walt Weiss
John Wetteland

[Guest rpackrat]

My ballot:
Blyleven
Rice
Sutter
Gossage

[Guest sharpie]

My ballot:
Sutter
Gossage
(I could be swayed on Blyleven but my impulse is no)

[Theoldmole]

Sutter, Rice, Trammell.