Hall of Fame Voting: This Year, Next Year, and Beyond

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Trammell should have tried more flips.

Can I start the whole "They should really induct Sadaharu Oh, or at least change the rules so it's possible" argument here?

[Valadius]

I think you can, JD. "Beyond" would permit that.

[nymr83]

]Does 23 points of OPS offset the difference between a very good defensive shortstop and the guy who many people believe was the greatest glove of all time?

the answer would be "without a doubt"

[Guest Edgy DC]

We're using the term OPS here when we mean OPS+.

[metsmarathon]

i was looking at this yesterday, and the best i could find is that, depending on what methodology you use, you'll get either that ozzie was better, or trammel was better. iirc what i found correctly, trammel had better win shares, but ozzie does better in total player rating as well as wins above replacement. the difference, clearly is in how much value you assign to defense....

[Guest Edgy DC]

And while defense is hard to measure, I think Gold Gloves Grossed is a terrible way to measure it.

[metsmarathon]

its up there with range factor...

[nymr83]

range factor > gold gloves. Rafeal Palmiero never won the range factor award while playing DH all year.

[Guest Mendoza Line]

]And while defense is hard to measure, I think Gold Gloves Grossed is a terrible way to measure it.

I agree that it's not much of a measure - I wouldn't say that a player with 4 Gold Gloves is necessarily a better fielder than a player with 3. Or even zero. OTOH, I do think that multiple GGs indicate that a fielder is probably better than the average schlub in most cases.

I haven't seen many Tigers games in my life, so I'm just depending on the stats, but I'd say that Trammell's great (for his time) hitting plus better-than-average-schlub defense at short is good enough for the HOF.

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

m.e.t.b.o.t. would like to point out that rafael palmiero did have a higher range factor than any qualified american league first baseman, and had a higher range factor than all but two american league first basemen with more innings of defense played at first base.

regardless, m.e.t.b.o.t. agrees that sometimes, range factor can be more meaningful than gold gloves. however, rafael palmiero may just be an extraordinary case of poor voting by subjective and innatentive humans.

gold glove voting should be left to the robots.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Mendoza Line wrote: ]And while defense is hard to measure, I think Gold Gloves Grossed is a terrible way to measure it. I agree that it's not much of a measure - I wouldn't say that a player with 4 Gold Gloves is necessarily a better fielder than a player with 3. Or even zero. OTOH, I do think that multiple GGs indicate that a fielder is probably better than the average schlub in most cases. I haven't seen many Tigers games in my life, so I'm just depending on the stats, but I'd say that Trammell's great (for his time) hitting plus better-than-average-schlub defense at short is good enough for the HOF.

Winning a Gold Glove is hard, but winning multiple ones after that is often just a matter of staying healthy, hitting enough to stayin the lineup, and coasting on your reputation.

Roberto Alomar was winning Gold Gloves well after his defense fell toward the mean. So was Andruw Jones. Still is.

We have to work harder in measuring defenders.

Measuirng managers and coaches also, for that matter.

[nymr83]

Trammell in mind is better than 2 if not 3 or 4 currently enshrined shortstops- Ozzie Smith and Phil Rizzuto for sure, probably PeeWee Reese, and i'm probably missing some guys.

[Vic Sage]

in evaluating HOF credentials, Bill James' the HOF Monitor and HOF Standards formulas are useful tools. The Monitor attempts to measure the likelihood of induction based on a wide range of accomplishments. The Standards test tries to measure the actual value of his accomplishments.

You can look at these numbers for each player, and measure them against the average HOFer, rather than using the lowest ranked HOFer as a threshhold, which only serves to bring the level ever downwards.

avg HOF standards = 50 / avg HOF Monitor = 100 (130 = a lock)

[u:afee405e84]2008:[/u:afee405e84]

* Blyleven, Bert - 50 / 120.5 (at least avg in both stats = yes)

- Rice, Jim - 43 / 146 {Black Ink test=33 (above 27 avg), borderline-yes)
- McGwire, Mark - 42 / 169 [bI =36] (never tested positive, borderline-yes)
- Smith, Lee - 13 /135 {borderline- stats don't work well for RPs)
- Mattingly, Don - 34.1 / 133 (borderline)

- Parker, Dave - 41 / 129 (borderline - no)
- Morris, Jack - 39 / 122 (borderline - no)
- Dawson, Andre - 43 / 118 (borderline - no)
- Trammell, Alan - 36 / 118 (borderline - no)
- Murphy, Dale - 34 / 115 {(BI = 31) borderline - no}
- John, Tommy - 44 / 111 (borderline - no)

x- Concepcion, Dave - 25.9 / 106 (no)
x- Tim Raines - 46 / 90 (no)
x- Baines, Harold - 42 / 66.5 (no)

[u:afee405e84]2009: [/u:afee405e84]
* Rickey Henderson - 52 / 186 (BI = 50! - 1st ballot)

[u:afee405e84]2010: [/u:afee405e84]
* Roberto Alomar - 55 / 193 (yes)
* Edgar Martinez - 50 / 131 (yes)
- Barry Larkin - 42 / 118 (borderline)
- Fred McGriff - 47 / 100 (borderline - no)

[u:afee405e84]2011: [/u:afee405e84]
* Jeff Bagwell - 59 / 149 (yes)
* Larry Walker - 57 / 147 (yes)
- Juan Gonzalez - 39 / 120 (borderline - no)
x- Rafael Palmeiro - 57 / 178 (yes, but tested positive, so no)

[u:afee405e84]2012: [/u:afee405e84]
* Craig Biggio - 55 / 172 (yes)

As for the Smith / Vizquel discussion, they have similar below-average HOF Standard rankings (smith = 30.9, Vizquel = 33.9), but the Wizard had a Monitor ranking of 142, to Vizquel's 119, so one can understand Ozzie's inclusion and Omar's exclusion, despite being similar players.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Make of it what you will, but I think Mark McGwire failed a test.

[Vic Sage]

Edgy DC wrote: Make of it what you will, but I think Mark McGwire failed a test.

what test would that be? the test of public opinion? yes, i agree. And i think that will keep him out for awhile. But as the steroids era becomes history, and more names are exposed, it may be that he's held less culpable. Especially, since the substances he probably took weren't against the rules at the time. Palmiero, however, failed a test when it had been already been banned, and he lied to congress about it. I'd say he's more likely target for ostracization.

I could be wrong, of course. I'm just saying McGwire's numbers indicate a HOF-worthy career and, as far as i know, he never violated the rules of his time. The HOF has noted cheaters like Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton, and an abusive, gambling racist like Cobb. Were I a voter, it would be hard for me to justify a permanent disqualification (even an informal one) for McGwire.

[metirish]

Vic can you link that James formula ,with my own nonscientific formula from the list above only ,Henderson,Alomar,Biggio,Bagwell,Walker and McGwire are HOF worthy .

[Guest Edgy DC]

Vic Sage wrote: ="Edgy DC"]Make of it what you will, but I think Mark McGwire failed a test. what test would that be? the test of public opinion? yes, i agree.

Please don't pretend I answered your questoin.

He was asked a question under oath, and he refused to answer it while speaking glibly around the issue. It's not a test of public opinion, but a test of honesty about his own use of steroids.

Vic Sage wrote: And i think that will keep him out for awhile. But as the steroids era becomes history, and more names are exposed, it may be that he's held less culpable. Especially, since the substances he probably took weren't against the rules at the time. Palmiero, however, failed a test when it had been already been banned, and he lied to congress about it. I'd say he's more likely target for ostracization. I could be wrong, of course. I'm just saying McGwire's numbers indicate a HOF-worthy career and, as far as i know, he never violated the rules of his time. The HOF has noted cheaters like Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton, and an abusive, gambling racist like Cobb. Were I a voter, it would be hard for me to justify a permanent disqualification (even an informal one) for McGwire.

As I said, make of it what you will.

[nymr83]

I think the andro acts as a red-herring for McGwire, misleading people into thinking "oh, ok, he just took this legal over the counter thing, thats how he got so big" when the reality is he did everything that Bonds, Palmiero, Canseco, Sheffield, etc. did.

I wouldnt keep him out of the hall without a failed test (or federal conviction etc) of something that was illegal at the time he did it.

]He was asked a question under oath, and he refused to answer it while speaking glibly around the issue. It's not a test of public opinion, but a test of honesty about his own use of steroids.

i don't think thats true. its a test of how strongly his lawyer told him not to answer questions that he didnt have to answer.

[Frayed Knot]

Absent any steroid controversy, which 1st baseman gets more HOF votes; McGwire or Bagwell? -- I think the answer to that is unquestionably McGwire.

Now, if I were to offer you a 1st sacker that would be guaranteed to have the exact same career as those two: same strengths, same weaknesses, same length of career, etc., who do you pick? -- To me, the answer to that one is Bagwell.
He ran much better, fielded much better, better BA & OBP, more RBIs, maybe had lower peaks (although did get an MVP and more top-10s) but also a longer prime.

Then I wonder how many of the voters would answer that question the same way, but yet not vote that way

[Guest Edgy DC]

Steroids aside, voting Sosa over McGwire for MVP in 1998 was a bad vote.

[nymr83]

Edgy DC wrote: Steroids aside, voting Sosa over McGwire for MVP in 1998 was a bad vote.

there was a .200 OPS difference between them (in Big Mac's favor) and yet McGwire got only 2 votes (i assume the 2 STL writers) to Sosa's 30.

as for McGwire vs Bagwell, McGwire has a 13 point OPS+ advantage, while being the inferior defender and baserunner by a wide margin. His 16 year career was only 1874 games while Bagwell played 15 years and 2150 games, It wasn't until his final season that Bagwell missed significant time to an injury. I'd go with Bagwell, but its very close.

[Valadius]

Without the steroids cloud, McGwire gets more votes. But Bagwell was the better, more complete ballplayer. Basically, you'd rely on McGwire when you absolutely needed a home run, and on Bagwell for all-around play or simply a hit.

[Valadius]

I just was having a thought - how do we define a Hall-of-Fame closer?

There are no true numerical indicators of greatness for a closer - not yet, anyway. I suspect that there will someday be a 500-save club that would be that milestone, but as of now it only has one member - Trevor Hoffman.

How are we going to evaluate closers in the future? And how should we evaluate the closers of the past? Where is the dividing line between the modern era of closers and the past, and how should we consider closers from each? I personally think the modern era of the closer began in the early 1990's. How should we judge the closers of the 70's and 80's?

Trevor Hoffman is likely going to be the first modern closer inducted into the Hall of Fame. Who else seems likely to join him? Rivera and Wagner stand out in my mind. But who else can we include with them? And who should we consider from the past who have been neglected?

[stevejrogers]

="Valadius"] There are no true numerical indicators of greatness for a closer - not yet, anyway. I suspect that there will someday be a 500-save club that would be that milestone, but as of now it only has one member - Trevor Hoffman.

But the 400 save club was just as exclusive. Should Lee Smith (who got there first) and John Franco be inducted?

Plus there are actually more 300 game winners (Glavine is the 23rd) right now than 300 save closers. (an even 20) Yes I know 23 over the entire history of MLB, as opposed to 20 really since the save rule went to effect in 1969 (interestingly enough, Rollie Fingers played in 1968, the only member of the club to do so, but never recorded what would be considered a "save" )

]How are we going to evaluate closers in the future? And how should we evaluate the closers of the past? Where is the dividing line between the modern era of closers and the past, and how should we consider closers from each? I personally think the modern era of the closer began in the early 1990's. How should we judge the closers of the 70's and 80's? Trevor Hoffman is likely going to be the first modern closer inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Nope, using your criteria that is right in HOFer Dennis Eckersley's prime.

-MVP & CY year in 1992

-Switches to full time closer in 1987, yeah not the 1990s, but close enough.

-Modern bullpens are greatly inspired by LaRussa's A's pens with Honeycutt, Nelson and a cast of thousands filling in the bridge to Eck in the 9th. Oh sure the setup guy had existed before, but LaRussa really got the ball rolling in terms of how bullpens are set up and used today. For better or worse depending your point of view.

]Who else seems likely to join him? Rivera and Wagner stand out in my mind. But who else can we include with them? And who should we consider from the past who have been neglected?

Rivera yes, Wagner? Never really thought of it that way. Tell you the truth I'm lukewarm on Hoffman for the same reasons Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon (both of whom enjoyed time being the All Time Saves leader) aren't getting in. Nothing that says "You are watching a legend" the way you do with Rivera. Like you did with Eck, Rollie Fingers, ect.

Rich Gossage pretty much is the last of the pre-90s closers IMO who is not in the HOF but should be.

[Valadius]

Eckersley is in a class all by himself, though, having done all that time as a starter and winning nearly 200 games during his career. Thus I consider Hoffman the first modern closer on his way to the Hall.

[stevejrogers]

Valadius wrote: Eckersley is in a class all by himself, though, having done all that time as a starter and winning nearly 200 games during his career. Thus I consider Hoffman the first modern closer on his way to the Hall.

Eck won 145 games as a pure starter though (1975-1986). Thats a lot, plus the no-hitter, couple of ASGs, one 20 game season and yes there was a time where you could have called him the best in the league, but he really wasn't anything you could say "he's a future HOFer" over though. Eckersley became a HOF soley on his work in the pen, his starting career did not augment it at all, the way John Smoltz's time as a closer will augment his HOF chances.

[Guest Edgy DC]

SteveJRogers wrote: Eckersley became a HOF soley on his work in the pen, his starting career did not augment it at all....

Of course it did.

Argue that it wasn't necessary and that he'd make it if his relief career stood alone, but of course his starting career augments the legacy of his relieving career.

[Valadius]

Of course his starting career affected how he was looked at. If you may recall, a lot of chatter among baseball writers at the time he was voted in was that his starting career allowed him to be pushed over the top in their minds. Remember, Hall consideration for relievers is very much a new phenomenon. The fact that he put up pretty good numbers as a starter as well as being a phenomenal reliever eased the concerns of a lot of old-school folks.

[Valadius]

One of the many problems I have with Hall of Fame voting is its treatment of non-players when it comes to enshrinement, particularly managers, umpires, executives, and the like.

Who do you think deserves enshrinement in this category? What active managers do you think will end up in the Hall of Fame? Tony La Russa, Bobby Cox, and Joe Torre are locks, I think, and Lou Piniella has a shot if he gets a few more good seasons in.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Piniella? Why?