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

[nymr83]

agree 100% with vic sage.

good defense can push you over the top, particularly at a tough defensive spot.
i'd be hard pressed to think of a player who i'd keep out because his defense was "bad" but would put in if he had managed to be "below-average to average" with the same offensive production. i'm not saying this player could not hypothetically exist just that i cant identify him.

[metsmarathon]

the only thing i would add to vic's analysis is to continue out the math as such:

offense (50%) + defense (50%) = everything (100%)
offense (50%) = defense (50%)
offense (50%) = pitching (37.5%) + fielding (12.5%)
offense = 4 x fielding (because its all still being divided up amongst 9 guys)

so offense is 4x the value of fielding, lets say. but the runs count the same, right? if my defense is so bad that it costs the team a run, that's made up for by my offense being so good that is gains my team a run. there's no 4:1 ratio of defensive runs to offense runs, only that, ostensibly, the opportunity to contribute offensively is greater than the opportunity to contribute defensively. and if i give up that run as a poor fielding shortstop or a poor fielding pitcher, its still the same run that my poor fielding has given up.

so if we were to presume that we could measure defense well enough, and quantify it in terms of runs, then this would provide a measure by which we could compare a player's offense to his defense, and measure his entire contribution, and compare that whole-game contribution to the whole game contribution of another player.

and then it doesn't matter what position, necessarily, a player played - if his position is more important, he's had greater opportunities to save or cost runs, and the number of runs saved or cost would be determined by the quality of his play at that position.

and so a player who cost his team 10 runs in left field would have had the same defensive contribution as a player who cost his team 10 runs in shortstop. and a player who created 90 runs with his bat, but cost his team 10 runs with his glove will have contributed similarly to a player who created only 70 runs with his bat, but saved 10 runs with his glove.

now, the latter player might not be as noteworthy, but his contribution to his team was no less.

[metsmarathon]

Nymr83 wrote: agree 100% with vic sage. good defense can push you over the top, particularly at a tough defensive spot. i'd be hard pressed to think of a player who i'd keep out because his defense was "bad" but would put in if he had managed to be "below-average to average" with the same offensive production. i'm not saying this player could not hypothetically exist just that i cant identify him.

what's your stance on DH's?

[Vic Sage]

]if i give up that run as a poor fielding shortstop or a poor fielding pitcher, its still the same run that my poor fielding has given up.

agreed. But in the absence of reliable stats to determine defensive runs, i simply weight the positions by their defensive "importance" (i.e., the positions where most defensive opportunities exist -- up the middle)

a run is a run. but until you can measure those runs, the only thing to do is measure the opportunities.

As for DHs, if they put up HOF worthy numbers, then they should get votes accordingly. Their defense cannot help them, obviously, but neither should their lack of defensive opportunities be held against them.

[Frayed Knot]

="Vic Sage"]As for DHs, if they put up HOF worthy numbers, then they should get votes accordingly. Their defense cannot help them, obviously, but neither should their lack of defensive opportunities be held against them.

I think it should - not to the point of making them ineligible but at least to a certain extent.

The reason they're DHs is because they're not good enough/nimble enough to play anywhere else, even at the less impotant corner spots.
To me that it means they'll need to make an even bigger offensive contribution than even a non-descript fielder to get over the bar.
The offense is still going to be the main make-or-break factor. But I see being a full-time DH as a bigger strike against borderline candidates than I would almost anyone who played somewhere with a hunk of leather on one hand.

[Vic Sage]

="Frayed Knot"] ="Vic Sage"]As for DHs, if they put up HOF worthy numbers, then they should get votes accordingly. Their defense cannot help them, obviously, but neither should their lack of defensive opportunities be held against them. I think it should - not to the point of making them ineligible but at least to a certain extent. The reason they're DHs is because they're not good enough/nimble enough to play anywhere else, even at the less impotant corner spots. To me that it means they'll need to make an even bigger offensive contribution than even a non-descript fielder to get over the bar. The offense is still going to be the main make-or-break factor. But I see being a full-time DH as a bigger strike against borderline candidates than I would almost anyone who played somewhere with a hunk of leather on one hand.

Yes, some guys are DHs because of defensive insufficiencies, but others are DHs despite being decent fielders, because they are not as good as somebody else at their position on their team; some are good fielders but DH because of persistent injury problems.

It's up to the manager to decide what position a player gets to play. And DH is a position. It has certain demands unique to the position. Some would argue that its harder to hit when you're uninvolved in the game. Its like pinch-hitting 4 times a game.

Now, certainly, a borderline HOF candidate who was primarily a DH doesn't have the advantage that another borderline player may have who was a good defensive player. And that's an appropriate disadvantage.

But i think anybody who counts Molitor's years as a DH against him, or those of Edgar Martinez or Frank Thomas, is just flat out wrong. They played their position and excelled at it.

[metirish]

Ken Davidoff.

Who I Voted For And Why

[Guest Edgy DC]

A problem with Molitor is that he kept getting hurt before he was a DH, and it was arguably the protection that the DH offered him that put his offense onto a Hall of Fame track.

That's worth thinking about.

[HahnSolo]

]Jack Morris: His numbers might not stand out among the all-time greats, and this is a vote on which I could change in the future.

]Dave Parker: He was a Yes for me last year, but I just wasn't feeling him this year. His 339 homers fell short of Dawson and Jim Rice, for instance, as did his .471 slugging percentage. Maybe I'll flip back the other way on him next year, but he's a No for now.

]Lee Smith: I voted Yes last year, but the more intelligent analysis you read about closers, the less you tend to appreciate them. Smith didn't even average 1 1/3 innings per appearance. No.

]Alan Trammell: I went the other way on him: No last year, Yes this year.

While I appreciate Davidoff explaining his votes, this drives me crazy. A guy should be a Hall of Famer or he should not be a Hall of Famer. If you vote for him once, you should keep voting for him. Likewise if you vote against a guy.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Greater context changes perspective. People come 180 degrees in their opinions all the time, and 91 degrees is all you need.

That said, "I just wasn't feeling him this year" should get your card revoked. Pretend to take this seriously, folks.

[metsmarathon]

i'm cool with a quick and dirty yes/no on the clear cut choices. the borderline guys deserve more thoughtful analysis than "i wasn't feeling him"

what have you looked at that has changed your perspective? what exactly does bp say about closers? if you're voting rice and dawson in, what does that have to do with parker? shouldn't the comparison be with someone else you keep out? or did we run out of slots on the ballot?

[MFS62]

="Edgy DC"]A problem with Molitor is that he kept getting hurt before he was a DH, and it was arguably the protection that the DH offered him that put his offense onto a Hall of Fame track. That's worth thinking about.

Molly was the case I was thinking about when I described why I'm against the DH in that long ago post. I feel it artificially prolongs the careers of players who would otherwise have lost games to retirement or injury (or both). And therefore they are able to put up career numbers that challenge those of pre- DH players.

The Hall of Fame seems to be a Hall of Numbers lately (where in the bylaws is a "magic number" such as 500 dingers or 3,000 hits or 300 wins?) And that's where the DH helps the candidacy of those players who have amassed their numbers without having to have played a defensive position at the end of their careers.

Later

[MFS62]

I just recalled something ESPN radio's Max Kellerman said when discussing the HOF. He noted that to be enshrined, a player had to be great, and great over a long period of time. He then said that the way he does this is by writing down a list of the top (pick your own number, he suggested five) players in the game. Then do it again every 2-3 years. If a player shows up on those lists after 10-15 years then they deserve serious consideration for the Hall.

My addition -unless their careers were prematurely shortened by injury (Puckett, Koufax) or death (was it Addie Joss, or some other 1920's era pitcher who barely pitched 10 years?).

It seems to make sense, and takes the "magic numbers "out of it.

Also, a few years ago, I read a piece by Hardball Times writer John Brittain, who used to occasionally visit this forum. In it, he tried to justify the HOF inclusion of "Indian Bob" Johnson. He used some select sabermetrics to prove his point. I've corresponded with him a lot over the years, and I never could get him to admit whether he did it tongue-in-cheek to demonstrate how unimportant some of those numbers really are, or whether he was serious.

Later

[Valadius]

I'd add that if they were considered one of the three best players at their position consistently.

[MFS62]

Valadius wrote: I'd add that if they were considered one of the three best players at their position consistently.

Which is why I don't think Al Kaline belongs.
Yes, he got the "magic" 3,000 hits, but he wasn't even one of the top three right fielders during much of his career (Aaron, F. Robinson, Clemente.

Later

[nymr83]

MFS62 wrote: ="Valadius"]I'd add that if they were considered one of the three best players at their position consistently. Which is why I don't think Al Kaline belongs. Yes, he got the "magic" 3,000 hits, but he wasn't even one of the top three right fielders during much of his career (Aaron, F. Robinson, Clemente. Later

which is why i think the whole "best at position" thing is arbitrary and bullshit. theres no reason there couldn't have been alot of great players at one position and very few at another position at any given time. judge a guy by what he did.

[MFS62]

And, other than being the youngest or second youngest player to win a batting title, Kaline only led his league in one offensive category (doubles?) one year for the rest of his career. I find it difficult to see what he did, other than achieving a "magic number" to deserve enshrinement.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

What he did was clobber American League pitching for two decades while winning ten Gold Gloves. You can keep putting "magic" in quotes but if they discluded everyone who only led his league in one thing, they'd be discluding a ton of top players.

Numbers he led his league in:

Batting Average 1955
Hits 1955
Total Bases 1955

Slugging Percentage 1959
OPS 1959
Intentional Walks 1959

Doubles 1961

Intentional Walks 1963

He regularly ranked among the league leaders in outfield assists, including smashing the competition in 1958 with 23.

Year	#	Rank
1954	16	4
1955	14	T3
1956	18	1
1957	13	3
1958	23	1 with a bullet

I'm going to guess they got the memo, because he drops out of double digits for much of the next decade.

I have to go pick up my rent-a-car. I'll quickly add that he was exactly what you want a ballplayer to be. As a combination of speed, power, and grace, only Mantle exceeded him, and it showed up in the numbers. His arm was as strong as it was accurate, and he was a class baseball citizen, winning the first Roberto Clemente Award before Clemente's body was cold. Heck, I'd take him over Clemente in a heartbeat, and that's no knock on Roberto.

For a topping, he slugged .655 in his only World Series. And he certainly didn't linger long on the BBWAA list before being elected to the Hall of Fame.

[MFS62]

Yes, Kaline was a very good ballplayer.
Buy to me he was just a notch below enshrinement level. There are others who I feel don't belong from the same era. (Tony Perez, Billy Williams) and some who I feel do (e.g.- Alan Trammell)

I think its been posted here, something like if you have to argue about why a player belongs, then he may not.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

That argument doesn't hold up logically. If there were five guys in the Hall of Fame, there'd be borderline cases.

And as long as somebody's making an argument against a guy --- even one based on non-facts and dubious principles about not leading the league in categories --- it begs somebody to make an argument for him.

Sort of like the logic that allows you to call somebody a drunk, and when they deny it, their denial gets noted as a symptom of their drunkeness.

[nymr83]

]Sort of like the logic that allows you to call somebody a drunk, and when they deny it, their denial gets noted as a symptom

LOL


and if Kaline doesn't belong in the hall how do you explain Eddie Murray? or do you "believe in magic (numbers)" to go along with your other bogus criteria? Dave Winfield? i won't even mention Puckett because you'd have to be a blind and deaf Twins fan to say his career at all matches up to Kaline's.

[Guest Edgy DC]

A cool thing about Kaline is that he hung them up while he was on the cusp of two big fat round numbers, with 498 doubles and 399 homers at the point of his retirement.

[MFS62]

What's gotten lost in this was what Max Kellerman said about greatness over time and his every few years lists.
Maybe I gave bad examples. But I felt it deserved mentioning.
As for Puckett, reread my comment about careers prematurely shortened due to illness or injury.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

What's gotten lost is me.

[MFS62]

Edgy DC wrote: What's gotten lost is me.

Don't worry about it.
My wife tell me that I have that effect on people.

Later

[Vic Sage]

one writer's HOF ballot:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=insidedishwhosgettingthe&prov=tsn&type=lgns

By Gerry Fraley - SportingNews

]Bert Blyleven -- His career record (287-250) was more a function of his teams than his performance. From 1971-89, he ranked among the league top 10 in ERA 10 times, in innings pitched 11 times and in strikeouts 15 times. He had the gold standard for curveballs.

Agreed.

]Andre Dawson -- The National League's best all-round player in the 1980s, Dawson won the MVP in 1987, went to seven all-star games during the decade and also won eight Gold Gloves.

Andre is a borderline case, but i've got no beef with anybody who votes for him.

]Goose Gossage -- The proliferation of one-inning saves has diminished Gossage's accomplishments. As a reliever, he pitched more than 100 innings four times, regularly working multiple innings for saves and entering tie games. His presence affected every game.

Agreed.

]Jack Morris -- One game does not make a Hall of Famer, but Morris' Game 7 masterpiece in the 1991 World Series might be the exception to the rule. The relentless big-game pitcher also led the '80s in wins (162) and complete games (133) and made 515 consecutive starts during his career.

The fact that Black Jack was the winningest pitcher in the 1980s is just an arbitrary numerical fact, where his best years happened to occur during a particular decade. If he was dominant from the mid 1970s through the mid 80s, but didn't lead either decade in wins, would he have been any less of a pitcher? It's a ridiculous comment. Also, saying 1 game doesn't make a HOFer, and then saying he's a HOFer based on 1 game, is similarly stupid. Black Jack was definitely a horse, threw a lot of innings, pitched alot of games, but (as usual) his "big game" rep was formed early and isn't entirely accurate. He pitched in 13 post-season games, and he pitched well in 7 of them, and not well in the other 6.

He was a really good pitcher for 15 seasons, but his peak wasn't that high, and even as an "accumulator", he didn't reach any magic numbers.

]Dale Murphy -- No one represented the game better. Murphy won two MVPs, was awarded five consecutive Gold Gloves and had a dozen 20-homer seasons.

Murphy was just the opposite. He had a VERY high peak, but didn't last long enough. Still, i understand this vote more than the one for Morris.

]Dave Parker -- The National League's dominant outfielder from 1975-80, Parker won the 1978 MVP and was a two-time batting champion and three-time Gold Glove selection. He would be easy pick if not for off-the-field problems that included his involvement in the Pittsburgh drug trials.

I think his borderline candidacy is hurt more by his relative lack of productivity from 1980-84, right in the middle of his prime, before coming back with the Reds with strong 1985-86 seasons, then fading again before finishing strong as a DH for oakland in 1990.

]Alan Trammell -- His feats compare favorably with those of American League contemporary Cal Ripken Jr., in terms of Gold Gloves (four to two) and .300 seasons (seven to five). Trammell also had an important role on strong Detroit teams of the 1980s.

Comparing Trammell to Ripken, but only in terms of GGs and .300 seasons, is silly, since Ripken's HOF credentials are based on his power and run production, not to mention his durability, over a long career... none of which can Trammell even come close to. But if Trammell had merely maintained his own level of play after he turned 30, he'd have accumulated the type of numbers which would've made him a HOF lock. But he didn't. And as far as his peak goes, though 1987 was a terrific season, he didn't have 5 other similar seasons at any point in his career.

Like Parker, Murphy and Dawson, I don't fault anybody for voting for Trammell, though i'd probably not vote for any of them.

]Tim Raines and Jim Rice received thorough consideration but no vote. Raines' case was hurt by his reluctance to run in all situations, as Rickey Henderson did. Raines seemed at times too concerned about preserving his stolen-base percentage. Rice was a superlative offensive player but lost out because of his sub-par defensive work in left.

Raines stole over 800 bases, so his "reluctance to run" is a perception based on idiocy. He was certainly a more descriminating runner than those who just wanted to accumulate SBs. But to say he didn't run just because he wanted to preserve his SB% stats is nuts; Rock understood that unless you're stealing at a very high rate of success, you're actually hurting not helping the offense. That understanding, along with his great OB%, make him one of the players who would've been more appreciated in the modern "moneyball" era of sabrmetrics. And comparing anybody to Ricky is unfair. By that measure no other leadoff hitter would ever get into the HOF.

And if you want to damn Rice for creating too many outs in the course of putting up his impressive offensive stats, thats one thing. But to deny him your vote because of subpar defense at the least important defensive position on the field is a bit much for my taste.

[Guest AG/DC]

http://www.getalifealready.com/cpf/MilestonePostAvatars/SacredSeaver2.jpgWelcome to the minority who thinks left field may be less important than first base.

That comment about Raines almost discredits the rest of his positions entirely.

[Willets Point]

Hail AG/DC!

[Guest themetfairy]

Hail!

[nymr83]

]Raines stole over 800 bases, so his "reluctance to run" is a perception based on idiocy. He was certainly a more descriminating runner than those who just wanted to accumulate SBs. But to say he didn't run just because he wanted to preserve his SB% stats is nuts; Rock understood that unless you're stealing at a very high rate of success, you're actually hurting not helping the offense.

exactly. players SHOULD be concerned with their percentage. Raines belongs in the HOF.