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

[Guest Edgy DC]

His sub-100 number may well be a result of voters not always voting in the right sort, and maybe a new perspective will appreciate what he brought in a .385 OBP and an 84% stolen-base percentage.

To his credit, when he couldn't steal efficiently anymore, he stopped trying, while stealing more at a lower efficiency might have helped his candidacy.

The eighties were played at such a perfect level of moderate production, I'm afraid we've ended up undervaluing the careers of players who peaked then, relative to players from extreme batting and pitching eras.

[Valadius]

Edgy DC wrote: The eighties were played at such a perfect level of moderate production, I'm afraid we've ended up undervaluing the careers of players who peaked then, relative to players from extreme batting and pitching eras.

Exactly my feeling too.

[Vic Sage]

And Valadius, by dropping the level of HOF qualifications to the level you suggest, it would soon become a Hall of Good Players, and the ineffable definition of greatness (whatever it is, in any given time and place), would be so watered down as to become relatively meaningless.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of the total players ever eligible for HOF enshrinement are actually in. 10%? less? I don't think its that much (though of course i could be wrong), but i think if your expanding that proportion, you've gone too far.

There will always be arguments over the borderline cases. Standards are, by their very nature, arbitrary. But if you keep them somewhat consistently applied, and (to the extent possible) based on some form of objective analysis, no one should have too much to be upset about. The problem has been that cronyism, and fluky voting, and down-right stupid botes based on no objective analysis whatsoever, has resulted in some really bad decisions over the years. And, rather than leaving those as anomalies, they become the lowest standard by which prospective members are judged ("well, if Phil Rizzuto is in, then Dave Concepcion should be in").

The HOF Monitor is not a metric that assesses who SHOULD be in; its just about who is likely to get in based on certain accomplishments that voters in the past have taken into consideration.

What would be nice is to see a metric that COULD be used to establish a baseline comparison between an eligible player and those in the HOF, as well as a basis to compare him to other elgible players.

What happens now is we decide who we think whould go in based on our subjective assessment, and we then go and cherrypick those stats that support our argument.

Say what you want about Jack Morris and Chuck Finley (and i dont' think either of them warrant HOF membership), but the HOF monitor indicates that they are really not comparablle in terms of the career accomplishments that voters look at (for better or worse). Morris will continue to be a borderline candidate for the duration of his 15-year eligiblity, and Finley will likely fall off the ballot in short order.

I think that the vote should be taken away from reporters (who are the most ignorant bunch of sports fans i know) and current HOFers (who have a vested interest in keeping the Hall as exclusive as possible) and given over to a panel including scholars, sabrmetricians, scouts and former GMs whose jobs it was to evaluate players. Until then, "wins" will be more highly valued than ERA+ in comparing pitchers, and "RBIs" will matter more than OPS+, or WS or VORP or any other more valid criteria.

And until that happens, relying on reporters to have a sudden epiphany and recognize the real value of Rock Raines' career is more wishful thinking than a realistic assessment of his likelihood of induction.

But i hope i'm wrong about that.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Valadius wrote: ="Edgy DC"]The eighties were played at such a perfect level of moderate production, I'm afraid we've ended up undervaluing the careers of players who peaked then, relative to players from extreme batting and pitching eras. Exactly my feeling too.

Yeah, but, in this thread alone, you've supported Juan Gonzalez, Dick Allen, Lou Pinella, Tom Henke, Dave Righetti, Walter O'Malley, and lowering the support threshold to 60%.

[duan]

who doesn't get Tim Raines in the Hall needs their head examined. It's not his fault that Rickey Henderson happened at the same time.

[nymr83]

guys- i really dont want to debate individual players on my list because i'd never expect everyone to agree with all of them, but if you think that say more than 10 of them are wrong list those ten and i'll give an argument for any names that more than one person raises

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Val's list...

Dick Allen
Harold Baines
Albert Belle
Rocky Colavito
Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Gil Hodges
Mark McGwire
Dale Murphy
Tony Oliva
Dave Parker
Lance Parrish
Tim Raines
Jim Rice
Ron Santo
Ted Simmons
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker

I don't think you lower the standards by enshrining most of these players. There are a number of them, like Simmons, who I suspect if they played in New York would have been household names.

Many of them fall into the "robbed by injuries" category, especially Olivia. Kirby Puckett got a pass based on his injuries, but others don't.

And then you have the milestone rules. Is there much of a difference between Early Wynn, with 300 wins and a plaque, and Tommy John and Jim Kaat? Who fall just shy of that. Fred McGriff will probably be the person with the highest home run total without getting enshrined. But if he hit one more home run every other year, he'd be a lock. Baines will fall shy, and Craig Biggio gets in because of about a 100-hit swing in their stats.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, saying that Tommy John is almost as good as Early Wynn, so he should also get a plaque leads to a downward spiral.

Because then the guy who's almost as good as Tommy John will get in. And then the guy who's almost as good as the guy who's almost as good as Tommy John.

Eventually you'll get down to Doc Medich. And then to Kevin Kobel. And then to Brent Hinchcliffe.

[Guest Edgy DC]

There was a much bigger difference between Craig Biggio and Harold Baines than 100 hits.

[nymr83]

i'm personally not inclined to look at "milestones" at all. i prefer to look at rate stats and then decide if the guy had enough PAs at that level to be worth inducting (given his defense and what position he plays etc)

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

="Benjamin Grimm"]Eventually you'll get down to Doc Medich. And then to Kevin Kobel. And then to Brent Hinchcliffe.

Tom Verducci: "Doc Medich was a 'true Yankee' and should be get his rightful place in Cooperstown."

Well, you know he thinks that!

[Guest iramets]

I wonder what the lifetime votes for MVP have been. Among position players only, it seems to me that someone who plays for 15 years without a single MVP vote, whatever his lifetime total numbers are, is a non-impact player on the exalted level I reserve for true HOF players. If no writer ever considered you one of the ten best players in the league during your entire playing career, are you really one of the elite players of your day?

Conversely, if you got a couple of MVP votes in a few seasons, that's a pretty good testimonial right there.

I guess what troubles me is someone accumulating numbers without ever having a season that wows people in the least. The result is a Hall of Steadiness, a Hall of Competitive Players, a Hall of Suttons, and who needs a Hall of Good Players? I would hold up Seaver and Sutton as two ways of reaching the HOF, one legit (because his impact on the game was colossal in several years) and one not (because he was simply doing a damned good job year after year).

I think it would be an interesting project (which someone has probably already tried) to elect a whole new HOF, based on our current understanding of the game, for a more elite group of players than those in the current HOF, weeding out the questionable choices and stamping the strong ones with a "True HOFer" label. if we adopted as our goal reducing the HOF by half, I bet we could agree on many players who would go into each category.

[Willets Point]

What ho, Ira! Returning after a four month absence and giving us an assignment.

[Guest iramets]

]What ho, Ira!

Sorry, didn't catch her name.

[nymr83]

welcome back, i'd be onboard for such a project.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Why, no, I don't know why ira has a three-point apostrophe as a level identifier.

[seawolf17]

According to BBR... we'll look at MVPs first.

Name, Rank, MVP Shares, MVP Wins
Dave Parker 28 3.19 1978
Jim Rice 29 3.15 1978
Andre Dawson 65 2.36 1987
Dale Murphy 66 2.31 1982, 1983
Don Mattingly 74 2.22 1985
Mark McGwire 91 1.94
Alan Trammell 184 1.22
Tim Raines 236 0.99
Rich Gossage 248 0.95
David Justice 287 0.8
Dave Concepcion 410 0.52
Lee Smith 544 0.34
Harold Baines 592 0.29
Brady Anderson 743 0.18
Jack Morris 743 0.18
Tommy John 854 0.11
Bert Blyleven 909 0.09
Rod Beck 939 0.08
Chuck Knoblauch 1073 0.05
Robb Nen 1205 0.03
Jose Rijo 1205 0.03
Travis Fryman 1314 0.02
Shawon Dunston 0
Chuck Finley 0
Todd Stottlemyre 0

Parker surprised me. The only players who have been shown more love than Parker and Rice who are not HOFers: ARod, Frank Thomas, Pujols, Griffey, and Pete Rose. Piazza is tied with Parker, and Jeff Bagwell is right behind him. Going down, Vlad Guerrero (35th), Manny Ramirez (42nd) are probably likely HOFers if they keep it up; you have to get to David Ortiz and Gary Sheffield (52nd and 54th) before you start to get sketchy on HOF qualifications, although they probably will both have a case down the road.

On the Cy:

Rank, Cy Shares
51 0.92 Tommy John
66 0.73 Jack Morris
86 0.54 Lee Smith
98 0.45 Bert Blyleven
118 0.35 Rich Gossage
152 0.17 Jose Rijo
159 0.12 Robb Nen
256 0.01 Chuck Finley

John surprised me; all his votes came in four years between 1977 and 1980 (2nd, 8th, 2nd, and 4th, respectively). Nice run, but not enough to overcome an otherwise Hall of Steadiness qualifications. Morris seems like a better candidate, getting votes in seven separate seasons between 1981 and 1992.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Wolf, can you give your figures column headings?

[metsmarathon]

i haven't looked at the pitchers yet but here's my ranking of this year's class, with some numbers: career WARP3, 5yr max WARP3, the product thereof, HOF percentile, and nearest analog

name	career	max5	c x 5	%-ile	analog
raines	132.5	52.5	6956.25	80%	foxx
trammell	123.2	51.1	6295.52	74%	bench
mcgwire	110.3	47.2	5206.16	60%	doerr
concepcion	106.3	46.9	4985.47	54%	ashburn
dawson	110.8	42.2	4675.76	50%	hartnett
mattingly	90.2	50.3	4537.06	47%	puckett
baines	102.5	36.7	3761.75	30%	maranville
murphy	85.5	42.5	3633.75	29%	cepeda
parker	85.6	41.4	3543.84	28%	lazzeri
rice	88.2	37.3	3289.86	24%	killebrew
knoblauch	74.1	44.2	3275.22	23%	campanella
fryman	74.4	42.6	3169.44	21%	doby
anderson	77.2	40.5	3126.6	20%	averill
justice	73.6	35.5	2612.8	14%	roush
dunston	48.4	21.8	1055.12	1%	--

below 25% should have no chance. below 50% i need some talking-into.
only ron santo is above 75% and not in (7217, 82%).

more on this all when i get some time. i posted a graph way back in a ranking thread that somebody should dig up for me.

...gah, i had to edit... used warp1 instead of warp3... knobby, fryman & anderson get quite the boost! but still should get no consideration, imo. i need to look into it, but i'm pretty sure the bottom 25% of the hall is populated mostly by those who got in via either the veterans committee and/or the presumption that finishing one's career with a .300 batting average must make you worthy of enshrinement no matter the quality of the peripheral stats.

[seawolf17]

I don't know how to do html tables. Drives me kooky.

[metsmarathon]

seawolf17 wrote: I don't know how to do html tables. Drives me kooky.

1. make table in excel.
2. insert extra columns
3. insert needed code in extra rows
4. copy
5. paste into thread
6. delete unneeded line breaks and tabs
7. enjoy!

[nymr83]

you lost me at "excel"

[Guest iramets]

seawolf17 wrote: The only players who have been shown more love than Parker and Rice who are not HOFers: ARod, Frank Thomas, Pujols, Griffey, and Pete Rose. Piazza is tied with Parker, and Jeff Bagwell is right behind him.

Of those named, of course, only Rose is eligible to be a HOFer right now, and we all know Rose's story. Rice is unarguably qualified, I'd say, so the question is: Do we want to endorse a methodology that makes Dave Parker a no-brainer HOFer?

That argument implicitly elevates the dim memory of those voting in 2007 above the observations of those watching Dave Parker play twenty or thirty years ago. Can you win 3.15 MVP awards and still be a less than stellar player? I don't think so. Is it possible that your MVP votes should be reduced in view of your off-the-field actions, whether they be gambling, steroids, cocaine, spousal abuse, or self-abuse in the bullpen? Sure, why not? It's not as though I'm arguing that we do this by feeding numbers into a program and when the computer spits out the top numbergrubbers that settles the election right there. But it seems to me that we're not giving dominating players (like Parker, and yes Mattingly and Garvey) their due. When these guys played, we thought they were among the best of the best. Now, not so much, sometimes for good and just reasons (as with Rose) but other times, not so much.

We've already accounted for longevity and such with the ten-year cutoff for eligibility. Having a long career is what makes you eligible. That's big. A player cannot just break in with a few good years or even a few great years and then retire and expect to get into the Hall. But I don't want to credit simply having a long career twice, by making it the standard for eligibility in the first place and then rewarding it by putting an emphasis on career numbers too. The crucial quality to me is just that: crucial quality. How many seasons did someone have a big impact on the game? Do you want a pitcher who got 300 wins by averaging 12 wins over a 25-year career, or one who got 200 wins by winning 20 for ten years? To me, that's a silly question, but to others, maybe not so much.

By the MVP standard, btw, Raines is borderline, which seems about right to me. Winning enough MVP votes over a career to account one unanimous MVP award seems pretty fair. It certainly shows us who were dominating players, and who were not.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Nice to see you back, Doc.

[Guest iramets]

metsmarathon wrote: 1. make table

OK, I've got a shitload of sanded wood stuck together in my kitchen--it's kinda wobbley (I've stuck an old New Yorker fashion issue under one of the legs), but it will serve as a table. Now what?

I've got problems with the whole system of ten-year elligibility, anyway. Say a guy comes along and has a Sandy Koufax style career but it lasts only 9 years--you can't wedge a playing card between him and Koufax, but somehow Koufax is a no-brainer HOFer and this hypothetical guy is simply unqualified? Dudn't make sense to me.

Matter of fact, take K. himself: if not for the bonus baby rule, he probably wouldn't have gotten his Dodger career started until he was 22 or so. In his first three years (ages 19-21) of his twelve year career, he went 9-10, which doesn't really make you go "HOF!", does it? So if his career had gone exactly as it did, only he would have spent those first three seasons in the minors (and probably pitched better in MLB for the added experience, but let's just skip that for now), he would have been unqualified for election to the Hall?

Alternatively, if a guy like A-Rod comes along and puts in 8 or 9 Ruth's peak-style years and then retires (for reasons less tragic, heroic or noble than Gehrig's or Clemente's--say he suffers a career-ending injury in a DUI or something like that, so we're not falling alll over ourselves to make him an exception to the 10-year rule). This guy, with 550 HRs and 7 Gold Gloves at shortstop and a lifetime .350 average is not going into the Hall because he didn't play enough? That's what the rules say.

[Guest iramets]

I just looked up Schoenweis (for my 'dodo' thread) and learned that he is now a 9-yearveteran lefty. If you add twenty wins per year to his annual record, his career W-L would be 243-49, with a thirty win season tucked in there. But poor hypothetical Scotty wouldn't be eligible for the HOF if he retired off that. WTF?

[soupcan]

iramets wrote: I've got problems with the whole system of ten-year elligibility, anyway

That's all well and good and you make a nice case but there has to be some kind of standard doesn't there? Would you be happy with 7 years? 5? Then what do you do with the guy who has 4 great years and then dies in a car wreck?

Besides exceptions can always be made in special cases. Wasn't the 5 year waiting time rule suspended for Clemente?

[Guest iramets]

That waiver was in keeping with the rule's intent, which is to prevent someone from election to the HOF before you're sure he's actually retired. I think people understood that the rule wouldn't be needed to prevent a comeback from Clemente. The actual ten-year rule for playing career has been skirted (see Addie Joss) but not actually violated. Ten years, "You're good," nine years, "Sorry, Bub."

[nymr83]

skirted? where is Joss' tenth year?

[soupcan]

iramets wrote: That waiver was in keeping with the rule's intent, which is to prevent someone from election to the HOF before you're sure he's actually retired. I think people understood that the rule wouldn't be needed to prevent a comeback from Clemente.

My point is that the HOF rules aren't necessarily hard and fast and if a guy comes along and has 9 A-Rodriguian years and dies or something there would probably be a movement to make an exception.