2013 HoF Ballot (Split, as It Were)

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy DC wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: http://bigbadbaseball.blogspot.com/2012/01/jim-jack-and-lash-of-back-baseballs.html This guy argues that the "Morris deoesn't belong" movement is having the same effect the "Blyleven does belong" movement did. That is, it is getting both guys to the HoF. The difference being that the Blyleven & Morris groups were almost directly opposite each other in my experience. IOW, the pro-Bert guys tend to be anti-Morris and verse-vica; roughly translating to the Blyleven guys being the stats crowd while the Morris-ites stuck with more old-skool benchmarks. Which is sort of the point of the article.

So now I'm expected to actually read articles before commenting on them?
Geez, that'll flip my whole world around!

[Vic Sage]

Yeah, I'm not so interested in his categorization as a borderline candidate, but that you place him on the dark side of the border.

I place Schilling on the darkside of my own personal non-existent ballot; I don't think he's a lock (hence, borderline) but i do think he's got a shot because he's a "big game pitcher". A winna, dontcha know! he'll get the Jack Morris vote and then some, because he's better than Morris.

[Edgy MD]

Thanks, but this is like with the movies. While I agree with your summary of other people's opinions, what I'm hoping to get is more about your own.

[Vic Sage]

i'm not sure i know what your talking about with regard to movies. I don't give my opinion about movies? the whole movie sub-forum is littered with my opinions about movies.

anyway, my opinion about Schilling is that a guy with a bit over 200 wins over a 20 year career, with No MVPS, CYs, ROYs, or other such periperal paraphalia, has got an uphill battle to convince me that he's a HOFer.

Upon closer analysis of his stats, however, i can see the case for him.
-11 seasons in the top 10 in Pitcher's WAR, WHIP and K/BB ratio
-10 seasons top 10 in ERA+ and K/9ip
- a remarkable post-season career including post-season MVPs

He was a guy that, though he established himself early, had an unremarkable 1st decade, and then dominated in his early-mid 30s. But unlike Morris, Ws weren't the totality of his accomplishments; his peripherals all show a guy who was totally dominant when healthy. But health was an issue throughout his career and can't simply be ignored.

If push came to shove, i'd probably vote "yea", in a weaker year where i didn't already have 6 guys on my ballot. If he were to make it in, it wouldn't upset me. He'd be a Drysdale type HOFer, just like he was Drysdale to the Big Unit's Koufax. And that ain't bad.

At any rate, he's lighyears better than Big Jack.

But you got me to come around on Trammell over the years, so don't give up on me.

[seawolf17]

Hmm. My votes, for now:

Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Edgar Martinez
Dale Murphy
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker

I'm wavering on Edgar, Raines, and Schilling.

[Fman99]

I'm still not taking this seriously until they vote in Rush, the Cars, Chicago, ELO, and Heart.

[Edgy MD]

with No MVPS, CYs, ROYs, or other such periperal paraphalia, has got an uphill battle to convince me that he's a HOFer.

If those things matter to you (to me, they are also sort of summaries of other people's opinions) he's got

• 1.85 career Cy Young Award shares.
  
• 0.23 career MVP Award shares. (You long supported writers who refused to --- and discouraged their colleagues from --- supporting MVP causes of pitchers anyway.)
  
• six All Star (six innings, with a 3.00 ERA) selections
  
• starting pitcher honors in two of those games.
  
• The 1993 NL NLCS MVP.
  
• The 1995 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award (league-wide award given by Phi Delta Theta Fraternity in recognition of the player who best exemplifies Gehrig's character and integrity both on and off the field).
  
• The 2001 World Series MVP (shared), pitching to the tune of a 1.69 ERA over 21.1 innings as the D'Backs beat the Yankees and brought honor to America.
  2001 NL Babe Ruth Award (given by MLB to the player with the best overall performance in the post-season).
  
• The 2001 Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year.
  
• The 2001 Branch Rickey Award (league-wide award given by The Rotary Club in recognition of the player who best demonstrates a commitment to community service).
  
• 2001 ML Hutch Award (league-wide award given by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and displayed at the MLB HoF, to the player who best exemplifies the fighting spirit and competitive desire of Fred Hutchinson).
  
• 2001 ML Roberto Clemente Award (league-wide award, given by MLB to the player who "best exemplifies the game of baseball, sportsmanship, community involvement and the individual's contribution to his team.")
  
• 2001 NL The Sporting News Pitcher of the Year
  
• 2002 NL The Sporting News Pitcher of the Year
  
• Three rings, which certainly aren't subjectively conveyed, but certainly are team awards, but he was a big part of those teams.

Those aren't MVPs, but it's a whole lotta junk for one man's closet, if you care about that sort of thing. And as far as the notion that the sock gave him an inflated reputation as a "winna," I think that that post-season record sure backs up the anecdotal.

I'm not sure I'm voting one way or the other on him. The barbell shape of his career --- showing all of 18 wins from 1994 to 1996 --- is not only distressing, but also a little bit suspicious coming at pretty much the exact point that his mentor Roger Clemens' career was also sliding downhill, leading him apparently into a life of PEDs and bullshit. Maybe he went drugging too. But the pitchers of his ERA had it so hard. The few that flourished --- Maddux, Martinez, Johnson --- were magic users. But this guy ground out a heck of career. Hard to say.

I think he could have held on a little bit more and won 12-16 more games and raised a few more eyebrows, but with a .600 adjusted winning percentage and a 128 ERA plus (ten notches higher than Blyleven's), I'm not sure he should have to pile on a few more counting stats when his rate stats are so good.

[nymr83]

I think Schilling is a no-brainer. He's behind only Maddux, Johnson, Martinez, and Clemens among his contemporaries.

[Edgy MD]

And Clemens is a borderline criminal miscreant. (And I place him on the "yes" side of the borderline.)

To be fair, we have to put Rivera in that group kinda sorta also. Glavine cough! as well.

[Frayed Knot]

Nymr83 wrote: I think Schilling is a no-brainer. He's behind only Maddux, Johnson, Martinez, and Clemens among his contemporaries.

At his best Schilling was as good as any of those guys (or at least nearly so) but his career didn't have as many good/great seasons or have the consistency of that gang. And, yes, throw in Glavine & Mariano too.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

seawolf17 wrote: Hmm. My votes, for now: Jeff Bagwell Craig Biggio Edgar Martinez Dale Murphy Mike Piazza Tim Raines Curt Schilling Alan Trammell Larry Walker I'm wavering on Edgar, Raines, and Schilling.

I like this list, though I'm not sold on Walker or Schilling, though Schilling gets benefit of the doubt points for inflicting shame and misery on the MFYs. In fact, that he did that TWICE probably is enough to earn my vote.

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: Nymr83 wrote: I think Schilling is a no-brainer. He's behind only Maddux, Johnson, Martinez, and Clemens among his contemporaries. At his best Schilling was as good as any of those guys (or at least nearly so) but his career didn't have as many good/great seasons or have the consistency of that gang. And, yes, throw in Glavine & Mariano too.

Certainly true, which is why I said he is behind those 4. He is MILES ahead of Rivera, he may have been the "best closer ever" but to me that's like being the "best punter ever", I don't think Rivera is comparable to any hall-worthy starting pitcher. Glavine over Schilling? My gut says no but I don't think I feel too strongly on that.

[Edgy MD]

It's interesting. Baseball-Reference.com puts him ahead of Glavine in WAR, 69.7 to 67.0, even as he sits 89 credited wins behind.

[Vic Sage]

Vic Sage wrote: with No MVPS, CYs, ROYs, or other such periperal paraphalia, has got an uphill battle to convince me that he's a HOFer. If those things matter to you (to me, they are also sort of summaries of other people's opinions) he's got

wow, nice way to purposefully misrepresent my point.

i said a guy with a little over 200+ wins and ... "with No MVPS, CYs, ROYs, or other such periperal paraphalia, has got an uphill battle to convince me that he's a HOFer." Since the baseline point was 200+ wins, not the "peripheral paraphanalia" (sorry for the misspelling), to spend a lengthy post highlighting additional paraphanalia that's even MORE peripheral (frat awards? rotary club? I'm sure there were BSA merit badges you overlooked, too), is just blather.

If those things matter to you (to me, they are also sort of summaries of other people's opinions) he's got

yes, those awards are summaries of other people's opinions -- but they are the opinions of people who actually vote for HOF, not the rotary club. so in forming my own opinion of a player's HOF candidacy, i look beyond stats to an understanding of how the player was perceived during his career in his own time. It is often there that a rationale can boost a guy with 215 wins to the HOF. But that case can't be made easily for Schilling either. I won't get into unwarranted PED suspicions; i don't think its fair for him or Piazza or Bagwell. But i'm not going to give him bonus points for community service awards either; i think that's just PR bullshit and mostly irrelevant.

Schilling had a very high peak with a track record of post-season greatness (and i did note his post-season MVPs, which you felt compelled to list as though i overlooked them) to bolster low career totals. He also had long trenches of utter irrelevance throughout his career,, and didn't collect any of the personal hardware generally cited to boost his case. IN MY OPINION, his career bespeaks a 2nd-tier HOFer of the Drysdale variety at best, who i might vote for in a weak field but isn't worthy of my vote with so many 1st-tier options available.

[nymr83]

Vic, I don't disagree that he may be in a lower tier (the Drysdale category if you prefer), but I don't see why he shouldn't get your vote along with those other guys. If you think a guy is a hall of famer, why not put him on your ballot now?

[Edgy MD]

I didn't misrepresent your point --- purposely or otherwise. You cited a lack of peripheral paraphernalia, and I listed some.

I'm just trying to give and get opinions that are independent of the opinions of others.

[Vic Sage]

Nymr83 wrote: Vic, I don't disagree that he may be in a lower tier (the Drysdale category if you prefer), but I don't see why he shouldn't get your vote along with those other guys. If you think a guy is a hall of famer, why not put him on your ballot now?

well, since i don't get a vote, what does it matter to you?

But speaking theoretically, the HOF isn't just binary (in or out) to me; it's hierarchical. Otherwise, one would be saying that Phil Rizzuto is equivalent to Honus Wagner and, you know, they're just not. So voting for 2nd tier guys when so many 1st tier guys are still waiting outside can obscure the impact of my vote. For example, there are those voters with whom i disagree who see Schilling as a "no-brainer" and E.Martinez as unworthy because he was a DH (holding his lack of fielding opportunity against him in an way that pitchers' hitting is NOT held against them), or won't vote for Piazza and Bagwell because of unfounded suspicions, and so my vote for lesser HOF candidates like Schilling could boost their vote total over candidates i feel are more deserving. While, as i said, i wouldn't complain if Schilling got in eventually, I WOULD complain if he got in if Piazza or Bagwell or, yes, even E-Mart did NOT. Because that waters down my conception of greatness and the elitism that the HOF is supposed to represent. Schilling will have 15 years of eligibility and then an indefinite period for consideration by a vet committee. He can wait.

[Vic Sage]

Certainly true, which is why I said he is behind those 4. He is MILES ahead of Rivera, he may have been the "best closer ever" but to me that's like being the "best punter ever", I don't think Rivera is comparable to any hall-worthy starting pitcher.

so you would exclude relievers from the HOF on principle? really? Then, presumably, DHs are excluded, too, i guess, right?
so you would banish Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, Dennis Eckersley, Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage, deeming them not worthy of CONSIDERATION? Not to mention E.Mart, Molitor, and the upcoming candidacy of Frank Thomas?

I agree that the limited nature of their contribution makes the bar higher for them, but the point is you wouldn't compare Rivera to any other hall-worthy starting pitcher, you'd compare him to the other relievers of his era. It's a job major leaguers perform on a team (more important now than ever). I understand that you would not give relievers the points you'd give guys who pitched at a high level for 200+ IP every year, but i don't think you exclude him from consideration on principle. There are some relatively weak hitting defensive players in the HOF; they are not excluded because they didn't put up HOF worthy stats with their bats, their bats are simply put in context with their glove.

By the way, Jan Stenerud is in the football HOF. so they let kickers in, when they're good enough to make an impact with their leg that outweighs their lack of impact the rest of the time. And if ever there was a reliever who meets that standard, it's Mario Rivera, loathe as i am to say so.

[Edgy MD]

I'm sort of surprised to find out Ray Guy and Dave Jennings aren't.

[MFS62]

Other Football HOF members listed as "kickers" are George Blanda, with a parenthetical "QB" after his name, and Lou Groza, with a "T".

I think Ray Guy has been on the ballot recently, so he may still get in.

Later

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

So, while he does provide a useful bit of information here-- that Fonzie missed out on the ballot because only ONE writer nominated him for the honor, and nobody seconded-- Murray Chass is just trolling us all at this point, yes?

When I voted for the first time, I submitted a full ballot, all 10 lines filled with names. By the time I voted a year later, I had reconsidered what I had done. In voting for 10 players, I was saying in essence I wanted to see 10 players inducted into the Hall at the same time. How foolish, I realized. Having 10 players enter the Hall at the same time would detract from the honor for each player. In addition, the induction ceremony would take forever and require a break for dinner. On subsequent ballots I placed an X next to three or four names at the most, sometimes only one or two. I have not voted for McGwire or Palmeiro and don�t expect to vote for Bonds, Clemens, Sosa or Piazza next December. I will vote for Morris.

[G-Fafif]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Fonzie missed out on the ballot because only ONE writer nominated him for the honor

Fitting that someone perversely hailed for being underrated when he was at his peak -- a millennial Joe Rudi, if you will -- goes underrated in the simple act of sticking his name on the ballot. The failure of one lousy seconded! to materialize seems an appropriate career bookend to Joe Buck, during a 1997 Fox broadcast, expressing astonishment that Tim McCarver would rate Fonzie as the best third baseman in the National League, and then have to adjust his astonishment when Fonzie homered a couple of innings later.

Out of respect for the eternally underrated Fonzie, that disregard riles my Met blood more than Chass casually equating Mike with the Under A Cloud muscleheads.

Rudi, BTW, made the 1988 ballot and received no votes despite being contemporarily pointed to year in and year out as the key to the success of the A's dynasty. But he did make the ballot.

[nymr83]

Vic Sage wrote: Certainly true, which is why I said he is behind those 4. He is MILES ahead of Rivera, he may have been the "best closer ever" but to me that's like being the "best punter ever", I don't think Rivera is comparable to any hall-worthy starting pitcher. so you would exclude relievers from the HOF on principle? really? Then, presumably, DHs are excluded, too, i guess, right? so you would banish Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, Dennis Eckersley, Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage, deeming them not worthy of CONSIDERATION? Not to mention E.Mart, Molitor, and the upcoming candidacy of Frank Thomas? I agree that the limited nature of their contribution makes the bar higher for them, but the point is you wouldn't compare Rivera to any other hall-worthy starting pitcher, you'd compare him to the other relievers of his era. It's a job major leaguers perform on a team (more important now than ever). I understand that you would not give relievers the points you'd give guys who pitched at a high level for 200+ IP every year, but i don't think you exclude him from consideration on principle. There are some relatively weak hitting defensive players in the HOF; they are not excluded because they didn't put up HOF worthy stats with their bats, their bats are simply put in context with their glove. By the way, Jan Stenerud is in the football HOF. so they let kickers in, when they're good enough to make an impact with their leg that outweighs their lack of impact the rest of the time. And if ever there was a reliever who meets that standard, it's Mario Rivera, loathe as i am to say so.

I dont think a Dh should be disqualified, but i think they should be treated as having negative value on the easiest position on the defensive spectrum. they may also desreve a penalty for the presumed ease of staying healthy and rested there. When i look at a DH i evaluate him as if he were a guy you cringed to watch playing 1B. If Frank Thomas had spent his whole career at DH he'd still be a HOFer based on offense alone (in my opinion), but Edgar? I'm not sure yet. Thats where the 15 years on the ballot can be beneficial in giving time to decide. Its not that I want to to wait on more deserving guys, its just that I havent decided yet.

I dont think Rivera is on the level of any of those relievers who are in the hall, they all pitched ALOT more innings than him, and that matters. I think its hard for a modern day reliever, who tops out probably around 1300 innings, to be hall-worthy.

edit- i cant get the table to work, but Rivera pitched 200% less innings than Eckersley, and 100% less than Wilhelm, 50% less than Gossage or Fingers. He ptched more than Sutter, who I dont think belongs anywhere near the HOF.

[Edgy MD]

A DH isn't a negative defensive score. It's a zero.

Meanwhile, Murray Chass

Why were they on the ballot? Why were Javier Lopez and Eric Young on the ballot? They each received one vote. Why? Did each have a friend among the writers who wanted to express his feelings for him? Did the writers honestly believe Lopez and Young belong in the Hall of Fame? If so, how did those writers last long enough covering baseball � 10 years � to qualify as voters? The writers get enough criticism for voting for legitimate candidates or not voting for players fans think belong in the Hall of Fame without incurring criticism for voting for players with career records like Lopez and Young. In last year�s election 16 players failed to get the 30 votes they needed to continue as candidates. Like this year, six players received no votes: Carlos Baerga, Lenny Harris, Bobby Higginson, Charles Johnson, Raul Mondesi, Kirk Rueter. Bret Boone and Benito Santiago each appeared on one ballot. Again, why?

Why not? He apparently thinks its a real issue that writers need to be protected from the disgrace of casting embarrassing minority votes. Really? Stupid issues like this obscure real issues. How did this blogger ever get to vote in the first place?