2013 HOF In Balloting Thread

[Ceetar]

Davidoff publishes his ballot and gives Mike Piazza a cold clinical no. http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/baseballinsider/my_hall_of_fame_ballot_rC1PsqLR9XhGn3vaUJMYNL#axzz2FWjS3xyI Can't argue too much with him, as he came armed with data. I'll just say that our searches for a final bottom-line number on a player's value hasn't necessarily given us a number that adequately accounts for the greater value in offense when it comes from a catcher. These guys have a harder time maintaining peak productivity because they play a position that allows other guys to be productive. That's something.

yeah, Piazza was better than some of those guys, just not for as long, but catcher HAS to play into it. At least prorate his WAR to the average playing time of the other guys. Of course, part of the problem is they should've put guys like Bagwell and Martinez in last year, so there aren't so many good candidates this year.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

If I was talking baseball at a Christmas party in 1987 and someone told me that Dale Murphy wouldn't be a Hall of Famer by 2012 - and only would get 20% of the vote once in 15 years - I'd have thought they had too much egg nog.

[Edgy MD]

Davidoff gets crossed off my ballot for using the phrase "redonkulously good."

[metirish]

It's funny to see doubt about Piazza in the HOF. In his pomp he was regularly called such things as "a no doubter for the HOF", "a certain HOF player", "future HOFer Mike Piazza". Only doubt was the hat.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Davidoff publishes his ballot and gives Mike Piazza a cold clinical no. http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/baseballinsider/my_hall_of_fame_ballot_rC1PsqLR9XhGn3vaUJMYNL#axzz2FWjS3xyI Can't argue too much with him, as he came armed with data. I'll just say that our searches for a final bottom-line number on a player's value hasn't necessarily given us a number that adequately accounts for the greater value in offense when it comes from a catcher. These guys have a harder time maintaining peak productivity because they play a position that allows other guys to be productive. That's something.

Yeah, that's a persuasive argument from Davidoff, and he gets extra points for confounding those who earlier this week had him painted as a Mets Front Office puppet for his Dickey-is-a-dick column (which imo struck many fans way too hard). I could and would probably slide in Mike P over Lofton or Martinez, but I like that they're getting votes and his reasoning is sound on the guys who deserve a vote but just can't earn one in this class. Seemed to me as though writers too often leave guys off a ballot so as to satisfy their own heirarchies, not because there are too many candidates.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

He prominently mentions Bagwell's 149 OPS+ and Martinez' 147 OPS+, but leaves out Piazza's 143 OPS+ achieved at a much harder position, as it would deflate his argument significantly.

[metirish]

Yes, kudos to Davidoff, I wonder how many of his fellow voters know what Jeffe's JAWS is, I have not a clue.

[metsmarathon]

so... davidoff won't be voting for mariano, then, ever, right? because even eckersley's WAR & JAWS scores pale in comparison to nearly every other pitcher in the hall. and they're better than ol' 'lectric pool.

also, davidoff would suggest that yogi berra drags down the quality of the hall? his WAR and JAWS scores are lower than piazza's.

i applaud hte statistical approach, really i do. but it leaves out the context of the performance. using bbref's stats, piazza was hte 5th best catcher in history. comparing his JAWS score to the average catcher in the hall, he's 18% better. comparing his WAR total to the average catcher, he's 13% better.

kenny lofton is a below average hall of fame centerfielder (if only just). mike piazza is an above average hall of fame catcher. position matters.

[Edgy MD]

metirish wrote: It's funny to see doubt about Piazza in the HOF. In his pomp he was regularly called such things as "a no doubter for the HOF", "a certain HOF player", "future HOFer Mike Piazza". Only doubt was the hat.

Part of what's going on is that the ballot is getting crowded --- in part, I guess, because of (as Valadius will tell you) increasing stinginess, but even moreso because writers are having so much trouble dealing with the 80s, an era which played really neutral and close to the mean, and the 90s, an era with numbers (though we know not which ones) distorted by PED use. The conservative voter shrinks from the ambiguities these eras brought.

Years later, backlogged candidacies from those eras leave a cold clinical guy like Davidoff spoiled for choice.

He should've chosen Piazza over Lofton, but who knows? --- maybe by not giving Piazza his vote he's keeping worthy candidacies like Lofton's and Trammel's alive.

[metsmarathon]

that'd be a reasonable and entirely unfortunate position i could stand by, though if that's the case, perhaps he should withhold a vote from bonds or clemens instead. or, y'know, just say so.

[Fman99]

Lofton over Piazza? Fuck him. He can die in a grease fire.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Bonds and Clemens get in, and Sosa is kept out for corking his bat?

His implication that Aaron and Mays were just as guilty for using amphetamines is nuts. Amphetamines is not comparable to human growth hormones and steroids. And, yes, Ruth played before integration, which isn't exactly his fault. But is he trying to imply that Ruth wouldn't have done as well had there been black players in the league?

That whole column is horrible. Piazza is vastly overqualified for the Hall.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

The argument with Ruth is he likely wouldn't have dominated to the extent that he did had the talent pool not been so artificially-limited (not just without black players, but with barely any Hispanic/foreign-born players); there's likely something there, but it obviously can never be proven.

Also, in terms of peak and sustained performance over a lengthy career, Bonds and (ugh) Clemens are at least a class above guys like Sosa and McGwire (much less Palmeiro).

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Amphetamines is not comparable to human growth hormones and steroids.

True-- one is a proven hand-eye-coordination booster, and the other is HGH/steroids.

[Frayed Knot]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: His implication that Aaron and Mays were just as guilty for using amphetamines is nuts. Amphetamines is not comparable to human growth hormones and steroids. And, yes, Ruth played before integration, which isn't exactly his fault. But is he trying to imply that Ruth wouldn't have done as well had there been black players in the league?

I'm seeing his point as saying that all players are products of their era and that it's time to stop pretending that only those from the 1990s were somehow devoid of sporting morals when it's known that at least some of those who went before were willing to take whatever was available in their time to if it was thought to improve performance. Former pitcher Tom House has talked about experimenting with all kinds of shit - primitive horse steroids and the like - with a few guys he played with during his career. Among others he played with was Aaron ... was even the guy who caught his 715th HR ... Aaron had some great seasons in his late 30s and early 40s right around this same time ... hmmmmm.

Point being, it's impossible to know everything about what went on, even among those about whom with know something, and it's at least as tough to know what others not yet (and maybe never) named were doing as well, and that as long as baseball was doing nothing about it, players & the league both, the punishment of those thus far named, at least within the pre-testing era, seems both selective and uneven. I think Davidoff has simply come around to the idea that it's impossible to separate, or in most cases even define, that era's players in simple black and white / user-vs-non categories and I believe that's the place many of his colleagues are going to eventually reach as well. I don't begrudge those who are taking their time to sort it out, but I think more are going to come around to a similar view to Davidoff's eventually.

That doesn't mean there aren't things to disagree with or argue about in his list, but I don't think his steroids angle is wrong.

[Valadius]

Dale Murphy did an AMA today on Reddit.

[Edgy MD]

That contrast between meeting Murphy as a kid and meeting Henderson is pretty funny.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

The permutation of Clemens in, Piazza & Bonds out, will make me seriously question my desire to follow this league.

[Edgy MD]

Personally, I think the notion that "He shook the rap in court, therefore he's absolved historically," is a cop out.

If you want to move on from steroids, I get it. That's fine. But don't substitute the judgment of a specific jury to a very specific charge with a very specific burden of proof for your own judgment, or the judgment of history.

[Edgy MD]

Rob Castellano does a great job piecing apart Davidoff's Folly.

[metsmarathon]

its nice to see someone adopting my JAWS+ metric.

[Edgy MD]

Gar the batting stance guy posted this little stat set.

11-19 (.579) 3-2Bs, 2-HRs, 6-RBI.

That's Edgar Martinez.

Against Mariano Rivera.

[bmfc1]

Spreadsheet of how the voting is going:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqc4QTMoPrdtdDQxaDYzd1lLOGpOdUdrcnNNNWNXa2c&authkey=CPyuwqIJ&authkey=CPyuwqIJ#gid=6

[Edgy MD]

I'm confused. That spreadsheet seems to suggest they have reasonably accurate versions of 56 ballots. In order to be elected, a guy needs to appear on 75% of ballots, which in that sample would be 42 votes.

According to that sheet, this is a threshold that none of the candidates reach, with Tim Raines leading at 41. Are the early returns really leading to a projection of no electees?

[Ceetar]

A couple say they are partials.

Also I presume the idiots who do things like blank ballots or only vote for Dale Murphy probably get their ballots in earlier.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Oh, you mean, like Mark Faller? Or this guy?

[Edgy MD]

He's defensible until he gets to his ballot of Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Curt Schilling, Don Mattingly. Ouch.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy MD wrote: He's defensible until he gets to his ballot of Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Curt Schilling, Don Mattingly. Ouch.

That's what I mean. Did Raines and Trammell use andro?

[G-Fafif]

John Delcos listed as not voting for Piazza, but Delcos says he did.

[Vic Sage]

like the other guy, this guy's argument is valid right up to the point where he starts naming his ballot... Fred McGriff, Jack Morris, Don Mattingly... at which point he loses all credibility.
I mean, how does a guy understand positional context, as he does with Piazza and his relative place among HOF catchers, then go on to vote for McGriff and Mattingly as HOF 1bmen and Morris as a HOF pitcher?

[Guest The Second Spitter]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The argument with Ruth is he likely wouldn't have dominated to the extent that he did had the talt metsguyinmichigan wrote: Amphetamines is not comparable to human growth hormones and steroids. True-- one is a proven hand-eye-coordination booster, and the other is HGH/steroids.

This is a salient point. In Game of Shadows it is suggested that Bonds benefited more from the use of Modafinil, a drug with amphetamine-like properties (that was not even on the WADA radar at the time) above any other drug.