Mike & The Mikettes: 2014 HOF Ballot

[metsmarathon]

i think it's time to do away with the ten vote limit. writers should be allowed (and perhaps instructed) to vote who whomever they feel meets the standards for enshrinement.

i really find it distasteful how a seemingly great many of them try to game the balloting.

i'd find some fair amount of difficulty in winnowing down my hypothetical ballot to only ten. but here goes, since we're all doing it. what can i say, i'm a follower!

1. barry bonds
2. roger clemens
3. greg maddux
4. mike piazza
5. jeff bagwell
6. frank thomas
7. alan trammell
8. curt schilling
9. tim raines
10. edgar martinez

other guys who i'd throw a vote towards if given half an opportunity

11. mike mussina
12. tom glavine
13. rafael palmiero
14. larry walker
15. mark mcgwire
16. craig biggio

sosa is tough. he hit a lot of home runs, but i never really got the feeling he was actually good. weird, right?

happily, his WAR total was 17th best among any on the ballot, and his JAWS score relative to the averave hof'er at his position was also 17th best on the ballot, at less than 90% of the average hof left fielder. so, um, justification. hooray.

[Ceetar]

seawolf17 wrote: and the home run he gave up to ol' whatshisname as an O.

This is it.

oh, and "home run"

best case for replay I've ever heard.

[HahnSolo]

I'm trying, but I just can't muster up much outrage over what Matthews said about Benitez. On this ballot, he is a throwaway.

[Edgy MD]

Armando is the big guy that self-loathing little guys love to beat up on. Matthews here is Curly taking shots at Lenny in Of Mice and Men.

Can't get outraged? Maybe not and maybe you shouldn't. But Matthews and his like deserve to get called on their smallness. Every time.

[MFS62]

Matthews is just in a snit because he can't vote for Derek Jeter yet.

Heck, he wishes he were old enough to have voted for Horace Clark.
Later

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Here's the kicker in Wally's column:

"QUESTION: Putting Yankees loyalty aside, would you vote for Mussina for the Hall based solely on his statistics and merit as a player?"

Gentleman, this guy is one of the 500+ with a Hall of Fame ballot.

[Lefty Specialist]

Admitting Phil Rizzuto was the shark-jumping point. It went from the 'Hall of Fame' to the 'Hall of the Pretty Good'.

You could probably put 15 people in and a case could be made for each. Right now, there's a hissy fit going on against overtly muscular guys, but I expect this will gradually dissipate over the next few years. There are exceptions, the ones that the writers have decided have lied to them- Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero. Palmiero gets extra negative bonus points for lying to the US Congress. The ones who are highly suspect but never conclusively proven, such as Bagwell, will get in eventually.

By that logic, Mussina gets in at some point, even if he wasn't a Yankme.

[Frayed Knot]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Admitting Phil Rizzuto was the shark-jumping point. It went from the 'Hall of Fame' to the 'Hall of the Pretty Good'.

Which was via the Vet's committee, not the regular process. And it was even worse than that in that it was a vet's committee intentionally stocked so as to get Phil in. Berra, then broadcast partner Bill White, and longtime friend Pee-Wee Reese were added just that year and, I believe, off the committee shortly afterward. Yogi's post-vote call to Rizzuto was reportedly "we got you in".

And at the risk of belaboring the point, the advantage of the current system is that, with 400-500 members, no one voting bloc can skew the results the way the old vets committee did with Rizzuto and Mazeroski.

[stevejrogers]

Frayed Knot wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Admitting Phil Rizzuto was the shark-jumping point. It went from the 'Hall of Fame' to the 'Hall of the Pretty Good'. Which was via the Vet's committee, not the regular process. And it was even worse than that in that it was a vet's committee intentionally stocked so as to get Phil in. Berra, then broadcast partner Bill White, and longtime friend Pee-Wee Reese were added just that year and, I believe, off the committee shortly afterward. Yogi's post-vote call to Rizzuto was reportedly "we got you in". And at the risk of belaboring the point, the advantage of the current system is that, with 400-500 members, no one voting bloc can skew the results the way the old vets committee did with Rizzuto and Mazeroski.

FWIW, that committee had been messing things up going back to the 1970s!

There was a thing called "The Glory Of Their Times Affect" that allowed a lot of the players talked up greatly in that oral history book to get enshrined through the back door during those years. Also Frankie Frisch ruled the Committee with an iron fist during these years to get a lot of old Cardinals and Giants from the 1920s and 1930s in there. Some of the "Worst. Picks. Ever." come from this era of the HOF. Rizzuto stands out because of Skankee dominance when it comes to discussing baseball history.

Read Bill James' "Whatever Happened To The Hall" that came out around 93-94, it is a good history of all the various processes up to that point.

[stevejrogers]

Edgy is gonna love this one...

http://deadspin.com/deadspin-buys-hall-of-fame-vote-will-turn-it-over-to-d-1467003665

[Edgy MD]

I don't know why that's particularly aimed at me, but you've got to realize, Steve, we've already been discussing the Deadspin thing, in this very thread, starting about 24 hours ago.

[stevejrogers]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't know why that's particularly aimed at me, but you've got to realize, Steve, we've already been discussing the Deadspin thing, in this very thread, starting about 24 hours ago.

D'OH

I know you don't care very much for Deadspin and their ilk encroaching on traditional journalism.

Feel free to remove...SMH, RMPL...

[Edgy MD]

Actually, I think you're confusing me with another. Deadspin the thing is a good. It's empowered a lot of douchecraft, but traditional sports journalism was a douchecraft elite. It's no accident that baseball has grown more scientific in the age of the internet. Democracy is ugly, but it's productive. Deadspin now publishes Dave McKenna, who I've made no secret of declaring to be my favorite sports scribe.

[G-Fafif]

Sadly, baseball must wait for a January day more than five years in the future to re-establish its Valhalla by its proper name, the Hall of Rivera. Until then, this voter will reserve judgment on any players who are not The Great Mariano, understanding that to clutter Cooperstown with a lesser strain of immortal is to insult Rivera and all He stands for. In the meantime, my 2014 ballot will include just one check mark, next to the name Mike Mussina. No, Moose isn't Mo, but the Hall of Rivera should greet its namesake with at least a few familiar faces. Rivera saved many games for his teammate Mussina. He also saved baseball...which, when you get right down to it, was Mariano Rivera's ultimate teammate.

[ashie62]

Each passing freezing day is one day closer to spring training...

[Vic Sage]

[u:1r5bywlo]My ballot (10):[/u:1r5bywlo]
Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
T#m Gl@v!ne
Greg Maddux
Edgar Martinez
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Frank Thomas

[u:1r5bywlo]i could also see myself voting for one or all of these guys at some point:[/u:1r5bywlo]
Jeff Kent
Curt Schilling
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker

[u:1r5bywlo]These guys will continue to get some votes, but not mine:[/u:1r5bywlo]
Don Mattingly
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Mike Mussina
Rafael Palmeiro
Lee Smith
Sammy Sosa

And whatever FK says about HOF voting, ditto.

[Edgy MD]

So, Greg Maddux: bookish, upright, insanley efficient, apparently clean in a dirty era, a guy who represented many of those classic values many claim to love but probably don't if it's too hard.

Does he approach/surpass Seaver's vote total?

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Edgy MD wrote: So, Greg Maddux: bookish, upright, insanley efficient, apparently clean in a dirty era, a guy who represented many of those classic values many claim to love but probably don't if it's too hard. Does he approach/surpass Seaver's vote total?

As long as there are writers out there who take it upon themselves to "protest the era" by turning in blank ballots, it will be tough for Maddux to beat Seaver.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, but are we still there? The writers may well feel en masse tha they made their point and are done with punishing the innocent with the apparently guilty.

And Maddux, unlike Biggio, did his act on a national stage, usually in the post-season, with the eptiome of an anti-roidy image (for what that's worth).

Yeah, I don't think he will either.

[dgwphotography]

Edgy MD wrote: So, Greg Maddux: bookish, upright, insanley efficient, apparently clean in a dirty era, a guy who represented many of those classic values many claim to love but probably don't if it's too hard. Does he approach/surpass Seaver's vote total?

BLASPHEMY!!!

[metirish]

HOF "expert" predicts ONLY Maddox gets in

Article , worth a read

http://baseballpastandpresent.com/2013/12/15/2014-hall-fame-election-forecast/


Deadspin bit on this



http://deadspin.com/hall-of-fame-expert-predicts-only-one-player-will-make-1485143589

Bill Deane is a former senior research associate at the Baseball Hall of Fame. For more than three decades, he's been predicting who'll make it into the HOF, who won't, and what their vote percentages will be. On borderline cases�those within 10 percent of the 75-percent cutoff�he's batting .806. So who does Deane predict will be making a speech at Cooperstown next summer? Greg Maddux. And that's it. Deane has Maddux getting in with a whopping 94 percent of the vote. But everyone else�the really awesome steroids guys, the really awesome clean guys�missing out. He's got Glavine, at 67 percent, the only player even within 10 percent of the cutoff. He predicts Frank Thomas to garner 63 percent of the vote. And then it's just a descending trail of sadness, all the way down to Mike Mussina, one of the best pitchers of his generation, barely staying on the ballot at seven percent. Deane doesn't share his methodology, and we can't check all his past results (though he was pretty spot-on last year), so you're not obligated to respect his predictions any more than, say, your own. But this is a fairly realistic-sounding worst-case scenario for the Hall: The single most stacked ballot that's ever existed, and everyone save one comes up short. If this does come to pass, will there be anyone left who doesn't believe the system is broken?

[Edgy MD]

Don't mean to be blasphemous. Just asking a question.

It's partly an historical accident that has landed Seaver with that honor. (He's hardly the greatest player in baseball history, though a strong enough case can certainly be made for greatest pitcher since World War II.) So if it took a particuar alignment of forces to so designate him with that distinction, I would think it'd be useful to speculate when those forces might align again.

I think there's got to be at least some degree of a discernable rebound from last year's vote, if not pehaps a full backlash.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Don't mean to be blasphemous.

Why on Earth would anyone think the question blasphemous? Seaver doesn't deserve to be the all time record holder for vote percentage into the HOF. And likewise, he didn't deserve to get into the HOF with anything less than 100% of the votes on his first try. To the extent he deserves any part of that record (because who the hell would be in his right mind to exclude Seaver from a HOF ballot?) so do dozens of other HOF'ers. In a fair and perfect world, Seaver would be tied with many others for the vote percentage record -- with 100% of the vote. This is basic stuff.

[Edgy MD]

What can I say? dgw likes the Seav.

[metsmarathon]

maddux (and glavine) totally roided up in those nike 'chicks dig the long ball' commercials. so he's out too, damnit! the stain of the era is on them [u:1px85ezs]all[/u:1px85ezs]!

[dgwphotography]

Maybe I should have added this (I thought the large type and exclamation points would have helped):

[Guest Trachsel My Tears]

Doesn't Maddux seem as well-qualified as Seaver? Win totals, Cy Young Awards, writer-friendliness--in all these areas he seems even to edge Seaver a little bit. I don't recall his ever being a bit of a jerk, which Seaver (I know, BLASPHEMY!!!) could be. I don't understand why exactly Seaver leads the crowd, since there are plenty of All-American extremely excellent players before him and since him: George Brett, Cal Ripken, Mickey Mantle--why does he lead the parade, do you suppose?

[Edgy MD]

A real, live nu poster? Could Christmas have come early? Welcome a-Bordick!

Seaver was the best of his generation. He was somebody the old beat writers could stand by (he did his stint in the marines, respected his elders, cursed and smoked in the clubhouse but kept it clean in public, supposedly honored his marital vows), but threw a bone or two to the coming generation as well (opposed Vietnam, stood strong with labor, gravitated toward friendships with black stars, projected a chastely swinging swagger).

He also was smart enough to carefully cultivate his image, but only as far as he could credibly take it. So he didn't create a caricature that was a paper facade over something far more self serving (like Jeter or Garvey) or end up honorably but clumsily trying to live up to an ideal that was built on mostly hollow go-for-it!/never-give-up!/be-a-gamer! cliches guaranteed to bite you in the ass, like Gary Carter did.

He was a guy both fathers and sons could agree about in the middle of the Vietnam generation, when --- Field of Dreams will tell you --- fathers and sons couldn't agree about much.

Come to think of it, the one guy who really toed that line as well as Seaver was Cal Ripken. But even he didn't top Seaver's vote totals. Seaver, of course, was handsomer and represented a bigger market and a unifying national miracle in the midst of a divisive war. But if Ripken couldn't pull it off, that doesn't make a strong case for Maddux, even if, as you note, he's got many or most of the same tangibles Seaver brings to the table.

[Frayed Knot]

Seaver is, in any logical argument, at or near the top of his position for a half-century or so leading up to his enshrinement so the answer to the question 'Why Him?' is really; 'Why Not?'
And while one could argue that there were others who could have topped his HoF vote pct, there was arguably no one more deserving than him.

I think it may also be a factor of timing
- GTS came after the 5 year rule was in place. That buffer wasn't always the case and was a reason why DiMaggio, for instance, not only wasn't unanimous but had to wait around until his 3rd year of eligibility to pass muster as there were some voters who waited until they were sure he was absolutely going to stay retired.
- Then there was a time after that era, and partially because of that era, when many writers almost automatically had a 'no first year guy' rule, some based on the logic that since Joe D. didn't go in on his first try then no one would. That attitude still exists but I think it's diminished over time and was probably less in place during Seaver's time than in say that of Mickey/Willie/Aaron 10-15 years earlier.
- And then he had the good fortune to come prior to the steroid era where anyone and everyone including the game itself is under suspicion.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

There was more than a little whiff to Ripken that he was in it for himself, that he should have stopped before passing Gehrig or that putting the streak before the team was detrimental etc. Now most of that is bullshit but an easy explaation as to why he didn't tick everyone's box.

I think some will feel Maddux was a little aloof: Certainly not as straightforward as Seaver. I wouldn't be surprised either if some withhold because they resent his bailing on the Cubs for what looked like an easier ride to glory with Atlanta -- then how infrequently those teams "won the big one." No shot at beating the Seav.

I also think by the time Seaver came up for vote those it had been demonstrated that those who were against him in the 70s (like Dick Young) were clearly shown to have been in the wrong and thought of poorly, maybe forever. No sense tempting that with a non-vote when the guy's going in anyway.