Baseball Hall of Fame, 2018: Modern Era Ballot

[Frayed Knot]

Nymr83 wrote: The hall is not "cheapened" in any way, shape, or form by the non-inclusion of someone who never swung the bat or threw the ball.

There are numerous owners, executive, commissioners, etc. in the HoF and Miller's impact on the game is as big or bigger than many of them.
And if the HoF, to you, is players and nothing else then feel free to ignore whatever tribute is given to Miller as I'm sure you do now towards already inducted non-players.

[Valadius]

If Bowie Kuhn and Bud Selig are Hall of Famers, then Marvin Miller should be too. You can't tell the story of baseball without him. He was a consequential figure.

[nymr83]

Valadius wrote: If Bowie Kuhn and Bud Selig are Hall of Famers, then Marvin Miller should be too. You can't tell the story of baseball without him. He was a consequential figure.

Neither belong in the hall in my opinion.

[Chad ochoseis]

MFS62 wrote: The "he pitched to the score" argument for Morris is BS. It means he didn't feel he had to do his best all the time. What kind of message is that? Later

Dick Young made the argument for Catfish Hunter based on "pitching to the score", too. It seems to work well for the "winners" who were lucky enough to be on good clubs.

That being said, pitching to the score is certainly a thing. With a big lead, the strategy is generally to throw fastballs for strikes, make 'em hit the ball, and let BABIP work it's magic. You'll give up more runs on average, but you'll have less of a chance of a big inning than you would if you throw breaking stuff or try to hit corners and walk more batters.

Accepting a higher mean in exchange for a lower standard deviation. It's a common practice in all sorts of transactions and a pretty standard concept in risk theory.

What's never been established is that any one pitcher was better at doing it than any other pitcher.

Without looking at stats, my guess is that Morris wasn't even the best pitcher on the ballot; Luis Tiant was.

While I'm here, I'll put forward my opinion that the whole idea of a "modern era" ballot is ridiculous. There was a Veterans' Committee because there were players who never got a look because they were active before there was a HoF. There was a Negro Leagues committee because Negro Leaguers had gotten the shaft from society in general and the HoF in particular. I can see a case for a continuing Veterans' Committee because views of players can change with some historical perspective and new analytical methods. But taking a second look at players who just had 10-15 chances and didn't get in cheapens both the BBWAA ballot and the HoF itself.

I was in favor of Trammell when he was on the BBWAA ballot. But he was definitely a borderline call. I never thought it was some great injustice that he was omitted.

Marvin Miller definitely belongs. But I think he's still eligible to get in through the front door on the BBWAA ballot, no? There's no limit on ballot time for executives, I don't think.

All in all, I'm a small Hall guy. I think HoFers should be the guys who make you say, "Holy crap, I'm glad I got to see him play." Real rarities. If a player doesn't get in after 15 ballots, I wouldn't open another door for him right away.

OE - Tiant was better than Morris, and it isn't even close.

[nymr83]

I agree with Chad, i would rather not see guys who just sroppes off the ballot looked at again so soon. Perspectives do change, so I wouldn't say never either.

[Guest 41Forever]

I donn’t mind having some checks and balances built into the system. I’m not comfortable having the BBWAA having the only say in who gets in.

I also think the writers are limited to voting on players. Miller wouldn’t appear on a ballot sent to the BBWAA. I’d say he had as much of a transformational impact on the game as anyone in the last 50 years.

[Valadius]

The writers only ever vote on players. Managers, umpires, and executives are only ever voted in by whatever we're now calling the Veterans' Committee.

[MFS62]

The case for Trammell

This brings a little more flesh to the Trammell was one slot better than Jeter ranking in that article:(cut and pasted from various posts on a CBS message board) I don't understand all the intricacies of the numbers, but it seems logical.

Jay Jaffe's JAWS player ranking system weights peak and career rWAR to try and measure a player's Hall of Fame worthiness. Straight career rWAR would suggest that guys like Tommy John and Frank Tanana were way ahead of Sandy Koufax, while peak would say the reverse. So I guess peak is a better indicator. But peak would say that Warren Spahn and Curt Schilling were roughly equals, while career has Spahn with a significant edge. JAWS averages the two together to perhaps give you something that values both a high peak as well as good career value. Trammell fares rather well. He is ranked just barely ahead of Derek Jeter for the 11th best SS of all time [10th if you call A-Rod a 3B I guess . AVG HoF SS: 43 peak wins and 67 career Alan Trammell: 45 peak wins and 70 career

So, if folks are saying that Jeter deserves to be in, so does Trammell.
Later

[nymr83]

Will Jeter's blowing up of the Marlins count against him on the ballot?

[Edgy MD]

It certainly could. I have my doubts, but if it costs him even one or two votes, it could cost him the opportunity to overtake Ken Griffey, Jr. in the highest-percentage category. And that's a victory for everybody.

[Gwreck]

It certainly should.

Fixed that.