Baseball HOF gets one new member

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/shared-gen/ap/General_Baseball_News/BBO_Hall_of_Fame.html

NEW YORK — Bruce Sutter was elected to the Hall of Fame on Tuesday, just the fourth relief pitcher given baseball's highest honor.

Sutter, the first pitcher elected to the Hall with no career starts, was listed on 76.9 percent of the ballots cast by 10-year members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America. The split-finger pioneer collected 400 of a record 520 ballots.

"It was the call you always hope for, but you never really expect it to happen," Sutter said, adding that he cried when he received the notification.

Players needed 390 votes (75 percent) to gain election. Boston Red Sox slugger Jim Rice fell 53 votes short, finishing second with 337 votes (64.8 percent), one ahead of reliever Goose Gossage.

Sutter was on the ballot for the 13th time, the first player elected so late since Ralph Kiner in 1975. Rice was appearing for the 12th time and has three years remaining on the writers' ballot. Gossage was on the ballot for the seventh time.

It might be difficult for Rice and Gossage to gain votes next year, when Cal Ripken Jr., Tony Gwynn and Mark McGwire appear on the ballot for the first time. Each voter may select up to 10 players.

The other players in the Hall who primarily were relievers are Hoyt Wilhelm (elected in 1985), Rollie Fingers (1992) and Dennis Eckersley (2004).

Andre Dawson was fourth with 317 votes, followed by Bert Blyleven (277), Lee Smith (234), Jack Morris (214), Tommy John (154) and Steve Garvey (135).

[JonInMiddleGA]

A long overdue selection IMO, Gossage should be there too.

[GreenMonster]

I still have a hard time believing Rice and Dawson can't make it. These guys were studs in there time.

[Crapshoot]

Blyven, screwed again by idiots who place more stock in "losses' than in actual performance - for shame.

[Hammer755]

Awful selection. I would have been thrilled with Goose & Blyleven, possibly even Rice too - but Sutter?

[Crapshoot]

I still have a hard time believing Rice and Dawson can't make it. These guys were studs in there time.

And extremely overrated. Meanwhile, a guy who was one of the top 40 pitchers in baseball (as good, if not better than say, Nolan Ryan) stays out, while a closer gets in.

[clintl]

Sutter was very deserving. For a number of years, the absolute best in the game. But Gossage, Rice, and Blyleven should be in, too. I'd put Dawson in, too, although I see how his low OBP hurts his chances.

I'm guessing that with numbers Albert Belle put up in his career, he would have done a little better than 7.7% if he had a different personality.

[bigdawg2003]

Isn't Sutter generally credited with either inventing or popularizing the split finger fastball? If so that has to count for something right?

[kcchief19]

If were going to put relief pitchers in the Hall of Fame, Sutter belongs. He was part of that generation that redefined the role of a fireman/closer and was also among the first to throw the split-finger fastball. His saves total is going to look low compared to modern day closers because of the way relief pitchers were used 20-30 years ago, but I think he's worthy. I also would have voted for Blyleven, but that's it.

Next month a veteran's committee is taking up a special ballot of Negro League players, so the Hall will likely get a couple of new members there. I'm really hoping Buck O'Neil gets the call -- he's a one of a kind guy. He was a very nice ball player, but I think he deserves to get in for his work preserving the history of the Negro Leagues alone.

If you took a poll of Kansas City baseball fans on their favorite Kansas City player, I have no doubt Buck would come in second behind only George Brett. He's revered here.

[st.cronin]

Goose > Sutter

It's really not close in terms of what they meant to their team. I'm guessing Sutter got some extra credit for being a pioneer of the forkball/splitter.

[rkmsuf]

They should bring him into the ceremony in one of those golf carts shaped like a baseball...like in Bases Loaded.

[WSUCougar]

If were going to put relief pitchers in the Hall of Fame, Sutter belongs. He was part of that generation that redefined the role of a fireman/closer and was also among the first to throw the split-finger fastball. His saves total is going to look low compared to modern day closers because of the way relief pitchers were used 20-30 years ago, but I think he's worthy.
I concur with the gentleman from the western part of the state.

[Fonzie]

Poor Bert.

[stevew]

Bert always gets screwed.

[RendeR]

I'm not sure what everyone sees in Gossage, he had a great fastball, whoopdie doo. There are a thousand guys like him throughout the history of baseball. he shouldn't be granted the HoF simply because he played in NY and got a shit ton more media attention.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/sp.cgi?I=gossari01:Rich+Gossage

Similar Pitchers

1. Rollie Fingers (918) *
2. Hoyt Wilhelm (889) *

* denotes HOF'er

[JonInMiddleGA]

And since I did it for Gossage ...

Bert Blyleven (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml)
1. Don Sutton (914) *
2. Gaylord Perry (909) *
3. Fergie Jenkins (890) *
4. Tommy John (889)
5. Robin Roberts (876) *
6. Tom Seaver (864) *
7. Jim Kaat (854)
8. Early Wynn (844) *
9. Phil Niekro (844) *
10. Steve Carlton (840) *

[RendeR]

Similar? thats a laugh, How does anyone find those three pitchers similar?
******
EDIT: just read the explanations page, its interesting, but there are 8 other guys on that list that aren't in, not a real incentive to believe he deserves it still.
******
Fingers was a junkball thrower, wether it was straight breaking bals or souped up vaseline balls or other things, he had NO power at all. I can't speak for Wilhelm, he was before my time.

What criteria are they comparing in your little search? just the name? If thats the case then I'm sure the list includes any thousand other relief pitchers as well. the rest of which "aren't" in the HoF"

Gossages wasn't special, he just got more attention because he played for the Skanks.

[Maple Leafs]

Am I the only one who thinks Morris should be getting more votes?

[st.cronin]

Similar? thats a laugh, How does anyone find those three pitchers similar?

Fingers was a junkball thrower, wether it was straight breaking bals or souped up vaseline balls or other things, he had NO power at all. I can't speak for Wilhelm, he was before my time.

What criteria are they comparing in your little search? just the name? If thats the case then I'm sure the list includes any thousand other relief pitchers as well. the rest of which "aren't" in the HoF"

Gossages wasn't special, he just got more attention because he played for the Skanks.

I think your problem is that you live in BUFFALO. You should move someplace warm, like Charleston or Phoenix. I suspect that would dramatically improve your mood.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What criteria are they comparing in your little search? just the name? If thats the case then I'm sure the list includes any thousand other relief pitchers as well. the rest of which "aren't" in the HoF"

"my little search"

Damn, do you actually know anything about ANYTHING on earth or do you actually just talking to hear yourself talk? Because your signal-to-noise ratio is pretty damned pitiful.

from baseball-reference.com

" Similarity scores are not my concept. Bill James introduced them nearly 15 years ago, and I lifted his methodology from his book The Politics of Glory (p. 86-106). To compare one player to another, start at 1000 points and then you subtract points based on the statistical differences of each player.
Pitchers
Start with a thousand and then subtract the following deductions.

* One point for each difference of 1 win.
* One point for each difference of 2 losses.
* One point for each difference of .002 in winning percentage (max 100 points).
* One point for each difference of .02 in ERA (max 100 points).
* One point for each difference of 10 games pitched.
* One point for each difference of 20 starts.
* One point for each difference of 20 complete games.
* One point for each difference of 50 innings pitched.
* One point for each difference of 50 hits allowed.
* One point for each difference of 30 strikeouts.
* One point for each difference of 10 walks.
* One point for each difference of 5 shutouts.
* One point for each difference of 3 saves.

If they throw with a different hand and are starters subtract 10, relievers 25. For relievers you half the winning percentage penalty and the winning percentage penalty can up to 1.5 times the wins and losses penalty. Relievers are defined as more relief appearances than starts and less than 4.00 innings per appearance. ... Note that a player must have 100 innings pitched or 300 at bats before being considered and to be truly accurate you need to look at whole careers, but it is fun to speculate all the same.

Gossages wasn't special, he just got more attention because he played for the Skanks.

Gee, I must have overlooked the whole "extra credit for playing in NY" adjustment in the formula :rolleyes:

Next time you don't have the slightest hint of a clue, how about doing yourself AND the rest of the world a favor & simply shutting the fuck up?

[dawgfan]

Similar? thats a laugh, How does anyone find those three pitchers similar?
Uh, because of their peformance? Hello, McFly?

Fingers was a junkball thrower, wether it was straight breaking bals or souped up vaseline balls or other things, he had NO power at all. I can't speak for Wilhelm, he was before my time.
Who the fuck cares what kinds of pitches they threw? Isn't the goal of the pitcher to get outs?

What criteria are they comparing in your little search? just the name? If thats the case then I'm sure the list includes any thousand other relief pitchers as well. the rest of which "aren't" in the HoF"
No, it's not comparing names - it's comparing their peformance. Get a clue.

Gossages wasn't special, he just got more attention because he played for the Skanks.
Utter bullshit. Did you bother to check his career numbers? You happen to notice that stretch of dominance from '75-'85 (excluding the failed experiment to turn him into a starter in '76)? Not only was he dominant during that stretch of his prime years, he remained an effective reliever into his early 40's. The man was one of the best relief pitchers of all-time.

I hate the Yankees but that doesn't mean I can't recognize a brilliant performer when I see one.

[RendeR]

I think your problem is that you live in BUFFALO. You should move someplace warm, like Charleston or Phoenix. I suspect that would dramatically improve your mood.
I hope Telle reads this, she'll laugh for a month. I HATE heat. if its above 65 degrees I am constantly pissed off. I like the cold, I spent 3 years in San Diego, 1 in Florida, and 1 in Charlotte NC, i HATED THEM ALL.

I happen to love buffalo, its cool, relaxed, convenient. I'm not thrilled with the utility bills here as the gas and electric companies are Fucking us with large expansion reamers...but beyond a serious drinking/football condition, this town is pretty awesome.

[dawgfan]

Am I the only one who thinks Morris should be getting more votes?
Jack Morris, yes. How Hal Morris got 5 votes is beyond me...he had a decent little career, but Hall of Famer?

[Crapshoot]

Am I the only one who thinks Morris should be getting more votes?

Yes. He was a league average pitcher for most of his career.

[RendeR]

Wow, and you pricks try to call ME an asshole? I simply asked questions because I think the man was a typical 10 cent reliver and you guys get fucking pissed off and insulting? WTF? grow up you fucking stats wankers.

No wonder baseball is the biggest joke in sports, its fans are pathetic.

I grew up watching fingers and gossage and hundreds of others just like them, I never saw anything special about either. I never said I thought Fingers deserved it either now did I?

get a fucking hold of yourselves children.

Holy shit.

[st.cronin]

I hope Telle reads this, she'll laugh for a month. I HATE heat. if its above 65 degrees I am constantly pissed off. I like the cold, I spent 3 years in San Diego, 1 in Florida, and 1 in Charlotte NC, i HATED THEM ALL.

I happen to love buffalo, its cool, relaxed, convenient. I'm not thrilled with the utility bills here as the gas and electric companies are Fucking us with large expansion reamers...but beyond a serious drinking/football condition, this town is pretty awesome.

Ok, then you're just a dick. Got it.

[RendeR]

Ok, then you're just a dick. Got it.
Wow now there is a surprise, St.Cronin talking out his ass again.

WTF did I do to deserve this shit today? Fuck all of you.

[sterlingice]

This got me thinking about some of the other big closers of our day and age and ran across some staggering numbers in their ERA+:
Mariano Rivera: 197 (11 years, lowest at 160); 379 saves
Billy Wagner: 180 (11 yrs, the injured one at 80, no others below 140); 284 saves
Troy Percival: 150 (11 yrs, with some bad ones); 324 saves
Armando Benitez: 148 (12 yrs, even with some real stinkers); 263 saves
John Wetteland: 148 (12 yrs, retired); 330 saves
Trevor Hoffman: 146 (13 yrs, retired); 436 saves
Robb Nen: 138 (10 yrs, retired due to injury); 314 saves

Those are amazing using that one rate stat (which certainly doesn't paint the entire picture, despite what some would have you believe). Maybe 5 starting pitchers a year beat those and they have career numbers that high.

So, which of these deserve HOF consideration? For sure, Rivera and Wagner deserve serious consideration unless the fall off a cliff in the next couple of years. Hoffman is 2nd all time in saves behind Lee Smith, but does that get him in? Probably, but what should be the new "standard" for closers in the HOF with a lot of possible candidates coming due in the next 5-10 years and beyond.

SI

[dawgfan]

Wow, and you pricks try to call ME an asshole? I simply asked questions because I think the man was a typical 10 cent reliver and you guys get fucking pissed off and insulting? WTF? grow up you fucking stats wankers.
A "typical 10 cent reliver"? You obviously have no clue if you think this is true.

No wonder baseball is the biggest joke in sports, its fans are pathetic.
We're pathetic because we understand the game and call bullshit on guys that don't?

I grew up watching fingers and gossage and hundreds of others just like them, I never saw anything special about either. I never said I thought Fingers deserved it either now did I?
I don't know what time period you're talking about, but if you were watching him between '75 and '85 (especially the late '70's) and didn't realize he was one of the very best relievers in the game then you simply didn't have a clue.

get a fucking hold of yourselves children.
Let's see, you express a very strongly worded opinion about Gossage's Hall of Fame qualifications and then get all pissy when some strongly worded rebuttals come your way? Grow a pair...

[st.cronin]

No wonder baseball is the biggest joke in sports, its fans are pathetic.

You bring that attitude into a thread about the Baseball Hall of Fame, and of course there's bound to be trouble. Go get therapy.

[JeeberD]

Hoffman is 2nd all time in saves behind Lee Smith, but does that get him in? Probably...

Who would it when Lee Smith himself can't get in?

[dawgfan]

This got me thinking about some of the other big closers of our day and age and ran across some staggering numbers in their ERA+:
Mariano Rivera: 197 (11 years, lowest at 160); 379 saves
Billy Wagner: 180 (11 yrs, the injured one at 80, no others below 140); 284 saves
Troy Percival: 150 (11 yrs, with some bad ones); 324 saves
Armando Benitez: 148 (12 yrs, even with some real stinkers); 263 saves
John Wetteland: 148 (12 yrs, retired); 330 saves
Trevor Hoffman: 146 (13 yrs, retired); 436 saves
Robb Nen: 138 (10 yrs, retired due to injury); 314 saves

Those are amazing using that one rate stat (which certainly doesn't paint the entire picture, despite what some would have you believe). Maybe 5 starting pitchers a year beat those and they have career numbers that high.

So, which of these deserve HOF consideration? For sure, Rivera and Wagner deserve serious consideration unless the fall off a cliff in the next couple of years. Hoffman is 2nd all time in saves behind Lee Smith, but does that get him in? Probably, but what should be the new "standard" for closers in the HOF with a lot of possible candidates coming due in the next 5-10 years and beyond.

SI
I agree about Rivera and Wagner and think Hoffman will make it on career achievement and consistency.

Using ERA+ for relievers though is nowhere near as useful as it is for starters, simply because ERA is not the best measure to judge a relief pitcher. And it's not really fair to compare ERA+ of starters and relievers given the large difference in workload and circumstances. A great reliever should always post better rate stats than an equally great starter.

[sterlingice]

Jack Morris, yes. How Hal Morris got 5 votes is beyond me...he had a decent little career, but Hall of Famer?How many writers in Cincy vote for the HoF again? 5? ;)

SI

[Maple Leafs]

Yes. He was a league average pitcher for most of his career.
Was he, though? When I was a kid, he was widely considered the best pitcher in the AL. I remember this, because I was a huge Dave Steib fan and you could always pick an argument over whether he was better than Morris. The fact that he pitched arguably the greatest game of all time should count for something too.

Should he be in? I don't have the numbers to make that argument, but I'm surprised that every year the debate rages around Blyleven, Rice and Dawson and he never gets mentioned.

[John Galt]

RendeR, are you always this bad of a poster or is it just today?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I hate the Yankees but that doesn't mean I can't recognize a brilliant performer when I see one.

I don't get to do this very often with dawgfan, so ... what he said. ;)

[sterlingice]

Was he, though? When I was a kid, he was widely considered the best pitcher in the AL. I remember this, because I was a huge Dave Steib fan and you could always pick an argument over whether he was better than Morris. The fact that he pitched arguably the greatest game of all time should count for something too.

Should he be in? I don't have the numbers to make that argument, but I'm surprised that every year the debate rages around Blyleven, Rice and Dawson and he never gets mentioned.That's still my favorite game of all time, too :D

Jayson Stark likes him tho that and a small mint of money will get you some overpriced coffee at Starbucks. Here's the exerpt from his column:


Jack Morris

Morris is another guy who apparently is never going to make it. But we never tire of stating his case: Yes, we know his 3.90 ERA would be the highest of any Hall of Famer. But we still say that Morris' relentless acehood -- for nearly every team he ever pitched for -- makes his ERA semi-irrelevant.

<table align="right" border="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="2">
</td><td width="65">http://espn.go.com/media/mlb/2005/0103/photo/a_morris_mug.jpg</td></tr><tr><td width="2">
</td><td width="65">Morris</td></tr></tbody></table> In his 14 peak seasons (1979-92), Morris won 41 more games than any other starting pitcher around. He pitched a no-hitter. He started three All-Star Games. He was a No. 1 starter on three World Series teams. And if there's ever any debate about whether he was a real ace, he can cue up the videotape of Game 7, 1991. We'll think of that game for the next eight years -- every time we cast another fruitless vote for the best pitcher that nearly 60 percent of these voters manage to ignore every year.SI

[Vince]

I would love to hear an opinion from you guys about Will Clark. I'm a hugely biased source, because he's probably my favorite player of all time. I don't really think he's deserving of the hall, but I thought he might have an outside shot.

I definitely think he's worth more than 4.4% of the vote.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... and you could always pick an argument over whether he was better than Morris.

I haven't checked your profile to see, and I really don't remember off-hand, but I'm guessing we must be fairly close in age because I remember some of those discussions with a AL-fan friend of mine.

At his peak, I would have taken Stieb over Morris.

[sterlingice]

I would love to hear an opinion from you guys about Will Clark. I'm a hugely biased source, because he's probably my favorite player of all time. I don't really think he's deserving of the hall, but I thought he might have an outside shot.

I definitely think he's worth more than 4.4% of the vote.I hated what he did to the 89 Cubs in the LCS if that counts for anything ;)

SI

[John Galt]

I would love to hear an opinion from you guys about Will Clark. I'm a hugely biased source, because he's probably my favorite player of all time. I don't really think he's deserving of the hall, but I thought he might have an outside shot.

I definitely think he's worth more than 4.4% of the vote.

Will's power numbers just don't match up well for the 1B of his era. I always liked Clark, but his power just isn't HOF-1B-worthy.

[dawgfan]

Yes. He was a league average pitcher for most of his career.
Actually, he was better than league average for most of his career - he had an ERA+ of greater than 100 in 11 of his 18 seasons, a stretch of 8 straight and 9 out of 10 in his prime. He also should be given credit for being not just above league average in ERA but also being very durable. His VORP for these years was likely very high given the combination of ERA+ and IP.

I agree that he's not quite Hall of Fame material, but he's not that far off. Then again, the fact that Bert Blyleven hasn't made it in (and probably won't unless a veteran's committee in the future votes him in) shows that voting for recent starting pitchers is questionable.

[RendeR]

Yes, god forbid I cast any aspersions upon the almighty HoF, its not like getting in isn't 50% popularity or anything. If the writers didn't like you, you might as well go play golf.

Yes I had a strongly worded post, but I sure as fuck didn't attack anyone in it. I attacked the idea that a relief pitcher with ONE pitch deserved to be considered one of the best all-time. Dear god the HERESY.

Go back and read that shit you people posted. I didn't deserve a single fucking word of it. yes perhaps I wasn't candy ass nice about how I said what I did, but that wasn't about YOU folks now was it? It was about Gossage a guy with a great dfastball and an even better PR department.

Seriously, do either of you live or ever did live NEAR NYC when he played? I did, and I promise you the media made him their darling because he had "attitude" and tended to throw at people's heads as often as at the plate. He was a GOOD pitcher, but he sure as hell was GREAT. He was used the way closers are used today, 30 years before the league figured out that is how they should be used.

Again, grow up kids, stop blasting me because you don't like the fact that I don't kiss your ass when I post.

[RendeR]

RendeR, are you always this bad of a poster or is it just today?
Wow I have one probably terribly worded post about a wannabe HoFer who i think isn't even close to being special and every tom- dick-and harry in the woodwork comes out to jump my shit.

Nice folks, real nice.Is this how you treat people when you talk to them in person? Holy hell.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I would love to hear an opinion from you guys about Will Clark. I'm a hugely biased source, because he's probably my favorite player of all time. I don't really think he's deserving of the hall, but I thought he might have an outside shot. I definitely think he's worth more than 4.4% of the vote.

I think he falls into that category of "nice player", "good" but not really "great". I think his HOF votes get hurt by him not being a power hitter at a power position, fair or not, that's what I think. And 2,176 career hits simply isn't enough to do it either.

And, although I don't want to get carried away with using it, I checked the "most similar" on him, just to see what it turned up
1 Bernie Williams (904)
2 Edgar Martinez (902)
3 Cecil Cooper (896)
4 John Olerud (893)
5 Bob Johnson (888)
6 Paul O'Neill (887)

And each one of those guys would pretty much get the same description of "good, but not great", so I'm at least consistent about it.

Just my .02, obviously YMMV.

[Ben E Lou]

<s>Baseball HOF</s> Penalty Box gets one new memberFixed it for you.

[WSUCougar]

Render, I don't know when or why it happened, but somewhere along the way you became a very bitter, hostile, and often unpleasant poster. You're out of line on this one and you brought on the hostility with your own flippant remarks.

[dawgfan]

Yes, god forbid I cast any aspersions upon the almighty HoF, its not like getting in isn't 50% popularity or anything. If the writers didn't like you, you might as well go play golf.
I'm not defending the Hall of Fame - writers and veteran's committees have made a lot of mistakes over the years.

Yes I had a strongly worded post, but I sure as fuck didn't attack anyone in it. I attacked the idea that a relief pitcher with ONE pitch deserved to be considered one of the best all-time. Dear god the HERESY.
Again, you are hung up on the question of what Gossage threw. Does it not matter to you what the results were? It sure did matter to all those batters that made outs against him.

Go back and read that shit you people posted. I didn't deserve a single fucking word of it. yes perhaps I wasn't candy ass nice about how I said what I did, but that wasn't about YOU folks now was it? It was about Gossage a guy with a great dfastball and an even better PR department.
And what you still don't get is that it was more than just having a great fastball and pitching in the media capitol of the world - he also happened to get the best results.

Not only that, you were obnoxious in your dismissals of the initial arguments presented in favor of Gossage, displaying a complete lack of understanding of basic baseball analysis. You didn't directly call JiMG an idiot, but you implied as much when you suggested the similarity scores he posted were based of something as insubstantial as the player's names.

You deserved every bit of venom that was returned your way after your obnoxious and idiotic 2nd post.

Seriously, do either of you live or ever did live NEAR NYC when he played? I did, and I promise you the media made him their darling because he had "attitude" and tended to throw at people's heads as often as at the plate. He was a GOOD pitcher, but he sure as hell was GREAT. He was used the way closers are used today, 30 years before the league figured out that is how they should be used.
He may have been a media darling, but his performance justified it. As for his usage, you again display a complete lack of understanding of the game. He was most certainly not used like closers are today - he averaged well over 1 inning per appearence during his prime years as a closer (1.74 from '75 to '86, excluding '76 when he was a starter). He averaged over 2 innings per appearence in '75 and '78. The fact is, he frequently came in to games in the 7th or 8th inning to close out a win. He was never used in the modern way that Tony LaRussa redefined the role with Dennis Eckersley.

Again, grow up kids, stop blasting me because you don't like the fact that I don't kiss your ass when I post.
We're bashing you for your complete lack of understanding of the game and your dumb statements.

[dawgfan]

I don't get to do this very often with dawgfan, so ... what he said. ;)
Yeah, I got a strange sensation that hell was freezing over when I realized how close in opinion we are on the subject...

;)

[dawgfan]

*snip*
2 Edgar Martinez (902)
*snip*
Edgar was a better hitter than the other guys in that list including Will Clark, but his injury problems and the idiocy of the M's in leaving him too long in AAA hurt his overall numbers. He was a Hall of Fame hitter, but his hamstring issues that forced him to DH after starting off as a pretty good fielding 3B and his injuries in '93-'94 and not playing full time until he was 27 will likely doom his Hall of Fame prospects.

He's also just about the most likeable guy in sports, certainly the most likeable sports figure in Seattle.

[kcchief19]

I think without a doubt Blyleven is the best pitcher eligible not in the hall, and Morris is a couple of steps back. If Blyleven had finally gotten in, then Morris would be the next case for the guys carrying the rainwater.

I think if either one had won a Cy Young Award, they would be in. Blyleven gets the sympathy vote over Morris because he seemed like he was destined for 300 wins until he suddenly flat out forgot how to pitch and couldn't get a blessed soul out. Jack Morris was "gritty." I think he was largely an overachiever.

Morris is also a guy who is tough to judge by his won/loss record. Even in an era when complete games were going by the wayside, he pitched deep into games all the time becaus he was that guy. As a result, he probably picked up another 20 losses over his career when he was on the ropes and Milt Wilcox would have been pulled, but Morris stayed out there and took his lumps. Conversely he probably picked up a few wins here and there because he pitched deep enough into the game and his team bailed him out. I think it's probably a wash, but he always seemed to lose a lot of games for 15 to 20-win pitcher. He wasn't Roger Clemens -- Morris would never go out in a stretch and go 16-1 with a 1.87 ERA. He go 12-4 with a 3.21 ERA.

I think both are being penalized for being "tweener era" guys. In the near future, voters are going to start relaxing their requirements a bit to let some guys in who were the best of their era but don't necessarily compare favorably historically. But until then, I think a lot of voters are comparing Blyleven and Morris to the Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax era when the should be recognizing that 270 wins in the '70s and '80s were probably the equivalent to 300 wins in the '50s and '60s.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, I got a strange sensation that hell was freezing over when I realized how close in opinion we are on the subject...

;)

Eh, don't worry about it, I'm sure it'll thaw out soon enough ;)

[dawgfan]

Eh, don't worry about it, I'm sure it'll thaw out soon enough ;)
True dat, but I've been staying away from political threads lately.

[JonInMiddleGA]

True dat, but I've been staying away from political threads lately.

LOL, who needs political threads when there's baseball threads? ;)

(I swear, it's a sorry state of affairs when a baseball thread leaves me wanting a drink more than a political thread)

[WSUCougar]

I realize that it's fruitless to even suggest this, but I think Edgar's career trancends his stats in terms of HOF merit. The guy defined the DH position for his era, and he was widely regarded as the best right-handed hitter in baseball during his prime. Shouldn't those things count, too?

[Klinglerware]

I realize that it's fruitless to even suggest this, but I think Edgar's career trancends his stats in terms of HOF merit. The guy defined the DH position for his era, and he was widely regarded as the best right-handed hitter in baseball during his prime. Shouldn't those things count, too?

I would tend to agree with you, but perhaps people would be more supportive if he were a veterans committe selection a couple of decades down the road...

[bhlloy]

I realize that it's fruitless to even suggest this, but I think Edgar's career trancends his stats in terms of HOF merit. The guy defined the DH position for his era, and he was widely regarded as the best right-handed hitter in baseball during his prime. Shouldn't those things count, too?

I know very little about baseball, and could never discuss stats with most of the guys in this thread, but I completely agree. There are loads of guys in the hall who probably hurt their team with their fielding but had hall of fame batting numbers... why penalise Edgar because a rule was passed that that allowed him not to field? Seems like a lot of people are pissed at the rule and he's going to get frozen out because of it. For most of his career he was consistently all-star good and that's what HOF selection should depend on.

[dawgfan]

LOL, who needs political threads when there's baseball threads? ;)

(I swear, it's a sorry state of affairs when a baseball thread leaves me wanting a drink more than a political thread)
No kidding - I wonder what the hell got into RendeR?

[sterlingice]

I realize that it's fruitless to even suggest this, but I think Edgar's career trancends his stats in terms of HOF merit. The guy defined the DH position for his era, and he was widely regarded as the best right-handed hitter in baseball during his prime. Shouldn't those things count, too?Best right handed hitter in baseball?

SI

[st.cronin]

I know very little about baseball, and could never discuss stats with most of the guys in this thread, but I completely agree. There are loads of guys in the hall who probably hurt their team with their fielding but had hall of fame batting numbers... why penalise Edgar because a rule was passed that that allowed him not to field? Seems like a lot of people are pissed at the rule and he's going to get frozen out because of it. For most of his career he was consistently all-star good and that's what HOF selection should depend on.

It's not exactly that he's being penalized for not fielding (at least, not in my opinion). It's that he's not recieving the positives that somebody else does. Will Clark (who doesn't have a shot in hell, just tossing him out there as an example) was a brilliant defensive first baseman - if you compare him to Edgar, and conclude that they are roughly equal as hitters, then you have to pick The Thrill first. Eddie Murray was a brilliant defensive player (when he was young) - if Edgar has comparable hitting success to Eddie, he's still behind Eddie. Even Mark McGwire won a gold glove or two in his 20's.

[bhlloy]

It's not exactly that he's being penalized for not fielding (at least, not in my opinion). It's that he's not recieving the positives that somebody else does. Will Clark (who doesn't have a shot in hell, just tossing him out there as an example) was a brilliant defensive first baseman - if you compare him to Edgar, and conclude that they are roughly equal as hitters, then you have to pick The Thrill first. Eddie Murray was a brilliant defensive player (when he was young) - if Edgar has comparable hitting success to Eddie, he's still behind Eddie. Even Mark McGwire won a gold glove or two in his 20's.

That's cool - his career numbers obviously aren't as good as I'd have thought. Should have looked at JIMGA and dawgfan's posts earlier I guess :)

Having said that, it makes sense that, with the controversy and bad feeling (especially among the "old school" fans) generally towards the rule that anybody who plays the majority of their career at DH (for whatever reason) is going to lose a fair number of votes because of it. I'm not trying to argue Martinez should be there, but sooner or later somebody is going to get those kind of numbers mostly at DH and then the debate will really get interesting.

[dawgfan]

I know very little about baseball, and could never discuss stats with most of the guys in this thread, but I completely agree. There are loads of guys in the hall who probably hurt their team with their fielding but had hall of fame batting numbers... why penalise Edgar because a rule was passed that that allowed him not to field? Seems like a lot of people are pissed at the rule and he's going to get frozen out because of it. For most of his career he was consistently all-star good and that's what HOF selection should depend on.
This is an area where an all-encompassing stat like WinShares helps shape this argument. Now, it's not a perfect stat - we simply don't have the tools perfected yet to accurately assess defensive ability - but this is a decent first step that rates a player's overall contribution to his team's success.

I don't have WinShares stats handy, but if you were to look back over Edgar's career and compare it with other Hall of Famers as well as Edgar's contemporaries you could start to get some idea how much his hitting overcame his lack of fielding as a DH to help his teams win.

Obviously Edgar would've had more value if he was also playing 3B or 1B while putting up his hitting numbers, but even without contributing on the field for much of his career his hitting probably placed him in the upper tier of WinShares every year.

[Vince]

Yup. Will Clark doesn't injure his foot and take a nose-dive on power, I bet he makes the hall.

Bummer.

[ISiddiqui]

Poor Bert :(.

He deserved it more than anyone else. But he wasn't flashy enough, or didn't hit the magic 300, but he should be in there.

[Maple Leafs]

The part I could never get past with Blyleven is the two all-star appearances. A 23 year career and he was only considered an all-star twice? Is that really a hall of fame resume?

[sterlingice]

The part I could never get past with Blyleven is the two all-star appearances. A 23 year career and he was only considered an all-star twice? Is that really a hall of fame resume?There's something to be said for that being the "dark ages" where they put much more stock in win-loss, voted based on sentimentality, and didn't care as much about rate stats. If you look, he had 10+ years in the top 10 of WHIP, K/9, K/BB, ERA, and ERA+ to go along with his K and IP.

SI

[vtbub]

The part I could never get past with Blyleven is the two all-star appearances. A 23 year career and he was only considered an all-star twice? Is that really a hall of fame resume?
No, but the 290 wins, over 3000 strikeouts and 60 shutouts certainly is. He had the misfortune to play on some very bad teams.

[ISiddiqui]

The part I could never get past with Blyleven is the two all-star appearances. A 23 year career and he was only considered an all-star twice? Is that really a hall of fame resume?
Look at his ERA+, which at 118, looks a Hell of a lot better than Jack Morris' (105). That's why happens when you don't play for good teams.

[Crapshoot]

Was he, though? When I was a kid, he was widely considered the best pitcher in the AL. I remember this, because I was a huge Dave Steib fan and you could always pick an argument over whether he was better than Morris. The fact that he pitched arguably the greatest game of all time should count for something too.

Should he be in? I don't have the numbers to make that argument, but I'm surprised that every year the debate rages around Blyleven, Rice and Dawson and he never gets mentioned.

ML, its one of the great myths of our time that Morris was anywhere near the pitcher that Steib was. This gets propogated for two reasons - one, the game 7 performance and two, the fact that sportswriters don't know what they're talking about. One of the great arguements is that Morris "knows how to win" - that he pitched to the score, something Joe Sheehan pretty conclusively dismembered when he did the research on Morris' starts. Morris was, to take one example, nowhere near the pitcher Bleyvlen was - but the hype and people's reluctance to see the idiocy of W-L records in the short term contribute to his "following."

[Crapshoot]

Edgar should be a HOF in my view. A bat like that, for 14 seasons, with an OPS+ of 147 (which undervalues a guy like Edgar who's relatively OBP heavy ) - jeez. He was in the top 5 of OBP in the AL 10 of the 14 full seasons he played - top 10 in OPS for 8 seasons. Sure, he didn't play defense - but the value of being a mediocre 1b over a DH is minimal, at best. Great, great player.

[dawgfan]

ML, its one of the great myths of our time that Morris was anywhere near the pitcher that Steib was. This gets propogated for two reasons - one, the game 7 performance and two, the fact that sportswriters don't know what they're talking about. One of the great arguements is that Morris "knows how to win" - that he pitched to the score, something Joe Sheehan pretty conclusively dismembered when he did the research on Morris' starts. Morris was, to take one example, nowhere near the pitcher Bleyvlen was - but the hype and people's reluctance to see the idiocy of W-L records in the short term contribute to his "following."
In his prime Stieb was the better pitcher than Morris. When you consider their entire career though, while Morris wasn't as dominant as Stieb in his prime he was effective for a longer period of time and accomplished more in his career. Basically, if I had to pick a 2-3 year window for a starter, I'd take Stieb over Morris. If I had to pick an entire career though, I'd probably opt for Morris.

[Crapshoot]

The part I could never get past with Blyleven is the two all-star appearances. A 23 year career and he was only considered an all-star twice? Is that really a hall of fame resume?

See, I see that as the reinforcement of stupidty. Bobby Abreu, one of the 5 best players in the NL over the last 5 years, has made the all-star team once - because fans or writers think Scott Posednik or Juan Pierre are more deserving. Its ridiculous - and it perpetuates the belief that there may have been some reason for the problem. Not targetting you here- just a general beef of mine.

[st.cronin]

Dave Stieb, in his prime, was just silly. His 'slider' was more like a low 90 knuckleball - that thing would just skitter all over the strike zone.

[Maple Leafs]

ML, its one of the great myths of our time that Morris was anywhere near the pitcher that Steib was. This gets propogated for two reasons - one, the game 7 performance and two, the fact that sportswriters don't know what they're talking about. One of the great arguements is that Morris "knows how to win" - that he pitched to the score, something Joe Sheehan pretty conclusively dismembered when he did the research on Morris' starts. Morris was, to take one example, nowhere near the pitcher Bleyvlen was - but the hype and people's reluctance to see the idiocy of W-L records in the short term contribute to his "following."
I'm from Toronto... you won't have to work hard to convince me that Steib was better. The guy had the nastiest slider I've ever seen, before or since. And while Morris has his game seven, Steib has his arguably more amazing (though less important) claim to fame -- losing no hitters with two outs in the ninth inning, which he did multiple times including a perfect game against the Yankees and even during back-to-back starts at one point.

In his prime Stieb was the better pitcher than Morris. When you consider their entire career though, while Morris wasn't as dominant as Stieb in his prime he was effective for a longer period of time and accomplished more in his career. Basically, if I had to pick a 2-3 year window for a starter, I'd take Stieb over Morris. If I had to pick an entire career though, I'd probably opt for Morris.
I'd agree with that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: Win Shares ... somebody who understands how WS works better than me will probably get more out of this than I did, but FWIW ...
http://us.share.geocities.com/[email protected]/WSperPA.htm

It's an analysis of the WS stat for all-time players

Since Edgar Martinez is (I think) what brought up WS in this thread, here's the section where he's found among all players:

149. Babe Herman 24.15
150. Jimmy Sheckard 24.09
151. Johnny Evers 24.09
152. George Brett 24.08
153. Stan Hack 24.07
154. Edgar Martinez 24.05
155. Edgardo Alfonzo 24.01
156. Joe Gordon 23.99
157. Riggs Stephenson 23.98
158. Chick Stahl 23.95
159. Roberto Clemente 23.92

[JonInMiddleGA]

And, back on the subject of Blyleven for a moment ... I realize it has some obvious shortcomings as a metric for the Hall, but I think there's something worth looking at in what Bill James called the Black-Ink Test & Gray-Ink Test (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#black_ink)

Basically it assigns values to how often you led the league in major categories and how often you were in the top ten in your league in major categories

Black Ink: Pitching - 16 (129) (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 239 (24) (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 50.0 (36) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 120.5 (67) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Like I said, I know there's a problem with trying to use this to assign a value ot a player's worth, but I also think there might be a decent correllation with "Black Ink stats" to their likelihood of impressing enough voters to make the Hall at some point and "Gray Ink stats" to impressing the non-voters enough to make the player a topic of conversation (or at least there might be a correlation found in Blyleven's case specifically).

[Buccaneer]

As one that thinks there are too many players in the HOF and that there have been a few dubious elections in recent years, I am glad that there were only 1 elector this year - even though I think it was the wrong selection (it should have been Blyleven). Players like Dawson, Rice, Clark, Morris, Murphy et al just were not that good for a long career, even though there were some great peak years among them. I was afraid that this year's balloting would lower the bar even by letting marginal players in but I'm glad it didn't happen. Next year is a different ballgame...

[oykib]

It amazes me every year how little the voters are familiar with statistics.

Gossage was better than Sutter and was better for a career that was within spitting distance of being twice as long.

[miami_fan]

So what exactly had changed about Bruce Sutter that made him a non HOFer the previous 12 years and a HOFer this year? I am not disputing whether he should go in or not. It is more of a comment about the voting in general with all of the Halls of Fame.

[Logan]

No kidding - I wonder what the hell got into RendeR?

There is nothing better than opening up a thread for the first time, seeing a user is in the box, and reading each post with anticipation until you come across the magic one.

[clintl]

So what exactly had changed about Bruce Sutter that made him a non HOFer the previous 12 years and a HOFer this year? I am not disputing whether he should go in or not. It is more of a comment about the voting in general with all of the Halls of Fame.

Weaker competition for votes.

[digamma]

So what exactly had changed about Bruce Sutter that made him a non HOFer the previous 12 years and a HOFer this year? I am not disputing whether he should go in or not. It is more of a comment about the voting in general with all of the Halls of Fame.
I totally agree with you. I hate the distinction that someone is a "first ballot guy." There's not a separate wing at the Hall for first ballot guys. There's not a Hall within the Hall. Either someone is a HOF'er, or they're not.

I'd be all for changing the way the voting works. Putting together an evaluation committee or something like that (something like the Veteran's Committee) for all players.

[Buccaneer]

I totally agree with you. I hate the distinction that someone is a "first ballot guy." There's not a separate wing at the Hall for first ballot guys. There's not a Hall within the Hall. Either someone is a HOF'er, or they're not.

I'd be all for changing the way the voting works. Putting together an evaluation committee or something like that (something like the Veteran's Committee) for all players.
Absolutely not. There are quite a few non-HOFers in the HOF because their cronies on the Vet Committee voted them in. I do believe, however, that the Vet Committee did reform itself or am I just dreaming?

[clintl]

Absolutely not. There are quite a few non-HOFers in the HOF because their cronies on the Vet Committee voted them in. I do believe, however, that the Vet Committee did reform itself or am I just dreaming?

The Veterans Committee now consists of all living Hall of Famers, rather than being a small committee of 12 or whatever it was.

[digamma]

Absolutely not. There are quite a few non-HOFers in the HOF because their cronies on the Vet Committee voted them in. I do believe, however, that the Vet Committee did reform itself or am I just dreaming?
That's a fair point. I meant more of a review panel than a sportswriter vote. Maybe a vote of living HOF'ers--the comparison to the Vet Committee was meant to be in spirit, not in how they've operated. I just think there's something not quite right about guys lingering on the ballot for ten or twelve years and getting in because people feel like they need to vote for someone in a weak year.

[clintl]

That's a fair point. I meant more of a review panel than a sportswriter vote. Maybe a vote of living HOF'ers--the comparison to the Vet Committee was meant to be in spirit, not in how they've operated. I just think there's something not quite right about guys lingering on the ballot for ten or twelve years and getting in because people feel like they need to vote for someone in a weak year.

There are 520 sportwriters voting - it's not like they get together and decide they collectively decide they need to vote someone in. Each writer gets 10 votes. I think what happens in a year with a strong class is that the top 2 or 3 candidates eat up such a big proportion of the votes cast, leaving the borderline guys like Sutter, Gossage, Rice, Blyleven, and the guys farther down the ballot with no chance but significant support, to divide up a fairly small pool of available votes. On the other hand, in a year like this with no serious first ballot contender, the votes that would normally go to the slam-dunk first balloters are suddenly available to the borderline guys, and the potential vote pool to be divided up is much greater. And that's why you see the borderline guys elected in years like this.

[oykib]

There are 520 sportwriters voting - it's not like they get together and decide they collectively decide they need to vote someone in. Each writer gets 10 votes. I think what happens in a year with a strong class is that the top 2 or 3 candidates eat up such a big proportion of the votes cast, leaving the borderline guys like Sutter, Gossage, Rice, Blyleven, and the guys farther down the ballot with no chance but significant support, to divide up a fairly small pool of available votes. On the other hand, in a year like this with no serious first ballot contender, the votes that would normally go to the slam-dunk first balloters are suddenly available to the borderline guys, and the potential vote pool to be divided up is much greater. And that's why you see the borderline guys elected in years like this.

The problem is that these writers are unable to let go of guys who have no business being in. There are just some guys who insist on voting for inferior candidates (Dawson, Murphy, Morris, et al.) year in and year out.

Putting aside the argument of whether they are deserving or not, they are behind other players not yet in the Hall. There are too many pitchers who are significantly superior to Morris, for example, to be squandering votes on him yet.

[Butter]

Hal Morris! Woo!

But yeah, he doesn't deserve any HoF votes.

[WrongWay]

FYI.....Pete Rose received 10 write in votes this year.

[clintl]

The problem is that these writers are unable to let go of guys who have no business being in. There are just some guys who insist on voting for inferior candidates (Dawson, Murphy, Morris, et al.) year in and year out.

Putting aside the argument of whether they are deserving or not, they are behind other players not yet in the Hall. There are too many pitchers who are significantly superior to Morris, for example, to be squandering votes on him yet.

Now that Sutter's in, the only pitchers eligible and not in the Hall that I see who are more deserving than Morris are Gossage and Blyleven. Possibly you can make a case for Tommy John, too. Like it or not, Morris was one of the best pitchers of the 80s, despite the blemishes he has on his record. Everyone regarded him as such at the time. The level of support he's getting (significant but short of HOF election) is entirely reasonable. The same goes for Dawson and Murphy.

[Butter]

One wonders if Jack Morris' case would be bolstered if he had retired before turning in his last 2 seasons of mediocrity... what would his career ERA be like if he hadn't turned in 2 full seasons of an ERA above 5.5?

[WrongWay]

How about this one.

2007 will Steroid boy Mark Mcgwire make it in, or will he be the first Steroid HOF Casualty?

[miked]

There was an earlier post that mentioned Lee Smith...why is he not in the hall? If people are suggesting that guys like Hoffman and Franco are hall-worthy, it's amazing that Lee Smith (478 saves, 3.03 ERA) is not even close. He is very similar to Sutter and Fingers according to baseball reference.

I just think it's crazy that people are getting penalized for being "closers" or whatever. If you are dominant at what you do, regardless of position, you should be in. Look at guys like Aparacio who couldn't hit, or others that couldn't field. Amazing that Smith doesn't seem close.

[clintl]

OK, neither one deserves to be in Hall. But can someone look at their BBRef pages, and explain why Don Mattingly is still on the ballot, while Will Clark got booted off in his first year of eligibility? Other than Mattingly's Gold Gloves, Clark had a better career in almost every conceivable category except BA, and there, it's only a .307 to .303 edge for Mattingly. Their number of ABs is pretty close. Clark hit 62 more HR, his OPS+ beats Mattingly's 138 to 126, his OBP beats Mattingly's .384 to .358, and his SLG beats Mattingly's significantly, too. Both were All Stars six times. Both players peaked early, and had their careers derailed by injuries. Is it just that Mattingly is remembered for his five great years and not for his declining years, and the reverse is true for Clark?

[John Galt]

OK, neither one deserves to be in Hall. But can someone look at their BBRef pages, and explain why Don Mattingly is still on the ballot, while Will Clark got booted off in his first year of eligibility? Other than Mattingly's Gold Gloves, Clark had a better career in almost every conceivable category except BA, and there, it's only a .307 to .303 edge for Mattingly. Their number of ABs is pretty close. Clark hit 62 more HR, his OPS+ beats Mattingly's 138 to 126, his OBP beats Mattingly's .384 to .358, and his SLG beats Mattingly's significantly, too. Both were All Stars six times. Both players peaked early, and had their careers derailed by injuries. Is it just that Mattingly is remembered for his five great years and not for his declining years, and the reverse is true for Clark?

You also have to adjust for eras when they played. Mattingly played in a time when 1B didn't hit for as much power. Garvey has survived for so long for a similar reason. Mattingly's MVP didn't hurt either. He isn't a HOF-er, but I can at least see why he does better than Clark.

[stevew]

How about this one.

2007 will Steroid boy Mark Mcgwire make it in, or will he be the first Steroid HOF Casualty?

I bet he makes it, but not with much more than 75% of the vote, whereas i think he would normally have gotten in with the high 90s.

[clintl]

There was an earlier post that mentioned Lee Smith...why is he not in the hall? If people are suggesting that guys like Hoffman and Franco are hall-worthy, it's amazing that Lee Smith (478 saves, 3.03 ERA) is not even close. He is very similar to Sutter and Fingers according to baseball reference.



I just wento over to BBRef to look up Smith, and it basically confirms my memories of him. He was kind of the Don Sutton/Phil Niekro of closers. A guy who was a good, reliable closer for a long time, but rarely if ever considered the best in the game, and his save total is the result of longevity more than dominance. You can't really find a period in Smith's career where his ERA was under 3.00 for more than a couple years in a row, for example. Given the reluctance to elect relievers in the first place, and the fact that there are a significant number of voters who are inclined to favor short periods of dominance over very long periods of being very good, all that works against Smith.

[John Galt]

I just wento over to BBRef to look up Smith, and it basically confirms my memories of him. He was kind of the Don Sutton/Phil Niekro of closers. A guy who was a good, reliable closer for a long time, but rarely if ever considered the best in the game, and his save total is the result of longevity more than dominance. You can't really find a period in Smith's career where his ERA was under 3.00 for more than a couple years in a row, for example. Given the reluctance to elect relievers in the first place, and the fact that there are a significant number of voters who are inclined to favor short periods of dominance over very long periods of being very good, all that works against Smith.

I don't think Smith should be in, but I have a hard time understanding why Sutter is in and Smith is out. These are Sutter's numbers:

1042.3 IP 861 K 2.83 ERA 136 ERA+ 300 Saves

These are Smith's nubmers:

1289.3 IP 1251 K 3.03 ERA 132 ERA+ 478 Saves

Sutter is credited with popularizing the splitter, but he didn't invent it, and he wasn't the first to use it successfully. He has a Cy Young season, but his career was only 13 years. A closer already has a limited impact on the game, but a 13 year closer (with two of those seasons abbreviated) seems like a major stretch to me. Sutter, IMO, should not be a HOF-er. Gossage is close and I think he should be in, but Sutter doesn't belong, IMO.

[clintl]

You also have to adjust for eras when they played. Mattingly played in a time when 1B didn't hit for as much power. Garvey has survived for so long for a similar reason. Mattingly's MVP didn't hurt either. He isn't a HOF-er, but I can at least see why he does better than Clark.

Mattingly - 1982-1995
Clark - 1986-2000

10 of those seasons (71% of Mattingly's career, 67% of Clark's) overlap. So if there's an era-related perception, it's an unfair one, because they were really contemporaries. And that's not mentioning the fact that Mattingly played in the best stadium not located in Denver ever built for a left-handed power hitter.

Yeah, the MVP probably helps. If that's the big difference, it shouldn't make as much difference as it does.

[John Galt]

Mattingly - 1982-1995
Clark - 1986-2000

10 of those seasons (71% of Mattingly's career, 67% of Clark's) overlap. So if there's an era-related perception, it's an unfair one, because they were really contemporaries. And that's not mentioning the fact that Mattingly played in the best stadium not located in Denver ever built for a left-handed power hitter.

Yeah, the MVP probably helps. If that's the big difference, it shouldn't make as much difference as it does.

There eras overlap, but their prime years are a little different. Poor Alan Trammel has been overlooked because of the modern SS even though he was from an older era. You are right that perceptions of eras are sometimes problematic.

As for the MVP, the Cy Young seemed to make a difference for Sutter because otherwise I can't find a good reason he is in the HOF.

[digamma]

There are 520 sportwriters voting - it's not like they get together and decide they collectively decide they need to vote someone in. Each writer gets 10 votes. I think what happens in a year with a strong class is that the top 2 or 3 candidates eat up such a big proportion of the votes cast, leaving the borderline guys like Sutter, Gossage, Rice, Blyleven, and the guys farther down the ballot with no chance but significant support, to divide up a fairly small pool of available votes. On the other hand, in a year like this with no serious first ballot contender, the votes that would normally go to the slam-dunk first balloters are suddenly available to the borderline guys, and the potential vote pool to be divided up is much greater. And that's why you see the borderline guys elected in years like this.
I understand how the voting works. I have a hard time believing, though, that 10% of the voters cast votes for ten guys last year and didn't have room for Sutter. My point is that someone is either Hall-worthy or not. He's not Hall-worthy after 12 years because it's a down year among candidates.

[stevew]

I think mattingly gets a lot of bonus points cause of his career altering back issues.

[Maple Leafs]

See, I see that as the reinforcement of stupidty. Bobby Abreu, one of the 5 best players in the NL over the last 5 years, has made the all-star team once - because fans or writers think Scott Posednik or Juan Pierre are more deserving. Its ridiculous - and it perpetuates the belief that there may have been some reason for the problem. Not targetting you here- just a general beef of mine.
There will always be exceptions -- even moreso when you factor in injuries, guys declining invitations, guys getting picked by fans based on name value, or even the stupid rule that every team needs to send a player.

But in general, I've just found that all-star appearances is actually a pretty decent way to get a quick snapshot of a guy's impact. It's a quick and dirty way to find out how many times in a guy's career he was considered one of the best in the big leagues at his position (well, at least at mid-season).

A guy like Ozzie Smith doesn't have great stats. They're not even all that good, compared to other HOFers. His defence was spectacular, but that's hard to measure. If you were a new fan and had never seen him play, you might look at his baseball-reference page and not think he was HOF material. But the guy was an all-star 15 times -- for a decade and a half, he was one of the best at his position. That ends the debate right there, for me. And it also "feels" right based on my memories of being a fan during that era. You watched Ozzie, you thought you were watching a superstar. We'd argue over who got to "be" him on the sandlot.

Compare that to Blyleven. Great stats over his career, sure. But he was never a guy who "felt" like a hall of famer to me as a kid growing up during that time. And the all-star selections bear that out -- he was always good, but never seemed to be one of the very best. And to me, that's what you need to go into the Hall -- it's not enough to be really good for a really long time.

Like I say, it's simplistic and I know it can be picked apart by a more detailed look at the stats. But as a quick check on a player's credentials, I've found it usually works pretty well (in all sports).

[John Galt]

All-Star selections trouble me, though. First, looking at the snubs every year, there are a lot of bad voting decisions. Second, all star voting (especially in the older days) tend to feed off themselves. If you get selected one year, you are very likely to be selected again even if your performance falls off. Third, all-star voting assesses less than half a season of performance in baseball. Fourth, players that played in good small market teams are often horribly underrepresented. Fifth, the requirement that each time have a player on the team means a good player can be screwed by playing the same position as a bad team's best player.

[clintl]

I think mattingly gets a lot of bonus points cause of his career altering back issues.

OK - but why doesn't Clark get the same bonus points for his elbow issues that similarly affected his career? That was my point earlier - Mattingly is remembered for his great years, and credited for it, while Clark is being remembered for the years when chronic injuries diminished his batting skills, and downgraded for it. And yet, in aggregrate, the numbers pretty clearly say that Clark was a more effective player over his whole career. Even looking at their peak years, Clark's best OPS+ was 175, compared to Mattingly's 161, and Clark had more years with an OPS+ of 150 or greater. His peak OBP is a lot higher (.431 to .397). His peak SLG is higher (.580 to .573).

Either Clark is being way underrated by the voters, or Mattingly is being way overrated.

[st.cronin]

Keith Hernandez > Will Clark > Don Mattingly

All three should be put in before McGwire.

[Maple Leafs]

All-Star selections trouble me, though. First, looking at the snubs every year, there are a lot of bad voting decisions. Second, all star voting (especially in the older days) tend to feed off themselves. If you get selected one year, you are very likely to be selected again even if your performance falls off. Third, all-star voting assesses less than half a season of performance in baseball. Fourth, players that played in good small market teams are often horribly underrepresented. Fifth, the requirement that each time have a player on the team means a good player can be screwed by playing the same position as a bad team's best player.
All of which is true. But a lot of that seems to cancel out, or at least even out over time.

Put it to the test this way: how many guys can you think of who should be Hall of Famers but didn't play in many all-star games? And how many played in a ton of all-star games but weren't really HOF guys? There will be players in both groups, but (at least for me) there are surprisingly few given how flawed a measurement it seems to be on the surface.

[John Galt]

All of which is true. But a lot of that seems to cancel out, or at least even out over time.

Put it to the test this way: how many guys can you think of who should be Hall of Famers but didn't play in many all-star games? And how many played in a ton of all-star games but weren't really HOF guys? There will be players in both groups, but (at least for me) there are surprisingly few given how flawed a measurement it seems to be on the surface.

There should be an incredibly large overlap. All-star selections are a proxy for HOF-worthiness. Similarly, different stats are proxies for HOF-worthiness. My problem is that all-star selections are a much worse proxy than certain stats for determining HOF-worthiness, IMO.

[sterlingice]

Either Clark is being way underrated by the voters, or Mattingly is being way overrated.Ding! As opposed to Gossage who gets some support for this but not overwhelming, Mattingly really does benefit from being the face of the Yankees for a few years.

SI

[sterlingice]

I understand how the voting works. I have a hard time believing, though, that 10% of the voters cast votes for ten guys last year and didn't have room for Sutter. My point is that someone is either Hall-worthy or not. He's not Hall-worthy after 12 years because it's a down year among candidates.You have to keep in mind that there will be some voters who think no one is worth voting in so they will vote for 0 of 10 or maybe 2 of 10, their own pet guys. There's only a max of ten but no minimum.

SI

[digamma]

You have to keep in mind that there will be some voters who think no one is worth voting in so they will vote for 0 of 10 or maybe 2 of 10, their own pet guys. There's only a max of ten but no minimum.

SI
I applaud those voters.

[ntndeacon]

If I had a ballot this year:
Sutter, Blyleven, Trammell

[dawgfan]

Rob Neyer's most recent article, discussing the "rules of relief pitchers" summarizes my feelings on relievers and the Hall of Fame quite well. No offense to Sutter, who was a very good closer, but I think Gossage deserves a spot over him, and I'm reluctant to consider Sutter as more than a fringe candidate. To me, he's the relief equivalent of Jack Morris as far as Hall of Fame worthiness - close, but not quite there.

[Ksyrup]

After reading Verducci's article today, I don't think Sutter deserves to get in, or at least doesn't deserve to get in over Gossage. He was almost the statistical equivalent to Dan Quizenberry, and he dropped off the ballot after one year. Popularizing a pitch isn't worth THAT much. If he had put together another 3-4 above-average years with Atlanta, perhaps I could understand it. But injuries essentially ended his career (in terms of being anything but a mediocre, injured pitcher) at 31.

The bottom line is, Gossage was better for longer. It's not even debatable.

[lungs]

I think Dock Ellis deserves to be in the hall of fame for throwing a no-hitter while on acid.

[Butter]

This won't help Goose, I can't imagine...

From FoxSports.com:

Former closer Rich "Goose" Gossage isn't too happy that he failed to win election into baseball's Hall of Fame, according to a report in the New York Post.

Gossage received 336 votes, which is short of the 390 needed for election. The former right-hander finished behind fellow closer Bruce Sutter, who won election by getting 400 votes, and former slugger Jim Rice who got 337 votes.
"I just don't get it," a frustrated Gossage told The Post from Colorado on Tuesday. "I'm at a loss for words."

Gossage, a former Yankees' fireballer, seems angry that he failed to get into the Hall of Fame despite the fact that he has, among other things, more career saves, victories, and strikeouts (948!) than Sutter.

"I just can't believe Sutter "I just can't believe Sutter got in before me," Gossage added."He deserved it. I was hoping Sutter and I could go in together. ... I don't know if I ever will make it."

"You know what, I never hear from these guys who don't vote for me," Gossage said. "But I'll take on any writer, anywhere, on any show, and I will bury him."

Gossage also feels badly for peers such as Rice, Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven — all of whom were left on the outside looking in.

The "Goose's" feelings concerning Rice's snub were particularly strong as he called it a "joke" that the Twins' Kirby Puckett was elected on the first ballot. Rice meanwhile is now 0-for-12 in Hall entry attempts.

"If Jim Rice had played in the Metrodome, he would have torn the place down, and that's nothing against Kirby Puckett, that's just the way it is," Gossage said.

What's more, Gossage often pitched two or three innings to earn his saves, and he says comparing him to current closers such as Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera is like comparing apples to oranges.

"The job is so easy because they're only pitching one inning," Gossage said. "Writers have forgotten how the role has changed."

And don't get him started on Barry Bonds and other allegedly drug-enhanced sluggers we watch now.

"Hitting in a game is no different than hitting in a home run contest," Gossage said. "It [ticks] me off to say Barry Bonds is the greatest hitter. He's playing in a wussy era. The game is soft. You never get thrown at today. Last thing a hitter has to worry about today is getting hit. The first thing Hank Aaron had to worry about is: Am I going to survive this at-bat because I'm black."

[clintl]

I agree with most of what Gossage said there. He should have gone in with or before Sutter, especially what he says about Rice. No one in the AL in the 80s was a more feared hitter than Jim Rice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No one in the AL in the 80s was a more feared hitter than Jim Rice.

Hmm ... are we talking about the same guy? OF, played for Boston?

The same guy who:
-- Was in the top 10 in BA only twice in the 80's
-- Was in the top 10 in OBA only once in the 80's
-- Was in the top 10 in SLG only three times in the 80's
-- Was in the top 10 in OPS only twice in the 80's
-- Was in the top 5 in Total Bases only once in the 80's
-- Was in the Top 10 in GIDP eight times in the 80's

That Jim Rice?

Sorry, he was a darned good ballplayer, very darned good ... but "most feared"? I don't see that at all.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, George Brett probably ('probably' because I was too young to remember much of the 80s) was a Hell of lot more feared than Rice.

[st.cronin]

Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in baseball, for about two years. His resume is not as impressive as Dale Murphy's.

[ISiddiqui]

Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in baseball, for about two years.
I'd agree with that... but they were in the late 1970s.

edit: but I disagree that Dale Murphy's resume was better. I'd take Rice into the Hall over Murphy.

[st.cronin]

I'd agree with that... but they were in the late 1970s.

yep

Although you can find Red Sox fans who will insist that in a normal ballpark he would have hit 500 homeruns. They believe that he consistently hit singles off the wall that would have been homeruns in other parks. I don't think that's really true to any real extent, but there are guys who say that.

[ISiddiqui]

Like he was the only right handed batter to ever play at Fenway? ;)

[clintl]

I'd agree with that... but they were in the late 1970s.

edit: but I disagree that Dale Murphy's resume was better. I'd take Rice into the Hall over Murphy.

Yeah, looking at his page, late '70s is more accurate - but it was more like 4 years. He still racked up plenty of black ink and gray ink leaderboard stats over his career - eoough, I think, that he should be in.

[st.cronin]

Like he was the only right handed batter to ever play at Fenway? ;)

Well, the idea is that he hit an unusual number of line drives. I do remember him hitting balls like that - balls that were maybe a couple feet above the shortstop, and were still rising when they hit the wall, that seemed like in a normal park, would have been easy homers, but turned into singles in Fenway. I just don't think it really affected his stats that much.

[oykib]

Now that Sutter's in, the only pitchers eligible and not in the Hall that I see who are more deserving than Morris are Gossage and Blyleven. Possibly you can make a case for Tommy John, too. Like it or not, Morris was one of the best pitchers of the 80s, despite the blemishes he has on his record. Everyone regarded him as such at the time. The level of support he's getting (significant but short of HOF election) is entirely reasonable. The same goes for Dawson and Murphy.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You can't justify giving a vote to Morris on the same ballot where Blyleven is left off. Blyleven was just flat out better.

That's just some writer voting for his pet player. In a year or so, Albert Belle is going to get on the ballot. He's a suped-up version of Jim Rice. He's probably not any of our idea of a HOFer. But he was a better ballplayer than Rice. I can't see how you could justify voting for Rice and leaving Belle off the ballot.

I think that's the first criteria we should be looking at when discussing Hall eligibility. Are there any other players that can be easily compared to this one that are more worthy (i.e. better) for enshrinement.

[JonInMiddleGA]

In a year or so, Albert Belle is going to get on the ballot.

Psst ... Albert Belle 40(votes) 7.7%

[oykib]

Psst ... Albert Belle 40(votes) 7.7%

There you go. Albert Belle's offeensive numbers are clearly better than Jim Rice's. Rice had an OPS+ of 128; Belle - 143. They finished almost the same in counting stats. They were effective for almost the same amount of time.

Neither was a good defender. But Belle was better. How do you vote for Rice and leave Belle off the ballot?

[JonInMiddleGA]

How do you vote for Rice and leave Belle off the ballot?

You mean beyond the whole "Joey" is freakin' nuts thing?

Belle 1726 Hits, over 10 full seasons (plus 2 years partial seasons)

Rice 2452 Hits, over 15 full seasons (+2 partial seasons)

All I can figure is that you're trying to be funny & my sense of humor is on the blink tonight.

[vtbub]

http://www.smart-guys-sports.com/?p=336

Shameless plug.

In Short, Gossage yes. Rice borderline. Sutter no.

[clintl]

There you go. Albert Belle's offeensive numbers are clearly better than Jim Rice's. Rice had an OPS+ of 128; Belle - 143. They finished almost the same in counting stats. They were effective for almost the same amount of time.

Neither was a good defender. But Belle was better. How do you vote for Rice and leave Belle off the ballot?


I'm guessing that with numbers Albert Belle put up in his career, he would have done a little better than 7.7% if he had a different personality.

In Albert's case, I think his numbers are right on the border, and voters were looking for a reason not to vote him in.

[oykib]

You mean beyond the whole "Joey" is freakin' nuts thing?

Belle 1726 Hits, over 10 full seasons (plus 2 years partial seasons)

Rice 2452 Hits, over 15 full seasons (+2 partial seasons)

All I can figure is that you're trying to be funny & my sense of humor is on the blink tonight.

I'd rather have the guy who was great for those ten seasons than the guy who was very good for fifteen myself.

These guys were there for power. Their counting stats in the power numbers favor Belle despite his shorter career, with the exception of triples. Rice played longer and has more hits. But does he even have five years worth of extra hits? He's got 726 more. That's only 140 a season. Are you really adding any value to your team at ~140 hits/season while playing a lousy left field?

The difference was that Rice's bad eyes and getting old let him have three hang around seasons while Belle's hip forced him to retire immediately. Belle would easily have had 2100 hits or so with two and a half hang around seasons.

Belle's numbers were better. Comparing their 162 game averages:

Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP

162 Game Avg 616 103 182 41 2 40 130 9 4 72 101 .295 .369 .564 347 0 8 10 6 20

162 Game Avg 638 97 190 29 6 30 113 4 3 52 110 .298 .352 .502 320 0 7 6 5 24

Remember, Belle's OPS+ is also fifteen points higher than Rice's. So it's not just that the era had inflated numbers.

Had Belle hung around, of course, his averages would have come down a bit. But I think that gives you a wash. Rice hung a round and added a few hundred hits. Belle retired early and maintained great rate stats. But Belle's overall numbers are better. I don't see how you can justify Rice getting 60% and Belle getting less than ten.

I'm not saying Belle is a HOFer. I'm saying that we all think he's not. But the truth is that he was a better player than Rice.

edit: cause I can't do basic arithmetic anymore

[dawgfan]

Rice had 3 great seasons from age 24-26, then dropped off quite a bit and had 1 great year again at age 30 and dropped off again. Somehow, psychologically, I think people just got it in their heads during Rice's glory years that he was great (and he was for those 3 years) and gave him the benefit of the doubt after that which was reinforced by his 1 great year thereafter at age 30.

He just isn't a Hall of Famer. He came close, but not really much closer than Dale Murphy (and you could argue Dale Murphy's fielding puts him even with Rice).

Belle's problem is simply not enough career longevity. There's just no way a guy nowadays is getting in the Hall with 1700+ hits, not unless half of them are homeruns. He was great for most of his playing time, and if his bad hip hadn't done him in he might very well have been able to compile a better career resume, but his time was too short to warrent entry.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I would have been interested to see what Belle could do if he hadn't had his hip hurt. Nothing quite like the numbers he already put up, but even decent numbers for another 5 years would have made the argument against him VERY difficult.

[oykib]

I'll agree with both of those points about Belle.

He's not a Hall of Famer. But he's got the same power numbers as Rice in about five less years. So his rate stats are significantly better. I just don't see him getting only 7.7% while Rice is on the border of being elected.

[Ksyrup]

Just reading the most recent Neyer chat (pre-HOF decision), and thought this was pretty funny:


Marty (Detroit): Why no Jack Morris for the Hall? You know damn well that he was better than Blyleven.

<!-- displayed mode -->http://espn-att.starwave.com/i/sn2.gif Rob Neyer: It's simple, Marty: Blyleven once signed an autograph for me, while Morris ran over my puppy with his snowmobile.