hall of fame, next vote...

Hall of Fame Ballot 2004

Bruce Sutter was the pitcher that brought back and popularized the split finger fastball, which considering how popular a pitch it has become in the past 25 years, it is something that he should get some credit.

"Boggs, for instance, is not a classic Hall of Famer, in my eyes, despite his 3,000 hits; he was a very, very good player, but not a dominant player."

Appearantly Buster forgets the mid 80s when Boggs career batting average was at .355 or so, he won 5 of 6 batting titles and his on base percentage was at a SABERMETRIC stoner high. He also won two of those batting titles by more than twenty points! After age 32, he only once hit over .330, but a bunch of players peak around that time in their career. Boggs average with runners on base and the bases loaded is also off the chart.

Oddly enough, I don't think Boggs was quite the same player after that whole scandal with Margo Adams broke. I think opposing teams quit putting chicken on the buffet when Boston was in town or something.

I think it would be interesting to know how many hits Boggs would have put up if he would have been brought up in 81, when he was 21 instead of 24. Boggs always claimed that he was just a good a hitter at 21, but since he played 1b was always behind Yaz in the depth chart and never got the chance to play in the bigs until he learned how to play 3b. He didn't get called up in 84 until they were wracked with injuries, then he hit over .400 for a month or so and stayed in the lineup from then on.

I grew up mostly watching NL baseball, but Boggs was one of my favorite players to follow and watch hit. Maybe not as fearful as some of the great power hitters of his day, but like Tony Gwynn, he was one of those hitters that seemed to dumbfound pitchers on how to get them out.

Earl OTM about Boggs, the guy was an offensive powerhouse.

It's the usual BS with guys like Sandberg -- 2B and 3B are underrepresented positions in the HoF because their offensive numbers aren't at the level of 1B or OF, they're not remembered for being "flashy" like SS, and they're not "on-the-field leaders" like C. Sandberg is a no-brainer.

Gossage should be in, I hear the arguments for Sutter that he wasn't great for as long as some other guys, but a) he was dominant for about the same length of time that Mo Rivera has been (and a lot of people consider him a future HoF player -- yeah, I know Mo's postseason performance is part of that, but still), and b) he INVENTED a pitch, which is a damned significant contribution to the game.

The Blyleven arguments boil down to the fact that he WAS great, but was pitching for bad teams. I think people are wising up to the idea that there are guys like Sutton who are in only because they pitched for good teams.

That season I remember seeing Jack Morris throw a no hitter on TV against the White Sox as it was the game of the week Saturday Afternoon on NBC. I can remember my dad was working in the garage and coming in every so often to check it out how the game was going, as he joked after the first inning or so wouldn't it be funny if he threw a no hitter.

But if that were the case, there'd be 80 or 90 members, except for what, 240 now?

By the established standard, Blyleven belongs. If you're "very good" for long enough (BB was in the top 10 in league Adjusted ERA 11 times from '71-89), that's worth 5-6 years of dominance (the peak vs career, Koufax vs Spahn argument). There was some research I read in the last year that showed Bert didn't suffer quite as much from his teammates' inadequacy as generally thought, but it wasn't enough for him to drop off my "ballot."

>The funny thing about Morris, as I recall, is that he always seemed to pitch just good enough to stay ahead.

"I know not seems..." I'll try to find a link for you, Thermo, but someone recently did a study of Morris's career in this regard, and it showed *no* special ability to pitch that way. He threw 1150 fewer innings than Blyleven and his career ERA was only 5% better than the league's (Bert 18%) -- that's not a negligible difference. Morris had a good career, but not a HOFer.

I'd vote for Gossage on greatness and longevity, Sutter on peak and pioneer role, close but unconvinced for Lee Smith. Rest of ballot: Boggs, Sandberg, and TRAMMELL, most deserving SS of that era below Ozzie. Dawson and Rice fall short.

It's sad that the Vets Committee process has obviously been fucked up to the point where they may never elect anyone, as I fear Ron Santo will die before his deserved induction.

I'm not sure that would be worst thing ever actually, but my problem with Blyleven is that during his time he was never really recognized as being one of the best in the game. He wasn't voted to All Star games, he didn't make Cy Young top 10s, he wasn't talked about as being a great pitcher. And I think that hurts him. NOW if the reason why none of those things occurred was that he toiled entirely in obscurity for shitty teams and if he'd been on the Dodgers, the Red Sox, the Yankees and the Reds for those years instead that there would be a complete about face and he'd be considered among the best pitchers of his era, well all I can say geez that's bad luck for Bert, but I think that's a hard argument to make conclusively.

MIR, here's a 4-year-old Neyer column on Blyleven... Alex, I think it's conclusive:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2000/1213/943398.html

And he later wrote:

"Blyleven was, over the course of his career, a better pitcher than Ted Lyons or Early Wynn or Bob Lemon or Red Ruffing or Rube Waddell or Red Faber or Catfish Hunter or Lefty Gomez, all of whom are in the Hall of Fame... It's not Blyleven's fault that he generally pitched for unspectacular teams that played in hitter's parks. In fact, Blyleven pitched for 22 seasons, and in only four of those 22 seasons did Blyleven's home ballpark favor the pitcher, statistically..."

And to appeal to the butch old-timers: 242 complete games!

Four of 'em (third twice).

http://baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1815

It concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that he could.

That's the article I meant, MIR, thanks.

I think he's written a couple of other columns on Blyleven, maybe I can find them ...

Those are some mind-numbing stats!

This, and many other articles stating his HoF case are collected -- where else? -- on Blyleven's web page:

http://www.bertblyleven.com/hall_of_fame.shtml

xpost -- yeah, the Morris article is a bit of a numbers slog, but it's well done.

Enough, believe me. And I saw him compare him to two HOF pitchers, one of whom is IMO a mistake and the other who is basically in the Hall because he had a zillion strikeouts and a slew of no hitters. Compare him to Carlton or Seaver or Hunter or any of the really great pitchers from his era, if you want to make your point (that this guy is getting job) don't just claim he was "better than Don Sutton" cuz my response to that is so the fuck what.

That second ESPN article is much better btw and makes a pretty good case.

No, Bert is not Seaver or Carlton.

He played for fifteen years, and he had about four great years, four good years, and the rest were downright BAD. If he'd pitched for anyone other than the 70's A's and Yankees dynasties, there's no way he'd be anywhere near a serious HoF discussion.

See this is where I get the impression that cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats lies a little. For 5 years (71-75), Hunter was probably hands down the most feared pitcher in baseball. No he might not have been Koufax, but he was still by all accounts pretty amazing. Those five years count for more to me than 20 some odd years of just pretty good workmanlike pitching (I will admit that these breakdowns of Blyleven's stats are making a pretty case that he was better than that.) (I do have to wonder WHY if Bert was so great, he um didn't get snatched up by better teams? I mean that can't all be bad luck, right?)

Postseason Pitching

Year Round Tm Opp WLser G GS ERA W-L SV CG SHO IP H ER BB SO
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
1970 ALCS MIN BAL L 1 0 0.00 0-0 0 0 0 2.0 2 0 0 2
1979 NLCS PIT CIN W 1 1 1.00 1-0 0 1 0 9.0 8 1 0 9
WS PIT BAL W 2 1 1.80 1-0 0 0 0 10.0 8 2 3 4
1987 ALCS MIN DET W 2 2 4.05 2-0 0 0 0 13.3 12 6 3 9
WS MIN STL W 2 2 2.77 1-1 0 0 0 13.0 13 4 2 12
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
3 Lg Champ Series 2-1 4 3 2.59 3-0 0 1 0 24.3 22 7 3 20
2 World Series 2-0 4 3 2.35 2-1 0 0 0 23.0 21 6 5 16
5 Postseason Ser 4-1 8 6 2.47 5-1 0 1 0 47.3 43 13 8 36
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+

He didn't get many chances, but Blyleven pitched well in the playoffs and was a part of two World Series Champions.

Many of his best years came before free agency, so he didn't have much choice in the matter.

Even with free agency, it's only during the last ten years or so that all the best players end up on big-market winning teams at some point, since eventually those are the only teams that can afford them. If Jaret Wright can bounce around for a while, have one good season after a slew of crappy ones, and end up with a multi-year deal from a perennial contender, then Blyleven would have ended up playing for more winning teams too, if he was playing today.

Even so, every era has a few great players who toil away in relative obscurity. Look at Bobby Abreu, or even Carlos Delgado. If Delgado goes to the Mets, maybe in 20 years people will be saying "if he was so good, why did his teams always finish in third place?"

Alex, nobody's saying Hunter wasn't GOOD, just that Blyleven was better for MUCH longer, and that "good press" shouldn't be a measure of excellence. And I don't see Hunter '71-75 being "amazing" ... His most "impressive statistics" are wins (ie, having good teammates) and innings pitched (which blew out his arm, as MIR says). I think he got extra credit for the pennants and the sexy nicknames. And it's cute how you use high Cy Young finishes as relevant to Hunter, not relevant for Blyleven. (Also, I don't see Hunter's status as the first Big Splash free agent being relevant; see Marvin Miller's book for how clownishly Catfish handled that situation.)

The "cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats" is the most reliable evidence there is. Not "what you heard" (from Joe Morgan?). And it isn't so much that Blyleven toiled for bad teams (they were more often mediocre), but pitched in hitters' parks.

I hope it happens soon so that he lives to attend his own induction.

It's not lookin' good for Marv, MIR -- when the Vets voted last in '03, no one came close to getting 75% ... and of the 60 votes required for election, Miller got 35. He got three FEWER votes than Walter O'Malley -- or as we call him in Brooklyn, Satan.

Miller and other non-players are on the "composite" ballot. Here's this year's players' ballot:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/2005/2005_vc_candidates.htm

The only one I'm sold on is Santo, but Dick Allen and Tony Oliva have decent cases -- as does Curt Flood for courage and legal pioneering.

Mickey Lolich won't get in the Hall, but his pitching in the 68 World Series may be the best performance ever in the fall classic by a starter. The guy out pitched Bob Gibson in Game Seven on TWO days rest. ESPN Classic was showed that game a few months back and it was great. Harry Caray was doing the play by play.

While I don't know if he is good enough player to make the hall, Al Oliver had a pretty good career and never gets put on these kind of lists.

My general point is that "b...b...but he was a bit of an asshole" is a criticism that's used far too often despite being irrelevant most of the time. As long as the guy didn't compromise the game of baseball (Pete Rose being the most obvious example) then I couldn't care less if he was moody and didn't get along with everybody. If he could bring it on the field, then that's the most important thing.

(xpost)

Haha I need to learn to check baseballreference.com before I say stuff sometimes.

@clem: Maybe he can get traded to the Sacramento Athletics so he can play half his games in a minor league bandbox like he did in 2021?

nevermind bandbox it's going to be so fucking hot that it'll be a launchpad

i think obv Vlad would have won MVP if it wasn't for Shohei, which is one point in his favor (it would have occurred the same age-year Bryce won his first MVP) and there's still time to make up for all of that. Vlad after six seasons compares pretty favorably to Bryce after six (in fact their bWAR per 162 is the exact same over that period.) i think this season is going to be the real tell in terms of how his career might play out.

(xxpost) For sure: you alerting me to the splits for his 2021 season really changed my view of him. Guessing 2024 was a pretty good apporoximation of what 2021 would have looked like minus the two bandboxes.

Beltran is now at 80.1% w/an estimated 42.3% of the ballots accounted for on the tracker. based on last year's result, I'm guessing he winds up a few points shy of induction but seems set for 2026. the only player who's lost ground this year (non-PED division) is Hunter.

The people who haven't revealed their ballots, have they already met a voting deadline (i.e., their ballots have already been submitted)? Beltran's ssurprise showing couldn't still generate further support, could it?

xps fwiw sacramento is actually a pitchers' park: https://archive.is/0Fz7L

xp the deadline was Dec 31 so that ship has sailed

Didn't realize that...So yeah, as someone else speculated, next year.

For me, more surprising than Ichiro's 100% is CC's 93%. HOF'er, yes, I just never guessed he'd climb that high. I could make a pretty long list of players who I think we'd all agree were better and went in with less than 90% and not in their first year of eligibility. (He'll probably drop below 90 in the end.)

Which, in the end, is probably a good thing. If you're a HOF'er, you're a HOF'er--why wait?

Where they stand going into tomorrow's announcement (180 votes, 48.7%):

Ichiro Suzuki - 100.0%
CC Sabathia - 92.1%
Billy Wagner - 84.8%
Carlos Beltrán - 80.6%
Andruw Jones - 72.3%

So Beltran would have to drop to 70% of the unannounced voters--gonna be close.

https://www.bbhoftracker.com/

(I.e., to fall short.)

I’m trying to assess his chances by looking to see how many votes he’s gained versus how many votes he missed by a year ago. It’s not an exact science, but I figure he’ll probably wind up somewhere between 69% and 71%.

Understanding, of course, that it’s not the same number of voters every year and the pool changes just a bit.

Just looking at Posnanski's post today, and I don't think I realized how phenomenally close Sabathia and Pettitte are:

Sabathia: 251-161, 3.74 ERA, 3.78 FIP, 61.8 bWAR, 66.5 fWAR
Pettitte: 256-154, 3.85 ERA, 3.74 FIP, 60.7 bWAR, 68.2 fWAR

Holy cow...so how do you explain the 60% difference in support? Posanaski says it's the PED taint (I didn't think Pettitte was all that damaged by that) and timing as to when Pettitte came onto the ballot.

I do think Sabathia had a much more dominant peak and Pettitte just had three scattered HOF caliber seasons mixed in with a lot of Jamie Moyer type years. the fact that one of those HOF caliber seasons coincided with then-teammate Clemens' late-era dominant year might be a problem, yeah...probably not something to completely ignore if you're on the fence about him.

i also think it's pretty remarkable that you've had a slew of dominant pitchers from the mid 80s through the mid 00s who received almost zero support and Pettitte just sticks around.

Pettitte also has the impressive post-season résumé, though--his ERA's on the high side, but still sub-4.00 during the PED decade. He basically pitched a full season in October:

19-11, 3.81, 276.2 IP

https://i.imgur.com/MsfcCPL.png

Petitte had only one below-average season, by FIP, and generally out-performed Sabathia's all through his 30s (and into his 40s - i kind of forgot about his comeback season and how it was pretty excellent)

Ichiro, CC, and Wagner

Ichiro didn't get 100%, missed by one

I assume "unanimous" would have been attached to Ichiro's announcement if true (i.e., it wasn't)?

Got it.

Buffoon, identify yourself.

Person who didn’t vote for Ichiro about to be Japanese baseball fans’ least favourite person.

(Ippei - phew!)

Tayler Saucedo, who is a relief pitcher from the Mariners who grew up in Seattle, posted this earlier today.

I think one of the coolest things of being a Mariner is that I went from thinking Ichiro was larger than life and imitating his batting stance/swing in the backyard to one day I blinked and woke up to moments like this 😂 (I was perfectly fine) Now we all get to watch this man… https://t.co/3mVwdmnJkc pic.twitter.com/kXoFon849I

— Tayler Saucedo (@tsauce7) January 21, 2025

It’s not an exact science, but I figure he’ll probably wind up somewhere between 69% and 71%.

70.3%--don't be modest!

For 80 or 90 years, there was a reason for not voting anyone in unanimously. It was a ridiculous, stupid reason, but it was a reason: if no one from the first class was unanimous (Ruth, especially), no one should be. Rivera's unanimous election ended that.

During the PED glut, there was a reason for not voting anyone in unanimously--strategic voting. I don't think I'd engage in that myself, but it was a reason--defensible, even.

Bonds, Clemens, etc., there was a reason. You can agree or disagree, but it's not mysterious.

With Ichiro (and Jeter too), there is no reason--none whatsoever, that I can see.

I know it's a small thing, and I'll forget about it tomorrow, it's just stupid.

my first time following the process, i didn’t know they made the votes public on a rolling basis. should be a closed ballot then i bet you’d see more unaninmous selections… too easy for somebody to wait until the last minute and vote based on what they see

Omar said the deadline is Dec. 31, and I don't think voters start going public until after that.

This is a very good article with a lot of fun Ichiro stories btw: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/43414814/mlb-baseball-hall-fame-2025-ichiro-suzuki-stories-mariners-yankees-marlins

"So being a kid from Southern California that doesn't speak any Japanese, I don't know what to say to Ichiro. I don't even know if he knows English. He had just gotten here in spring training. So I look over at him and I pat him on the back and say, 'Ichiro, nice batting.' And I don't know what kind of response I'm going to get. And he looks at me -- never met him before -- and he goes, 'Mike Sweeney, nice ass.' I just started dying laughing. I'm like, oh my gosh, his English was perfect. No accent. And I'm going, oh my gosh, this guy, he's going to be great."

oh, the way people unveiled their ballots made me think it was rolling xp

That's what I thought too, and why I thought Beltran might squeeze by when late voters saw how well he was doing.

Wow, five new HOFers in one year (including Dick Allen and Dave Parker) -- and all of them were truly great players.

I'm still a little iffy on Parker, but at the same time, Dick Allen is a good reminder of why he should go in now rather than later.

Next year’s ballot is going to be really interesting because there are zero first timers who are going to make the Hall of Fame, maybe even zero will stick around for a second ballot. But at least one of them was part of a Hall of Fame moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa5xH2a3HuI

Subheading from Posnanski's round-up today (haven't read it yet): "Here’s a Depressing Thought: Six More Years of A-Rod."

For 80 or 90 years, there was a reason for not voting anyone in unanimously. It was a ridiculous, stupid reason, but it was a reason: if no one from the first class was unanimous (Ruth, especially), no one should be. Rivera's unanimous election ended that.

this kind of logic gets used for NBA MVP voting as well. when Derrick Rose won his MVP over a much more deserving LeBron the justification I saw was that Jordan never won three straight, so LeBron shouldn't either.

Cole Hamels comes on next year. I always find these eerily close comparisons fascinating (courtesty Posnanski):

Félix Hernández: 169-136, 3.42 ERA, 3.52 FIP, 2,729 innings, 2,524 K, 805 BB

Cole Hamels: 163-122, 3.43 ERA, 3.68 FIP, 2,698 innings, 2,560 K, 767 BB

Obviously, peak Felix was superior; Hamels got to the same place through durability.

https://i.postimg.cc/J0VThgCp/yjbzt9mod6ozn0dg7osi.jpg

There were some unusual HOF ballots in the 2010's.

Take 2016, Jim Edmonds finished 20th, one and done. I can't remember if there was any backlash for this. He had 60.4 bWAR, 393 HR, 132 OPS+, was generally regarded as a very good defender, etc. Pretty decent candidacy. How did he finish 20th??

About the nineteen players who finished ahead of him:
-- twelve were HOFers (two elected that year, ten more elected since)
-- Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa were all tainted by steroids and were never going to be elected, but drew significant support that could have been directed to other players in retrospect
-- Schilling, Sheffield, and Kent were all controversial players for various reasons, see previous comment

No marginal HOFer could stand a chance on that kind of ballot. I hope some of these guys get nominated through one of the nu-committees and get their cases heard properly.

How did he finish 20th??

this will sound like a goof, but i honestly think it's because he is so annoying. i'm not sure he's a hall of famer but he's right on the edge, and i bet he'll get in via committee at some point

well, all the factors you mentioned, NoTime, of course! those were probably the big ones. 2016 was a rough year to be a first-time candidate! but cherry on top, the thing that sealed the deal, was probably how annoying he is

Didn't the annoying-factor come about because of his broadcasting? Was he already on air then?

just a quick google, and it's mainly about his broadcasting, but most of this tracks. especially the one where he joked about his son's suicide watch text, during a game. i was watching that game and it was a true wtf moment when he blurted all that out (while baseball was happening)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Cardinals/comments/1igte71/i_must_be_out_of_the_loop_why_is_jim_edmonds/?rdt=65290

but yeah, to your point clemenza, i think as a "player" most of that stuff was forgiven since there are tons of bros like that. he'll probably get in at some point!

i wonder if the pandemic year will make a difference in anyone's chances like maybe how the strike year cost McGriff a likely induction via the writers. i think for example Jose Ramirez will get in on way or another, but if you calculate his .292/.386/.607 2020 performance out to a full season, he looks like a guy who had the necessary transcendent stat line to catch writers' eyes in 2037 or so -- 47 HR, 44 2B, 125 runs, 128 RBI, 87 BB, 28 SB.

I know there were a few guys who had a career-worst year--some recovered, some didn't--that may make a difference in a close call. One who comes to mind is Altuve. He's probably in the clear now, but if the cheating scandal keeps it close, his lost 2020 could come into play.