Baseball Hall of Fame Inductees Announced on Wednesday
Ken Griffey, Jr is a probable lock for induction.
But everyone else is a crap shoot. There is a very good chance that there is no one else on the podium with Griffey, Jr since the Veterans Committee did not induct anyone this year.
I think Piazza has a chance of getting in this year although he was 28 votes short last year and making up that many votes in a year is not historically typical. Then again, since almost no one else on the ballot will get many votes it is possible that more will go to Piazza this year. If Piazza gets in it will be a signal that steroid era rumors will not be enough to keep some out, where there are no smoking needles, such as Bagwell.
On the other hand, the HOF culled the voting rolls by about 100 voters this year (they changed the eligibility rules for voters) which might make it harder for bubble players to get enough votes.
I have a hard time seeing Hoffman get enough to be a first ballot inductee. My guess is that he is not inducted until near year 10 of eligibility. Closers don't get as much HOF voter respect as starters, which I think is wrong. Same goes for Edgar Martinez being a DH most of his career.
Trammel is in his last year of eligibility and will be bumped from the ballot after this year. I think that is a shame.
The known steroid guys will never get voted in--McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, Bonds. McGwire is also in his last year of eligibility so the voters will not need to deal with him anymore.
ml1 said:
what, you wouldn't vote for Luis Castillo?
as a Yankees fan, I would.
I think Tim Raines should get some consideration. He's definitely one of the best lead-off hitters of all-time.
yahooyahoo said:
I think Tim Raines should get some consideration. He's definitely one of the best lead-off hitters of all-time.
he'd have my vote.
If I had a ballot, my ten would be:
- Griffey
- Piazza
- Bonds
- Clemens (even though I think he's a terrible human being)
- Raines
- Mussina (I was not in favor until I read a very convincing case for him on ESPN.com)
- Bagwell
- Curt Shilling (another guy who seems like a jerk, but the same ESPN.com article made a very convincing case)
And some borderline guys I would probably include:
- Jim Edmonds -- I don't think fielding gets enough respect in HoF voting, and he was one of the best of his era. And voters don't seem to compare SSs, 2Bs and CFs against others at the position when it comes to batting stats. For a CF, Edmonds has good hitting stats. Compared to corner OFs or 1Bs, not so much.
- Trammell -- another guy who suffers in comparison to players at other positions, but as a SS, he was a very good hitter. And pretty much the best of his era in the AL. Six All-Star games, and 4 Gold Gloves.
mfpark said:
Ken Griffey, Jr is a probable lock for induction.
But everyone else is a crap shoot. There is a very good chance that there is no one else on the podium with Griffey, Jr since the Veterans Committee did not induct anyone this year.
I think Piazza has a chance of getting in this year although he was 28 votes short last year and making up that many votes in a year is not historically typical. Then again, since almost no one else on the ballot will get many votes it is possible that more will go to Piazza this year. If Piazza gets in it will be a signal that steroid era rumors will not be enough to keep some out, where there are no smoking needles, such as Bagwell.
On the other hand, the HOF culled the voting rolls by about 100 voters this year (they changed the eligibility rules for voters) which might make it harder for bubble players to get enough votes.
I have a hard time seeing Hoffman get enough to be a first ballot inductee. My guess is that he is not inducted until near year 10 of eligibility. Closers don't get as much HOF voter respect as starters, which I think is wrong. Same goes for Edgar Martinez being a DH most of his career.
Trammel is in his last year of eligibility and will be bumped from the ballot after this year. I think that is a shame.
The known steroid guys will never get voted in--McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, Bonds. McGwire is also in his last year of eligibility so the voters will not need to deal with him anymore.
I thought I just read that people who just miss with 69% of the vote, as Piazza did, normally do get in the following year.
If I had a vote, Griffey, Piazza, Bonds and Clemens would get my votes.
ml1 said:
yahooyahoo said:
I think Tim Raines should get some consideration. He's definitely one of the best lead-off hitters of all-time.
he'd have my vote.
If I had a ballot, my ten would be:
- Griffey
- Piazza
- Bonds
- Clemens (even though I think he's a terrible human being)
- Raines
- Mussina (I was not in favor until I read a very convincing case for him on ESPN.com)
- Bagwell
- Curt Shilling (another guy who seems like a jerk, but the same ESPN.com article made a very convincing case)
And some borderline guys I would probably include:
- Jim Edmonds -- I don't think fielding gets enough respect in HoF voting, and he was one of the best of his era. And voters don't seem to compare SSs, 2Bs and CFs against others at the position when it comes to batting stats. For a CF, Edmonds has good hitting stats. Compared to corner OFs or 1Bs, not so much.
- Trammell -- another guy who suffers in comparison to players at other positions, but as a SS, he was a very good hitter. And pretty much the best of his era in the AL. Six All-Star games, and 4 Gold Gloves.
I agree with all except Raines although I definitely think Trammell should be in. And I would still be willing to consider a strong argument for Raines.
I would also include Hoffman with the knowledge that he likely would not get to 70% anyway. I do not think he justifies a first-time inductee, but he is one of the greatest relievers ever and deserves to be in some day soon.
In order of priority, I would vote for Tim Raines, Lee Smith, Mike Mussina. Then maybe Schilling (while holding my nose).
I would make the suspected steroid crowd wait, except perhaps Griffey. He is never on the list of suspects. (But he did have a huge spike in his stats during the height of the steroid era, followed by injury plagued years afterwords. Hmmm).
I would probably send in couple of votes of protest...for Joe Jackson and Pete Rose...just to stir the pot a bit.
Lee Smith? Meh. Big arm, great intense eyes, but only about 412 saves or so?
@mfpark, I won't argue too hard regarding Lee Smith. He had 478 career saves, which is 3rd all time, but waaaaay behind Trevor Hoffman and Rivera. I happen to think that a great closer, which Smith was for many years, is generally underrated by many baseball fans. Just my opinion.
@mountainhouse. I hear you on closers being underappreciated. And I do agree that Smith was a monster on the mound.
I go back and forth on how to consider HOF candidates. Is the HOF for the truly exceptional whose careers will be remembered for all time? Or is it for the players who were damned good in their own time but who will be little remembered outside of the circle of those who read the Baseball Encyclopedia for fun? (perhaps I age myself, and should instead say those who log onto Baseball-Reference.com?).
Older Mets fans well remember the dread they felt when Lee Smith came into the game in the 9th inning to hold a one run lead; just as slightly older Mets fans recall the dread they felt when Ron Santo strode to the plate with the game on the line. To these fans those two players were exceptional for their time--and they were. But do their careers rise to the level of a Mike Schmidt or a Mariano Rivera who defined their positions and easily compare well to the greatest to ever play the game?
Then again, the HOF in 1954 inducted Rabbit Maranville who was a light hitting shortstop even for the dead ball era--and he is but one of dozens of old time players inducted who meet the criteria of being damned good in their time but not exceptional over all time and who are hardly known to any fans other than the really deep cognoscenti?
And politics clearly plays a huge role in selections. Letting Robbie Alomar in but not Dick Allen? Electing Lloyd Waner largely because his brother Paul Waner was a redefining player of their time? Not ruling clearly on how to handle steroid era players so that Palmeiro, Clemens, McGwire, and Sosa are effectively barred, while Piazza, Bagwell, McGriff and others of the time are similarly barred without even the more available evidence we have about the big four abusers?
An imperfect process for sure, and one that will always lead to lots of blog debates and hand-wringing sports writer articles around this time of year.
They've trimmed the electorate to current baseball sports writers and those who have covered baseball in the last 10 years. Based on disclosed ballots, this has seemed good news to the guys like Piazza who are being left out due to rumor and suspicion.
As it should be in my opinion.
If I go by the articles I have read reporting on which people various sports writers voted for this year it looks like Piazza will get in and Bagwell and Raines stand a shot. But that was a small sample of writers--perhaps 20--and they were from websites and publications that tend to have younger writers.
And here is something interesting from a Forbes piece by Maury Brown:
"While not all the ballots have been made public, those that have this year sees (sic) a significant shift on players that have been under the cloud (rightly or wrongly) of PEDs.
"Ryan Thibs, who goes by @NotMrTibbs on Twitter has been tracking votes that have been made public, and this year his tracker has several players that have been under suspicion for PED use with significant gains. They are Jeff Bagwell (81.8%), Mike Piazza (87.4%), Barry Bonds (49.7%), and Roger Clemens (49.0%) compared to last year’s final results (Bagwell – 55.7%; Piazza – 69.9%; Bonds – 36.8%; Clemens – 37.5%).
One might wonder if this shift is about new blood entering the voting body, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Long-time writers such as ESPN ’s Jerry Crasnick (“Why Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens finally appear on my HOF ballot”), FOX Sports’ Ken Rosenthal (“Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are on my Hall of Fame ballot for first time”) and former CBS Sports’ Jon Heyman (“Why Bonds and seven others got my Hall vote (though not Clemens)”) are just three examples of writers that have not voted for players prior under the suspicion of PED use, but now are."
mfpark said:
@mountainhouse. I hear you on closers being underappreciated. And I do agree that Smith was a monster on the mound.
I go back and forth on how to consider HOF candidates. Is the HOF for the truly exceptional whose careers will be remembered for all time? Or is it for the players who were damned good in their own time but who will be little remembered outside of the circle of those who read the Baseball Encyclopedia for fun? (perhaps I age myself, and should instead say those who log onto Baseball-Reference.com?).
Older Mets fans well remember the dread they felt when Lee Smith came into the game in the 9th inning to hold a one run lead; just as slightly older Mets fans recall the dread they felt when Ron Santo strode to the plate with the game on the line. To these fans those two players were exceptional for their time--and they were. But do their careers rise to the level of a Mike Schmidt or a Mariano Rivera who defined their positions and easily compare well to the greatest to ever play the game?
Then again, the HOF in 1954 inducted Rabbit Maranville who was a light hitting shortstop even for the dead ball era--and he is but one of dozens of old time players inducted who meet the criteria of being damned good in their time but not exceptional over all time and who are hardly known to any fans other than the really deep cognoscenti?
And politics clearly plays a huge role in selections. Letting Robbie Alomar in but not Dick Allen? Electing Lloyd Waner largely because his brother Paul Waner was a redefining player of their time? Not ruling clearly on how to handle steroid era players so that Palmeiro, Clemens, McGwire, and Sosa are effectively barred, while Piazza, Bagwell, McGriff and others of the time are similarly barred without even the more available evidence we have about the big four abusers?
An imperfect process for sure, and one that will always lead to lots of blog debates and hand-wringing sports writer articles around this time of year.
mfpark, IMHO, the Baseball Hall of Fame should honor only those players whose talent clearly transcended their peers, and are the kind of players that will be talked about and remembered for generations to come. For the "borderline" and "near great", the retired player's team can always honor him in some way.
I'm of the mind that closers are not unappreciated at all, and in fact it's one of the most overrated roles in all of sports (at least as far as the role is currently defined). A guy comes in at the start of the 9th with the bases empty and up to a 3 run lead. Any pitcher of any ability on an MLB roster should be able to close out 80% of games under those circumstances.
I know a lot of people hate sabermetrics, but for those of us who think they're useful would look at WAR in evaluating a player against others at his position. And in an 18 year career, Trevor Hoffman's total WAR was 28. Which means he was worth only about 1.5 more wins a year for his team than any random replacement pitcher. Even the great Mariano only totaled 57 WAR over 18 seasons, only about 3 and a half wins better than if his role had been filled by a succession of journeymen.
Closer is a tremendously overrated role, but to the extent it exists, Hoffman could get a vote from me. But I'd be more inclined to vote for a full time DH like Edgar Martinez over any closer (68 WAR compared to Hoffman's 28).
Food for thought:
How Value in Closers Is Found Outside WAR
WAR reminds me of polling. The hard math in the formulas behind it is tempered with a not incidental amount of supposition, and the result is often applied with more precision than it is intended to be. For instance, the creators of the WAR models acknowledge that the difference of 1 WAR between two players in a season is insignificant -- the equivalent of a margin of error. Add that up over an 18- or 19-year career and even the 29-run Rivera-Hoffman gap loses some of its luster.
@mfpark: I guess I'm pretty much in the "for all time" camp, even if the Hall is already dotted with Maranvilles. If someone has to make a convincing case, then I'm probably a lost cause. Like the writers you cited, though, I've softened on Bonds and Clemens, so put me down for those two plus Griffey and Piazza.
@ml1, we clearly disagree on closers, and we clearly disagree on DH's. Regarding sabermetrics, I have no idea what they are (I'm quite old). I prefer using my own mountainhousemetrics when rating players. I consider fielding, base running, ballpark dynamics (Candlestick weather, Fenway's Green Monster, Colorado's altitude, etc.). I also put a lot of emphasis on doubles and triples when rating a hitter.
Fun stuff to debate. We totally disagree on the importance of a great closer. Same with DH's, because I put more emphasis on fielding than most folks, so DH's are at a huge disadvantage in my rating "system".
One question for all...if steroid use is to be ignored, why has no one mentioned guys like Sosa and Palmeiro? Both had spectacular numbers.
The Say Hey Kid
ml1 said:
I'm of the mind that closers are not unappreciated at all, and in fact it's one of the most overrated roles in all of sports (at least as far as the role is currently defined). A guy comes in at the start of the 9th with the bases empty and up to a 3 run lead. Any pitcher of any ability on an MLB roster should be able to close out 80% of games under those circumstances.
I know a lot of people hate sabermetrics, but for those of us who think they're useful would look at WAR in evaluating a player against others at his position. And in an 18 year career, Trevor Hoffman's total WAR was 28. Which means he was worth only about 1.5 more wins a year for his team than any random replacement pitcher. Even the great Mariano only totaled 57 WAR over 18 seasons, only about 3 and a half wins better than if his role had been filled by a succession of journeymen.
Closer is a tremendously overrated role, but to the extent it exists, Hoffman could get a vote from me. But I'd be more inclined to vote for a full time DH like Edgar Martinez over any closer (68 WAR compared to Hoffman's 28).
ml1, I would respectfully disagree that the closer role is overrated. How many times does the starting pitcher has a great game, leaves the game with a lead, only to have a late inning reliever or closer give up the lead and go on to lose the game? Also, sometimes closers are called in with men on base in the 8th inning to preserve a lead. And, unlike a starting pitcher, who can count on pitching every 5th day, a closer doesn't know when he'll be needed and has to get ready quickly and then perform in a pressure situation--there's a mindset needed that not all starting pitchers would be capable of, IMHO.
I agree with you about Edgar Martinez--he was dominant in the DH role for most of his career and should be given HOF consideration. Mariano Rivera even cited Martinez as the most difficult player he faced as a closer.
As for Trevor Hoffman, his stats would suggest his worthiness for the Hall of Fame. But I think baseball fans will still be remembering Mariano Rivera 50 years from now; Trevor Hoffman, not so much.
This is part of the fun of baseball--being able to have these discussions! (Especially in January with the temperature in the 20s.)
mountainhouse said:
One question for all...if steroid use is to be ignored, why has no one mentioned guys like Sosa and Palmeiro? Both had spectacular numbers.
Tim Kawakami of the San Jose Mercury News, for one, weighed the effect that he inferred steroids had on the player's career, arguing that Bonds and Clemens were Hall of Famers even if you take away what you presume to have been the pharmacological benefits. All subjective, of course, but that's how he eliminates the likes of McGwire, Palmeiro and Sosa.
For what it's worth, one advantage that mountainhousemetrics has going for it: I can understand it.
ETA: What it's missing is the Delaware denominator. Meaning Dave May and Delino DeShields wuz robbed.
I did mention Palmeiro and Sosa above in passing, at least.
If I had a vote, I would vote for them, McGwire, Clemens, and anyone else from that era who had the requisite numbers and impact over a long career. Just as I do not think one should castigate suspected users who were not caught, I also think one should not castigate users who were later caught.
My reasoning: We will never, ever know who actually used PEDs in the era when MLB and the MLPA were colluding to hide the fact and not seriously testing players. I am pretty certain that there were others--perhaps many others--using PEDs during that time period beyond the ones who were caught or admitted using them. So we have to make an assumption, and that, for me, is that PEDs were in relatively widespread use in baseball and were widely available to most players who wanted to use them.
We all know it is impossible to compare across baseball eras. There are simply too many variations and variables in play. It is the old argument of whether Jimmy Foxx or Babe Ruth would have been great sluggers if they had to face modern day pitching including a bullpen that will trot out three 100 MPH guys in a row like the Yankees can. The comparison is simply not feasible.
So we are left with comparing players against their peers and determining who was great at that time. The fact that Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro were all truly great means that they excelled even over other players who were likely juicing at the same time. Either we recognize them as great relative to their peers and worthy of HOF induction, or we simply wipe away an entire generation of baseball players as ineligible.
As others have pointed out, we know that Mays was living on greenies for part of his career, but no one bats an eye at this. I think the same should be done for the PED years.
BTW, I also think that Pete Rose should be in the HOF, even as he remains banned from working in baseball. These are two different things.
(edited to add: By my above logic of comparing to peers, this means Schilling, Mussina, Martinez, and Trammel should also get in).
I think the use of WAR is crap. Give me good old stats anyday.
1) A player with a positive WAR can still be a below average player.
"A replacement level player is defined by Fangraphs as contributing 17.5 runs fewer than a player of league-average performance, over 600 plate appearances.[4] Therefore a 1.0 WAR player has contributed an estimated -7.5 runs relative to average over the same number of plate appearances, a 2.0 WAR player has contributed +2.5 runs, and a 5.0 WAR player has contributed +32.5 runs."
2) There is no universal calculation method for WAR.
"There is no clearly established formula for WAR. Sources that provide the statistic calculate it differently. These include Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Reference, and Fangraphs. All of these sources publish the method they use to calculate WAR, and all use similar basic principles to do so. The version published by Baseball Prospectus is named WARP,[8] that by Baseball Reference is named rWAR ("r" derives from "Rally" or "RallyMonkey", a nickname for Sean Smith, who created the statistic) or bWAR,[9] and that for Fangraphs is named fWAR.[10] Compared to rWAR, the calculation of fWAR places greater emphasis on peripheral statistics.[2]"
Despite my reservations, I think WAR, like polling, has its uses. For instance, if you think two players are comparable, a WAR of 1 for the first guy and 4 for the other guy might get you to consider whether you were overvaluing some of Player 1's abilities and/or underestimating some of Player 2's.
Bonds and Clemens are HOF players, period, end of sentence. You're telling me no one else was on Juice? More like no one else was any good on juice.
was Willie Mays arguably the greatest all around ballplayer or the greatest all around and by his own admission, amphetamines aided ballplayer? He was both but Id classify him as the former, not the latter.
Robert_Casotto said:
Bonds and Clemens are HOF players, period, end of sentence. You're telling me no one else was on Juice? More like no one else was any good on juice.
Or more like even with the juice no one else was anywhere near as good as they were.
That's the sad part. Clemens and Bonds were HOF players before they went on the juice. However, their massive egos got in the way.
Robert_Casotto said:
Bonds and Clemens are HOF players, period, end of sentence. You're telling me no one else was on Juice? More like no one else was any good on juice.
yahooyahoo said:
That's the sad part. Clemens and Bonds were HOF players before they went on the juice. However, their massive egos got in the way.
Robert_Casotto said:
Bonds and Clemens are HOF players, period, end of sentence. You're telling me no one else was on Juice? More like no one else was any good on juice.
Shakespeare still resonates for a reason.
Princeton grad, natch.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/learki01.shtml
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
The ballot: Garrett Anderson, Brad Ausmus, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Luis Castillo, Roger Clemens, David Eckstein, Jim Edmonds, Nomar Garciaparra, Troy Glaus, Ken Griffey Jr, Mark Grudzielanek, Mike Hampton, Trevor Hoffman, Jason Kendall, Jeff Kent, Mike Lowell, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire, Mike Mussina, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Gary Sheffield, Lee Smith, Sammy Sosa, Mike Sweeney, Alan Trammell, Billy Wagner, Larry Walker, Randy Winn.