Keeping Score: Growing Complexity for Cooperstown – Bats Blog – NYTimes.com
Posted by Sean Forman on August 20, 2010
Keeping Score: Growing Complexity for Cooperstown - Bats Blog - NYTimes.com.
This week's Baseball-Reference.com piece for the New York Times. What do you think, will anyone (other than Greg Maddux) gain induction from 2012-2014? Here are the likely ballots.
August 20th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Biggio, Thomasm, and Glavine.
August 20th, 2010 at 8:04 am
Thomas, my bad.
August 20th, 2010 at 8:07 am
haha Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa all get their 1st appearance on the ballot in 2013. ESPN will definitely suck to watch during that election time. They'll spew the same boring/dumb discussions on repeat for weeks.
August 20th, 2010 at 8:30 am
Anyone who doesn't vote for Mike Piazza pretty much loses the right to watch baseball.
August 20th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Zachary,
The question isn't who should. I'd be induction six or so a year for the next 3-5 years, but who do you think will get in.
August 20th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Blyleven, Alomar, Biggio, Thomas, Glavine, Piazza, and maybe Lee Smith. What's so difficult?
August 20th, 2010 at 9:11 am
2012 -- Bagwell
2013 -- Biggio and Jack Morris (I'm going on a darkhorse "year 14" special kick with this pick)
2014 -- Glavine, Maddux, and Mike Piazza
Personally, not sure if Bonds gets in....not sure if voters can separate Bonds 1985-1997 from Bonds 1998-2007...the former Bonds was a likely HOF pick despite the personality simply based on talent alone.
August 20th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Blyleven, Alomar, Biggio and Bagwell -- and probably three or four others. Thomas, Glavine, Maddox and Smoltz would be my best guess for the "second tier".
August 20th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Why would someone vote for Piazza and not Bonds? Especially since all evidence shows Bonds was "clean" while being the best player in the league from '89-'97.
August 20th, 2010 at 9:58 am
There's an additional issue. Even if the voting system and criteria had stayed the same, there are now 88% more players than there were before expansion. Even keeping the same criteria, as measure for examply by the Bill James Hall of Fame monitor, only about half the payers who met past standards would get in.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:14 am
@Justin: What Bonds did after '97 compromises his candidacy - and he lied about it too (the guy's lucky he's not in the same boat as Clemens - yet). Things that Piazza was never even suspected of doing while playing the most difficult position on the field and out-homering every HOF member who played that position before him - Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra, Roger Bresnahan, Gary Carter, Roy Campanella, Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Buck Ewing, Rick Ferrell, Carlton Fisk, Gabby Hartnett, Ernie Lombardi, and Ray Schalk. THAT'S why.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:18 am
How in the world is Maddux a second-tier player and Biggio a first-tier? My mind is blown.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:23 am
I got to agree with #12 Jiffy. Maddux is a sure bet.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:26 am
I've been saying for years that Greg Maddux will be the first ever 100% unanimous selection. And hoping that Ken Griffey, Jr could be 2nd.
And @ #11, Piazza was never suspected...really?!?!?
August 20th, 2010 at 10:34 am
There are a lot of guys who should get serious consideration in the next thre-four years. I know people claim McGwire to be the first steroid tarnished player on the ballot, but I wouldn't vote for him--clean or dirty. Rafael Palmeiro is the first legit HOF candidate with the steroid stink on him, and therefore the real test to see just how much HOF voters have soured on the sluggers from our generation.
As an Astros fan and Jeff Bagwell worshipper, I'd love to see Baggy go in on his first ballot, but I doubt he does. Next year might just be Blyleven and Alomar (Roberto was ripped off last year). I feel guys like Maddux and Biggio are locks and Mike Piazza should be too. Say what you will about his defense, he was the single greatest offensive force to play the game behind the plate... although Joe Mauer may disagree with me. And yes, Barry Bonds was a jerk, a clubhouse cancer and the antithesis to a role model, but the dude was simply the greatest of his time and therefore should be in the HOF.
Barry Larkin might eventually make it in but his numbers are all quite comparable to Alan Trammell's and Alan has garnered far less support than Larkin saw on his first time on the ballot. Jack Morris, as the winningest pitcher of the 1980s, might make it in the Hall but his ERA was much higher than guys like Rick Reuschel and Jerry Reuss--fringe candidates on a good day. Personally, I'd slight Morris. I was always a fan of Larry Walker and Fred McGriff but can't see either of them getting too much support. Jeff Kent is the best pwoer hitting second baseman of all-time, so I bet he gets in eventually, even though Utley and Uggla may hit more homeruns than Jeff.
For more, visit my HOF blog: brettkiser.wordpress.com for HOF eligible player bios and a handful of polls. Be critical, too. I want to make the site more appealing and am open to suggestions.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:38 am
@Ham Man: OK, maybe suspected, but never accused and villified like Bonds, Clemens, NcGwire, Sosa, etc...
August 20th, 2010 at 10:53 am
This is not a vote for who will ultimately get in beyond 2014, but lists the players who I believe will be inducted during in the three specific years in question. I have eight players, listed here, with my best guess below on which years. They are: Larkin, Biggio, Bagwell, Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Piazza and Morris (I know, I’m not saying I’d vote for him, but I think he’s going to make it once Blyleven is off the list.)
I expect both Blyleven and Alomar will gain induction in 2011, which sets up an interesting vote for 2012. Will the BBWAA not elect a single player? There is a possibility, but I don't think it will come to that. I believe 2012 will be Barry Larkin's year. While I thought he should have been elected on his first appearance, he nevertheless did have a solid showing of over 50%, and I expect he'll gain some additional traction in the 2011 vote, pushing over the 60% mark. Once Alomar goes in, that will force other writers to look more closely at Larkin. I think Larkin makes the Hall pretty easily in 2012. The other player of note is Jeff Bagwell, who will be in his second year of eligibility. By the numbers, Bagwell is an easy choice, yet there have been some whispers of steroid use. This will probably hold him back a little on his first appearance on the 2011 ballot, but I expect him to pick up momentum in 2012. Obviously, the other big name out there is Palmerio, but he's a busted steroid user. Even if he eventually does make it in, it'll be years down the line.
Beyond Larkin in 2012, the absence of any other clear choice could be good news for others trying to build momentum. In addition to Bagwell, this could be Jack Morris' best chance to gain votes, setting up his election on the 2013 ballot. He may not get elected in 2012, but I think human nature being what it is, voters will want to select a few names. That could push Morris up in the vote count well into the 60% range, maybe even 70%. If it does, as I suspect it will, then it will pretty much mean he's a lock for the following year. Similar story for Tim Raines. If Raines can gain some traction in the 2011 vote, I can see him making a big push forward in the slower 2012 class, bringing him up over the 50% mark. With so many more years on the ballot in front of him, 2012 may be the year where he makes a strong enough of a move that he becomes a serious candidate. He will make it in eventually, yet, alas, so will Morris.
2013 will turn out to be the most controversial as both the greatest hitter, Bonds, and greatest pitcher, Clemens, (with all due respect to Maddux) of the past generation come up for induction, only to be ignored because of the PED allegations, and also the legal issues surrounding them. This ballot will really set off the steroid debate. It’s been easy so far as it’s been pretty much limited to McGwire. He’ll become yesterday’s news by 2013, since the ballot will include not only Clemens and Bonds, but Piazza and Sosa, as well holdovers Palmeiro, Bagwell and Juan Gonzalez. All of them either caught, admitted or suspect steroid users. BBWAA members who have so far held votes from McGwire will suddenly find themselves voting for players who in their heart strongly suspect took PEDs. I think that will forever change the voting moving forward. Piazza and Biggio get elected on their first shots. This is probably the year Morris gets elected.
2014 will see Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas and Bagwell are elected. (Of course I arranged this so Thomas and Bagwell go in together. Something cosmic happened on May 27, 1968, as two of the greatest first baseman ever were born. They entered the world together and the go into the Hall together.) Mussina and Kent will miss, but ultimately will make it in future ballots. (I don’t think it’s going to take Mussina that long. He’ll be helped by the election of Blyleven a couple years earlier, and the fact that he pitched in the A.L. during the steroid and DH eras.)
I can’t even guess what will happen to the likes of Clemens, Bonds, Palmeiro, Sosa, etc. There’s no reason to keep Sosa out because he’s never been caught, but he’s going to be punished for at least a few years.
August 20th, 2010 at 11:06 am
If Maddux doesn't get 100% I will kick the BBWAA in the face. I don't see how someone with "expert knowledge of the game" like they say they have can look at Maddux's career and say "I'm not going to vote for this man this year."
August 20th, 2010 at 11:14 am
@18, Hooplah -- Get your kicking shoes on. No player has ever been elected with 100% of the vote, and that includes greater players than Maddux. As great as he is, he's not the greatest player of all time, so what makes you think that certain members of the BBWAA will change their stripes and vote for him? There is always a few voters who believe that since no player has ever been elected with 100% of the vote, then no player should be elected with 100% of the vote, so they withhold their vote first time through. It's idiocy. Yet it's going to happen again...and again...and again.
August 20th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Just hoping logic will eventually be used, but I guess it's a tall order to expect that.
That whole "He's not the greatest player of all time and better players than him haven't received 100%" argument is sadly going to win out, most likely for a long long time.
Time to get the cleats...
August 20th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
jeez, that class of 14 could have four or five first time eligible!
maddux, thomas, glavine and mussina. Maybe even Kent. I can't remember ayear with more than two first timers!
August 20th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
100% argument.
Even Babe Ruth only got 95%.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
It just sucks now that a writer will not vote for someone (knowing that they deserve to be in there) because some writer in the past made the mistake of not voting for Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle or Ted Williams (guys who deserved 100%).
That's pretty much the central of point of my "Kick the BBWAA in the face" statement.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
@22
I understand the reasons why no one has ever be inducted at 100% and I don't expect that to change, but its still a bit childish.
It reminds me of the 1820 presidential election where James Monroe ran unopposed but one of New Hampshire's electors voted for John Quincy Adams just so it wasn't unanimous.
August 20th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
2012 - Blyleven finally
2013 - Schilling, Biggio,
2014 - Tim Raines, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine, (maybe) Mussina since he's a former Yankee
August 20th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
@ 15 "know people claim McGwire to be the first steroid tarnished player on the ballot, but I wouldn't vote for him--clean or dirty."
Well that doesn't make any damn sense. If you wouldn't vote for him because of steroids, fine. But not voting for him based on his career itself is dumb.
August 20th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Blyleven all others deserving of consideration have plenty of time.
August 20th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
right or wrong, as long as i can remember there's always been a distinction between first time eligible players and others, as in; "oh yeah, he should be in the Hall, but he ain't no first time ballot kinda guy".
Kind of a Hall within the Hall
August 20th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Rich @25, I think all the players you listed will ultimately make the Hall of Fame, but most not in the years selected, and there are others equally deserving (actually more so), such as that Maddux guy, to name one.
Glavine is not a maybe. He'll make it in his first year, along with that Maddux guy. I believe Mussina will make it one day, but it might take a couple years or so on the ballot.
Schilling will also probably make it one day, but he's also a bubble guy. Some high peak years, but weak on the cumulative stats side that many voters look at. Also, no Cy Young Awards, and while he had six All Star appearances, that's not all that spectacular coming from a player people are touting as an all-time HOF great who played for parts of twenty years. He only had nine seasons over 200 IP and double-digit wins. He had some high peak seasons, about three with the Phillies, two, maybe two-and-a-half with Arizona, and one with Boston. He had a lot of injuries, was poorly conditioned, and was taken to task by, of all people, Roger Clemens for not dedicating himself, which is why his career didn't hit full stride until he was thirty. He played for five different teams, which is a lot for a guy with only nine really productive seasons. There's also quite a few media members who view him as a boor. In other words, he won't be getting the good-guy vote that helped people like Kirby Puckett!
As said, I think he'll make it, but I'm just giving you the case on why there's no chance he'll be going in on his first year, or for a number years after.. It might take at least five to ten years of voting for him to move up the charts.
Question is which cap he'll go in wearing. Seems obvious when looking at the numbers. While he's remembered for a single Red Sox game, and he was at his best in Arizona, it'll be as a Philly. He established himself as a MLB player as a Philly, has nearly half his career wins as a Philly, had more than 50% of his career innings in Philadelphia, and had more good years as a Philly, even if they don't pop out as easily as his Arizona years. Even if we combined his Arizona and Boston years together, he still pitched more with the Phillies.
Probably not something we'll have to worry about until after 2020.
August 20th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Ironic that it turned out that Kirby was actually kind of a douche
August 20th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Also, remember Schilling had his first amazing WS start with the Phillies. Game 5 of 1993
August 20th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
True regarding Puckett. In retrospect, he wasn't quite the person the media made him out to be.
August 20th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Regarding Puckett, it seems as time passes more seem to question his election. One aspect of his game that I never hear mentioned, but was used by the anti-Jim Rice crowd when considering his case for the HOF, was his home/road splits. The Metrodome during his time was a total hitting factory. He was a creation of the Metrodome, possessing some of the most extreme home/road splits I've seen:
Home: .344 .388 .521 .909
Away .291 .331 .430 .761
HOF-created player in the Metrodome. Okay player on the road.
Puckett should not be a HOFer.
August 21st, 2010 at 8:42 am
Actually Rich, Game 5 in '93 was Schilling's second start. His first start was in Game 1, in which he gave up six runs - not so amazing...
August 21st, 2010 at 12:50 pm
@33
We have park factors. Every reader here looks at adjusted stats, so I can't see how you think its never taken into consideration. H/R splits exaggerate things as well because *everyone* plays better at home and you don't get any road games at your park either. Plus, if there's some weird quirk in your home park that you knew how to take advantage of better than anyone else, that adds value.
They both made it. Outside of Boston and Minnesota, I think the general agreement is that they're both "borderline" and could go either way (better players than them are not in an worse players than them are in).
One of them played CF, won two World Series and had his career cut short by a freakish eye condition. The other played LF/DH, lost two World Series and had his career cut short by bad knees. Are we really surprised that one of them had a much easier time getting inducted?
The main source of the after-the-fact complaints about Puckett was that he may have gotten some "intangibles" bonus for being such a great guy and an ambassador for the game. And it turned out he wasn't such a great guy.
August 21st, 2010 at 2:47 pm
@DavidRF: Being voted into the HOF in your 2nd year on the ballot (Puckett) vs. being voted in in your 5th year (Rice) doesn't qualify as "much easier." To me, there's obviously a difference, but it's not significant when you consider the guys who languish for 10-15 years, like Blyleven...
But what I've always wanted to know is why do only newspaper writers get to vote? Why not include broadcasters and other media members?
August 21st, 2010 at 3:05 pm
@36
Puckett was first ballot. Rice was 15th.
The newspaper writer rule was an anachronism. Back in the day, there were only newspaper writers. I think they've loosened the rules so that more people get votes.
August 21st, 2010 at 5:15 pm
DavidRF@35, I wasn't necessarily talking about people who visit Baseball Reference, although the boards here are not exactly the place that have the most in-depth discussions compared to some other sites. BR is used as a great reference resource, but most doing research don't post. On the positive side, most who do post here are not "fanboyish" by nature.
As for Puckett, his last season was in 1995, and when he was elected the debate would have been much less public than today, and general fans to more serious researchers wouldn't have had as easy access to information in the years leading up to his election, which was all but guaranteed. Yet it doesn't matter. If his vote came up today enough members of the BBWAA would do the same, giving him a bit of a sympathy vote, even if they denied it; they would project his stats ahead (something they're not supposed to do); and say what a nice guy he was (assuming some of his other personality traits were still unknown.) My point was that even today when Puckett is discussed his home/road splits aren't brought up as regularly as those who argue against Jim Rice's election, even though Puckett had a greater home/road split by one metric (-148 OPS+ split vs. -131) than Rice.
Statistics do show that players hit better at home (although not to the degree shown above), and I'm in the Bill James camp agreeing that we should give hitters (or pitchers) credit for taking advantage of their home parks. Not all players can do that. Yet I take it a step further to see if it's a case of a player being able to take advantage of his home park, or if his perceived greatness is a product of his home park. Using a Puckett contemporary, Don Mattingly (fine hitter, similar to Puckett, but not a HOFer, nor should he be) was able to hook more home runs to right field at home because he was a good hitter able to take advantage of his park. His home road splits both show a .300 hitter, who hit more HRs at home, although hit more doubles on the road. He had shows about 50 point increase in OPS+ at home. A reasonable swing. It reinforces that Mattingly was a solid hitter no matter where he played, and yet was also able to take advantage of his home park.
I get more concerned when I see a Dante Bichette-I'm-not-playing-in-Coors vs. I'm-playing-in-Coors level, 150-200 OPS+ swings. Yet even with that, if the player had a 900 OPS+ on the road and 1150 OPS+ at home, I’d recognize him as a great hitter regardless. Puckett was a nice ballplayer, but the 150+ swing down to the 750 range on the road suggests he was a bit overrated as a hitter. I think there’s a zero chance he'd sniff the HOF if didn't play half his games in Minnesota. He was a decent hitter made great by his park. Throw in all the other intangibles and we can understand why he was elected. I just don't agree with it. That's the fun of baseball and HOF voting!
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:19 am
i wish they would "accidentally" release who voted for who on the hall of fame ballot one year so we could all rise as one and slay the people who dont vote for the maddux and griffey types.