Article: Running Down The Hall (Of Fame Ballot)

[Willihammer]

Mussina has already been punished by the Win stat. The 2001 Cy Young vote is exhibit A. More IP and lower ERA than Clemens, his teammate. But Clemens had 20 wins to Mussina's 17 and got 122 Cy Young votes. Mussina got 2.

 

In 1992 he was screwed by the save. Mussina managed a 2.54 ERA pitching in the bandbox of Camden. But he only had 18 wins and Dennis Eckersley had 51 saves in 80 IP.

 

I am always amazed by how people remember Mussina. In my mind he was Halladay before Halladay. Quietly putting together huge seasons in a tough home park in a tough division with an arsenal of differently moving pitches and excellent command. Seems like when he faced the Twins you could book him for 8 IP and 2 ER.

[biggentleben]

I'm always curious how many people have been to the Hall. It is fairly difficult to argue the inclusion/exclusion stuff in the same light once you've been there and found that Barry Bonds is displayed more often and more prominently than his own godfather. The biggest display when I visited of any single player (outside of Hank Aaron, because it was the anniversary of 715) was a roughly 8' tall Pete Rose diving head first into a bag. Roger Clemens was in multiple places in the museum. Yet, when I visited, Harmon Killebrew, Warren Spahn, and Jimmie Foxx were only displayed on their plaques, which are essentially displayed in an elaborate walk-in closet that my wife walked right past and into the gift shop, not paying any mind to the plaques, which tells you just how they appear to the natural flow of the rest of the museum.

 

Yet we spend hours typing up and researching hard core arguments about why someone should or should not have a plaque in a closet...Bonds, Clemens, Rose, Shoeless Joe, they're all on display in the Hall no matter the rotation of the Hall. Heck, McGwire and Sosa figure prominently as well, and I'm sure in 2018, they'll be featured quite a bit, whether or not they have a plaque.

[Vanimal46]

 

Mussina has already been punished by the Win stat. The 2001 Cy Young vote is exhibit A. More IP and lower ERA than Clemens, his teammate. But Clemens had 20 wins to Mussina's 17 and got 122 Cy Young votes. Mussina got 2.

 

In 1992 he was screwed by the save. Mussina managed a 2.54 ERA pitching in the bandbox of Camden. But he only had 18 wins and Dennis Eckersley had 51 saves in 80 IP.

 

I am always amazed by how people remember Mussina. In my mind he was Halladay before Halladay. Quietly putting together huge seasons in a tough home park in a tough division with an arsenal of differently moving pitches and excellent command. Seems like when he faced the Twins you could book him for 8 IP and 2 ER.

 

Yep, I 'member.... He was one of the original Twins killers. 22-6 career record against them (!) with a 3.09 ERA in 230 IP. In fact, his record against the Twins is the best in his career, with the exception of a couple SSS where he only started against an NL team 1-4 times. 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Vanimal46

[TheLeviathan]

Mussina and Radke always struck me as similar in the sense that they were underrated just by virtue of where they played.   People didn't appreciate how good they were because they played in low limelight.  Mussina was much better than Radke, but I got a similar vibe.

 

I'd vote Mussina in personally.  The guy was tough as hell.

[bluechipper]

How can people include Bonds and Clemens, and then leave off Rafael Palmeiro? The guy had 569 HRs and 3020 hits. The hypocrisy with people who think steroid users should be in is pretty bad.

 

Steroid users would not be on my ballot.

[biggentleben]

 

How can people include Bonds and Clemens, and then leave off Rafael Palmeiro? The guy had 569 HRs and 3020 hits. The hypocrisy with people who think steroid users should be in is pretty bad.

 

Steroid users would not be on my ballot.

 

Palmeiro isn't on the ballot.

[bluechipper]

 

Palmeiro isn't on the ballot.

Oh my bad. He's been off the ballot for 2 years now. How do the steroid voters not vote for him, with his numbers, and then vote for the other steroid guys? He was at 4.4%, which dropped him off. Still seems hypocritical to me.

[Vanimal46]

 

Oh my bad. He's been off the ballot for 2 years now. How do the steroid voters not vote for him, with his numbers, and then vote for the other steroid guys? He was at 4.4%, which dropped him off. Still seems hypocritical to me.

Palmeiro falling off was a result of the old, curmudgeon HOF voters who are no longer on the voting committee. This year with the new staff of voters, PED era players are getting their fair shot.

I'm 100% on board to elect Bonds, Clemens, and others from that era.  

[Thrylos]

 

 

 

 

Yet we spend hours typing up and researching hard core arguments about why someone should or should not have a plaque in a closet..

 

Here is the thing:  This "plaque in a closet" provides additional income for former players.  Someone like Tim Raines could double or triple his income because of that plaque.  As long as there are people collecting Hall of Famer memorabilia and autographs, it matters.

[jimmer]

I don't necessarily have an issue with the idea Palmeiro deserved to get in, some interesting info that makes me think others who still aren't in are more deserving:

 

OPS+

 

Palmeiro: 132

Larry Walker: 141

E Martinez: 147

Sheffield: 140

Manny Ramirez: 154

 

 

and from Today's Fangraphs chat:

 

Pud Galvin: Many voters are ok with voting for suspected PED users into the HOF, but nobody is clamoring for Raffy Palmeiro to get in. Why is that? He’s the best batter not named Bonds or Bagwell not in the HOF and has a better case than all non-Bonds/Bagwell/pitcher currently on the ballot. What’s up with that?

Dave Cameron: You are wildly overrating Rafael Palmeiro

Dave Cameron: He has a career 130 wRC+. Edgar Martinez is at 147. Larry Walker is at 140. Sheffield is 141. Manny Ramirez is 153.

[Pius Jefferson]

My favorite part of the off-season.

 

With more ballots coming in it's looking less like a sure thing for Pudge. His percentage is dropping and you still have the group ballots and private ballots and neither is usually beneficial to a candidate.

 

Vlad is at 75.4% and being a first year guy it's hard to guess about the private voters. I'd air on the side of pessimism and he just missed this year.

 

Trevor Hoffman was one of the exceptions and did better with the private votes. He's currently at 73,1%. If his public numbers stay the same and the private percentage is similar to last year than he'd get in.

[Pius Jefferson]

1) Jeff Bagwell 2) Tim Raines 3) Edgar Martinez 4) Mike Mussina 5) Curt Schilling 6) Vlad Guerrero 7) Ivan Rodriguez 8) Trevor Hoffman 9) Roger Clemens 10) Barry Bonds

 

Numbers don't mean anything other than Clemens and Bonds being my last two choices.

[Steve J]

 

Walker's road OPS is better than Rice's lifetime overall OPS.

And OPS+ factors in ballpark and take into account where a player ranked during his playing time. Walker sits at 141 OPS+ (15th overall for RFs), Rice OPS+ was 128.

And Walker was a great defender and very good on the bases too.

 

 

and hilarious. 

 

 

One of my all time personal favorite players.

[gunnarthor]

I'm in the minority and don't think Raines should be in the HOF - not enough HOF seasons.  

 

I'd vote for (in no particular order) Pudge, Vlad, Moose, Martinez, Schilling, McGriff, Kent, Walker, Hoffman and Smith.  I don't really like relievers in the HOF and Hoffman and Wagner are pretty similar but we're voting them in, so I guess he should get in.  As for Smith, I never thought he should be in but I read a nice little bio of him on Joe Posnanski's site and thought, what the hell, my vote doesn't really count anyway.

[savvyspy]

I am probably in the "small hall" camp.

 

I have never bought that steroids are the reason Bonds is just a hair below Babe Ruth as the best player ever but I understand I may not ever win that argument.

 

Both Larry Walker and Vlad are superior to Raines. Honestly Raines was only elite for 5 seasons which sounds to me a lot like Joe Mauer. Raines was not close defensively to Walker or Vlad either. Both won multiple gold gloves and have positive career defensive WAR. Raines does not. He was average defensively at best. He was one of my favorite players as a kid but I just don't see that his career warrants the HOF.

 

I would vote for:

Bonds

Clemens

Mussina

E. Martinez

Palmiero

 

1st 5 Out

Sheffield

Schilling

Vlad

Hoffman

L. Walker

 

 

[gunnarthor]

 

I am probably in the "small hall" camp.

 

I have never bought that steroids are the reason Bonds is just a hair below Babe Ruth as the best player ever but I understand I may not ever win that argument.

 

Both Larry Walker and Vlad are superior to Raines. Honestly Raines was only elite for 5 seasons which sounds to me a lot like Joe Mauer. Raines was not close defensively to Walker or Vlad either. 

 

 

Raines has really had a heck of an internet push that others probably should have had.  Raines argument is the old compiler argument but instead of wins we're using WAR without context of # of seasons it took to amass it.  Andre Dawson, who people tried to keep out, had a better peak.  Raines had fewer 4 WAR seasons (while playing in more seasons) than, among others Jack Morris, Dawson, McGriff, Brad Radke, Bernie Williams, Kenny Lofton, Ian Kinsler ...

[jimmer]

Per Fangraphs WAR

 

Jack Morris had 7 seasons with 4 or more WAR, Raines only had 6.  

Jack Morris had one season with a WAR above 5.0, Raines had 6.

Jack Morris had one season with a WAR above 6, Raines had 5. .

Jack Morris peak WAR was 6.2, topped by Raines 3 times.

Jack Morris had zero sseasons with 7 or more WAR, Raines had 1.

 

Dawson accumulated 7 less WAR than Raines even though he had more plate appearances than Raines (almost a seasons worth more PAs).  Raines' peak was longer and better.

 

McGriff and Raines had the same amount of season with 4 or more (6), but McGriff only had 4 above 5 and two above 6.  As stated above in the Morris compariaon, Raines bests that.

 

Radke had less seasons than Raines with 4 or more WAR, not more than Raines had.

 

And so on, and so forth.

 

Still not sure he belongs in though.  He's a tough call (with his strong OBP and speed while having less power than one wants from a corner OF).  He is  a stronger candidate than some already in (Rice, for eexample) and certainly stronger than some compare him to.

Edited January 11, 2017 by jimmer

[Thrylos]

 

Raines has really had a heck of an internet push that others probably should have had.  Raines argument is the old compiler argument but instead of wins we're using WAR without context of # of seasons it took to amass it.  Andre Dawson, who people tried to keep out, had a better peak.  Raines had fewer 4 WAR seasons (while playing in more seasons) than, among others Jack Morris, Dawson, McGriff, Brad Radke, Bernie Williams, Kenny Lofton, Ian Kinsler ...

 

4 WAR is pretty artificially low.  45 hitters and 15 pitchers had 4.0 WAR or better in 2016.  Bet you that only few of them will be HOF worthy.

 

Raines' peak WAR (fWAR) :

 

1983 6.0
1984 6.7
1985 7.2
1986 6.0

1987 6.7

 

for comparison here is a HOF outfielder's contemporary to Raines' best 5 consecutive years:

 

1988 7.1
1989 4.7
1990 2.4
1991 3.8
1992 5.9

 

And Andre Dawson's best consecutive 5 seasons:

 

1979 3.7
1980 6.0
1981 6.7
1982 7.3
1983 6.5

 

So comparing apples to apples Raines' peak is better that both Andre Dawson's and Kirby Puckett's (whose numbers are above Dawson's) who are in the hall of fame. Bernie Williams has a single season about 6 WAR, Kenny Lofton 2.  Apples with Apples.

[gunnarthor]

 

Per Fangraphs WAR

 

Jack Morris had 7 seasons with 4 or more WAR, Raines only had 6.  

Jack Morris had one season with a WAR above 5.0, Raines had 6.

Jack Morris had one season with a WAR above 6, Raines had 5. .

Jack Morris peak WAR was 6.2, topped by Raines 3 times.

Jack Morris had zero sseasons with 7 or more WAR, Raines had 1.

 

Dawson accumulated 7 less WAR than Raines even though he had more plate appearances than Raines (almost a seasons worth more PAs).  Raines' peak was longer and better.

 

McGriff and Raines had the same amount of season with 4 or more (6), but McGriff only had 4 above 5 and two above 6.  As stated above in the Morris compariaon, Raines bests that.

 

Radke had less seasons than Raines with 4 or more WAR, not more than Raines had.

 

And so on, and so forth.

 

Still not sure he belongs in though.  He's a tough call (with his strong OBP and speed while having less power than one wants from a corner OF).  He is  a stronger candidate than some already in (Rice, for eexample) and certainly stronger than some compare him to.

A few points.  First, Raines peak (83-87) was better than most of these guys but that becomes a question of what do you want in your HOF?  If you just want a 5 year peak than guys like Raines, Mauer, Utley, Hernandez are HOFers. I think you should have more.  I used 4 WAR because I think 4 WAR is a good shorthand for a HOF season (considering Rainers supporters like WAR).  Torii Hunter was an excellent player.  He played 17 seasons, has over 2400 hits, 9600 AB, 110 OPS+.  Damn good career.  In those 17 seasons he topped 3 WAR 12 times but only topped 4 WAR 4 times.  So I think 4 WAR is a nice dividing line for a HOF season.  Others may differ.  But I don't like the compiler argument - Raines has X WAR so he's a HOFer.  I think the argument should be a player had X number of HOF seasons. How to you count a HOF season?  Lots of ways but 4 WAR is a good shorthand.  Raines had 6 HOF seasons.  Now, those six, by WAR, were very high level HOF seasons so if you want to give him extra credit, fine.  Neither of us has a vote.  But his peak isn't that unusual.

 

Dawson and Raines peaks, by WAR were actually pretty close.  Dawson has a lead over a 10 year period and they are tied for 12 year period (both got 57 WAR in 12 years).  Raines was slightly better at the end, and didn't have the cliff that Dawson did.  But considering the inaccuracies of WAR, the two are essentially tied after 10000 PA with Dawson having a slightly better peak and more HOF (4 WAR seasons) in fewer seasons.  

 

McGriff had 7 seasons, he was traded in 93 but I was wrong with Radke, he and Raines both had 6 seasons of 4+ WAR (although that accounts for 50% of Radke's career).  

 

At the end of the day, Raines is getting into the HOF because of his run from 83-87.  After 87, he only had one more season where he finished in the top 10 in OBP.  His offensive decline was hidden by playing in the offensive explosion of the 90s.  For five years he played like an absolute HOFer but a lot of players have done that.  (And, in fairness to him, the strike cost him a lot in 81 where he may have had another HOF season and I might be overly valuing his decline years and not recognizing the really strong years).  I don't dislike Raines in the HOF - the 80s have been ignored a lot and not enough players from that era are in but I wouldn't vote for him.  

[gunnarthor]

 

4 WAR is pretty artificially low.  45 hitters and 15 pitchers had 4.0 WAR or better in 2016.  Bet you that only few of them will be HOF worthy.

 

Raines' peak WAR (fWAR) :

 

1983 6.0
1984 6.7
1985 7.2
1986 6.0

1987 6.7

 

for comparison here is a HOF outfielder's contemporary to Raines' best 5 consecutive years:

 

1988 7.1
1989 4.7
1990 2.4
1991 3.8
1992 5.9

 

And Andre Dawson's best consecutive 5 seasons:

 

1979 3.7
1980 6.0
1981 6.7
1982 7.3
1983 6.5

 

So comparing apples to apples Raines' peak is better that both Andre Dawson's and Kirby Puckett's (whose numbers are above Dawson's) who are in the hall of fame. Bernie Williams has a single season about 6 WAR, Kenny Lofton 2.  Apples with Apples.

Yeah, I don't disagree but WAR isn't an ideal stat in the first place so I'm not really overly concerned with going with 4 WAR (and the margin of error in WAR might make it moot).  I'm a big hall guy so there's a lot of ways I would consider a season a "HOF season" but I just used WAR for Raines b/c his supporters tend to think very highly of that stat.  My problem with Raines is that his high level of play basically ended in 1987 and after that he went from HOF caliber player to just solid player.  I think he needs more HOF seasons. 

 

It is of course a moot point since he'll get elected this year but I think that's a victory for compiling over seasons.

[biggentleben]

After transcribing over 50,000 words of interviews for the piece, my final version of my look into what happened to offense in the "steroid era":

 

https://calltothepen.com/2017/01/17/mlb-exactly-happened-offense-1990s/

[Vanimal46]

It's articles like this that make me hate HOF voters. Bill Livingston from the Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote a grandstanding article and refuses to vote for anyone. 

"I'm not voting again until baseball decides what to do about the elephant in the room, the so-called steroid era.

It was a confusing, controversial decade or so of rampant drug abuse, which has been ignored by the straw men in charge of the game. Clearly they, like many baseball writers, simply wish it would go away.

But it won't."

I don't know Bill, you're a grown man. Maybe you can make that decision for yourself. 

It shouldn't bother me so much, but I can't stand old, curmudgeon sports writers that make it about themselves instead of the players being elected into the HOF.  

[biggentleben]

The worst part is that people like that send in a blank ballot and skew the percentages...

[biggentleben]

Good news is that many of those types are losing their votes each year.

[Vanimal46]

 

Good news is that many of those types are losing their votes each year.

Let's hope old Billy is the next one to lose his privilege of being able to vote. He seems like a person who feels he has this other-worldly POWER and to make sure it's only used for good. God forbid society collapses because someone from the steroid era makes it in. 

[jimmer]

 

The worst part is that people like that send in a blank ballot and skew the percentages...

Exactly this.  Don't want to vote? Remove yourself completely from the process. Guys like this and Chass need to just stop.

 

But people are talking about guys like this, which is what I believe they are really striving for.

Edited January 17, 2017 by jimmer

[Vanimal46]

 

Exactly this.  Don't want to vote? Remove yourself completely from the process. Guys like this and Chass need to just stop.

 

But people are talking about guys like this, which is what I believe they are really striving for.

Yes. Clearly this guy will never have an open mind about any of these players coming up for consideration. Revoke his privilege and move on. 

[Cody Christie]

The HOF announcement is tonight. Who's getting in? 

 

It looks like Bagwell and Raines will be locks. Pudge, Hoffman, and Vlad all have a shot.

[wsnydes]

My take on Bonds has been that he was a legit HoF player before it is believed that his PED use started.  However, the actual use of PEDs violates the integrity clause in my view.  That's the reason that I'm against known users being inducted.  

 

I like the small hall stance.  I think other major sport HoF tend to be too inclusive diminishing the honor, in my opinion.  As such, I'd vote for in no particular order Bagwell, Vlad, Raines, and Walker.  I'm very torn on Hoffman and Martinez but would put them on my ballot.  Closers and DH are legitimate positions and they were clearly dominant at those positions.  

[biggentleben]

 

My take on Bonds has been that he was a legit HoF player before it is believed that his PED use started.  However, the actual use of PEDs violates the integrity clause in my view.  That's the reason that I'm against known users being inducted.  

 

I like the small hall stance.  I think other major sport HoF tend to be too inclusive diminishing the honor, in my opinion.  As such, I'd vote for in no particular order Bagwell, Vlad, Raines, and Walker.  I'm very torn on Hoffman and Martinez but would put them on my ballot.  Closers and DH are legitimate positions and they were clearly dominant at those positions.  

 

Bonds never failed a test. What he has said/done outside of the game, just like Schilling (as little respect as I have for his political stances), should have no bearing on his candidacy. If he was found guilty by the game, and he was in the game while testing was around, then there'd be something to claim, like with Manny, but that stance with Bonds also falls short as well.