Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Running Down The Hall (Of Fame Ballot)


    Cody Christie

    The winds of change are blowing through the hallowed grounds of Cooperstown. Debate has swirled over which players, if any, from the steroids era should be elected. Mike Piazza was elected as part of the class of 2016 and there were steroid rumors surrounding him. Other top players from the steroid era, like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, have been forced to wait their turn.

    Within the last few months, it was announced that former MLB commissioner Bud Selig will be enshrined in Cooperstown. This is the man who oversaw the growth of baseball to the level that it is today. He also allowed the steroid era to continue longer than it should have gone on. If the architect of the steroid era is being let into the Hall, players of that culture will soon follow suit.

    Image courtesy of Eric Bolte, USA Today Sports

    Twins Video

    There needs to be a fine line drawn and each person is going to put that line in different spots. When baseball started testing/suspensions for steroids in 2005, players continued to break the rules. Rafael Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez broke the rules and won't be on this ballot or any future ballot.

    Here are the ten names I would pencil in if I had a ballot:

    Class of 2017

    Jeff Bagwell: It was close last year but Bagwell's 71.6% of the vote fell just short of the 75% needed for induction. There are some who have questioned his candidacy because he was a power hitter in the midst of the steroids era. Bagwell is tied with Ty Cobb for the third most seasons with a .420+OBP, .540+SLG, and 15+ stolen bases. Only Ed Delahanty and Barry Bonds are higher on the list.

    Tim Raines: Raines enters his tenth and final year on the ballot with a full head of steam. He finished last year with almost 70% of the vote and the ballots released so far this year show he should easily make it. He is one of the best lead-off hitters of all time. He's fifth in stolen bases, 13th in stolen base percentage and 46th in win probability added.

    Ivan Rodriguez: It took Mike Piazza, the best offensive catcher of all time, four tries to be elected to the Hall. With Piazza breaking down the door, it looks like Ivan Rodriguez will get to follow on his coat-tails. The 14-time All-Star won the AL MVP in 1999 and was NLCS MVP in 2003. He played more games at catcher than anyone in history and he has 13 Gold Gloves to show for all this time behind the plate.

    Future Inductions

    Vladimir Guerrero: Guerrero is an interesting case and I think voters will be more open to his election in the years to come. He was a career .318/.379/.553 hitter while ranking in the top five in the MVP voting four times including winning the 2004 AL MVP. His .318 average and 449 home runs have only been matched by Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, and Jimmie Foxx. That's some rare company.

    Trevor Hoffman: For a few seasons, he held the all-time record for career saves before being passed by Mariano Rivera. Even as a relief pitcher, he finished second in the Cy Young voting twice and had two other top six finishes. He was the first pitcher to reach 500 saves and one of two players to have reached the 600 save mark. Relief pitchers have a tough time getting in but he was a trailblazer at the position.

    May Never Get In (But Still On My Ballot)

    Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling

    Bonds and Clemens are two of the greatest players of all-time but the steroid cloud continues to haunt them. They are each making big jumps on the 2017 ballot so it will be interesting to see what will happen in the years to come. Martinez is one of the best designated hitters in history but the voters also seems to be holding his lack of defense against him.

    Mussina has been one of the last names on my ballot in each of the last two seasons. He was a good pitcher for a very long time but it might not be enough to find a place in Cooperstown. Schilling is losing votes very quickly. His outspoken nature since he has retired have hurt his chances. He is still one of the best post-season pitchers in history so I would put him on my ballot strictly for his play on the field.

    So who do you think gets in? Who else should have been on my ballot? Who should have been left off? Leave a COMMENT and start the discussion.

    Here is the official list of players available to be voted for by the BBWAA . Who makes your list?

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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 by Vanimal46
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

     

     

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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 ...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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 by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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 by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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.

    That depends on whether you include the 2003 "anonymous" testing done by MLB leading up to the Mitchell Report, which I do.  That survey was done with approval of MLB and the MLBPA.  Bonds appears on that list, along with the aforementioned Manny.  In my opinion, there's plenty of evidence to support the notion that he used them whether baseball punished him or not.

     

    I do agree with you on Schilling though.  I do tend to agree that anything done outside of the game should not necessarily be taken into account.  However, in Bonds' case, the 2003 list and other evidence and circumstances is enough for me.  If it isn't for you, I find that to be reasonable. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...