Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   Baseball Hall of Fame research expert with an .806 prediction average reveals who is getting in this year   (deadspin.com) divider line 74
    More: Interesting, Baseball Hall of Fame, Mike Mussina, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, HOF, predictions  
•       •       •

1662 clicks; posted to Sports » on 18 Dec 2013 at 3:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-12-18 03:37:41 AM  
FTA: "But this is a fairly realistic-sounding worst-case scenario for the Hall: The single most stacked ballot that's ever existed, and everyone save one comes up short."

Oh my, hell no, wrong 100x over.  See the very recent class of Nolan Ryan, George Brett, and Robin Yount to see what a stacked year looks like.  The fact that Mike Mussina (or the one now called "one of the best pitchers of his generation"???) is in this article about FIRST BALLOT NOMINEES indicates that it is crap.  Baseball History 101.  Take it, junior.
 
2013-12-18 03:52:18 AM  
I see Glavine getting in along with Maddux at the very least.
 
2013-12-18 03:58:10 AM  
Frank Thomas (two MVPs, 521 homers, .301 batting average)
Tom Glavine (two Cy Youngs, 305 wins)
Historically these guys qualify.
Is the Hall broken?
 
2013-12-18 04:24:06 AM  

red5ish: Frank Thomas (two MVPs, 521 homers, .301 batting average)
Tom Glavine (two Cy Youngs, 305 wins)
Historically these guys qualify.
Is the Hall broken?


Voters and writers are butthurt over the perceived steroid era and everyone is guilty.
 
2013-12-18 06:00:42 AM  

Solid State Vittles: FTA: "But this is a fairly realistic-sounding worst-case scenario for the Hall: The single most stacked ballot that's ever existed, and everyone save one comes up short."

Oh my, hell no, wrong 100x over.  See the very recent class of Nolan Ryan, George Brett, and Robin Yount to see what a stacked year looks like.  The fact that Mike Mussina (or the one now called "one of the best pitchers of his generation"???) is in this article about FIRST BALLOT NOMINEES indicates that it is crap.  Baseball History 101.  Take it, junior.


Deadspin is garbage, but you might think about taking that class yourself.  Your three does not trump a trio of Maddux, Glavine and Thomas.  And Nolan Ryan is the most over-rated player in the history of the game.
 
2013-12-18 06:27:21 AM  

Solid State Vittles: FTA: "But this is a fairly realistic-sounding worst-case scenario for the Hall: The single most stacked ballot that's ever existed, and everyone save one comes up short."

Oh my, hell no, wrong 100x over.  See the very recent class of Nolan Ryan, George Brett, and Robin Yount to see what a stacked year looks like.  The fact that Mike Mussina (or the one now called "one of the best pitchers of his generation"???) is in this article about FIRST BALLOT NOMINEES indicates that it is crap.  Baseball History 101.  Take it, junior.


If we were to ignore the context and simply look at the numbers of the guys on the ballot, there's reason to believe that this year is one of the most stacked ever... possibly the most. If we were to ignore context, you have arguably the greatest statistical hitter that ever played (Bonds, tops in HRs, BBs, IBBs with a great AVG and good stolen base totals to boot) and the greatest statistical pitcher to have ever played (Roger Clemens is the career leader in pitching WAR for Fangraphs, 3rd by Baseball-Reference). There are 3 guys who hit over 60 home runs in a single season on the ballot. You have 3 pitchers with 300 wins or more to their name. You have 4 hitters with over 500 career home runs, 2 with 3000 hits (and Palmiero is on both of those lists, and STILL won't be getting in). You have the greatest offensive catcher of all time.

If we were ignoring all of the PED stuff, this would be a ridiculously loaded ballot. Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, Thomas, McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Biggio, and Piazza would all be LOCKS if not for the era they played in (and, in some cases, the distinct suspicion of PED use around them). That's not even including guys who would normally be getting some discussion and would likely get in during a leaner year; like Schilling, Bagwell, Mussina, Kent and Crime Dog.

The only reason you'd think it isn't stacked is because you mentally eliminate half of the guys for PED suspicion (McGwire, Clemens, Bonds, Palmiero and Sosa being the most obvious).

And the fact that Mussina is on the list means nothing. Every hall of fame ballot has some laughable additions to it. Did you know that someone once cast a vote for David Segui? It's not just that he was on the ballot... HE GOT A VOTE!
 
2013-12-18 07:24:08 AM  
And Jack Morris was possibly the best pitcher of his era, and won't go in.
 
2013-12-18 07:46:41 AM  

skeeterjennings: And Nolan Ryan is the most over-rated player in the history of the game.


That's a mighty interesting claim. Would you care to elaborate? I'm honestly interested because that's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that.
 
2013-12-18 07:51:39 AM  
The balloting is broken. Everyone knows that. Hell, Deadspin has bought a vote. If Glavine and Maddux (and possibly Thomas) don't get in, then the entire process needs to be nuked from orbit.

red5ish: Tom Glavine (two Cy Youngs, 305 wins)


Add to that World Series MVP and he is also probably the last pitcher to get 300 wins
 
2013-12-18 07:55:56 AM  

Frederick: red5ish: Frank Thomas (two MVPs, 521 homers, .301 batting average)
Tom Glavine (two Cy Youngs, 305 wins)
Historically these guys qualify.
Is the Hall broken?

Voters and writers are butthurt over the perceived steroid era and everyone is guilty.


As much as I'm a 90s Braves Apologist, I can understand the knock on Glavine.  He's a sub-.500 pitcher in the postseason.  He lost all four games against the Pirates in those two great NLCS series (1991 & 1992).  He's a worse pitcher in the NCLS than the World Series, though - his NLCS ERA is 3.22; WS is a very respectable 2.16.

Despite being lackluster in the playoffs, he should be in the HoF.  I think he'll make it on the second ballot, though it will be a shame if Maddux and Glavine don't get in at the same time.  Because "Chicks Dig The Long Ball" is the most beautiful and succinct (and in hindsight, most hilariously ironic) summation of 1990s baseball.

/Eventually, Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, Chipper, and Bobby will be in the Hall together - not bad for a team despite only snagging one trophy.
//I really, truly hope that Bobby goes on a profanity-laden rant during his induction speech, so that an MLB official has to throw him out of his own ceremony.
 
2013-12-18 08:12:07 AM  

UNC_Samurai: //I really, truly hope that Bobby goes on a profanity-laden rant during his induction speech, so that an MLB official has to throw him out of his own ceremony.


Have Angel Hernandez do that. Hell, I'll pay for his room and board if he would show up.
 
2013-12-18 08:12:29 AM  

red5ish: Frank Thomas (two MVPs, 521 homers, .301 batting average)
Tom Glavine (two Cy Youngs, 305 wins)
Historically these guys qualify.
Is the Hall broken?


Glavine will undoubtedly get in at some point. There are just some old curmudgeons who believe that NO ONE should get in his first year on the ballot. Unfortunately, some of those old curmudgeons are members of the BBWA and vote.
 
2013-12-18 08:29:24 AM  

Nabb1: Glavine will undoubtedly get in at some point. There are just some old curmudgeons who believe that NO ONE should get in his first year on the ballot. Unfortunately, some of those old curmudgeons are members of the BBWA and vote.


Baseball's history is its greatest asset and biggest hindrance.  You get all the wonderful imagery and pageantry that makes the sport an impressive subject for a Ken Burns documentary.  But you also get people with sticks up their asses.  You get people that fight tooth and nail against instant replay.  And you get writers that develop a self-righteous delusion of adequacy, as if they are supposed to be the anointed gatekeepers to the Kingdom of Baseball History and Culture.  I'm sure it turns a few people off from being more than casual fans.

/I would also like to point out that out of all of the staff, volunteers, and members of the board of directors, I am one of three people under the age of 50.  One runs the main facility for the city's recreation department, the second is the general manager for the local team, and I'm the one guy who knows how a museum is supposed to work.  Everyone else is retired or close to retirement.  As I said in the other thread, the sport has a lot of ground to make up with young people.  I still see plenty of kids playing the sport, but they don't seem to be turning into baseball fans.
 
2013-12-18 08:48:25 AM  
.806 prediction average

Okay, but what's his PAAR (prediction average above replacement)?
 
2013-12-18 08:51:39 AM  

Arkanaut: .806 prediction average

Okay, but what's his PAAR (prediction average above replacement)?


I laughed at that a lot harder than I probably should have.
 
2013-12-18 08:55:08 AM  
I don't get it. If the Steroid Era players are so toxic, shouldn't the pitchers who succeeded in that era be even more highly revered? The whole Braves pitching roster from the 90s should likely be inducted. And I say that as a fan of the Reds, who as well know, did not discover pitching until the late 00's.
 
2013-12-18 09:08:59 AM  

EyeballKid: I don't get it. If the Steroid Era players are so toxic, shouldn't the pitchers who succeeded in that era be even more highly revered? The whole Braves pitching roster from the 90s should likely be inducted. And I say that as a fan of the Reds, who as well know, did not discover pitching until the late 00's.


They had a lights out bullpen in the late 80's/early 90's. Are you too young to remember the Nasty Boys?
 
2013-12-18 09:15:39 AM  

EyeballKid: I don't get it. If the Steroid Era players are so toxic, shouldn't the pitchers who succeeded in that era be even more highly revered? The whole Braves pitching roster from the 90s should likely be inducted. And I say that as a fan of the Reds, who as well know, did not discover pitching until the late 00's.


Uh, pitchers did steroids too.
 
2013-12-18 09:15:46 AM  
When is Smoltz due to be on the ballot?
 
2013-12-18 09:17:27 AM  
It'll be a farking joke if Thomas doesn't get in first ballot.
 
2013-12-18 09:18:52 AM  

Dinobot: And Jack Morris was possibly the best pitcher of his era, and won't go in.


Jack Morris had a 3.90 era, a 1.296 WHIP, and a 5.8 k/9.

He was a slightly better than average pitcher who pitched for good teams, pitched for a long time, and came up big in big spots.
 
2013-12-18 09:20:44 AM  

Dafatone: Dinobot: And Jack Morris was possibly the best pitcher of his era, and won't go in.

Jack Morris had a 3.90 era, a 1.296 WHIP, and a 5.8 k/9.

He was a slightly better than average pitcher who pitched for good teams, pitched for a long time, and came up big in big spots.


Still possibly the best of his contemporaries.
 
2013-12-18 09:21:45 AM  

Dafatone: Dinobot: And Jack Morris was possibly the best pitcher of his era, and won't go in.

Jack Morris had a 3.90 era, a 1.296 WHIP, and a 5.8 k/9.

He was a slightly better than average pitcher who pitched for good teams, pitched for a long time, and came up big in big spots.


Just to keep harping on this...

Frank Tanana's name came up in my mind as a sort of joke, so I looked him up.

Turns out Tanana WAS better than Morris.  Better ERA, better WHIP, more k/9, more innings for his career, more strikeouts, better WAR.  Name a stat, Tanana was better.  Except winning percentage.  Which remains a terrible way to measure a pitcher.
 
2013-12-18 09:23:12 AM  

Dinobot: When is Smoltz due to be on the ballot?


Next year, IIRC
 
2013-12-18 09:23:28 AM  

srhp29: I see Glavine getting in along with Maddux at the very least.


Proving once and for all that the Braves were the team of the 90s.  Screw you, Steinbrenner.
 
2013-12-18 09:26:42 AM  
After decades of talking about how a 300 game winner is going extinct and pitch counts, injuries, relievers, and money will cause pitchers to fall short...one of the last 300 game winners, two time cy young, ws MVP will not be a first ballot hall of famer?

The retards not voting for him are the same retards writing about how amazing the accomplishment was in the old days.
 
2013-12-18 09:41:53 AM  

bulldg4life: After decades of talking about how a 300 game winner is going extinct and pitch counts, injuries, relievers, and money will cause pitchers to fall short...one of the last 300 game winners, two time cy young, ws MVP will not be a first ballot hall of famer?

The retards not voting for him are the same retards writing about how amazing the accomplishment was in the old days.


Yeah, he has the numbers, but he wasn't "dominant" enough.  I mean, Glavine's stuff looked very hittable.  That's just not HoF material.

/yes, this is how dumb it sounds when people whine that certain pitchers aren't "dominant."
 
2013-12-18 09:50:30 AM  

Dafatone: bulldg4life: After decades of talking about how a 300 game winner is going extinct and pitch counts, injuries, relievers, and money will cause pitchers to fall short...one of the last 300 game winners, two time cy young, ws MVP will not be a first ballot hall of famer?

The retards not voting for him are the same retards writing about how amazing the accomplishment was in the old days.

Yeah, he has the numbers, but he wasn't "dominant" enough.  I mean, Glavine's stuff looked very hittable.  That's just not HoF material.

/yes, this is how dumb it sounds when people whine that certain pitchers aren't "dominant."


Not dominant? Go re-watch Game Six. I can only think of a handful of better performances in the World Series.
 
2013-12-18 09:51:20 AM  

bluorangefyre: srhp29: I see Glavine getting in along with Maddux at the very least.

Proving once and for all that the Braves were the team of the 90s.  Screw you, Steinbrenner.


Ha, I remember that.

"Hey, we won one championship and its 1995! Surely nobody else will top that!"
 
2013-12-18 10:31:36 AM  
Jack Morris has zero credibility for the hall of fame except for old timey farts who want to stick it to the sabermetric crowd
 
2013-12-18 10:49:00 AM  

Dinobot: Dafatone: Dinobot: And Jack Morris was possibly the best pitcher of his era, and won't go in.

Jack Morris had a 3.90 era, a 1.296 WHIP, and a 5.8 k/9.

He was a slightly better than average pitcher who pitched for good teams, pitched for a long time, and came up big in big spots.

Still possibly the best of his contemporaries.


Dave Stieb,
 
2013-12-18 10:53:31 AM  

ladodger34: Dinobot: Dafatone: Dinobot: And Jack Morris was possibly the best pitcher of his era, and won't go in.

Jack Morris had a 3.90 era, a 1.296 WHIP, and a 5.8 k/9.

He was a slightly better than average pitcher who pitched for good teams, pitched for a long time, and came up big in big spots.

Still possibly the best of his contemporaries.

Dave Stieb,


I hit the add comment button by accident, but there are a bunch of pitchers from the 80s that were better.

Dave Stieb, Orel Hershisher, and Doc Gooden were all better pitchers than Morris.
 
2013-12-18 10:57:19 AM  

lacydog: Solid State Vittles: FTA: "But this is a fairly realistic-sounding worst-case scenario for the Hall: The single most stacked ballot that's ever existed, and everyone save one comes up short."

Oh my, hell no, wrong 100x over.  See the very recent class of Nolan Ryan, George Brett, and Robin Yount to see what a stacked year looks like.  The fact that Mike Mussina (or the one now called "one of the best pitchers of his generation"???) is in this article about FIRST BALLOT NOMINEES indicates that it is crap.  Baseball History 101.  Take it, junior.

If we were to ignore the context and simply look at the numbers of the guys on the ballot, there's reason to believe that this year is one of the most stacked ever... possibly the most. If we were to ignore context, you have arguably the greatest statistical hitter that ever played (Bonds, tops in HRs, BBs, IBBs with a great AVG and good stolen base totals to boot) and the greatest statistical pitcher to have ever played (Roger Clemens is the career leader in pitching WAR for Fangraphs, 3rd by Baseball-Reference). There are 3 guys who hit over 60 home runs in a single season on the ballot. You have 3 pitchers with 300 wins or more to their name. You have 4 hitters with over 500 career home runs, 2 with 3000 hits (and Palmiero is on both of those lists, and STILL won't be getting in). You have the greatest offensive catcher of all time.

If we were ignoring all of the PED stuff, this would be a ridiculously loaded ballot. Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, Thomas, McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Biggio, and Piazza would all be LOCKS if not for the era they played in (and, in some cases, the distinct suspicion of PED use around them). That's not even including guys who would normally be getting some discussion and would likely get in during a leaner year; like Schilling, Bagwell, Mussina, Kent and Crime Dog.


True, although if we were ignoring all of the PED stuff then a good number of them would have been in the HOF by now. The quality in this particular year is just inflated by a huge backlog of people who have been denied.

lacydog: And the fact that Mussina is on the list means nothing. Every hall of fame ballot has some laughable additions to it. Did you know that someone once cast a vote for David Segui? It's not just that he was on the ballot... HE GOT A VOTE!


Ain't nothing laughable about Mussina's candidacy. He had a stellar career, but his chances suffer because he had the misfortune of playing in an era that, despite being known for offense, produced some of the most dominant pitchers in history (Maddux, Clemens, Martinez, Johnson, Rivera) and several more solid HOFers.
 
2013-12-18 10:59:38 AM  
I love debates on HOF candidacies but Jack Morris is not an interesting debate. He doesn't deserve to get in, he's not going to get in, knowledgeable people don't think he's worthy of getting in, end of story, let's just drop it already.
 
2013-12-18 11:03:34 AM  
I'm lazy, so I'm just gonna copy & paste what I said last time:

Ok, here's a bunch of players who debuted between 1975 and 1979. Let's play "Which one is the obvious HOF candidate":

A. 17 years, 506 G (462 GS), 3092 IP, .591 W%, 3.47 ERA (106 ERA+)
B. 16 years, 443 G (413 GS), 2895 IP, .562 W%, 3.44 ERA (122 ERA+)
C. 14 years, 398 G (347 GS), 2302 IP, .617 W%, 3.23 ERA (118 ERA+)
D. 23 years, 692 G (562 GS), 3999 IP, .559 W%, 3.70 ERA (106 ERA+)
E. 18 years, 549 G (527 GS), 3824 IP, .577 W%, 3.90 ERA (105 ERA+)
F. 14 years, 368 G (323 GS), 2392 IP, .651 W%, 3.29 ERA (119 ERA+)

Now, I cheated on one of those, but only by removing the last few years of his career. Pretend he retired early.

So. Which guy there is the clear choice for HOF, and why?
 
2013-12-18 11:07:13 AM  

SlagginOff: It'll be a farking joke if Thomas doesn't get in first ballot.


This.
 
2013-12-18 11:09:51 AM  
Yeah, Mike Mussina had almost 83 war for a pitcher, which puts him at 24th all-time. He is sandwiched by Fergie Jenkins and Bob Gibson.

His 270 wins put him at 33rd all time. Dude is 19th all-time for strike outs. His biggest mark against him might be his era+ of 123 puts him at 90th all-time. Just to put it in perspective, Jim Palmer was at 125 and Juan Marichal sits at 123 as well.

Mike Mussina wasn't simply the best pitcher of his generation (cause Pedro was), but he is one of the better pitchers ever.
 
2013-12-18 11:13:43 AM  

Frederick: Voters and writers are butthurt over the perceived steroid era and everyone is guilty.


That and the fact that they want to induct like a billion players every year as fast as possible because DAMMIT I'VE GOT A DEADLINE AND COOPERSTOWN IS NICE THAT TIME OF YEAR.
 
2013-12-18 11:18:18 AM  

Super Chronic: lacydog: And the fact that Mussina is on the list means nothing. Every hall of fame ballot has some laughable additions to it. Did you know that someone once cast a vote for David Segui? It's not just that he was on the ballot... HE GOT A VOTE!

Ain't nothing laughable about Mussina's candidacy. He had a stellar career, but his chances suffer because he had the misfortune of playing in an era that, despite being known for offense, produced some of the most dominant pitchers in history (Maddux, Clemens, Martinez, Johnson, Rivera) and several more solid HOFers.


The Moose pitched 2 or 3 "26 straight out" games, and a similar number of "25 straight out" and almost no-nos. They don't give out trophies for coming ohsoclose, but when taken with the rest of his stats and performances, that sounds like dominance enough for the Hall to me.

Aside from being on the Orioles during The Suck, a hell of a pitcher.

// Maddux should be a first-ballot guy
// could kill a gnat on your nose without disturbing the boogers inside
// even though "first ballot" is a dumb thing to stratify
 
2013-12-18 11:22:48 AM  

DeWayne Mann: I'm lazy, so I'm just gonna copy & paste what I said last time:

Ok, here's a bunch of players who debuted between 1975 and 1979. Let's play "Which one is the obvious HOF candidate":

A. 17 years, 506 G (462 GS), 3092 IP, .591 W%, 3.47 ERA (106 ERA+)
B. 16 years, 443 G (413 GS), 2895 IP, .562 W%, 3.44 ERA (122 ERA+)
C. 14 years, 398 G (347 GS), 2302 IP, .617 W%, 3.23 ERA (118 ERA+)
D. 23 years, 692 G (562 GS), 3999 IP, .559 W%, 3.70 ERA (106 ERA+)
E. 18 years, 549 G (527 GS), 3824 IP, .577 W%, 3.90 ERA (105 ERA+)
F. 14 years, 368 G (323 GS), 2392 IP, .651 W%, 3.29 ERA (119 ERA+)

Now, I cheated on one of those, but only by removing the last few years of his career. Pretend he retired early.

So. Which guy there is the clear choice for HOF, and why?


Definitely E!

Just kidding. See my previous comment.
 
2013-12-18 11:25:41 AM  

Super Chronic: Definitely E!


You forgot to say WHY.

That's the best part.
 
2013-12-18 11:28:41 AM  

DeWayne Mann: Super Chronic: Definitely E!

You forgot to say WHY.

That's the best part.


Why, because there exists an arbitrary span of an arbitrary number of years over which he led the league in a single counting stat that measures team performance, of course. If that doesn't mean HOF all the way, I don't know what does.
 
2013-12-18 11:30:18 AM  

Super Chronic: I love debates on HOF candidacies but Jack Morris is not an interesting debate. He doesn't deserve to get in, he's not going to get in, knowledgeable people don't think he's worthy of getting in, end of story, let's just drop it already.


I should note, everyone who's gotten as close as Jack has to the 75% mark has eventually gotten in. Everyone who has crossed the Gil Hodges Line- his high-water mark of 60.1%- has, sooner or later, gotten their plaque. Morris and Biggio have gotten over that line.

The guy below Hodges that isn't currently on the ballot: Tony Oliva, at 47.3%.

I actually have a Notepad file with this info, and I think it ought to be helpful for looking at candidates' future prospects. Here are the high water marks, from the writers' ballot throughout the years as well as the 1936 Veterans Committee ballot that worked the same way, of what we'll call the Hall of Very Good. I have it going all the way down to 1.0% of the vote, but for space concerns, let's cut it off here at the 5% stay-on-the-ballot threshold. Bold, of course, indicates a current occupant of the writers' ballot.

68.2 Craig Biggio
67.7 Jack Morris

60.1 Gil Hodges
59.6 Jeff Bagwell
57.8 Mike Piazza
52.2 Tim Raines
50.6 Lee Smith

47.3 Tony Oliva
43.1 Roger Maris
42.6 Steve Garvey
40.6 Maury Wills
40.0 Marty Marion
39.3 Harvey Kuenn
38.8 Curt Schilling
37.6 Roger Clemens
36.8 Alan Trammell
36.5 Edgar Martinez
36.2 Barry Bonds

35.9 Hank Gowdy
35.6 Phil Cavarretta
34.0 Johnny Sain
33.6 Allie Reynolds
31.7 Tommy John
30.9 Luis Tiant
29.8 Johnny Vander Meer
29.6 Jim Kaat
28.2 Don Mattingly
25.5 Ken Boyer
25.5 Mickey Lolich
25.4 Mel Harder
24.9 Mickey Vernon
24.5 Dave Parker
23.9 Fred McGriff
23.7 Bucky Walters
23.7 Mark McGwire
23.2 Dale Murphy
23.2 Lew Burdette
22.9 Larry Walker
21.1 Minnie Minoso
20.7 Elston Howard
20.7 Tommy Henrich
19.9 Herman Long
18.9 Roy Face
18.5 Al Dark
18.0 Smoky Joe Wood
17.3 Pepper Martin
16.9 Dave Concepcion
16.7 Dick Allen
16.7 Lefty O'Doul
15.7 Vada Pinson
15.5 Thurman Munson
15.3 Don Newcombe
14.4 Ted Kluszewski
14.4 Walker Cooper
13.7 Babe Adams
13.5 Duffy Lewis
13.1 Sparky Lyle
12.8 Curt Flood
12.6 Rafael Palmeiro
12.5 Sammy Sosa

12.3 Don Larsen
11.7 Terry Moore
11.3 Dom DiMaggio
11.2 Orel Hershiser
10.8 Keith Hernandez
10.6 Bobby Bonds
10.4 Dwight Evans
10.2 Vic Raschi
10.0 Dickey Kerr
10.0 Jimmy Dykes
9.9 Johnny Kling
9.8 Charlie Grimm
9.6 Bernie Williams
9.5 Pete Rose
9.4 Bobo Newsom
9.0 Hal Chase
8.8 Jimmie Wilson
8.8 Ron Guidry
8.7 Vida Blue
8.3 Graig Nettles
8.3 Muddy Ruel
8.0 Lou Criger
7.9 Hank Bauer
7.9 Rusty Staub
7.7 Albert Belle
7.7 Bill Lange
7.7 Bob Boone
7.7 Harry Stovey
7.7 Jerry Denny
7.5 Nick Altrock
7.5 Tommy Bridges
7.4 Dave Stewart
7.0 Wilbur Wood
6.9 George Foster
6.7 Glenn Wright
6.5 Lon Warneke
6.5 Sal Maglie
6.4 Nap Rucker
6.2 Fernando Valenzuela
6.2 Paul Derringer
6.1 Charlie Keller
6.1 Harold Baines
6.0 Doc Cramer
6.0 Freddie Fitzsimmons
5.7 Babe Herman
5.7 Cy Williams
5.6 Dolf Luque
5.6 Joe Judge
5.5 Fred Lynn
5.3 Frankie Crosetti
5.2 Juan Gonzalez
5.2 Stuffy McInnis
5.0 Bob Meusel
5.0 Fred Hutchinson
5.0 Hal Schumacher
5.0 Rudy York
5.0 Schoolboy Rowe
5.0 Willie McGee
 
2013-12-18 11:30:36 AM  

Super Chronic: DeWayne Mann: Super Chronic: Definitely E!

You forgot to say WHY.

That's the best part.

Why, because there exists an arbitrary span of an arbitrary number of years over which he led the league in a single counting stat that measures team performance, of course. If that doesn't mean HOF all the way, I don't know what does.


And I forgot to mention: this span started with a year whose last digit is one, and ended with a year whose last digit is zero. That's key.
 
2013-12-18 11:31:15 AM  

EyeballKid: I don't get it. If the Steroid Era players are so toxic, shouldn't the pitchers who succeeded in that era be even more highly revered? The whole Braves pitching roster from the 90s should likely be inducted. And I say that as a fan of the Reds, who as well know, did not discover pitching until the late 00's.


Steroids helped the pitchers, too.
 
2013-12-18 11:32:57 AM  
DeWayne Mann:

So. Which guy there is the clear choice for HOF, and why?

I liked it better when you told us why we were stupid, rather than make us figure it out on our own.
 
2013-12-18 11:33:39 AM  

Uncle Pooky: DeWayne Mann:

So. Which guy there is the clear choice for HOF, and why?

I liked it better when you told us why we were stupid, rather than make us figure it out on our own.


DeWayne Mann: I'm lazy

 
2013-12-18 11:35:41 AM  

Gosling: I should note, everyone who's gotten as close as Jack has to the 75% mark has eventually gotten in.


OK, and no pitcher with an ERA as high as 3.90 has gotten in. Something's gotta give, eh?
 
2013-12-18 11:37:15 AM  

red5ish: Frank Thomas (two MVPs, 521 homers, .301 batting average)
Tom Glavine (two Cy Youngs, 305 wins)
Historically these guys qualify.
Is the Hall broken?


love or hate his political leanings, Olbermann did a store on how broken the hall is a couple weeks ago.  and he spoke a little about this last night.  Regardless of what kind of left wing loon he is, the guy knows his baseball.
 
2013-12-18 11:40:42 AM  

Super Chronic: OK, and no pitcher with an ERA as high as 3.90 has gotten in. Something's gotta give, eh?


Well, I'm using the more directly relevant stat, because this is, in fact, a vote, and that vote percentage is the single most important stat here. I didn't say right away. Maybe he waits a long time. Maybe he sits for 20, 30 years on the Veterans Committee until he becomes the cause du jour. Maybe he goes in posthumously. But he eventually goes in.
 
2013-12-18 11:45:55 AM  

Night Night Cream Puff: skeeterjennings: And Nolan Ryan is the most over-rated player in the history of the game.

That's a mighty interesting claim. Would you care to elaborate? I'm honestly interested because that's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that.


Most strikeouts in history.  Also the most walks.  In fact, he has 50% more walks than the next highest pitcher.  Why did he get so many strikeouts?  Because he was just rearing back and gunning it.  Sometimes it was a strike, sometimes it was a ball.  Well, lots of times for both.

And his win/loss records aren't that impressive.  Yes, 324 wins is.  But versus 292 losses?  Longevity.  Look at them year by year: 1966: 0-1;  1968:  6-9;  1969:  6-3;  1970:  7-11;  1971:  10-14;  1972:  19-16.  1973:  21-16;  1974:  22-16;  1975:  14-12;  1976:  17-18;  1977:  19-16;  1978:  10-13;  1979:  16-14;  1980:  11-10;  1981:  11-5:  1982:  16-12;  1983:  14-9;  1984:  12-11;  1985:  10-12;  1986:  12-8;  1987:  8-16;  1988:  12-11;  1989:  16-10;  1990:  13-9;  1991:  12-6;  1992:  5-9;  1993:  5-5.

Yes, 7 no hitters is insane, but as he never really had a dominant season.  Strikeouts made it hard to hit, but the walks made it easier to beat him.  Good pitcher.  Maybe very good.  MAYBE Hall-worthy.  But not by any means close to the most dominant pitcher.  Not in the same ballpark.
 
2013-12-18 11:48:45 AM  

Gosling: Super Chronic: OK, and no pitcher with an ERA as high as 3.90 has gotten in. Something's gotta give, eh?

Well, I'm using the more directly relevant stat, because this is, in fact, a vote, and that vote percentage is the single most important stat here. I didn't say right away. Maybe he waits a long time. Maybe he sits for 20, 30 years on the Veterans Committee until he becomes the cause du jour. Maybe he goes in posthumously. But he eventually goes in.


Or maybe people get smarter and smarter as better analysis proliferates. I wouldn't have thought Bert Blyleven would have a shot based on his early showing, but enough voices spoke out that he made it. Maybe we've heard enough about Morris -- and frankly, it's been discussed to death -- that those who haven't voted for him continue not to do so, and maybe even some of his proponents decide to back off. I mean, in our current era we've seen Felix Hernandez win the Cy Young Award with 13 wins, which would have been unthinkable but for the more advanced analysis that's out there today. I don't see why we need to accept that historical patterns will continue.
 
2013-12-18 12:08:29 PM  
Waiting for DWM's grandma to weigh in before deciding.
 
2013-12-18 12:15:06 PM  

roc6783: Waiting for DWM's grandma to weigh in before deciding.


Well, considering he died when Jack Morris was 10 years old, we're gonna need a Ouija board.
 
2013-12-18 12:15:18 PM  

Super Chronic: Or maybe people get smarter and smarter as better analysis proliferates. I wouldn't have thought Bert Blyleven would have a shot based on his early showing, but enough voices spoke out that he made it. Maybe we've heard enough about Morris -- and frankly, it's been discussed to death -- that those who haven't voted for him continue not to do so, and maybe even some of his proponents decide to back off. I mean, in our current era we've seen Felix Hernandez win the Cy Young Award with 13 wins, which would have been unthinkable but for the more advanced analysis that's out there today. I don't see why we need to accept that historical patterns will continue.


Which would be a good point if you were talking about Lee Smith, who's largely been glued to the 40's over his time on the ballot. But Morris' vote trajectory has been steadily climbing. Morris' totals over the years read: 22.2,19.6, 20.6, 22.8, 26.3, 33.3, 41.2, 37.1, 42.9, 44.0, 52.3, 53.5, 66.7, 67.7. It's one of the quirks of the voters. When you get as close as Morris is, what tends to happen is the leaners start lining up behind you to push you over the finish line. Peer pressure starts working in your favor, as the people who still say no to you have to endure a larger and larger amount of ridicule from the proponents until they finally crack. A lot of the time, when you finally go over 75%, you go WAY over, because a lot of the voters don't want to be the last guy on the bandwagon.
 
2013-12-18 12:47:22 PM  

DeWayne Mann: roc6783: Waiting for DWM's grandma to weigh in before deciding.

Well, considering he died when Jack Morris was 10 years old, we're gonna need a Ouija board.


ummm, what?
 
2013-12-18 12:50:05 PM  

Uncle Pooky: DeWayne Mann: roc6783: Waiting for DWM's grandma to weigh in before deciding.

Well, considering he died when Jack Morris was 10 years old, we're gonna need a Ouija board.

ummm, what?


You heard me.
 
2013-12-18 12:54:47 PM  

Dinobot: And Jack Morris was possibly the best pitcher of his era, and won't go in.


No he wasn't, not even close.
 
2013-12-18 02:04:44 PM  
Still waiting to see all BBWAA voters pass a drug test.
 
2013-12-18 02:31:42 PM  

ManateeGag: red5ish: Frank Thomas (two MVPs, 521 homers, .301 batting average)
Tom Glavine (two Cy Youngs, 305 wins)
Historically these guys qualify.
Is the Hall broken?

love or hate his political leanings, Olbermann did a store on how broken the hall is a couple weeks ago.  and he spoke a little about this last night.  Regardless of what kind of left wing loon he is, the guy knows his baseball.


Are you referring to his piece where he compares the Hall to a banana republic? That is classic Olbermann (whom I dislike for his bombastic hyperbole, not for his political positions). I think he made some good points but it wasn't what I'd call an exhaustively reasoned exposition. Personally I believe the Hall is broken and has been for quite some time. As a result I can't get very emotional about the way it's being run, or who is being inducted. The BBWAA's handling of the steroids era has, frankly, been a disgusting display of hypocrisy and false moralizing. The writers,who were in close contact with the players and coaches during the steroids era, whose daily job was to talk with them and write about them, would like us to believe they had no idea, not a clue, about what was going on, and are outraged about PEDs and are now punishing the players. It's incredible.
 
2013-12-18 03:00:05 PM  
I would invite the BBWA to shove their heads up their asses, but seeing as how that is already done, I invite them to swivel their necks around.

Biggio needs to get in this year at a minimum. Add Maddux and Big Hurt too. Glavine can wait a year
 
2013-12-18 03:02:33 PM  

lacydog: And the fact that Mussina is on the list means nothing. Every hall of fame ballot has some laughable additions to it. Did you know that someone once cast a vote for David Segui? It's not just that he was on the ballot... HE GOT A VOTE!


Note that inclusion on the ballot is a formality- you merely need to be retired 5 years and played for 10 years.  That's it.  There is no "nomination" process.

Then, if you get less than 5% of the vote, you're kicked off for good.
 
2013-12-18 03:31:46 PM  

downstairs: Note that inclusion on the ballot is a formality- you merely need to be retired 5 years and played for 10 years.  That's it.  There is no "nomination" process.


Actually, there is a screening committee, and I think there's a nomination process within that committee.
 
2013-12-18 03:46:13 PM  

GQueue: downstairs: Note that inclusion on the ballot is a formality- you merely need to be retired 5 years and played for 10 years.  That's it.  There is no "nomination" process.

Actually, there is a screening committee, and I think there's a nomination process within that committee.


Hmmmm... I just looked this up, and you're right.  Apparently you just need two committee members to be nominated onto the ballot.  So its pretty lax.

But I stand corrected that its a free-for-all.
 
2013-12-18 04:17:21 PM  

steamingpile: Dinobot: And Jack Morris was possibly the best pitcher of his era, and won't go in.

No he wasn't, not even close.


People think because he pitched a great Game Seven (sob) that that means he should be in the hall.
 
2013-12-18 04:31:48 PM  
I'll admit to being a homer here, but I want to see Biggio and Bagwell both make it this year.  The fact that Bagwell had to wait this long is already a joke.  And if Frank Thomas gets voted in but Bagwell doesn't...  well, I can't be held responsible for my actions.

/Not saying Thomas doesn't deserve it, he absolutely does, but voting for Thomas and not voting for Bagwell would be extremely hypocritical
 
2013-12-18 06:59:13 PM  

KingKauff: People think because he pitched a great Game Seven (sob) that that means he should be in the hall.


And his game seven wasn't even that great

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15836
 
2013-12-18 07:42:13 PM  

ElwoodCuse: KingKauff: People think because he pitched a great Game Seven (sob) that that means he should be in the hall.

And his game seven wasn't even that great

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15836


Shut your mouth. It was the best pitched game in World Series history....... if you ignore all the other World Series games that had better pitching performances
 
2013-12-19 12:18:59 AM  
Why do we even need this crappy voting system?  Either they qualify or they don't.  Put them on a ballot for one year, up/down, yay/nay.  Everyone is either a first ballot HOFer or a "sorry Charlie".  No more "penalizing" players for not being as good as Ty Cobb, or holding grudges over petty disagreements in a player's behavior or attitude towards the media.  In fact, make half of the vote based on a statistical analysis of the player's career versus his contemporaries.  Some players would be a shoo-in for that, and some very good players would need some popular support to make it.  But in theory everyone who deserves to be in, will get in on a regular basis.
 
2013-12-19 12:22:42 AM  

red5ish: he BBWAA's handling of the steroids era has, frankly, been a disgusting display of hypocrisy and false moralizing.


It's the 'Baseball' HoF, not the 'BBWA Popularity' HoF, or even, 'Upstanding Citizen' Baseball HoF.

Hell, Ty Cobb was a 'peach'; a real SoB. But that SoB could fricking play baseball.

Regardless of their 'sins', I'd put them in - if it makes the BBWA feel better, design their shrine to include all their known and implied 'warts'.

Shoeless Joe
Pete
Barry
Roger

In the context of Baseball did I really need to add their last names? Regardless what you think of them personally, they were upper tier HoF players. (And there is more than one name above that seems to me to be a major asshat; but they were great ball players.)

As far as the other toxic players, Mark McGwire put a lot of butts in seats at a time when baseball was in trouble. I'm not even going to try and use stats; there are a lot of you out there that are much better at it than I am. Feel free to grind an axe either way.

As far as this year... Maddox. I'd be happy for Biggio if he got in. I'd guess Glavine next year; Moose in a couple more years (always liked watching him pitch).

/Different sport, but honestly: do you think OJ should be stripped from the College/Pro Football HoF? Did you see him run in college? Greatest college running back I ever saw...
//yeah I'm old. '67 USC/UCLA football game... brilliant.
 
2013-12-19 12:43:19 AM  
They should do the following:

If you vote for a guy who gets 3 or less votes, you should have to publically justify your decision or forfeit the right to vote

I woudl love to read an explanation for voting Aaron Sele and Eric Young into the HOF. I also think any voter who doesn't vote Maddux into the HOF should be stripped of their right to vote. If you are so married to "tradition" that you can't vote a guy in who had an ERA that was almost half of the league ERA during a 7 year stretch... The rest of his career was roughly equivalent to Jack Morris. What could possibly be the rationale behind not voting Greg Maddux into the HOF

Besides either A: the stupid "I'm not voting for anyone from the mid  90s because steroids tainted the league or B: the even stupider, we can't all vote someone into the HOF, because that didn't happen 70 years ago, either argument is ridiculous
 
2013-12-19 05:21:12 AM  

ToastmasterGeneral: Night Night Cream Puff: skeeterjennings: And Nolan Ryan is the most over-rated player in the history of the game.

That's a mighty interesting claim. Would you care to elaborate? I'm honestly interested because that's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that.

Most strikeouts in history.  Also the most walks.  In fact, he has 50% more walks than the next highest pitcher.  Why did he get so many strikeouts?  Because he was just rearing back and gunning it.  Sometimes it was a strike, sometimes it was a ball.  Well, lots of times for both.

And his win/loss records aren't that impressive.  Yes, 324 wins is.  But versus 292 losses?  Longevity.  Look at them year by year: 1966: 0-1;  1968:  6-9;  1969:  6-3;  1970:  7-11;  1971:  10-14;  1972:  19-16.  1973:  21-16;  1974:  22-16;  1975:  14-12;  1976:  17-18;  1977:  19-16;  1978:  10-13;  1979:  16-14;  1980:  11-10;  1981:  11-5:  1982:  16-12;  1983:  14-9;  1984:  12-11;  1985:  10-12;  1986:  12-8;  1987:  8-16;  1988:  12-11;  1989:  16-10;  1990:  13-9;  1991:  12-6;  1992:  5-9;  1993:  5-5.

Yes, 7 no hitters is insane, but as he never really had a dominant season.  Strikeouts made it hard to hit, but the walks made it easier to beat him.  Good pitcher.  Maybe very good.  MAYBE Hall-worthy.  But not by any means close to the most dominant pitcher.  Not in the same ballpark.


Please point out anyway in either my post or the post I quoted where being "dominant" was the point of contention. My question was about being "the most over-rated." The first thought that pops into mind with Ryan is "strikeout king" which implies he struck a lot of people out. That's it. Ryan was the proto-type of the modern day power pitcher in many ways, but like many proto-types there are still plenty of flaws.

Also, win/loss record is one of those iffy stats to look at, especially if a pitcher is on a horrible team. His best years (wins wise) were mostly with the Angels in the 70s and 6 of those 8 years the team had a losing record. To me a more telling stat to look at is Complete Games and Shutouts. In his 13 years in Boston Clemens had 100 CG and 38 SHO. In 8 years in CA, on an arguably worse team, Ryan had 136 CG and 40 SHO. Now, looking at those numbers who would you say was the more "dominant?" But, this is why using stats alone is silly.

Being inducted into the Hall of Fame should be about achievements in baseball and 300+ wins, 7 no hitters,  and being the all time strike out leader is more than enough to get him in. Now, was Ryan the greatest pitcher to ever live? No. I'd be in agreement if that were the argument.

Check out this link http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/ratings.cgi  to see how a community project is working to rank the best pitchers of all time. The top 10 all time is pretty solid. Maddux is there. Ryan is not. Seems about right :-)
 
2013-12-19 10:21:03 AM  

SCUBA_Archer: Why do we even need this crappy voting system?  Either they qualify or they don't.  Put them on a ballot for one year, up/down, yay/nay.  Everyone is either a first ballot HOFer or a "sorry Charlie".  No more "penalizing" players for not being as good as Ty Cobb, or holding grudges over petty disagreements in a player's behavior or attitude towards the media.  In fact, make half of the vote based on a statistical analysis of the player's career versus his contemporaries.  Some players would be a shoo-in for that, and some very good players would need some popular support to make it.  But in theory everyone who deserves to be in, will get in on a regular basis.


What you'd have is a completely different class of people who get in. All those 'petty disagreements' would absolutely get punished by lifelong banishment from the Hall, which means Roberto Alomar would never get into the hall because of that one time he spit on an ump, and Juan Marichal would never get in because of the Johnny Roseboro incident. Also, Eddie Cicotte would stand an improved chance of getting in despite the fact that unlike Shoeless Joe, he absolutely goddamned meant to throw the World Series.

It should also be mentioned that a whole lot of the voters don't even use all 10 of those slots on the ballot. A good chunk of the voters absolutely refuse to put in ANYONE on the first ballot. They'd never vote anyone in again. They'd just padlock the doors and let the place sepia-tone itself to death.
 
2013-12-19 02:32:47 PM  

Tired_of_the_BS: Regardless of their 'sins', I'd put them in - if it makes the BBWA feel better, design their shrine to include all their known and implied 'warts'.


While I agree with you I confess I am not optimistic about this happening and, as I wrote earlier, I no longer have much of an emotional investment in seeing the HoF "fixed" after decades of mismanagement. I too am old and more than a little jaded.
 
Displayed 74 of 74 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report