hall of fame voting

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
Edgarfan,

If you didn't read the article then why are you commenting on it?

Because I watched the entirety of MLB TV's coverage yesterday, I saw and heard all of their quotes, and you made perfectly clear (as did the headline of the article you linked to) what the tone of the comments were - the same as what I had heard, for the most part, in the TV coverage all day. I will comment on whatever I choose to, thank you.

I'm sorry if it offends you when people disagree with you, but I don't believe I've denigrated a single argument that you've made (quite the contrary - I've made a point of saying that while I generally disagree, I respect the position), so I don't understand why you feel the need to respond as you have.

quote:

"Getting into the HOF is supposed to be an almost impossible feat, let's leave it that way".

First off, I consider myself a "medium"-sized Hall guy, not a "big Hall" or a "small Hall" proponent, but I fail to see how arguing that the writers should have been able to elect ONE or TWO guys from the following list of candidates is deserving of the lecture that we ought to preserve the Hall for the "truly great." This year's class includes the the all-time season and career HR King (Bonds), a 354-game winner with seven Cy Youngs (Clemens), a member of the 3,000 hit club (Biggio), a member of the 3,000 hit and 500 HR clubs (Palmeiro), the man who broke Roger Maris' home run record and finished with 583 HR (McGwire), the only man to exceed 60 HR on three occasions (Sosa), the best-hitting catcher of all time (Piazza), one of the top five best-hitting first basemen of all time (Bagwell), a guy who was the winningest pitcher of the 1980s and who received two-thirds of the vote last year (Morris), another guy who retired as the all-time saves leader (and held it for close to ten years) and got over 50% of the vote last year (Smith), and ... (wait for it) the greatest DH of all time (EDGAR).

But for the question of PEDs (for some, but certainly not all), there is no question about the quality of this class. Their presence would not diminish the standard or quality of baseball play enshrined in the Hall, it would enhance it - any one of them. There are many, many players enshrined who are far lesser players than ANY of these players, and many, many whose character is just as questionable as some of these guys, or worse.

Secondly, the claim that "[g]etting into the HOF is supposed to be an almost impossible feat" is just plain wrong. Do you know what the slash line is for the average batting Hall of Famer? .303/.376/.472. It's impressive, but not earth-shattering, and (I guess by definition) there are PLENTY of lesser batters in the Hall. The Rabbit Maranville's and Jim Rice's and Monte Ward's and Travis Jackson's of the Hall help set the standard by which we judge who should be admitted just as much as the Babe Ruth's, Willie Mays', Mickey Mantle's and Lou Gehrig's of the game.

Put another way: if the Hall was always supposed to be so "impossible" to get in, reserved only for the truly elite, then why is it that of all the players who played between 1920 and 1940 and got at least 5000 PA and hit at least .270/.330/.400 (numbers I'm sure we'd all agree are not really Hall-worthy), well over half (40 of 67) are in the Hall of Fame? Does that sound like some kind of elite, "impossible" to get into club to you? The Hall elections of those years truly set the standard for what kind of player is Hall-worthy, and while I'm not suggesting we should repeat the most egregious mistakes of the past, we can't unring that bell. Oh, and BTW, all but seven of those 40 finished with a career OPS+ less than Edgar Martinez' 147 - and he is considered a borderline candidate today.

quote:

"Let's help to bring back and preserve the integrity of the game the way it should be, for the future of MLB and the future players and future HOFers."

That's a fine and honorable goal, but (1) that ship sailed long ago; and (2) we are honoring baseball play, not canonizing saints or saluting Medal of Honor winners. The Hall needs to reflect baseball as it has been played through history - warts and all. We can't pretend the 1990s didn't exist just because we're embarassed that we were fooled by some players' performances then, or we look back through the prism of history and with the wisdom of hindsight and don't like what we see. Why should people of a certain generation, when they take their children to Cooperstown, not be able to show them the heroes of THEIR youth, even if they may have a little 'splainin' to do while they're at it?

quote:

"Competitive people always will look for an edge, but back then greenies were allowed. You drank all night and then went to the field to get your amphetamines from the pushers waiting at the entrance."

I'm not sure if my sarcasm radar is fully functional here.... I agree that competitive people will alway (and HAVE always - legally and illegally, including Hall of Famers) looked for an edge. I said that. My question is why such a dramatic difference in degree between the way we view those players, and players from the 1990s?

And no, "greenies" were not legal, and haven't been since the mid-'60s (use limited to a prescription in 1965 and became a banned Schedule II drug under the Controlled Substances Act in 1971). Moreover, they were just as "illegal" in baseball as steroids were after 1971, when baseball adopted a rule against non-prescription use of prescription drugs (even if it wasn't until 2005 before steroids or amphetamines were specifically banned.

Amphetamines enhance performance, period, and they were taken with than intention. Why such a dramatic moral distinction in our reaction to their use, versus latter-day steroid users? I can see some degree of distinction, but not a lot, since the intent of the player was exactly the same.

For that matter, the intent is exactly the same for bat corkers, and spitballers, and ball-scuffers and cutters. Guys who did those things (even regularly) are in the Hall, and in many cases celebrated for their cleverness.

quote:

"And how do you really know who is/was clean and who isn't? How do you know that?"

Ummmm, I don't. I thought I was pretty clear about that. In fact, no fair, I asked you that question first. You are making my point.

quote:

"If this still wasn't an issue than MLB would not have declared today that they are going to begin in season testing for HGH. Why do you suppose that is?"

I never suggested that this wasn't still an issue today. That's a complete straw man argument, totally unrelated to what we are discussing.

quote:

"I don't know about you, but many people watch players and they wonder how they accomplish what they do, because they KNOW how difficult the game is to play day to day, year to year.

It makes you wonder doesn't it.

It might make me wonder, but there is no way that I can KNOW. And neither can you - and if you are suggesting you can, aren't you contradicting what you said just a couple paragraphs above?

Look, I get that you would punish know (and maybe suspected, based on your KNOWING and watchful eye) PED users by not voting them in at least for the first ballot. I suspect, based on what you've said since, that you might never vote for any of them if you had a vote. I can respect the first position, and (though to a somewhat lesser degree) even the second, and I said so.

I have tried to have a discussion with you about the structural problems that position creates with the ballot, and the unintended consequences it creates, and all you see in me (apparently) is a steroid apologist who wants to open the doors of the Hall to the Un-Worthy. Congratulations. You've provoked me into defending or explaining away positions I didn't take.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
There's a list of those who voted and agreed to make their ballot public.
http://bbwaa.com/13-hof-ballots/

This is a pretty interesting list. The first thing I noticed is the one writer who voted for Aaron Sele did not make his/her ballot public.

Good move.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
I wasn't surprised, and not sure why players deserve to be voted in on their first time on the ballot.

I don't understand this idea at all. To avoid all the recent "era controversy" let's go back to Ted Williams or Mickey Mantle.

Please explain to me how you could justify telling these two players they don't deserve to be voted in on their first time on the ballot.

quote:

Originally posted by twotex:
Speaker, Rose, Cobb, Musial, Biggio.

All time doubles hitters. And Biggio is the only rightie.

Biggio was a remarkable player. Hustled every play, every day. Moved to centerfield (relatively) late in his career to make room for Jeff Kent at second.

The man got the job done. He played with integrity. Over 3000 hits. Stole bases.

The most memorable game I attended was not when the Astros played a World Series game in Houston. It was when Biggio retired.

I had the pleasure of watching Biggio play for many years in Houston. As my son was growing up and we went to games, I said "play the game like Bigg". When given the option, he wears #7.

They got it wrong this year. Sure hope they get it right next year.

The biggest problem for him in convincing those that vote is that he obviously remained healthy to be able to stay in the game long enough to achieve those records. This is why this whole PED thing is so sad, IMO.

It creates doubt for everyone.

JMO.

quote:

Originally posted by fenwaysouth:
Edgarfan,

I like your reform ideas especially #1,#2, #3, #4. I would make an adjustment to #4 to not allow broadasters who are employed by an MLB team. Many of today's broadcasters work for the clubs they cover as the teams own their own media outlets.

Clearly Selig needs to do something after he wipes the egg off of his face.

The HOF voting is done by writers, not broadcasters.

I can hardly believe this, but one of the writers, Rosenthal, blamed the Tea Party for no one getting voted into the HOF!

LOL!!! Anything to deflect attention to his part in the process!

Good Grief!!!





Edgarfan- great post, I think I follow your positions even as I completely detest how so many used PED's. Bonds and the others were truly great players and fun to watch.

quote:

Originally posted by biggerpapi:

quote:

Originally posted by fenwaysouth:
Edgarfan,

I like your reform ideas especially #1,#2, #3, #4. I would make an adjustment to #4 to not allow broadasters who are employed by an MLB team. Many of today's broadcasters work for the clubs they cover as the teams own their own media outlets.

Clearly Selig needs to do something after he wipes the egg off of his face.

The HOF voting is done by writers, not broadcasters.

Yes, but we were discussing some reforms to the process I suggested for batting around here, in which I suggested that the electorate might be trimmed in some ways and expanded in others, including the potential of letting broadcasters vote.

quote:

Originally posted by floridafan:

"I can hardly believe this, but one of the writers, Rosenthal, blamed the Tea Party for no one getting voted into the HOF!

LOL!!! Anything to deflect attention to his part in the process!"

I saw that, too. He's usually pretty level-headed, but that was pretty ridiculous. He was talking about the sabermetric community's response to Morris's candidacy (which is a bit over the top), but I agree with his general (but poorly expressed) point that the debate has become almost politicized, polemic, and strident. But the old-school response to the sabermetric community (like Murray Chass) is just as over-the-top.

quote:

"Edgarfan- great post, I think I follow your positions even as I completely detest how so many used PED's. Bonds and the others were truly great players and fun to watch."

Thank you. I despise PEDs as well, and struggled a long time with what an appropriate response would be, you know, if I had a vote (like that would ever happen). I've come to the conclusion that, with the possible exception of dealing with KNOWN users - those who were caught or admitted it - it is best to just elect the best of the era and be done with it. I'm not sure how the thread turned and I somehow became some steroid apologist. Actually I do know....

quote:

Originally posted by floridafan:
I can hardly believe this, but one of the writers, Rosenthal, blamed the Tea Party for no one getting voted into the HOF!

That's not accurate. He invoked the name of the Tea Party while making an analogy. He did not blame the Tea Party for anything.

Rosenthal comments

Rosenthal implied:

The sabermetric community is to baseball what the Tea Party is to Politics. They are polarizing to the debate because their discourse is over the top. What this implies is that passion for one's cause to the degree that there is no room for acceptance of any aspect of the opposite view is counterproductive.

You may have that view as long as you think achieving something that might be wrong is more worthy than achieving nothing at all. The Hall of Fame is just mirroring what it sees modeled in the halls of Congress. And both are now irrelevant.

.



.

Does anyone realize that about 1/3 of the BBWAA voters don't even cover the sport of baseball...?

The voting system is irrevocably broken and needs to be replaced...

Can you imagine the financial hit the HOF museum and Cooperstown area is gonnna take this year? You'll be able to hear crickets at the enshrinement ceremonies this year...

quote:

Originally posted by PA Dino:

Rosenthal implied:

The sabermetric community is to baseball what the Tea Party is to Politics. They are polarizing to the debate because their discourse is over the top. What this implies is that passion for one's cause to the degree that there is no room for acceptance of any aspect of the opposite view is counterproductive.

You may have that view as long as you think achieving something that might be wrong is more worthy than achieving nothing at all. The Hall of Fame is just mirroring what it sees modeled in the halls of Congress. And both are now irrelevant.

PA Dino: you (and Jimmy03) are exactly right about what Rosenthal said and implied.

However, just as it is with Congress, it is silly to blame ONE side for all of the stubborn intransigience. I could give you plenty of examples of "old school" writers demonstrating "no room for acceptance of any aspect of the opposite view" and BOTH have contributed to what you call the "irrelevance" of the Hall and Congress (a statement that itself is a bit over the top, IMO, though both are definitely leaning that way).

On the baseball side, both the old school and the new school have something to offer. The old school values tradition, as well as subjective views of "greatness" and the narratives that build up around certain players' performance. Those things are EXTREMELY important, especially in a Hall of Fame discussion. On the other hand, the new school has much to add to a fuller and more objective discussion of a player's entire record, and believes that any HoF discussion that omits that fuller understanding is incomplete and inevitably leads to inconsistent results - something that any Baseball Hall of Fame fan should wish to avoid. Just as in the whole Moneyball "scouts versus stats" debate of a few years ago, the smart money allows room for both schools of thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Bolts-Coach-PR:

"The voting system is irrevocably broken and needs to be replaced...."

I don't know about replaced, but I defintely think some reform is in order. If you look at the history of Hall voting, they have done exactly that - several times - when faced with difficulties like this. I wouldn't be surprised to see some changes.

quote:

"Can you imagine the financial hit the HOF museum and Cooperstown area is gonnna take this year? You'll be able to hear crickets at the enshrinement ceremonies this year...."

Yeah, the "youngest" inductee has been dead some 70 years. I definitely think the financial condition of the Hall (which, after all, is privately run and was established in the first place as a tourist draw for upstate NY) plays a part in the tweaks the Hall has made to voting over the years - they WANT players to be inducted every year.

I do think it is too early to say the system is "irrevocably" broken, though. In the next few years, there WILL be inductees.

Next year, I have a hard time believing there will be much disagreement about Greg Maddux; in fact, I expect him to get at least 90% of the vote. Frank Thomas should be a first ballot inductee, though I thought that about Craig Biggio too. He should do at least as well as the range between Piazza's and Biggio's vote totals this year, though, and shouldn't take more than a couple of years to be elected. Same with Glavine. Mussina might take a few more years, but he should get in, too. On the returnees, I expect Biggio to get a bump and go in, and Morris to either get in or get very close (and if he misses, ala Jim Bunning, he will go the route of Bunning and be elected by the Veteran's Committee in pretty short order). With the possible exception of Bagwell, Piazza and Raines, most of the players returning on the ballot will have to wait a while, I'd expect - as much as five years for the best of them, and the better part of the entire 15-year period for the rest of the 30%-plus crowd.*

The 2015 class includes Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Gary Sheffield. I would think RJ and Pedro go in on the first (or second at the latest) ballot, Smoltz takes no more than five or six, and Sheff settles in with the current 30%+ crowd for the long haul. 2016 will see Junior go in on the first ballot, before we get a second "steroid class" to discuss in 2017 (Manny, Pudge, Vlad, Tejada).

If you are paying close attention, as we are, you see the problems and the logjam. For the Hall, it isn't really a problem as long as this year isn't repeated next year and/or the year after. Most casual fans will be perfectly happy with the flow of inductees over the next few years, if I'm right about how likely those guys are to garner first-ballot votes and the upper-ballot returnees are to getting over the hump.

The problems remain, but the PR issue goes away as long as they resume electing Hall of Famers. We may notice the logjam, but most won't, and the Hall can deal with it by improving Veteran's Committee procedures (as it always has).

*The good news for that 30% plus crowd is that most players who've reached that level of support have eventually gotten in one way or another. Only 24 players who have ever gotten at least 30% of the vote have not eventually gotten in, and 11 of them are still on the ballot. Only Tommy John, Steve Garvey, Luis Tiant, Tony Oliva, Maury Wills, Harvey Kuenn, Roger Maris, Gil Hodges, Phil Cavaretta, Johnny Sain, Allie Reynolds, Marty Marion, and Hank Gowdy have gotten at least 30% of the vote, fallen off the ballot, and not (yet) been elected by the Veteran's Committee.

Dang EdgarFan, arguing with you on a subject like this is like bringing a knife to a gunfight! A little overmatched! Actually I agree with virtually every word of your recent posts in this thread but you express it so much better than I could.

I already have expressed my feelings about Biggio. I guarantee if Biggio had played in New York his whole career he would be almost as revered as Jeter. New York fans do know how to appreciate someone like him. Jeter is a somewhat better player but the difference isn't overwhelming. He is the same hustle type as a Scutaro or Eckstein with vastly more talent.

Also I've got to ask:

If you were a law enforcement (FBI) buff would your handle be JEdgarFan?

quote:

Originally posted by Three Bagger:
... Jeter is a somewhat better player but the difference isn't overwhelming. He is the same hustle type as a Scutaro or Eckstein with vastly more talent.

What-the...HUH?
Might want to re-look things... Jeter IS an OVERWHELMINGLY better player than Biggo...

http://www.baseball-reference....rs/b/biggicr01.shtml

Jeter besides the 3304 hits (almost 300 hits more in 2-less years than Biggo)... Jeter has:

- Lifetime .313 BA (Biggo: .281)
- EIGHT 200+ hit seasons (Biggio: 1-season)
- 5-Time World Champion
- Rookie of the Year Award
- 14-time All-Star (Biggio: 7-time)
- 5-Time Silver Slugger (Biggio: tie)
- 5-Time Gold Glove (Biggio: tie)
- All-Star MVP...

I won't argue this too much as you might be right but lets not count 5 time World Champion because that is not an individual thing and Jeter did have VASTLY OVERWHELMING teammates--that's a fact. Also five Golden Gloves when he deserved one or two at the most are not really a point in his favor as much as it shows what a travesty Golden Glove voting is. After all Palmeiro won one when he played 20 something games at first base one year.

Their individual lines are .281/.363./.433 for Biggio and a better .313/.382/.448 for Jeter which clearly has Jeter as a better player as I said. But wait another three or four years of decline in all three of those numbers for Jeter and they will be much closer although Jeter will certainly end up with the higher batting average, likely in the low .300's. The higher runs scored and RBI's for Jeter are partially because of the vastly superior teams Jeter was on and the Park factors.

Remember, Biggio played his prime years in that offensive graveyard known as the AstroDome. Put Jeter in there during his prime years and his offensive numbers would not be what they are now I am sure. Also Jeter has been able to add to his counting numbers by resting at DH or getting AB's with slight injuries at DH that a NL guy didn't get. So all in all I don't feel that Jeter was a OVERWHEMINGLY better player than Jeter.

quote:

Originally posted by fenwaysouth:

quote:

TRHit wrote: "for me the solution is simple....divide the hall into eras"

"Who decides the eras....Ken Burns?"

It is difficult to settle on what constitutes an "era" as well as who among the inevitable 'tweeners fits where. In the last 20-30 years, you might ask which era Fred McGriff, or Rickey Henderson, or Wade Boggs (among many others) belonged to? They straddled two fairly definable eras.

With that said, I have to say I'm with TR on this one. Figure out "peer groups" (if not eras) and elect the best of 'em. Because the "by eras" solution is difficult to define, I'd propose a proxy for eras that is easy to define: examine all players by birth year, and look at each rolling 10-year period that includes a particular player's birth year and see where he ranks by whatever statistic floats your boat (for me, for HoF purposes, those would be WAR, OPS+, WPA, but you could easily make a case for other statistical measures as well, or in place of one or more of those). This is fairly easy to do with Baseball-Reference's Play Index.

Hall of Fame history shows that in each 10-year period, on average there are 18-25 future Hall of Famers born. 20-22 is usually about right, but it obviously varies, and if you are a "small Hall" person, you'd support sticking closer to the 18 end of the range, and if you are a "big Hall" person, closer to the 25 end of the range. There are, as you would expect, generally more hitters than pitchers, usually by about a 2/3 to 1/3 ratio (roughly). So, if you are a hitter, and you are consistently in the top ten amongst your peers (defined by this rolling examination as essentially the players born the same year as you are, as well as the nine years before and after), you really deserve serious Hall of Fame consideration.

In honor of my HSBBWeb namesake, I'll show you that analysis of Edgar Martinez, who was born in 1963. I'm looking for players who had a minimum of 8000 career PA (about 12 full seasons based on 650 PA per season), an OPS+ of at least 120 (20% better than the league average player), and a WPA of 40.0 or more. This is ordered by WAR, so as to account for not just those offensive measures, but position, defense, and baserunning as well. A general rule of thumb is that 60.0 WAR is the definition of a borderline Hall of Fame candidacy, so I make a note of those whose career WAR is less than 60.0. Here is that analysis, for Edgar Martinez:

1954-1963: Only six hitters met this qualification. In order of most to least WAR: Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Tony Gwynn, Edgar Martinez, Eddie Murray, Will Clark, and Fred McGriff. Clark and McGriff have sub-60.0 career WAR. I'll designate those players with an *asterisk.

1955-1964: Nine hitters: Barry Bonds, Henderson, Raines, Rafael Palmeiro, Gwynn, Edgar, Murray, Clark*, and McGriff*.

1956-1965: Nine hitters - same list as 1955-1964.

1957-1966: Nine hitters: Bonds, Henderson, Larry Walker, Raines, Palmeiro, Gwynn, Edgar, Clark*, McGriff*.

1958-1967: Nine hitters - same list as 1957-1966.

1959-1968: Eleven hitters: Bonds, Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas (Bagwell and Thomas were born on the same day in 1968), Walker, Palmeiro, Gwynn, Edgar, Gary Sheffield*, Clark*, McGriff*.

1960-1969: Eleven hitters: Bonds, Ken Griffey, Jr., Bagwell, Thomas, Walker, Palmeiro, Gwynn, Edgar, Sheffield*, Clark*, McGriff*.

1961-1970: Eleven hitters: Bonds, Griffey, Bagwell, Thomas, Walker, Jim Thome, Palmeiro, Edgar, Sheffield*, Clark*, McGriff*.

1962-1971: Twelve hitters: Bonds, Griffey, Bagwell, Thomas, Walker, Thome, Palmeiro, Edgar, Sheffield*, Clark*, McGriff*, Jason Giambi*.

1963-1972: Fifteen hitters: Bonds, Chipper Jones, Griffey, Bagwell, Thomas, Walker, Thome, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Edgar, Sheffield*, Clark*, McGriff*, Giambi*, Carlos Delgado*.

By any rolling 10-year period, whether he is among the youngest or the oldest - a wide definition of his "peer group" and an excellent stand-in for the definition of an "era" - Edgar Martinez was always among the six to ten best hitters in the game, even when ordered by WAR (which penalizes him heavily for his lack of defensive, baserunning, and positional value). His hitting was good enough to overcome those deficits. If you ordered these lists by OPS+ (thereby ignoring his weaknesses and focusing on his prowess as a hitter), he would finish much higher. For instance, in the 1960-1969 ten year-period, Edgar would be fourth among eleven qualifiers, according to OPS+, behind only Bonds, Thomas, and Bagwell. So, when you start looking at the best among peers, Edgar clearly belongs in the discussion, and probably deserves enshrinement by historical standards.

Now, I'm not saying this is the beginning and end of the discussion. With any statistical search that includes certain minimums, you will miss some worthy players (off the top of my head, in that search, we've missed Wade Boggs, Cal Ripken, Jr., and Ryne Sandberg - all of whom were born in the right time frame - because they missed one or more of those minimums; that obviously doesn't mean they aren't worthy). This exercise is just the start, and you'd want to look at other things: traditional "magic" counting numbers; what guys did in their peaks - how dominant were they at their best?; the subjective view of them as measured by MVP finishes, All Star appearances, Gold Gloves, and Silver Sluggers; is their candidacy bolstered by outstanding or special performances in the postseason?; is there an "narrative" to their career that added to their "fame" as a ballplayer?; and finally, how does their character and reputation for integrity and sportsmanship (both good, to be used as a boost, and bad, to discount their candidacy; PEDs clearly matter here, but so do positive things like winning the Roberto Clemente award or being inducted into the Sports Humanitarian Hall of Fame - as Edgar was, and did) help or hurt them?

With all that said, that "start" with objective and all-encompassing stats is the most important factor. Not the only factor, but the most important and the best way to avoid inconsistent results.

quote:

Originally posted by Three Bagger:
I won't argue this too much as you might be right but lets not count 5 time World Champion because that is not an individual thing and Jeter did have VASTLY OVERWHELMING teammates--that's a fact. Also five Golden Gloves when he deserved one or two at the most are not really a point in his favor as much as it shows what a travesty Golden Glove voting is. After all Palmeiro won one when he played 20 something games at first base one year.

Their individual lines are .281/.363./.433 for Biggio and a better .313/.382/.448 for Jeter which clearly has Jeter as a better player as I said. But wait another three or four years of decline in all three of those numbers for Jeter and they will be much closer although Jeter will certainly end up with the higher batting average, likely in the low .300's. The higher runs scored and RBI's for Jeter are partially because of the vastly superior teams Jeter was on and the Park factors.

Remember, Biggio played his prime years in that offensive graveyard known as the AstroDome. Put Jeter in there during his prime years and his offensive numbers would not be what they are now I am sure. Also Jeter has been able to add to his counting numbers by resting at DH or getting AB's with slight injuries at DH that a NL guy didn't get. So all in all I don't feel that Jeter was a OVERWHEMINGLY better player than Jeter.

Jeter's had 55 AB's as a DH over an 18 year career... But c'mon... Jeter doesn't have power numbers, you honestly think that hitting line drives to RF, would make him any worse a player in the Astrodome? He might have even gotten more hits on that hot-astroturf then... Even so, EIGHT 200-hit seasons...?!?

Didn't Garvey have seven or eight 200 hit seasons?
I agree Jeter is the superior player but some of the Hrs would not be there for sureas well as the outfielders perhaps playing slightly in knowing the ball didn't carry in the Dome would have taken some hits also. Those things chip away at Jeter's advantages. PLUS, interestingly, Jeter has hit into 269 DPs and counting and Biggio hit into only 150. This is a large number of outs that must be factored in with that Astroturf almost certainly leading to more DPs for Jeter if he had played on it.

quote:

Garvey

Had 6 200+ seasons... GREAT player... Not sure why he's not a HOFer... DP's...? WoW, that's a stretch... LOL!

quote:

Originally posted by hokieone:
It has always been a little strange. The first year Willie Mays was eligible, he got in but it wasn't unanimous. How in the world could anyone not vote for Willie Mays for the Baseball Hall of Fame?

Those that didn't vote for him should have lost their voting rights on the spot.

hokieone, I agree with you! It is the fault of those voters who believe "no one" should get in on the first ballot. I would assume that 100% of the voters felt like Willie Mays was a Hall of Famer, but many refused to vote yes on the first ballot. I do not understand that logic or lack of logic! It should not matter if it is the first ballot or not. A player is either a Hall of Famer or he is not. These "elitest" jerks who refuse to vote yes on the first ballet are ruining the hall of fame.

Bolts-Coach-PR,
Citing both batting average and the number of 200 hit seasons is double accounting. Jeter has accumulated lots of 200 hit seasons because he has a high batting average and has had lots of at bats. For example in 2012, he led the majors with 219 hits, but also led in the number of at bats. His batting average already tells you how he performed himself. The number of hits also depends on how well his team kept the batting lineup moving--and the Yankees did that very well.

Bolts-Coach-PR,

Ha ha, I guess I'm just too much of a Biggio fan!

Now lets argue Bagwell!

quote:

Originally posted by Three Bagger:

"Dang EdgarFan, arguing with you on a subject like this is like bringing a knife to a gunfight! A little overmatched!"

Sorry about that. I really love baseball and the history of the Hall of Fame (probably too much!). If I am going to offer an opinion, I always want to back it up as much as I can. Sorry if I've gone overboard.

quote:

"Actually I agree with virtually every word of your recent posts in this thread but you express it so much better than I could."

Thank you! that's very nice of you to say (and I know first-hand you are very well-equipped to express your own opinion, and I'm glad we often agree). Good to know somebody out there agrees with something I wrote.

quote:

"Also I've got to ask:

If you were a law enforcement (FBI) buff would your handle be JEdgarFan?"

Hmmmm...maybe! Actually, probably not. Even if I were a law enforcement buff, I have a hard time envisioning myself as a J. Edgar guy.

Finally, I have to comment on the Biggio/Jeter discussion between you and Bolts-Coach. Kind of silly that we'd debate two guys who should BOTH be first-ballot inductees (though now only one of them will have the chance to be one), but....

Sorry, Three Bagger, I've got to side with Bolts-Coach on this one. You're right that it is probably closer than most people would realize, and Biggio is probably the better (and more versatile) defender, but Jeter also played the tougher defensive position (except when Biggio was a catcher). And Biggio had a slightly better 5-year peak, but Jeter was better longer, and more consistent, over his entire career.

If you look at the three stats I showed in the "era" post using Edgar as an example, OPS+, WPA, and WAR:

Biggio:

112 career OPS+, 136 OPS+ for 5-year peak ('94-'98); 31.5 career WPA, 21.3 WPA for 5-year peak; 62.1 career WAR, 31.3 WAR for 5-year peak.

Jeter:

117 career OPS+, 129 OPS+ for 5-year peak ('98-'02); 33.4 career WPA, 16.0 for 5-year peak; 69.3 WAR for career, 27.9 for 5-year peak.

Closer than most people would guess, and Biggio's slightly better peak helps narrow the career edge Jeter clearly enjoys...but overall, I gotta go with Jeter on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by HRKB:

quote:

Originally posted by hokieone:

"It has always been a little strange. The first year Willie Mays was eligible, he got in but it wasn't unanimous. How in the world could anyone not vote for Willie Mays for the Baseball Hall of Fame?

"Those that didn't vote for him should have lost their voting rights on the spot."

"hokieone, I agree with you! It is the fault of those voters who believe 'no one' should get in on the first ballot. I would assume that 100% of the voters felt like Willie Mays was a Hall of Famer, but many refused to vote yes on the first ballot. I do not understand that logic or lack of logic! It should not matter if it is the first ballot or not. A player is either a Hall of Famer or he is not. These "elitest" jerks who refuse to vote yes on the first ballet are ruining the hall of fame."

I'm with you guys. Some "fun" facts:

In 1966, 20 writers did not vote for Ted Williams.

In 1969, 23 writers did not vote for Stan Musial.

In 1971, Yogi Berra came on the ballot, and was not elected that year. 118 writers did not vote for Yogi Berra.

In 1972, 52 writers did not vote for Sandy Koufax.

And so on - and these totals were from a time when maybe HALF the total of writers voted as do now. As you note, 23 didn't vote for Willie Mays. 43 didn't vote for Mickey Mantle. 64 didn't vote for Bob Gibson. 62 didn't vote for Ernie Banks. 9 couldn't see fit to vote for Hank Aaron. 10 didn't vote for Bob Feller, and 36 didn't vote for Jackie Robinson. 45 didn't vote for Frank Robinson. 16 didn't vote for Mike Schmidt. It took the writers four ballots to elect Joe DiMaggio, and he only got ONE vote the first time he appeared on a ballot (though it was a strange ballot, as DiMaggio was still active at the time).

And it all comes down to the stupid idea that because nobody in the first class was unanimously elected (4 of 226 didn't vote for Ty Cobb, 11 didn't vote for Honus Wagner and Babe Ruth, 17 didn't vote for Christy Mathewson, and 33 didn't vote for Walter Johnson; and guys like Lajoie, Cy Young, Horsby, and Gehrig didn't even get in on the 1st ballot) then nobody ever should be. That kind of thinking never helps, particularly on crowded ballots - heck, that thinking was created by a crowded ballot!

I wonder if the NFL hall of fame voters will treat Ray Lewis, an accused murder, the same as the baseball players who may have taken PEDs.

Not hardly since they already have a multiple killer in the Hall.