The 2014 HOF ballot...who's in?

[Deepster]

I certainly overlooked Morgan, and his two MVPs.

But just a comparion:
Morgan: 22 years, 2517 hits, 268 HR, .271/.392/.427, 5 Gold Gloves
Biggio: 20 years, 3060 hits, 291 HR, .281/.363/.433, 4 Gold Gloves.

Thier pretty comparable on basic stats.

WAR and JAWS is where Morgan destroys Biggio.

Morgan: 100.4 WAR, 79.8 JAWS
Biggio: 64.9 WAR, 53.3 JAWS.

By Jaffe's JAWS system, Morgan is the fourth best second baseman of all time, behind Hornsby, Eddie Collins, and Nap Lajoie...or, in other words, the best second baseman of the modern era.

As usual, I've proven myself an idiot...

As for Biggio, JAWS ranks him the 14th best 2nd baseman of all time...well ahead of Brian Doyle, although if you are a Dodgers fan, I understand the fear of Doyle.

JAWS? Jesus. The explosion of these "stat of the day" concoctions has really lessened my interest in following the sport.

 

[Husky25]

http://deadspin.com/dan-le-batard-l...d&utm_campaign=Feed:+deadspin/full+(Deadspin)

Le Batard has been banned for life for allowing fans to have a perfectly reasonable opinion on who should be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. More sanctimonious BS from the "Keepers" of the Game.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I am a Yankees Fan and I don't think Donny Baseball belongs in the HOF.

If I had a vote, the first name on my ballot would be Barry Bonds, second Clemens, then the Braves Duo, Biggio, Thomas, and Mike P. I would have to think about the rest.

The Baseball Writers were given the vote in large part because the HOF wanted free publicity. Allowing the writers to vote also assured the HOF that writers all over the country would write about the HOF. How they became the protectors of Baseball Integrity (which is an oxymoron) baffles me.

 

[tzznandrew]

JAWS? Jesus. The explosion of these "stat of the day" concoctions has really lessened my interest in following the sport.

Fair enough. That's why I put both there.

But, I would say most people think Morgan is much better than Biggio...yet, by pure stats, it doesn't look like it. Advanced statistics like Wins Over Replacement and JAWS help to put a player in proper perspective to their era...and in their era put players in their proper perspective in ballparks (like ERA+).

I don't think we should throw out all the old stats, for sure. They're important. And sometimes advanced Sabermetrics might get things wrong. But it doesn't mean their not useful...especially in comparing Morgan to Biggio, say.

 

[mauconnfan]

I get that he has some impressive totals compiled over a very, very long career but he was never a dominant player. Hell Jeff Kent was a more dominant player and he wont even get close

The position thing irks me a bit too....I get it that not a lot of second baseman have monster numbers so he looks good...and the fact that someone like Mazeroksi is in the HoF is confusing

on that note...if Mazeroski is in most likely on his defense..How is Keith Hernandez not included. Easily the best fielding 1B of all time, 1 MVP and top 5 three times. 11 straight gold gloves and respectable offensive numbers in the pre-steroid era

Not easily at all, Mattingly was right there with him defensively and was a much better hitter than Keith. If he's not in Hernandez won't sniff it…….now Gil Hodges?

 

[Fishy]

I'm going to hold my breath until Roger Maris is in the Hall of Fame.

You could talk baseball for a thousand years and you still will never get to Tom Glavine or Frank Thomas....but Maris will come up right quick.

And it's a hall of fame, not a hall of really good for a longish period of time.

 

[Fishy]

http://deadspin.com/dan-le-batard-loses-hall-of-fame-vote-suspended-from-b-1498090172?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: deadspin/full (Deadspin)

Le Batard has been banned for life for allowing fans to have a perfectly reasonable opinion on who should be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. More sanctimonious BS from the "Keepers" of the Game.

Please.

It was a publicity stunt.

He deserved to have his vote yanked.

 

[Husky25]

As a writer, Le Betard is no saint, agreed. However if his vote is yanked, there are about a dozen more that should be as well.

Le Betard's actions are far less aggregious than turning in a blank ballot only to "prove a point" or granting lifetime voting rights to a BBRAA "writer" who only covers golf and not baseball.

 

[The Viking]

I think talking about wins when it comes to comparing pitchers is pointless now unless you don't want any pitchers getting into the hall because few will ever hit 300 again.
What I think should be done, and this goes for comparing hitters too, is take the 10 best years of any player and compare. This gets rid of the "compiler" sneaking in. Show me your 10 best years and give the numbers for them and lets see how great you really were. I'm not going to even say 10 year span because if you're out with an injury for one or two of those years but you have really good years in year 11 and 12, you shouldn't be punished for that.

 

[Fishy]

As a writer, Le Betard is no saint, agreed. However if his vote is yanked, there are about a dozen more that should be as well.

Le Betard's actions are far less aggregious than turning in a blank ballot only to "prove a point" or granting lifetime voting rights to a BBRAA "writer" who only covers golf and not baseball.

I do not disagree with that - there are a lot of odd ducks who should have their ballots yanked.

But Le Batard turning his ballot over to Deadspin was just pandering for publicity - he was gobbling Deadspin's nuts for a kind word and a bump for his radio show.

That sort of stupidity even aces out dunces like Ken Gurnick.

 

[G0UCONN]

I think talking about wins when it comes to comparing pitchers is pointless now unless you don't want any pitchers getting into the hall because few will ever hit 300 again.
What I think should be done, and this goes for comparing hitters too, is take the 10 best years of any player and compare. This gets rid of the "compiler" sneaking in. Show me your 10 best years and give the numbers for them and lets see how great you really were. I'm not going to even say 10 year span because if you're out with an injury for one or two of those years but you have really good years in year 11 and 12, you shouldn't be punished for that.

That comparison may tell you who was the better player in their heydays and is fine but there is alot to be also said for someone who is really good for 20 years (compilers)....not many are able to do it...

That in and of itself is an accomplishment.

Take 3000 hits or 300 wins. That is averaging 150 hits or 15 wins for 20 years----both are great accomplisments and says you were a great ballplayer....

 

[G0UCONN]

I'm going to hold my breath until Roger Maris is in the Hall of Fame.

You could talk baseball for a thousand years and you still will never get to Tom Glavine or Frank Thomas....but Maris will come up right quick.

And it's a hall of fame, not a hall of really good for a longish period of time.

Fair point. Maris arguably belongs and he was the opposite of a compiler...

 

[Husky25]

Why is there a bias against players who play for a long time (i.e. the dreaded "compiler")?

Staying healthy enough to play every day for 20 years is as much a skill as quickly running 90 feet and avoiding the tag.

If Biggio*, Harold Reynolds, and Jeff Kent are not Hall of Famers by the numbers, then neither should Cal Ripken Jr. be. Certainly not a first ballot HoFer. Conversely, If Ripken is a 1st Ballot guy, then Biggio and Kent should have been elected this year.

*Based on 2014 results, will probably get elected in 2015

 

[Husky25]

Fair point. Maris arguably belongs and he was the opposite of a compiler...

Maris is right where he belongs. The 1961 season belongs in the Hall of Fame (and it is), but Maris did not put up HoFer number outside 1960-62.

 

[tzznandrew]

Maris is right where he belongs. The 1961 season belongs in the Hall of Fame (and it is), but Maris did not put up HoFer number outside 1960-62.

Maris was an All Star 4 years. If he played the other 9 years at a reasonably good level, he'd be in. But he missed a lot of games after those four years, and even when he played over 100 games, he wasn't terribly good.

But, I do sympathize with Fishy's position.

People who are against "compilers" want the hall to be pretty exclusive--more exclusive than it actually is. But still, from the 1870s until now, only 240 players have been elected. That's about 17-18 players per decade. And really, other than the small number of players from the 1800s, it's really more like 23-24 per decade.

 

[Husky25]

Maris was an All Star 4 years. If he played the other 9 years at a reasonably good level, he'd be in. But he missed a lot of games after those four years, and even when he played over 100 games, he wasn't terribly good.

But, I do sympathize with Fishy's position.

People who are against "compilers" want the hall to be pretty exclusive--more exclusive than it actually is. But still, from the 1870s until now, only 240 players have been elected. That's about 17-18 players per decade. And really, other than the small number of players from the 1800s, it's really more like 23-24 per decade.

Health is a skill. Without it, no one would hit 500 HR or get 3,000 hits. PEDs help in the short term to be sure, but they also make the user more susceptible to injury. That is why I am against Vikings 10 best year theory. Someone playing 15 years but missing the majority of 4, is probably not a Hall of Famer.

On the other hand have no problem if Clemens, Bonds, Palmiero, etc. got elected. It is the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. Those players are at the very least (in)famous and the Steroid Era is a significant part of Baseball history. Baseball would be wise to embrace it, rather than try to deny it happened. They would probably dampen the negative rhetoric around this process. Go ahead and mention that the player played during the Steroid Era on his plaque. It's true isn't it? Don't say anything about being suspected of taking PEDs or failed tests. Point out only that all or parts of the Player's career was played between 1993 and 2002 (or whenever the Steroid Era is determined to have occurred). Are we sure that HoFers who played in the 60's-80's weren't popping greenies by the handful every day?

 

[60'sfan]

I think Sandy Koufax throws a lot of these arguments into the trash can. Sandy had a total of 165 wins and didn't even have 10 good years. He had at most 5 or 6 good years but those years were amazing. That he retired at age 30 after going 27-9 with at 1.73 ERA is unfortunate. He also had 27 complete games, 5 shutouts, pitched 323 innings and had 318 K's and just 77 BB's. He did not jave a long career but in his last 5 years he was incredible. He retired early because of extreme pain in his elbow. Does anyone think he doesn't belong in the Hall? I wonder what he could have done with the medical options that are available today.

 

[G0UCONN]

I think Sandy Koufax throws a lot of these arguments into the trash can. Sandy had a total of 165 wins and didn't even have 10 good years. He had at most 5 or 6 good years but those years were amazing. That he retired at age 30 after going 27-9 with at 1.73 ERA is unfortunate. He also had 27 complete games, 5 shutouts, pitched 323 innings and had 318 K's and just 77 BB's. He did not jave a long career but in his last 5 years he was incredible. He retired early because of extreme pain in his elbow. Does anyone think he doesn't belong in the Hall? I wonder what he could have done with the medical options that are available today.

Pedro Martinez is similar in terms of being great but not for an overly long time...and he will be HOFer

I don't think anyone is saying those great like that do not necessarily belong....

 

[tzznandrew]

Pedro Martinez is similar in terms of being great but not for an overly long time...and he will be HOFer

I don't think anyone is saying those great like that do not necessarily belong....

Pedro's peak was longer. About 8 years. He won his first Cy in 1997, and in 2004 he came in fourth for the Cy. Now, we could add 1996, where he was an All Star, and the first two years with the Mets, where he was also an All Star, but I don't think those are quite as good.

Over those 8 years, he won 3 Cys, was top 5 in voting 4 other times. He also was top 5 in MVP voting 2 times. He led the league in ERA 5 times, and compiled a 134-45 record, with a 2.43 ERA. If you add the other 3 years, he was 171-71 with a 2.71 ERA. Still damn good.

 

[G0UCONN]

The fact he did it in heyday of roids and age of HR and offense makes it more amazing...

 

[Husky25]

Pedro was absolutely dominant for a 7 year stretch. He was merely really good from 1993-1996, 2004-2006, and 2008. But during his dominance, you watched him pitch and went to the bathroom when the offense was up, not the other way around, as is typical.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

They banned Lebetard....they should have banned the person who voted for J.T Snow.

I don't think he did it for publicity in the self-promotion sense, and I am glad he did it.

 

[tzznandrew]

Pedro was absolutely dominant for a 7 year stretch. He was merely really good from 1993-1996, 2004-2006, and 2008. But during his dominance, you watched him pitch and went to the bathroom when the offense was up, not the other way around, as is typical.

His ERA was high in 2004 (3.90), but somehow he still came in fourth in the Cy Young voting.

But yeah. I don't remember Clemens in the 1980s--and he was obviously good from his Toronto-NYY-Houston days, but even he wasn't as must see as Pedro was, especially 1999-2000. Perhaps because we all knew he was cheating at that point... I don't know, because his 1.87 ERA when he was 42 was clearly fishy.

 

[60'sfan]

His ERA was high in 2004 (3.90), but somehow he still came in fourth in the Cy Young voting.

But yeah. I don't remember Clemens in the 1980s--and he was obviously good from his Toronto-NYY-Houston days, but even he wasn't as must see as Pedro was, especially 1999-2000. Perhaps because we all knew he was cheating at that point... I don't know, because his 1.87 ERA when he was 42 was clearly fishy.

Pedro was beginning to feel his age in 2004. He had a dominant game in the World Series which led to a five year deal with the Mets. They got one good year out of him and the rest is history. I agree, people came out in droves when he was scheduled to pitch.

The Rocket man had a lot of fan appeal too. In his early days with the Sox, he was as good as any in the came and probably wasn't juicing then either. He was absolutely dominant in 1986 when he went 24-4. He also had two games when he struck out 20 batters. He seemed to fade a little when he turned 30 in but the Sox weren't that great then either. His miraculous comeback with Toronto in probably will cost him the Hall.

 

[Husky25]

His ERA was high in 2004 (3.90), but somehow he still came in fourth in the Cy Young voting.

But yeah. I don't remember Clemens in the 1980s--and he was obviously good from his Toronto-NYY-Houston days, but even he wasn't as must see as Pedro was, especially 1999-2000. Perhaps because we all knew he was cheating at that point... I don't know, because his 1.87 ERA when he was 42 was clearly fishy.

Clemens was Dominant from 1986-roughly 1991 or so. The Red Sox W/L margin mirrored Clemens'. They were basically a .500 team when he did not pitch. Hurst, Boyd, - and later - Seaver were phenomenal in '86, but the Sox don't make the Playoffs in '88 or '90 without Clemens.

 

[Waquoit]

...but the Sox don't make the Playoffs in '88 or '90 without Clemens.

Where he was consistantly upstaged by Dave Stewart. Actually, the Sox don't make the playoffs those two years without Mike Boddicker.

 

[Husky25]

Where he was consistantly upstaged by Dave Stewart. Actually, the Sox don't make the playoffs those two years without Mike Boddicker.

The A's were just the better all around team.

 

[mauconnfan]

Red Sox fans are funny throwing Rog under Mike Boddicker……what a joke……..!!

Rog was really good, but Pedro's 4-5 year run during the ROID years was simply the best ever……the ERA was amazing, maybe he was using too, probably was who knows, but his numbers are amazing

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Pedro will make the Hall easily.

 

[Chin Diesel]

What helps players like Pedro, Griffey Jr. and Frank Thomas is that their bodies did exactly what's supposed to happen when you hit your mid-30's.

Their bodies broke down and their numbers quickly deteriorated.

The biggest hit against the Roiders is that their numbers and playing from age 34-40+ stayed constant or improved. Which is the easiest red flag to wave.