2014 Golden Era Mock HOF Election

74 Replies

The Golden Era (1947-72) committee meets on Monday to consider players from that era who meet Hall of Fame eligibility requirements but have not yet been elected. Just for fun, thought we might run our own mock election using the same rules.

More after the jump.

Here are the position players on the ballot.

Rk Player WAR WAA oWAR dWAR Rbaser OPS+ G Active PA R H HR RBI BB SO SB BA OBP SLG
1 Ken Boyer 62.8 31.5 55.6 10.6 13.3 116 2034 1955-69 8272 1104 2143 282 1141 713 1017 105 .287 .349 .462
2 Dick Allen 58.7 32.9 69.9 -16.5 15.8 156 1749 1963-77 7315 1099 1848 351 1119 894 1556 133 .292 .378 .534
3 Minnie Minoso 50.1 26.8 47.6 -5.7 13.0 130 1835 1949-80 7712 1136 1963 186 1023 814 584 205 .298 .389 .459
4 Gil Hodges 44.9 13.9 41.6 -5.4 -1.1 120 2072 1943-63 8102 1105 1921 370 1274 943 1137 63 .273 .359 .487
5 Tony Oliva 43.0 20.1 38.1 -4.6 5.1 131 1676 1962-76 6880 870 1917 220 947 448 645 86 .304 .353 .476
6 Maury Wills 39.5 10.5 38.2 12.0 54.7 88 1942 1959-72 8306 1067 2134 20 458 552 684 586 .281 .330 .331
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/5/2014.

And, the pitchers.

Rk Player WAR WAA Active G GS CG SHO W L W-L% IP ER BB SO ERA FIP ERA+
1 Luis Tiant 66.1 34.5 1964-82 573 484 187 49 229 172 .571 3486.1 1280 1104 2416 3.30 3.47 114
2 Billy Pierce 53.1 25.9 1945-64 586 433 193 38 211 169 .555 3306.2 1201 1178 1999 3.27 3.49 119
3 Jim Kaat 45.3 7.7 1959-82 898 625 180 31 283 237 .544 4530.1 1738 1083 2461 3.45 3.41 108
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/5/2014.

Polls are open until midnight (24:00) Pacific time on Sunday, December 7th. Voting rules are as follows:

  1. Up to 5 candidates may be selected on a ballot
  2. Write-in candidates are not allowed
  3. Submitting a blank ballot is allowed and has the effect of reducing election chances for all candidates (something you might consider doing if you feel none of the candidates is Hall-worthy)
  4. Players named on at least 75% of ballots cast win election

If the ballot does not display in your browser, you can also vote here.

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world’s leading questionnaire tool.

Our mock election and the actual MLB election have concluded with the same result. No candidates were elected as none were mentioned on 75% of the ballots cast in either poll.

There were 100 ballots cast in our mock election, six of which were submitted with no candidates selected. Here are the final results for HHS poll, together with the results (from 16 ballots) for the MLB election.

Rank HHS Vote MLB Vote
1 Dick Allen 65% Dick Allen 69%
2 Luis Tiant 59% Tony Oliva 69%
3 Ken Boyer 57% Jim Kaat 63%
4 Minnie Minoso 45% Maury Wills 56%
5 Gil Hodges 31% Minnie Minoso 50%
6 Tony Oliva 21% Ken Boyer <=19%
7 Jim Kaat 19% Gil Hodges <=19%
8 Billy Pierce 13% Luis Tiant <=19%
9 Maury Wills 4% Billy Pierce <=19%

The two polls are mainly in agreement for Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso, Gil Hodges and Billy Pierce. But, there are some substantial variances for the other candidates.

Thank you for participating.

74 thoughts on “2014 Golden Era Mock HOF Election”

  1. PP

    Maybe I’m the first one? I swear I was looking at that ballot the other day and didn’t think anyone should make it — most were close. But I reconsidered here and now think 5 should go. I bet the committee doesn’t pick anyone.

    Reply ↓
    1. Doug Post author

      You’re the first to comment, but not the first to vote.

      After 16 ballots cast (one blank, none spoiled), Dick Allen leads with 13 votes (81%), the only player above the 75% threshold. Next are Luis Tiant with 10 votes and Minnie Minoso with 9.

      Reply ↓
    2. Joseph

      I agreed with your first conclusion–no one should go in from this ballot. Yes, I know there are those who are less worthy who are already in–but that doesn’t mean that more unworthy players should go in.

      Reply ↓
    3. PP

      Surprised El Tiante and Boyer got 3 or fewer votes. In retrospect, I think the 5 guys I picked wouldn’t have hurt the Hall but they won’t be missed in it either.

      Tiant, Allen, Boyer, Tony O, and Minoso.

      Reply ↓
    1. Joseph

      I think you’re missing something here–or I misunderstand–the play index shows over 400 players who’ve done this, including Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Ted Williams.

      What am I missing here?

      Reply ↓
      2. Doug Post author

        Joseph,

        I think you had OBP greater than .355, instead of less than .355.

        My query agrees with Voomo’s. Only Jolley fits this bill, and he had only 1815 carer PA, about three seasons’ worth. That’s the lowest career PA (by 748!) of any of the 200 players since 1901 with multiple seasons of 30 doubles, 15 home runs and 100 RBI.

        Reply ↓
          1. RJ

            Voomo has probably learnt the hard way that ‘greater than’ and ‘less than’ signs sometimes mess up comments here because of their HTML properties.

          2. Voomo Zanzibar

            Yep, what RJ said. It grinds my low gears to thoughtfully format an idea, and then it becomes immortal htmalarkey.

    2. Voomo Zanzibar

      And if you don’t know Smead, he was compared to Babe Ruth as a minor leaguer. Perhaps he should have been compared to Ty Cobb, because he batted .366 in 7100 AB.

      It was defense (lack thereof) that kept his MLB career modest.

      Baseball-reference seems to be lacking two of his best PCL seasons.
      Here’s those numbers, and a link to a good biography:

      http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=jolley001sme
      http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/3aee5500

      Reply ↓
  3. no statistician but

    Doug:

    I would hesitate to put any of these players in the Hall, being one of those who values more than WAR.

    Example:

    The support for Allen must come from people who look at his oWAR and nothing else, I would say, but we already have one HOFer—Hornsby—who played for four teams in four years in the pre-free-agency era. Do we need another whose franchises three years running couldn’t wait to unload him at season’s end in spite of his being the best player on the team? Further, we already have one player—Killebrew—whose WAR is 11 points below his oWAR. Do we need another?

    More? I see Boyer, Minoso, Tiant, and Pierce as borderline cases along with Allen, but I don’t think it’s possible to vote in four or five borderline cases with any integrity. Hodges was just a good player, not a great one, sentiment aside; Oliva could have made the Hall except for his injury, but he got injured; Kaat isn’t a serious candidate, and Wills is less so.

    If I had to pick one it would be Tiant, but is he really any better than Pierce, or does he just look better because he worked in a pitcher’s era?

    I make these statements, by the way as a big fan of Boyer, Minoso, Hodges, and Oliva. Compare any of them to Ron Santo, though—seriously. And what did it take to get Santo in the Hall? His death. If Santo is the minimum for old-timers, then these guys don’t make the cut.

    Reply ↓
    1. David Horwich

      I don’t think Santo is the bar that needs to be cleared – the BBWAA’s failure to elect him in the first place was one of its more egregious oversights, and the fact that the VC dragged its heels for years was just as bad.

      Anyway, I voted for Tiant and Boyer.

      Reply ↓
      1. David P

        Looking at Boyer vs. Santo and comparing their WAR and WAA leaves me very confused.

        Boyer has 305 Runs Above Average, Santo has 316 (a 3.6% edge). Yet Santo has a sizable lead in WAA, 36.7 vs 31.5 (a 16.5% edge).

        The same thing with WAR. Boyer has 610 Runs above Replacement, Santo has 649 (a 6.4% edge). But in WAR, Santo has a 70.4 to 62.8 lead, a 12.1% advantage.

        I don´t get it. They had very similar impact on runs. They played the same position, in the same league, at the same time. So why does Santo have such a sizable lead in WAA and WAR????

        Reply ↓
        1. John Autin

          David P — One factor in the Santo/Boyer runs-to-wins discrepancy is that they weren’t perfect contemporaries. The periods that they *don’t* overlap had very different run environments. So the ratio of runs to wins was lower during Santo’s career, over all.

          Boyer played five full years before Santo’s debut, 1955-59, before the redefined strike zone that drove down scoring. And he was a half-timer in 1967-68, the worst scoring years of that era.

          The NL average during Boyer’s full-time years was 4.21 R/G. During Santo’s full-time years, it was 4.06, almost 4% lower. That wouldn’t fully explain the discrepancy you noted, but you may find more answers in B-R’s explanation of converting runs to wins:
          http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained_runs_to_wins.shtml

          Reply ↓
    2. Doug Post author

      A lot of Allen’s negative dWAR (as with all players who played first base a lot) comes from Rpos. Just looking at Rfield, it’s still negative but only modestly so. Without Rpos, Allen is the clear WAR leader in this group.

      Reply ↓
      1. David P

        Doug – I don`t quite understand your comment. Allen has a -110 Rfield and a -42 Rpos. His Rfield is “dragging hims down” a lot more than his Rpos.

        Reply ↓
        1. Doug Post author

          I stand corrected. I had them reversed (they’re next to each of other in the stat table).

          Allen’s negative Rpos was tempered somewhat by his play away from first base (he actually had about 100 more games at other positions than at first base).

          Reply ↓
    3. Michael Sullivan

      NSB: Why does it matter that a player’s WAR is 11 (or however many) points below his oWAR??

      All that means is that the metrics consider them a bad defender for their position — you want to rule out putting more than one poor defender in the hall? Would you not put in Jeter?

      Support for Allen comes from people who look at his OPS+ and his WAR and compare him to who else is in the hall.

      What I’ve read of the Allen story suggests that while he was billed as a major headcase, it’s not really that clear. There are some suggestive details there that make me pretty sure that a lot of his problems had a lot to do with race bias. I’m not saying he was 100% blameless, but I’d suggest there are a *lot* of players who may have had the same problems if they’d had to deal with what he did, but they never had to. I’m much more inclined to give him a pass on character issues than I would be some others.

      Reply ↓
      1. no statistician but

        MS:

        As to your opening question, the differential matters as one indicator of what kind of player the guy is. It’s just one indicator, but we’re all looking for shorthand ways to evaluate here, and it’s a thing I notice, how much difference there is between oWAW and WAR, positive or negative or about the same. You can take Bill Mazerowski as the opposite pole, 19.1 oWAR and 36.2 WAR. His offensive value isn’t high, but his defensive value is. Does that make him HOF worthy? Not to me, but it did to the veterans committee.

        Allen and race bias? Well, he had the incident with Frank Thomas I, that’s true, but in his rookie year he was one of four black starting players on the Phillies, along with Tony Taylor, Wes Covington, and Tony Gonzalez, so he wasn’t exactly a lone pioneer in the wilderness of the City of Brotherly Love, and in succeeding years his teammates included Alex Johnson, Bill White, and Larry Hisle . Traded to St. Louis, he played with Lou Brock, Bob Gibson, Jose Cardenal, and Leron Lee. Next stop L.A., where he played with Maury Wills, Willie Crawford, Willie Davis and Al Downing. By the time he made the big show black players on a team in the NL were a given, and you may think that he was regarded as an Uppity Unmentionable and so was punished, but I doubt it. I was living through those times, and in the arena of sports, my perspective was that excelling black players were valued, not easily cast off. Allen probably had what’s now called a personality disorder, and he was disruptive to the teams he played on, not all the time, and his bat spoke for him, but so did his behavior, enough that he wasn’t viewed as indispensable or even close.

        Reply ↓
        1. Dr. Doom

          I honestly don’t see how the number of black players on the roster is a relevant issue here. Dick Allen was, by all accounts, an @$$hole. There’s no argument about that. The question is, was a black @$$hole treated differently than a white one? Ty Cobb was one, too, and no one seemed to have a problem calling him “competitive” and keeping him around. The fact that there were other black players on the team does not mean that Allen wasn’t treated differently because of his race.

          Also, the point that “he wasn’t viewed as indispensable or even close” does NOT mean that those teams were correct in their assessments of him. People of a certain time can be wrong about things. Why compound their errors by counting them against the player? Perhaps there’s an argument that they knew something we didn’t; likewise, there seems to be an EQUALLY valid question as to whether or not WE know something that THEY didn’t. I don’t see that as a convincing argument one way or the other.

          Reply ↓
        2. John Autin

          nsb — FWIW, in 1963, Allen was the first black pro ballplayer in the history of Arkansas. That was also the first year that the Little Rock grandstands were integrated. The white fans pitched a lot of racial animosity at Allen, according to many accounts. And the Phillies organization seems to have done little or nothing to pave the way for this integration, or to help Allen cope with the mistreatment. Or so I’ve read.

          Reply ↓
          1. no statistician but

            JA:

            Knew that already, but I was focussing on replying to the direction of MS’s comment, which was a response to my original, which treated Allen’s big league experience. Did his time in Little Rock traumatize him to the extent that he was changed radically? Maybe. Could that be the root of his difficulty getting along? Also maybe. Or maybe his behavior, however it’s described, came about for some other cause. I personally don’t think it was willful so much as compelled. He wasn’t an @$$hole, as Dr. D calls him, not in my opinion. But that didn’t make him any easier to take in large doses when he was being obstreperous or flaky.

        3. Lawrence Azrin

          @41,43;

          RE – DICK ALLEN;I think that it was possible for an African American MLB player breaking the color barrier to be both:

          – a trailblazer suffering racial discrimination
          – a huge pain in the neck and irritant to some of his team mates

          The two are not mutually exclusive. I’d put Allen in the HOF, but I don’t usually consider ‘character’ issues (except gambling – that’s a big NO to Joe Jackson, Hal Chase, Pete Rose).

          Reply ↓
          3. John Autin

            Voomo @47 — I read that link as far as Jackson pleading with Comiskey to bench him for the Series, in order to [in his mind] quell any rumors that he was tanking. “Tell the newspapers you just suspended me for being drunk, or anything, but leave me out of the Series and then there can be no question.”

            Really, Joe?

            The only way that could support his innocence is by suggesting that he was too dim-witted to realize that benching such a star as him would hurt Chicago almost as much as if he played and tried to lose.

            If he truly couldn’t see that instinctively, then maybe it really was possible for him to seem complicit in the eyes of the fixers, without realizing how they read his words and actions.

            Except for that angle, his tale of asking to be benched reeks of a either a cheap attempt to hoodwink those even less clever than himself, or else a shrewdly calculated gambit to make himself seem dim but earnest.

        4. Paul E

          nsb – re: Dick Allen

          The City of Brotherly Love has always heaped feces upon their stars (Mike Schmidt, Del Ennis-a Philly native, no less, Sonny Jurgensen, Wilt Chamberlain, Scott Rolen, Charles Barkley, etc… ad nauseam…) and generally blamed them for their teams’ failures. When you couple the “northern-most Southern city” with on-going race riots in the middle of North Philadelphia (Connie Mack Stadium – 21st & Lehigh) in the mid-1960’s , and further factor in a changing demographic in those same neighborhoods, white Philadelphia fans rained their anger and frustration on Allen without mercy.
          At some point, Allen decided to “give” back in an effort to get traded. No middle-finger to the people in the stands-just plain indifference to things like BP and team rules. In his first three seasons, he missed 20 games (total) to a separated shoulder in 1966. In his fourth season, 1967, he played in 122 of the teams first 122 games before lacerating his hand and ulna nerve. He did, at least, show up for “work”.
          According to Bill James, “he had the talent of Aaron, Mays, and DiMaggio…” (BJNHBA), and, “probably the most gifted player I ever saw” (1st BJHB Abstract).
          Honestly, I don’t believe Allen cares about Cooperstown. It could have been different if he played for his hometown Pirates but they already pissed away $200,000 on Bob Bailey. Cincinnati had to know about him-he would have been hell in that little league park Crosley Field.
          But, with some guys, it’s enough to know they were HoF talents and a pleasure to watch them play. Allen was one of those guys

          Reply ↓
          1. T-Bone

            About 2 years ago I read a fairly long piece about Dick Allen but for the life of me I can’t find it, and I didn’t save it. For full disclosure, I have been a fan of Allen since I first really understood Baseball in 1969. That said, the article I read went all the way back to Allen’s childhood and described what it was like and how much he looked up to his Father, also named Dick. Dick Allen felt he was being insulted and disrespected when teams began calling him Rich and Richie. He wanted to be called Dick for what he felt was a good reason. That was just one of the things I remember about him that became a constant sore point for him. There were others of a similar nature. I remember all of the things written about him then and I lived near L.A. when he played there. I’m not trying to paint him as a saint. I’m sure a lot of what we heard about was true or mostly true, but understanding a little about a person sometimes helps temper our negative opinions. I see no problem with admiring one’s father and insisting on being called their given name, especially in light of those facts. How many other issues began in such a way and became bigger then the truth, I don’t know. I tend to cut him and others some slack, especially when there are facts available that counter what we think we know. Having said that, I would vote for Dick Allen for the HOF if I had a vote.

  4. John Autin

    Boyer among modern third basemen (5,000+ PAs since 1893):

    — 13th in WAR
    — 10th in WAR per 650 PAs
    — 11th in the product of those two
    — 8 years with 5+ WAR, tied for #3

    Traditional measures?
    — 7-time All-Star
    — 5 Gold Gloves
    — 8 years with MVP votes, including one win
    — 8 years with 90+ RBI, tied for #4
    — 6 years with 90+ Runs, tied for #9

    Only 11 modern 3Bs are in the Hall, still the fewest of any position, and three of those are questionable at best (Lindstrom, Kell, Traynor).

    Yeah, I voted for Boyer. And Tiant.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hartvig

      I voted for those 2 plus Allen & Minoso.

      I don’t think that any of these guys are as big a mistake by the BBWAA as Santo or Vaughan were by any means but I do think that they are all either very close to or over the “Are they as good as the average Hall of Famer” at their position line.

      And another point in Boyer’s favor- at the time of his retirement a very good case could be made for his being one of the 5 best 3rd basemen in the games history and he was a contemporary of 3 of the other candidates- which means that he was better than all but maybe a couple of the third basemen that had played before him.

      Reply ↓
  5. oneblankspace

    I’m voting the White Sox ballot of Allen, Pierce, Minoso, Kaat.

    I had to scroll down to get to the Done button to submit the form, but I was able to do it from this page.

    Reply ↓
  6. David W

    I voted for Boyer and Minoso.

    He got a late start due to discrimination, and his first year in 1951 he was 25 years old. As a rookie he finished 4th in MVP voting.

    Reply ↓
  7. Joseph

    None of these players should be in. It’ the Hall of FAME. Not the Hall of Merit.

    It’s certainly not the Hall of Good Players Nobody Remembers Except for People Fascinated by Baseball Obscurities.

    Reply ↓
    1. Dr. Doom

      1.) It’s called the Hall of “Fame” because it is meant to bestow fame, not because fame is a prerequisite.
      2.) How many players would be in your personal Hall? I think this is always the thing that gets lost in these discussions. I’m guessing you’re probably more in the range of 100 players. But for those of us who favor a 250-or-so Hall, these guys are pretty reasonable candidates.

      Reply ↓
  8. Doug Post author

    At this juncture (65 ballots incl. 3 blank, none spoiled), Allen and Tiant are tied with 42 votes (64.6%).

    Reply ↓
  9. RJ

    – Luis Tiant received 30.9% of the vote on his first appearance on the ballot (1988) but plummeted to 10.5% the next year. What happened? Ah: 1989 saw the arrivals of Carl Yastrzemski, Johnny Bench, Gaylord Perry and Fergie Jenkins on the ballot, not to mention Jim Kaat, whose counting stats put Tiant in the shade. Tiant’s share of the vote never recovered, not topping 20% again.

    – Minnie Miñoso received 1.8% of the vote upon his first retirement. But apparently 10 PAs and one hit can do a heck of a lot for your Hall chances. When Miñoso reappeared on the ballot, seventeen years and two stunt appearances later, his share of the vote jumped to 20.9%. But that was about as good as it got for him.

    Reply ↓
  10. Dave Humbert

    Pretty thinned-out era for candidates:

    Lots of good but not great here. Hodges, Oliva, and Wills can only get sympathy votes – just did not do enough. Kaat’s longevity is nice, but that’s his main selling point and Sutton/Wynn are borderline enough for me already. Pierce and Minoso are just borderline. I would not object to them getting in, but doublt 75% will buy their cases (Minoso needing some Doby-like “pioneer” credit and Pierce being Whitey Ford “lite”.

    I went Tiant, Boyer, Allen. Tiant especially “feels” like a HOFer to me, Boyer ranks highly among third basemen all-time, and Allen was an offensive force (although his attitude cost him).

    The above said, would not be surprised if no one gets in at all, as few stand out in this group.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hartvig

      I think that what you said about not standing out is a really big factor.

      Santo was something of a cause célèbre among the advanced metrics crowd for more than a couple of decades and then his death sort of rekindled the old arguments.

      And no one in this group has had that kind of fairly widespread support because none are really that far over the line that their exclusion is seen as a clear injustice so making the case for them becomes more complex- and that’s not the kind of argument that is going to get you 75% of the vote very often.

      Reply ↓
      1. no statistician but

        The best argument for the five genuine candidates here—Boyer, Allen, Minoso, Tiant, and Pierce—is that they were better than a number of players already in the Hall.

        I’m not referring to the Friends of Frisch; I’m talking about guys like Red Schoendienst, Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter, Tony Perez, and Catfish Hunter, only one of whom, the first, wasn’t a BBWAA choice. Schoendienst had sentiment behind him for a couple of reasons, and Sutter was overvalued tremendously with an afterglow that lasted just long enough to get him in. Rice, Perez, and Hunter were decent candidates at least—you could call them the lowest threshold, genuine large hall HOFers,but I’d take Boyer. Allen, or Minoso over Rice or Perez, and Tiant or Pierce over Hunter. Problem is, does the Hall need more entry level players when the current crop and those coming up have such a large number of better choices?

        One solution to this problem, as I’ve said here before, but not recently, is to have a tiered Hall of Fame:

        A-level, Babe Ruth, etc.
        B-level, Robin Roberts, etc.
        C-level, Lou Boudreau, etc.
        D-level, Guys like the ones I’ve discussed above.

        That would shift the argument to where a player deserves to be ranked, not whether he’s in or out.

        Reply ↓
        1. Dave Humbert

          Those D level guys the BBWAA put in that you mentioned got in based on reputations overstating their true value. Rice (the “feared slugger” of his day), Sutter (the first to use the split-finger fastball), Perez (Big Dawg, leader of the Big Red Machine), and Hunter (the “big game pitcher”) were all overrated somewhat.

          Others the BBWAA considered “dominant” in some way included Traynor, Maranville, Brock, and Fingers. Lemon and Pennock got in based on their “ace” status on famous teams. Statiscally, these may be the weakest 10 selected by the BBWAA (excluding Campy and Aparicio), 6 of them elected 1985 or later. I believe the five genuine candidates you mentioned are more valuable than all these guys.

          Unfortunately, while trying to “correct” the hall by adding deserving players overlooked, writers and committees are also reacting to criticism of the past mistakes by raising their “threshold” in recent years. Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Santo, Larkin, D. White, Alomar, Blyleven, and Dawson (all since 2010) are clearly well above borderline, and it will not be easy for any lesser HOF-level talent to get in going forward.

          In this environment, only the more obvious candidates (should they actually get put on the ballots) are likely to get voted in, and I doubt the powers that be are ready to embrace a truly large hall to cover everyone worthy anyway. Limiting eligibility to 10 years (for BBWAA consideration) and requiring 75% of the vote keeps out lesser players by design, so players such as those on this ballot will suffer for it.

          A tiered HOF structure would work for our discussion purposes (worst in the COM – Circle of Mediocrity), but Cooperstown is not likely to have a separate wing for the Friends of Frisch and Other Poor Selections.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dr. Doom

            I know a lot of people favor a tiered system as a way of sorting out the worse selections. My problem is, if we go that way, do we actually risk diluting the Hall of Fame even more?

            My guess is that it would be a LOT easier to make a Hall of Fame argument for, say, Ken Boyer if there’s a D-Level Hall of Fame section. But not just Ken Boyer. Suddenly there’s a reason to elect Fred Lynn (well, he AT LEAST belongs in the D-Level); heck, there’s an argument for Brian Jordan being in the D-Level. Teddy Higuera. Mike Greenwell. some of these guys – I don’t really want them in the Hall of Fame, though, even in the D-Level.

            Look, why HAVE a D-Level, if you’re not going to add to it? And how ON EARTH do you separate who should be IN the Hall in the D-Level, and who should be OUT of the Hall? I realize that’s a slippery slope argument, but I could actually see it causing MORE problems, rather than solving them. Because, after all, if we have a section solely devoted to the Catfish Hunters, Jim Rices, and Bruce Sutters of the world, we really SHOULD put Jack Morris in there. And at some point, we just have to ask, “why?”

  12. Dave Humbert

    Dr. Doom makes a good point that tiered systems can open the door to further dilution: if Hunter is OK at D level, why not Morris, Lynn, Jordan, etc.

    I did an exercise about a year ago to determine my own HOF, using books and websites rating HOF’s (and those overlooked). Adam Darowski’s Hall of Stats provided a starting point, with all players Hall Ratings taking into account WAR and WAA, adjustments for catchers, relievers, 19th century schedules and pitchers, etc. Replacement Level Baseball Blog (Bryan O’Connor), Replacement Level Podcast (Ross Carey), and Left Field (Dan McCloskey) had great discussions about personal HOF’s whose narratives along with my books on ranking HOF’s helped me sort out candidates.

    Of the 208 players that were in the HOF at the time, I removed 52 lesser choices (fully 25%) and replaced them with 52 more deserving, and it felt about right. Generally, Adam’s Hall Ratings above 110 made my hall, but guys like Campanella (78), Gossage (90), and Kiner (93) made it for various reasons. The cutoff for WAR for most worked out to about 50 (there are 285 players with WAR over 50 and about 500 total with WAR over 40). Because of this, I eliminated the D level guys entirely. 40 or so players removed had a Hall of Stats Rating less than 90, the rest were selected 90’s. Changes from the 90-110 borderline range were also subjective: Max Carey (95) stayed in while Cesar Cedeno (102) stayed out. Only Schang (95), Freehan (94), Groh (94) and Hack (94) were added with less than 100, since I made allowance for scarcity of catchers and third basemen.

    My hall does not include the likes of Hunter, Sutter, Rice, and Morris. It does have Tiant, Boyer, Allen, and Minoso (barely), but not Pierce. Expanding out to 220 or so as Adam does makes room for old-time stars like Bennett, Stovey, and McGraw. Going any further to me opens the door to the Appiers, Bo. Bonds, Oleruds, Cedenos and others that were just good for a while. There will always be gray areas, but those D-level types should not really be in the HOF (more like Hall of Very Good or Hall of Noteworthy).

    Reply ↓
    1. Hartvig

      Your Hall sounds like it would be pretty close to what I think it ought to be (altho admittedly I have never put near as much effort into working out the details).

      I get that it wouldn’t be right to kick out the 50 or so “mistakes” that are in the Hall- you can’t have people wondering if the honor bestowed on them today will be taken away 20 years from now just because someone changed their mind- but I also don’t think that it would somehow lessen the honor if we were to apply the standards consistently.

      While he certainly shouldn’t be considered the “everybody above this line” starting point I can see a case for Lou Brock belonging in the HOF. But even if you don’t think that Brock belongs it’s ridiculous to claim that just because he doesn’t neither does Raines.

      There are 19 left fielders in the HOF (depending on where you put some guys like Rose, etc.). Five of them (Bonds, Williams, Musial, Henderson & Yastremski) are clearly better than Raines. Burkett probably is. Maybe Simmons. But it’s pretty clear that he’s at least somewhere in the middle of the pack and reasonable people could rank him higher than that.

      The same case- or possibly even a better one- could also be made for Alan Trammell.

      I just don’t understand how it somehow maintains the integrity of the HOF by excluding players who are clearly as good as or even better than the average player that’s already been honored.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dave Humbert

        I agree no one actually gets removed, but 40-50 questionable selections highlights the flaws of the voting process in the past. Getting the Hall to induct the overlooked will be tough, as overcrowded ballots, roids issues, and perceptions of “not dominant enough” can combine to ensure many deserving players never reach 75% of the vote anyway. The voters are becoming too exclusive and overcompensating for the past mistakes.

        Guys like Whitaker, Trammell, Grich and Raines are all in my hall, as well as Shilling, Walker, Bagwell and Piazza. Bonds, Clemens, Rose, and J. Jackson get in also (no character clause or roids issues in my hall) which I know is not likely for the real HOF anytime soon. My list has guys to argue about, but has a stronger caliber of player than in Cooperstown and better positional balance (16-21 per spot except CF with 4 more eligible soon, and 64 P). For me, the HOF should represent the greatest overall talents the game has seen, famous or infamous.

        Hopefully the various committees (and the BBWAA where it can) will work on accelerating worthy candidates off the backlog. Until then, we can debate and make our own HOF lists.

        BTW, Brock was the most difficult “omission” for me, but advanced stats do not treat him well (maybe WAR and WAA do not adequately measure his speed game impact). 3000 hits is tough to bypass either and I can see arguments that he belongs. I had Joe Kelley, Minoso and Kiner as my low-end LF guys ahead of him.

        Reply ↓
  13. Tubbs

    I voted for Miñoso, Tiant, Kaat, Hodges, & Pierce

    Miñoso is, by far, the candidate I feel most strongly about. I feel the combination of Miñoso’s fine career (which was delayed by the color barrier) and role as one of the first black superstars in the early days of integration as well as the Major League’s first black Latino player make him HOF worthy candidate

    Reply ↓
  14. brp

    Three guys I didn’t vote for in the CoG (at least I don’t think I have):
    Tiant
    Boyer
    Allen

    The HOF bar is a lot lower than the COG bar.

    Reply ↓
  16. Bryan O'Connor

    Looks like I got in late (no CoG on weekends for me), but I voted for Minoso, Allen, Tiant, and Boyer. I think Minoso’s induction is imperative and shouldn’t wait any longer. The other three are closer to, but probably above, the borderline, a line possibly defined by Billy Pierce.

    Reply ↓
    1. mosc

      You know this is a little off topic but I wish some in the traditional media would back off Blyleven as the first of many sabermetric-only candidates they will have to consider. First, Blyleven was a hell of a pitcher on traditional stats too. Second, he’s got a amazing combination of contributing factors across the board that lead traditional stats to undervalue him. I don’t think there ever will be another Blyleven-type case who is so clearly a HOFer under the lens of advanced metrics that would fail an older critera. And even then, he was generally held as the bar for others to be over by the most staunch of traditionalists.

      Reply ↓
      1. RJ

        I think any potential HoF disagreement between saber- and traditional types will likely be centred around defensive stats. Beltre perhaps? But he’s likely to get the counting stats. So… Utley? If he retired tomorrow that might make an interesting argument.

        Reply ↓
        1. mosc

          Well I think first that sabermetrics are now too popular to have such a standoff again. We’re not going to argue over any 96 WAR players anymore. The only thing “wrong” with Blyleven was his W/L record

          Second, borderline cases sabermetically are not Blyleven. Leaving out Utley, or even Beltre, is not the same as Blyleven. 3.3 ERA over 5000 innings pitched is a hell of a lot of value. Beltre’s not there yet and if he does, I don’t see how he gets there without 3000 hits and 400 HR 4 gold gloves.

          There are very few players who’s reputation is that far off their performance. Utley has 6 all star appearances and 10 post season home runs leading to a ring. He’s not going to slip through the cracks. He doesn’t have a gold glove or an MVP (deservedly so) and it’s hard to make a case for him over Trammel but I think he’d get consideration.

          I think it’s a stretch to say Beltre’s going to run into much resistance or that Utley is anywhere near the Blyleven bar. I’m not saying we’ll never have debates on the relative importance of this stat or that (pitching wins or WAR or whatever) just that I highly doubt a player of Blyleven’s caliber will ever be close to left out again.

          Reply ↓
          2. Michael Sullivan

            I’m not that confident. If they don’t fix the voting, it’s very possible to happen again. And they appear to not understand the inevitable mathematical effects of their voting scheme, because their attempt to improve it made it much much worse.

          3. paget

            Ok, so huge tangent here, but I came to thinking about John Hiller. How, you ask? By one of those mini b-ref odysseys that bring you from 1)taking a look at Blyleven’s page, 2)noting his extraordinary 1973 campaign, 3)wondering who finished ahead of him in the Cy Young voting that year (there were six ahead of him), 4)Seeing John Hiller with an astounding 8.1 WAR in a season with 125.1 IP.

            I had read of that season before, but never had seen WAR’s take on just how good it was. When I think of the most extraordinary seasons in relief ever, my mind instantly turns to that year Gossage turned in for the White Sox in 1975 (which translates to 8.2 WAR in 141.2 IP). But, at least as far as WAR per inning pitched Hiller actually out-performed Goose.

            Anyway, my question is this: has anyone in the history of the game ever turned in a better season in terms of WAR/IP than Hiller’s in 1973? Anyone remember what made him so particularly devastating that year?

  18. Doug Post author

    I’ve updated the post with the results from our mock election, together with the results from the MLB election.

    Reply ↓
    1. Brendan Bingham

      The rank-order correlation between the two lists is near-zero (-0.044, if I’ve done it correctly). It seems the two groups are viewing the candidates very differently.

      Reply ↓
      1. Doug

        I’m inclined to agree more with the HHS perspective.

        Nothing against Tony Oliva, but it’s a bit shocking to think he was one vote shy of election.

        Reply ↓
      2. Dave Humbert

        At least the two groups viewed Allen and Minoso at similar percentages. The lack of clearly superior candidates on the list ensured the vote would be diluted and no one would reach 75%. Last year, the 3 big managers had no real competition (Marvin Miller and a bunch of less than stellar players) to take votes away. Heck, we could not reach 75% with anyone here either – but I think our rankings show a more objective view of overall player value.

        The committee support for Oliva, Kaat and Wills follows some past voting patterns – career cut short, gaudy win total, and “game changer”. Puckett, Sutton, and Aparicio types get noticed – Boyer’s skills at third and Tiant’s effectiveness does not. They seem to be looking “beyond the stats” in most of their preferences. I’m not surprised that no one got in.

        Reply ↓
  20. PP

    So, in summary, no one was elected by either the HOF voters or the HHS voters, and while the preferences were different, the overall numbers look similar.

    Reply ↓
    1. Michael Sullivan

      Yes, the math is inevitable — with the misguided ballot restrictions, the more deserving players there are on the ballot, the harder it is for even *one* to get elected.

      Reply ↓
  21. Michael Sullivan

    Something I don’t think many have realized (or at least stated outright) is that the voting rules are simply a problem and lead inevitably to results like this.

    Restricting ballots while requiring a high level of consensus to admit anyone means that the more deserving candidates there are on the ballot, the harder it is even for the *best* player to get in at all.

    It’s very possible that the top couple candidates had 75% support, but missed because the votes got spread around. They could only vote for 4, but there are at least 5 reasonable candidates, plus 3 more that *I* don’t consider reasonable, but who got a lot of votes from the committee.

    So the problem is, you can only vote for 4 of the 8. It’s very easy to imagine a scenario where there are 8 candidates that 80% of voters think belong and yet none of the get in. The only thing required is that the voters don’t coordinate, either explicity or accidentally (by all voting for their *best* players, where their collective ranking actually agrees on one or more players at the top).

    I may try to set up a simulation to demonstrate. If the rankings of those 8 players are random by voter, and each voter votes their top 4, how many players typically get in? I’m betting it’s around one or two on average with a good chance at none, even for the case where everyone thinks all 8 should be in.

    The other thing is that the stronger the field, the worse the problem gets. Suppose you had 12 candidates in this election that were clearly deserving but close together, and all with different strengths so that typical voters might disagree on their ranking. Now it’s hard for even one player to get in. You can only vote for 4, but every single voter thinks all 12 deserve it. If there’s enough disparity in people’s opinions about who is best, or who should get the vote, then it’s quite likely nobody gets in.

    Again, the more clearly deserving players there are on the ballot, the more voters are splitting their votes making it impossible even for the best players to get in. This is why the main ballot had so much trouble in the early days when all the greats from 19th century through 1930s all hit the ballot at the same time. And why we’re having trouble again now, since voters issues with steroids have created a huge backlog of worthy candidates.

    It’s just really foolish to limit the ballot this way. If you want to limit how many people can get in, raise the threshold, or only elect the N highest each year.

    The COG works okay despite an even more restrictive ballot for two reasons: 1: we all see each other’s votes so those of us inclined to strategic voting can implicitly coordinate. 2. You get in simply by doing best on the ballot — there is no threshold required. 3: It is possible to stay on the ballot forever with a critical mass of support. So you have as many chances as you need — eventually, if you don’t get in, it’s because there was always a more popular player on the ballot. 4. Redemption rounds keep the ballot stocked with reasonable players during dry spells, so we never have to make a bad selection just because there were no good players available.

    I like the idea of the high threshold for getting in — that 75% of voters have to think you are worthy. But for the ballots to actually *mean* that, voters have to be able to vote for everyone they think is worthy.

    So get rid of the player limit. Or make it some very high number like 30, if you’re worried about people trying to sabotage the system with 1000 player ballots. Some number where it’s impossible for a reasonable voter to have to leave a reasonable candidate out just because they liked N other players even better. *then* if you’re not on 75% of ballots, it’s accurate to say that there weren’t 75% of voters who thought you belonged. In my estimation, this alone would be enough to fix most of the problem with the voting. After that, you have to get rid of or reeducate the third of the voters who are stuck in 1965, but I think a voting change alone would allow at least the most *obviously* deserving players with no steroid taint to get in and starting clearing up the backlog.

    If they want to restrict how many can get in in any given year, then do that explicitly — you need to have 75% *and* be in the top 3/4/5/whatever.

    If were king, I would also make it that players with at least 25% support could stay on the ballot always, even after their Nth year, but I would shorten the time to get to that level to 5 years. In fact I’d grade it thus: first year you only need 1% to stay on, second through 4th years you need 5% (as now). 6th and future years, you need 25%.

    The first year minimum would give voters a chance to educate their colleagues about certain unappreciated players. They’d have a year to drum up 5% after noticing that the voters as a whole did not appreciate certain candidates. 1% because you’d have to have at least *some* champions — and that would still eliminate most of the unreasonable candidates in the first year.

    25% is enough that you are serious, and should just stay on the ballot. Yeah, I know I’d sometimes regret this rule having to argue about Jack Morris every freaking year for the rest of history, but if at any point 75% of the people really think he deserves it, either we’ve got the wrong voters by a mile, or he should just go in.

    Reply ↓
    2. Brendan Bingham

      MS:
      You state, “I may try to set up a simulation to demonstrate. If the rankings of those 8 players are random by voter, and each voter votes their top 4, how many players typically get in? I’m betting it’s around one or two on average with a good chance at none, even for the case where everyone thinks all 8 should be in.”
      Do the simulation if you wish (I would be interested in seeing the results), but the way this problem is stated, it can be analyzed by binomial expansion.
      Assume three things:
      1)8 equally worthy candidates
      2)16 voters, each of whom casts 4 votes, and each voter has an equal probability (50%) of voting for any given candidate.
      3)12 or more votes needed for election
      If I’ve done the math correctly (huge uncertainty here), then each candidate has about a 3.8% chance of being elected, which implies that the probability of there being one electee among the 8 candidates is a modest 27%. So, there is a greater chance of there being no electees than one or more.

      Reply ↓
    3. Doug Post author

      Excellent points, Michael. Reason enough to be concerned with the coming glut of Hall-worthy players that will further exacerbate the problem of reaching a consensus under the current voting arrangements.

      But, allowing a larger number of votes, by itself, probably wouldn’t be too helpful. As it currently stands, even with a ballot in the BBWAA election limited to only 10 players, many ballots are submitted with many fewer selections. Instead, perhaps the number of votes allowed on a ballot should reflect the size and strength of the candidate pool (e.g. number of votes = number of candidates with x WAR).

      But, even with an optimally sized number of votes, something still needs to be done to get the ballots filled in more completely, while being respectful of the tenet that voters shouldn’t be required to vote for players they don’t believe are deserving. What might work better is to require at least a proportion (say, 50%) of the maximum number of votes to be filled in, and to also require the remainder to be filled in as well, but in a separate pool of votes that would only be counted in the event no candidates reached 75% counting only the primary selections.

      In the scenario where the second set of votes is counted, at most one candidate would be elected (the highest vote total, of course) even if more than one exceeded the 75% threshold. I think something along those lines might be more readily accepted than to require larger and more completely filled ballots when there is already clear resistance to doing so.

      Reply ↓
      1. Michael Sullivan

        I don’t have a major objection to people filling out a smaller than 10 player ballot, if there really are fewer than 10 players that they think belong in the hall of fame. I can imagine reasonable voters with that opinion (though I strongly disagree), for instance, someone who simply won’t vote for anyone with significant steroid suspicion and a small haller who will only elect COG level candidates that would maintain or improve the average hall level.

        On last year’s ballot, there were 14 guys we elected to the COG. I do think that all of those should be no-brainers even for small hall people if we completely ignore steroids, but I’ve definitely heard plenty of people who wouldn’t put Walker, Trammel or Martinez in (as well as Biggio and Raines the two guys I consider borderlinish but in for small-hall (essentially COG). We also didn’t elect Palmeiro who is in their JAWS neighborhood and would make 15 players who statistically are at or above average, but again, I think a small haller could keep him out on stats alone.

        Now, I think that’s super stingy and all 5 of those guys plus a few more belong, if we’re looking just at performance on the field. OTOH, am I ready to say that you don’t deserve a vote if you are that stingy? Not sure. I think not, so that means we’re down to 10 guys who clearly deserve it by any reasonable standard.

        So then we come to PEDs. Two of our 10 are Bonds and Clemens who are not just suspected, but it’s pretty clear they took steroids, even if they never failed a test. For me, that doesn’t kill their candidacy because they are so far ahead of everyone else. Steroids help, but they aren’t magic. No freaking way these guys can’t have a high-hall of fame career without them. But that’s me, and the HHS sort-of consensus. Is it unreasonable enough to keep them out that we should deny people votes over it? That, I’m less sure about. You could probably convince me, but for now I think also not.

        Which means there you have a reasonable ballot that only includes 8 players. And that’s assuming you aren’t dropping Bagwell, Thomas and Piazza over much more nebulous suspicions.

        Now that said, some of the real 6-8 player ballots included Morris or Lee Smith, and some of the voters explicitly put fewer than 10 candidates “because they didn’t think 10 candidates should be elected in one year”, as if that would even be possible to ever happen ever under the current voting system. *Those* people need to have their votes stripped.

        Reply ↓

Leave a Reply to Doug Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *