253 thoughts on “Hall of Fame 2019 Elections”

1. Anthony December 4, 2018 at 10:27 pm

   BBWAA: Bonds, Clemens, Halladay, Jones, Martinez, Mussina, Rivera, Rolen, Schilling, Walker.
   BBWAA, past 10, if I had room: Helton, Ramirez, Sheffield
   Today’s Game: Nobody

   Reply ↓
2. Mike L December 4, 2018 at 11:12 pm

   Thanks so much Doug. Now time for the deep dive.

   Reply ↓
3. Mike L December 5, 2018 at 9:25 am

   Just to clock in with my starting point–while I haven’t decided how to vote on the entire ballot, I’m going to stay with the same position on steroid-users. I’m not ready to vote for them. I understand and respect the arguments on the other side, I just don’t agree with them yet.

   Reply ↓
4. Dr. Doom December 5, 2018 at 2:10 pm

   To add to the discussion, I just can’t understand about the Today’s Game ballot. I won’t be voting for those players. Hershiser is borderline at best, and Smith is a favorite of the voters. I wouldn’t be sad to see them get in, but they don’t strike me as the most deserving outside the Hall. I also won’t be voting for Steinbrenner. As far as I’m concerned, he should’ve probably been banned from baseball in the ’80s. I don’t really have a “problem” with him getting elected (as I imagine he will be), but I personally wouldn’t give him a vote.

   As for the managers, I did a quick little study. There were no managers elected to the Hall of Fame from 1984-1993. So I looked at the elections in the last 25 years. Ignoring the two 19th-century managers (Frank Selee and Ned Hanlon). That leaves us with a nice group of ten. Those ten had an average record of 1873.5-1568.5. Manuel hits the winning percentage right on the nose (pretty much), but is closer to HALF the number of wins than he is to the total, so I’m chucking him out. Davey Johnson actually has a better winning percentage, which is intriguing. He would need to go 502-498 to hit the number right on the head, which seems possible for a guy who was still winning a lot of games. HOWEVER, while finishing .500 doesn’t sound out of the realm of possibility, he’s more than 6 seasons shy of the standard. The most similar person in terms of games managed and winning percentage is Earl Weaver, who was elected without much trouble. We’ll put Johnson in the “maybe” file for now, because Earl Weaver ain’t a half-bad comparable.

   Piniella darn near hits the target W-L record on the head (remember, it was 1873.5-1568.5; Piniella was 1835-1713). Basically, Piniella is the target number, plus one ATROCIOUS season (38-145; obviously, a real season isn’t that long, but you get the idea). That one number probably shouldn’t justify in keeping him out. We’ll put him in the “probable” pile.

   That leaves one “maybe” (Johnson) and one “probably” (Piniella). The last ten elected managers had a total of 44 World Series appearances, with no one having less than 3. They won 20 of them, with everyone winning at least one. Johnson and Piniella have each won a World Series, so they’re okay on that front. However, for each of them, that was their only pennant. That is, I think, a real problem for their candidacy. Even by the minimum standard of a recently-elected manager (in terms of “low” number of games managed, barely-above-.500 winning percentage, and poor World Series record), your low bar is probably Whitey Herzog. I don’t think Johnson or even Piniella gets there. So I’m moving both into the “probably not” pile.

   Look, this probably isn’t a fair way to assess managers; it just isn’t. In particular, these guys were managing in a time of expanded playoffs, which makes the pennant judgment extra harsh. But still… I just don’t see it right now. If someone wants to convince me, please try. I’m closest on Piniella of all the Today’s Game candidates, so that would be the easiest sell. But for now, before I post my “official” ballot, I’m leaning “no” on everyone.

   Reply ↓
   1. Doug December 5, 2018 at 3:24 pm

      I’m with you on not getting the Today’s Game ballot. Surely there were better options than Carter and Baines (Baines is a holdover from this ballot in 2017, along with Belle, Clark, Hershiser, Piniella and Johnson).

      I was struck by the discrepancies between WAR and WAA for Baines and Carter. Sure enough, they both are exceptional.

      Largest WAR/WAA Gap with WAA less than 5% of WAR
      36.9 – Harold Baines
      34.1 – Jimmy Dykes
      33.6 – Paul Konerko
      32.2 – Bill Buckner
      32.0 – Garret Anderson

      Most WAR with WAA less than 5% of WAR
      38.7 (1.8) – Harold Baines
      35.3 (1.2) – Jimmy Dykes
      31.1 (0.7) – Del Ennis
      29.0 (1.4) – Tino Francona
      28.5 (-2.7) – Don Baylor

      Most WAR with -10 or less WAA
      20.6 (-10.6) – Tommy Corcoran
      19.8 (-10.8) – Joe Carter
      16.8 (-12.9) – Ruben Sierra
      15.4 (-11.1) – Gus Bell
      15.1 (-17.1) – Bill Buckner

      Reply ↓
5. Doug Post authorDecember 5, 2018 at 3:58 pm

   Seeing Omar Vizquel’s name on the ballot got me thinking about longest career spans (the span of years between the careers of players that any player played with or against). Might to be tough to top the 73 year span for Tommy John, who was a teammate of Early Wynn (active in 1939) and was on the 1989 Yankees when they played against Omar Vizquel (active in 2012). For the record, John didn’t actually play in the same game as either player, but was clearly in the same dugout as Wynn (both pitched in the same series, twice) and apparently was in the Yankee dugout for their May 29, 1989 game against Vizquel and the Mariners (John, who was released the next day, had been a regular in the rotation since the start of the season and had last pitched just four days earlier).

   Reply ↓
   1. Dr. Doom December 5, 2018 at 7:18 pm

      For these types of questions, it seems that Minnie Minoso is probably always the “official” answer.

      Reply ↓
      1. Doug Post authorDecember 5, 2018 at 10:34 pm

         I would tend to exclude cameos like Minoso’s but, if you include them, he does come close, playing against Luke Appling (active in 1930) and with Harold Baines (active in 2001) for a span of 71 years. But, Minoso was also a teammate of Satchel Paige, whose professional career began in 1927 which, with some liberties, would extend Minoso’s career span to 74 years.

         Reply ↓
   2. Richard Chester December 6, 2018 at 11:03 am

      I found a 69 year span for Early Wynn-Jim Kaat-Julio Franco whose careers spanned from 1939-2007 but Kaat did appear in at least 1 game with each of them (8-28-1962 and 4-25-82).

      Reply ↓
      1. Doug December 6, 2018 at 11:23 pm

         You could also substitute Ted Williams for Wynn for the same 69 years.

         Reply ↓
6. no statistician but December 5, 2018 at 4:02 pm

   The Today’s Game business has me baffled. The one candidate I think might be Hall worthy of the six isolated here is Belle, on the grounds that he had some monster years and a health problem that cut his career short, but few would agree with me. People who inspect the others without the aid of rose-colored glasses see a first baseman whose career peaked early and was adequate to good thereafter; a pair of fan favorites, one a DH over half the time, the other with a much disputed reputation for clutch hitting, but not much else to offer.

   The pitchers? A starter, Hershiser, who managed one remarkable season and three good ones, after which he crafted a long career based on guile while his ERA+ in most of those years was within 5 or 6 points of 100, more often above, but sometimes below; a closer, Lee Smith, whose longevity is his chief virtue and whom JAWS ranks 16th among relievers. Notably in his defense, JAWS Ranks Trevor Hoffman 21st. So if Hoffman was voted in last year, the reasoning may well be, why not reinforce one bad decision with another?

   Seriously, somehow I don’t see the Veterans Committee ever paying any attention to the great relievers of the past, from Firpo Marberry, to Roy Face and Lindy McDaniel, to the one and only Quiz, leaving aside people like Mike Marshall altogether, so I find the inclusion of Smith as a viable candidate in this hyped up new category close to an insult.

   I sincerely hope the voters on this ballot aren’t pressured to elect someone, anyone, to get the thing up and running.

   Reply ↓
   1. no statistician but December 5, 2018 at 4:10 pm

      Oops. Guess all the nonsense about ‘today’s game’ started last year, and the Veterans Committee as such is no more. Progress—what a concept.

      Reply ↓
   2. Doug Post authorDecember 5, 2018 at 4:17 pm

      I think this is the second vote for this ballot. Bud Selig and John Schuerholz were elected in 2017.

      Reply ↓
7. no statistician but December 5, 2018 at 6:19 pm

   In last year’s voting:

   Omar Vizquel (45.6 WAR in 2968 games; JAWS ranking 42nd at SS) was on 37% of the ballots.
   Scott Rolen (70.2 WAR in 2038 games; Jaws ranking 10th at 3B) was on 10.2%.
   Larry Walker(72.7 WAR in 1988 games; Jaws ranking 10th in RF) was on 34.1%.

   Some how—don’t know why exactly—when I first saw these figures a remark by Thomas Jefferson sprang into my head: “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”

   Reply ↓
   1. Doug December 5, 2018 at 10:01 pm

      In Vizquel’s defense (a mild defense, at best), he is one of just 11 shortstops with career marks of 25 oWAR and 25 dWAR, though Vizquel clears those bars only modestly and over a much longer career than many of the others. For the record, seven of the eleven are HOFers, including Rabbit Maranville, with very similar PA, WAR, oWAR and dWAR to Vizquel (actually, very similar numbers right down the line). But, the HOFers in that group do not include Maranville’s contemporary, Art Fletcher, who put up almost identical WAR, oWAR and dWAR in a career half as long as Vizquel’s (he probably got the shaft because his career was too short). No doubt, Vizquel got some votes as a new guy on the ballot (though, that didn’t seem to help Rolen much) but, to your larger point, yeah, it sure doesn’t make much sense.

      As a third baseman with solid but not flashy offensive numbers, Rolen has a tough row to hoe, and I don’t really fancy his chances (see this article for Adam Darowski’s take on Rolen’s HoF credentials and chances).

      Walker has the Coors baggage that he just can’t seem to shake, yet he posted a .300/.400/.500 career with 140 OPS+, something only HoFers or others on this ballot (Manny and Edgar) have done. In fact, there are only 17 other retired players with those totals for any length of career (all the way down to only 200 PA), among which only Shoeless Joe and Lefty O’Doul (less than 4000 PA) are not the in Hall.

      Reply ↓
      1. Mike L December 6, 2018 at 8:26 am

         I might get into trouble here, but an HOF that can have Bill Mazeroski (36.5 WAR) can have Omar, although I wouldn’t be eager for either. JAWS has him 51st among shortstops.

         Reply ↓
         1. CursedClevelander December 6, 2018 at 12:46 pm

            If Omar had won the 1997 WS with a home run (couldn’t be a walk-off though, since it was in Florida) I’d be knocking on doors as we speak to get him HoF votes.

            Reply ↓
            1. Dr. Doom December 6, 2018 at 6:38 pm

               … and you’d have to use “BlessedClevelander” as your handle, one presumes. 🙂
   2. no statistician but December 6, 2018 at 10:00 am

      Doug and Mike L:

      My aim wasn’t to question Vizquel’s credentials for the Hall so much as it was to point out the bizarre thinking of those who are given what in sports terms amounts to being a sacred trust. Too many of the writers, even in this presumably new day of awareness of advanced stats, are not reading the commentary, not paying attention to the import of WAR, JAWs, Hall of Stats, and other measures of career performance, but relying on prejudices and slushy thinking to fill in their ballots. It will be interesting to see how Helton fairs compared to Walker. If he comes even close in the vote—and I’m thinking he might come out ahead—then the “Coors” argument will be demonstrated to be even more of a knee-jerk shibboleth than in the past.

      As for Rolen vs Vizquel, it’s a head scratcher. A great-glove light-bat shortstop gets almost four times the awareness of a great-glove very-good-bat third baseman? Mark Belanger was one and done in Hall voting, and he really isn’t that far removed from Vizquel—even better glove, even lighter bat. Chipper Jones—much heavier bat, much lighter glove at 3B than Rolen—waltzed into the shrine last year with 97.2 % of the vote.

      I’m going back to my old view that the Hall is a turkey shoot, with the turkeys being the shooters.

      Reply ↓
      1. Mike L December 6, 2018 at 11:24 am

         NSB, Chipper is an HOF just on his bat. .303/.401/.529 with a 141 OPS+. He’s 25th lifetime in Offensive WAR. I kind of agree on Rolen–I wonder if he doesn’t suffer just a bit from Schilling’s Disease (writers don’t like him?)

         Reply ↓
         1. Paul E December 6, 2018 at 12:01 pm

            FWIW, Rolen was a Hall of Fame talent whose injuries killed his offense. He injured his back running the bases/sliding into 3b early in his career as a Phillie. Later, he got ran over in the baseline fielding a ground ball (St. Louis, in the playoffs?) and then ran into Hee-seop Choy as the first baseman was attempting to catch an errant throw. He had shoulder problems and then more shoulder issues….he even altered his swing in Toronto and Cincinnati to avoid aggravating the condition.
            If healthy, Rolen might have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that. He ran the bases like a maniac, fielded like Graig Nettles, had an arm like Caminiti, took a walk, hit with power……
            But, in my opinion, he is not a Hall of Famer.
            Chipper? The way he hit, if he was a DH he’d get in.

            Reply ↓
      2. CursedClevelander December 6, 2018 at 12:56 pm

         Rolen has to overcome a lot of things – I do think for whatever reason there was some level of personal dislike for him. He was an elite fielder who may not have the reputation among the writers for being an elite fielder, which is odd since he won 8 Gold Gloves, but you don’t get the sense that people think of him as a Robinson or Nettles type 3B. He had an elite bat for the position but played in the middle of an era where offense exploded, and since the voters aren’t particularly apt when it comes to making era adjustments he’s not getting full credit for his offensive contributions.

         And on top of it all, as we’ve discussed many times, 3B seem to always have a tough time getting in the Hall because voters haven’t really set a clear bar for what constitutes a Hall of Fame 3B. Or rather, they’ve set a bar, and it’s ludicrously high – if you’re not Boggs or Chipper or Schmidt or Brooksie or Brett, then good luck with the Vet’s Committee.

         Of course, I think Rolen is a notch above the glut of 3B contenders we usually discuss as potential Hall snubs – Nettles, Ventura, Boyer, Bando, Hack, Groh, Bell, Cey, Harrah, Evans, etc. But do the voters see him that way? So far, it looks like they don’t.

         Reply ↓
      3. no statistician but December 6, 2018 at 2:12 pm

         A mea culpa and a comment: it’s ‘how Helton fares’—the curse of the automatic fingers and the common homonym.

         Also, I’m not questioning Jones’s admission, just the disparity between 97.2 and 10.2 in terms of how Rolen was perceived by the mass of voters.

         Reply ↓
      4. Doug December 6, 2018 at 11:20 pm

         “Turkey shoot with the turkeys the shooters.”. Nice.

         Reply ↓
8. CursedClevelander December 6, 2018 at 12:44 pm

   Man, how things change – when I first started talking baseball online (mostly the ESPN message boards but a few other places as well, early 00’s) I was an adamant Vizquel superfan, and argued that he was a likely (and deserving) Hall of Famer. Now, if I did a ballot, I don’t think he’d make my Top 20. I still love him, though.

   Reply ↓
9. mosc December 6, 2018 at 3:37 pm

   My ten:
   Bonds, Clemens, Mussina, Martinez, Schilling, Halladay, Pettitte, Rivera, Rolen, blank

   Today’s Game:
   No Cone or Whitaker? I don’t get to vote for Wes Ferrell or Simmons? Stupid baseball eras thingies.
   NONE OF YOU! I’m a Yankees fan and that list is emphatically excluding one George Steinbrenner. Like Gerald Ford excluded him from federal prosecution.

   Reply ↓
   1. Paul E December 6, 2018 at 5:10 pm

      mosc:
      Is that Larvell Blank(s)?

      Reply ↓
   2. Doug December 7, 2018 at 8:21 pm

      According to his BR Bullpen article (which looks like a project that was started, but not finished) Steinbrenner plead guilty to making illegal political contributions two weeks after Ford assumed office. Wikipedia says that he was pardoned by Reagan 14½ years later.

      Reply ↓
      1. mosc December 10, 2018 at 2:21 pm

         My understanding is Ford’s pardons were limited but the justice department’s position not to prosecute was established and Reagan just followed through and made it official when it re-occurred as an issue.

         Reply ↓
10. no statistician but December 6, 2018 at 5:47 pm

    Goldschmidt to the Cards, anyone? Just a desire to get value before free agency?

    Reply ↓
    1. oneblankspace December 7, 2018 at 3:22 am

       Carson Kelly has a chance to play when Molina is still healthy. Goldschmidt is one of two players with 200 HR and 100 SB counting stats since 2011, and one of 11 counting since 2008. The list of the 9 most recent 30-SB seasons by a first baseman (70%): Goldschmidt, Bagwell, Bagwell, Gregg Jeffries, Gerald Perry, Cesar Cedeño, Driessen, Carew, Sisler.

       The Cardinals have a bit of a habit of acquiring players on the last year of their contract and extending them… Edmonds, Rolen, Matt Holliday were mentioned in Derrick Goold’s article at stltoday.com; Mark McGwire was not mentioned there, but Jason Heyward was as an attempt that didn’t work out.

       Reply ↓
11. Dr. Doom December 6, 2018 at 6:43 pm

    I’m going to throw a ballot out here. I’m not sure if vote changes are allowed (let me know, Doug!), because I’m just really unsure. But I’m going with this:

    Today’s Game:
    (Blank)

    BBWAA:
    1. Barry Bonds
    2. Roger Clemens
    3. Curt Schilling
    4. Larry Walker
    5. Mike Mussina
    6. Edgar Martinez
    7. Scott Rolen
    8. Roy Halladay
    9. Andruw Jones
    And the last spot is tough. I know a lot of people think of Mariano as “automatic.” I understand that. I don’t mean to sell the man short. But there is that part of me that says, “If the Yanks had done that with Andy Pettitte instead, would that really have ended any differently?” So I’m going:
    10. Todd Helton

    Reply ↓
12. Bob Eno (epm) December 6, 2018 at 10:46 pm

    This ballot came at a bad time for me, so I’m not able to do as much work on it as I’d like. I’m not sure what Doug is thinking of for a deadline or whether we can change votes in light of discussions here and in the non-HHS world, but I’d be happy to think of the votes I’m casting now as an opening gambit.

    I’m a small Hall guy — always have been. My ballot is going to have less than ten names on it. And forget about the “Today’s Game” (ugh!) ballot — my only vote there would be to drop George Steinbrenner’s name off and let it fall until it reaches the fiery pit. I’ve had my say on that one on another string.

    But to use Steinbrenner as a segue, one reason I feel as I do about him is because he put his own ego before the integrity of the game. He won a lot, but with the most valuable franchise in the sport, and he turned the Yankees’ success into a reality show about their authoritarian Boss. (Del Webb was just as bad a person, but won more and stayed in the public shadows; Charlie Finley — same league of sleeze — won with a worthless franchise.) Why would you want to put someone who damaged the game in the Hall of Fame?

    And the segue is: I’m not voting for any of the PED stars either. For me the greatest beauty of baseball’s history is the dense continuity of its statistical record, and those guys sabotaged it. Use WAR and ask, Who is the greatest position player of all time? Barry Bonds. He’s #1 — he may sit on top of that list, inching out Babe Ruth, forever. How did he get the #1 slot? He stole it. He was a HoF player who cheated himself onto the top of the greatest-ever list. Ok. He gets to be #1 — on his deathbed he can smile and say, “I was #1.” We can never fix the stats; they are corrupt and we have to live with it. But do we have to give him a plaque in the Hall too? And Roger Clemens, the greatest pitcher of the post-deadball era. Hah! Same thing. A splendid player who wanted more than his share and left the game corrupted in an essential aspect because he could have cared less about the integrity of the game. He’s got his WAR and super rankings on the all-time lists; he gets to keep what he stole. That’s more than enough. Do you really want to hear his Cooperstown speech?

    Unlike Steinbrenner, those guys are still alive, and they could attract my attention and get me to reconsider if they came clean. Do what great athletes can do: go tell young kids what you did and why they should be better people than you were. Educate them on the dangers of PEDs and other drugs. Try to repair some of the damage you caused. The only PED user I know whom I recall doing some of that is McGwire, whom I respect. Unfortunately, I don’t think he was a Hall of Famer without the drugs.

    There are differences and degrees. Manny was just an airhead; Manny was lovably incorrigible; Manny was just being Manny. I really liked Ramirez as a player in spite of all his faults. That’s as far as it goes — his flakiness lured me to root for him; it’s not going to get me to vote him a plaque. Of all the PED guys up for the Hall, the only one I teeter on is Pettitte. He did come clean and he seems to have benefited only minimally. I think he’s a qualified Hall vote subtracting the PED boost. I’ll think about it. Not this year, though, I think. . . . well, maybe.

    Two other prejudices: I don’t think players who spend most of the season on the bench should be Hall candidates: that is, relief pitchers and DHs. (I know: all pitchers spend most of the season on the bench, but you know what I mean.) However, in this case, for me it’s a matter of degree. Among DHs, Frank Thomas had my vote — he just overwhelmed my position with the quality and quantity of his play in a bit role (for much of his career). Edgar Martinez was wonderful, but not enough to overcome the fact that he was sitting down most of his career. Among relievers, Rivera stomps all over my principles — hate to see a Yankee doing it, but I see the little shreds of my self-righteous stand writhing in the dirt. Can’t do it for Billy Wagner. (In a few years I’m afraid relief pitchers may essentially be all we have and then I’ll be in a pickle at HHS Hall voting time.)

    Here’s my list: Rivera, Schilling, Halladay, Mussina, Rolen, Walker.

    Helton and Kent are tipping point guys for me, which means I’m a no, but if I can revise my vote later I might add them. I spent a lot of time on Andruw Jones last year and came away deciding his productive career was simply too short and too dominated by the less reliable stats of outfield defensive play. I should revisit that. (And, on the flip side, I spent an enormous time on Walker last year, but might want to reconsider, since some of the data I relied on had questions.)

    And I hereby throw my hat in the ring for the annual HHS “Most Words Per Vote Award.”

    Reply ↓
13. oneblankspace December 7, 2018 at 3:35 am

    When Cal Ripken Jr. took a day off in the late 1990s, Albert Belle moved into first place on the active consecutive games played streak list. Will Clark hit a homer off Nolan Ryan in his first career at-bat. Harold Baines was mentioned in the 2000 Republican Primary presidential debates by former Rangers owner George W. Bush, who traded Sosa for him.

    Reply ↓
14. Hub Kid December 7, 2018 at 9:11 am

    What are the rules for the Today’s Game Ballot? Maximum 10 votes?

    How the heck did they pick Hershiser over Cone and Saberhagen? And all of those veteran managers with decent W-L records but few pennants (5 division titles for Johnson, 6 each for Manuel & Piniella)? And I don’t get the thinking behind the whole thing, either (the 2016 changes to the Committees Formerly Known as Veterans). I guess the Hall is trying to systematically cut down on the anti-recency bias by frequently holding this Veterans-style election for recent players and cramming the well-represented eras together all at once (“Golden Days” and Early Baseball). Does the Hall / BBWAA even do anything systematically? It does also make me wonder if they were trying to shunt Bonds and Clemens sideways by cutting down eligibility on the main BBWAA ballot to 10 years, and then giving out extra chances on these Era/Veterans committees.

    Today’s Game vote: Will Clark; a nice all around skill-set for a first baseman, although not a glaring oversight by the BBWAA.
    Main ballot: Berkman, Halladay, Martinez, Mussina, Oswalt, Pettitte, Ramirez, Rivera, Rolen, Schilling.

    Reply ↓
15. Mike L December 7, 2018 at 10:17 am

    OK, I really dislike Today’s Game picks–these are all guys in the public view who were very good, but just not top-tier. Not getting my vote. Especially since none of them are better than some of the folks I’m excluding from the main scrum
    As to the players (and, echoing other here on the hopes of possibly amending on further review) I clearly have a smaller ballot than many others (partially because of the steroids thing).
    Rivera–I understand the “failed starter” arguments against any relief pitcher, but in this case they fall short. Rivera is (currently) the best reliever of all time, and the best ought to be in the Hall of Fame.
    Mussina and Schilling: Neither was perfect, but you can’t ignore the bulk of their work. Schilling had nine seasons of 4.9 WAR or more, Mussina ten. That’s a lot of quality.
    Halladay–I actually have some doubts about Halladay: it took him until age 25 to break out, and he was finished early, but thumbs up for his excellence when healthy.
    Edgar, just a phenomenal hitter. I realize it’s a little unfair to go for Edgar and leave off Walker and (maybe) Rolen, but that’s where I’m drawing my line’

    Reply ↓
16. no statistician but December 7, 2018 at 1:34 pm

    I’m going to take a plunge into the murky waters of basic math mixed well with Larry Walker’s Colorado years.

    Almost exactly 40 % of Walker’s plate appearances were made for teams other than the Rockies—Montreal for 5 seasons early and St. Louis for 1 1/3 late. If we ignore his August call up in 1989, then during those six plus years he accumulated 24.6 WAR.

    Let’s suppose that for the 60 % of his plate appearances in the middle of his career, he had remained on the plain of his early and late production in terms of WAR. Hmm . . . 60 is 1.5 times 40, even I can see that, so if we multiply 1.5 time 24.6 we get . . . 36.9.

    36.9 plus 24.6 is 61.5, or 61.3 if we now deduct the -0.2 from 1989. So, since Walker’s B-R career WAR total a is actually 72.7, it is rational to assume that all other things being equal, playing his home games at Coors might have been worth 11.4 WAR. But that’s only if we also assume that WAR doesn’t take into account park effect, which it does.

    Being a critic of the accuracy of park effect estimates in other controversies, notably concerning Whitey Ford and Yankee Stadium, I can only in justice state that while there is a pronounced boost to batting in Coors generally, I remain skeptical that park effect figures can be accepted as more than 50% accurate, even in the case of Coors, where the differential is so obvious. Given this proviso, I will award Walker 5.7 WAR to add to the 61.3 of my mathematical exercise above, raising his total to 67 for his career.

    However, one more factor exists, that of career peak. Walker’s career peak corresponds to his Colorado years rather than his Montreal years—seven calendar years, six and a half, really, due to his injury problems in 2000—and I propose giving him a bonus of five WAR for the 6.5 peak years. Add those 5 to the 67 above and he rates 72 WAR by this method, not far off from the 72.7 he attains at Baseball Reference but above that of FanGraphs, 68.7.

    The only way, I think, that Walker can be denied his eminence as one of the greats at his position is to assume that playing at Coors actually made him a much worse player than he was before and after, with the corollary assumption that Coors does the same to all who play there to the extent that no one spending even a large minority of his years in Denver is worthy of HOF consideration. Arenado beware.

    Reply ↓
    1. Paul E December 7, 2018 at 3:13 pm

       NSB,
       From a previous post:
       Perhaps the secret to the Colorado sluggers’ success can be found in the underlying results of playing in a cow patch at 5,200 feet?
       BABIP Home / Away, Larry Walker 1995 – 2003 (The Wonder Years)
       1995 .324 / .266
       1996 .409 / .135
       1997 .382 / .346 (with 29 road HR’s)
       1998 .435 / .326
       1999 .422 / .294
       2000 .358 / .298

       2001 .421 / .320
       2002 .354 / .353
       2003 .378 / .256

       Yes, one could argue that Walker hit well on the road for many of these years, however, what creates the illusion of Stan Musial in purple and black is his ridiculously inflated home numbers for BABIP. He’s got to be close to .390 at home for 9 years!
       It’s a shame he didn’t sign with the Phillies as a free agent and all this back and forth would be moot….or, we would be arguing the merits of Todd Helton.

       Reply ↓
       1. no statistician but December 7, 2018 at 4:19 pm

          Paul E:

          The point is that isn’t any argumentation going on. Those who downplay Walker’s achievement will reject not just my eccentric look at the figures, but those of the results of any analysis of what was going on—WAR, JAWS, your figures on BABIP, whatever—simply because of the Coors effect. Intransigent support of an untenable position and unwillingness to consider the facts seriously is not an arguable stance. I welcome someone who holds a low opinion of Walker to take issue with the specifics of my suppositions or the conclusions that are there to be drawn from Walker’s WAR ranking, his JAWS evaluation, whatever, on grounds other than, well, but it’s all the Coors effect. What I have tried to show is that, making some reasonable assumptions, modest assumptions, in fact, about an alternative career for Walker, the resulting outcome is about the same unless you indeed feel that Coors pollutes not just a players statistical but his actual performance.

          Forget Coors. Give Walker 61.3 WAR point for playing in Montreal and St. Louis his whole career, bolstered by some recognition that he would have added several additional points due to his peak, and you find him still in the same range.

          Or give him credit, while playing at Coors, for maximizing the advantage of playing there by upping his game to a level no one else has consistently matched, not even Helton.

          Reply ↓
       2. Bob Eno (epm) December 7, 2018 at 6:57 pm

          Paul, I’m going to repeat in short an argument I made in long last year. Walker’s Coors numbers show that he performed way better there than elsewhere, although he was generally good everywhere. But the “Coors effect” applies to all players equally. The thing about Walker was the outsize boost he got from his home field — there was the Coors effect and the “Walker-at-Coors effect”: the latter was not Coors’ doing; it was Walker’s.

          A player is supposed to have a home field advantage: he plays half his games at home. A player who, over time, could not figure out how to make his home field work better for him than neutral would be a player who isn’t flexible enough to adapt his talents in an optimal way. Walker was exceptional at adapting to Coors. Everyone gets a boost at one mile up, but Walker was doing more — he was playing his field like he owned it. That is not something he should be penalized for; it’s something he should be rewarded for.

          Ok, so not so short. But for me, moderate windedness is the soul of brevity.

          Reply ↓
          1. Doug December 7, 2018 at 8:04 pm

             Well said, epm.

             Reply ↓
17. no statistician but December 7, 2018 at 6:41 pm

    OK, I think I’m ready.

    Like others I don’t have a full ballot. I’m going to list my choices by my estimation of their worthiness as players to be in the Hall, although I think they all definitely belong.
    A factor that I include in my evaluation of players generally, and especially in situations like this one, is remarkableness. Doing a remarkable thing and doing it over multiple times or doing it to excess deserves recognition. Thus Tony Gwynn gets high marks from me—higher than his WAR indicates—because he won so many batting titles so dominantly over a span of 14 years.

    1) Curt Schilling. His fractious personality shouldn’t be a factor in how we view his play. He put up almost as much WAR as Mussina in 300 fewer innings, came back from down periods in his career twice, and was devastating in the post-season.

    2) Larry Walker. Much discussed.

    3) Mike Mussina. Never really the best pitcher in the AL—led in pWAR once—but his consistency and durability as one of the best for seventeen years, producing an average of 4.75 pWAR per—that’s remarkable.

    4) Mariano Rivera. One of a kind.

    5) Roy Halladay. In a ten year span he won 2 CYAs, was second twice, third once, fifth twice. Only twice in those ten years did his ERA+ fall below 143, and six times it was above 150.

    6) Scott Rolen. His fine career is in the shadows for reasons discussed elsewhere.

    7) Edgar Martinez. from 1990 to 2003 a force at the plate to be reckoned with, and in spite of the injuries that turned him into a DH early on, he scored an average of 72 runs above home runs per 162 games, a fact that strongly suggests seriousness about other aspects of play. Compare McCovey’s 44 in this category.

    I wanted to include Pettitte in my ranking, but the more I investigated him, the more it became clear that he didn’t belong. Superficially he seems a modern version of Whitey Ford, but given the difference in eras, Ford comes out ahead by far in most critical stats. And when you put him among the other pitchers with 50+ WAR on the ballot, the ones from his own era, you find that he comes in dead last out of the six in virtually everything. Oswalt, who will never be seriously considered, outdoes him down the line. Pettitte’s career WHIP of 1.351 is perhaps the telling stat: Mussina’s is 1.192, Schilling’s is 1.137, Halladay’s is 1.178, Oswalt’s 1.211.

    Berkman and Kent I might reconsider at a future time.

    Reply ↓
    1. Doug December 7, 2018 at 8:00 pm

       Re: Pettite’s WHIP. The difference between those you’ve listed is 1 to 2 baserunners per 9 innings, less, obviously, per start. That extra baserunner or two adds up over the course of a long career, leading to differences in WHIP that look significant. But, not sure that it is hugely significant in the context of individual games, which, of course, is what really matters.

       Re: Halladay. Something else that stands out is his 0.77 HR/9, ridiculously low for someone who played most of his career in the Toronto bandbox. Thirty-three pitchers recorded 2000 IP over the seasons Doc was active; only two (Derek Lowe and Tim Hudson) had lower HR/9.

       Reply ↓
       1. Shazbot December 8, 2018 at 9:00 pm

          I always thought of Doc as rather dinger-prone, actually, but not because he gave up lots of homers. Because he was better at everything else.

          Reply ↓
18. Richard Chester December 9, 2018 at 6:21 pm

    I’m just voting for the BBWAA ten.
    Martinez, Rivera, Halladay, Sheffield, Walker, Mussina, Helton, Berkman, Kent, Pettitte.

    Reply ↓
19. Dr. Doom December 10, 2018 at 12:45 am

    WHAAAAAA????????

    I’m shocked, honestly. I was sure only Steinbrenner had a real shot.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hub Kid December 10, 2018 at 6:52 am

       Dr. Doom – thank you for the the link and the news. That was a Monday morning shock. What a weird voting result – I can understand Smith, although I thought the closer standard was going up… Baines, however, where did those votes come from? Not a bad player, and a good career, but wow, I’m struggling to find any marquee numbers, new statistics or old. .820 OPS? 2866 hits-488 doubles-49 triples-384 home runs?

       Reply ↓
       1. Richard Chester December 10, 2018 at 10:55 am

          Baines holds an unusual record. He had 113 RBI in 1985 and next reached the 100+ plateau in 1999 with 103 RBI. That 14 year gap between 100+ RBI seasons is the record. The 1994 season was strike shortened but even with a full season he would have been short of 100 RBI.

          Reply ↓
    2. alz9794 December 10, 2018 at 7:22 am

       I could see Lee Smith having a shot as he did reach 50% on the BBWAA ballot. Plus there really isn’t an established standard for relievers. It’s only Eckersley, Wilhelm, Gossage, Sutter, Hoffman, and Fingers (Rivera should join soon). Smith is in the middle of that group according to JAWS, and some of those “relievers” between Gossage (#4) and Smith (#16) built up a good amount of WAR as starters (Greg Swindell, Bobby Shantz, Kerry Wood). John Hiller or Ellis Kinder might be better choices between Gossage and Smith, but Smith is the next “big save number” guy after Gossage who isn’t in (assuming Rivera goes in).

       Baines, on the other hand, … I think the only thing one can say is longevity. Dave Parker or Tony Oliva would have been better picks based on their peaks. Larry Walker, Dwight Evans, Bobby Abreu, Bobby Bonds, and Reggie Smith (and many more) had vastly better overall careers. But Baines did have more RBI than Al Kaline. He’s sandwiched right between Evans and Walker in HR (385 to 384 to 383), both of whom were much better defensive players than Baines. Perhaps this election makes it easier for Edgar Martinez as Baines is clearly a DH.

       I actually feel a little bad for Harold Baines on what should be a happy day for him. He didn’t seem to be campaigning for election, and now he’s going to see his career get torn to shreds.

       Reply ↓
       1. no statistician but December 10, 2018 at 9:32 am

          alz9794

          Shrewd remarks on Baines especially. Re your closing comment: it should be the voters who have their credentials torn to shreds.

          Reply ↓
       2. Bob Eno (epm) December 10, 2018 at 1:37 pm

          Mindful of that closing remark by alz9794, I’m not going to post what I had planned to post. I actually saw the news of the ballot late last night, and decided to cool down before posting my opinion because I wanted to appear thoughtful rather of immature (aiming for an appearance that would deceive). alz’s point is such a humane way to respond that I feel obliged to shelve my opinion unposted.

          Reply ↓
    3. mosc December 10, 2018 at 9:52 am

       I’m glad Steinbrenner’s not getting much support. Dave Winfield should get to vote every time he comes up.

       Reply ↓
20. Mike L December 10, 2018 at 10:16 am

    To follow on to some of the recent comments, while I wouldn’t have voted for Smith at least I can see the justification for it. But Baines? Without knocking the player, who had a long and solid career, this kind of a vote is exactly why the old Veterans Committee selections were so often held in such low esteem.

    Reply ↓
    1. Dr. Doom December 10, 2018 at 11:38 am

       I agree, Mike; there’s no need to knock the player, but this is not a very impressive selection*. I can actually see a Hall of Fame with room for Harold Baines. I don’t really have a problem with the selection, in and of itself. It’s perfectly okay for the Hall to be Baines-sized. In some ways, it might be a better place if it were so. The problem isn’t Baines getting in; it’s the more-qualified players who are still out that make it a problem. Harold Baines had 11092 PA and a 121 OPS+; Dwight Evans had 10569 PA and a 127 OPS+. Was is one of these guys in, and the other out? Particularly when the less-effective hitter was a DH, while the other guy was a very good outfielder?

       *I will admit this much: the committee didn’t come up with the ballot; the screening committee gave them a pretty bad group of players to choose from, relative to those that some of us who comment around here may have given them; to that extent, if they felt pressure to elect SOMEONE, I can’t see that they had a load of better options. So I can empathize a little that it must’ve felt like they chose the best available guys

       By the way, I’m also kind of under the impression, and maybe this is a whole other thing, that there’s some resentment from the panel (mostly ’80s & early ’90s players) about the fact that a DH and a reliever are going to get elected by the BBWAA this year. I wonder how many discussions in the room went, “Well OUR generation had guys just as good as Mariano and Edgar!” and then they elected Smith and Baines. Obviously, this is pure speculation, but there’s a part of me that thinks this might’ve had an effect.

       Slightly related: it appears Lou Piniella got 11 of the necessary 12 votes to make it. Perhaps next time. Smith was unanimous (all 16 members), while Baines received 12. No one else had more than 5 (with less than 5, they don’t publish the results, which is for the best, I think.

       Reply ↓
    2. Doug December 10, 2018 at 6:05 pm

       There used to be a question of whether a DH, even these best DH, belonged in the Hall. Now we have Baines. Presumably Edgar is a lock – but don’t bet on it.

       Reply ↓
       1. Mike L December 10, 2018 at 7:11 pm

          It’s possible the writers will take a different course…maybe more possible if they somehow resent the choice of Baines.

          Reply ↓
          1. Bob Eno (epm) December 10, 2018 at 9:05 pm

             Actually, Doug, if I were a betting man I’d be laying down a pile on Edgar.

             According to the Hall of Fame Tracker website, Martinez has received votes on 32 of the initial 32 ballots. That’s not too large a sample size (about 7.5% of the anticipated total), but I think it’s large enough to indicate that Edgar is a lock this year. Of the 32 ballots, six did not list him last year, and, of course, they’ve all changed their minds as his eligibility runs down. Interestingly, there is a similar shift towards McGriff, but it’s unlikely to get him where he needs to go because he’s starting from a far lower level.

             Rivera has also garnered all votes cast to date.

             Reply ↓
             1. Mike L December 10, 2018 at 10:00 pm

                Not to harp, but how do you take Baines and leave out McGriff?
21. Voomo Zanzibar December 10, 2018 at 12:13 pm

    Smith was the all-time Saves leader for 13 years.

    Here is his place in WAR among relievers:

    56.3 … Rivera
    50.1 … Wilhelm (who had 7.6 WAR in his year as a mostly-starter)
    41.9 … Gossage (2.9 in his one year)

    31.2 … Hiller (43 spot starts, and similar IP to Smith, but half the Games)
    29.4 … LEE SMITH
    28.7 … Lindy McDaniel (850 more innings than Smith)
    28.1 … Hoffman
    27.8 … Wagner
    27.2 … Stu Miller (93 starts)
    26.3 … Nathan
    26.2 … Tekulve

    Reply ↓
    1. mosc December 10, 2018 at 2:26 pm

       Smith is an historically dominant reliever. The bar for HOF reliever to many is pretty high which is debatably reasonable but I don’t think anybody really downplays Lee Smith’s career. The outrage is about Baines.

       Reply ↓
22. CursedClevelander December 10, 2018 at 12:31 pm

    Through no fault of his own, Baines becomes the most recent example of shortsighted cronyism among the many iterations of the VC. He just barely made it, and two of his voters were his first owner (Reinsdorf) and his first manager (LaRussa). Without being unkind to Baines, who seems to be a lovely person and who to my knowledge was not at all actively campaigning for a HoF spot, I don’t think that kind of back-patting favoritism can be condemned strongly enough. It’s entirely reminiscent of Frankie Frisch’s reign of terror and it blemishes the Hall’s standards and reputation.

    I hope no one lashes out at Baines for this – he deserves his moment next summer. But shame on the committee for another blatant act of cronyism.

    Reply ↓
    1. Paul E December 10, 2018 at 1:26 pm

       Just a general question here. Is it acceptable or “uncouth” for a retired ballplayer on the ballot to actually talk up his candidacy? And, I believe Earl Averill spoke in contemptuous tones in his induction speech somewhere along the order of, “What took you dopes so long to realize the merits of my career”? But I have heard several players actually express their disappointment in recent years including Bert Blyleven (who should have been a no-brainer) who took the full 15 years to get in (I believe).

       I’m a small hall believer, anti-steroids regardless of prior established performance. Funny, but I don’t feel tardy:
       Rivera
       Wagner
       Mussina
       Schilling

       I actually would have voted for Lee Smith since I see no difference between him and Sutter and they were the ‘preeminent’ relievers of their day. The other guys? Baines was a surprise but he was an accumulator and, now that CC points out the South Side cronyism, is it really that much of a surprise?

       Not in due to steroids:
       Bonds, Ramirez, Sosa, Sheffield, Pettitte, Clemens

       Small Hall Excuses:
       Roy Halladay – Maybe. If they put Koufax in before he could ‘accumulate’ since he was injured, why not this guy? Not yet..
       Andruw Jones – There’s an awful lot of dWAR in there (which I don’t trust) and is he really any better than Jim Edmonds?
       Scott Rolen – Hall of Fame talent. Too seriously injured, too often.
       Will Clark – not enough hitting out of a 1B during the greatest hitters era ever. Kind of went downhill after SF
       Lance Berkman – I believe the second highest OPS+ among BB, however, maybe if he was a career CF? Again, not a ton of PA’s
       Larry Walker – Coors effect
       Todd Helton – Coors effect
       Edgar Martinez – I believe if he would have been called up and played regularly sooner in his career (accumulating more PA’s) and managed to play the field for the majority of his career, he would be in. Was he that injury prone that he couldn’t stand on third base and charge a few bunts? Yeah, I’m not a fan of the DH.
       Jeff Kent – batting behind or ahead of the greatest hitter since Ted Williams sure has it’s merits. And that’s another problem with the steroid era. If your teammates are on steroids (and constantly on base) it’s a lot easier to hit with runners on base. He’s close; not yet…

       Maybe someone can confirm that Juan Pierre has more 500+ outs seasons to his credit than anyone else? Jimmy Rollins and Jose Reyes are up there, too

       Reply ↓
       1. Dr. Doom December 10, 2018 at 3:41 pm

          Billy Wagner (whom you voted for) and Roy Halladay (whom you didn’t) both played 16 major league seasons.

          Halladay had an ERA+ of 131. This means that, while he allowed 1034 ER in his career, an average pitcher would’ve allowed 31% more, or 1355 total runs. In other words, he saved his teams 321 runs above an average pitcher.

          Wagner had an ERA+ of 187. This means that, while he allowed 232 ER in his career, an average pitcher would’ve allowed 87% more, or 434 total runs. In other words, he saved his teams 202 runs above an average pitcher.

          This is with no reliever adjustment, although as Tom Tango has identified, relievers are, as a group, 17% more effective than starters. However, you might make the counterargument that relieving involves higher-leverage games, and I don’t want to adjust for both things (which WAR already does). But at the most basic of levels – just raw runs saved – Halladay is worth almost 60% more runs to his teams than Wagner was (the gap is significantly larger if we use replacement, rather than average, as the basis for comparison, due to the enormous innings gap). I don’t really understand that choice, so I’d love to hear you explain more. If Wagner goes in, I just don’t see any way you can omit Halladay.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dr. Doom December 10, 2018 at 3:55 pm

             FWIW, I actually did the reliever math a second ago, because I couldn’t help myself. If you treat Wagner’s runs with the “reliever penalty” of 17 percent, you still figure the “average” runs off his true runs total (232), which still leaves you with 434 total runs. But you subtract 232*1.17 (factoring in the reliever penalty), which gives you 271 runs. 434-271 gives you 163 runs… almost exactly HALF of Halladay’s total.

             As for leverage, rWAR estimates Wagner’s innings as having 65% more leverage than a normal inning, which can get you to a score of Halladay-321, Wagner-269. Now, if you figure that Wagner’s innings (virtually all in the ninth) were TWICE as valuable as Halladay’s, you end up with two players almost perfectly equal: Halladay saving 321 runs, Wagner saving the equivalent of 326 runs… but even if you do THAT, you’re figuring two guys who are totally equal, only one of them has:
             A. Thrown a postseason no-hitter,
             B. Won two Cy Youngs (with five other top-five finishes)
             C. Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF Monitor, and HOF Standards scores right at or above the cutoff line
             D. 8 All-Star selections
             Versus a guy with
             A. Terrible postseason results (10.03 ERA)
             B. No Cy Youngs (only one top-five finish)
             C. No Black Ink (at all!), bad Gray Ink and Hall of Fame Standards scores (though, I’ll admit, a pretty decent Hall of Fame Monitor score)
             D. 7 All-Star selections

             There is no measure by which Wagner is superior to Halladay, so I look forward to seeing why you chose the way you did.

             Reply ↓
             1. Paul E December 10, 2018 at 4:18 pm

                Doom,
                Apples versus oranges….. I compare Wagner to relievers; Halladay to starters. As far as evaluating relievers, I thought Wagner during the course of his career only Rivera was better. Just WAR alone indicates he was the equal of Hoffman with fewer innings
                Halladay? I’d go with Maddux, Schilling, Johnson, and Smoltz (off the top of my head) as either his superior or equal during the course of his career. Is Halladay a first ballot Hall of Famer? I guess we’ll find out. He would have been if he didn’t get hurt but, apparently, due to his insistence in completing 5-1 games in Philadelphia and Charlie Manuel going along with that idea, it was of his own doing. Supposedly, no one in Philadelphia ever saw anybody work as hard as Halladay when it came to training and game preparation. I’m sure he’ll get in, sooner or later. It appears they have enough reason to elect him:

                ERA+ 1920 – 2018 2000 IP ages 25-34
                Rk Player ERA+ IP
                ▼
                1 Greg Maddux 166 2407.0
                2 Roger Clemens 152 2272.2
                3 Roy Halladay 148 2194.2
                4 Lefty Grove 144 2510.1
                5 Carl Hubbell 140 2655.2
                6 Bob Gibson 139 2654.1
                7 Tom Seaver 138 2652.1
                8 Tom Glavine 134 2254.2
                9 Whitey Ford 133 2245.1
                10 Zack Greinke 132 2004.2
                11 Jim Palmer 132 2664.0
             2. Dr. Doom December 10, 2018 at 5:10 pm

                I mean, I get that you thought about it in that way. But runs are runs are runs. You’re not electing by position, you’re electing people to the Hall of Fame. So don’t you want the best players, regardless of position? Wagner did not help his teams win as much as Halladay did. That’s why Lenny Harris doesn’t get into the Hall of Fame as a pinch hitter – it doesn’t matter if you do a job well if you’re not actually all that useful in helping your team win.

                It’s also odd to me that you picked Maddux and Johnson, two top-ten all-time pitchers, as comparables to Halladay. What about Jack Morris (who just went in), John Smoltz (whom you smartly name, and who IS a pretty interesting comp), Tom Glavine, Dennis Eckersley, and Don Sutton? Included below is the FULL list of the last MLB ten starting pitchers elected to the Hall of Fame (Don Sutton, Nolan Ryan, Dennis Eckersley, Bert Blyleven, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Jack Morris).

                Here’s a chart of those guys (and yes, I did bother breaking down Eckersley’s and Smoltz’s seasons to account for the reliever advantage):

                Maddux: 562
                Johnson: 530
                Martinez: 496
                Blyleven: 329
                Halladay: 321
                Glavine: 312
                Smoltz: 290 (321, same as Halladay, unadjusted)
                Ryan: 229
                Eckersley: 161 (204 unadjusted)
                Sutton: 153
                Morris: 83

                Right in the middle; right with Blyleven, Glavine, and Smoltz. Roy Halladay is absolutely a Hall of Famer.

                (I will make the caveat here that I didn’t do a runs:wins conversion, which would be the more intellectually honest way to do this… but I’ve got a job and a kid and all, so, you know… not today. Maybe some other time.)

                Roy Halladay is not Pedro, or Big Unit, or Mad Dog… but that’s not the standard. Nolan Ryan, John Smoltz, Dennis Eckersley, Tom Glavine, Bert Blyleven – THOSE guys are more the standard, and he’s right there. I think it’s actually a pretty easy call.
             3. Paul E December 10, 2018 at 6:14 pm

                Doom:
                “John Smoltz (whom you “smartly name”, and who IS a pretty interesting comp)”
                Are you implying I was stupid to name the other guys? It’s a Small Hall for me and how many of those guys surrounding Halladay were first ballot HoF’ers? It’s a vote – Cook County IL or Pascagoula MS – everybody gets one. I don’t believe there are 10 Hall of Famers in this exercise, either, and it’s not necessary to fill the entire ballot out. And, as things have gone in the past, 10 guys ain’t getting in this year either.
                If you want to imagine Andruw Jones a Hall of Famer, great. Same for Rolen, Helton, and the steroided guys…. It’s a vote; that’s all it is. And, the BBWAA doesn’t care what either of us think. If this exercise is supposed to be a Christmas wish list, I’m sorry for pissing under the tree.
                And, yes, when the BBWAA votes, Edgar Martinez will be compared to Frank Thomas; Scott Rolen to Adrian Beltre and Chipper Jones; Andruw Jones to Jim Edmonds, Griffey, and Lofton; Helton to McCovey, Murray, Bagwell, etc…. nobody from the BBWAA is going to get out their slide-rules and calculators and talk about Runs Saved, Runs Created, dWAR, etc….they’re still working with “Wins” “Saves” “Innings Pitched” “Home Runs” and basic computations like RS + RBI – HR and whether or not the player gave them an interview in some puff piece written under a deadline.
                Mea culpa, mea culpa.
             4. CursedClevelander December 10, 2018 at 6:37 pm

                Doesn’t bode well for Andruw Jones, since two of those three didn’t make the Hall. – in fact, neither even made it to a 2nd ballot. At least Jones has them beat on that measure.
             5. Bob Eno (epm) December 10, 2018 at 9:26 pm

                Early returns indicate that Andruw may once again be battling to keep his head above the 5% threshold. (Or should it be foot?)
             6. Bob Eno (epm) December 10, 2018 at 9:25 pm

                I think one of the differences between Paul and Doom is that Paul may be distinguishing a “first-ballot HoFer” from the hoi polloi. I don’t take that into consideration, and I suspect Doom doesn’t either. But if I did, I wouldn’t vote for Halladay this year either (I did vote for him on my own criteria).

                I think people who see “first-ballot” status as meaningful more or less equate it with “inner-circle HoFer,” and while it’s really unclear what the standard signifies, since small-hall and big-hall fans have very different inner circles, Doc’s not an inner-circle guy to me (like Paul, I go small for the Hall).

                Last year, I preferred Wagner to Hoffman, but since I’m such a hard case on relievers not named Rivera, I didn’t cast an HHS vote for either. If I thought differently — which I don’t — and it was now this year — which it is — I’d probably vote for Wagner, having put Doc in the fridge to keep fresh for 2020.
             7. Dr. Doom December 11, 2018 at 11:37 am

                @Paul E

                1. No, I wasn’t saying you were stupid. I mean, I don’t think it’s too hard to figure out that Roy Halladay was not Pedro. And I said Smoltz was a smart comp because he is: they had remarkably similar careers and awards balloting. It was just a particularly pertinent comp. Sorry for saying that, I guess.

                2. As to the question, “how many of those guys surrounding Halladay were first ballot HoF’ers?” is easy to answer: the three guys directly below him: Glavine, Smoltz, and Ryan.

                3. “It’s a vote . . . everybody gets one.” Agreed. We do. And a part of voting in this particular exercise is posting your ballot publicly. I don’t want to take away your vote. I just think you should include Roy Halladay.

                4. It’s fine if you don’t think there are 10 HOF players here. I wasn’t criticizing the number of players you named on your ballot. I wasn’t talking about a “Christmas wish list.” I didn’t say anything about steroids. You’re distracting from my actual argument with straw men. My argument is this: I don’t understand a ballot that can include Wagner but not Halladay.

                5. I agree that players are compared by position. However, they’re not ONLY compared by position. They’re also compared to “all players overall.” Additionally, Halladay and Wagner didn’t play different positions. They were both pitchers. The fact that their managers used them differently is really not my choice, nor yours. I’m comparing two pitchers who, yes, were used differently. But you know what? Walter Johnson was used differently than Greg Maddux, too. That doesn’t mean that one belongs and they other doesn’t, nor that both belong, nor that they played different positions. We can find ways of accounting for all of those things, just as I, in these posts, proposed ways of accounting for those things.

                6. I’m disappointed by your “slide rule” comment. I mean… it’s not like I used a slide rule. I don’t have one; I don’t know how to use one (it has something to do with basic trig, right?), nor am I really “fluent” in any math beyond algebra (I did take geometry, trig, and calc, but I can’t do that stuff anymore). You point, that voters don’t use the tools at their disposal, doesn’t strike me as a particularly good argument. First of all, you can find dozens – soon to be hundreds – of articles from actual HOF voters that regularly will reference WAR and its components. Many, if not most, HOF voters are, at this point, fluent in baseball-reference pages. Secondly, the fact that some of them are not going to use the tools readily and freely available to them doesn’t mean we should just give them a pass for doing so. They’re not gods; they’re accountable for what they do. I just don’t like the argument, “Well, everyone else is doing it.” Just because SOME writers choose to do or not do something, doesn’t mean that all baseball fans have to accept that.

                7. I’m sorry. I’m sorry I made you feel bad, or like I was talking down to you. I’m not trying to. I’m a baseball fan, trying to make a baseball argument. Things I did not say: “You’re stupid,” or “Billy Wagner sucks,” or “Dump Wagner from your ballot.” Thing I WAS advocating: “You should vote for Roy Halladay, because he was a better pitcher than Billy Wagner, and you voted for him.” That’s the only point I was trying to make, and I wanted to back that point up. So I’m sorry I used language and argumentation that upset you. I just really think you should vote for Halladay.
             8. Paul E December 11, 2018 at 1:08 pm

                Doom,
                No problem, no one “feels bad”. My intention in filling out this ballot was the same as for the MVP , Cy Young, and Manager of the Year awards that this group did. I didn’t vote for Yelich and Betts because I’m a fan and admirer of either guy. I just thought they would be voted MVP and the order I voted was the way I suspected the voting would go. And that brings me to, basically, whom do I think will be elected on THIS ballot THIS year. Halladay was a Hall of Fame talent. His career, like his life, unfortunately, ended abruptly. Rolen was a Hall of Fame talent who was injured often and seriously injured at that. I don’t believe they, nor the guys on steroids, will get in THIS year.
                Believe it or not, I believe Wagner will get in – this year. He and Rivera, both. Halladay will get in sometime soon. But, I don’t believe this year. I might be off on the Schilling choice due to the “leftist” hatred in the BBWAA but we shall see. If Schilling doesn’t believe in global warming or ‘climate change’ or DACA dreamers and the rights of “undocumented aliens”, like, really, who cares about his opinions.
                As far as your argument that Halladay and Wagner are “both pitchers”, I believe the way they are utilized is so totally different. Kind of like Lenny Harris the pinch hitter versus Edgar Martinez the DH.If we were comparing the new model 5-inning starter to an old school 3-inning closer, meh, maybe. I believe a corner OF’er is judged differently than a CF’er, a 3B differently than a 1B, and so on…..
                As far as “RUNS”, pitching runs saved, batting “RUNS”, it’s the Hall of Fame (not the Hall of Runs nor the Hall of WAR), and the BBWAA is using a totally different set of criteria than what you’re suggesting. Maybe some are enlightened but I believe a majority of them are still relying on counting stats and total career numbers. It does seem strange to me that these new-fangled ‘numbers’ seem to indicate that Chase Utley was the superior of Ryne Sandberg.
                F W I W, I believe Bonds and Clemens would have been 1st ballot Hall of Famers without steroids – particularly if they had natural declines after age 34 for Bonds and after Clemens’ Toronto years. I thought Sheffield was a Hall of Famer but for the steroids. And, the 420 home runs he would have ended up with would have been sufficient if not for the plague of steroids cheating and inflating the record book and making clean players’ accomplishments look insignificant.
                But, no one “feels hurt”….sorry for rambling
             9. Paul E December 10, 2018 at 4:42 pm

                One of the better games I witnessed. While I’m sitting in decent seats on the 1B line, Biggio goes yard off Wagner in the top of the 9th and Astros beat the Phillies 2-1 (it happens). I somewhat presciently remarked to a friend sitting next to me, “They’ll miss the playoffs by one game”. They did:

                https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PHI/PHI200509060.shtml
             10. Bob Eno (epm) December 10, 2018 at 9:14 pm

                 Ok. This is depressing.

                 When I do the math, I labor for hours, constantly spotting and correcting errors in my assumptions and formulas, and doing everything twice after I can’t find anything more to change. Then I post my math, and within a few hours, Doom swoops in and points out my fifth-grade errors.

                 It’s ok, I’m used to it. And it’s not just math and not just Doom.

                 But when Doom begins a post, “I actually did the reliever math a second ago,” I feel that my suffering has reached the point of cosmic injustice!
             11. Mike L December 10, 2018 at 11:48 pm

                 Bob, I’ve been thinking about Doom’s math for several hours in my blundering way and it seems to me we should like at what level of starting pitching would compare to Wagner’s. Rounding slightly, Wagner “saved” 200 runs per 900 IP. Halladay through a bit more than 2700 IP. So, we should look at what ERA+ would a starting pitcher compiling 2700 IP need to have to equal Wagner’s 200 saved runs.
                 Let’s assume a baseline league ERA of 4:00, or 1200 ER per 2700 IP. To save 200 Runs, that would mean an ERA+ of 120. Each 300 additional IP at an ERA+ would be 20 more runs saved,

                 So, forgetting that it’s Halladay per se, would we be inclined to vote in a starter with an ERA+ of 120 or before we take Wagner. Here are some well known recent pitchers around an ERA+ of 120, and within a few hundred IP of 2700: Appier, Cone, King Felix, Tim Hudson, Jimmy Key
             12. Bob Eno (epm) December 11, 2018 at 9:15 am

                 Mike (and Doom, and Paul): I think the incompatibility in the roles of starter and reliever are so great that comparison of runs saved is not going to tell us much. That is, we can calculate the comparison (if we’ve got math skills), but the information it provides is not useful to making either quality or quantity comparisons. (In other words, I think Paul’s apples/oranges approach is more appropriate than Doom’s “runs are runs.”)

                 Based on Doom’s comments, I assume the Tango reliever “penalty” of 17% (which I also assume covers more than closers) is based on the idea that the two groups, starters and relievers, should be taken as basically comparable, and that the superior record of relievers in terms of ERA+ is a product of their role: specifically, always pitching fresh, from very low pitch counts. That’s a responsible approach statistically, but we know that, historically, relievers, on the whole (with exceptions, now increasing in number), are assigned their roles coming up or in their early MLB years because they have not proven to be solid starters. (The greatest closer in history came up as a starter and was converted after compiling a 5.95 ERA in 50 IP.) So I believe the 17% is probably substantially lower than it should be, and is only used because we have no way to come up with a better number.

                 The 65% leverage bonus that a closer like Wagner enjoyed, which is not based on assumptions but on actual data, seems to me equally problematic. This is because the value opportunities provided closers are independent of their efforts. Leverage does correlate to value in team terms: “clutch” performance is exceptionally valuable to teams because timing of hits/outs (etc.) correlates directly to runs-that-matter created/saved, and thus wins and losses. But when we relate that idea to players in any role, it concerns the way their performances are distributed relative to timing — did a batter’s hits or a starter’s runs allowed come in high or low leverage situations? Players with equal records can be distinguished by asking which performed better when the stakes were high. But relievers — well, closers like Wagner — don’t face the same leverage range as starters: high-leverage is a given almost every game, and it corresponds to the built-in advantage (for a pitcher) of encountering the high leverage situation on a zero pitch-count basis. (It’s just the opposite for pinch hitters, because they come in “cold,” not “fresh,” if I can promote baseball folklore as fact.)

                 So the leverage value of the runs Wagner saved are not principally a product of Wagner’s performance: they are a product of his role, which is a managerial skill, not a pitching skill. Successful closers are typically viewed as being, by disposition, unusually well adapted to high pressure situations, and that may be true — there may be some component of closer clutch performance attributable to their exceptional attitudes. But it cannot be disentangled from the context that clutch situations are a basic work condition for them. And, of course, we can’t compare starter and closer high-leverage performance, because they generally occur in such radically different pitch-count contexts. (The beau-ideal of a clutch pitcher used to be the starter who finished with a strong ninth in a close game, but that breed has been bred out of existence. Halladay, however, aspired to it.)

                 So this may be a case where math can only yield results that appear to be, but are not meaningful. You can’t reduce apples and oranges to a common ground of “fruit” when they are fruits of such different kinds — their commonality is imposed by language, not by genetic properties. If you do, you can get a precise result, and it is valid information, but it not information that actually addresses the question we’re asking about player quality across pitching roles.

                 So I believe’s Paul’s approach of not trying to level the playing field between starters and closers is more appropriate. I differ from Paul, though, in estimating (in ballpark terms, so to speak) the group-quality gap as much greater and the leverage gap as much less meaningful. So for me, Wagner’s career wasn’t Hallworthy (although he might have been — I really liked Wagner), and Halladay’s was.
             13. Mike L December 11, 2018 at 10:06 am

                 Bob, that’s a superb bit of analysis and advocacy.
                 I wonder if we could throw out to the group a very basic question that might have been implicit in my “ERA+120” question. There’s no doubt in my mind that, if i had been given the choice of Greg Maddux or Mariano, with perfect foresight, I would have taken Maddux. But what’s the value of an elite closer as compared to a quality starting pitcher? Is an elite closer worth an ace, a good #2, #3?
             14. Dr. Doom December 11, 2018 at 12:24 pm

                 Mike L and Bob,

                 1. (Bob) Re: 17% – I believe that was derived by looking at “swing” guys – those who both start and relieve – and checking their relative ERA in those contexts – actually a pretty clever way of doing it, I think, because those are guys who CAN start at the ML-level, and sometimes DO, but often don’t. So, if I’m recalling correctly, that’s how the study was done.

                 2. (Bob) Re: “leverage” – Bob, I recalled you being a fan of WPA, no? That’s a leverage-based stat. I think the argument here is not that Wagner possesses some magic still to perform in the “clutch” (just look at those postseason numbers… yeesh!), but rather that, to surrender a run in his situations was much more damaging to the prospect of winning a particular game. After all, the goal is to win games, so certain runs end up being more valuable than others, the thinking goes, as one run in a one-run game is DEFINITELY more important than one run in a ten-run game. It’s true that Wagner didn’t choose that role, so I understand (and, principally, AGREE WITH) that line of argumentation. However, the thought on the other side is this: the point is to win the games; if Wagner gives up a run, it WILL BE the difference between winning (100% chance of winning) and extra innings (50% chance of winning, as if the previous 9 innings had never been played). That’s a huge difference, and the leverage index takes that into account. I don’t love it, personally, because I don’t see that we have tons of great information that tells us that Wagner was really effective when the games were tighter but lazier when they weren’t. It strikes me as a reliever-friendly “pitched to the score” argument. But I understand why some people feel it’s a necessary adjustment.

                 3. (Bob) Re: “apples and oranges” – Their commonality is not just determined by language, though. In fact, it IS by their genetic properties, common ancestry, etc.; biology and evolution; by common traits. Just as I can say that both are fruits, I can say that both Wagner and Halladay are pitchers. I can tell you that the apple is heartier, it thrives in more environments, and it has more health benefits to humans. The apple might be a better apple than the orange is an orange, or vice versa. And if we’re drafting “best foods,” (aka “Hall of Fame baseball players”), I can pick one, none, or both; and I can make those arguments on a number of merits. You might prefer the taste of an orange to that of an apple, but with your life on the line, you want the apple, no question. You can have the orange, too; that’s fine. I’m agnostic about the orange. But the apple? Well, that HAS to get picked – pun intended. 🙂 Halladay is the apple.

                 4. (Mike) Re: “what’s the value of an elite closer as compared to a quality starting pitcher?” – This is, at it’s heart, I think, what WAR attempts to answer. Billy Wagner (27.8 WAR), Joe Nathan (26.3), Trevor Hoffman (28.1)… all those guys are right in the same ballpark, and were all similarly “elite.” Maybe some would think of Francisco Rodriguez as being in that group (23.9). My thoughts on a #3 or #4 starter is this: “Did this guy, since 2000, attempt to be the #2 starter on the Brewers?” That’s a pretty good bet, because we ALWAYS have terrible pitchers; rarely an ace, and almost never a good #2. So I’m thinking of guys like Doug Davis (21.5 WAR in 13 seasons), Chris Capuano (9.7 WAR in 12 seasons), Dave Bush (4.1 WAR in 9 seasons), and Shaun Marcum (13.1 WAR in 9 seasons). So… more valuable than a #3 starter, but probably not quite as good as a decent #2. Yovani Gallardo, who was slightly better than some of these guys (but never really, IMO, lived up to what we THOUGHT he’d be) has 19.0 career WAR in 12 seasons, and is a solid #2-3 starter. That seems about right to me. So the answer is, I think, “Better than a #3, maybe even better than a #2 if he’s elite and has a long career, but nowhere close to a HOF #1.” Cliff Lee was mostly a #2 starter: that’s more circumstance than talent (I mean, the dude won a Cy Young, but he pitched behind Sabathia/Colon in Cleveland, behind King Felix for that half-season in Seattle, and behind Halladay in his second Philly stint). Anyway, he accumulated 42.7 WAR. So if THAT’S your definition of a #2, then first of all, you root for teams that have had much better pitching staffs than my team usually does, and so I’m jealous of you.

                 5. (Mike) More on a #2 starter – Ben Sheets was, outside of Randy Johnson, the best pitcher in the NL in 2004. But outside of that one year, he was probably a #2 starter. In 2008, when we briefly had Sabathia, Sheets was a fabulous #2. Sheets’ career WAR, in 10 seasons? 26.1 – right in the ballpark. So, an elite reliever will last longer than a good #2, but he’ll be worth roughly the same amount. Billy Wagner ~ Ben Sheets. And, frankly, if Sheets had done that job, he probably could’ve done about as well. But maybe that’s just my bias speaking.
             15. CursedClevelander December 11, 2018 at 1:47 pm

                 Doom, fantastic analysis through all of this, though as our in-house Tribe fan I have to make one factual correction – Lee was never behind Colon in the rotation because Lee and Colon were traded for each other.

                 I’m pro-Wagner for the Hall, though I’m not sure he’d make my ballot because it’s so crowded. Of course I’m also pro-Halladay. Obviously there’s going to be a disconnect between starter and reliever value purely on an IP basis. Lee accumulated that 42.7 WAR in 2,150 or so innings, Wagner accumulated his 27.8 in 900 innings. Wagner absolutely excelled in his role – if he qualified for rate stat leaderboards, he’d have the second lowest WHIP ever, only behind Addie Joss, and his K/9 would be by far the best ever. But at some point there has to be some consideration for total value added to a team, and not just value on a rate basis. For this current generation of relievers, Kenley Jansen just eclipsed 500 innings, and his numbers are even better than Wagner’s (a ridiculous .888 WHIP and 13.5 K/9). So are Kimbrel’s – he’s another guy that just passed 500 innings and has absurd WHIP and K/9 numbers. Chapman is just under 500, and though he doesn’t quite match them in WHIP, he’s leading the pack in K/9 and has an incredible 1.98 lifetime FIP. But Kimbrel’s is even better at 1.96.

                 All three of them are over 30. it’s doubtful any will even reach Wagner’s career IP total unless they stay healthy through age 40, and topping 1,000 will be extremely unlikely. If they end up at around 800 IP with similar numbers to what they have now, what do we do with them? Do they all make it? None of them?
             16. Mike L December 11, 2018 at 2:14 pm

                 Cursed, Jansen, Chapman, Kimbrel, all around 500 IP. born all within a few months of each other, all will play at age 31 in 2019. You wonder how they will sustain their levels of performance. 400 more IP is 400 appearances, between 6-7 seasons without serious injury, taking them to age 37/38. in a weird way, it does make the performance of Wagner seem more impressive. To say nothing of Rivera,
             17. Paul E December 11, 2018 at 2:46 pm

                 Doom,
                 Re “apples/oranges”, is it safe to say if we directly compare Mariano Rivera (GOAT ?) to Halladay, Glavine, Blyleven, or even Don Sutton (as opposed to relief pitchers), no reliever would ever get in based on the “runs” analysis? That is to say, without differentiating these relievers from starters, they have, apparently, less value than #5 in the most rotations. And, doesn’t WAR differentiate them or ‘leverage/value’ the late innings as significantly more important to ‘winning’? You know, like Lenny Harris (PH) versus Edgar Martinez (DH) ?
             18. Dr. Doom December 11, 2018 at 4:12 pm

                 @ CC & Paul

                 CC – DUH. Ugh. How could I forget the Cliff Lee thing?! I was figuring there was a year or two of overlap just by looking at the seasons Lee played for Cleveland. That was foolish of me. Had I just looked at the “transactions” section, I would’ve been straightened out. Whoops!

                 Paul – I don’t that’s quite true. Even in a straight “runs” analysis, I think some come out quite well. To show my work, here are Mariano, Gossage, and Wilhelm (I’m going to do the reliever conversions, but I’m not going to account for their seasons as starters; this will ever-so-slightly deflate their career value):

                 Mariano – 277
                 Gossage – 54
                 Wilhelm – 190

                 That’s… that’s really great for Mariano. Wilhelm, you’re certainly in the conversation, but he’s a still ahead of Eckersley, who got in first ballot. Gossage isn’t really in the conversation. Of course, that’s without a leverage bonus. If you add that in (and I’m getting the leverage number from the “gmLI” column in baseball-reference’s WAR calculation), you get 502, 100, and 286, respectively, for the three players. That keeps Mariano as an obvious HOF player, Wilhelm moves to “solid yes” when you do this, and is essentially neck-and-neck with Smoltz (and, if I bothered with a R:W conversion, you’d get Wilhelm FAR ahead). Gossage? Well, it helps tremendously, but he’s still well short of the standard. Here are some other notable relievers, with their career Runs Saved (as calculated by the method I’ve outlined here), followed by the same number, leverage adjusted:

                 John Hiller: 66, 127
                 Bruce Sutter: 62, 125
                 Rollie Fingers: 16, 32
                 Billy Wagner: 162, 268
                 Trevor Hoffman: 83, 154
                 Lee Smith: 65, 117

                 What you see by this method is that, without leverage, it’s pretty much just Mariano and Wilhelm. Factor in leverage, and Billy Wagner instantly becomes viable… strong, even. Hoffman is weak – without leverage, he’s Jack Morris, with it, he’s Don Sutton (and these are not the most flattering of comparisons, particularly for a Small-Hall guy like yourself… but, given the Hall we actually have, I think it looks just fine to include Hoffman.

                 I hope that can kind of answer the question. Mariano is an obvious player, Wilhelm strong, and Wagner good enough for consideration, if not election, with Hoffman a marginal-at-best candidate. So hopefully that answers the question, at least from the perspective of a back-of-the-envelope sort of calculation.

                 If I were really going to do this, I’d: 1.) convert runs to wins, to prevent scoring-era bias; 2.) use replacement level, rather than average; 3.) use a 50-50 mixture of FIP- and ERA+, to factor out fielding; and 4.) if I had time, I’d be more precise about the relief/starting breakdown. But I’m not paid enough by this hobby to be that thorough! 🙂
             19. Paul E December 11, 2018 at 4:44 pm

                 Doom,
                 So of all the relievers (“in all the gin joints, in all the world”) , who, by this calculation is HoF worthy? Am I correct to think it would be merely Mariano, Wilhelm, and Wagner as shoo-ins? Because, honestly, I thought Sutter, Smith, and Gossage were pretty good relievers by the eye test. Hoffman was pretty effective as well. Is it possible that there is some sort of elevated K/9 bias in the sabermetric tea leaves?
             20. Bob Eno (epm) December 11, 2018 at 3:07 pm

                 Doom, I’ll just reply to your points to me.

                 1) If the 17% figure was derived as you suggest, it is, contrary to my suggestion, based on data, not assumptions — and it is indeed a clever strategy (one might expect that from Tango). The questions the method gives rise to, however, are whether the database is sufficiently robust to draw so definitive a conclusion, and whether the conclusion applies to HoF quality pitchers (in both roles), whose stats are on the tail of the curve, a place where swingmen are rarely found.

                 2) Your memory is good, as always: I’m a fan of WPA. But my fandom in that respect concerns the double-read we get when we consider a player’s raw figures (or even “raw advanced stats”) and then ask about timing/impact. This came up with the Aaron Judge assessment last year: great numbers, but compared to his closest competitors, analysis of the timing of his hits indicated a less valuable performance with comparable stats. WPA helps uncover that performance difference (even though it’s a deeply flawed stat — why isn’t it being fixed?!), That analysis applies to players who face a wide range of leverage contexts (starters included), but it doesn’t apply well to closers because there is generally so narrow a range of contexts that there’s nothing to uncover.
                 I meant to stress more than I did that the value of high-leverage performances to teams is independent of these issues. Perhaps that may relate to MVP issues as many voters see those, but in Hall discussions, I take us to be assessing the exceptional nature of the player.

                 3) A language other than English could easily use different generic terms to describe citrus and other fruits — maybe I should have said apples & tomatoes, since while they are both fruits in terms of genetics and strict word definition, their properties are so different that we sort them into separate categories in normal language, based on dietary roles. My point is not that relievers shouldn’t go into the Hall, only that their criteria for greatness are so different from starters’ that it makes poor sense to compare across genuses.

                 Then there’s another issue — what are the criteria for greatness for closers? When we judge starters for the Hall, we compare them to Hall starters and borderline misses. We should do that for relievers/closers too. But there is a historical problem that confuses that formula. When the Hall was established, there were over forty seasons worth of starting pitchers, and almost all pitchers had been starters. The role was mature enough that criteria for true greatness were obvious (Johnson, Mathewson, Young) and adequate to form a reference point for the ideal (not a standard, since from the mid-’40s on the Hall was not constrained to an inner-circle model). That was not true of relievers. . . . I just deleted a huge paragraph spelling all this out in terms of specific examples, but the bottom line is that we need to decide whether the ideal to compare Wagner to is Fingers, Sutter & Co. (I put Wilhelm and Eck in a different category), whom I think will turn out to be long-term Hall embarrassments (good for their day in a role that HoF-quality pitchers didn’t then occupy), or to Mariano and, perhaps, some members of the current crop of top closers in his wake (Kimbrel, Chapman, Jansen), now in midcareer. Wagner is, to my mind, clearly superior to the existing HoF-closer crew, but the short length of his career means that if we have a string of 200 OPS+ 1000-1300 IP closers coming in the future, Wagner’s 187 OPS+ in 900 IP may not be Hallworthy. Unlike the BBWAA voters in 1936, the appropriate inner-circle closer ideal is still just coming into view, and until it does, the standard for basic closer Hallworthiness is not at all settled. That does mean Paul’s apple-to-oranges — I mean tomatoes — approach is problematic too, on the closer side. (nsb raises some really good points about the way set-up men are being elbowed out here too.)

                 To my mind, Rivera is the very first closer to be so outstanding that we can feel we are recognizing true greatness when we see it. I suspect he’s like Kid Nichols and Mathewson — we may see a Walter Johnson surpass him, and then perhaps others — but I think we now know what an inner-circle HoF closer looks like. It’s still early, though, to assess what level of quality and longevity a closer would need in order to cross the threshold into the outer circle. I think the voters made a mistake by prematurely drawing the line at closers in the 120-140 OPS+ range.
             21. Dr. Doom December 11, 2018 at 4:29 pm

                 1) Indeed, it may be different at the tails of the curve, but you get into sample-size issues there that make it all but impossible to derive the “right” number. For now, I’ll happily use 17% and assume it’s close enough, and figure the question of whether it’s helping or hurting HOF-quality arms is a 50-50 proposition.

                 2) That’s a fair-enough distinction, though I think we can all acknowledge that the reasons to neglect LI and the reasons to include it are both strong. I think, as with most things, it’s probably best to take both approaches into consideration. Honestly, again, if I were working on this problem more thoroughly, I’d consider using LI/2, thereby muting the effect of the leverage of the situation, while still acknowledging the situation (much as I usually use an even blend of FIP and ERA when trying to figure out where “true” value lies).

                 3) I don’t really agree with the conclusion – that the two shouldn’t be compared – because Hall of Fame ballots are limited to ten places. To include one is, sometimes (lately, “often” might be more accurate than “sometimes”) to exclude another. Teams make roster decisions that mean keeping one player and jettisoning another; pitchers and position players are necessarily compared; shortstops and second baseman are. The difference between relief and starting is MUCH less than the difference between Ernie Lombardi and Billy Hamilton (either version), yet those are exactly the kind of comparisons that have to be made. So while I’ll disagree with your conclusion, all of your arguments in this section (short history of “true” relievers, changing reliever roles, embarrassing Hall picks, modern crop). This is spot-on.

                 For the record, here are those three modern players you mention, as well as Joe Nathan, because I didn’t include him before, but he compares very favorably with Trevor Hoffman:

                 Joe Nathan: 100, 163
                 Craig Kimbrel: 106, 188
                 Aroldis Chapman: 79, 130
                 Kenley Jansen: 75, 116

                 BTW, of all the relievers I’ve looked at in this thread, only Hoyt Wilhelm was used in lower-leverage situations than Kenley Jansen, which I find surprising. These numbers, by the way, present a case that Joe Nathan and Craig Kimbrel are (already, in the case of Kimbrel) above the standard for HOF relievers, if we’re to take Trevor Hoffman as the standard. Kimbrel has a definite shot at getting into that Wagner-Wilhelm territory with a decent second half to his career (assuming we’re halfway now, and he produces about half as much value in the second half of his career as he did in the first), though that may be a tall order.
             22. CursedClevelander December 11, 2018 at 4:41 pm

                 I think I short-changed Nathan’s HoF resume because I forgot how good his stint in Texas was. Looking at his numbers again, I think Wagner is a tier above him, but Nathan has a strong case if he’s compared to Hoffman, Gossage and Smith and certainly when compared to Sutter and Fingers.
             23. Paul E December 11, 2018 at 5:48 pm

                 DOOM:
                 You state, in the above, “These numbers, by the way, present a case that Joe Nathan and Craig Kimbrel are (already, in the case of Kimbrel) above the standard for HOF relievers, if we’re to take Trevor Hoffman as the standard.”
                 I thought we were comparing potential Hall of Fame relievers to starters – not Trevor Hoffman? Maybe I’m failing to see all these ‘conversions’ to “runs”, but the ‘conversions’ were made of a necessity to compare the relievers to starters, no? So, ultimately, since, with the exception of Rivera no one is really ‘great’ when compared to starters, we fall back on Trevor Hoffman as the standard? Basically, it’s apples versus apples, all apples are relievers, some are sour, some are tangy, some are sweet, but it’s relievers versus relievers in the end….. and we make some already-inducted HoF reliever the standard (but, based on equations comparing them to starters). Or, am i missing something here?
             24. Dr. Doom December 12, 2018 at 11:51 am

                 Paul E

                 Re: Hoffman as the standard – I only meant if we’re judging relievers separately from starters, and if we consider Hoffman to be the baseline (which seems to me the person you’d pick, again, if you were to pick one and use such criteria). I’m not suggesting that’s a good idea; just that we then have to much more seriously consider Kimbrel as already HOF-worthy, as well as Joe Nathan. I’m not really sure that’s a standard I want to go to, but we have to consider that when we start thinking of “reliever” as a position, rather than a role.

                 Re: ‘conversion’ – To back up a step and explain my math better (and I apologize if I didn’t explain it well the first time; math is fairly intuitive to me, and I frequently got in trouble in math class for not showing all my work), we need to first talk about what ERA+ is measuring, and how I was manipulating it. When we see Billy Wagner with a 187 ERA+, that 187 means “average performance, considering this player’s run context (ballparks) would’ve been to allow 187% more earned runs, or 1.87 times as many earned runs, as this player actually did.” That’s just what ERA+ is attempting to measure. The only “conversion” that I did at that point was say, “Okay, how many actual runs is that? Since ERA+ is a rate stat, you can pitch 9 fabulous innings of 1-run ball and have a phenomenal ERA+, but if that’s your whole career, you ACTUALLY only saved 3, maybe 3.5 runs.

                 Therefore, we take Wagner’s total Earned Runs allowed (232), and we multiply by 1.87. We would’ve expected an average pitcher (or rather, a pitcher achieving league-average results given the ballparks) to have allowed 232*1.87=433.84 runs, which we’ll just go ahead and round to 434. That means he saved 202 runs. There’s not really a “conversion” in there. That’s just multiplication and subtraction. Relievers and starters can be compared directly on that number. That’s not a particularly hopeful number for Wagner, though, as it’s above Sutton, but far below a lot of the Small-Hall-type guys you favor, and it is also far below Mariano Rivera (331) and Hoyt Wilhelm (297).

                 Additionally, we know that ERA+ is “rigged” in favor of relievers. Relievers are about 17% better than starters, just as a nature of their role. Since ERA+ is based on the ACTUAL average (which includes relief pitching, but is MOSTLY starting pitching), relievers numbers are all “artificially” high. So if we tack 17% of his runs on to his original total of 232, we credit him with allowing 271 runs. We can still subtract that from 434 (because the 434 was based on his ACTUAL number of runs, not a projection), and we get 434-271=163; even worse for Wagner. The other “conversion” I put in was the leverage index, which is a way of saying, “Yeah, but Billy Wagner only played when the runs mattered, so a run saved or lost in those situations had a greater effect on winning and losing the game.” Since winning and losing is what we’re after, we can simply take the leverage index (1.65) that he faced, and multiply it by his reliever Runs Saved (163), and that gives us 269. That number actually DOES compare favorably with a lot of HOF starters, even HOF starters who are of the “first ballot” variety (though it would be, admittedly, on the FAR lower end of such players). Yes, there are “conversions” here, but I don’t think they’re unfair. I’ve given three estimates, in terms of runs, as to Billy Wagner’s value: 202 runs (totally unadjusted), 163 runs (adjusted to account for role), and 269 runs (adjusted for role, including leverage). Those numbers are directly comparable with the numbers of his contemporaries, of which Roy Halladay was one. Halladay gave his teams more value than Wagner did. To me, this makes him a better choice than Wagner.

                 Incidentally, you can do this with offensive players, too. I did it for Hank Aaron, and I’d credit him (using OPS+ and the Basic Runs Created formula) with creating 914 runs above average for his teams. This is a very big number; I’d imagine it’s the largest in baseball history (among offensive players; Cy Young probably has a stupid high and incomparable number of runs saved). But it’s also not surprising, when the basic Runs Saved I was showing credited Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux with numbers in the 700s. ALL players are directly comparable, regardless of position or role, because teams compete on the field, where all runs count. If your leftfielder is better than their leftfielder by 4 runs, that doesn’t give your team one point because you won at one position; it gives your team four runs. The magnitude matters, and that means that pitchers who save more runs are more valuable than pitchers who save fewer. Value should be, in my opinion, the primary driver of who is and isn’t honored by the Hall of Fame.
             25. Paul E December 12, 2018 at 1:17 pm

                 Doom,
                 I think for Aaron you’re using his career RC divided by his AIR (877/.95=914) from baseball-reference. If not, it ‘works’ that way without the aggravation of OPS+ calculation…..
                 I’m OK with relievers in the Hall, regardless of their ‘inferiority’ to starters. It’s the steroid guys and the DH’s that I (me, that’s me typing) have an issue with. But, I understand by the logic of your calculations you do not believe many of them to be “hall worthy”.
             26. Paul E December 12, 2018 at 2:51 pm

                 Well, that’s wrong : ” I think for Aaron you’re using his career RC divided by his AIR (877/.95=914).” No, that would equal 923 , Paul
             27. Bob Eno (epm) December 11, 2018 at 8:44 pm

                 Doom, You’ve got three good replies to my three responses to your three points. I’m only going to disagree with your conclusion on one, and it’s not much of a disagreement.

                 Apples to Tomatoes: You’re right that there’s only a single HoF ballot and it includes position players, DHs, starters, and relievers. In filling out the ballot, you may have to decide whether to choose between a starter and a reliever, just as you may have to decide between a reliever and a position player. I don’t think the right way to handle either is to compare their stats to one another. I think you need to compare strength of total case, each within his own universe of comparators.

                 I believe everyone agrees that the threshold has to be higher for the part-time players: I see the decision having to do with whether or not the player meets the threshold. I don’t think we’re going to determine the threshold for relievers by comparing relievers and starters. I think we’re going to determine it because “we’ll know it when we see it” (and now we’ve seen it). Of course Wagner is far closer to Halladay than, say, to Edgar, I still believe that comparison with Halliday is more misleading than enlightening. If I’d voted for Wagner last year it would have been because I thought he looked more like a HoFer than Hoffman, not than Mussina or Santana. Actually, Mariano’s career already being complete last year, in fact I did not vote for Wagner because he didn’t look much like the one certain HoF closer I knew, and the outer circle boundaries seemed to me set at an inappropriately low level, leaving the question of where they should be open. I came close on Wagner (187 OPS+), but couldn’t and can’t get there (900 IP and postseason blues).

                 I think the situation’s different with DHs and position players. In that case there is 100% overlap with offensive performance, and that creates the ground for valid comparison. The fuzzy area is simply how to treat absence of defensive value, a hard thing to quantify. But to get to that issue, you know you’re going to need a really outstanding HoFer on offense, and that’s determined by comparison with the full universe of hitters.
             28. Bob Eno (epm) December 11, 2018 at 9:16 pm

                 How many times today have I typed OPS+ instead of ERA+? Luckily I have many other things to feel more embarrassed about.
             29. no statistician but December 11, 2018 at 10:42 am

                 Bob:

                 I’d further your remarks a little to include two other points:

                 1) Since, let’s say, Eckersley’s career transformation from failing starter to 9th-inning genius, the only relief pitchers who have gained a shot at Fame—as in HOF—are “closers,” because they have the big stat, SAVES, to validate their importance. The guys who used to be called “middle relievers,” but who are now used equally strategically with “closers,” get scant attention. A hold, somehow, especially since a fair amount of the holding is done to keep a team that is behind within range of pulling out a win, doesn’t carry the same weight, the same grandiosity as a SAVE. Dellin Betances has “held” the Yankees chances to win in place with remarkable effect for the last five years, but he’ll never get a whiff of Hall recognition for it should he continue at the same level of skill in the same role for another eight or ten years.

                 2) Prior to the time of Eckersley’s career transformation mentioned above, “closers” pitched far more innings. Lee Smith, for instance, threw on average about 1.3 innings per appearance prior to 1991, but a tad less that an inning per appearance thereafter in the same roll. From 1980 through 1985 Dan Quisenberry led the AL in SAVES five times and finished third once, while pitching from around 1.5 to 1.9 innings per appearance. Mike Marshall in the 1970’s is famous for the innings he pitched in relief, but on average they were less than two per appearance. It was the number of appearances Marshall made that was so impressive. Gossage, Sutter, Fingers—all pitched far more innings per appearance that the 9th inning high leverage types of today. Going back to Lindy McDaniel, Roy Face, and Hoyt Wilhelm, this seems to be the case with them as well, although the further back you go the less of the “closer” role applies. The point here is that, paradoxically, for recent relievers the less you do the more you’re rewarded.
             30. Bob Eno (epm) December 12, 2018 at 1:22 am

                 nsb, These are good points. In replying to Doom I particularly noted that you’d raised the first. In the case of the second, I agree that you’ve spotted the appropriate paradox to think about. On the other hand, I don’t think guys like McDaniel and Face were anything like the quality of Wagner or Kimbrel. I think the general quality of relievers as pitchers is an order of magnitude greater than anything before the ’70s: they’re taken seriously now, and paid like it. (As I said in replying to Doom, Hoyt & Eck are unique and not comparable to other HoF relievers or to each other.)

                 You know, I actually have no idea how many saves Mariano has — I actually had to check as I’m writing this to make sure he was the career leader — because I pay no attention to that stat. I think it’s a junk stat, though its invention did play an important role in bringing about changes in the game, so it’s junk you have to respect (like late-Tanana pitching). To me, putting closers in the Hall based on Saves is a bit like putting hitters in based on Game-Winning RBIs.

                 PS: This may post twice. The first time I received a message in pink, “Slow down. You are posting too fast.” I took a deep breath, intoned Om twice resonantly, and hit the post button again. I received a message in orange that my post was being moderated. I felt there had been nothing immoderate about it, but I submitted graciously. That was several hours ago and I’m out of moderation.
          2. Mike L December 10, 2018 at 4:09 pm

             That’s a really interesting argument, Doom. I’d love to see a chart with that type of a comparison.

             Reply ↓
       2. CursedClevelander December 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm

          Not sure I’d say uncouth – perhaps a bit unseemly? On the one hand, there’s the opinion that there’s nothing wrong with self-promotion – if you don’t promote yourself, who will? But waging an active campaign to influence the writers seems, if nothing else, a little desperate – don’t you want to be awarded purely on the merits, and not because your browbeat enough people to vote for you?

          But it’s not against the rules. And there are certainly some organic (and some less than organic) fan campaigns to get certain people into the Hall.

          Reply ↓
          1. no statistician but December 10, 2018 at 8:22 pm

             The first player I remember lobbying for Hall inclusion was Enos Slaughter, and while there may have been or may be others, I’m vague as to who they are. Oh, right. Donald Trump.

             Reply ↓
       3. Jimbo December 13, 2018 at 10:54 pm

          About Will Clark.

          You don’t like the steroid guys, but you hold it against Will Clark that his numbers came during the greatest hitters era ever. Those great hitting numbers were largely produced by guys who were later found to be using steroids. Since Clark still managed a 137 OPS+ (Carlos Delgado was a 138 for comparison) and as far as I know never had any rumours connecting him to steroids, it seems kind of poor logic to use the era against him while also condemning the steroid users who made that era what it was. If Clark had been a gold glove fielder I think he’d have a strong case but if I understand correctly he was not a good fielding first baseman.

          Reply ↓
          1. no statistician but December 13, 2018 at 11:47 pm

             Jimbo:

             At the end of a thread like this your comment may be overlooked—it’s happened to a couple of mine. What you say about the inconsistency in evaluating steroid use has bothered me, too. On the general topic I’ll try to address what I think is at issue, although I’m hardly an authority.

             Of the players on the “Today’s Game” ballot, in terms of raw statistics, Clark seems the one most likely to deserve some attention. His fielding was adequate for his position—compare McCovey, for instance—and he had that stretch of six years through age 28 averaging over 150 OPS+, 99 RBIs, an All Star five times, top five in the MVP voting four times. But then he dwindled somehow, so that the succeeding eight years seem anticlimactic. His 56.5 WAR outshines the other ballot candidates (but not other available fist basemen), and it seems unjust that Baines was voted in ahead of him. To me, though, it seems unjust that Baines was voted in ahead of Belle and Hershiser, too. I’d rank all three pretty close, Will, Albert, and Orel, with Smith next, then Baines, and Carter a poor sixth. I just wouldn’t rank any of the bunch as HOF material, despite their individual merits.

             And the thing I keep thinking is this—it’s none of their faults. Some idiot committee, I suppose, picked them for reasons unfathomable to us, looking from the outside in, to represent an era, and the voters did their best to compound the felony by actually electing a pair, notably the pair whose careers started the earliest and who very nearly produced the lowest WARs and WAAs.

             Reply ↓
          2. Mike L December 14, 2018 at 9:12 am

             Jimbo, and echoing what NSB said, you make a key point about the difficulty of playing clean in an era where a lot of people were cheating. We tend to think about PEDS stats in a vertical and historical way–how many HR’s would Manny, Sosa, Bonds, etc. hit without the juice, and where would they be on the all-time leader boards without it–but in fact, the more corrosive impact might have been to minimize what might have been considered empirically great performances in the pre-juice era. My only concern about including Clark in that category is, if you look at his career, a lot of it was before we think everyone and his brother was juicing. Clark finished 5th in 1987, behind Dawson, Ozzie, Jack Clark, and Tim Wallach. 5th again in 1988, behind Gibson, Strawberry, McReynolds and Van Slyke, 2nd in 1989, behind Kevin Mitchell, 4th in 1991, behind Pendelton, Bonds, and Bonilla, and 15th (in AL) in 1994, with most of the first 14 never implicated in steroids. He hit 35HRs in his second season, but never above 29 after that. He certainly belongs in before some of the really questionable HOF choices, but I don’t know if the bulk of his case is empirically compelling.

             Reply ↓
          3. Paul E December 14, 2018 at 12:14 pm

             Jimbo,
             Clark suffers somewhat from the steroid guys’ performances; however, from age 23-28, his absolute prime, he averaged 32 doubles, 6 triples, 25 homers and a .212 ISO in an average of 153 games played. For the balance of his career (age 29-36) in a similar amount of total games played, he averaged 27 doubles, 2 triples, and 15 homers with a .180 ISO. This was done in an average of 118 games played. While he missed time due to the strike of 1994-95, adding back all of those games missed due to the strike would only bring him back up to 127 games played. He was definitely injured or at least taking time off for injuries. He continued to hit .300 – he just didn’t drive the ball like when he was healthy or earlier on his career. There definitely was a perception of decline

             Reply ↓
23. Doug Post authorDecember 14, 2018 at 1:41 am

    My choices, and I’m going to use up all my selections.
    Bonds, Walker, Rolen, Martinez, Clemens, Mussina, Schilling, Halladay, Rivera, Wagner

    If I had another vote, it would go to Manny, but his defense and PEDs leave me comfortable with leaving him out.

    Most of those choices are self-explanatory. Rolen is his generation’s Brooks Robinson, but with a better bat. Martinez played two-thirds of his career after age 31, and still put up crazy numbers, like 7 straight .300/.400/.500 seasons with 150 OPS+ and 9 overall (the latter tied for 9th all-time with Pujols, Frank Thomas, Mantle and Speaker).

    My take on Bonds and Clemens is: 1) they were dumb for going to PEDs; and 2) the likely effect was simply extending careers that were already Hall-worthy (not so sure that’s true for Manny).

    Fun fact for Ramirez: he, Bonds, Ruth, Williams and Thome are the only players with 1500 runs, 1500 RBI and a HR every 15 AB.

    Reply ↓
24. Bob Eno (epm) December 14, 2018 at 11:38 am

    Just a general comment on the way the voting is going in the real world. The Hall of Fame Tracker now has 10% of the votes recorded (41 of an anticipated 412 votes). Mariano so far has every voter’s vote, so someone else will have to be the spoiler there.

    But the main data points for me concern our discussion on this thread of Halladay vs. Wagner. Halladay is making a very strong run: he’s standing at 87.8%, just one vote behind Edgar. Wagner has fallen to 4.9% (2 of 41 voters), so the question for him seems to be retaining his slot on the 2020 ballot.

    Reply ↓
    1. Paul E December 14, 2018 at 12:15 pm

       Bob,
       …and to think one of the two Wagner votes is mine 🙁

       Reply ↓
    2. Mike L December 14, 2018 at 12:22 pm

       Bob, I took a look at the 2018 voting, and I noticed some drop off between the announced ballots and the ones kept private. Interesting pattern, as writers might have been self-censoring. The major controversial candidates (either because of PEDS or because their stats or position might have given voters some doubts: Clemens, Bonds, Edgar, Sheffield, Mussina and Schilling, all suffered significant drop-offs in the private ballots. For Edgar, it cost him a HOF slot. The drop offs for the inductees, Chipper, Vlad, Thome, were more modest. But Hoffman actually did better. I’m not sure whether that means that cohort of voters actually like relief pitchers…
       FWIW My bet is Mo will come in under Chipper’s total.

       Reply ↓
       1. Bob Eno (epm) December 14, 2018 at 3:59 pm

          I tracked the same trend last time, Mike, and also anticipate that happening.

          FWIW, I think you’re setting yourself up to be an easy mark and I going to swoop in and make an easy killing. Three gentlemen to your one that Mo outperforms Chipper. What do you say?

          Reply ↓
          1. Paul E December 14, 2018 at 4:22 pm

             Bob, Mike L
             > 410 out of 422 ?? (97.16 %) !!
             So, basically, > 97% of the voters are OK with relievers as first ballot Hall of Famers? I get the GOAT thing but, it must be a whole new segment of voters for Rivera to get in like that

             Reply ↓
             1. Mike L December 14, 2018 at 7:37 pm

                Paul E, I’m betting on the side of Mo underperforming Chipper. But I do think he’s getting in. I think enough of the writers share your skepticism, and only need to see a no vote to add theirs–and once no’s start happening, they will pick up speed. I think Mo will get in the low 90’s.
          2. Mike L December 14, 2018 at 4:35 pm

             Easy mark it is. My basic logic, which is almost certainly wrong, is a) If given the choice between the two (rooting interests aside) Chipper had the more valuable career, and b) there are holdouts on relief pitchers…you can see it among the fans, and see it among some of the writers, and as exceptional as Mo was, I wouldn’t be shocked to see 4% of the voters to go that way, and c) it’s a full ballot, as our own Doctor Doom points out. So, if you want to admit the steroid boys (he has Bonds, Clemens, and Andruw on there) and other meritorious non-tainted ones, leaving off Mo when he’s going to get in anyway. But I realize you are offering me odds that seem good to you, so… BTW, I do think there’s some psychology to this. I’ll call it the “Susan Collins Effect”–there are a lot of people who are only comfortable taking controversial stands when they are safe, or have a lot of company. I think it will be harder to be the first public “no” vote than any of the following ones.

             Reply ↓
             1. Paul E December 14, 2018 at 5:45 pm

                Mike l
                “I’ll call it the “Susan Collins Effect” ” – are you talking Kavanaugh or the IRS disclosure rule – or both? FWIW, it seems like she just can’t make up her mind to me
             2. Mike L December 14, 2018 at 6:04 pm

                Should have stayed away from politics. Not really talking about Kavanaugh or the IRS vote. She’s got a long history of being considered a centrist but one, as you point out, can’t make up her mind. She hates being the decisive vote on anything–neither Kavanaugh (50-48) nor IRS (House will never pass the bill in this term) are really decisive. Her instincts are to be non-controversial, yet she could have parlayed her potential influence into some serious legislation by joining with a handful of others. Chose another path.
             3. Bob Eno (epm) December 14, 2018 at 10:14 pm

                “Should have stayed away from politics.” Yeah, the temptations are many, and we had a couple of slips on this thread, but let’s keep that stuff on the troll-infested sites we all know and love. (No reflection on your quarky exception, Mike.) HHS is not so rich in participants that we want anyone to feel uncomfortable here. Even bots with strong views on the DH should be welcome.
             4. Mike L December 14, 2018 at 10:33 pm

                Agreed, anyway, my point about people is the same. There are a lot of folks who just don’t want to be seen, in public, as out there, and the BB writers are like everyone else. Once ballots began to be made public, it creates sort of a push towards conformity, except for the relative few who make their money being provocative (or, like Murray Chass was doing, just indulging themselves). But once the dam is broken, you see a sort of herd mentality on the nos. IMHO, there are going to be a few writers who have legitimate concerns about voting for any reliever. 20% of the voters spurned Hoffman. Rivera was clearly better than Hoffman so his vote totals should be higher, but once you get into the 90’s..
             5. no statistician but December 15, 2018 at 12:49 am

                Bob:

                For what it’s worth:

                Drawing analogies to Big P Politics, it seems to me, is perfectly all right in a discussion of a voting procedure that involves political elements in a different realm than governance. And my making fun of Donald Trump—if you think that was a “slip”—wasn’t politics. It was comedy. Or maybe sport.

                Also, I personally regret that divagations from the subject in a long thread like this one are something we’ve seen less and less of lately, speaking of divagations.
             6. Mike L December 15, 2018 at 9:00 am

                Divagations…now that’s a…divagation! In all seriousness, I admit I think in a political framework, but it’s just as much a framework as much as it is politics. I like to understand why people make the choices they do, and the HOF voting is a great petri dish for it. BTW, my son teases me that if he ever runs for office, and, on Election Night he’s winning in a landslide, I’m going to be yelling about why turnout is down in some remote polling place.
             7. Bob Eno (epm) December 14, 2018 at 9:52 pm

                Are we on then, Mike? I can assure you that my gentlemen will wear tweed, they will smoke cigarettes in holders, they will be mustachoied, they shall say “whom” at the proper time. I ask only that yours stay sober till noon. Are we on?
             8. Mike L December 14, 2018 at 10:11 pm

                LOL. OK. I better start working on my backhand.
             9. Mike L December 18, 2018 at 8:56 am

                Bob, right now you are looking good. Mo perfect so far this year. Not a single BV (Blown Vote)
             10. Bob Eno (epm) December 18, 2018 at 7:15 pm

                 Yeah, I’m exercising supreme willpower by not filling this up with a string of posts crowing about each new vote — because if I did, imagine all the crow I’d have to eat if things turned south, as you (cogently) predicted. There’s still a long way to go.
25. Mike L December 19, 2018 at 8:33 am

    Just want to throw something out there. Through 53 ballots on the Tracker, Edgar has picked up 8 additional votes. How much do you think Harold Baines’ selection is influencing the voters?

    Reply ↓
    1. Paul E December 19, 2018 at 8:46 am

       Mike L
       Re Baines, has to be some influence. Martinez was probably getting in or at least in the 72-78% range but 90%. I imagine there are possibly some new and younger voters with Bonds and Clemens climbing.
       Also, happened to notice the “public” voters average about 8.5 nominees per ballot and the anonymous roughly 1 whole nominee less. So, just calling it 8 nominees per voter, it seems relatively obvious that there’s quite a lack of consensus when only 2 or 3 (out of an average ballot of 8 selections) make an induction speech. Or, a lot of voters are just throwing out nice guy acknowledgments to players who treated them with respect, kindness….empathy?

       Reply ↓
    2. Bob Eno (epm) December 19, 2018 at 8:58 am

       Hard to say, Mike. Of the ballots I’ve seen that added Edgar this year, none of the voters mentioned Baines in explaining their vote. However, in the one case where a voter dropped Edgar after voting for him last year, the reason had to do with Baines (Baines’s election pushed that voter, David Lennon, towards a small-Hall position).

       Both McGriff (10) and Walker (9) have picked up more new votes than Edgar, but with Edgar building on a base so close to 75%, he’ll almost certainly get in, while McGriff will leave the ballot without coming close. Walker looks as though he may be in position to get over the threshold next year.

       Reply ↓
       1. Doug Post authorDecember 20, 2018 at 2:00 am

          Marvelously illogical – Edgar doesn’t get his vote this time because a much inferior player at the same position got in via an era committee. Perhaps he was thinking that Edgar didn’t need his vote because, if Baines made it, Martinez would surely get in eventually via an era committee?

          Reply ↓
          1. Dr. Doom December 20, 2018 at 8:30 am

             I totally agree with you about the illogic of Lennon’s vote, Doug. He basically said, “I used to vote for the Hall of Fame as it actually is. Now that my beliefs are confirmed, I’m going to start voting for the Hall as it was 80 years ago instead.” It’s a very strange choice.

             Reply ↓
             1. Mike L December 20, 2018 at 8:46 am

                Doom (and Doug and Bob) I really think that problem arises when we consider players who haven’t been voted in by the writers and barely are past their qualification times on the ballot. Baines retired after 2001, his first vote came in 2007, and he’d still be eligible for the writers votes—if he was only well-regarded enough to get 5%. Lee Smith, I get–15 years of credible performance. But Baines seems like a slap in the face to the writers.
             2. Michael Sullivan January 18, 2019 at 2:48 am

                To be fair, there are a fair number of players who a great number of experts believe *clearly* belong in the hall who dropped off the ballot early because they couldn’t get 5%. A few of them appear in this site’s Circle of Greats and would get a lot of support here if they showed up in one of the era ballots. It’s just that Baines is not one of them, He was basically an average+ player with a lot of longevity. Great guy, good player, but pretty much the epitome of a hall of very good. I could support a giant hall where he’s the standard, but if he belongs, there’s another 100+ guys that belong too that few voters or saber minded fans have ever seriously considered.
26. Dr. Doom December 19, 2018 at 4:42 pm

    I totaled all the ballots for the BBWAA election (well, I did the VC, too, but there were a lot of “I would’ve” and “I wouldn’t.” And anyway, the only two people receiving any votes were Will Clark and Lee Smith, with one each). I counted ten voters:

    10 votes – Mike Mussina
    9 votes – Roy Halladay, Mariano Rivera, and Curt Schilling
    8 votes – Edgar Martinez
    7 votes – Scott Rolen
    6 votes – Larry Walker
    5 votes –
    4 votes – Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens
    3 votes – Andy Pettitte
    2 votes – Lance Berkman, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Billy Wagner
    1 vote – Jeff Kent, Roy Oswalt, Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield

    Therefore, we would’ve elected 5 players, four of them pitchers.
    This group is, as a whole, substantially more hostile to PED-associated players than the BBWAA, which I find interesting but not meaningful.
    It’s also crazy to me that we unanimously agree on only one player, and that the player in question is Mike Mussina, of all people! I wonder if any of the ten of us who’ve voted (so far?) would’ve named Mussina as the most deserving player on their ballot. My guess is “no.”

    Given that we agreed on five people, how many people actually had all five on their ballots?
    Anthony, mosc, Hub Kid, Mike L, nsb, and Doug all named those five players.

    No one named all ten of the top-ten vote-getters on their ballot. Anthony and Doug both named the top-NINE on their ballot, omitting Pettitte. The runner-up for a consensus ballot would be mosc, but he omitted Walker, who finished 7th.

    I saw that the commenting here had really slowed down. I wasn’t sure if it was time to tally yet, but I figured, “Why not?” so I went for it. Also, I’m an insanely curious person, and I really wanted to know!

    Reply ↓
    1. Bob Eno (epm) December 19, 2018 at 7:51 pm

       Doom, On your last point first, I suspect that the votes may have slowed because two main posts superseded this string. A new post tends to being a string to a close pretty quickly, and anyone who was away from HHS in early December may simply have assumed this post was toast and never clicked on it.

       Moose would certainly not have been my first choice, that would be Mariano. (I’d have placed Schilling before Mussina too, and perhaps Walker.)

       Ten ballots really doesn’t give us a fair sample. Participation has been a little short of what we’d need to draw much from these results, I think. On the other hand, the discussion has been excellent, and that’s the main point (unlike the CoG process).

       Thanks for doing an intermediate tally. Maybe it will spur a little more participation if we can get folks’ eyes back on this string.

       Reply ↓
27. no statistician but December 19, 2018 at 8:22 pm

    Since this is the string that refuses to die, here’s a comment I was going to make but didn’t since I thought it would be futile:

    At Adam Darowski’s Hall Of Stats site, where a rating of 100 or better qualifies, here are the rankings of the six candidates in the “Today’s Game” ridiculousness:

    Will Clark—103
    Orel Hershiser—102 (but, for some reason 103 on the Hall of Consensus page)
    Albert Belle—74
    Lee Smith—62
    Harold Baines—58
    Joe Carter—31

    I can’t find words to express my lack of astonishment at these numbers.

    Reply ↓
    1. Paul E December 20, 2018 at 11:37 am

       I think Adam Darowski is a ‘large hall’ believer

       Reply ↓
       1. Dr. Doom December 20, 2018 at 2:33 pm

          Darowski’s Hall of Stats is agnostic on what size the Hall SHOULD be. The Hall of Stats is simply the actual size of the actual Hall of Fame.

          Reply ↓
          1. Paul E December 21, 2018 at 9:05 am

             Doom,
             Since the hall of fame is populated with the friends of Frankie Frisch and a host of suspects, perhaps,then, Cooperstown is already large and Darowski merely follows suit? And, since he isn’t raising the bar, perhaps his agnosticism is part and parcel of his acceptance of our large hall?

             Reply ↓
             1. Doug Post authorDecember 21, 2018 at 1:03 pm

                Not really. He’s simply saying that since the HoF has n players, those n players ought to be his HoS picks, based solely on their achievements as measured by his rating metric. Thus, he’s using the number of HoF members as the baseline to calibrate his rating metric so that, if the HoF has n members, then his HoS rating is calibrated so that the nth highest HoS rating (among eligible players) is 100. That’s why a player on the margin can be in the HoS one year and possibly out of it the next, based on new players becoming eligible.
28. Bob Eno (epm) December 22, 2018 at 11:08 pm

    I’m still hoping we can have more activity on this string — there’s just one month to go before the final vote is revealed (and our CoG work begins), and looking at Ryan Thibodaux’s Hall of Fame Tracker, there’s plenty to talk about, as the tea leaves are revealed, vote by vote.

    Here’s an example: Bonds and Clemens have been gaining percentages over the past few days. With over 20% of all ballots now known (actually 21.1% at the moment), Bonds has been chosen by 72.4% of voters and Clemens 73.6%. Last year, they ended at 56.4% and 57.3%, respectively, so they would both appear to have solid chances of getting in this year, or at least of positioning themselves as sure things for 2020. (Their clocks run out in 2022.)

    But even though it may appear that the anti-PED fever is subsiding in voters, I don’t think we can say that this is so. Among returning voters, Bonds and Clemens have each actually picked up only one new vote. While they have also garnered the votes of all four new voters, of the six 2018 voters whose eligibility expired this yeare, four voted for both players last year (two voted for neither). So with a fifth of the ballots counted, Bonds and Clemens have added only 1-3 votes over last year, when they fell 79 and 75 votes short. This means that their high percentage figures right now are almost entirely a reflection of which specific voters make up the currently known pool of 87 votes (of what will be 412 total).

    Right now, apart from Rivera and Halladay, who have no 2018 record to compare this year’s votes to, the three candidates who are over 75% are Martinez (92.0%), Mussina (83.9%), Schilling (75.9%). Looking at the same figures I used for Bonds and Clemens, Edgar figures to make the Hall with about 25 votes to spare, Moose seems a likely inductee, but by a razor thin 6 votes, while Schilling would be predicted to fall way short, by about 65 votes. No one else seems to be close, and that includes Walker, whom I earlier thought was positioning himself for a good shot at 2020, his final year on the ballot. In fact, Walker seems to me to project about 100 votes short of what he needs: he’s at 65.5% now, but I think he’s on target to come in at just over 50% when all the ballots are counted.

    So my prediction now would be that Rivera and Halladay will get in this year — their levels now are really high (100% and 93.1%) — along with Edgar and, maybe Mussina (I’d give odds of 2-3 on Moose). I don’t see anyone else having a shot. Too bad: I’d place Schilling just behind Mariano on my list.

    Reply ↓
    1. Dr. Doom December 23, 2018 at 11:55 am

       Re: Bonds and Clemens – Last year, both were named on 61.2% of public ballots, but 41.9 and 45.7 % of private ballots, respectively. They are not being set up for election this year, certainly, nor even in 2020, I would think. But they may get there by 2022.

       Reply ↓
       1. Bob Eno (epm) December 23, 2018 at 3:32 pm

          The discrepancies between the public and private ballots can be very large (Schilling, Edgar, and Moose received 25%, 24%, and 22.4% fewer private than public votes last year, margins even larger than the PED twins). I don’t really understand why that’s so. All voters are members of BBWAA, the only difference is that some choose to reveal their ballots and the rest — about a quarter of the voters — don’t. (There’s also a very small middle group of voters who reveal their ballots, but anonymously. I’m not sure how that works; perhaps these voters email Ryan Thibodaux directly, requesting confidentiality.)

          Doom (or any HHS poster), do you have any insight into why the “private” contingent would be voting so differently in many high-profile cases? The large discrepancies don’t really seem to follow a fixed pattern, such as protecting the voter against criticism of a very negative ballot: i.e., one naming few players. Private voters gave more votes to some players last year, e.g., Vizquel (+11.6%) and McGriff (7.1%).

          Oddly, there are also some large discrepancies between voters who reveal their ballots publicly before and after the election. For example, among public ballot voters, Bonds and Clemens both received 64.4% of “public” ballots revealed before the election, and 50% of public ballots revealed after the election. What’s up with that?

          For those of us rooting for Rivera to pull out unanimous vote (. . . but why am I rooting for a Yankee?), the private voters are obviously the glitch, simply because we know that empirically, private voters vote differently from public voters (and especially from those who reveal their ballots pre-election ).

          Reply ↓
          1. Mike L December 24, 2018 at 9:59 am

             Bob, pure speculation on my part, but here goes. First, one more datapoint. 2018 tracker showed 8.73 votes per revealed ballot, 7.64 per non-public ballot. That’s a real difference, especially on a packed ballot. I usually think the no’s are more interesting, so I looked at the Chipper 2018 vote
             I found four “pre-announcement” votes against Chipper: David Ginsburg (only 4 total votes), Bill Livingston (2), Jose De Jesus Ortiz (full), and Mark Purdy (just 3). Purdy said he was small-hall classes small-first ballot. Ginsburg said he would be more supportive of Chipper in the 2nd year. Livingston abstained the previous year, because of lack of guidance from MLB on steroids, but then said in 2018 he couldn’t ignore home-town heroes Vizquel and Thome. Ortiz voted against Chipper because Chipper was a “truther” on Sandy Hook.

             Reply ↓
             1. Bob Eno (epm) December 24, 2018 at 9:41 pm

                Your point about the relative sizes of the pubic/private ballots is a good one, Mike, but I’m not sure it’s the answer here. I see two problems. The lesser one is that the average reduction in votes would be on the order of 12%, but in the cases of Schilling, Edgar, and Moose the reduction is twice as large and still a mystery. The larger one is that if the reduced ballot size is an expression of small-Hall proclivities, it should not have affected Bonds and Clemens at all — no one, I think, argues that they are not Inner Circle candidates. Their issue is PEDs, not basic Hallworthiness, yet private voters voted for them about 17.5% less frequently; if small-Hall bias were the issue, the difference should be 0%.

                I think it more likely that the reduced size of the private ballots is partly because so many more of them bypassed Bonds and Clemens, who, if not for PEDs, would be receiving 98+% of the vote. Let other things stay equal, knock those two votes off of about an extra 17.5% of the private ballots, and you’ve reduced the discrepancy in ballot size by about a third, accounted for by heightened anti-PED bias (though why private voter should share that bias more strongly is a mystery). All things being equal, then, we might expect Schilling, Edgar, and Moose to score about 8% fewer votes among small-Hall-biased private voters, but now the actual figures are about three times as large. The mystery only deepens.
             2. Mike L December 24, 2018 at 10:47 pm

                Good points, Bob. Of course, we could have different stresses working at the same. Some folks are just small hall. Some are “first ballot sacrosanct”. Some are No PEDS. Some are “I just don’t like this guy.” Some are “let me you an idea of why I think this guy isn’t really enough of a star to get in, but my hometown guy, who had inferior stats, was heart and soul and more clutch”.
                And, we should throw in why some of them choose to be private–quite possibly because they don’t want to take the heat from their fellow writers, or hometown fans, or, when the vote is close, possibly for access reasons. Dis a beloved hero, maybe you don’t score an interview. I don’t have any shattering insights beyond thinking that writers are human like the rest of us, have favorites and guys they dislike, and, because they get to see more of the players outside of the image-grooming TV gets to see, maybe also see more that turns them off.
             3. Bob Eno (epm) December 25, 2018 at 9:12 am

                Mike reply to these interesting points is: Merry Christmas!
             4. Bob Eno (epm) December 25, 2018 at 9:19 am

                . . . and all I asked Santa for was a year without typos . . .
             5. Mike L December 25, 2018 at 9:22 am

                Bob, I’m trying to convince myself to put on my running clothes to go out into 32 degree weather and wave at the tourists in Central Park who think I must be mad. Have already gone out to buy bagels and donuts for sleeping (grad school) kids. Merry Christmas to you as well.
    2. bells December 27, 2018 at 10:15 pm

       Bob, re: Clemens and Bonds, just note that if they are going 4/4 on new voters and going 4/6 on outgoing voters, that can be a pretty big difference, as 1 ‘no’ vote disappearing is the equivalent of 3 ‘yes’ votes essentially. I read this Jay Jaffe article last week that put it well, in a way I hadn’t thought of before:

       https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jaws-and-the-2019-hall-of-fame-ballot-roger-clemens/

       The chart right at the end of the article is a really interesting summary… basically, the eligibility rule change in 2016 dropped a ton of ‘no’ votes for Clemens (and presumably Bonds was similar), so even though he lost a few ‘yes’ votes as well, his percentage increased by 7.7%. 2017 was the Selig year, when a chunk of voters said ‘well if he’s in I’ll vote for those guys’, and basically it jumped another 8.9%. 2018 his percentage only went up 3.2%, but most of that was due to ‘no’ votes being lost (presumably to eligibility or just not voting), because he only gained 3 ‘yes’ votes. This year is an interesting litmus, in that last year people may have been hesitant to add those guys because of the Morgan letter. It looks like they’re not gaining much, but they both have all but one of the new voters this year, and who knows how many old ‘no’ voters might not vote. So the totals are inching up, and I’ve seen a few comments of people saying they’re coming ‘closer’ to BB/RC voting. Years 9 and 10 should be the real crunch time, but going with the hypothesis that new voters are more likely to support BB/RC, there’s a pretty steady path to get that ~18% needed in 4 voting cycles.

       Reply ↓
       1. Bob Eno (epm) December 28, 2018 at 2:51 pm

          Thanks for the link, bells. Jaffe’s article does a good job of analyzing the implications of the rising vote totals for Clemens (and Bonds by inference), and you’ve captured the key points.

          To change the topic (and to repeat myself) in light of other issues in Jaffe’s article: Jaffe’s a supporter of the leading PED Hall candidates, and he makes some good arguments. However, both towards the beginning and at the end of his article he refers to Clemens as someone with a claim to GOAT status. Clemens was Hallworthy before PEDs, but PEDs are clearly what stretched his career into the top WAR stratosphere and GOAT contention. I think Jaffe’s characterization demonstrates what honors Clemens gained illicitly. No need, in my view, to add the honor of Hall induction. I believe the price of stealing the right to the GOAT title should be forgoing the Hall plaque that was honestly earned before PED use muddied the picture. Justice is about balancing the scales.

          Reply ↓
29. Mike L December 24, 2018 at 9:12 am

    I have to throw this in to our discussion (it’s political, but not really). Michael Needham, Marco Rubio’s Chief of Staff, has weighed in on Mariano on Twitter: “Mariano Rivera is tied with Robin Ventura for career wins above replacement. He pitched 24% of the innings Greg Maddux pitched in his career. The notion he’s a unanimous Hall of Famer is insane.”
    Ballgame’s over.

    Reply ↓
    1. Bob Eno (epm) December 24, 2018 at 10:04 pm

       Mr. Needham has been well trained. Partisan politicians (of whom we have a few) construct their political positions in this exact way, cherry picking statistics or anecdotal facts that will create a simulacrum of valid argument, without any analysis of what the complete picture may indicate, since that might involve the danger of a non-partisan point of view. How marvelous to see successful politicos applying the lessons they have learned in the spin chambers of national and state capitals to areas of life tediously dominated by careful analysis!

       By the way, what is the significance of “unanimous Hall of Famer?” It is certainly not “the best among Hall inductees.” No one is arguing that Rivera is more Hallworthy than Cy Young or Walter Johnson. It just means that so far no one has found a worthy reason to deny that the candidate meets the threshold requirement. I’m sure that eventually someone will find such a reason in Rivera’s case. After all, last year Jose De Jesus Ortiz reasoned that because Chipper Jones was briefly convinced by a friend that the FBI had confirmed Sandy Hook was a fraud, and tweeted his outrage before deleting the tweet with an abject apology and a confession of stupidity a few hours later, therefore he was not Hallworthy. Surely Mariano will encounter his Ortiz several times over before the voting is done.

       Reply ↓
30. Mike L December 26, 2018 at 2:48 pm

    According to Ryan Thibodaux, the eligible baseball writing staff of The Athletic (more than a dozen) will do a ballot dump later this week. This is the first opportunity to see a break in Mo’s perfection, if my theory about “herd immunity” has any application whatsoever.

    Reply ↓
    1. Bob Eno (epm) December 26, 2018 at 3:11 pm

       If I understand it, your theory would hold that when The Athletic herd votes, Mo will either get all their votes or lose more than one, but will not lose precisely one. Do I have it right?

       BTW, Thibodaux’s tracker has just broken the 100-vote mark, and so has Mo.

       Reply ↓
       1. Mike L December 26, 2018 at 3:33 pm

          Yes, that’s what I think. Of course, I’ll almost certainly be wrong. You vote publicly in a herd, privately you do what you want, but you don’t want to be on your own in either case. If there’s one Mo no, private or not, people are going to figure out who, and that person will be more scorned than if he’d gone public with it. The Athletic staff is a microcosm of that dynamic.

          Reply ↓
          1. Bob Eno (epm) December 27, 2018 at 4:29 pm

             You are a prophet, Mike. The 12 Athletic Group writers votes are in, and Rivera picked up all 12 votes. There’s a paywall so I can’t read their rationales, but the blurb before the wall indicates that one writer considered moving his or her vote from Mo to another candidate who needed it mo’. I think we hadn’t considered strategic voting denying Rivera unanimity, or as a factor behind the outcome of our bet. It would be interesting to know what prevented that writer from voting strategically — did the issue of unanimity contribute? — but not interesting enough that I’m going to cough up the fee required to find out.

             Mariano is 117 votes for 117, and as we move towards the voting deadline in four days, the pressure to vote Mo (rather than No) on any writer planning to publicly reveal his or her ballot prior to the Hall announcement is going to increase exponentially. Who wants to risk being the first “No” vote when Rivera is maintaining unanimity this deep into the pre-deadline period? (Even those planning to reveal their votes only after the election announcement might worry that they’ll wind up the sole dissenting vote.) I think if Mariano is still a unanimous choice on January 1, we probably won’t see a No vote on him until the election results are announced, and that that/those vote(s) will remain anonymous ever after, unless there are, say, five or more of them.

             As a side note, I think it’s really more remarkable that Halladay has lost only six voters out of 117 so far. I see Halladay as properly over the threshold for induction, but not by that much. His current 95% first-ballot count is at Inner Circle level. (I was similarly surprised by Thome’s numbers last year.) Maybe the senseless “first ballot mystique” is dying out. That would be a sign that the BBWAA members are approching the Hall more analytically.

             Reply ↓
             1. Mike L December 27, 2018 at 9:33 pm

                Well, right now you are well ahead of me, because Mo is perfect, and, as you point out, the deeper into the vote he stays perfect the more likely it is he’s going to stay perfect. I’m as surprised as you are about Halladay–he’s worthy of induction, but I don’t see him as a no-doubter. Thome’s numbers dropped off by 10.5% from public to private, so maybe we will see the same in Halladay.
31. bells December 29, 2018 at 9:11 pm

    I’m interested to see where this goes in the next few years – the HoF bottleneck of the last 7 years, with lots of great candidates but some incredibly controversial ones, is almost over. Next year there’s Jeter and some middling candidates, the next year there’s nothing, and then there’s lightning rod A-Rod after that. But this year, there’ll almost certainly be 3 (and possibly 4 – Mussina looks like he’s riiiight on the borderline) elected, and then next year what? Jeter for sure, Mussina for sure if not this year, but the closest after that are Bonds and Clemens, who are nudging up the list, and Schilling, who is held back for totally different reasons. Walker will be in his last year and is seeing a meteoric rise in his support, but I think it’s unrealistic to expect 75%. So, what’s going to happen with the leftovers?

    Bonds and Clemens are the most interesting, of course, as they are a litmus test for a whole era. There definitely seems to be a case that ‘old school’ voters like them less – this would make sense in terms of the stereotype of an older generation being more moralistic and less caught up in the feats of individual players. This isn’t to cast aspersions on dinosaurs or anything, I think that perspective is understandable. If I were born in, say, 1980 (which I was), I’d be far more inclined to say ‘but I saw them and they were great and electrifying before PEDs’ and forefront those memories in my mind than if I had covered baseball since the ’60s and had seen lots of great players in my day, but the ones that electrified me as a youth weren’t as problematic as the ones I saw later. Those are natural attachments, if not the most logic-based on either side. But either way, as more of the electorate gets farther away from having covered baseball pre-PED era, I think we’re going to get a nuanced, but more favorable attitude towards the PED guys (“it was the system”, “they didn’t do anything that was illegal at the time”, etc… tho that’ll be interesting to see how it plays out for guys who were actually suspended like Manny, or especially A-Rod). I almost certainly think it’ll be enough to get BB/RC elected before they’re off the ballot (although the BBHOF seems like it reaaaally doesn’t want this, so maybe there’ll be stronger measures taken to depress support a la morgan letter), but probably not next year unless there’s a sea change.

    So, what happens the next two years? If Mussina joins the class this year, is it really only Jeter that gets in next year, or do we see support skyrocket for a few candidates to fill the void? I’m curious what folks think about that, because the machinations of the BBWAA hall elections fascinate me. Will Vizquel get in in a couple of years? What will Walker’s total be? Will the lack of obvious candidates get people to sigh and hold their breath and vote Schilling in next year?

    Reply ↓
    1. Mike L December 30, 2018 at 10:48 am

       The Schilling-Mussina debate is an interesting one. There’s a valid intellectual argument to be made for picking either one over the other, for picking both, or for picking neither. Might be worth looking at the final public ballots after the year is over to look at those writers (and their explanations) who made a distinction between the two.
       I am kind of interested in the apparent trend of several players picking up significant support year of year, and wonder if it can partly be traced to Lee Smith/Harold Baines selections. For the purpose of argument, let’s assume you eliminate all PEDS users. Anyone really want to make the case that Baines was better than Edgar, Walker, Kent, Rolen, McGriff?

       Reply ↓
    2. Bob Eno (epm) December 31, 2018 at 1:01 am

       I think your thoughts are pretty much what many of us are wondering about, bells. I see Mussina as a lock by next year, as you do (if he falls short this year, I think it will be by 3% or less), but I’m not sure 75% is out of reach for Walker next year. I think Walker will be a bit over 100 votes short after this election, about where Schilling was last year, but with the added urgency of going into his last year. Were it not for that last fact, I’d expect him to wind up falling short in 2020, but the last year is a bit of a wildcard. Moreover, if Mussina is elected this year, Walker will benefit from a general lack of other undamaged top candidates.

       If the PED twins get in and Schilling doesn’t I think it would so seriously undermine the legitimacy of the Hall vote that the prospect of it will mobilize a major pro-Schilling campaign in 2022. I feel sure he’ll get in. A-Rod’s arrival will boost Bonds and Clemens because A-Rod was caught and suspended and they weren’t, and I expect that will be the final push needed for the twins, who, good as A-Rod was on the field, were, after all, better.

       Reply ↓
       1. bells January 2, 2019 at 5:14 pm

          That’s a good point about BB/RC getting a potential boost from A-Rod’s candidacy, I hadn’t thought of that, but it fits in with what I was saying about a more nuanced perspective potentially developing on steroid matters.

          Reply ↓
32. Bob Eno (epm) January 2, 2019 at 3:04 pm

    Now that the Hall voting has ended, all that remains until the January 22 announcement is to track the ballots that are publicly revealed over the next three weeks. Judging by last year’s vote totals, the currently revealed 142 ballots represent about 60% of those that will be revealed before 1/22, meaning we can expect to see another ~100 ballots revealed before the announcement (and then perhaps 70 more after the announcement, with about 100 remaining permanently unrevealed).

    Mariano continues to draw 100% of the votes: I predicted that if he were still a unanimous public choice as of the close of voting, it would be really unlikely that any voter would reveal a ballot that doesn’t include Rivera prior to the announcement. Now we’ll get to see whether I was all wet or not.

    According to Ryan Thibodaux’s HoF tracker, there are expected to be about 10 fewer total ballot this year, compared with 2018. That reduces the number of votes needed for election. In tracking borderline cases such as Bonds, Clemens, Mussina, and Schilling, this isn’t something I’ve factored in till now. The main impact seems to be on Mussina. Mussina fell 49 votes short last year, but would need only 42 more votes than his 2018 total this year. He has picked up net +14 votes among returning voters so far, with just over a third of all ballots known, suggesting he’s on track to gain 41-42 votes. But last year, private voters were much less likely to vote for Mussina than public ones. Since his known rate of increase is among public ballots, the possibility exists that the 25% of voters who keep their ballots private will show a different level of gain for Mussina than the public voters. It seems to me that since a higher percentage of those voters did not vote for Moose last year, he has somewhat more room for vote additions among the private voters. On that logic, I’m still predicting Mussina getting in by a hair. (In addition, Moose has been named on all 7 new voter ballots revealed so far this year, further strengfthening his chances.)

    Reply ↓
    1. bells January 2, 2019 at 5:17 pm

       Walker has gained 32 votes in the first 146 revealed, including 6 of the last 9 since new years!! That is remarkable… if he gains over 70 this year he will be less than 100 from election, which would have been unthinkable before last year. Seems like all the debates that have been had ad nauseum here and in other places have ended up swaying some people enough to vote for him.

       Reply ↓
       1. Bob Eno (epm) January 2, 2019 at 8:02 pm

          I agree, bells. Walker’s rise is exceptional and shows promise for 2020, his final year on the ballot.

          Reply ↓
    2. Mike L January 2, 2019 at 8:18 pm

       Tempting me on Mariano. I wonder if writers talk to each other about their votes–they did at The Athletic, but I think your implicit point about those who choose to remain private will fear being the guy too craven to go against the herd in public might be a good one. Still sticking to my prediction he’s not.

       Reply ↓
33. Bob Eno (epm) January 6, 2019 at 2:49 pm

    Sort of curious to see whether anyone else is still tracking this string . . .

    Using the HoF tracker, I thought I’d look to see whether there were any common features among the 9 voters who did not include Roy Halladay on their ballots (out of 155 public votes, as of this writing). I didn’t spot any strong common voting pattern (e.g., votes for Clemens, Mussina, or Schilling, but not Halladay, although on that query I found 4 votes for each of the other three, scattered among various voters). However, those nine ballots did show a fairly predictable difference from the full range of ballots: those nine voters averaged only 5.8 votes per ballot, as opposed to the 8.7 average among all voters.

    In looking at the specific non-Halladay votes, I came across a particularly strange ballot with ten choices that were the most idiosyncratic I’ve seen yet. The voter is René Cárdenas, a Spanish-language broadcaster for the Dodgers, Astros, and Rangers. Here’s his ballot:

    Berkman (currently at two votes total)
    Clemens (but not Bonds)
    Kent (currently at 18 votes)
    Martínez
    Oswalt (currently at two votes total; the other Oswalt voter also has an Astros connection)
    Rivera
    Schilling
    Vizquel
    Wagner (currently at 23 votes . . . but assured of 5%, Paul!)
    Walker

    Cárdenas represents half the votes received by two different players.

    The other vote for Berkman came with a pretty strong argument in his favor by the voter, Jon Heyman. He also has a thoughtful, though, for me, still unpersuasive, argument for voting for Bonds and not Clemens.

    Reply ↓
    1. Mike L January 6, 2019 at 7:10 pm

       Bob, I couldn’t forget this thread. If I recall, I saw some strange patterns with the West Coast voting and Bonds last year. I need to go back to my notes.

       Reply ↓
       1. Bob Eno (epm) January 7, 2019 at 9:25 am

          You have notes? I feel unworthy.

          Reply ↓
          1. Mike L January 7, 2019 at 9:46 am

             LOL, last year at this time I wrote a piece for 3quarksdaily.com on HOF voting. That’s why I have notes. Your worth is beyond dispute.

             Reply ↓
             1. Bob Eno (epm) January 7, 2019 at 1:05 pm

                Thank you, Mike. I had several professors who said much the same when I tried to appeal my D grades.
             2. Mike L January 8, 2019 at 10:08 am

                Watch the New England block of voters. They have a continuing problem with PEDS, Clemens, Bonds, and, eventually, Ortiz. They had the largest public group of “no” Thome votes last year, and, to date, they are overwhelmingly yes on both Bonds and Clemens (only Amalie Benjamin is a no so far). And, they include Bill Balou, who announced he would not vote this time, but would have been a “no” on Mariano. Ah, what fun!
             3. Bob Eno (epm) January 8, 2019 at 1:52 pm

                Great that you’re tracking this, Mike. This is real detail work.

                I think Bill Balou’s comments make very clear how much pressure has built on voters who plan to reveal their ballots. Balou makes a standard argument: closers are celebrated for artificial reasons and are, by the nature of their role, not qualified for the Hall. His defense of his argument is aggressive, and he reports maintaining it repeatedly against the views of other sportswriters. (I agree with Balou in general, but, like some others whose views he reports, I simply think the quality of Rivera’s record overcomes the barrier that his role presents.)

                So Balou’s a sure No for Mo. But rather than cast that vote, he has withdrawn from the entire voting process — no ballot will be recorded for him, and so no No-for-Mo will be posted. He is simply unwilling to stand in the way of unanimity.

                For me, this is the wrong decision. I’d enjoy seeing Mariano named on 100% of the ballots, but not if it means that the reason for this is simply that dissenters withdrew from the vote. That’s not actual unanimity. It is a semblance of unanimity at the cost of the integrity of the vote. It also undercuts the voting process by raising to a principle of competition a factor that has no particular significance: the specific amount above 75% that a candidate earns, a factor I think is as extraneous to the purpose of the Hall election as the question of whether a player deserves to be a “first-ballot” selection. There is only one question asked of voters: Which candidates, if any, do you believe deserve to be in the Hall?

                If Rivera is named on 100% of the ballots, it will not signify that the voters believe he is more qualified than Ken Griffey Jr., Tom Seaver, Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, or any other high-percentage electees who fell short of unanimity. It will just mean there was greater consensus that Mariano’s qualifications were over the threshold; it says nothing about how high above the threshold they may be. And if dissenters feel they shouldn’t vote then it means nothing at all.

                I could be proven wrong within the hour, but I think Balou’s vote adds plausibility to the idea that pre-announcement public ballots are extremely unlikely to leave off Rivera, and that post-announcement public ballots are only slightly less unlikely to do so. I nevertheless suspect that Mariano will be left off the ballots of a number of writers who have not given permission for their ballots to be revealed. (But I’m still expecting to collect on our bet about whether Mo’s final percentage will exceed Chipper’s 97.2% — I don’t see Mo’s No’s going into double digits.)
             4. Mike L January 8, 2019 at 2:10 pm

                I agree completely. Ballou wants it both ways….to say “not good enough” but not vote basically cheapens the “accomplishment” of unanimity. And I would never put Mo in the category Ruth, etc. because it’s absurd. Mo may be the greatest closer, but there’s no way his seasonal value matches up to any of the greats, and no way that any GM would have traded, straight up, any of those greats for a similarly-aged Mo.
                In a way, I’m a little amused. Boston writers have always been careful will Mo, giving him his due, while reminding us that Papelbon (until he left the fold) and Kimbrel were really better.
                I would have preferred a straight, honest no. He might even have done a service to the overall voting.
             5. Voomo Zanzibar January 8, 2019 at 10:00 pm

                Bill Ballou was Judge Smails’ putter, right?

                vs Bos in the playoffs:
                19.2 IP
                2 runs

                Vs everyone:
                141 IP
                0.70 era

                How bout a Fresca!?
             6. Mike L January 8, 2019 at 11:24 pm

                Nope, he was the Bear in Jungle Book, looking for the Bare Necessities…..
             7. Bob Eno (epm) January 9, 2019 at 1:09 pm

                Mike, I’d like to ask you to clarify something. You write that the NE Bloc was mostly No on Bonds last year, but are so far almost all Yes. Ryan Thibodaux calculates only three switched votes for Bonds — at least one isn’t a NE writer. (He doesn’t list Amalie Benjamin.) Much the same for Clemens. Are you working from different sources than Thibodaux?
             8. Mike L January 9, 2019 at 2:05 pm

                I expressed that very badly. What I meant to say was the NE block was supportive of the steroid users–except for Amalie Benjamin, Art Davidson, and Carol Gurgian. I suspect this is because of the pairing of Bonds and Clemens as PEDS users–you can’t really support one and not the other (prefer Clemens over Bonds) and the group as a group was more supporting of users than the whole population (again, I think because of Clemens, and, looking out a few years, because of Ortiz). Few people want to appear to be inconsistent.
             9. Dr. Doom January 9, 2019 at 9:05 pm

                For the record, there are some people who see Bonds and Clemens differently. For those who favor Clemens over Bonds, they will (correctly) point out that the only evidence against him is when a criminal and a liar named him, and a deeply honest man, Andy Pettitte, recanted what he said against Clemens. Therefore, there’s no REAL evidence against him – no purchases, no reports, no evidence. Regarding those who favor Bonds, they will note that Bonds PED start-date is not in dispute – offseason between the 1998 and 1999 seasons – and he was clearly a HOF player before then. As for Clemens, who KNOWS when he started, and therefore his entire playing record is suspect. I’m not saying these are particularly GOOD arguments, but they DO exist, and those who make them view themselves as perfectly intellectually consistent.
             10. Mike L January 9, 2019 at 11:00 pm

                 Doom, I’m not arguing that there are no differences between Bonds and Clemens. What I was saying is that HOF voting reported by the Tracker shows almost identical voting patterns for both of them. Sorry for being unclear, I’m seriously nerdy about looking at these types of results and inside the numbers. It’s an old habit from a previous line of work.
             11. Bob Eno (epm) January 10, 2019 at 9:20 am

                 Perfectly correct, Doom. Ballou is one of those making the anti-Clemens-only argument, and he adds in Bonds’ favor the point that he was provoked by lesser players (McGwire & Sosa) eclipsing him via PEDs.

                 These apologetics do differ from more generic arguments in favor of both players (Most everybody did it, Selig’s in the Hall, etc.). And it seems indisputable to me, despite the anti-Clemens-only argument, that both players were comparably outstanding pre-PED.

                 If there were a way to induct Pre-PED Bonds & Clemens into the Hall I’d vote for them. But the players being voted on now are synthetic products, who tacked on “old age” peaks that allowed them to rise in the record books way beyond their deserts. Their plaques will list those bogus stats as the basis of their enshrinement. That’s the special issue with these two particular PED guys and it applies to them both equally.
             12. Dr. Doom January 10, 2019 at 1:11 pm

                 Mike L,

                 I see your point, but I’ll raise you here, too.

                 Their vote totals ARE close, but three public voters have voted for one or the other as of this morning (1/10). The way I see things, these two may get close – very close, even – in 2021 or 2022. Those voters who differ might literally be the difference between one getting in and the other not (more likely Clemens gets in, as he typically outpolls Bonds, if memory serves). These little differences could end up being ALL the difference.

                 But yeah… that’s a manufactured argument, because they almost certainly will face exactly the same fate. And I would also suspect that David Ortiz’s entry onto the ballot in Bonds’ & Clemens’ final year will also complicate the opinions of voters who plan on sailing Ortiz in. It’ll be interesting to watch, that’s for sure!
             13. Mike L January 10, 2019 at 4:43 pm

                 Doom, I don’t have any particular unique insights. I think Ortiz is a problem, one that’s been anticipated by the New England voters for some time. I really do believe that voters adopt philosophical frameworks (like my “not voting for a juicer” one) to provide themselves some sense they they are making reasoned, fair choices not just based on “partisanship”. Certainly Ortiz’s bat should earn him a spot–assuming that bat wasn’t juiced. So, if you are a New England voter faced with the selection of an obvious Red Sox icon, there is no way you can vote against Ortiz, unless you have taken a hard, consistent stand against PEDS. Once you start getting into the weeds of “yes, he might have done it, but…” basically parsing words and finding distinctions, you lose the force of your argument. So, most New England voters (consciously or not) are taking the prophylactic step of just voting for Bonds and Clemens.
34. Dr. Doom January 8, 2019 at 3:20 pm

    I didn’t realize there was still discussion on this thread; once upon a time at this site, we regularly had 3-4 active threads, and you really had to stay on your toes to keep up. Nowadays, I only keep track of the top one or two. Anyway, at Bob’s urging, I’m going to re-post some of my HOF thoughts and number-crunching that I added on the top thread earlier today, as they are more apropos here:

    Welp… the site’s been quiet for a few days. Just wanted to note that Mariano is still at 100% with 156 precincts reporting. Fun fact: since it will only take 309 votes to be elected (Ryan Thibodaux’s estimate), Mariano is already over halfway to election.

    In the Mike Mussina camp, last year, he polled at 70% in the tracker, 47.6% private. His public number is (at present) 18.6% higher than last year. If his private share goes up by as much, he’ll get 56.4% of the private vote. If those numbers hold, and if private voters make up the same proportion of voters as last year (about 5/7 of all voters), Mussina will be elected, by a margin of either one or two votes (this would project him for 311 [310.6] votes out of 412). I won’t make the claim that he’s a guarantee, but there’s a not-crazy argument that he either gets in this year, or sits in Craig Biggio limbo (remember when he got 74.9% of the vote one year?!) for one year before being inducted in 2020.

    Once-upon-a-time HHS commenter Curt Schilling (well, technically he commented twice, which Mike L may still remember) is being treated as a steroid user. Unquestionable Hall of Fame statistics and a post-playing-career profession as an inveterate @$$ have combined to show him with, at present, an identical vote-total to that of Roger Clemens (117 each at press time), and just one more vote than Barry Bonds. While some have noted his proximity to 75% in public ballots (73.6%), Schilling is the player with the greatest difference between public and private support of all returning players – the difference for him last year was 25%, which would (this year) give him less than half of private voters. There’s no path for him in 2019. He, Clemens, and Bonds basically all have identical paths to being elected, and it’s hard to see any of them making up all of that ground before 2022 (the final ballot year for all three), if even then. I suspect Schilling will have the easiest time in the VC of any of the three, but I suppose it’s possible that his former teammates and opponents hate him even more than the journalists do.

    As for Edgar, the other player on the edge, I suspect he’ll receive the “final year boost,” even from the private voters. According to the Hall Tracker, the difference between private and public last year was 24%. He’s at 90.6 right now, and needs 65.2 on outstanding ballots. At the same reduction, he gets in with room to spare (though not a lot, admittedly), and that’s without consideration that the gap might shrink due to #1 the “final year boost,” and #2 the election of Harold Baines. I suspect he’ll get near 80% of the total.

    Finally, I want to talk about Todd Helton. He’s polling at 20.3% right now. I suspect that means he’ll get less than that, but since what we have to work with is 20.3, I went looking for “recent” players who debuted on the Hall ballot with 10-50% of the vote (I was only going to do 15-25%, but then there really weren’t that many more by extending the range a ton, so I figured I might as well). Here are some recent (last 30 years) candidates, and how they wound up:

    Omar Vizquel, 37.0% (2018) – still on ballot
    Scott Rolen, 10.2% (2018) – still on ballot
    Manny Ramirez, 23.8% (2017) – still on ballot
    Billy Wagner, 10.5% (2016) – still on ballot
    Gary Sheffield, 11.7% (2015) – still on ballot
    Mike Mussina, 20.3% (2014) – ???elected by writers in 2019???
    Jeff Kent, 15.7% (2014) – going nowhere
    Curt Schilling, 38.8% (2013) – still on ballot
    Roger Clemens, 37.6% (2013) – still on ballot
    Barry Bonds, 36.2% (2013) – still on ballot
    Sammy Sosa, 12.5% (2013) – still on ballot
    Jeff Bagwell, 41.7% (2011) – elected by writers in 2017
    Larry Walker, 20.3% (2011) – picking up steam, possible VC?
    Rafael Palmeiro, 11.0% (2011) – fell off ballot in 2014
    Edgar Martinez, 36.2% (2010) – ???????????????????????????
    Fred McGriff, 21.5% (2010) – we’ll call this one “candidacy expired after 10-year limit;” he ain’t gettin’ in this year
    Tim Raines, 24.3% (2008) – elected by writers in 2017
    Mark McGwire, 23.5% (2007) – candidacy expired after 10-year limit
    Orel Hershiser, 11.7% (2006) – fell off ballot in 2007 (harsh – just one year later!)
    Ryne Sandberg, 49.2% (2003) – elected by writers in 2005
    Lee Smith, 42.3% (2003) – candidacy expired after 15-year limit, elected by VC in 2019
    Andre Dawson, 45.3 % (2002) – elected by writers in 2010
    Alan Trammell, 15.7% (2002) – candidacy expired after 15-year limit; elected by VC in 2018
    Don Mattingly, 28.2% (2001) – candidacy expired after 15-year limit
    Goose Gossage, 33.3% (2000) – elected by writers in 2008
    Jack Morris, 22.2% (2000) – candidacy expired after 15-year limit (got painfully close w/ 67.7% in 14th year), elected by VC in 2018
    Dale Murphy, 19.3% (1999) – candidacy expired after 15-year limit
    Gary Carter, 42.3% (1998) – elected by writers in 2003
    Bert Blyleven, 17.5% (1998) – I think we all know how this ended: elected by writers in 2011
    Dave Parker, 17.5% (1997) – candidacy expired after 15-year limit, frequent VC candidate
    Jim Rice, 29.8% (1995) – elected by writers in 2009
    Tommy John, 21.3% (1995) – candidacy expired after 15-year limit, frequent VC candidate
    Bruce Sutter, 23.4% (1994) – elected by writers in 2006
    Steve Garvey, 41.6% (1992) – candidacy expired after 15-year limit
    Jim Kaat, 19.5% (1989) – candidacy expired after 15-year limit, frequent VC candidate

    What does this tell us?
    Conveniently, 2012 is a good cutoff point for this exercise, since no one joins the list that year, and no one SINCE that year has yet been elected. So ignore the top third (or so) of the list. You can also ignore anyone over 40% (they’re italicized) – they’re not a very good comp group. Even the guys from Jim Rice (29.8%) and up don’t really help us very much. That leaves us with 15 (candidates with 10.0-29.7% of the vote, 1989-2011). For those 15, here’s what we’ve got:

    Fell off the ballot: 2 (Palmeiro and Hershiser)
    Candidacy expired: 9
    Elected by writers: 3 (Raines, Blyleven, Sutter)
    Unsure: 1 (Walker)
    Elected by VC: 2 (Trammell, Morris)

    That’s 1/3 in the Hall with plenty of others likely still to come. Obviously, the elimination of the 15-year voting window is really going to hurt guys like this. It’s meant to hurt the Bondses and Clemenses, but who it actually hurts are the Vizquels, Rolens, Mattinglys, and Rices. Jim Rice and Bert Blyleven wouldn’t have made it were it not for the 15 year limit. It may end up hurting Edgar this year – we’ll see. Walker may also end up a victim of the 10-year window. We’ll see which of these ways Helton’s candidacy goes, but, right now, he’s looking like the only guy in that window where you really don’t know what’s going to happen.

    Reply ↓
    1. mosc January 8, 2019 at 5:06 pm

       There’s a lot of thoughts above about relievers in general. Mo is almost the exception that proves the rule for some folks as well. He was so good that clearly no other reliever is even worth talking about. Another set of eyes could look at see Mo below many comparable starters in career value and say there is longstanding justification to treat relievers far differently than starters. I guess I am in the WAA camp. When we were more actively going through the circle of greats, I think the best metrics we came up with were around WAA, excluding negative seasons, as a measure of greatness. This isn’t the hall of average, it’s the hall of fame. One thing relievers do pile up is WAA. Mo’s 33.0 WAA+ is right in line with many hall of fame starters which certainly justifies him to me but also completely neglects leverage. Average innings I think WAA+ works fine but if we add in leverage, I do think Mo was more valuable than a lot of front line starters from his era.

       Looking at WAA+, how many relievers beat out Jack Morris (19.4 WAA+)? That’s more of a HOF line for a reliever to me. Gossage, Eckersley, they also fly over that bar. That feels right to me. Certainly this is attainable. A reliever putting up that kind of value in leverage is certainly more than a inning eating starter to me.
       Wagner – 16.8
       Nathan – 15.9
       Hiller – 15.6
       Hoffman – 15
       Smith – 14.7
       KROD – 14.2
       Papelbon – 13.8
       Sutter – 12.3

       These guys are “no” for me, they have lots of comparable careers. Looking forward?
       Kimbrel 12.1 through age 30
       Chapman 9.4 through age 30

       You can see guys on pace. If they age gracefully, either of those guys could make it. Certainly relievers pitching at a high level as late as Gossage, Eckersley, Smoltz, and the ageless Rivera is rare but that’s why those guys are hall of famers. Their dominance is not that rare to be honest, just their combination of longevity AND dominance. I think we’ll see others. Relievers are getting more innings and more money every season.

       So yeah, I don’t think Wagner was anywhere near as good as Halladay, but I think Gossage was better when you remove league-average innings and add in some leverage. I’m certainly not in the “Mo is just a failed starters and failed starters don’t belong camp” nor the “relievers should have their own standard completely independent of starters” camp.

       Reply ↓
       1. Dr. Doom January 8, 2019 at 5:49 pm

          Since you mentioned, “when we were more actively going through the circle of greats,” I thought I’d point out that I, at least, am assuming we’ll be resuming that discussion, once we know how many new inductees we’re getting. I don’t honestly remember who’s held over or anything, because it’s been a year. But I’m hoping we’re getting four new inductees, as much because I’d like to see four rounds of voting. I suppose it’s just as possible that we only get one round, so I’m not holding out too much hope. Derek Jeter and Bobby Abreu (both born 1974) are the only really enticing newcomers (50+ WAR)*, so it’s a good year to clear out some of the backlog.

          *Looking ahead to next year (a totally ludicrous thing to do), there will be a much more interesting group of 6 (!!!) players of 50+ WAR: A-Rod, Scott Rolen, Vlad Guerrero, Big Papi, Torii Hunter, and Tim Hudson. I look forward to that, too! But one year at a time, I suppose…

          Reply ↓
       2. Mike L January 8, 2019 at 6:12 pm

          “Their dominance is not that rare to be honest, just their combination of longevity AND dominance.” That’a perfect, Mosc.

          Reply ↓
       3. Bob Eno (epm) January 8, 2019 at 7:37 pm

          “A reliever putting up that kind of value in leverage is certainly more than a inning eating starter to me.”

          I’d agree, mosc. But since when is that the threshold for the Hall?

          A couple of shots that are not as cheap: I have problems with taking leverage for closers at face value. High leverage is a consequence of the closer role, and to balance that closers are always brought in to those high leverage situations fresh, and asked for only a few pitches. What Ballou said about this seems right to me: “Just about any living major league pitcher can record a save, that’s how easy they are to come by.” Reaching high levels of success under those conditions simply isn’t nearly as hard as achieving high levels of success as a starter.

          I think the appropriate comparisons for closers are other closers. (I’m reprising a general argument that I think Paul E made early on this string, in back and forth with Dr. Doom.) To me, Rivera’s qualifications for the Hall are not measurable by comparison to Jack Morris or any starter. Mo was a quantum leap more successful than his historical and contemporary closer peers, and his example at once establishes their comparative ordinariness (the best of the good) and the likelihood that in Rivera we are witnessing a reasonable standard for closer Hallworthiness. I’m not at all sure that in twenty years Rivera will still look like the greatest, but I feel pretty confident he will still seem a clear Hall pick, and that none of his closer predecessors will seem competitive.

          So while WAA+ may be a good general measure when assessing the elite value of regulars (although I’m sure you’d agree that we don’t want to rely on any one measure exclusively), I think we need to look at other measures when we assess closers.

          Reply ↓
          1. mosc January 10, 2019 at 2:32 pm

             I generally agree. Certainly that we need to look at multiple measures. I don’t really look at saves at all, nor pitcher’s win/loss record or a hitter’s RBI’s. Those aren’t particularly useful stats to me. That doesn’t mean however that closers cannot be compared to other positions . I’m with you until there.

             In specific, I think long term that Rivera will look like a small-hall HOFer even after a reliever or two has matched or exceeded his greatness. I also don’t think Gossage, Eckersley, or Smoltz will ever look like a poor selection though to compare to history’s greats it’s still a single reliever long list with Mo. That said guys like Smith, Hoffman, Wagner, Sutter, however these guys get viewed will be judged harshly one way or another for decades.

             I think it’s a real disservice to put Gossage in with their ilk, he was clearly better for longer. From a career perspective, I find Gossage the closest to Rivera ever and Eckersley/Smoltz also showed the role had real value even compared to their days as starters. Those 4 guys had historic durability and dominance regardless of how many starts or relief appearances they had. To me the clearest HOF line is between these 4 and everybody else.

             Reply ↓
             1. Bob Eno (epm) January 10, 2019 at 7:02 pm

                mosc, I agree when it comes to Eck and Smoltz, but that’s largely because their years as a closers (very brief for Smoltz) supplement very effective careers as starters. Smoltz, after all, was a 200-game winner as a starter, with huge, outstanding postseason record. He’d be borderline Hall without the relief role, and probably a sure bet if he’d been used as a starter those years. Eck had about 150 starter wins, and then 5 lights-out closer years, before finishing with a string of ordinary years. I see him as borderline, and with no chance without those five years — but they did add pizzazz to a career that wouldn’t have made the Hall otherwise. I just don’t see Gossage as you do. To me, he falls short. But the voters felt as you do in the end.
             2. mosc January 11, 2019 at 9:00 am

                There’s a stat of most relief innings with 0ER. I believe Gossage is #1.
             3. mosc January 11, 2019 at 9:14 am

                https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/goose-egg-new-save-stat-relief-pitchers/
             4. Bob Eno (epm) January 11, 2019 at 10:06 am

                Oh, yeah. I read that 538 article — they had regular Goose Egg updates for a while. I’d think the GWAR leaderboard would be the applicable measure for the Hall, and it puts Mariano in a class by himself, 25% ahead of the runner-up, Hoffman. After that there’s a flock, with Goose at the fore, but those would be the “best of the good” for me — the group whose Hallworthiness Mo puts in the shade.
       4. Voomo Zanzibar January 8, 2019 at 9:54 pm

          Mosc, you say that relievers are getting more innings.
          I don’t know that that is true.
          Bullpens, yes.
          But individual pitchers? Rare that the top guys are asked to hurl more than one clean frame anymore.

          There have been 9 reliever seasons of 100+ innings in the past 9 years.
          There were 17 in 1969 alone.

          Reply ↓
          1. mosc January 10, 2019 at 2:42 pm

             Zach Britton comes to mind. He’s left handed and relies on ground balls from a uniquely dynamic fastball so lets just say he looks something like his 2014-2015 self (ignoring his 2016 brilliance and injury related 17+18 mediocrity) into his late 30s and even plays productively into his early 40s. Unlikely he’d be over 1200 innings I agree but he could put up 20 WAA+ at that rate. Now, maybe the Yankees just signed themselves a reliever who’s on the wrong side of 30, has no second pitch, and won’t be among the league’s best for the next decade but he’s shown the requisite level of dominance to me needed for the HOF for several seasons. I also can’t help but think somebody would have thought the same thing about a guy who threw nothing but 94mph cut fastballs at age 30. I dunno, it’s possible. Britton and Rivera both didn’t produce until extremely late by hall of fame standards age wise (26).

             I’m saying there are more relievers getting regular playing time and multi-year deals now than ever. Bullpens are getting more innings compared to starters. Yes, individual reliever’s yearly inning totals have dropped but WAA and similar stats are unforgiving on long-term stability, they demand dominance.

             Reply ↓
             1. mosc January 10, 2019 at 4:02 pm

                I’m just noticing the following relievers all just ended their age-30 seasons:
                Betances
                Britton
                Chapman
                Jansen
                Kimbrel

                I think at least one of those guys is going to make it.
             2. Mike L January 10, 2019 at 4:36 pm

                I think the voters would be more likely to want to see excellence sustained through most of their careers rather than just a peak. A lot of relievers are lights-out for a few years. Then, they begin to fade. As a reliever, Rivera’s worst season was an ERA+ of 144. He only had six seasons worse than 200. There’s a decent chance one or more of your five will make it…but their margin of error will be less than a position player or a starter who, say, had a great seven year peak, and then became more of a B/B+ player.
             3. mosc January 11, 2019 at 10:10 am

                I agree a 7-year peak is not sufficient for a reliever. They have to be well above average for a lot longer than that to look historic. Relievers seem to be more fickle than most other positions with career arcs that sputter and spike. Papelbon to me is a good case study. To me he was HOF worthy all through his age 34 season but 11 years wasn’t enough, he was only like 2/3rds of the way there. Bad behavior, visibly diminished stuff, and middling results the following 2016 and he’s gone. Maybe with a better attitude he’d have gotten to try an age 36 season but he probably needed 6 more all-star level years to really make a case (having already gone 6 times). Of our legendary 4 they were able to put up postitive WAA in a season as late as:
                Rivera 2013 Age 43
                Gossage 1994: Age 42
                Eckersley 1997: Age 42 (ignoring his last year)
                Smoltz 2008: Age 41 (ignoring his last year)

                You’re going to have to play a long time and do it well to be a HOF reliever.
             4. Bob Eno (epm) January 11, 2019 at 9:57 am

                Looking at Britton’s record, I noticed that, as a reliever, his ERA is 1.82 and his FIP is 2.78 — that’s quite a disparity. Rivera, after his initial year as a swing man, had a less pronounced disparity, but still pretty large (2.21 / 2.76), given the time span. Some other closers I spot checked show some disparity too (e.g., Wagner: 2.31 / 2.73; Rodriguez: 2.76 / 3.31). On the other hand, Kimbrel (1.91 / 1.96) seems in line with expectations, and Chapman (2.24 / 1.98) and Jansen (2.20 / 2.12) move moderately in the other direction.

                Has anyone analyzed the ERA/FIP relationship with regard to starters vs. relievers/closers? I’m not a big believer in the value of FIP, although I understand that some analyses show its predictive power is higher than ERA in terms of long-term pitching results, and perhaps its value should be measured in year-to-year increments, rather than cumulatively. The disparities for some of these long-term closers on a career level does seem puzzling to me, though, and I wonder whether there are reasons FIP mght be a less useful measure for closers than for starters.
             5. Mike L January 11, 2019 at 4:34 pm

                Bob, possibly strikeout related? The numerator in the FIP formula is reduced by 2X the number of K’s. (13*HR)+(3*(BB+HBP))-(2*K))/IP + FIP constant
             6. Bob Eno (epm) January 11, 2019 at 7:35 pm

                I’d have thought most top closers had fairly high K/9 rates, Mike. That would lower their FIP. Of course, we’re dealing here with uniformly low ERAs. Perhaps the K/9 rate just can’t keep up. League average ERA and FIP are, by formula, always identical (I think). Closers work well below league average on both. So the question isn’t why some great closer FIPs are high; they’re low. It’s more like: how have some top quality closers, including King Mo, managed to keep their earned run significantly lower than their HR-BB-HBP-K ratios would predict.
             7. Mike L January 11, 2019 at 7:55 pm

                Agreed, I suspect that there is something to soft contact. Hoyt Wilhelm’s ERA was 2.52, his FIP is 3:06.
                We should look at soft-tosser starters as well. There has to be a winnowing out process for the guys who don’t throw incredibly hard…but even on that, Mo broke the rules, because he threw hard early in his career, and very gradually lost velocity, but not effectiveness.
             8. Mike L January 11, 2019 at 8:07 pm

                On a hunch I checked our old friend Whitey Ford. 2.75 ERA, 3.26 FIP.
             9. Bob Eno (epm) January 11, 2019 at 10:09 pm

                First of all, Mike, a point of clarification. Exactly whom did you have in mind when you said our old friend. You do remember that I’m a Brooklyn fan, right?

                I think “soft contact” is another way of saying, low BABiP. That makes sense. If these pitchers are performing better in ERA than FIP, then the difference may lie in BiP, which are omitted from FIP.

                Here are the career BABiP figures for the closers I mentioned:

                Group A: FIP significantly higher than ERA
                Britton .290
                Rivera: .265
                Rodriguez .274
                Wagner .265

                Group B: FIP about at ERA levels or slightly lower
                Chapman .282
                Jansen: .269
                Kimbrel: .263

                Wilhelm was at .250
                Your Old Friend: .264

                Britton is the oddest — he had the biggest FIP surplus, and rather than counter it with low BABiP, he has the high BABiP in either group. There’s virtually no difference between Rivera and Wagner on the one hand and Jansen and Kimbrel on the other. Basically, the BABiP profiles of Group A and Group B are the same. (Of course, the sample is so small that the whole issue may be due to my overactive imagination and underactive research follow-up.)

                But look at Hoyt! I suppose he was compensating for all those BBs. He certainly fits the profile you suggested. Soft contact by the batter, and often no contact by the catcher.
             10. Mike L January 11, 2019 at 10:36 pm

                 Just a side point..how much I enjoy reading and participating on this site. The level of baseball knowledge is high, and matched or exceeded by the affection all of us have for the game. The two other baseball sites I read, the comments are almost intolerable. And politics…what a mess.
                 Now, to specifically respond. “Our old friend” really was intended to hearken back to the fun days of Circle of Greats, where we argued about Ford’s true value.

                 Is there a common theme here, besides that there seems to be more than one way to be a highly successful reliever?
             11. Bob Eno (epm) January 12, 2019 at 9:12 am

                 Perhaps no common theme, Mike. Just a solution I’m not spotting.

                 To retain the high tone of the site that you are correct to note, I will stipulate that I feel nothing but good will towards The Chairman of the Board. After all, the guy’s 90 now. All is forgiven, and I hereby deny that I shouted those things from the stands when he was pitching.
             12. Mike L January 12, 2019 at 12:52 pm

                 It’s interesting that the rise of analytics in baseball may also have fostered an intellectual culture of assuming that there is a consistent explanation for everything–because most of the time there is. But sometimes there are the tools guys who just don’t get the results their “numbers” indicate they should, and sometimes there are people who inexplicably over-perform. I expect the tools to get more sophisticated. But I don’t think they will ever become perfect. I don’t know how you score for things like mental toughness, discipline, etc.
             13. Bob Eno (epm) January 12, 2019 at 2:38 pm

                 I don’t know, Mike. In this case, closers like Rivera and Wagner have numbers that reflect their performances very well: ERA (not to mention ERA+ — and definitely not to mention Saves). The problem isn’t that those numbers are missing some factor that can’t be quantitatively expressed, it’s that there’s a different number that doesn’t seem to be aligned with the first number and the performances. So the question is: what factor explains the difference in two quantitative measures. That factor has to be quantitative.

                 When you responded with “soft contact,” it seemed obvious to me that you were right. But the only reason that would be a good answer is because the value of soft contact is easier outs on balls in play, and, to my surprise, the BABiP figures undercut that explanation.

                 Other factors could be more errors — the penalty for higher FIP not being charged to the closer’s ERA — lower SLGBiP (an alternative outcome for “soft contact”), high GIDP/CS/pickoff rates, and so forth. But the factors you’re citing, which I agree are important and largely beyond the ability of stats to measure, have to be expressed in play outcomes in some way. I think the question here is, What specific range of such play outcomes account for the FIP/ERA disparity?

                 I think perhaps the best test for outcomes that could be interpreted as the products of the specific qualities you mention might be Percentage of runners on 3B with fewer than 2 outs who score. (You could also expand it to runners in scoring position, or with fewer than one out, but those stats aren’t collected.) If that percentage is unusually low, then pitchers with higher FIPs may handle the consequences of more poor TTO outcomes simply by bearing down in the clutch.

                 I just checked Rivera and Kimbrel to see whether Mo’s percentage here was significantly lower. Answer: No. Kimbrel 29%; Mo 52% (basically league average). I’m beginning to think Rivera did it with mirrors.
             14. Mike L January 12, 2019 at 4:56 pm

                 Wide career variations between ERA and FIP indicate that a pitcher is either giving up runs he shouldn’t, or not giving up runs that he should. I think. But, if someone runs that through a 15+ year career, you have to think of it as a feature of him, and not an anomaly. You would probably need a big-data analysis to figure more out.
                 On a hunch, I checked Catfish Hunter: 3:26 ERA, 3:66 FIP. Wide for a starter.
                 As to Rivera doing it with mirrors, I’d add serenity. As to holding runners on 3rd with less than two outs, you really do need the high strikeout/popup pitcher.
             15. Bob Eno (epm) January 12, 2019 at 6:48 pm

                 “You would probably need a big-data analysis to figure more out.”

                 I’m content to leave it at that, Mike. But I still hold out hope that some analytics honcho like Doom will see this string, think, “These guys are so out to lunch!” and then set us straight on the obvious thing we’re missing.
             16. Mike L January 12, 2019 at 7:34 pm

                 Doom will say “These really old guys are so out to lunch”
                 And he will be right. I just signed up for a Road Runner race and found I was automatically given the senior discount.
             17. Bob Eno (epm) January 12, 2019 at 7:51 pm

                 My first impulse is always to tell them to stuff that discount — don’t try to put me in some geezer bucket! But once I sputter the first few words, I find I’ve forgotten what the issue is . . .
             18. Dr. Doom January 13, 2019 at 5:23 pm

                 Since my presence was requested here on this string, I’ll try to give my thoughts.

                 Wide variance in FIP certainly could be looked at in three ways, I think.

                 1. Pure luck/chance/fortune… whatever. You got lucky or unlucky; the random variation broke your way or it didn’t. This is one possibility.

                 2. Defensive performance. This could be that you played in front of a spectacular defense, or a sub-par one. Tom Glavine and (particularly) Jim Palmer fall into the former category; Clayton Kershaw and Dan Quisenberry might be the avatars of the latter.

                 3. A feature of performance. This is the “Matt Cain” argument – or, in a better-backed-up argument, the “knuckleballer” argument. We know (from basic DIPS theory, which is the underlying theory behind FIP) that knuckleballers, as a group DO outperform their FIP, more or less 100% of the time. They DO induce softer contact. We know this because you can see it: RA Dickey, Phil Niekro, whoever – they always outperform their FIP expectation. The original DIPS from Voros McCracken actually used a different formula if the pitcher was a knuckleballer to account for this. Anyway, there was an argument that other pitcher MIGHT have this skill, too; basically, that they could consistently outperform their FIP by having BABIPs below league average as a SKILL rather than pure chance. MANY people in the analytic community bought into one pitcher in particular: Matt Cain. He had a bunch of years in a row with BABIPs of like .260… until, you know, he didn’t. If you’re me, you argument is, “Yeah, flip a coin 10,000 times, you’ll get some flukey run of 12 straight heads or something.” If you’re someone who believes Cain truly had this skill, your argument would be, “Well, of COURSE it stopped eventually; that’s when Cain stopped being as effective a pitcher, no different than when Randy Johnson or Nolan Ryan could no longer strike people out; it doesn’t mean the skill never existed, just that it doesn’t anymore.”

                 The other thing we have to talk about, because no one’s brought it up yet, is sequencing. Let’s say you have three pitchers who each pitch one inning. Each of them strikes out three, walks one, gives up a double, and gives up a homer. Who’s the best pitcher? No way to tell, right? That’s what FIP does. But let’s add the wrinkle of sequencing. So here’s how their innings went:

                 Pitcher A: Double, Walk, Strikeout, Homer, Strikeout, Strikeout.
                 Pitcher B: Homer, Strikeout, Strikeout, Double, Walk, Strikeout.
                 Pitcher C: Strikeout, Homer, Double, Strikeout, Walk, Strikeout.

                 In this scenario, Pitcher A allowed three runs (all on the homer). Pitcher B allowed 2 runs (solo homer, and the double knocked in the guy who walked). Pitcher C allowed only one run (on the solo homer; other two runners were stranded, since the double preceded the walk). It is certainly ONE rational argument that performance with men on base is a SKILL, therefore sequencing matters (for example, maybe a pitcher is particularly good/bad pitching from the stretch vs. the windup). On the other hand, an equally interesting/valid argument is, “Sequencing is random and it’s noise; just look at the components.” ERA does the former, FIP the latter. Perhaps, then, Whitey Ford DID pitch in front of good defenses. But perhaps he was also good and/or lucky in how his hits and walks were sequenced. I am, however, not going to look at thousands of pieces of play-by-play data and see if there was anything abnormal about his play-by-play, particularly when I DO know that his defenses were unusually good at turning batted balls into outs, as I showed in a post several months ago (and that Ford, for all his skill, was no better at this than anyone else on otherwise totally forgettable pitching staffs).

                 So maybe that’s some stuff to think about. I don’t know. I need a nap, so I don’t have the mental energy to devote to whether or not this actually addresses what you were talking about; it’s just what I stream-of-consciousness farted onto these electronic page.
             19. Bob Eno (epm) January 14, 2019 at 9:51 am

                 Not sure of your time zone, Doom, but I hope you topped your nap off with a good night’s sleep. Until you sort of tossed it in when adding your last paragraph, you were keeping your typically wideawake Doomlike analysis together perfectly.

                 A few ideas come to mind. When we’re talking about career figures such as Rivera’s or Wagner’s, luck, chance, Fate, are not really persuasive possibilities, unless Fatalism is a religious commitment (Mariano seems to be such a nice guy; maybe it’s karma). The pattern is too sustained and, in this case, the instances too numerous. (“It could always be the outcome with 0.001% probability” is not true: it can only be the outcome about one time in a thousand, give or take a little, and if it’s not, your model of the universe needs repair).

                 Defense is an aspect I haven’t been willing to follow up on yet, so that is a possibility. Some of that possibility should be expressed in UER, though, and I’m not seeing that pattern. We could look at Rtot in addition. . . .

                 I think the most puzzling thing about all this is that from our tiny sample we aren’t seeing BABiP as an explanation — once Mike suggested it, it seemed so obvious. All your examples are starters, so Cain’s .263 over a six-year stretch looks great (and certainly not like luck, any more than Ford’s career .264, whatever the causative factors in each case), but that’s within a common range among our closers, whose FIP/ERA numbers are so low generally, so we’d be looking for a different number. But what’s missing so far is a pattern that distinguishes the Mo’s from the Kimbrel’s. (However, the example of Wilhelm bears out the McCracken theory, both in terms of low BABiP, a non-FIP component, and high BB.)

                 I think sequencing is what would reflect Mike’s psychological explanations: good pitchers bear down more effectively than the batters they face. A batter who may beat a pitcher with a lead-off HR when both are not under maximum pressure will not hit a HR with men on base later in a comparable inning because this particular pitcher ups his game in the clutch more than most batters. I thought runners scoring from third with less than two outs might be a proxy for that phenomenon (assuming it exists, which I believe it does, though so unknown degrees in the two directions), and it did not work out, at least in a cursory test.

                 Thanks for responding — and deep appreciation for avoiding all mention of our ages! May a next-generation stat whiz be as tactful towards you at mid-century.
             20. Doug January 14, 2019 at 11:59 pm

                 Not sure exactly what it means, but these three LA guys all have identical .275 career BABIP – Clayton Kershaw, Jered Weaver, Jarrod Washburn. Only contemporary (1500 IP since 1995) who is better is Ted Lilly at. 273.

                 Andy Pettitte ranks 120th (9th from the bottom) with .312. He was above .300 each of his first nine seasons in New York, including .336, .322, .322 in the last three of those years. In his first two seasons in Houston, that changed to .278 and .270. Third year in Houston was .331, so that may have been an outlier (or maybe he just had a bad year), but it was consistent with his first two seasons back in New York (.325, .338). Might have had something to do with the Yankee shortstop in those years.
             21. mosc January 22, 2019 at 5:06 pm

                 GAH! I don’t think it’s that hard to look at Rivera and Britton and answer the question of “Why do they out-perform their FIP so consistently”. They’re not really lucky. It’s a repeatable skill. They simply induce biblical amounts of soft contact.

                 I mean, of all the fastballs thrown in the history of baseball it’s pretty easy to see why these two are different. They throw above league average velocity yes, but more than that. Isn’t it obvious? They get absurd movement. I remember when FIP was being presented. Rivera was always shown as a limit of the statistical model. “Guys who get unusually soft contact are going to regularly out-perform their FIP”. Guys who get unusually hard contact also show up. I always point to Michael Pineda as an example of that. He’s a FIP ace but the truth is a starter hangs too many sliders to rely on it and his fastball is unbelievably straight. Look at 2014-2015 Nathan Eovaldi for another example.

                 FIP generally works great. It is clear though that it can’t handle pitches that get squared up unusually well or unusually poorly and those pitches

                 Just looking at Rivera and Britton’s pitches shows instantaneously why they out-perform FIP. Look at their groundball rates. Look at their average exit velocity (if you can find that going back). They simply miss barrels better than other pitchers.
    2. Doug January 10, 2019 at 12:06 pm

       Do you know the reason for the switch from a 15 year limit to 10 years? As you say, it will mainly affect the borderline cases, so, if you’re a “small Hall” person, perhaps that’s a good thing.

       I suppose it was intended to reduce or eliminate weak ballot years where voters end up choosing somebody because they have a ballot to cast, as in Player X didn’t look so good a few years ago when there was a strong ballot, but he looks pretty good today, compared to the other names on a weak ballot. But, I can also see how a crowded ballot could become sparse if a bunch of potentially deserving names that hadn’t passed muster (because the ballot was crowded) drop off within a year or two of each other. With only 10 years, there may not be enough time for voters to coalesce behind all of the deserving candidates, before the ballot suddenly become rather barren and someone less deserving but with better timing gets in.

       Reply ↓
       1. mosc January 10, 2019 at 2:19 pm

          Combined with the 10 player limit, a 10-year max may actually lead to more inductees. If you have 50% more borderline players who routinely get votes from a vocal minority, those are spots that are locked up for further consideration on other players. Granted most hall voters don’t actually put 10 names down but for those who do, it’s a factor.

          Another +induction benefit of the 10 year rule is the veteran’s committee stuff starts 5 years faster and the memories of the player are 5 years more recent and they are in committee’s for 5 more years (however many votes that is)

          I don’t think the 10 year vs 15 year difference changes much.

          Reply ↓
       2. Dr. Doom January 15, 2019 at 5:21 pm

          Been meaning to respond to this comment from Doug, but I haven’t gotten around to it:

          The reason the ballot was cut from 15 years to 10 is obvious: the Hall of Fame actively does not want PED-associated players in the Hall of Fame. That’s the reason. Idelson’s stated reason? “In a study of Hall of Fame voting over its history, it has become clearly evident in the last 30 years or so that after 10 years the likelihood of election is incredibly minimal,” according to Jeff Idelson, HOF president. That’s absolute bull. I mean, it’s not bull that players are less likely to get in after 10 years; that’s true. What’s bull is the fact that it suddenly had to change, when it did.

          In 2014, when the rule change was made, 3 of the last 12 inductees took over ten years to get in. From 2006-2014, Bruce Sutter (13th, 2006), Jim Rice (15th, 2009), and Bert Blyleven (14th, 2011) made the Hall after 10 years. Andre Dawson and Goose Gossage took 9 years each. So what changed? The apparent potential election of PED-era candidates. Bonds and Clemens both debuted right around 35% of the electorate in 2013. That put them, at the time, at a level in which people usually (eventually) grind out election. If Idelson could’ve just thrown them off the ballot, you’d have never seen a rule change.

          Admittedly, the Hall has given in on a couple of items to the writers, most of whom favor the election of PED-era players… though they didn’t give in on the big ask, which was for more ballot space (unlimited space, or at least 12 spaces, which was the given request, I believe). Of course, the Hall is certainly grateful to actually be getting players elected after those mid-aughts-to-mid-teens years when they were basically incapable of electing anyone; 2006-2013 was one of the worst eras in history for the BBWAA at electing players. Giving LESS opportunity to players to be elected does not seem like a fix. The spin Idelson put on it – “relevance,” for one, and getting players “to consideration by the era committees a little sooner” – strike me as weak, after-the-fact justifications for what they really wanted, which was to ensure that Bonds and Clemens never be elected.

          If you want to read the article, here it is from MLB. Two interesting notes about the article: this rule change also occurred the year Dan LeBatard auctioned off his ballot and let the public decide his vote and was censured for it; I still don’t get that. It’s LeBatard’s vote; he should be able to decide however he wants. Why is asking the public NOT something he’s allowed to do? The BBWAA can be VERY stuffy. I get that they didn’t like that he auctioned the vote, but he donated the money; no biggie. You’ll also notice that they quote LaVelle E. Neal as someone in favor of the change; LaVelle Neal was the Minneapolis sportswriter who left Pedro Martinez off his MVP ballot in 1999 and cost Pedro the MVP. 1999 was also the year that Raffy Palmeiro won a Gold Glove at 1B after playing a robust 28 games at the position. Both 1999 and 2014 were stupid years for baseball.

          Reply ↓
          1. Bob Eno (epm) January 15, 2019 at 7:52 pm

             Interesting post, Doom. At the start of your last paragraph, you intended to link to MLB.com, but although there is some sort of hypertext going on, the link doesn’t actually appear. Could you repost it?

             Reply ↓
             1. Dr. Doom January 16, 2019 at 5:40 pm

                Don’t know how I screwed this up. Here you go again. Hope it works this time!
             2. Bob Eno (epm) January 16, 2019 at 7:34 pm

                Many thanks!
35. bells January 17, 2019 at 2:27 am

    Always a pleasure to catch up on discussion here, and especially in this thread. I was going to post this article anyway, but it dovetails well with Doom’s comment a few days ago parsing out how many votes certain players got from big ballots vs. small ballots:

    https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-dive-into-hall-of-fame-ballot-trends/

    HoF voting is a fascinating numerical and cultural phenomenon; very interested to see where it goes in the next three years, when the new classes are rather sparse (ie. more room to add holdovers), BB/RC reach their limit (ie. people may consider them more seriously who have not yet done so), and a wave of internet baseball writers get their vote.

    Reply ↓
    1. Bob Eno (epm) January 17, 2019 at 10:16 am

       Good link, bells. I agree that HoF voting is fascinating to watch and analyze (I spend increasing time on it each year), and Fangraphs is doing a great job of posting articles on it (obviously aided by Ryan Thibodaux’s Tracker, since the authors of this piece are part of the Tracker staff). I think what makes the voting so interesting is that while we’re all entranced by the narratives of the seasons and the stats that they generate, the evaluative debate for the Hall is where we focus on the meaning of those stats, and, in some cases, the way in which the narratives may shape that meaning. (I think we have been doing a good job of that in our Circle of Greats debates too).

       When it comes to Bonds and Clemens, I’m going to disagree with you on one point. I believe that the neither the nature of the competition (the number of other high quality candidates) nor the seriousness with which voters consider the qualifications of the two will have any influence on the votes. I believe there is probably a perfect consensus about their qualifications, with 100% of voters agreeing (and having agreed from the start) that they have Inner Circle qualifications. The question is solely about PEDs. I do agree that the answer to that question will change over the coming three years, and I think there are two principal reasons: (1) a certain number of voters are “punishing” Bonds and Clemens by aiming to delay, but not deny their induction; (2) the percentage of new voters voting for the two is higher than the percentage of voters who have been dropping out of the voter pool.

       Reply ↓
       1. bells January 21, 2019 at 8:54 pm

          Pardon the delay in reply, I don’t get around here often enough. Just to clarify the Bonds/Clemens point, we are actually in complete agreement on the reasons, I was just rushed and inadequately articulate in my description of ‘consider them more seriously’ – I see how it reads, but I actually meant ‘their upcoming 10th year will likely make some writers figure they’ve punished them enough’… I do also think there are a minority who might be currently thinking they never want to vote for them, but when actually staring down the prospect of them not being on the ballot anymore, might have a sober reevaluation. But yeah, I think a lot of the motivation, subconscious or not, is coming from a desire for punishment, and I don’t trust that punishment will last all 10 years. I started thinking about that when I saw a comment on the tracker twitter that a voter was ‘starting to come around’ on them, and was perplexed because I had no idea how someone could be ‘coming around’ on their credentials, but then realized that voter must have meant they’re reconsidering whether the PED thing is enough anymore. If there is that kind of grumbling in year 7, I can imagine it very likely picking up steam in the next 3.

          And yeah, I do think there’s a significant effect of new voters, who correlate highly with voting for them. They’ve only gained 3 votes on public ballots, but are on 6 of the 7 new voters, the cumulative effect of which project to increase their percentage by ~4% this year. Really, 3 more years of that growth is reeeeally close to 75% on its own, and I expect the discussion to be heavy in their last two years. And I expect that if people do change their minds, it’s more likely they’ll be changed on the ‘going from not voting for them to voting for them’ side than vice versa.

          Reply ↓
          1. Bob Eno (epm) January 22, 2019 at 12:57 am

             I see your point, bells, and I can’t disagree. Punishment fatigue: no one likes to think of themselves as Inspector Javert.

             Reply ↓
36. Bob Eno (epm) January 19, 2019 at 9:06 pm

    Let me see whether I can raise the standard for obsessively nerdy posts on the topic of this thread:

    We’re coming to the home stretch of the HoF pre-announcement process. Ryan Thibodaux’s “Tracker” has 188 votes recorded as of this writing (Saturday evening, the 19th, at about 8pm). Given the precedent of the 2018 vote, we can probably expect about 15 new revealed ballots per day over the next three days, including Tuesday the 22nd, prior to the announcement.

    There are quite a few models predicting the outcome now: Jason Sardell has posted three different projections on his Twitter feed (his own projection and ones by Ross Carey and Nathaniel Rakich — Rakich explained his in a FiveThirtyEight.com article).

    All these models are confident that Rivera, Halladay, and Edgar are going in. (Rakich even predicts a 100% vote for Mariano, though his reasoning seems very unnuanced to me; he does better in explaining his other projections.) The wild card is Mussina: Sardell predicts 76%, but the other two are at 73.5% and 73%. If Carey or Rakich are right, I believe that would make Mussina’s failing margin the closest ever, and he would be a shoo-in next year. (I’ve noticed that baseball writers seem to have decided as a group to toe the line in referring to sure bets as “shoe-ins”: I wonder whether this will turn out to be only the first step of the next leg of Nike’s marathon effort to control the sports universe.)

    The rate of revealed ballots is a little behind the 2018 pace, and if, over the next three days, we see fewer revelations than last year’s experience predicts, I suspect the reason may turn out to be that writers whose ballots include No votes for Mo are withholding their ballots and may never reveal them. None of the three projections by Sardell & Co. predicts less than 98.5% for Rivera (good news for those of us who have bet that Mo’s percentage will exceed Chipper’s), but Rivera’s unprecedented perfect score through almost half the ballots is probably the worst possible basis for a prediction. Given that we know one writer (Bill Ballou) chose to self-suppress his No vote, it might be wiser for projection purposes to assume that Mo currently has a 99.47% percentage, project on that basis, and then subtract one vote from the predicted outcome. While results from the last few years indicate that unrevealed ballots tend to be slightly more favorable to closers than revealed ones, meaning that a 100% outcome is indeed possible, the wild card potential for No-voters other than Ballou to be casting those votes but deciding, atypically, to keep their ballots under wraps may be the more pertinent factor. If so, Rivera’s final figure may disappoint by a significant margin those who are counting on his becoming the closest ever to a perfect consensus (and for that reason, the three gentlemen I bet earlier on this string are still prepared to pack their bags).

    Reply ↓
    1. Dr. Doom January 20, 2019 at 11:35 am

       A couple responses:

       1. The fivethirtyeight projection is a mathematical one. I don’t know how you would mathematically project Mariano’s numbers downward. By common sense… yeah; you don’t want to PREDICT 100%. Heck, I didn’t vote for him in our in-house one, and I doubt I would’ve if I were a BBWAA voter. Personally, I’d set the over/under at 99.4% (that would be 2.5 people leaving Mariano off, if we assume Thibodaux is roughly correct that 412 ballots will be submitted).

       2. A Bayesian estimate strategy would tell you to take Mariano’s current information (194/194; there are some “private/public” people who email Thibodaux their ballots directly, which is why Mariano actually has MORE votes than there are revealed ballots) and just add a 1/2 to the back end. That would be 195/196 – 99.5%, similar to what you get if you include that very odd omitted ballot.

       3. Mussina at 73% or 73.5% wouldn’t be anywhere near the closest non-election. Jim Bunning (74.2% in 1988), Bert Blyleven (74.2% in 2010), and Craig Biggio (74.8% in 1988), were all closer. It’s almost impossible to be closer without getting in than Biggio was – he was only two votes shy of election; in fact, one more vote (428/571) would’ve actually given him a number that would’ve rounded to 75%, though his election still would’ve failed. I see Mussina as a shoo-in next year, regardless of how close he gets this year. The private voters are, more often than not, a year behind the public voters. Their opinions will more closely-match the public writers from the PREVIOUS year than the year in question. He will waltz in next year with a similar percentage to whatever Gar gets this year, I suspect – around 80-82%, I would think.

       Reply ↓
       1. Bob Eno (epm) January 20, 2019 at 12:36 pm

          1-2. Yeah. Of course I was suggesting a Bayesian strategy; same one I use to choose the fastest grocery checkout lines (excluding 10 Items or less, which has a 100% probability of a credit-card snafu) or to try to shut the neighbor dog up when the moon is full. Works 99.47% of the time.

          3. That’s what I get for making a statement without checking. As it turns out, if Thibodaux is right about the total votes, no one will be able to surpass in slimness Biggio’s margin of failure. 309 votes will be exactly 75%, and 308 will fall 0.02% short of Biggio’s 74.78% (which was actually not in 1988, his rookie year, though some surely saw HoF written on his 75 OPS+ debut). I think it’s outrageous that competition in a hotly contested GoAT stat like Slimmest Margin of HoF Failure should be sabotaged in this way! (I’m surprised that I hadn’t registered Bunning’s margin, since the irony is that despite three more years of eligibility, Bunning never did surpass 75%, and had to wait for the Veterans Committee to vote him in. Meanwhile, his constituents were electing him repeatedly.)

          Reply ↓
    2. Mike L January 20, 2019 at 7:16 pm

       I don’t know what I didn’t think of this earlier, but I should have looked at all the Hoffman “nos” from last year to identify the highest probability “no on Mo” voters. Hoffman actually improved his margin slightly,, but the public no should have been looked at.

       Reply ↓
       1. Bob Eno (epm) January 20, 2019 at 9:42 pm

          Interesting idea, Mike. I count a total of 66 No’s for Hoffman last year on ballots that were publicly revealed and identified. Of those, 52 were on pre-announcement revealed ballots. Two of those voters do not have a ballot in 2019 and Bill Ballou is another, so we can see how many of the 49 returning voters who revealed a No for Hoffman prior to the HoF announcement have already revealed their ballots in 2019 (and are thus Yes for Mo voters): 38. So there are 11 No-voters for Hoffman in 2018 among pre-announcement revealed ballots whose votes we have yet to see this year. Here’s the list:

          Brooks
          Caldera*
          Chass
          Erardi
          Lincicone
          Miller (Phil)
          Muskat*
          Nunez*
          Perkins
          Posnanski
          Sherman*

          Those might be the most likely No-for-Mo’s at the moment. The four ones with asterisks voted in the three days just before or of the announcement, and so their silence as of tonight (1/20) is less of a departure.

          Among post-announcement revealed ballots in 2018, there were 14 No’s for Hoffman (all apparently eligible in 2019). We wouldn’t necessarily expect them to have revealed their ballots by this time (so I’m not going to list their names), although one has voted already in 2019, but they would perhaps be the next most likely group to be No’s for Mo. There were also 18 private voters who rejected Hoffman. We can’t know how many of them are eligible this year, but they would have the same likelihood to pass on Mo as the 13 voters who revealed their ballots post-announcement.

          It’s worth adding that we might want to take an additional look at 2018 voters who passed on Hoffman but who listed Wagner: picking either pitcher would eliminate the possibility of a potential bias against closers that could carry over to Mo. However, there were no such voters among revealed ballots in 2018.

          Reply ↓
          1. Mike L January 21, 2019 at 10:00 am

             Nice work. Reading Doom’s comment below made me look at this slightly differently. Doom said he wouldn’t have voted for Mo, and, if you want to take the stance that the position of relief pitcher is just unworthy of HOF, well that’s intellectually consistent. But that’s clearly a minority view right now, so what we are really fretting over is that somehow Mo’s extremely high percentage (whatever it ends up being) is somehow WAR-like–that he is suddenly being elevated to “all players GOAT.” But that’s really absurd. If we were back to childhood and were “choosing up sides” no one would take Mo over any Inner Circle HOF-er.
             What it really comes down to is whether the voting population is willing to just go to a binary vote–is the player Hall-worthy, or isn’t he? In that, Mo’s ultimate percentage may be liberating.

             Reply ↓
             1. Bob Eno (epm) January 21, 2019 at 12:34 pm

                Your point about mistaking Hall ballot percentage for an absolute quality competition is completely on target, Mike.

                I was unwilling to support any closer for the Hall, on principle, until Mariano came along. I recall reading somewhere (more than once, but I have no recollection where) the analogy that electing a career closer is like electing a career pinch hitter. Would we vote for someone who had, say 70 PA per year, regardless of his performance? I thought that was a good analogy, but I don’t any longer. Let’s look at it.

                Mariano’s career ERA+ was 205, which is comparable to Babe Ruth’s 206+ OPS+, except that there are a couple of hitters within 10% of Ruth’s figure (Williams & Bonds), while Mo’s ERA+ is one-third higher than any other pitcher with a complete career (Pedro’s 154). So Mo’s basic rate-stat is, in some ways, more than Ruthian.

                Now if a two-decade pinch hitter had a 205 OPS+, it would in some ways be more impressive than Rivera’s stat, because pinch hitters are at a disadvantage — they come in “cold” and their OPS overall is significantly lower than regulars’, while closers come in “fresh” and their ERA overall is significantly lower than starters’. But that advantage to the “Ruthian” pinch-hitter is more than balanced by the fact that a pinch hitter’s role in each appearance is limited to, at most, 1/27 (3.7%) of his team’s hitting effort, while a good closer’s role is almost always 1/9 (11%) of his team’s pitching effort (yes, there can be as few as 25 PAs in a freak game, not to mentioned rain-outs, but usually there are closer to 40). Let’s stipulate, to mediate those discrepancies, that our candidate pinch-hitter appears in twice the PA (substituting for “extra difficulty” “more frequent contributions”), and let’s alter his Ruthian performance to a “Riverian” one-third increment over his closest OPS+ competitor (using Williams’ 190 rather than making the Babe a runner-up). That would give our imaginary pinch-hitter a career 253 OPS+ in, say, about 2500 PA (roughly 5 qualifying seasons, or half the Hall basic expectation). That means a half-minimum-career at a Ruth-1920 level, just a few percent below Bonds’ record seasons of the early 2000s, fueled by steroids and steroid-fearing IBB. His total WAR would probably be in range of 50-60 (though never more than about 3.0 per season). And all of that short career would have been played in high leverage situations. I think many fans and BBWWA voters would support a Hall case for such a pinch hitter, if the rules allowed it: his role would have been historic and too impactful to write-off on a minimum-PA requirement principle.

                That thought experiment (more loosely done) was part of what persuaded me to put Mariano on my HHS HoF ballot, despite the fact that my basic principle is that the Hall is not for closers, and that we don’t need more Yankees in the Hall.
             2. Dr. Doom January 21, 2019 at 3:48 pm

                Pedro, 1997-2003 – 1408 IP, 213 ERA+

                That’s better results, more innings, and the higher stress of longer outings. I didn’t realize we were calling 1200 innings a “complete career” now. That’s my snark for the day.

                Just to be clear: I have no problem with Mariano’s election. He’s fine and he belongs in. I’m quite certain, in fact, that I would put him in the Hall. For me, though, the question is this: is he in my top ten? I don’t think so. Since we’re only “allowed” 10 spots, I can’t get him in. If I were a GM who knew how their careers would pan out, I would rather have Scott Rolen. I would rather have Andruw Jones. I would rather have Gary Sheffield. That’s without even considering the more obvious candidates: Halladay, Mussina, Schilling, Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Walker. I think those guys would be more apt to help my team win games in the course of their careers, and they would be particularly more helpful in their peak/prime seasons, where they’re not upward-limited to about 4 WAR. I just don’t see myself picking Rivera in a top-ten if this were the draft class, so I can’t put Rivera on my ballot. It’s nothing personal and nothing against relievers. If Mussina, Schilling, Bonds, Clemens, and Martinez had been elected years ago, I’d be voting for him. I just wonder if there isn’t going to be a voter – or even a couple – who decide, not that Rivera is unworthy, but simply that there isn’t room on a crowded ballot. And that’s not even considering those who might think that, with Rivera’s election a sure-thing, their vote was better-used on a candidate at risk of falling off the ballot – I kind of recall someone leaving off Chipper for that reason, though for the life of me, I can’t think of who it was… or maybe it was Griffey, rather than Chipper. I can’t remember.
             3. Bob Eno (epm) January 21, 2019 at 7:13 pm

                Fair enough, Doom. But you are comparing Pedro’s peak level to Rivera’s career level, meaning that there’s no Mariano below that level being set aside. If we were to do that by, for example, setting aside Mo’s rookie year as a mostly starting swing man, then Mariano’s ERA+ rises to 223, and it persists for 18 seasons, dipping below 190 only three times (and only once below 160). With the other players you mention, when you pick them for your team, you have a significant risk of encountering off years (in spades if you take the PEDs away from Bonds and Clemens). For example, remove 1997-2003 from Pedro (who was terrific) and you have 7 other seasons of 20+ starts with a total ERA+ that looks to be no more than 120 (1994-96, 2004-6, 2008). So you have a 50/50 chance of getting what you hoped for when you pick Pedro, and a 90% chance that Mo will be in top form.

                I’m not challenging your decision to leave Rivera off your HHS ballot (and, unlike Bill Ballou, to submit your vote). I understand your logic. I was just making the opposite case, which prevailed with me, rather to my surprise.
             4. Bob Eno (epm) January 21, 2019 at 8:34 pm

                Doom: a follow-up, to clarify:

                I’d pick Pedro over Rivera in an instant. I’m not arguing that Rivera is better than any of the guys you list as “more obvious.” I’m arguing the grounds for considering him Hallworthy (on which we seem to agree), and I’m arguing that his incredible consistency would, in fact, make him a safer pick than, say, Rolen, Sheffield, and, particularly, Jones. (Also, my ballot has more room since the PED guys ain’t on it.)
          2. Bob Eno (epm) January 21, 2019 at 7:27 pm

             Quick follow-up: cross Brooks, Nunez, and Sherman off the list of possible No-for-Mo’s. Their votes came in on Monday. (No new info about the 13 voters who were post-announcement No-for-Hoffman’s.)

             Reply ↓
             1. Bob Eno (epm) January 22, 2019 at 1:31 pm

                Some additions to cross off: Caldera and Posnanski.

                But the bigger news is that we can cross off Bill Ballou: he voted — and for Rivera! (His contorted reasoning is online.)
37. Bob Eno (epm) January 21, 2019 at 9:20 am

    Interesting opinion piece in the New York Times this morning. A writer named Jamie Malanowski. who has no baseball connection, proposes that Bill James be considered for the Hall of Fame, given his transformative influence on the game. I think an argument can be made that James’s influence on baseball as an outsider-writer has been comparable to Henry Chadwick’s early influence as an insider-writer. Chadwick was eligible as a “Pioneer”; “Sports Writer,” per se (which is what Chadwick really was), is not a qualifying category for Hall membership. (James’s niche in sports writing hasn’t even qualified him for the Spink Award, a HoF sportswriter honor without HoF membership status.) James is an “Executive” now, which, I suppose, could provide some sort of qualifying status, but his real contributions all came as an outsider.

    Nevertheless, it seems to me that James’s impact has been far more comprehensive than that of any sports writer apart from Chadwick, and probably greater than any single executive except, perhaps, Branch Rickey and Kenesaw “Judge” Landis (I might argue for Ned Hanlon too, as some HHS readers might expect). There have been other analysts contributing to the current wave of stat-based changes in the game, but James is to them as Rivera is to other closers: in a class of his own (including the degree to which he has lately become rather irritatingly irascible . . . well, maybe not so lately). I’ll be interested to see whether Malanowski’s article sparks a response. I think his point is well taken. (It’s unclear, though, whether James himself would welcome being immobilized in bronze. Not really his style.)

    Reply ↓
    1. Dr. Doom January 21, 2019 at 3:54 pm

       He belongs. The most awkward part will be his induction speech.

       By the way, I think you’re being very kind calling him “irascible.” Lately, he’s done some good work, but he’s also been in “you kids get off of my lawn” territory. He’s always been argumentative, but he’s openly and blatantly uninterested in the work anyone else is doing or has done, and he has become so trenchant around some issues that I dread when he brings them up. A couple of weeks ago, someone wrote in with, I thought, a genuine question; something like, “How does it feel that a lot of other analysts completely disagree with you about this topic?” Bill’s answer was basically, “They said I was wrong thirty years ago, and I wound up being right; my entire career is based off of other people saying I’m wrong. So I’m probably right again.” The argument, “Whenever someone says I’m wrong, it’s proof that I’m right,” is so childish that LITERAL children wouldn’t even make it – not even high schoolers who will make ANY kind of dumb argument. But hey – I still read his site frequently, because, for all his boorishness and slippage, he’s still better than a lot of what’s out there. And, when you DO agree with him, his style is always funny… less so when you disagree with him. 🙂

       Reply ↓
       1. Bob Eno (epm) January 21, 2019 at 7:30 pm

          Yup. I chose “irascible” to be kind. I’m hoping he moves past it — he’s about my age and I still change. (Don’t listen to what my family says!)

          Reply ↓
38. Bob Eno (epm) January 22, 2019 at 1:07 am

    On the eve of decision. Ryan Thibodaux notes that Mussina had a good day. Today’s 16 new revealed ballots raised his overall percentage by 0.5%, to 81.6%. With the expected fall-off on private ballots, he has once again become a true toss-up. The prognosticators cited on Thibodaux’s Twitter feed have a spread of 73.3% to 75.5% for Moose’s final number (the average is about 74.25, which would be three voters short of 75% — with about 195 ballots still unknown, that’s clearly within margin of error for any prediction).

    Reply ↓
    1. Dr. Doom January 22, 2019 at 3:19 pm

       Unfortunately, the more I’ve thought about it, the less likely I think it is that Mussina will be elected. He was named on less than 50% of private ballots last year – 46.7%, in fact. He would need to make a jump of over 20 percentage points in one year. As of right now (quarter after 1 on election day), there are 222 ballots along with 5 anonymous makes 227 ballots known). Mussina would need 67% support. That means nearly 40% of the private voters who voted “no” on Mussina last year would have to come around to him this year. I just don’t see that as very likely. I hope it happens, but I’m not holding my breath.

       I also think we’re going to see an unbelievable gulf between Larry Walker’s private and public totals. I’m excited to see what happens there, but again: not looking forward to it.

       Reply ↓
       1. Bob Eno (epm) January 22, 2019 at 5:45 pm

          Doom, I don’t know whether you’ve calculated in a projection for the post-announcement public results. If Mussina’s performance among that group reflacts last year’s differential (which would give him about 77% of those votes), he’d need about 70 of the remaining ~110-115 votes, or about 60-65% of the private vote, a jump of about 13-18%. That’s still a lot, but not too great a gap to close from last years -22% public/private differential. Basically, he’d need to narrow that to differential to c. -15-20%. Sardel’s median projection for Mussina, from the current 227 votes, is 75%. I think it’s a toss-up, but we’ll see.

          As for Walker, he’s reversed 48 No-votes so far. He won’t get in, of course, but even if his private total is disappointing, he’ll have made great strides and be a real 2020 likelihood. (I think . . .)

          Reply ↓
          1. Bob Eno (epm) January 22, 2019 at 7:23 pm

             . . . and Sardel turned out to be a little low . . .

             Great tohave 4 CoG slots open up — now the important stuff can begin!

             Reply ↓
             1. Mike L January 22, 2019 at 8:17 pm

                Bob, you take the crown (well, it was a two man competition. Interesting to see a relatively small rise in Bonds and Clemens votes. Schilling looks like he will eventually make it (he got a Presidential endorsement as well).
             2. Bob Eno (epm) January 22, 2019 at 8:46 pm

                Thank you, Mike. I can tell that was the gentleman in you speaking, so it settles our bet.
             3. Mike L January 22, 2019 at 9:10 pm

                Could have said that more elegantly, now that I see how it posted. Appreciate the kind response.
          2. Mike L January 22, 2019 at 10:48 pm

             Bob, and Doom–just saw this from Thibodeaux on public vs. private ballots.
             Bonds: 70.1% | 45.5%
             Clemens: 70.5% | 46.1%
             Halladay: 92.7% | 76.4%
             Mussina: 81.6% | 70.7%
             Schilling: 70.1% | 49.7%
             Vizquel: 38.0% | 48.7%
             Walker: 65.8% | 40.8%

             Reply ↓
             1. Bob Eno (epm) January 23, 2019 at 12:38 am

                Thanks, Mike. As Thibodaux notes, those figures will change as the post-announcement revealed ballots shift “sides”.
             2. Mike L January 23, 2019 at 8:33 am

                It does tell you something about human behavior and crowd dynamics. These are all reporters, most of whom presumably watch and cover baseball. You theoretically should be drawing from the same well, and theoretically should get comparable, if not exact, results. There may be demographic differences between those willing to go public and those not. But at the end of the day, to see that much difference between public and private evaluations probably can’t be ascribed to that alone–nor even the reduction in average number of names on the ballot.
             3. Dr. Doom January 23, 2019 at 11:06 am

                There was an argument a couple of years ago that some baseball writers were pushing for: that all ballots be made public. I feel relatively certain that, had that happened 3-4 years ago, Bonds/Clemens would be well on their way to election. I’m shocked that so many private voters suddenly came out to support Mussina; glad, but shocked. I really didn’t think it would happen. But hey – it means one extra round of COG voting, so color me excited!
             4. Mike L January 23, 2019 at 11:33 am

                I don’t mind a secret ballot. In some circumstances, it allows writers to vote their conscience and not what their home-town readers want to see.
                Doom, I’ve said this before on this posting, but I’m convinced that the Harold Baines and Lee Smith admissions really moved the stack among some voters. Regarding Rivera, how do you not vote for him after Smith, who, while a fine pitcher, was not comparable, is in. And as to Edgar, and several other hitters, same applies. To my way of thinking, elevating a historical figure (we’ve gone through a lot) is sort of quaint–old black and white photos, funny-looking gloves, etc. is fundamentally different than taking someone we’ve all seen play and never thought of as remarkable.
             5. Dr. Doom January 23, 2019 at 1:41 pm

                I don’t have a problem with the secret ballot either, per se. I’m just pointing out that public ballots nearly always have more names and are MUCH more open to PED-associated candidates than the secret ballots. Is that self-selection, in that those who like being public are just self-sorted? Or is there some amount of pressure that comes with publishing your ballot that actually causes some people to include those candidates? I suspect it might be the latter, and that makes me think that, if EVERYONE published, those guys would be, if not IN, certainly a lot closer.
                And yes; I agree with you that the Baines-Martinez and Smith-Rivera situations had a direct impact on the results this year. I’m glad. I’m glad anti-unanimity is over (even though, as I said above, I myself wouldn’t have voted for Mo). Jeter will be unanimous next year, and that’s good, too. I suspect we’ll see more and more of them. Pujols, Trout, etc. That’s a good thing for the Hall.
                BTW, I think I’m also going to stop checking this thread. Doug told me that there’s going to be a set of HOF-related posts by Bob Eno soon, so we can continue the discussion there. But I’m done with this thread; it’s long enough… though not as long as some of our old COG threads used to get (well over 300 comments).
             6. Bob Eno (epm) January 23, 2019 at 7:51 pm

                I guess Doom won’t read this, but I think I should mention that if I’m going to be writing a set of HoF-related posts, this is the first I’ve heard of it. I wish I had new research or new ideas to offer on that front, but I’m afraid I don’t.
             7. Dr, Doom January 24, 2019 at 11:04 am

                I said I wasn’t going to check anymore… but I caved. I wrote up a post for Doug and he said he’d keep it in the backlog. He said, “Coming up next are COG post(s), and a HOF-related set of posts submitted by epm.” You’d better get to writing. 🙂
             8. Bob Eno (epm) January 24, 2019 at 3:28 pm

                Perhaps it’s nsb, who’s been on a posting tear lately.
39. bells January 23, 2019 at 9:02 pm

    Some of my takeaways from the vote reveal:

    – Mo’s unanimous vote should go a long way to demystifying that feat, which had previously been such a white whale. It seems like, through either not wanting to attract scrutiny on a public ballot, or just realizing that ‘unanimous hall of famer’ doesn’t mean the player is better than Ruth, that particular feat is something we can all normalize. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jeter gets in unanimously next year, and then A-Rod two years after tha – oh wait. Jeter, though.

    – I’m excited for Mussina to get in for all reasons. First, he’s deserving. Second, we get one more round of CoG voting. Third, his increase in private ballots (and overall, his election) makes me feel like writers are moving beyond narratives of ‘best’ and ‘feared’ and into a more comprehensive assessment of achievement and era. Just because Mussina wasn’t as good as Clemens or Maddux or Johnson or Pedro etc doesn’t mean he wasn’t better than Jack Morris or other pitchers who were the ‘best’ of their era. It was just a historical time for top notch pitchers. Fourth, his election means that 326 voters will have an extra spot on their ballot next year, whereas if he got 74% this year, those spots would probably go to him again. That’s pretty huge for other candidates, in particular ones who might be on their final year like a certain fellow Canadian that I’m rooting for…

    – about where those extra ballot spots might go… as of right now in the tracker, 132 out of 249 public ballots checked off ten candidates, and about 55 more had 8 or 9. Those who checked off ten probably aren’t *all* voters who would check off more if they could, but I’d imagine a significant portion of them are. With Mo off the ballot for all of them, but Jeter coming on, let’s call that a relative wash. But then there’s the 85% of voters (probably a higher percentage in those who checked off ten candidates) that voted for Halladay, and that voted for Edgar. And then, of course, Moose. So a significant part of the electorate is going to have a few spots beyond Jeter, and I don’t see Abreu or Giambi or other newbies filling lots of them.

    Walker is the most interesting case due to his meteoric rise and the urgency of his last year on the ballot, but I also think Schilling has an outside shot at getting in next year. Rising 9% this year ain’t nothing, and if he doesn’t say anything in particular to make him even more disliked among those whose votes are affected by that (I wouldn’t bet on it, to be honest), going another 15% isn’t impossible. Bonds and Clemens are within a normal person’s shouting distance of getting in, but as we talked about upthread, there aren’t a lot of changed minds on them – only 3 public ballots this year added them, and they are probably going to get in (if they do) by a combination of new voters voting “yes” and old “no” voters stopping/no longer being eligible.

    So, Walker. He gained 89 total votes this year (53 of which are public so far) to go from 144 to 232. The same gain next year would have him at 321. The cutoff point for election this year was 319. Wow. I can’t believe it’s even a possibility, even after last year’s jump I didn’t think it would be. In his advantage is that voters are usually generous in giving a good look to players in their final year, as we’ve seen with McGriff this year, Trammell a few years ago. But those were guys who didn’t have a shot of getting in through the BBWAA, so a counterargument could be that some of those were nods of respect rather than an actual HoF endorsement. It’s much more serious with Walker being closer, so maybe something like Raines (+47 votes in year 10) or Edgar (+66 in year 10) is more likely. Actually, on second look, Trammell’s number isn’t far from Raines’ gain and McGriff’s not far from Edgar’s in raw numbers, their percentages just went up more because they were lower. At any rate… who knows? Maybe Walker gained most of the backers he’s going to this year, or maybe it’s a launchpad for some voters to take him more seriously. I’d go with the latter – the arguments in favor of Walker have happened for years, and this year felt like more of a dawning acceptance of that than an endpoint. There are about 8 voters in the tracker’s informal ‘if I had more than ten votes’ column that said they’d vote for him if they had room, and next year either they will or they can justify knocking someone off in favor of a guy in his last year. Either way: he’s got momentum, it’s gonna be damn close, and if even a fraction of those Mussina voters didn’t have Walker on their ballot this year but would put him on with the freed up spot, that could make all the difference. Even if it doesn’t happen, he’s not implicated in any scandal that I know of, he seems like a likable guy, and if he doesn’t get in he will likely have close to 70% of the vote at least, which historically gets someone in via Veteran’s Committee. Would the VC really be stubborn enough about Coors Field to spurn him? Oh wait, these are baseball people we’re talking about. Of course they would. But again, if this hypothetical VC vote happens in 2022 after Bonds and Clemens have gotten in, or if he’s on the next ‘Today’s Game’ ballot still and Bonds and Clemens are on it, electing him might look good to those folks.

    Further down the results list, Vizquel is likely to chug along picking up 5-10% until he’s elected, I’m guessing, and there are a lot of guys I’m willing to bet won’t move the needle much – Manny’s actual suspension puts him in a different category for some voters than BB/RC, so I don’t see him gaining much traction any time soon. Pettitte and Sosa too. Kent seems to have a ceiling and seems to have reached it, and doesn’t have the advanced stats to back up an argument like Walker. Sheffield is a head scratcher – he was pretty forthright about his insistence that he didn’t know the stuff Bonds gave him was what it was, so I think if he had a more solid statistical resume and a better reputation he’d be moving up. I’m definitely interested to see how Helton and Rolen rise, as both have decent enough cases for consideration and a pretty wide open ballot in future years. If the hated trio of Bonds, Clemens and Schilling get elected or max out, there’ll be plenty of years to consider less polarizing and noticeable players. Wagner, I think, will probably benefit in future years by being compared to whatever weird usages future relievers are going to be put to that make what he did look like the good old days, but I think above 50% would be a tough ask.

    Anyway, that’s the long and the short – okay, more like just the long – of my thoughts.

    Reply ↓
    1. Bob Eno (epm) January 24, 2019 at 1:04 am

       Long, but worth the read, bells.

       One comment to add to yours about Mo’s unanimity. I was rooting for Rivera to do this, but thought it would not be possible. Now that he’s received the 100% vote, that honor won’t be reserved for the player I expect most to “deserve” it: Trout, when his career ends, assuming that his future years are not disastrous.

       If Trout — a player who may well be competitive for the “Greatest Baseball Player of All Time” when he retires (he’s much of the way there already) had broken the unanimity barrier, the consequence would probably have been avoidance of unanimity thereafter, because it would convey the notion of “as good as the all-time best player ever.” Mo is not that player and everyone knows it, so the fact that he broke the precedent may mean that unanimity is never going to be a really big deal again. Indeed, maybe Jeter (I don’t think so . . . the fielding thing), or A-Rod ( really don’t think so . . . ), but if not them, then Albert and, almost surely, Trout in due time. The logic of the past is now reversed: “If you put Mo on your ballot and he was unanimous, how can you leave off Much-Better-All-Around-Player X off your ballot because you don’t approve of unanimity except for Superman?”

       Reply ↓
       1. bells January 29, 2019 at 3:03 am

          after that last post I made I actually read a take that made the point that Mo was the perfect player to break that 100% barrier because he fit in that narrow window of “he’s for sure enough a hall of famer that it’s silly to leave him out” on one hand and “no one would ever confuse him with the best baseball player who ever lived” on the other. He threaded that needle in a way that almost only he uniquely could. I almost feel like if it was Trout who was the first to ever do it, there would be this line of thinking that compared him to Ruth and Ruth’s non-unanimity in an entirely different context. And I don’t think he would get it. But now, as you say, the Mo effect is almost a reverse effect and now that those floodgates are open it can be a reaction of “shrug – sure, why the hell not?”. I like this development, if for nothing else to further dismantle the notion of anything other than getting 75% of the vote as having any real meaning.

          Reply ↓