The Quinton: Zagging: ... (01/05)
70 comments have been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
| |
|
|
December 31, 2014 BP Hall of Fame VotingThe 2015 ResultsAs the BBWAA prepares to announce its newest class of Hall of Fame inductees, we asked our staff to fill out their own ballots using the list of players eligible for enshrinement in Cooperstown. Forty ballots were submitted, so players needed to garner at least 30 votes to earn a Baseball Prospectus nod to the Hall, and to notch at least two votes to remain in consideration next year. Under BBWAA rules—namely, the 10-player voting limit—our 2015 Hall of Fame class features eight players. (The number of ballots on which each player appeared and the percentage that number represents are in parentheses.)
Among the players scrapped from consideration next year were Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, who each received only one vote (2.50%). To see just how restrictive the 10-player limit is in a year in which the list of eligible players is teeming with potentially worthy names, we gave each of our voters the option to tack additional players onto their ballots. The impact was significant: It made all the difference for four down-ballot hopefuls and kept four of the endangered alive. With the cap lifted, Curt Schilling added seven votes (36, 90.00%), Craig Biggio picked up nine (35, 87.50%), and Alan Trammell doubled his vote total, from 16 to 32 (80.00%). John Smoltz surged an astounding 21 votes, from 10 to 31 (77.50%). Each of these increases was sufficient for the players to earn their plaques, as far as we're concerned. Edgar Martinez, who garnered support from only 15 voters with the 10-player ceiling, came just one vote shy of induction (29, 72.50%) with the restriction lifted. Meanwhile, Gary Sheffield and Sosa—who were mired down the list at one vote under BBWAA rules—rose to eight votes, well more than the two needed to remain under consideration. Jeff Kent, who failed to appear on a single ballot, drew six votes when the balloting was opened up. Finally, Fred McGriff, who had one vote with the 10-player ceiling, got the additional one he needed to secure a spot on the ballot for induction in 2016. You can view each staff member's ballot, and the full results, by navigating the tabs in the spreadsheet embedded below.
BP Comment Quick Links roarke (13096) Why not have a BP Hall of Fame? The Cooperstown HoF is a great museum, but the voting process has led to some ugly results. Why not just start one of your own. You can have a portion of the website devoted to it with each "plaque" containing advanced metrics and links to PECOTA comparables and other fun stuff like that. Every year the BP staff would comprise the voting pool (or, if you really want to make it an interactive undertaking, BP subscribers could be the voting pool just like with the internet baseball awards). kcboomer (4676) Seriously? Even at BP you had one guy who didn't vote for Randy Johnson? Or Pedro?? Hopefully it was a strategic reason like trying to save a vote for a qualified guy who might not get elected if he "wasted" his vote on two guys who were sure to get in. You can view the individual ballots in the spreadsheet. Matt Sussman is the man who left both off his 10-man ballot, although his "extended" ballot included both men. Dec 31, 2014 07:27 AM therealn0d (51857) Sussman voted for everyone. I'd feel very good about my chances of getting into the Hall if everyone voted like Matt. jashnew (42112) Biggio not being in the Hall of Fame is ridiculous. 3000 hits. Imagine if he was a Yankee or a Cardinal. He would have a statue erected and would have been a fist ballot Hall of Famer. russell (10261) It is interesting to me that Larry Walker received fewer votes than Edgar Martinez. I'd be interested in hearing why gtim those who chose Martinez over Walker. jashnew (42112) Colorado bhalpern (28488) Career at Coors: 381/462/710. Everywhere else about 282/377/500. Counting stats away from Coors times 1.5*: 2019 H, 344 HR, 1200 R, 234 SB. That's all very comparable to Jim Rice. But he got 2500 PAs at Coors where he had a 1.172 OPS with a .385 BABIP. *PAs: Coors-2501, Other:5529. joshb729 (50404) You can't just x1.5 his road stats. That's not fair. Almost every player has better numbers at home, regardless of how friendly/unfriendly their park was. And there's some interesting data on how difficult it is for Coors guys to adjust away from Coors in a short turnaround because of the atmospheric differences between two locations. bhalpern (28488) Fair comment. I've never seen research on the Coors road difficulty phenomenon. I did consider the multiplier didn't account for a home park in place of Coors. The total PAs for Coors vs Other are actually .45:1. Using *1.5 instead of 1.45 gave him an extra 67h/11hr/40r/8sb. Also, 'other' includes his Montreal home stats and those are part of the extrapolation. Even giving him another 5% boost for home park I don't see how he's anything better than a borderline case without Coors. vbaldacc (71574) You can't discount Walker's defense. He was a four time gold glover.Yes, he played at Coors Field; however, he should be credited for playing excellent defense there. An average OF'er would be a liability at Coors. How does anybody vote for Edgar over Walker? Odd to say the least. jdeich (50647) I'm curious how the actual BBWAA voting for Pedro will turn out. AdamSt (23412) Pedro is obviously a Hall of Famer. But I see a couple of reasons to omit him. AdamSt (23412) Thanks for doing this. The difference between 10 max and unlimited is striking: jssharo (1531) Interesting to hear not one peep about PEDs in this entire discussion. It seems that at BP, there is no argument: PED users should be allowed into the HOF. I do not mean to re-ignite arguments that we have all heard many times before, but I find it odd that there seems to be NOBODY at BP who considers this issue as relevant while a large proportion of baseball fans of good will (including myself, to be honest) do consider it relevant. oloughla (74242) I think it's safe to assume this is false. Bonds only got 37 out of the possible 40 votes even after the limit was lifted. There is literally no coherent argument unrelated to PEDs for why he shouldn't be inducted, and therefore it is pretty clear that the reason he was left off those 3 ballots (Arthur, Cromer, and Carlton) is related to PEDs. anderson721 (18704) I may be wrong-my wife tells me I occasionally am- but I think without the taint of PEDS McGwire is right near the top of the voting. onegameref (7693) Why no Sosa or Palmeiro? Both seem to meet standards from performance but lose due to stupidity in testimony. I've still never seen an argument that could state that taking a steroid would make you a better baseball player simply by taking them. The player still needed to workout to gain the benefits and greater strength, while valuable, does not in itself necessitate success. TwinsfanTravis (76634) I think the argument against steroids is increased strength and is evidenced by the inflated offense of the entire "steroid era" and the deflated offense once testing became commonplace. The argument against HGH (for better or worse) is that it greatly decreases recovery time from fatigue and/or injuries, in theory allowing a user to play many more games at optimal physical condition than non users. Both of those things would make a baseball player better than their peers. Palmeiro wasn't eligible because he didn't get 5% of the vote in BBWAA voting last year. He'd have gotten an extended ballot vote from me this year if he was eligible. Jan 01, 2015 06:57 AM sbnirish77 (17711) Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway. "Interesting to hear not one peep about PEDs in this entire discussion." trueblue33 (59382) And there's no arrogance in your reply at all, much like there's no sarcasm in mine. Probably Handsome (76413) I would argue that the zeitgeist at BP is actually the opposite of what you're describing. It's almost a daily thing for a BP writer to make a statement regarding how they are deferring to some baseball executive regarding a decision or happenings of that day. I think that BP, at least, has moved past the snarky blogging of the Earlier years. JohnnyB (34382) I'm always surprised that the sabr community is unconcerned about PEDs and older writers have a big issue with it. Seems the sabr community doesn't care about cheating and more importantly doesn't care much for the purity of the data. By giving bonds and others a pass, it screws guys like mcgriff/mussina who would otherwise have a great story. It so makes cross-generation comparisons very hard. Basically PEDS wrecked the data sets for 20 years but no one seems to care. Behemoth (46675) I don't think you decide who gets into the Hall of Fame based on what they might have done to the datasets. roarke (13096) I don't think the community is unconcerned so much as it just doesn't know what to do with the situation. It seems clear that the known cheaters are really just the tip of the iceberg of all users for a period of time. How can you take PED use into account for Bonds/Clemens/McGwire and not for the unknown users? Even if you could take PED use into account, how much of an effect did it have? These are impossible questions to answer and so instead of just pretending that those players didn't accomplish the things that they did on the field, we have to just acknowledge that they happened and that the whole era was flawed to an unknowable extent and move on. This is one of the best summations of the issue that I've seen. Jan 02, 2015 08:15 AM andrews (2527) You don't let a convicted criminal off because there must be lots of other people who have done the same thing, but they haven't been arrested and found guilty. roarke (13096) We aren't talking about crimes, though, we are talking about the validity of accomplishments on a baseball field. There are a number of logical threads that you can go down if you follow the assumptions that you are making: if these players have been "convicted" of a baseball crime, why hasn't MLB punished them (erased their statistics from the recordbook, for example)? Why is the punishment only coming from the HoF voters?; if MLB believes their statistics are legitimate enough to stand in the official books, why shouldn't they be judged on those statistics for HoF purposes?; what is the standard of proof that must be met to "convict" these players? A positive test? Admission of guilt? Unsubstantiated whispers?; Without knowing the true effect of PEDs, how can we possibly fairly evaluate the accomplishments of the "unconvicted" players of the same era? Does Clemens supposed use taint the World Series that Jeter won? Do we have to downgrade Jeter's HoF case because he benefitted from Clemens and A-Rod using? andrews (2527) Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway. Hi Roarke, it was just meant as an anology. I don't have overly strong views on this but I was just pointing out what I perceived to be a falicious argument by the original poster. Dodger300 (3120) The comments made you uncomfortable enough to claim "it was only analogy." A piss-poor analogy, I might add. andrews (2527) Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway. No, the reply suggested that the replier failed to grasp that it was an analogy. I think your comment singles you out as someone with the inability or lack of intelligence to realise that. If so I'd like to stop corresponding with you. Life is too short to waste time on idiots :) Pat Folz (6254) "The penalties for ped use are so ridiculously lenient that having your whole career besmirched and being precluded from the recognition of being voted into the HOF is the only effective deterrent." sbnirish77 (17711) Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway. "I'm always surprised that the sabr community is unconcerned about PEDs ... Seems the sabr community doesn't care about cheating and more importantly doesn't care much for the purity of the data." I can really only speak for myself on this one (and I have very little to do with PECOTA) but here's why I don't even bother with PED allegations. I just don't care. I know it all looks so sanitized on TV, but it's just not. I can't sit there and wag my finger at someone while drinking my own morning performance enhancing caffeinated beverage. Jan 02, 2015 09:04 AM JohnnyB (34382) I don't think you don't care. I think you can't be bothered to spend any time on it which is odd given the time all of you spend dissecting every other piece of baseball minutae ( and I mean that in a positive vein). PED usage dramatically changed the playing field more than any other thing in baseball history since they banned the spitball. Jervass (78496) Should the players that we even suspect used PEDs be penalized because they played in an era with better science? Many HoF inductees have admitted using substances that they thought would enhance their performances...even if the substance actually didn't do much for them. They were trying to cheat. Pat Folz (6254) This to me is the most compelling argument for including the "Steroid Era" guys: players who played during segregation and during the World Wars, not to mention the nineteenth century when they had running starts for pitchers etc., played in a much more uneven playing field than PEDs could ever create. If their accomplishments count, so do those of players who used PEDs. vbaldacc (71574) There were no rules against PED usage. Secondly, amphetamines were used by some players who are now in the HOF. Should those players still be there? Amphetamines are now a banned substance. BurrRutledge (18981) Just for the record, use of steroids were against the rules. I've heard plenty of people say they were not, but I think that's a false logic. They were not explicitly named in the CBA, true. But they were controlled substances under federal law, and no controlled substances were permitted without doctor's prescription. Players were not getting prescriptions. Players were getting them through illegal channels, and hiding their use. maphal (21015) This has probably been said many times, but I would vote in about 15 guys this year, including all the PED users. Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa.....put them all in. Does the BBWAA ever really look at the characters and careers that have been voted into the HOF over the years? Ray Schalk, Travis Jackson, Vic Willis, Lloyd Waner? Not to mention the racists (Anson, Landis), scoundrels (Cobb), and mentally unstable (Waddell). trueblue33 (59382) I've never understood why Alan Trammell hasn't gotten much love, so I'm happy to see he was included here (even if it took the expanded numbers to do it). Dude had 6 seasons of 6+ WAR, and another 3 seasons at 4+. People seem quick to anoint Jeter as a first ballot guy but to dismiss Trammell. They're both HOFers in my opinion. andrews (2527) Agreed he should be in (as should Lou Whitaker and Bill Freehan, but they played for Detroit). andrews (2527) Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway. Anyone who advocates the inclusion of a baseball player in the HOF who used peds is condoning the use of peds. It really is that simple and I think the BP writers who advocate that position need to have the courage of their convictions and come out and publically acknowledge this. I respect the opinions of those who would never vote for an admitted or proven PED user, and I don't mean to use weasel words or hide behind semantics, although this may well come off that way. However, I think there's a little more nuance here than you're allowing. I'll gladly cop to "condoning" the use of PEDs by baseball players, but there are two strings attached: Jan 02, 2015 20:29 PM andrews (2527) Hi Ken, JohnnyB (34382) Its not at all clear to me that it was condoned by MLB. The admissions by Canseco and others as to how this activity was carried out (in secret, usually with third party suppliers)as well as everyone's behavior of hiding it and not talking about it before, during or after indicates it was a known bad activity and depending on the drug, illegal. Reasonable points all. However, I personally believe "condone" is the perfect word to describe how MLB (both the league and MLBPA) handled steroids in the late nineties to mid-aughties. McGwire copped to using andro in late '98, and everyone with eyes could see that offensive numbers (and players) were growing ridiculously large. Rick Helling stood up in the MLBPA meetings each year starting that fall to say that steroid usage was rampant, to the point where players were starting to feel they had to use in order to compete, and something had to be done. Jan 03, 2015 09:48 AM TwinsfanTravis (76634) That's a bit of a false dilemma that you've created. There are are other options than just that A,B, and C. Being an educated human being, you can use logic and reason to judge on a case by case basis based on the current evidence available, and the strength of that evidence, to determine whether they cheated or not. That is how most decision in life are made. I don't understand why this one is all of a sudden so different. If you feel, based on your research and the evidence available, that Barry Bonds (or Jeff Bagwell, or Piazza) didn't use or there is not enough solid evidence to conclusively say they did, vote for them and then stand behind your vote on those grounds. But to choose option C in that logical fallacy is just a cop out. sbnirish77 (17711) Just heard an interesting statistic on MLB network. sbnirish77 (17711) Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway. The apologist's Bible which I posted many years ago .... Dodger300 (3120) I don't care either. paperwinner (18178) All of this moralizing tells me more about yourselves and your rigidities. It really is no different than the Salem witch trials. Holier then thou moralists doesn't even begin to cut it with these Pharisees. Cue the tumbrils! You know that exclusion to the hall of fame for Barry or Roger is the least punishment that the righteous want. It's a flawed world folks but it is the one we have. This outrage is hardly about baseball and lots more about resentment and posturing. BurrRutledge (18981) It's a conundrum. CRP13 (46873) I don't understand any argument in which people think Craig Biggio isn't a hall of famer, but Derek Jeter is. Both were "compilers", but Biggo wasn't a Yankee. jssharo (1531) PEDs really messed up the HOF. Any way you look at it, there is injustice being done. Not a subscriber? Sign up today!
|
Playoff Prospectus: PECOTA Odds and ALCS Gam...
this is the 2015 hall of fame class as it should be but never will, thanks to the usual suspects that will use their ballot to have 5 minutes of relevance on the internet. and I predict Randy Johnson under 90%, in the long irritating tradition of "if Koufax didn't get 100, I can't see any other pitcher deserving it"..
If the BP writers were the only voters, the only 2015 members would be Pedro, Johnson and Smoltz, because the others would have been voted in years ago.