This Year's HOF Ballot, Part 3

Fred McGriff (5th):  .284 493-1550.  5 All-Star games, 6 Top 10 MVP finishes, 52+ WAR
In a previous era, The Crime Dog would be a fairly decent addition to Cooperstown.  Unfortunately, his offensive numbers pale in comparison to what started to be the norm as he began to fade as a ballplayer.  During the 1990s/early 2000s, McGriff was the answer to a great trivia question:

Who are the last players to win a HR title in each league with under 40 HRs?

It's a trick question:  McGriff led the AL with Toronto in 1989 (36), and the NL with San Diego in 1992 (35).  After 1995, no one led the league with under 47 until 2004...while McGriff himself never topped 40.  McGriff has floated around 20% on the ballot over the last four years, but with the influx of so many qualified candidates this year, McGriff's total is bound to move lower.  Going into this year, he received the 5th lowest total of the returning candidates...and there is danger he may wind up lower than 5%.

In this day and age, when more and more of the voters rely on sabermetrics and advanced data to decide who deserves to be a Hall of Famer (and if I had a vote, I would do so as well), I still think back to Bill James' criteria, as well as something that sticks in my mind:  when watching this player, did I think we were watching a future Hall of Famer?  Maybe that's not fair; when I think of players of that stature, I think of Junior and Pedro Martinez.  Maddux and Bonds.  Clemens and Henderson. These players aren't getting into Cooperstown by the skin of their teeth (PEDs aside) - they're making it in a landslide.

McGriff isn't. 

Prediction:  8%

Mark McGwire (8th):   McGwire is in a bigger predicament than McGriff - generally, over the 7 years Mark has been on the ballot, his support has been waning...and it wasn't that high to begin with.  3 of the first 4 years he floated around 23% (the other year coming in at 21.9%), but since then has declined to 16.9%.  I've written about him before as well, and as I've mentioned, I think the balloting would be better served if those players tainted with the use of PEDs were taken off the ballot it might clear things up for those on the ballot.  If McGwire/Bonds/Clemens et al were to be voted upon by a group like the Veterans Committee, it would clear up some of the logjam happening on the ballot.

This year, some of that logjam might be cleared up. 

Prediction:  4%, and McGwire drops off the ballot.

Jack Morris (15th):  I won't go into Morris here.  I've said enough here, and others have said it better than me.  He's not getting in this year...and I think that's a good thing.

Prediction:  60%, goes to the Veterans Committee.

Mike Mussina (1st):  270-153, 3.68 ERA 123 ERA+, 5 All-Star games, 6 top 5 Cy Young (best - 1999 2nd), with 3 additional 6th place finishes.

When I started writing this, I believed Mike Mussina wasn't a Hall of Famer.  Was it because I was an Orioles fan, and he played for teams that were sabotaged by Peter Angelos before bailing for our hated enemy?  Was it the "eye test" I mentioned earlier which really isn't fair for anyone below the top 20% of the Hall?

Numerous writers have argued that too few pitchers since WWII have been elected to the Hall, and most of them came during the explosion of 300 inning, 4 man rotations in the 1970s, which set 300 wins as the benchmark for being in Cooperstown.  A quick look at the Hall, however, suggests that 300 only became that benchmark in the 1970s - look at some of the pitchers elected before (and keep in mind, those pitchers of the 1800s were "voted" in because their win totals were completely off the charts.  There were a few who deserved recognition for their efforts (I'm looking at you, Kid Nichols and Old Hoss Radbourne), but overall it was a different game.

Pitchers elected by the writers (I'm skipping to those under 300, since we know all those above are in):

• Blyleven (287)
• Roberts (286)
• Jenkins (284)
• Ruffing (273)
• Palmer (268)
• Feller (266)
• Lyons (260)
• Gibson (251)
• Marichal (243)
• Pennock (241)
• Ford (236)
• Bunning (224)
• Hunter (224)
• Drysdale (209)
• Lemon (207)
• Eckersley (197)
• Vance (197)
• Koufax (165)

A close look at these players suggest that 300 games winners became more important AFTER there were more of them.  My question is:  how many pitchers in the game at any time are worthy of the Hall?  My current convictions as to who belongs in the Hall (starting pitchers), in order of ranking:

1.  Maddux
2.  Clemens*
3.  P. Martinez
4.  Johnson
5.  Glavine
6.  Schilling
7.  Mussina

Is 7 too high?  Too low?  I'm not sure - but who is #8 on my list?  It might be Kevin Brown.  Let's compare Brown to Mussina:

Mussina: 270-153, 3.68 ERA 123 ERA+, 5 All-Star games, 6 top 5 Cy Young finishes (best - 1999 2nd), with 3 additional 6th place finishes.  82.7 WAR, 6 Gold Gloves.  Average HOF pitcher had a lower WAR, but higher peak.
Brown:   211-144, 3.28 ERA 127 ERA+, 6 All-Star games, 2 top 5 Cy Young finishes (best - 1996 2nd), with 3 additional 6th place finishes.  68.5 WAR, Average HOF pitcher had a higher WAR, higher peak.

And, for the sake of it, #6:

Schilling:  216-146, 3.46 ERA 127 ERA+, 6 All-Star games, 4 top 5 Cy Young finishes (best - 3x 2nd place).  80.7 WAR, Average HOF pitcher had a lower WAR, but slightly higher peak.  Schilling may have also been the greatest post-season pitcher of the modern era (post-1968). 

What's the difference between these 3?  Mussina has many more wins, Brown has a lower WAR, worse finishes in Cy Young voting (though that might be attributed to him being a dick), and Schilling has the Jack Morris "moments" in the post-season.  Really, the difference isn't that big.

As David Schoenfield points out, there haven't been any pitchers selected lately, versus 10 from the "1970s" generation.  In fact, the last pitcher voted in was Blyleven, left over from that strong era for starting pitchers.

Is 10 starting pitchers too many?  I'm not sure - I was comfortable with drawing the line at 6 for the Steroid Era pitchers, but I'd be comfortable with 7 if Mussina was the seventh.

Prediction:  This is one where I have no idea where he might finish.  He's a better pitcher than Morris, but this is Morris' last year on the ballot, and Mussina's first.  With the strength of the ballot this year, plus residual effects of Morris' support, I'm expecting Mussina to get about ten percent lower than Schilling got last year.  28.8%.

Hideo Nomo (1st):  123-109 4.24 ERA 97 ERA+, Rookie of the Year, 1 All-Star game, 2 Top 5 Cy Young finishes.

Until we see the end of Yu Darvish's career, the best Japanese pitcher in MLB history.  Currently, that isn't enough to get into the Hall.

Prediction:  1 vote.

Rafael Palmeiro (4th):  The poster child for the Steroid Era...at least, one who got caught (A-Rod is the more vicious sequel).  Last year Palmeiro won 8.8% of votes, this year he'll be the first 3000 hit, 500 HR player to get less than 5% of the vote.  Benchmarks be damned!

Prediction:  2%

Mike Piazza (2nd):  .308 427-1335.  12 All-Star games, Rookie of the Year, 7 top 10 MVP finishes (2 time runner-up).  143 OPS+, 59.2 WAR

Probably the best offensive catcher in the history of baseball, some allude to not including him on their ballot because of bacne, or as a low draft pick and assume he did steroids.  I'm not sure where to stand on him using Andro (it was legal until 2004), but where exactly is the line drawn on what people can or can't take?  Old Hoss said it best in his Twitter account, if I may paraphrase:  Let me get this straight - taking a pill or getting a shot to recover from an injury is bad, but having a dead guy's tendon inserted into an elbow is okay.

I don't know either, but as far as I know, Piazza has been forthcoming with his use.  It won't be held against Pettite, it shouldn't be held against him...but it will.

Prediction:  45%

Tim Raines (7th):  It has been mentioned that Raines was the second-best leadoff hitter in the history of the game, unfortunate to play at the same time as the greatest.  I am not the first to state he did most of his damage in Montreal, all but forgotten by mainstream media.  More than one has pointed out that Tony Gwynn had a higher batting average, but Raines was on base more than Gwynn due to his walks..yet 3000 hits gets you noticed.  And Raines may have been the greatest basestealer in the history of the game - 808 steals while caught 146 times (Rickey Henderson 1406 - 335 caught).

I don't need to bring these up.  What I do think is that, against the tide, Raines and Biggio are going to increase their support this year, even with the influx of greatness on the ballot.  Raines will get elected, but not this year.  I also have no idea why it's taken this long to realize what a great player he was.

I mean, other than the ones mentioned above.

Prediction:  55%

This year's HOF ballot

For many of the BBWAA voters, this year's ballot for the baseball Hall of Fame will be the most difficult ever.  There are many reasons for it, which has numerous BBWAA voters and outsiders clamoring for a change.  Before plunging into the ballot itself (36 players this year, many of which are qualified), let's take a closer look at those who are voters, what the guidelines are, and where most of the complaints about the current system lay.

Current Guidelines

1. The voters are current or former members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, who were active for at least 10 years.  
2. For a player to be elected to the HOF, they must receive 75% of the submitted votes.
3. Electors may vote for as few as 0, or as many as 10 players.
4. There is no specific criteria for the players, other than they played at least 10 seasons, had been retired for 5, and were nominated by a selection committee (i.e., no write-in allowed).

So...what are the complaints?

1.  Who gets to vote?

• The biggest cry I've heard about this is that there are a significant amount of voters who are retired, or no longer follow baseball closely, and therefore how can they be an educated voter? To that point, some have recommended the number of voters be reduced; others suggest the voting should be expanded to include baseball fans.  Others offer that only current baseball writers should be involved in the election process.
• As for expanding the voting rights to more people, it has been pointed out that it might be even more difficult for a consensus to be reached.  This is probably NOT the answer, unless changes are made to what percentage was needed for a player to get elected.
• Others have suggested to reduce the number of voters.  The only problem with that is...well, it's been done before.  
• Jonah Keri has been a bit more specific about his complaints as to who qualifies as a voter - to be specific, he mentions three retired who work for Golferswest.com and no longer cover baseball.  He says:
• "The most jarring example of this surfaced last year, when three former baseball writers publicized their Hall of Fame votes at their current place of employment … GolfersWest.com. If the BBWAA truly cares about the voting process, it'll stop allowing people who haven't covered the sport since acid-washed jeans were popular to retain voting rights."
• Let's have a closer look at these three men who are out of date with baseball:
• Bob Sherwin covered the Mariners for 20 years, and retired from newspaper writing in 2004.
• Jim Street covered baseball for the better part of forty years before retiring in 2010.
• Kirby Arnold covered baseball from 1984-2011.  
• These are the men who Keri wants to revoke their voting rights?  Men who actually covered the baseball players who are on the ballot currently?  What makes a current voter for the Hall of Fame (maybe, a Bob Ryan?) better equipped to evaluate these players than these three?  If we look at the basis of the argument against the current method of voting, the issue is two things:  

1. Keri (and others) don't like who they've voted for, and:
2. They are upset that too many qualified candidates aren't getting 75%.

I think we discount the argument against who votes and who doesn't - expanding the voting membership won't improve the "intellect" of the voters, and reducing it might cause a person to have undue influence over the voting.  From Wikipedia:

The Hall of Fame suffered in the 1970s, when Frankie Frisch was a major voice on the committee. The old Hall of Famer, backed by former teammate Bill Terry and sportswriters J. Roy Stockton and Fred Lieb, who covered Frisch's teams, managed to get five of his teammates elected to the Hall by the committee. Additionally, in the three years after his death, two more teammates were elected.

After Frisch died and Terry left the Committee, elections were normalized. In 1978, membership increased to fifteen members, five Hall of Famers, five owners and executives, and five sportswriters. The members would meet in Florida during spring training to elect a player or two every year.

Do we need this?  With a body of 500+ voters, the best are going to get voted in...and some might not, which leads us to the second argument.  This year, we have legitimately 19 players who will garner significant support for their Hall of Fame candidacy.  With the voting limited to a maximum of 10 players, some writers are arguing that some qualified players won't get in, and some might not even garner the 5% needed to stay on the ballot.  The players, in no particular order:

• Craig Biggio
• Jack Morris
• Jeff Bagwell
• Tom Glavine
• Greg Maddux
• Barry Bonds
• Roger Clemens
• Mark McGwire
• Alan Trammell
• Tim Raines
• Lee Smith
• Curt Schilling
• Edgar Martinez
• Frank Thomas
• Fred McGriff
• Rafael Palmeiro
• Mike Mussina
• Jeff Kent
• Mike Piazza

I haven't included Sosa, Mattingly or Larry Walker, but they do have their supporters as well.

This leads us to:

2.  How many players can a person vote for, and what percentage is needed to be elected to the Hall of Fame?

Again, let's listen to Jonah Keri's stance on the subject:

1. Lift the limit of 10 votes per ballot. Some voters' inflexibility on players linked to PEDs (or even players accused of being muscular) has created a backlog of viable candidates. What's more, the split on those players has caused a negative trickle-down effect for other deserving holdover candidates.
Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Mike Mussina, and Jeff Kent join this year's ballot, meaning writers who want to vote for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and the like have to exclude candidates they might find worthy in order to whittle down to 10. Hell, even writers who definitively refuse to vote for PED guys are running into this problem. But the 10-player ballot limit remains in place because … well, there's actually no reason, other than that's how it's always been. The good news is that some BBWAA members are speaking out. New York Times writer Tyler Kepner broached this at the winter meetings, arguing that the 10-candidate limit does more harm than good. While the idea met with some resistance at the higher levels, many rank-and-file BBWAA members supported Kepner's proposal, and the group voted overwhelmingly to form a committee to discuss this issue and other potential voting reforms.
Others have tried, unsuccessfully, to challenge the ballot limit in the past. But with Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, and John Smoltz set to hit the ballot next year, and with no end in sight for the backlog, expect a growing chorus of support for reform.
2. Until no. 1 happens, abolish the 5 percent minimum threshold. With so many deserving candidates, some players who merit consideration are instead ignored, putting them at risk of not earning 5 percent of the overall vote and getting knocked off the ballot for good. We saw this last year, when first-time candidates Kevin Brown and Kenny Lofton were one-and-done; neither Brown nor Lofton was a slam dunk Hall of Famer by any stretch, and the fact that both are criminally underrated played a big role in them missing the cut, but some voters might have given Brown and Lofton the nod if they'd been allowed to go deeper than 10.
This year, players like Sammy Sosa (12.5 percent of the vote last time), Rafael Palmeiro (8.8 percent), and maybe Kent (the all-time leader in home runs by a second baseman) run the risk of suffering the same fate as Brown and Lofton. Again, I'm not saying Sosa and Palmeiro have perfect track records, especially to voters who won't back players suspected of PED use; nor am I denying that Kent's home runs came in an era rife with offense, or that he delivered only two truly elite seasons. But if lesser candidates like Jim Rice and Lee Smith can hang around for years and build support, it seems unfair to deny others that right simply because they became eligible when so many great candidates were also on the ballot.
As long as the 10-player limit exists, the 5 percent rule needs to go.

I think Keri misses an important point here:  change the criteria, and the way voters vote will change as well - how does the saying go?  "Water will always find its level."  To suggest that "all players who achieve 50% of the votes eventually make the Hall of Fame, so we should just reduce the percentage need to 50%" is oblivious to the attitudes voters would have.  Would they be more selective with whom they put on their ballot?  I would suggest it would.

So, where does this leave the candidates on this year's ballot?

I think four players will get elected this year, whom I'll write about in my next post.  This will "relieve" some of the pressure facing the BBWAA, but not all:  2015 is a stocked class as well.  But, should the 19 viable candidates split the voting in such a way that no one is elected again this year, I predict there will be major changes made to the voting process, starting with the ten player maximum (which in turn will allow Tim Kurkjian to vote for all the players on the ballot).  If no one is elected, I think they should institute the following:

1. The top vote getter each year gets in.  The Hall of Fame has lost money 8 of the last 10 years, and not surprisingly, most of their money is earned during HOF weekend.  When Deacon Jones made it last year, not a lot of people came out to see his great-grandson accept it on his behalf.  By letting the top vote getter in, it would guarantee some type of crowd every year.
2. I don't think the Veterans Committee is doing a great job.  We can talk about how the three managers elected this year overlooked the use of steroids on their team, and how players are penalized during this era when managers aren't...or not.   Personally, I think the Veterans Committee should be set up as a debate on players who have been off the ballot for a number of years...and the top vote getter gets in.  

But that's just me.  Besides those minor tweaks, I don't have a problem with the criteria for who gets to vote...or who gets in.  

Now if we could just deal with the PED issue...

2013 Hall of Fame Ballot

I'm wondering how each of you would vote, if you had one on this year's HOF ballot. Here's mine, but I should mention I prefer a higher standard for election:
1. Jeff Bagwell - although there are suspicions that he used steroids, he was never tainted with the Mitchell Report, there is nothing that proves otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, right? That's why I'd vote Mike Piazza in as well, though his back acne brings more questions.
2. Tim Raines - possibly the 2nd best leadoff hitter in the history of the game, he unfortunately played in the shadow of the best (Henderson), and plied his skills in Montreal before 24 hr sports channels and anyone recognized him as a great player. By the time he came south, injuries from playing on turf took away much of his speed, though he still wound up on base more than Tony Gwynn.
3. Barry Bonds - don't know if I'd vote him in on the first ballot because of his steroid use, but if I voided out the steroid-tainted yrs, he's still worthy.
4. Schilling - had a discussion with Joe about him...I think he's one of the six best starters of that era, along with P. Martinez, Maddux, Glavine, R. Johnson, and Clemens. Add in the fact that he may have been the best post-season pitcher in the history of the game (and an apology to Bob Gibson before he brushes me back with a pitch), I think he should get in.
5. Craig Biggio - 3000 hits, and Bill James viewed him as the second best 2nd basemen in the history of the game (behind J. Morgan).
Players I wouldn't vote in:
1. Roger Clemens: something happened to him when he went to Toronto. When he signed, he was widely considered washed up, yet suddenly he was reborn. He's his stats after his final season in Boston: 192-111, 3.06 ERA, 100 CGs, 2590 K's, an ERA 44% better than the league he played in. 5 All-star games, 3 Cy Youngs, 2 more top 3 finishes, an MVP. Okay, maybe he deserves to be in, but he's a dick.
2. Jack Morris - No way. His 3.90 ERA would be the highest in the HOF, and over a tenth higher than the next highest. He was a workman, and performed fantastically on the big stage...and may have pitched the greatest World Series game ever. I just don't think he's deserves it.
3. Lee Smith - No.
4. Alan Trammell - there's a lot of reasons to vote him in...but I just don't know. Please convince me.
5. Fred McGriff - didn't pass the eye ball test to me. Maybe his number just get overshadowed by the stats of the 90s.
6. Edgar Martinez - not a long enough career. I think a player needs to have career stats, as well as peak seasons.
7. Mark McGwire - without the steroids, he's a rich man's Dave Kingman.
8. Sammy Sosa - before steroids, he was a 30-30 guy who hit .257. So was Ron Gant.
9. Dale Murphy - short on career stats
10. Palmeiro - the "B12" shot did him in.
11. Larry Walker - his home/road splits are too great for me.
Any others?