This Year's HOF Ballot, Part 4

We're 2 days away from learning who makes Cooperstown.  My money is on Maddux and Biggio with no one else getting 75% of the vote.  I also think some major names (McGriff, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro) will be taken off the ballot because they don't reach the 5% threshold.

Kenny Rogers (1st):  219-156, 4.27 ERA 107 ERA+ 4 All-Star games, 1 Top 5 Cy Young finish, 51.1 WAR

The second best well-known Kenny Rogers, this Kenny will probably best remembered for having questionable material on his baseball cap during the World Series.  I still wonder how/why that was never challenged during the game.

Prediction:  No votes

Curt Schilling (2nd):  216-146, 3.46 ERA 127 ERA+ 6 All-Star games 2 2nd place Cy Young finishes, 1 other top 5 finish.

Curt got 38.8% of the votes his first time on the ballot.  He won't get as many this time since a couple  300 game winners have joined the ballot, but one might argue that he was as good as Glavine.  Glavine pitched for teams that were generally better, at least earlier in his career.  I remember a game I was at in 1997 when Schilling pitched against the Yankees.  The Yankees were great; the Phillies threatened the Mets' record for futility in the first half of the season (at 23-60 in the middle of the season, there were serious questions about whether they could win 40).  In early September, the Yankees visited Veterans Stadium...where the Phillies swept them.  No one could have predicted it, but Schilling set the tone Game 1 when he pitched 8 innings and struck out 16.  He was dominating, and he loved the center stage.

Needless to say, Philadelphia in the late 90s was NOT center stage.  He was probably the best pitcher in the league during those years, but he occasionally stayed in the game too long because the relief staff had blown a few wins for him, and out of frustration he asked for a trade.  Three World Series championships later, that reputation for performance in big moments was secured.

Some might question his length of production, but of either pitcher, I think Schilling did more to convince voters of his Cooperstown credentials in the post-season than one Jack Morris.  Morris was average in October, save the incredible Game 7 he threw for Minnesota (and horrific in 1992 for the Blue Jays).  Schilling was great in 2001, great in 2004, and did it again one last time before he retired.

Curt will get in...but not this year.

Prediction:  28%

Richie Sexson (1st):  .261 306-943  2 All-Star games, 17.9 WAR

I always wonder how some players wind up with a nickname...or name.  Did Richmond sound too official?  Was he always called "Richie"?  Don't some people outgrow certain names?  Does Richie still get called Richie if he's an insurance salesman instead of a ballplayer?  At what age is Richie not appropriate?

These are the things I think about when I have spare time.  Ugh.

Prediction:  0 votes

Lee Smith (12th):  47.8% of the vote last year.  71-92  3.03 ERA  478 saves, 7 All-Star games, 3 top 5 Cy Young finishes (top 2nd to Tom Glavine in 1991)

Smith's case is going to look weaker and weaker the further we get away from his career.  Just like the starting pitchers of the 70s and 80s win totals look better and better, I think most view Lee Smith's save totals as impressive (and they were) but he's already been passed by Rivera and Hoffman.  With the number of quality players appearing on the ballot over the next few years, Smith is going to have to wait for the Veterans Committee...and by then, Kimbrel, Nathan et. al. may have passed him.  More importantly, the newer voters are recognizing the limited value a one-inning pitcher actually has in a game.  I think Lee Smith is going to be waiting a while before he gets in...if he get in at all.

Prediction:  26%

J.T. Snow (1st):  .268 189-877 No All-Star appearance (but he did win 6 straight Gold Glove awards)

Baseball Reference calls Snow's career most similar to Dan Dreissen's.  I'm not sure I'd argue against that, though Snow was better defensively.

Prediction:  0 votes

Sammy Sosa (2nd):  12.5% last year.  .273 606-1667 234 SBs, 7 All-Star games, 1998 MVP (5 other top 10 finishes) 58.4 WAR

Sammy killed his chances for Cooperstown in Congress, though I'm not sure without steroids he would have had much of a chance anyway.  He was a free-swinging outfielder with a bit of speed whom I had on my fantasy team along with Luis Gonzalez.  I loved him - I could count on him for 20-20 or 30-30, and lived with his batting average.

His "peak" in the late 20s was great...but in his early 30s, he suddenly got astronomically better.  At age 32, he hit 160 RBIs, which is the highest in the National League since 1930, when they might as well have used a SuperBall:  Hack Wilson set the all-time record with 190, and Chuck Klein hit 170 to boot.  If he hadn't used, he probably would've hit 400 HRs, and maybe 1250 RBIs.  His OPS+ might be 120 rather than 128...and he may have gotten quite a bit of support for the Hall.

Not now.

Prediction:  less than 5%, off the ballot.

Frank Thomas (1st):  .301 521-1704.  2 time MVP (4 other top 5 finishes) 156 OPS+, 73.6 WAR

Forget Edgar Martinez; The Big Hurt should be the first DH in the Hall of Fame.  Quick story:  I've asked this question of a lot of my friends:  what were the 5 most significant historical sports events you've seen live?  Milestones, famous games, etc.

My list is horrible.  Number 1 by a mile is the 1994 Game 6 Conference Finals between the Devils and Rangers, also known as "Messier's guarantee".  I'm a huge Devils fan, and I had seats 1st row on the blue line.  We had a chance to close the Rangers out, and took an early 2-0 lead.  We could taste victory...but then Messier scored.

The crowd went nuts - even though the Devils were home, about two-thirds of the fans were Rangers fans, and we could feel the Devils lose their momentum.  Ritcher made some great saves, but Messier had a night to never be forgotten.  I was destroyed; I thought the Devils had no chance in Game 7, but Brodeur showed he had arrived by pushing the eventual champions to double overtime.

After that?  Can I count the Rutgers-U Mass men's basketball game that was cancelled at halftime due to the African-American protest at center court?  I might include Schilling's game against the Yankees above...or maybe Jayson Werth's walk-off HR against the Dodgers in 2009.  I've never seen a no-hitter; I haven't been to any memorable playoff games (does a Jets-Jaguars game count?).

Why this story?  Because in 2007, friends and I were touring the Midwest watching a bunch of baseball games at various stadiums.  When we arrived in Minneapolis for our last game on tour, they were playing the Toronto Blue Jays - and Frank Thomas was on 499 HRs.  I've never seen a milestone of such stature; I hoped.  And hoped.  And hoped.

It didn't happen.

Prediction:  65%

Mike Timlin (1st):  75-73 3.63, 6th place Rookie of the Year.

I got nothing.

Prediction:  0 votes

Alan Trammell (13th):  33.6%, .285  185-1003, 6 All-Star games, 4 Gold Gloves, runner-up in 1987 MVP (a complete rip-off, he should've won).  110 OPS+, 70.3 WAR

Trammell belongs in the Hall of Fame, unfortunately, he played in the same league as Cal Ripken, at the same time as Ozzie Smith, and when he retired, his numbers were quickly dwarfed by the Steroid Era and the trio of offensive shortstops who were playing in the AL:  A-Rod, Jeter and Garciaparra.  It's unfortunate that so many years of balloting happened while people were falling over themselves over the new powerful shortstops; Trammell was equal to that in his era.  (And for those who suggest those 3 played in the same era as Trammell, Trammell was in Detroit in 1977, when A-Rod was 1 year old).

If the revamped Veterans Committee ever starts voting players in again, rather than coaches and 19th century catchers who didn't wear a glove, Alan Trammell is the type of player they should look at, not those who received more support or were more famous.  For that matter, I'd love for them to look at his double-play partner Lou Whitaker as well.

We can dream.

Prediction:  25%

Larry Walker (4th):  21.6%  .313  383-1311 (230 SBs), 5 All-Star games, 7 Gold Gloves, 1997 MVP (1 other top 5 finish), 141 OPS+, 72.6 WAR.

While Walker will end up with much more support than Dale Murphy ever did, I'm not sure how much better Walker was, and within that context comes the eternal question, what makes a Hall of Famer?  Is it longevity and reaching certain benchmarks as a player (i.e., 300 wins, 500 HRs)?  Or is it those peak years where one can consider the player the best in the league, or maybe in baseball (i.e., Koufax, Rice)?

Due to injuries, Walker never achieved the benchmark totals, so he needed to be the best in the league.  For one year, he was...and he had 3 other great years.  But Walker got injured a lot, and he played in Colorado, which everyone discredits the hitters.  The difference between Murphy and Walker is that while Murphy's peak was better (2 MVPs, twice a runner up), he 9 years of his career he was considered equal to or worse than a replacement player.  His value is wrapped neatly into about 8 years, Walker's spread across almost his entire career (in only 2 years was Walker within 1 WAR of replacement level).

What's my point?  Look at the percentage of votes Murphy got, and look at what Walker is getting.  I think neither of them deserve the Hall (and it would seem the BBWAA feels the same way), but what if we combined Murphy's peak with Walker's injured-checkered but valuable length?   I might be off-base here, but in my opinion I think that would be a base-line Hall of Famer.

Prediction:  12%

To summarize:

Elected:  Biggio, Maddux

Eliminated from the ballot:  Alou, Benitez, Casey, Durham, Gagne, Gonzalez, J. Jones, T. Jones, LoDuca, Mattingly, McGwire, Nomo, Palmeiro, Rogers, Sexson, Snow, Sosa, Timlin

Most likely to get voted in next year:  Thomas, Glavine

This Year's HOF Ballot, Part 2

Tom Glavine (1st):  305 wins, 10 All-Star games, 2 Cy Young (with 4 other top 3 finishes), 118 ERA+...let's face it, the guy's a Hall of Famer.

Question:  How many Hall of Fame pitchers ever led the league in losses?  At age 22, Glavine went 7-17 with a 4.56 ERA...not a great start to a great career.  But the following the "worst-to-first" Braves improved across the board, with Glavine himself going 14-8 with an ERA almost a run lower.

Answer:  16 pitchers, including Phil Niekro who led the league in losses 4 straight years!

But will Glavine get in on the first ballot?  For that matter, how did the 300 game winners wind up in the Hall of Fame?

• Cy Young (2nd)
• Walter Johnson (1st)
• Pete Alexander (2nd)
• Christy Mathewson (1st)
• Pud Galvin (Old Timers' Committee)
• Warren Spahn (1st)
• Kid Nichols (OTC)
• Pud Galvin (OTC)
• Steve Carlton (1st)
• John Clarkson (OTC)
• Eddie Plank (on the ballot 5 times, in through OTC)
• Nolan Ryan (1st)
• Don Sutton (5th)
• Phil Niekro (5th)
• Gaylord Perry (3rd)
• Tom Seaver (1st)
• Old Hoss Radbourne (OTC)
• Mickey Welch (OTC)
• Lefty Grove (4th)
• Early Wynn (4th)

We can eliminate the 19th century pitchers, because the Hall of Fame wasn't around - those that received votes (i.e., Plank) were well behind the more recent players.  Since the previous generation's pitchers weren't going to get votes, a separate committee was set up to usher them into the Hall of Fame.  There was a lot of arguments that Sutton was a decent #3 starter who happened to stick around for a very long time, and Niekro was a knuckleball pitcher - the kind of pitcher who rarely gets recognition for their true value.  Grove was subjected to a different voting criteria, and there were so many players on the ballot they had to change the rules.

Sound familiar?

Prediction:   Glavine misses the cut.  Barely.

Luis Gonzalez (1st):  5-time All-Star, one 3rd place MVP finish, 2591 hits, .283 BA, 354 HR, 1439 RBIs.

Luis Gonzalez had one of the greatest "peculiar" seasons of all time.  In 1997 he went .325-57-142, career highs for all of them (26 HRs, 28 RBIs higher)...and it was done at age 33.  I loved the guy when he first came up with the Astros - I had him on my fantasy team, and I could count on him for double digit HRs and steals, and I won two championships with him.  But 57-142?  Never.

Prediction:  Under 10 votes.

Jacque Jones (1st):   11.5 WAR (career), .277 165-630  (OPS+ 98, which means he was 2% worse than the average player)  I wonder how some of these players wind up on the ballot - actually, someone on the Hall of Fame Committee has to nominate them, and they player has to be seconded.  I'd like to meet the two men who felt the necessity to include Mr. Jones.

Prediction:  No votes

Todd Jones (1st):  319 Saves, 1 All-Star Game, 1 5th place - Cy Young.  Started one game in his career, on June 7th, 2003 Jones started the second game of a doubleheader against the Royals.  He wasn't good:  he made it 4 1/3 innings, but gave up 9 hits and 5 runs and took the loss.  As if this wasn't a useless stat, Jones threw 67 pitches:  51 were strikes.

 Probably best remembered for his great facial hair.

Prediction:  No votes.

Jeff Kent (1st):  .290 377-1518, 5 All-Star games, 2000 MVP, three other top 10 finishes.  123 OPS+, 55.2 WAR

One of the best hitting second basemen in the history of the game (Hornsby comes to mind), Kent was also one of the more difficult personalities.  It is no surprise that he and Barry Bonds didn't get along, nor was it a surprise that he left the Giants and went to the Dodgers.  I know in this day and age more players move between the two teams, but I'm still shocked when a player moves between the Yankees and Red Sox (I'm looking at you, Jacob Ellsbury and Johnny Damon) and the Giants and Dodgers.  I can't think of any other two teams with that same level of intensity and dislike for each other (maybe if the Cubs were better it would be with the Cardinals), but they're the top 2.

In a perfect world for Jeff Kent's bid to join Cooperstown, he would appear on the ballot, earn between 40-50%, then wait a few years until a weak class come along and the writers were looking for somebody, ANYBODY to vote for.  Unfortunately, the next week class won't come along until next decade.  By then, Kent's numbers will look even better and I think he'll get in around the 10th or 12th year on the ballot.  Over the next three years, however, Kent will be much closer to being left off the ballot than 50%, let alone 75%.

Prediction:  11%

Paul Lo Duca (1st):  .286 80-481, OPS+ 97, 4 All-Star games, 17.9 WAR

Lo Duca had one solid year - at age 29, he hit .320 25-90.  Most batters peak around age 27, but catcher develop late and the Dodgers had Todd Hundley.  By the time Lo Duca got his chance, he was on the downward side.  He never hit more than 13 HRs again.

Prediction:  No votes

 Greg Maddux (1st):  355-227 3.16 ERA 8 All-Star games, 4 Cy Youngs (5 Top 5 finishes), 18 Gold Gloves.  ERA+ 132

Maddux should get in for this commercial alone:



My favorite story about Maddux is from the end of his career, when he was warming up in the Padres bullpen and threw to the bullpen catcher (Ben Risinger) while he had his eyes closed.  The bullpen coach would yell to Risinger to snap his glove closed.

Maddux hit the glove a few times before they got their timing right...and caught the ball.

In a perfect world, Maddux would sail into the Hall unanimously.  There's no way in hell the bespectacled professor did PEDs, and his career had a very normal arc of progression.  But some won't want him to be unanimous, some writers don't think anyone should be a first ballot HOFer, and others don't want to vote anyone in from this era anyway.  I still think he cracks 90%.

Prediction:  Over 90%, elected.

Edgar Martinez (5th, 35.9%):   I've written at length about Martinez in the past, so I won't go into detail here.  Just keep in mind - I'm a "small Hall" person.  I wouldn't have put Blyleven in, I wouldn't have voted for Rice, and even Don Sutton (the ultimate compiler) wouldn't crack my personal Hall of Fame.

Prediction:  20%

Don Mattingly (14th, 13.2%):  Like Morris, this is Mattingly's last go around on the ballot.  Unlike Morris, Donnie Baseball has never gotten close to making the Hall.  His best two years on the ballot were his first two (28%, then 20%), and then his numbers got swallowed up on the Steroid Era (am I allowed to capitalize it, like the "Deadball Era" and "The Year of the Pitcher"?).  His back did him in, and while inclusive voters might add him to their ballot, a friend of mine once said it best - "The Hall of Fame is best defined not by who is in the Hall, but by who is not.  It's what makes a person think, 'THAT person didn't make it?"

Mattingly is not the best of the rest, but he was a hell of a ballplayer...just not good enough for the Hall.

Prediction:  Since it's his last year, and this year's ballot is loaded, I think those who have supported him in the past are likely to skip past his name this year and hope he gets elected down the road by the Veterans Committee.  Under 5%, maybe under 3.

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...