Hall of Fame Ballot: 2019 Induction

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
I’d rather Mariano become the first before Hopes and Dreams is eligible. I really don’t want to see the media gushing about Jeter being the first unanimous selection.

Good point.

Looking downstream, who projects as the next guy after Jeter who could conceivably be unanimous? Pujols? Trout?
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
Good point.

Looking downstream, who projects as the next guy after Jeter who could conceivably be unanimous? Pujols? Trout?
Bad back end overpaid DH too big probably used steroids lied about his age.

If mays wasn’t unanimous, why should trout be?

I don’t agree with these opinions. I also would bet against any given player being unanimous.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,879
Boston, MA
Bad back end overpaid DH too big probably used steroids lied about his age.

If mays wasn’t unanimous, why should trout be?

I don’t agree with these opinions. I also would bet against any given player being unanimous.
There's a strategic angle to it, too. If someone believes there are more than 10 deserving candidates in a year, they will vote for the borderline ones over the sure things so they won't drop off the ballot.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,588
Panama
HI! I want people to know who I am because I am a dumbass looking for attention.

The class he showed tipping his cap at the 2014 WS celebration cemented my respect for him.
2005 but yeah, he did.

The guy was simply amazing as a closer and as a person.

And I do hope he is the first unanimous selection. But that being said: Mays really wasn't unanimous? Griffey? Ted Williams?
 

Tokyo Sox

Baka Gaijin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 16, 2006
6,134
There
I wouldn’t blame you for not reading that entire shitty article at all, but I somehow did. He’s not sending a ballot so it doesn’t matter who he would vote for. But my god that was terrible.
Per the article though (if I’m reading it correctly), an unsubmitted ballot counts as a no vote for all eligible candidates, so Rivera will officially not be the first unanimous candidate.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,870
ct
Per the article though (if I’m reading it correctly), an unsubmitted ballot counts as a no vote for all eligible candidates, so Rivera will officially not be the first unanimous candidate.
Nope you read it wrong. An unsubmitted ballot does not count against any player. Now if Bill Ballou had returned an empty ballot, then that ballot would count against all the candidates and Rivera would have lost the opportunity to be unanimous.
Think of it this way. Suppose you requested an absentee ballot before the past election. For whatever reason, you forget to return the ballot and do not vote at all. Your lack of voting would not effect the voting totals or percentages of any candidate. Same as in this case.
 

Tokyo Sox

Baka Gaijin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 16, 2006
6,134
There
Nope you read it wrong. An unsubmitted ballot does not count against any player. Now if Bill Ballou had returned an empty ballot, then that ballot would count against all the candidates and Rivera would have lost the opportunity to be unanimous.
Just did some more googling and you are correct. Thanks for the correction.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
We were due some questionable ballots





From Paul Daugherty's article about his ballot last year:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/blogs/daugherty-blog/2018/01/23/docs-mlb-hall-fame-ballot-have-him/1057419001/

I have a very hard time voting for closers, because the save rule is far too generous. Entering a game to start the 9th inning with a 3-run lead and no one on base is not my idea of a tough gig. Tighten the requirements and I’ll change my mind.
I will not vote for Curt Schilling because he made his fame in the postseason. Not every deserving HOFer gets to the postseason. To keep the playing field level, I try not to take October into consideration. Schilling won 216 games in 20 years. His 162-game average record was 15-10. That’s a HOFer? Jack Morris won 254 in 18 seasons and needed the Modern Era committee to tap him last November.
Who’d I vote for this time? Chipper Jones, Jim Thome and Vlad Guerrero. Sharpen your pitchforks, experts.
So he votes for Rivera, a closer whose case is largely built on the postseason, and Halladay, who has 203 wins and a 17-9 162-game average record.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
In his penultimate year on the ballot, Larry Walker looks like a big gainer in the voting - probably won't finish as high as he currently is on the tracker (67.5% as of this morning), but notable nonetheless.

McGriff strikes me as a likely beneficiary of the new era-committee system, and I doubt there will be much outrage over that choice if it comes to pass.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,851
"When the game was on the line in the eighth or ninth inning, and you can pick somebody to you wanted up, it was Harold Baines."
Career OPS: .820
Career 8th inning: .834
Career 9th inning: .822
Career late and close: .834


I mean, okay Jerry. He was a fair hitter overall, and a fair hitter in those situations.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
From Paul Daugherty's article about his ballot last year:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/blogs/daugherty-blog/2018/01/23/docs-mlb-hall-fame-ballot-have-him/1057419001/

So he votes for Rivera, a closer whose case is largely built on the postseason, and Halladay, who has 203 wins and a 17-9 162-game average record.
I'm not questioning your stance on Mr. Daugherty, but the case for Mariano Rivera is not "largely built on the postseason." It's built on the fact that he is the most dominant closer ever and second place is not close.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
Looking at the Tracker, seems like the induction is going to be Halladay, Edgar and Mo. Maybe Moose.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
I'm not questioning your stance on Mr. Daugherty, but the case for Mariano Rivera is not "largely built on the postseason." It's built on the fact that he is the most dominant closer ever and second place is not close.
His previous quote was against ALL closers, plus his anti schilling quote was about the postseason, seeming to close off all avenues to Rivera.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
From Paul Daugherty's article about his ballot last year:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/blogs/daugherty-blog/2018/01/23/docs-mlb-hall-fame-ballot-have-him/1057419001/







So he votes for Rivera, a closer whose case is largely built on the postseason, and Halladay, who has 203 wins and a 17-9 162-game average record.
I’m not sure one can say Rivera’s case is ‘largely built on the postseason’. It certainly helps, but the guy was probably the best reliever we’ve ever seen. With basically one pitch.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm not questioning your stance on Mr. Daugherty, but the case for Mariano Rivera is not "largely built on the postseason." It's built on the fact that he is the most dominant closer ever and second place is not close.
Isn't it closer to the truth to say that the case for Rivera is his durability and longevity at a position where very few guys show those attributes? All throughout his career there were guys who had better seasons for a year or two but none (except Trevor Hoffman) who kept going at that elite level year after year.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
I would vote for Rivera. But the case against him would be a blanket refusal to vote for any relief pitchers at all because they are almost always (and Rivera fits this description) failed starters.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I would vote for Rivera. But the case against him would be a blanket refusal to vote for any relief pitchers at all because they are almost always (and Rivera fits this description) failed starters.
I wonder if the continued erosion of starting pitcher innings will reduce this stigma going forward? If a closer pitches 65 mostly high leverage innings a year, and starters increasingly are throwing 180-190 instead of 220-240, then the case against relief pitchers is weakened. I wonder who will become the first post-LaRussa relief ace to get significant support?
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Just an update from the HOF Ballot Tracker, now that they're up to 134 ballots (33.3% of the now-reduced total ballots outstanding):

Name (current %, Year on Ballot, +/- among public returning voters, 2018 final diff% between public vote and actual result):
Mariano Rivera (100%, 1st, n/a, n/a)
Roy Halladay (94.9%, 1st, n/a, n/a)
Edgar Martinez (91.2%, 10th, +12, -6.9%)
Mike Mussina (83.2%, 6th, +12, -6.5%)
--- cutoff assuming 2018 diff% ---
Roger Clemens (75.2%, 7th, +2, -7.1%)
Barry Bonds (74.5%, 7th, +2, -8.0%)
Curt Schilling (73.0%, 7th, +8, -9.1%)
Larry Walker (65.7%, 9th, +26, -4.4%)
---
Omar Vizquel (36.5%, 2nd, +14, +3.4%)
Fred McGriff (34.3%, 10th, +22, +3.0%)
Manny Ramirez (27.7%, 3rd, -2, -0.3%)
---
(and then Helton, Rolen, Wagner, Sosa, Sheffield and Kent, all between 10-20% who seem likely to hang on for another year)

McGriff appears to have run out of time despite a last-minute surge, while Edgar's last-minute surge has apparently worked, and Vizquel's stats-backlash surge is only beginning. Walker's surge continues, and probably won't work this year, but may next year in his final chance. (note: Vizquel is one of only three to get a boost from private ballots last year, McGriff and A. Jones the others)

Bonds/Clemens analysis:
The year-over-year net gain/loss trend for Bonds and Clemens is interesting. In 2015, their final totals stood at 36.8% and 37.5% respectively. Since then, just among returning public votes, the trend has gone:

2016: +14/+14 (44.3% / 45.2% final results)
2017: +27/+27 (53.8% / 54.1%)
2018: +1/+3 (56.4% / 57.3%)
2019: +2/+2 (public: 74.5% / 75.2% minus 2018 diff -8.0% / -7.1%)

So on the one hand, it seems their momentum has slowed, and they've largely won over the set of people who could be won over as of 2017. There hasn't been much new persuasion happening the last two years. On the other hand, that's only among returning public ballots. If instead you look at the trend of their public-minus-actual differentials (i.e., how much they've been dragged down by the cranks, to oversimplify), it has gone:

2015: -7.3% / -6.1%
2016: -6.9% / -5.5%
2017: -10.5% / -9.0% (the year of the big +/- surge)
2018: -8.0% / -7.1%

So if the public voters started reconsidering their position in 2016-17, it really wasn't mirrored by the private votes in 2017, but in 2018 more of the private voters were themselves persuaded. I think that's reason for optimism that the private voters are just coming around more slowly, but there is still room for more of them to reconsider over the next few years (plus more of the older ones dying / losing the ballot).

How about first-time voters? As the voter roll turns over, are Bonds and Clemens benefitting? Among public ballots by first-time voters, they got:

2015: 54.5% / 54.5% (6/11)
2016: 50.0% / 50.0% (5/10)
2017: 86.7% / 86.7% (13/15)
2018: 84.6% / 92.3% (11/13 and 12/13)
2019: 85.7% / 85.7% (6/7 so far)

So they didn't win many new fans those first few years, but once the public sentiment turned in 2016/17, new voters followed that trend.

Let's also remember: last year, at 56.4% and 57.3%, they missed enshrinement by 79 and 75 votes respectively, which is a lot. There may not be sufficient remaining room for the returning public voters to be persuaded. But if trends continue, the new voters and private ballots may make up enough of the difference to enshrine them - maybe not in 2019 or even 2020, but perhaps in Bonds and Clemens' final two years.
 
Last edited:

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Yep. I don't see what difference it makes at the end of the day. It doesn't matter where you start, it's where you finish. There's quite literally no case to NOT vote for him. Even though it pains me to say it about a Yankee...
Sure there's a case. It starts and finishes with the notion that closers have too much of a bit role to really have the volume of contribution necessary for consideration as one of the all-time greats. It thinks of relievers the way most think of utility infielders - if they were better at their job (be it pitching or hitting), they'd be doing it full-time with a full workload. It's the same way of thinking that has viewed DHs as less-than-full contributors, and therefore not deserving of equal evaluation when considering a HOF vote.

I don't personally find it persuasive, but it's not delusional. I mean, most of us would probably agree that the bar is higher for relievers than for starters, and if we articulated the reasons why it might sound not dissimilar. For me, Rivera clears that higher bar (and easily, especially if you weight the "fame" part of "hall of fame"), but I'm not sure how many other relievers would.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,386
Given what just happened with Baines, isn't McGriff getting in via the Veterans' Committee basically a lock at this point if he doesn't get voted in. Or do we think McGriff was a lesser player than the great Harold Baines?
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
Given what just happened with Baines, isn't McGriff getting in via the Veterans' Committee basically a lock at this point if he doesn't get voted in. Or do we think McGriff was a lesser player than the great Harold Baines?
Depends if Mcgriff has a bunch of buddies on the committee to vote for him by then. He was better than Baines, but I'm not sure that standard matters because Baines wasn't even the best hitter on his own committee ballot, but had the fortune to have plenty of friends that didn't care about that.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Sure there's a case. It starts and finishes with the notion that closers have too much of a bit role to really have the volume of contribution necessary for consideration as one of the all-time greats. It thinks of relievers the way most think of utility infielders - if they were better at their job (be it pitching or hitting), they'd be doing it full-time with a full workload. It's the same way of thinking that has viewed DHs as less-than-full contributors, and therefore not deserving of equal evaluation when considering a HOF vote.

I don't personally find it persuasive, but it's not delusional. I mean, most of us would probably agree that the bar is higher for relievers than for starters, and if we articulated the reasons why it might sound not dissimilar. For me, Rivera clears that higher bar (and easily, especially if you weight the "fame" part of "hall of fame"), but I'm not sure how many other relievers would.
Ok, sure, there’s a case one could try to make. But it’s a shitty one. Just like the DH argument you cited. Which hopefully ends this year with Edgar getting in. I think the utility infielder comparison isn’t particularly valid as a lot of relievers are now groomed for it, as opposed to being failed starters.

Rivera has the 5th highest WPA since 1914 of all pitchers, starter or reliever. So I’ll rephrase and say there’s no valid case. You could make a case the sun is going to turn into a bran muffin tomorrow if you wanted to, it doesn’t make it worth listening to. Saying he shouldn’t be in because he had a specialized role is like saying Vinatieri shouldn’t go in because he failed as a running back.

As to other relievers, I’d put Billy Wagner in as well.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
I would say any argument that attempts to exclude Mariano Rivera from the HoF is, by definition, delusional.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
This is the average leverage index >= 1.6 for all pitchers with at least 100 games and not more than 10 starts (starts will lower the aLI). Mariano Rivera ranks (10th) just ahead of Lee Smith and Craig Kimbrel. from bb-ref's Play Index. Billy Wagner is 19th out of 51, just behind Jonathan Papelbon.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/tiny/2fAY6
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
155 ballots now, and Moose is still at 82%... it's going to be close.
 

BigMike

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2000
23,244
I would say any argument that attempts to exclude Mariano Rivera from the HoF is, by definition, delusional.
True.

A Steroids Ballot. Basically someone that votes for Clemens and Bonds, and says quite simply they are 2 of the absolute best of the best players in the history of the game, and you won't vote for anyone else until those 2 are allowed in. Honestly I could accept that as a protest ballot. Maybe you put a Manny or perhaps some others. But I honestly could not complain if a voter took that stand. Honestly if I had a ballot that might be my ballot
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,260
Seacoast NH
Up to 185 ballots now, 45% of the assumed total. Looks like Mariano, Halladay and Edgar should be getting in. Mussina is a bubble candidate if you use last year's drop off from prelim results and actual total which was -6.5%. Schilling, Clemens and Bonds will probably settle somewhere in the 60's.

Top gainers for returning players: Walker +38, McGriff +35, Edgar +17, Mussina and Vizquel +16, Rolen +15 and Schilling +14.

Public Ballots: 180
Anonymous Ballots: 5
% of Ballots Known: 44.9%
"Last Updated:
1/18/2019 at 05:35 PST"
Mariano Rivera 100.0%
Roy Halladay 94.1%
Edgar Martinez 90.8%
Mike Mussina 82.2%
Curt Schilling 74.1%
Roger Clemens 73.5%
Barry Bonds 73.0%
Larry Walker 67.0%
Omar Vizquel 37.3%
Fred McGriff 37.3%
Manny Ramirez 26.5%
Scott Rolen 20.5%
Todd Helton 20.0%
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Schilling's high number surprises me.

But I guess we know more about "journalists" these days than we once did.

Well, if you’re going to let brazen, long-term cheaters like Clemens and Bonds into the Hall, then I can’t see the point in even having a character clause.

I know some people say that we should give Bonds and Clemens credit for the stats they put up “before they started using.” My response to that is, “Why should I assume they were ever clean at all?” Steroids existed for their entire careers, maybe they used them their entire careers.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,458
Well, if you’re going to let brazen, long-term cheaters like Clemens and Bonds into the Hall, then I can’t see the point in even having a character clause.

I know some people say that we should give Bonds and Clemens credit for the stats they put up “before they started using.” My response to that is, “Why should I assume they were ever clean at all?” Steroids existed for their entire careers, maybe they used them their entire careers.
What are we using as the baseline for “clean”? Are you including greenies/amphetamines?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
What are we using as the baseline for “clean”? Are you including greenies/amphetamines?
No. Steroids are a special class of evil with long range health effects far outstripping those of stimulants as far as I’m concerned.

It’s not an accident that so many athletes from that era are dying young.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,458
No. Steroids are a special class of evil with long range health effects far outstripping those of stimulants as far as I’m concerned.

It’s not an accident that so many athletes from that era are dying young.
It’s just never made sense to me why one is considered more or less ok and the other unforgivable. Both were controlled substances during much of the period in question. I’d argue that there’s much more negative societal impacts from amphetamines(immediate overdose deaths/organized crime etc) than steroids.