Relievers, DHs and the Hall

TheYaz67 · Jan 7, 2015

Yeah, I am curious as to why alot of folks seem to think Hoffman and his career 28 WAR (b-ref) is an first ballot guy next year. Given where Lee Smith finds himself after all his years on the ballot, I kind of think Hoffman maybe only gets somewhere in the 50-60% range on the first ballot, if that. I mean, he pitched only 1,089 innings in an 18 year career, which is basically about 5 years worth of work for a starter - you would never put a starter in the HOF based on only a 5 year career (they not would even be eligible obviously). In 18 seasons, only 3 had a WAR above 3, and another 3 years he topped 2 WAR.

I know these are "higher leverage" innings/situations, but between people understanding/using WAR more these days, and the fact that people understand that the "save" is a rather useless/bogus statistic I would not vote for Hoffman (or any other closer) - unfortunately for Hoffman, his gaudy save total is one of his "biggest selling points" for his candidacy (his FIP is higher than his career ERA, which perhaps hurts him).

I think as a closer unless you have something that truly sets you apart, like Rivera's incredible postseason numbers & success (which Hoffman did not have admittedly b/c he played on lousy teams motsly), it is going to be hard to find 75% support among the writers these days....

moondog80 · Jan 7, 2015

grimshaw said:
I thought I'd throw this topic into its own thread with Hoffman coming up and Edgar Martinez well short of election.

Do you follow the line of reasoning that the best of the best players at their respective positions should get in?
Or do you prefer players that have the most impact value, relative to all others regardless of position?
Or something else?

WAR has been the recent shortcut to measure a players value and has also been a great measure to predict who will get in. There are 59 positional players with a career WAR of 70 or above, and a very high percentage are also mid-50's and above. Aside from 5-6 current/retired players awaiting certain enshrinement, Pete Rose and Rafael Palmeiro, all modern players are in.

If you don't play a position, you are penalized defensively (rightfully so IMO) making reaching that number on your bat alone nearly impossible. Edgar Martinez still managed to put up 5-7 WAR 9(!) times in his career and ended up with an wRC+ of 147, good for 34th all time. 5 of those players ahead of him are active but haven't entered their decline phase yet. He isn't in. Ortiz isn't touching those numbers and is 20 WAR and 10 points back in wRC+ What do DH's have to do?

What about relievers? If Bruce Sutter and his 2 great seasons gets him in, what does that mean for future relievers? Can you reverse the trend of saves being a measurement? What about set up guys? Aren't these pitchers simply failed starters who carved out the 2nd best gig they could find?

I just realized I was really just pissed that Edgar Martinez isn't in the hall and Trevor Hoffman could very well be in before him, but go ahead and contribute your opinions.

Well, Sutter was a pretty bad choice, but fortunately I don't think he'll be used as leverage to get other relievers in. Which is good because there must be at least 30 closers with better credentials most of whom will never sniff the hall. The logic for Sutter was that he was something of a pioneer of the closer role and/or splitter.

Leather · Jan 7, 2015

Re: Hoffman, he's a first ballot HOFer only if you accept the premise that closers should be judged solely against other closers. I reject that premise, because ultimately closers simply aren't as valuable as starters or every day players.

I am quite certain I am not alone, both among the Old Guard HOF voters that never elected Lee Smith, and also the newer sabr folks that can recognize that Hoffman's career value just doesn't equal that of most HOFers.

I do think Hoffman will eventually get in, but not until his 5th or 6th year on the ballot.

Saints Rest · Jan 7, 2015

Closers and, to a lesser extent, DH's, are kind of like kickers and punters in the NFL, vis a vis the HOF: their overall value in aggregate compared to others tends to pale, but their high-leverage value can mitigate that a bit. Another similarity is that if you feel that the best players at a given position should be in the HOL, then you need to consider them in that vein.

If a sport is going to have a position as part of its rules (e.g. DH or kicker) than there probably SHOULD be a spot for the very best at that position in the Hall. But that makes a better argument, in my mind, for a DH like Edgar (or Papi some years down the line), than it does for a closer -- after all, a closer is just a specialized pitcher, there's nothing in the rules requiring a team to use a "closer."

THus, for me:
Edgar -- yes
Hoffman -- no

In the future:
Rivera -- yes
Papi -- yes.

I think sometimes we forget that it is called a Hall of FAME, not a Hall of Excellence, so I do think that FAME should play a role.

Yaz4Ever · Jan 7, 2015

Rudy Pemberton said:
I posted this in another thread, but I think it fits here.

Including the playoffs, Hoffman pitched 1102 innings. That seems remarkably low, even for a reliever. It's less innings than Matt Garza has thrown in his career, for example. Hoffman is going to be a great test case and how much voters value saves. He had a ton of them, the overwhelming majority of them being of the 3 out variety. With no post season success to help his cause, does Hoffman deserve to make it? Is this a reasonable place to discuss....it seems like he will be a polarizing case.

I recall Hoffman being lights out, just an excellent closer. That said, he was a 3 out guy as Rudy points out and has no track record of postseason excellence.

Mariano Rivera is a first-ballot, unanimous choice, imho. Hoffman is not Rivera. He might get in, but I'd be shocked if it's before the Veterans Committee puts him in.

Saints Rest said:
Closers and, to a lesser extent, DH's, are kind of like kickers and punters in the NFL, vis a vis the HOF: their overall value in aggregate compared to others tends to pale, but their high-leverage value can mitigate that a bit. Another similarity is that if you feel that the best players at a given position should be in the HOL, then you need to consider them in that vein.

If a sport is going to have a position as part of its rules (e.g. DH or kicker) than there probably SHOULD be a spot for the very best at that position in the Hall. But that makes a better argument, in my mind, for a DH like Edgar (or Papi some years down the line), than it does for a closer -- after all, a closer is just a specialized pitcher, there's nothing in the rules requiring a team to use a "closer."

THus, for me:
Edgar -- yes
Hoffman -- no

In the future:
Rivera -- yes
Papi -- yes.

I think sometimes we forget that it is called a Hall of FAME, not a Hall of Excellence, so I do think that FAME should play a role.

Edgar Martinez is definitely deserving and I've often opined that his exclusion would weaken the case for Papi. Papi simply continues to impress, though, and is much beloved by many in large markets (unlike a small market like Seattle), so I think he'll get in regardless of what happens with Edgar. They both belong in there, though. Edgar was the first HOF caliber DH, imho. Other than Papi, I can't think of anyone in his class.

JoePoulson · Jan 7, 2015

Yaz4Ever said:
I recall Hoffman being lights out, just an excellent closer. That said, he was a 3 out guy as Rudy points out and has no track record of postseason excellence.

I recall Hoffman shitting the bed in every high-leverage situation I saw him in. He was able to rack up the saves during the regular season, but when it mattered most, I saw him get crushed almost every time.

Leather · Jan 7, 2015

Is Joe Nathan a Hall of Famer?

That's laughable, right?

Well, Nathan has pitched only about 150 innings fewer than Hoffman, and has an ERA+ of 150 to Hoffman's 141. Nathan's W-L record is 62-34; Hoffman's 61-75. Nathan has been in 6 ASGs; Hoffman 7. Nathan finished Top 5 in Cy Young voting twice; Hoffman 3 times.

Hoffman had a better career, but it really opens the door to a lot of guys being considered that have no business sniffing the hall.

Max Power · Jan 7, 2015

TheYaz67 said:
I know these are "higher leverage" innings/situations, but between people understanding/using WAR more these days, and the fact that people understand that the "save" is a rather useless/bogus statistic I would not vote for Hoffman (or any other closer) - unfortunately for Hoffman, his gaudy save total is one of his "biggest selling points" for his candidacy (his FIP is higher than his career ERA, which perhaps hurts him).

Isn't that why WPA was invented?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/wpa_def_career.shtml

By WPA, Hoffman is the 18th best of the last 40 years. That puts his positive contributions to winning games right around Schilling and Glavine, but with zero postseason success on his resume. I wouldn't vote for him, but he'd be a much better selection than Sutter.

EricFeczko · Jan 7, 2015

As others have noted, Hoffman is a great test for how well other relivers would be let in, but he's hardly deserving, even with respect to relivers, IMHO.

If you judge relievers relative to other positions, then the only reliever who should even receive consideration is rivera (~40 fWAR).

If you judge relievers relative to themselves, than hoffmann is still borderline at best. Rivera had 2.06 ERA for his career. Compared to other relievers (min 1000 IP) he's first in ERA, with the second best about 0.5 earned runs ahead of him. Hoffman is 10/41, so he's been better than 75 percent of relivers with 1000 IP, but he's not in the top 5 percent. Once you include all relievers with 100 IP, Rivera is still 3rd out of about 2000; Hoffman is 122nd, so in the top 10 percent, but not the 5. Using FIP puts hoffman in a slightly better light; he's ~80th out of 2000.

Saints Rest said:
I think sometimes we forget that it is called a Hall of FAME, not a Hall of Excellence, so I do think that FAME should play a role.

In the long run, the Hall of Fame is causal and not a result. In other words, getting into the hall of fame increases a player/manager/coach/owner's fame. I think we should recognize guys who have had excellent careers because such recognition will enrich the culture of baseball and therefore nurture the knowledge/thought process of new/young fans to the game.

Merkle's Boner · Jan 7, 2015

drleather2001 said:
Is Joe Nathan a Hall of Famer?

That's laughable, right?

Well, Nathan has pitched only about 150 innings fewer than Hoffman, and has an ERA+ of 150 to Hoffman's 141. Nathan's W-L record is 62-34; Hoffman's 61-75. Nathan has been in 6 ASGs; Hoffman 7. Nathan finished Top 5 in Cy Young voting twice; Hoffman 3 times.

Hoffman had a better career, but it really opens the door to a lot of guys being considered that have no business sniffing the hall.

Along the same lines, I would prefer Billy Wagner get some serious consideration. He was the first guy I remember regularly bringing it at 100 mph and struck me as a much more "filthy" guy. I realize that is hard to characterize, but it speaks to the general difficulty of judging relievers.

GreenMonster49 · Jan 7, 2015

The other reliever with about 40 WAR is Hoyt Wilhelm (50.1 bWAR in 52 starts and 1018 relief appearances--7.6 of the bWAR came in 1959, when he made 27 starts and 5 relief appearances). Wilhelm's career goes to show how hard it is for relievers to put up WAR totals: he had over 1000 appearances as a reliever, averaging over 1.8 innings with a 147 ERA+, and still had only 42 or so WAR as a reliever.

TheYaz67 · Jan 7, 2015

Max Power said:
Isn't that why WPA was invented?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/wpa_def_career.shtml

By WPA, Hoffman is the 18th best of the last 40 years. That puts his positive contributions to winning games right around Schilling and Glavine, but with zero postseason success on his resume. I wouldn't vote for him, but he'd be a much better selection than Sutter.

Yes, but at the same time WPA is not really a good "all time" measurement due to the lack of older retrosheet data, so Walter Johnson and some fairly other good pitchers are missing from any list of "best WPA for pitchers", which would push Hoffman further down such lists. That and being the "9th inning only guy, in mostly just 1 or 2 run games" is a sure fire way of jacking up one's WPA in ways that guys that pitch the 7th/8th and/or in games with bigger leads (lower leverage) can never accomplish despite how well they pitch as measured by FIP, WHIP etc....

I also want to just note that this was a good topic for a thread and a very nice lead off post by grimshaw to get it started....

Savin Hillbilly · Jan 7, 2015

Saints Rest said:
Closers and, to a lesser extent, DH's, are kind of like kickers and punters in the NFL, vis a vis the HOF: their overall value in aggregate compared to others tends to pale, but their high-leverage value can mitigate that a bit.

I don't get how DHs can be considered to have any edge in "high-leverage value". As hitters, DHs are situationally indistinguishable from position players. There's no reason why they're any more or less likely to perform in high-lev situations. (Relievers, of course, are very much another matter.)

I realize you said "to a lesser extent," but the extent here is really zero, isn't it?

If a sport is going to have a position as part of its rules (e.g. DH or kicker) than there probably SHOULD be a spot for the very best at that position in the Hall. But that makes a better argument, in my mind, for a DH like Edgar (or Papi some years down the line), than it does for a closer -- after all, a closer is just a specialized pitcher, there's nothing in the rules requiring a team to use a "closer."

While "closers" per se may not merit this treatment, I think relievers in general do. Regardless of whether the rules require them or not, for the majority of big league history teams have been unable to do without them, and they can't, by the nature of their role, rack up the kind of counting stats that starters do. In fact I think elite relievers (which, where recent pitchers are concerned, = closers) have a better case for "reserved seating" in the Hall than DHs do.

I think sometimes we forget that it is called a Hall of FAME, not a Hall of Excellence, so I do think that FAME should play a role.

I agree, and I think that's the essence of the case for Papi--and also the reason why I think he might deserve to go in ahead of Martinez even though the latter was the better player by any reasonable measure.

Saints Rest · Jan 8, 2015

My reference to leverage mitigation was referring to closers and kickers, not to DHs and punters. Sorry that I was not clear there.

Kliq · Jan 8, 2015

One argument I have always thought about for DH's is this question: Would their HOF chances be better if they were simply a bad defensive player for their career, as opposed to not playing defense at all?

The DH came along in the 70s, but there were tons of players before that that were fearsome hitters and below average defenders. I compared David Ortiz with noted leadfoot and HOF player Johnny Mize. Mize was a BAD defender, never posting a season of dWAR above 0.0. His career stats compare similar to Ortiz's. Papi is going to finish up with much higher counting stats than Mize, but that really is only because Mize missed three seasons of his prime due to the War. Mize started off to a better start, Ortiz has put together a better second half of his career. Mize's advanced hitting stats are a tad more gory than Ortiz's, but when you add in Ortiz's iconic status and post-seaon heroics, I feel like Papi should get in.

http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=745&position=DH&page=2&players=1009014

Hoffman didn't have the most electric career, but he might get in because of his longevity. Plenty of closers can have 2-3 really good years, but only a handful have had a dozen or more. If you look at the seasons leaders for saves, the totals are comparable to home runs. The league leader might have 45-50 a year. But if you look at the total of career saves, there are only 5 pitchers all time with 400+ saves. Since Hoffman's rookie year in 1993, there have been 14 guys with at least 400 home runs. And Hoffman doesn't have just 400 saves, he has 601. Rivera is ahead of him, but the next closest guy is 123 saves behind him. I think he deserves to get in.

coremiller · Jan 8, 2015

Kliq said:
One argument I have always thought about for DH's is this question: Would their HOF chances be better if they were simply a bad defensive player for their career, as opposed to not playing defense at all?

The DH came along in the 70s, but there were tons of players before that that were fearsome hitters and below average defenders. I compared David Ortiz with noted leadfoot and HOF player Johnny Mize. Mize was a BAD defender, never posting a season of dWAR above 0.0. His career stats compare similar to Ortiz's. Papi is going to finish up with much higher counting stats than Mize, but that really is only because Mize missed three seasons of his prime due to the War. Mize started off to a better start, Ortiz has put together a better second half of his career. Mize's advanced hitting stats are a tad more gory than Ortiz's, but when you add in Ortiz's iconic status and post-seaon heroics, I feel like Papi should get in.

It depends on how bad the defense is. The problem DHs have from a value perspective is that the DH replacement level is higher than for any other position, because there are no defensive trade-offs for the role. Even below average defense in the field with great offense is valuable.

Anyway, Mize wasn't just a "tad" better than Ortiz. Even leaving aside defense, Mize was a MUCH better hitter than Ortiz -- wRC+ of 157 vs. 134 is a huge gap. Mize is 14th all-time in wRC+, Ortiz is 65th. Mize is an inner circle guy, maybe one of the top 6 or 7 first basemen ever, especially if you account for his missed war seasons during his prime. Ortiz is borderline at best. They aren't really comparable.

Kliq · Jan 8, 2015

I just picked Mize because he was a HOF 1B who wasn't known for his defense, I'll admit I didn't do any exhaustive research in finding comparable 1B to Ortiz. Ortiz is having a much better end of his career than Mize, giving him a longevity edge, though. Mize was most certainly a better hitter in his prime, and he missed his age 30-32 seasons due to the war, which totally ruins an all-time great resume.

lexrageorge · Jan 9, 2015

It makes little sense to penalize relievers and DH's solely because of their position; the NFL HoF's moronic treatment of kickers and punters is not something that should be emulated by the other leagues. Reality is that both positions are fairly vital to the success of a ballclub. The HoF is more than just a lifetime WAR trophy. The best all time relievers (e.g., Rivera) and the best all time DH's (e.g. Edgar Martinez) should be considered as serious candidates for the Hall.

coremiller · Jan 9, 2015

lexrageorge said:
It makes little sense to penalize relievers and DH's solely because of their position; the NFL HoF's moronic treatment of kickers and punters is not something that should be emulated by the other leagues. Reality is that both positions are fairly vital to the success of a ballclub. The HoF is more than just a lifetime WAR trophy. The best all time relievers (e.g., Rivera) and the best all time DH's (e.g. Edgar Martinez) should be considered as serious candidates for the Hall.

This is wrong. The treatment of specialists in football is disanalogous because those players have unique skills -- if you tried to get someone else on the roster to do their job, they would fail miserably. OTOH, there is very good evidence that nearly all relievers are failed starters and that just about all DHs are hitters who aren't good enough/athletic enough to play defense. Their skills are not unique, and they are assigned to their role because of their limitations, not their strengths. Giving them special preference because of that role doesn't make any sense.

67WasBest · Jan 11, 2015

grimshaw said:
What about long snappers and special teams guys? Does Devin Hester deserve to make the HoF for being the best returner in history?

The DH isn't even a defined position for half of MLB which is why full time DH's are dying out.
There is also no such thing as relief or DH prospects anymore. No one goes through the minors in hopes of relieving or DH'ing, unlike skill position football players going to college. DH's are the best hitters who either a) can't play a position to save their life b) are immobile and at the end of their career c) are positional guys who are dinged up and can't play the field for a few days or D) are platoon players. As the position evolves, teams are going to instead rotate spots to rest players.

You forgot: e) a player who is capable of playing a defensive position (1B), but whose bat is so valuable the team (Red Sox) they make the player (Ortiz) a full time DH to assure his bat is in the lineup as often as possible. Perhaps this makes Papi rare among DHs, but the reality of the situation requires a different review for Ortiz, imo.

If there is no DH, is Papi playing 1B all these years? Of course he is! So, if we have no DH, Papi's being reviewed for the HoF as a !B candidate. With his big and late game stats in the discussion, he compares favorably. He should not be penalized because of the manner in which the team deploys him under the rules of the game.

coremiller · Jan 11, 2015

67WasBest said:
You forgot: e) a player who is capable of playing a defensive position (1B), but whose bat is so valuable the team (Red Sox) they make the player (Ortiz) a full time DH to assure his bat is in the lineup as often as possible. Perhaps this makes Papi rare among DHs, but the reality of the situation requires a different review for Ortiz, imo.

If there is no DH, is Papi playing 1B all these years? Of course he is! So, if we have no DH, Papi's being reviewed for the HoF as a !B candidate. With his big and late game stats in the discussion, he compares favorably. He should not be penalized because of the manner in which the team deploys him under the rules of the game.

Except that if he were capable of playing 1B full time while staying healthy and without depressing his offensive performance, the Sox would have had him do that. If you have to make him a DH to ensure his bat is in the lineup as often as possible, that makes him less valuable compared to someone who can play the field while staying in the lineup, and he should be properly penalized for it.

Red(s)HawksFan · Jan 11, 2015

67WasBest said:
You forgot: e) a player who is capable of playing a defensive position (1B), but whose bat is so valuable the team (Red Sox) they make the player (Ortiz) a full time DH to assure his bat is in the lineup as often as possible. Perhaps this makes Papi rare among DHs, but the reality of the situation requires a different review for Ortiz, imo.

If there is no DH, is Papi playing 1B all these years? Of course he is! So, if we have no DH, Papi's being reviewed for the HoF as a !B candidate. With his big and late game stats in the discussion, he compares favorably. He should not be penalized because of the manner in which the team deploys him under the rules of the game.

It's possible he would have played 1B all these years, but without nearly the success he's had as a DH. The reason the Red Sox shied away from playing him at 1B with any regularity was for his health. He dealt with knee and wrist injuries with the Twins that cost him a lot of game time. Considering the lower body injuries he's had while at DH - knee surgeries, achilles injury, wrist injury, etc - he'd likely have lost a lot more playing time to those injuries and probably others if he was in the field defensively every game.

67WasBest · Jan 11, 2015

coremiller said:
Except that if he were capable of playing 1B full time while staying healthy and without depressing his offensive performance, the Sox would have had him do that. If you have to make him a DH to ensure his bat is in the lineup as often as possible, that makes him less valuable compared to someone who can play the field while staying in the lineup, and he should be properly penalized for it.

Can't assume he would have less success. Sure it makes sense, but to assume so would be a flawed system, imo. He played within the rules and was stationed at a position by his team's choosing. He should not suffer for their choice.

Red(s)HawksFan said:
It's possible he would have played 1B all these years, but without nearly the success he's had as a DH. The reason the Red Sox shied away from playing him at 1B with any regularity was for his health. He dealt with knee and wrist injuries with the Twins that cost him a lot of game time. Considering the lower body injuries he's had while at DH - knee surgeries, achilles injury, wrist injury, etc - he'd likely have lost a lot more playing time to those injuries and probably others if he was in the field defensively every game.

Completely agree with both of you that it is likely he would have had more bench time, and possible lesser offensive production by playing the field all these years. If I were voting, I'd have a hard time lopping off X percent of his stats as a possible injury offset, however. He's played the position his team asked him to play at a higher level than anyone previously. He's a HoFer imo.

Red(s)HawksFan · Jan 11, 2015

Player A: 2111 G, 8851 PA, .285/.379/.547, 466 HR, 140 OPS+
Player B: 2035 G, 8657 PA, .280/.383/.546, 473 HR, 142 OPS+

A is David Ortiz, with 1736 starts at DH (87.1% of career starts).
B is Carlos Delgado, who started 162 games in his career at DH (8.9% of his total starts) and was just bumped from the HOF ballot for not getting at least 5% of the vote.

Now I'd love to see Ortiz get in. IMO, he's a Hall of Famer. But given the utter lack of support for a guy who at least is a debatable candidate, I can definitely see where someone with similar career numbers, even with Ortiz's post-season resume, could be left off a lot of ballots. And I'm not sure that another year or two of padding the counting stats will make all that much of a difference in Ortiz's case with such voters.

Yelling At Clouds · Jan 11, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
Player A: 2111 G, 8851 PA, .285/.379/.547, 466 HR, 140 OPS+
Player B: 2035 G, 8657 PA, .280/.383/.546, 473 HR, 142 OPS+

A is David Ortiz, with 1736 starts at DH (87.1% of career starts).
B is Carlos Delgado, who started 162 games in his career at DH (8.9% of his total starts) and was just bumped from the HOF ballot for not getting at least 5% of the vote.

Now I'd love to see Ortiz get in. IMO, he's a Hall of Famer. But given the utter lack of support for a guy who at least is a debatable candidate, I can definitely see where someone with similar career numbers, even with Ortiz's post-season resume, could be left off a lot of ballots. And I'm not sure that another year or two of padding the counting stats will make all that much of a difference in Ortiz's case with such voters.

It seems like chances at election are as dependent on the rest of the ballot as they are on the players' careers for anyone below the Johnson/Maddux/Thomas-level no-doubters. And I don't just mean the 10-player limit. Delgado didn't really get his case heard not just because many people thought he wasn't one of the ten best players on the ballot, many also considered at least two slugging first basemen to be ahead of him (Bagwell, McGriff, and McGwire for those who don't penalize PED users). Delgado was a prolific slugger, but so were a large number of players on the ballot this year, including a bunch of guys with some gaudier numbers than Delgado's.

For what it's worth, the earliest Ortiz would show on a ballot would be 2021 (assuming he plays a game in 2015), and I think by then a lot of the slugging corner guys - Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, McGriff, Bagwell, Manny, Vlad, Sheffield, Thome - will be off the ballot either from time limits, election, or falling below the 5% threshold.

EvilEmpire · Jan 11, 2015

It seems like chances at election are as dependent on the rest of the ballot as they are on the players' careers for anyone below the Johnson/Maddux/Thomas-level no-doubters. And I don't just mean the 10-player limit. Delgado didn't really get his case heard not just because many people thought he wasn't one of the ten best players on the ballot, many also considered at least two slugging first basemen to be ahead of him (Bagwell, McGriff, and McGwire for those who don't penalize PED users). Delgado was a prolific slugger, but so were a large number of players on the ballot this year, including a bunch of guys with some gaudier numbers than Delgado's.

For what it's worth, the earliest Ortiz would show on a ballot would be 2021 (assuming he plays a game in 2015), and I think by then a lot of the slugging corner guys - Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, McGriff, Bagwell, Manny, Vlad, Sheffield, Thome - will be off the ballot either from time limits, election, or falling below the 5% threshold.

Yeah. Ortiz and Giambi can go in together

Plympton91 · Jan 11, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
Player A: 2111 G, 8851 PA, .285/.379/.547, 466 HR, 140 OPS+
Player B: 2035 G, 8657 PA, .280/.383/.546, 473 HR, 142 OPS+

A is David Ortiz, with 1736 starts at DH (87.1% of career starts).
B is Carlos Delgado, who started 162 games in his career at DH (8.9% of his total starts) and was just bumped from the HOF ballot for not getting at least 5% of the vote.

Now I'd love to see Ortiz get in. IMO, he's a Hall of Famer. But given the utter lack of support for a guy who at least is a debatable candidate, I can definitely see where someone with similar career numbers, even with Ortiz's post-season resume, could be left off a lot of ballots. And I'm not sure that another year or two of padding the counting stats will make all that much of a difference in Ortiz's case with such voters.

I'm pretty sure Ortiz is going to play 2 more years to get to 500 HRs, and if he does that without cratering his offensive production otherwise, then he's significantly ahead of Delgado. Moreover, add Ortiz's postseason numbers and heroics to the table, and you'd further distance him from Delgado.

And, to reiterate what others said, Delgado got no support largely because this year's ballot was so damn crowded. I'm sure that if Delgado had survived, his percentages would steadily have steadily increased.

Red(s)HawksFan · Jan 12, 2015

All this analytical debate about closers...hogwash. Not voting for closers is simple east coast bias, so says Jim Alexander of the Orange County Register and Troy Percival fan club.

Spacemans Bong · Jan 12, 2015

It's always cute when you hear people push big market/East Coast bias as a reason their shitty candidate wasn't inducted. Percival was what, maybe the 6th best closer of the past 20 years?

Rivera, Hoffman, K-Rod (who took Percival's job), Billy Wagner, Joe Nathan, and Gagne certainly had a better peak. He's better than Rod Beck, but that's the level we're talking about here.

SumnerH · Jan 12, 2015

Spacemans Bong said:
It's always cute when you hear people push big market/East Coast bias as a reason their shitty candidate wasn't inducted. Percival was what, maybe the 6th best closer of the past 20 years?

Rivera, Hoffman, K-Rod (who took Percival's job), Billy Wagner, Joe Nathan, and Gagne certainly had a better peak. He's better than Rod Beck, but that's the level we're talking about here.

Papelbon's already well ahead of him in rWAR, in 4 fewer years. Paps: 22.2 Percival: 17.2. Papelbon's also ahead on FIP, ERA+, K/9, BB/9, and WHIP. Heck, he's only 33 saves and 60 Ks behind Percival (in 4 fewer years), and has a much more impressive postseason resume.

Wake's knuckle · Jan 12, 2015

... and still doesn't belong in the hall, Riverdancing notwithstanding.

Spacemans Bong · Jan 12, 2015

Delgado's hip gave out with the Mets; if that hadn't happened he almost certainly gets to 500 - he was actually a more productive player later in his career than I thought he had been.

coremiller · Jan 12, 2015

Spacemans Bong said:
Delgado's hip gave out with the Mets; if that hadn't happened he almost certainly gets to 500 - he was actually a more productive player later in his career than I thought he had been.

Delgado was so terrible on defense though that he gave back most of his value. Despite having a 135 wRC+ over his final five years, he only had 7.5 bWAR and 9 fWAR, because he was something like 7 wins below replacement on defense.

I agree with grimshaw. If you're going to really suck at defense and/or DH, you have to hit like the Big Hurt or Edgar to sniff the HoF. Ortiz is/was a great hitter but he's not enough of a historically great hitter to outweigh his negative defensive value.

How to weight the postseason stuff is a separate issue. But even there, you have to be careful of bias and selective sampling. He was amazing in the 04/07/13 postseasons, but they make up only about 56% of his postseason PAs and he was pretty terrible in the other 44%. As a result, his postseason wRC+ of 148 is only a little better than his career 138, and 148 is worse than Thomas' career regular season (154) and right about Edgar's (147).

Relievers, DHs and the Hall

Member

Member

heart is two sizes two small

given himself a skunk spot

Well-Known Member

MemBer

Well-Known Member

Member

given himself a skunk spot

thai good. you like shirt?

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

loves the secret sauce

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Concierge

Member

Member

Concierge

Member

Post-darwinian

paying for his sins

bubble burster

Member

chapeau rose

Malt Liquor Picker

New Member

Member

chapeau rose

Member

Member