Good point.
Looking downstream, who projects as the next guy after Jeter who could conceivably be unanimous? Pujols? Trout?
Hall of Fame Ballot: 2019 Induction
- Thread starter E5 Yaz
- Start date
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.
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.
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?
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.
Just did some more googling and you are correct. Thanks for the correction.
From Paul Daugherty's article about his ballot last year:We were due some questionable ballots
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.
https://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/2018-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot-by-newsday-s-mark-herrmann-1.15760261We were due some questionable ballots
Last year, Herrmann voted for Vlad, Hoffman, Chipper, Edgar, Schilling, Thome. This year's ballot is perfectly consistent with that. Putting his steroid position aside, what's so terrible about his ballot?
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.
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.
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.
I've heard of voters who are anti-steroid user. Mr. Maril seems to be treating PED ingestion as a counting stat.Oof. We have a bad ballot.
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.
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.
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.
Hoffman couldn’t hold a candle to Rivera. His case is he was the best at his job in the history of the game.
Yeah, it's not just Rivera's longevity.
Any way you look at it, he was simply the best at his job.
I agree with you, but a year ago this voter said his job isn’t worthy of consideration and postseason doesn’t count.
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...
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
I would say any argument that attempts to exclude Mariano Rivera from the HoF is, by definition, delusional.
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
https://www.baseball-reference.com/tiny/2fAY6
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
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%
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%
Schilling's high number surprises me.
But I guess we know more about "journalists" these days than we once did.
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.
Surprised no one picked this up from FiveThirtyEight
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-built-a-polling-model-for-the-baseball-hall-of-fame/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-built-a-polling-model-for-the-baseball-hall-of-fame/
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.
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.