He only threw an eight-inning one-hitter in the clinching game of the World Series one time.
I think Mussina was better than Glavine, so his tally is even more baffling.
The voting is public - you can click on the vote totals to see.
Mussina’s a weird one. He was quietly really, really consistent and really, really good. But what would you put on his HoF plaque?
He never won a Cy Young, didn’t hit 300 wins, never led the league in ERA. And yet his won/loss percentage is phenomenal. He only led the league in W/L percentage once, but he was always good, even on some pretty average teams.
I don’t know - I left him off, but I might be persuaded.
While you can make the case for Mussina being a better pitcher, his vote total isn’t baffling - he lacks the career highlights Glavine has. Glavine won two Cy Young Awards, for to 300 wins, was a World Series MVP. Players who are consistently good but lack highlights are always undervalued in HoF discussions.
Fair or unfair he’s exactly the kind of player who gets shafted in HoF voting.
This vote (and all recent votes) are all messed up due to steroids. Some people will automatically discount anyone who used steroids, some won’t care, and some will try to look at the hypothetical career the player would have had if not for drugs.
This splits up the vote in weird ways, as if you didn’t care about steroids, Bonds & Clemens et al will take up no-brainer spots on your list while others’ lists will have room for otherwise questionable picks.
Maddux is lucky/good enough to have insane numbers both in standout seasons (1994 and 1995 are probably among the best in history relative to the league) and overall career while being completely free of suspicion.
Bagwell and Biggio, nice to see them go in together
Glavine and Maddux, same
Piazza.
If I’m reading the Fangraphs site correctly, to answer my own question, Walker’s BA/SLG at home was .337/.592, away was .271/.487. Of course, he did play some seasons with teams other than Colorado.
Forefeiture or not, I really hope I see this before I die.
So… Who are the three who didn’t vote for Maddux? Explain your reasons, people! After you explain them, then we can run you out of town with pitchforks and torches.
sorry. double post.
One of them voted only for Edgar Martinez. Another voted for only Curt Schilling. I think it’s fair to say that these were single-issue voters whose focus is not really on the HOF itself but in boosting their particular favorite player. (“Let’s get my guy in; to hell with everyone else”)
The third did vote for a bunch of non-Maddux people: Bonds, Clemens, Mattingly, McGwire, Schilling, Sosa. (A list that by the way overlaps not at all with mine.) There was room on the ballot to consider others, so ballot overload wasn’t the reason, and the list doesn’t look completely arbitrary, so random posting doesn’t seem to be the issue. Perhaps that voter will come back in and explain–I agree that I would like to know the reason for leaving out Maddux in favor of these other guys.
I’m new here and the signup process presented me with a guiding rule: don’t be a jerk.
I didn’t vote, but if I did, Maddux would not be one of them because there are only 10 slots, and a prime consideration of mine would be to make sure certain fringe candidates like Walker and Martinez don’t fall off the ballot next year. Stop being so closed-minded.
I’ll be ready for you with grenades and a machine gun. How do you feel about your little forks and matchsticks now?
That is a voting approach essentially designed to ensure nobody gets elected. The system would actually work quite well if people would just vote for whomever they thought was legitimately deserving of being in the Hall of Fame, and discounted other considerations.
For actual real world voters, fringe candidates are what the Veteran’s Committee is all about.
Blank Slate: Gonzalez’s 2001 HR total doesn’t strike you as out of place?
Roger Maris had a similar career year that had 20+ more HR more than his 2nd highest season.
But Maris didn’t do it at the height of the steroid era.
Which [del]idiots[/del] discriminating individuals did not vote for Maddux?
No, but Maris and Davey Johnson et al) demonstrate players have ALWAYS sometimes had weird HR boosts. I’m not saying Gonzalez didn’t try some roids but I’m not saying he didn’t either.
Perhaps more to the point, if steroids must be the reason Luis Gonzalez had a 57-homer season or Brady Anderson had a 50-homer season, tell me; why did those guys stop taking steroids after having huge seasons? I find it weird steroids would only turn them into monster home run hitters for one year. Did they not LIKE hitting lots of home runs?
Home runs have gone up a lot - they’re a bit high even now, with offense down quite a bit from a few years ago. This year the sad-sack Blue Jays hit 185 home runs with no individual hitting more than 35; 30 years ago, in 1983, not one team in the major leagues hit 185 home runs, which was hardly considered unusual. The baseline level has increased for a lot of reasons besides steroids. Weight training is a new thing to MLB even without roids, players try to hit home runs, they stand closer to the plate, ballparks are marginally more homer-friendly, and other things. There have always been home spikes, and conditions in the last 20-years are such that such spikes could get a guy above 50.