Baseball HoF '07 Ballot - let the discussions begin!

[RickJay]

@What Exit?

Blyleven appears less deserving to me that Kaat, who I have already said is not quite a Hall of Famer.

But you then go on to say that Blyleven was a more effective pitcher than Kaat, which I find puzzling. How can Blyleven be a better pitcher, in a career of equal length, playing on more championship teams, and be a less qualified candidate?

[Troy_McClure_SF]

@BobLibDem

I would vote no on McGwire. When the sport faces a crisis and you’re asked to step up to the plate for it, you don’t say no. He did.

See, I thought the “crisis” you were referring to was the strike and the fallout from it, and I feel that he, and Sosa, did step up to the plate, and did a lot to get fans back in the seats after MLB imploded in 1994. I think, steroids or no, that’s worth a lot.

[What_Exit]

@RickJay

But you then go on to say that Blyleven was a more effective pitcher than Kaat, which I find puzzling. How can Blyleven be a better pitcher, in a career of equal length, playing on more championship teams, and be a less qualified candidate?

Sorry, in an earlier post, I mentioned Kitty might eventually get for his complete portfolio as player, coach and great announcer.

Additionally, Kitty did have more 20 win seasons, including an amazing 25 win season. He was a great fielding pitcher, far better than Maddox, Moose or Rodgers. He also has nearly identical HOF numbers from BB-Ref.

Black Ink: Pitching - 16 (129) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 125 (137) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 44.0 (53) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 129.5 (57) (Likely HOFer > 100)

[Gadarene]

Additionally, Kitty did have more 20 win seasons, including an amazing 25 win season.

I don’t mean to sound snarky here, but what’s so intrinsically amazing about a 25 win season? Which is more amazing to you, Bob Welch’s 27-6 season in 1990, or Greg Maddux’s 19-9 season in 1998? Or rather, even if the former is more “amazing,” the latter was indisputably the result of a greater performance on the part of the pitcher.

[RancidYakButterTeaParty]

I think that Trammell compares to Ripken very well if you look at their statistics. Ripken hit for more homeruns, but Trammell stole a lot more bases. They were both great fielders and both were the heart of their respective teams. Ripken has “the streak” and Trammell has a World Series MVP.

Ripken got, on average, about 30 more R.B.I. each year–which is significant, but Trammell was no slouch in knocking in runs from the shortstop position either.

If Ripken is a no-brainer, then Trammell should not be far behind.

[OneCentStamp]

@RancidYakButterTeaParty

I think that Trammell compares to Ripken very well if you look at their statistics. Ripken hit for more homeruns, but Trammell stole a lot more bases. They were both great fielders and both were the heart of their respective teams. Ripken has “the streak” and Trammell has a World Series MVP.

Ripken got, on average, about 30 more R.B.I. each year–which is significant, but Trammell was no slouch in knocking in runs from the shortstop position either.

If Ripken is a no-brainer, then Trammell should not be far behind.

Big difference: Ripken has 3,000 hits. That’s still a magic number in Cooperstown.

[What_Exit]

@Gadarene

I don’t mean to sound snarky here, but what’s so intrinsically amazing about a 25 win season? Which is more amazing to you, Bob Welch’s 27-6 season in 1990, or Greg Maddux’s 19-9 season in 1998? Or rather, even if the former is more “amazing,” the latter was indisputably the result of a greater performance on the part of the pitcher.

I am confused. Greg Maddux is a truly great pitcher. What was so special about his 1998 18-9 season? His 1995 season was far better.

I will agree that Bob Welch’s 27-6 season was not as great as the win total, but in 1966 when Kitty went 25-13 he threw 304 innings, got 205 Ks to only 55 BBs. A 2.75 ERA. That was the least walks per IP that year and the most wins. His 19 complete games led the AL. His 41 starts led the AL. His 205 Ks was 2nd. His Innings were #1, his K to BB ratio was #1 and he of course won the GG.
There was only one Cy Young award that year and it went to Koufax.

Jim

[Gadarene]

Well, for one thing, the league ERA in 1966 was 3.61, so Kaat’s 2.75, while good, was only 31 percent better than average. And that was his best ERA relative to the league ERA in any full season. Blyleven, on the other hand, had seven full seasons in which his ERA was better relative to that of the league than Kaat’s best.

[What_Exit]

@Gadarene

Well, for one thing, the league ERA in 1966 was 3.61, so Kaat’s 2.75, while good, was only 31 percent better than average. And that was his best ERA relative to the league ERA in any full season. Blyleven, on the other hand, had seven full seasons in which his ERA was better relative to that of the league than Kaat’s best.

Apparently your point is you think Bert is better than Kitty. You might be correct. I do not feel either player is HOF caliber however. YMMV.

Jim

[Gadarene]

I do not feel either player is HOF caliber however.

And, while I disagree, I think your sentiment is completely valid. The HOF is ultimately all about gut anyway. Some people’s guts are swayed by memory, some by statistics, some by other statistics, some (okay, most) by some combination of all three and about eleventy other things besides.

It’s a gestalt thing.

[mhendo]

@Gadarene

And, while I disagree, I think your sentiment is completely valid. The HOF is ultimately all about gut anyway. Some people’s guts are swayed by memory, some by statistics, some by other statistics, some (okay, most) by some combination of all three and about eleventy other things besides.

It’s a gestalt thing.

True enough.

It is, after all, called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of ERA, or the Hall of Homers, or the Hall of OBP. It’s not even called the Hall of Stats.

Are there actually any firm criteria laid out anywhere for entry into the HoF? Not necessarily in terms of numbers, but in terms such as “contributions to the game” or “sportsmanship” or “above average performance,” or any one of dozens of other possible phrases.

[What_Exit]

@mhendo

True enough.

It is, after all, called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of ERA, or the Hall of Homers, or the Hall of OBP. It’s not even called the Hall of Stats.

Are there actually any firm criteria laid out anywhere for entry into the HoF? Not necessarily in terms of numbers, but in terms such as “contributions to the game” or “sportsmanship” or “above average performance,” or any one of dozens of other possible phrases.

Yes there are guidelines but they are purposely vague.
Found here at http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/
Rules for Election to the Hall of Fame

Jim

[What_Exit]

Couple of Highlights from the Ballot rules:
Pulling up some highlights:
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

For Pete --> 3E: Any player on Baseball’s ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

[brianjedi]

@mhendo

True enough.

It is, after all, called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of ERA, or the Hall of Homers, or the Hall of OBP. It’s not even called the Hall of Stats.

Are there actually any firm criteria laid out anywhere for entry into the HoF? Not necessarily in terms of numbers, but in terms such as “contributions to the game” or “sportsmanship” or “above average performance,” or any one of dozens of other possible phrases.

“5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”

From the HoF’s website.

[mhendo]

@What Exit?

Yes there are guidelines but they are purposely vague.
Found here at http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/
Rules for Election to the Hall of Fame

Jim

Thanks.

I notice that, in addition to excluding players on the Ineligible List, election to the HoF also requires that the player “must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.”

Pete Rose retired in 1986. Does that mean that his chance at the Hall is now gone forever, even if they were to take him off the Ineligible list next year?

[What_Exit]

@mhendo

Thanks.

I notice that, in addition to excluding players on the Ineligible List, election to the HoF also requires that the player “must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.”

Pete Rose retired in 1986. Does that mean that his chance at the Hall is now gone forever, even if they were to take him off the Ineligible list next year?

There is also the Committee on Baseball Veterans
He would become eligible under this second committee.
Committee on Baseball Veterans Rules

6. Eligible Candidates — Eligible candidates must be selected from:

(A) Major League players who competed in any portion of at least ten (10) championship seasons and who have been retired as players for at least twenty-one (21) years. In addition, players whose service in the Negro Baseball Leagues prior to 1946 and the Major Leagues thereafter total at least ten years or portions thereof are defined as eligible candidates.

(B) Baseball Executives and/or Managers and/or Umpires who have been retired from organized Baseball as Baseball Executives and/or Managers and/or Umpires for at least five (5) years prior to the election. If the candidate is 65 years old at the time of retirement, the waiting period is reduced to six (6) months. If the candidate reaches the age of 65 during the five-year waiting period the candidate becomes eligible six months after the candidate’s 65th birthday.

(C) Those whose careers entailed involvement as both players and managers/executives/umpires will be considered for their overall contribution to the game of Baseball; however, the specific category in which such individuals shall be considered will be determined by the role in which they were most prominent. In those instances when a candidate is prominent as both a player and as a manager, executive or umpire, the BBWAA Screening Committee shall determine that individual’s candidacy as either a player (Players Ballot), or as a manager, executive or umpire (Composite Ballot). Candidates may only appear on one ballot per election. Those designated as players must fulfill the requirements of 6 (A).

(D) Any person designated by the Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball as ineligible shall not be an eligible candidate.

[Khangol]

I think Trammell should be in, but doubt that he ever will be. In comparing his career to Ozzie Smith, Trammell comes out looking very good: Ozzie was a somewhat better fielder, but only somewhat, and Trammell was a much, much better hitter. And he played at a time when shortstops were not generally expected to be big-time hitters; historically, they were there more for their gloves. Trammell helped to change the expectation of the position. He also should have won the AL MVP in '87. So why does Ozzie waltz in on his first ballot and Trammell get passed over, year after year? Well, Ozzie did backflips, and had a cool nickname. Good for TV and name recognition. And a ticket to Cooperstown.

I also think Blyleven is deserving. But his reputation as a pain-in-the-ass for the media (including his on-camera bleeps this year) will probably continue to keep him out.

And while I think Ripken’s Streak was nothing more than a protracted stunt (in which he sometimes got into a game for just a half-inning while hurt, and thereby jeopardized the game for his team, just to keep the stunt alive), I think it’s pretty clear he’s going in on his first ballot. Gwynn too.

[Gadarene]

in which he sometimes got into a game for just a half-inning while hurt, and thereby jeopardized the game for his team, just to keep the stunt alive

Cite? Sure you’re not thinking of Gehrig, there?

[Endless_Flight]

Dawson should get in based on that criteria that was posted.

He had excellent ability, excellent stats, was an excellent role model for younger players, and had enormous integrity and character, as pointed out by several Hall of Famers over the years.

[mhendo]

@Khangol

And while I think Ripken’s Streak was nothing more than a protracted stunt (in which he sometimes got into a game for just a half-inning while hurt, and thereby jeopardized the game for his team, just to keep the stunt alive).

I, too, would like to see the evidence for this assertion.

According to this article, written after Ripken passed the 2,000-game mark:

He hasn’t missed a contest since the second game of a doubleheader on May 29, 1982. He’s started the past 1,973 games at shortstop, the game’s most demanding position defensively other than catcher. He’s participated in more than 99 percent of the innings the Orioles have played since The Streak began.

Also:

Ripken had a close-call ankle injury in 1985, and nearly didn’t play the game after the Orioles-Mariners brawl in Baltimore last year because he twisted his right knee in the melee. Manager Johnny Oates says the decision to play Ripken that day wasn’t made until an hour or so before game time. But otherwise, Oates says, he never has considered sitting Ripken down. And he insists he wouldn’t give Ripken a courtesy appearance to continue The Streak.

And from this article, published only a couple of weeks before he broke Gehrig’s record:

Ripken has exited early from 58 games during his streak. He was ejected twice for arguing strike calls in the first inning.

<snip>

Ripken has left a game voluntarily before the seventh inning four times during the streak. Gehrig left early 69 times.

So it’s true that he did twice leave games in the first inning, and has left the game before the seventh inning voluntarily on four other occasions, your accusation that “he sometimes got into a game for just a half-inning while hurt, and thereby jeopardized the game for his team, just to keep the stunt alive” is a mischaracterization, at best.