Baseball HOF electee

[miami_fan]

Congrats to the Goose!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?eref=T1

NEW YORK (AP) -- Goose Gossage became only the fifth relief pitcher elected to the Hall of Fame, earning baseball's highest honor Tuesday on his ninth try on the ballot.

[Jas_lov]

Good for Goose. He deserves it.

[Chubby]

Goose deserved it, Rice falling short sucks as I think he should be in too.

Raines should be in but I doubt he'll get elected.


Does anyone have final vote totals for all?

[MikeVic]

He was the 4th highest-paid player in 1985?

Congrats on the entry though!

[rkmsuf]

Hey Goose, ya big stud, take me to bed or lose me forever!

[stevew]

McGwire-LOL

Still stuck at 23%. 250 voters basically need to change their votes for him to get enshrined, it may take a long long time.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by stevew

McGwire-LOL

Still stuck at 23%. 250 voters basically need to change their votes for him to get enshrined, it may take a long long time.

I dunno - really depends on how much more info comes out about PED's. I'm guessing that as it becomes more and more clear just how many players were juicing, it's going to be harder for some voters to leave off the guys they suspect used. There will obviously be some who take a no-tolerance policy - if that voter suspects a player used, that player is out. But I think more and more voters are going to have to confront the reality that a significant percentage of players were using, and that genie is out of the bottle and players will continue to juice as they do in the NFL and just stay a step ahead of the testing.

As the Seattle Times baseball writer wrote about his HoF ballot and the issue of PED's:

Originally Posted by Larry Stone

On the steroids issue, it is becoming increasingly clear that this was a generational plague, one that the powers-that-be allowed to occur. While the circumstantial evidence against McGwire is compelling, his numbers have not been expunged from the record books. They count, just as those of every other steroids suspect.

Furthermore, it's getting harder and harder to know who used and who didn't. I'd say there's a chance we've already unwittingly elected a steroids dabbler to the Hall, and we will almost certainly vote in the future for an unsuspected user who was either more discreet than the known suspects, or lucky enough not to have purchased from anyone interviewed by George Mitchell or investigated by the feds.

The question is where to draw the line, and I've chosen — for the time being, at least — to view this whole mess as the way baseball was played in the late 1980s, 1990s and into the 2000s, for better or worse. I respectfully decline to be the steroids police.

In the case of McGwire, the complicating factor is that even if he's clean, it's not entirely clear he's an automatic entry.

[Subby]

If Rice gets in ahead of Raines it will be a travashamockery....

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Subby

If Rice gets in ahead of Raines it will be a travashamockery....

Yep.

Same as if Morris gets in and Blyleven doesn't...

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Subby

If Rice gets in ahead of Raines it will be a travashamockery....

Oh I agree.


The fact that Rice hasn't gotten in yet in and of itself is a travashamockery.

[Subby]

Rice's mustache should totally get in, I'll at least agree with that.

[Toddzilla]

I still don't get why people think Jim Rice is HOF worthy.

And don't give me that "most-feared hitter" bullshit. You get in on your accomplishments, not your (embellished) perception.

[Toddzilla]

Dola - I see on ESPN that Gammons, Olney, Kurkjian, and Stark all would have voted Rice in, so that kind of tells me he ought to be in, but I still don't understand why.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Subby

If Rice gets in ahead of Raines it will be a travashamockery....

Yup. Raines was a slightly poorer version of Rickey Henderson - the fact that he isn't in the hall is ridiculous.

[Atocep]

Great to see Goose finally get in. For better or worse, Jim Rice is almost automatically in next year. He was 16 votes shy and will be in his final year on the ballot. Dawson probably gets in within the next 3 years as well.

Its completely retarded that players sit on the ballot for 15 years. For 14 years Jim Rice hasn't been seen as a Hall of Fame player, but suddenly next year he'll be one.

Tim Raines on 24.3% of the ballots is almost as big of a joke as Blyleven not being in yet.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Dola - I see on ESPN that Gammons, Olney, Kurkjian, and Stark all would have voted Rice in, so that kind of tells me he ought to be in, but I still don't understand why.

No, he doesn't deserve to be in. He played his entire career with Fenway as his home park, hit 380 homers and that was his only real skill, was horrible defensively, and had one of the worst double play rates in baseball history. He was one dimensional and that one dimension was simply good, nothing more.

The only argument I've seen for him was he was "the most feared hitter in baseball" when he played.

[Subby]

Rob Neyer made a pretty good point about the whole "feared hitter" thing:

Originally Posted by Rob Neyer

Let me return to something I wrote about a few weeks ago: the Morris Test. Named after Jack Morris, the test simply asks: If we take a player's two prime Hall of Fame credentials and downgrade them just a little, does he still have a solid case?

Actually, I don't believe the Morris Test even applies to Rice, because I don't believe he has two prime Hall of Fame credentials. Nobody cites his 382 career homers, because 382 is paltry for a player whose best-known attribute was power. He wasn't a "dominant power hitter" (as Shaughnessy says); he did lead the American League in home runs three times, but finished in the top five in his league only twice more. Mike Schmidt led the National League in home runs eight times. That's dominant.

Yes, Rice hit 46 homers in a season. This was not an exceptional figure in his time. The year before Rice hit 46, George Foster hit 52. The year after Rice hit 46, Dave Kingman hit 48. Rice never hit as many as 40 home runs in another season. Nobody cites his other career stats, because by the standards of Hall of Fame outfielders they're nothing special.

Turns out Rice has one credential: As Shaughnessy and so many others have said over the years, he was "the most feared hitter of his day" ... but was he, really? I'm still waiting for someone, anybody.

Shaughnessy cites intentional walks: "Managers thought about intentionally walking him when he came to the plate with the bases loaded." Well, that's an interesting bit of untestable trivia, but for the moment let's ignore all those imaginary intentional walks and talk about the real ones. Because yes, a great number of intentional walks would suggest that a player really was feared. Rice's 12 best seasons -- 1975-1986 -- are usually mentioned because the rest of his career was not good. Did Rice draw more intentional walks than anyone else over those 12 seasons?

From 1975 through 1986 -- remember, that range of seasons has been chosen specifically to make Rice look his best -- 32 major leaguers drew more intentional walks than Jim Rice. Yes, he batted right-handed, and right-handed batters generally are intentionally walked less often than left-handed batters.

So let's be fair. Let's ignore all those left-handed batters. Did Rice draw more intentional walks than every other right-handed batter over those 12 fearsome seasons? Twelve right-handed batters were, by this standard, more feared, including (but far from limited to) George Foster, Ron Cey, Greg Luzinski, Jack Clark and Dale Murphy. I've run through other stats before.

Even if we limit ourselves to Rice's 12 good years, we still find that he doesn't look good next to non-Hall of Famers Keith Hernandez and Fred Lynn and is dead even with Ken Singleton. If we include the massive edge he gained from Fenway Park and his lack of defensive value, he falls farther down the list. Rice not only fails the Morris Test, he fails it spectacularly. His Hall of Fame case rests solely on an argument that wouldn't be particularly compelling even if it were true. Which it's not.

You know what? I get it. I understand that Shaughnessy and nearly every other writer in Boston have to support the local guys. With Rice clearly lacking objective Hall of Fame credentials, they're forced to fall back on the ill-founded, untestable notion that he was the "most feared" hitter for more than a year or two. What I don't understand is why so many voters in so many other cities believe it.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Subby

Rob Neyer made a pretty good point about the whole "feared hitter" thing:

Ding we have a winner!


And great to see the Goose in! The Goose is Loose!

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Subby

Rob Neyer made a pretty good point about the whole "feared hitter" thing:

As has Joe Posnaski (multiple times)...http://www.joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/

[Buccaneer]

This makes me very happy for two reasons. First, I'm happy for Goose because he deserves to be in the HOF (back when relievers used to be real men). Second, I'm extremely happy that no one else got in. As a small-Hall advocate, there are too many borderline players in the HOF and we didn't need to add more (which would open the door to add even more).

One of my favorite baseball memories was opening day 1984 at the Murph. The Pads had high expectations coming into the season and in an exciting game that was fueled by a rowdy crowd, Goose comes in the 9th in his first appearance as a Padres and strikeouts the side (on 9-10 pitches, if I recall).

[Buccaneer]

You know what? I get it. I understand that Shaughnessy and nearly every other writer in Boston have to support the local guys. With Rice clearly lacking objective Hall of Fame credentials, they're forced to fall back on the ill-founded, untestable notion that he was the "most feared" hitter for more than a year or two. What I don't understand is why so many voters in so many other cities believe it.

+1

[molson]

Originally Posted by Atocep

hit 380 homers and that was his only real skill.

I wouldn't go that far. He did have a .298 career Avg, finishing in the top 10 6 times.

What better hitters were there in his 16 seasons? That period has definitely been death for hitters in terms of HOF consideration who seemed automatic during their playing days.

But seeing someone seriously comparing his hitting resume to Keith Hernandez is on crack.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

What better hitters were there in his 16 seasons?

Well, for one thing over Rice's 12 best seasons ('75-'86) Fred Lynn was better.

[molson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Well, for one thing over Rice's 12 best seasons ('75-'86) Fred Lynn was better.

I'll go ahead and assume this is a serious post and respond:

'75-'86

Times in Top 10 in Home Runs:
Rice: 7 (And Led the League 3 times, finishing 2nd another time)
Lynn: 1

Times in the Top 10 in RBI
Rice: 9 (Led the League twice, finished 2nd two other times)
Lynn: 2

Times in the Top 10 in Avg
Rice: 6
Lynn: 4 (One Batting Title)

Times in the top 5 in MVP Voting
Rice: 6
Lynn: 2

[21C]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Does anyone have final vote totals for all?

Name	Votes	PCT
Gossage, Rich	466	85.8%
Rice, Jim	392	72.2%
Dawson, Andre	358	65.9%
Blyleven, Bert	336	61.9%
Smith, Lee	235	43.3%
Morris, Jack	233	42.9%
John, Tommy	158	29.1%
Raines, Tim	132	24.3%
McGwire, Mark	128	23.6%
Trammell, Alan	99	18.2%
Concepcion, Dave	88	16.2%
Mattingly, Don	86	15.8%
Parker, Dave	82	15.1%
Murphy, Dale	75	13.8%
Baines, Harold	28	5.2%
Beck, Rod	2	0.4%
Fryman, Travis	2	0.4%
Nen, Robb	2	0.4%
Dunston, Shawon	1	0.2%
Finley, Chuck	1	0.2%
Justice, David	1	0.2%
Knoblauch, Chuck	1	0.2%
Stottlemyre, Todd	1	0.2%
Anderson, Brady	0	0.0%
Rijo, Jose	0	0.0%

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

I'll go ahead and assume this is a serious post and respond:

'75-'86

Times in Top 10 in Home Runs:
Rice: 7 (And Led the League 3 times, finishing 2nd another time)
Lynn: 1

Times in the Top 10 in RBI
Rice: 9 (Led the League twice, finished 2nd two other times)
Lynn: 2

Times in the Top 10 in Avg
Rice: 6
Lynn: 4 (One Batting Title)

Times in the top 5 in MVP Voting
Rice: 6
Lynn: 2

Somewhat serious. The only real edge Rice has over Lynn (and it is admittedly a significant one) is games played and at-bats. Lynn was a better hitter - his OPS+ over that period was higher than Rice's (Rice got a lot of benefit playing at Fenway) and he was certainly a superior fielder and baserunner.

[miami_fan]

So is there a real reason the bottom feeders on that list (from Rod Beck down) got those votes or are the voters just being cute?

[dawgfan]

Dola - those are some arbitrary stats you're pulling. RBI doesn't tell us nearly the whole story - much better is knowing how many potential RBI a player actually drove in. Player A may have 100 RBI and player B only 80, but if Player B converted those 80 RBI out of a potential 120 RBI and Player A converted his 100 RBI out of a potential 200 RBI, then Player B is the one that did a better job in terms of RBI.

Batting average is nice and all, but it's not nearly as valuable as OBP. Besides which, Lynn had a higher BA anyway - he just didn't qualify for batting titles (and thus the list of batting leaders) because he couldn't stay healthy enough to get a qualifying number of plate appearances.

And given that MVP voting, especially in the time period cited, was heavily tilted towards RBI, means I don't give those results a lot of weight.

[21C]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

So is there a real reason the bottom feeders on that list (from Rod Beck down) got those votes or are the voters just being cute?

I'd guess that they were done by local writers to show some support since players with less than 5% of the vote become ineligible from future votes.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

I wouldn't go that far. He did have a .298 career Avg, finishing in the top 10 6 times.

What better hitters were there in his 16 seasons? That period has definitely been death for hitters in terms of HOF consideration who seemed automatic during their playing days.

But seeing someone seriously comparing his hitting resume to Keith Hernandez is on crack.

The hitting resume of Keith Hernandez is much closer than you'd think. Rice's home/road splits are .320/.374/.546 and .277/.330/.459. Once you start looking at numers that are park adjusted you see that both Keith Hernandez and Fred Lynn were close.

Jim Rice OPS+ 128
Keith Hernandez OPS+ 128
Fred Lynn OPS+ 129

We can also take a look EQA's adjusted for all-time and see these players are much more comparable than most would think.

Jim Rice: .294
Fred Lynn: .297
Keith Hernandez: .300

Lets take a look at their raw numbers from '75-'86, Rice's best years.

Jim Rice: .303/.355/.518 OPS+ 133
Keith Hernandez: .302/.392./.445 OPS+ 133
Fred Lynn: .292/.371/.496 OPS+ 134


These three hitters had different skills, but where almost equal in hitting value in just about everyway you can compare them. Once you consider defense (Jim Rice was probably better than he got credit for), the ridiculous number of double plays, and ballpark both Keith Hernandez and Fred Lynn edge him out, IMO.

[mckerney]

-1 for no Blyleven

[molson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Dola - those are some arbitrary stats you're pulling.

In terms of pure evaluation of a player, sure. But I think things like HR/RBI/AVG/Times they were considered among the best (MVP voting), have always been a more important criteria for HOF vting then some the newer stuff like OPS+. I can't think of a guy who got into the HOF on the strength of his OPS+.

Rice is one of, if not the, best hitter, in terms of traditional criteria not in the HOF. I'm not so much trying to make the argument that he should be there, but trying to distinguish him from the Fred Lynn's and Keith Hernandez's.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Shawon Dunston got a vote? Shawon Dunston? While we're at it, could we get Luis Alicea and Randy Velarde some love, too?

[Subby]

Originally Posted by mckerney

-1 for no Blyleven

I think Murphy should be in too - if you compare him to other centerfielders, he certainly seems to pass muster.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I wonder how many people voted for McGwire but didn't vote for Blyleven.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

In terms of pure evaluation of a player, sure. But I think things like HR/RBI/AVG/Times they were considered among the best (MVP voting), have always been a more important criteria for HOF vting then some the newer stuff like OPS+. I can't think of a guy who got into the HOF on the strength of his OPS+.

Rice is one of, if not the, best hitter, in terms of traditional criteria not in the HOF. I'm not so much trying to make the argument that he should be there, but trying to distinguish him from the Fred Lynn's and Keith Hernandez's.

Yeah, that is how many voters evaluate HoF candidates. Doesn't mean it's how they should evaluate HoF candidates. And that's what I'm getting at. Rice is a borderline guy by "traditional" HoF metrics. When you consider recent, advanced statistical analysis, his argument weakens.

[Buccaneer]

Goosage is a local guy and from a cop, he and his sons apparently run into trouble caused by drinking. When a cop went to pick up Goosage's son for something, Dad went into an alcoholic rage and had to be hauled in as well. Or something like that.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Shawon Dunston got a vote? Shawon Dunston? While we're at it, could we get Luis Alicea and Randy Velarde some love, too?

Shawon Dunston is nowhere near being the most ridiculous vote ever. Way back, I remember some idiot voted Hal Lanier.

[MrBug708]

If Baines can't get in, Biggio will never see the HOF

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

If Baines can't get in, Biggio will never see the HOF

I'm not following your correlation...

[Buccaneer]

Don't either since Biggio does match up well to a number of HOFers (Yount, Morgan, Ripken). Baines is more in the Dawson, Perez, Parker camp (despite the comparison to Kaline).

[molson]

Biggio's a real odd case. Never close to an MVP Award, never considered one of the game's best players. Can't ignore 3,000 hits, but he also never even came close to a batting title.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by molson

Biggio's a real odd case. Never close to an MVP Award, never considered one of the game's best players. Can't ignore 3,000 hits, but he also never even came close to a batting title.

I live in Houston, but am not even an Astros fan, so this is not coming from a homer. Biggio may never have come close to a batting title, but he was a terrific all-around player in his prime. He got on base, averaging around a .400 OBP in the 90's. He wasn't a power hitter, but he had some pop (668 doubles, 5th all-time). He was a 7-time All-Star and won 4 straight Gold Gloves (I know that these don't necessarily mean much, but they're OK for a simple argument). He stole 400+ bases at an acceptable success rate (76%). He also played the bulk of his productive career in one of the most extreme pitcher's parks in history. I'm not sure how much the Astrodome suppressed his particular game, since it wasn't too reliant on power, but I think it took some toll on his stats.

The end of his career, when he had become mediocre offensively and an atrocious defensive outfielder, really took a toll on his numbers. Over the past 8 years of his career, he was nothing more than average offensively, and well-below defensively, leading to a career OPS+ of only 111. I think he'll make it to the HoF, but it's because he extended his career long enough to get to 3,000 hits (the wrong reason) instead of because he was an incredible all-around player (the right reason).

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

Biggio's a real odd case. Never close to an MVP Award, never considered one of the game's best players. Can't ignore 3,000 hits, but he also never even came close to a batting title.

Haven't we advanced to the point where winning a batting title is far less important than where he rated in OBP?

When you compare Biggio to other 2B historically, he comes off quite well. At one point in the late '90's, Bill James had him rated as the top player in the game, and Win Shares have treated him quite well. Considering his hitting abilities and his fielding prowess at the 2nd toughest of the positions in the fielding spectrum (excluding C) and his career accomplishments, he's a pretty easy choice IMO. Yeah, he hung on too long to get his milestone numbers and as a result dragged down his rate numbers somewhat, but I think he's certainly a Hall of Famer.

[molson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Haven't we advanced to the point where winning a batting title is far less important than where he rated in OBP?

Who's "we" - the Hall of Fame Voters?

I don't think we're at the point where people are going to get in because they have a high OBP.

Hall of Fame entrance hasn't been just about statistical performance. There's an element of, well "fame", that's required. I think the #1 most important criteria of the voters is - would this guy's name and picture on a HOF plaque seem weird? With Biggio, I think it might. He was never a huge star. Kirby Puckett's numbers don't look like those of an automatic HOF guy, but he was always considered a huge star during his career. So he's in.

Of course, part of the equation of being a huge star is huge numbers. Huge numbers like HRs, RBIs, AVG, and MVPs. Certainly not OBP or OPS+. Maybe someday, but not yet.

I don't think he gets in.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

Who's "we" - the Hall of Fame Voters?

I don't think we're at the point where people are going to get in because they have a high OBP.

Hall of Fame entrance hasn't been just about statistical performance. There's an element of, well "fame", that's required. I think the #1 most important criteria of the voters is - would this guy's name and picture on a HOF plaque seem weird? With Biggio, I think it might. He was never a huge star. Kirby Puckett's numbers don't look like those of an automatic HOF guy, but he was always considered a huge star during his career. So he's in.

Of course, part of the equation of being a huge star is huge numbers. Huge numbers like HRs, RBIs, AVG, and MVPs. Certainly not OBP or OPS+. Maybe someday, but not yet.

I don't think he gets in.

Well, we'll politely disagree then

I think he's got the milestone stats for the more conventional voters (has any 3,000 hit guy been denied the Hall besides Rose?) and the advanced metrics to satisfy the younger generation of voters that is more sabr friendly.

[clintl]

Biggio will get in easily. He's widely regarded as one of the best ever at his position.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

If Baines can't get in, Biggio will never see the HOF

Biggio is one of the 5 best 2b of all time. If he isn't the HOF, they ought to limit it to 50 players.

[Tormaz]

Originally Posted by Subby

I think Murphy should be in too - if you compare him to other centerfielders, he certainly seems to pass muster.

No doubt. Murphy was a great defensive outfielder. Won back to back MVP awards. Was a 30-30 guy. On top of all of that he played on some of the worst teams in baseball history.

Murphy's real problem is he wasn't great long enough, but if I had a vote he would definitely get it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Biggio is one of the 5 best 2b of all time. If he isn't the HOF, they ought to limit it to 50 players.

Its going to be interesting to see how the BWAA handles Biggio. He hit a career milestone that has been automatic HOF induction for everyone else thats reached it so far, but he also hung around a few seasons after he stopped being productive to get there and I'll be suprised if voters don't hold it against him. His traditional numbers don't also don't stand out at first galnce.

We'll also see a big push from the stats-alalysis people as his name comes up on the ballot and it seems some BWAA voters aren't voting for people the stats community likes out of spite. I thought Tim Raines would be someone to keep an eye on and 24.3% is depressing. I can easily see Biggio getting the same treatment.

Its sad, as non-traditional stats have become more available and new ways of analyzing players across generations are readily accessible the gap between the traditional minds and the stats community is growing. Rob Neyer not being included in the BWAA (and the reasons involved in it) along with some of the insane, dickheadish comments by Gammons as of late really shows how petty this shit can be.