Baseball 2014-15: The Hot Stove Top Stuffing Season

[CountDeMoney]

Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz and Craig Biggio were elected into the National Baseball Hall of Fame on Tuesday.

[The Minsky Moment]

Are the %s out yet?

The logjam plus the 10 person limit are really screwing deserving candidates.

[CountDeMoney]

Voting Results
Ballots Cast: 549    Needed for Election: 412

Votes    Player    Percentage
534    Randy Johnson    97.3%
500    Pedro Martinez    91.1%
455    John Smoltz    82.9%
454    Craig Biggio    82.7%
384    Mike Piazza    69.9%
306    Jeff Bagwell    55.7%
302    Tim Raines    55.0%
215    Curt Schilling    39.2%
206    Roger Clemens    37.5%
202    Barry Bonds    36.8%
166    Lee Smith    30.2%
148    Edgar Martinez    27.0%
138    Alan Trammell    25.1%
135    Mike Mussina    24.6%
77    Jeff Kent    14.0%
71    Fred McGriff    12.9%
65    Larry Walker    11.8%
64    Gary Sheffield    11.7%
55    Mark McGwire    10.0%
50    Don Mattingly    9.1%
36    Sammy Sosa    6.6%
30    Nomar Garciaparra    5.5%
21    Carlos Delgado    3.8%
4    Troy Percival    0.7%
2    Aaron Boone    0.4%
2    Tom Gordon    0.4%
1    Darin Erstad    0.2%
0    Rich Aurilia    0.0%
0    Tony Clark    0.0%
0    Jermaine Dye    0.0%
0    Cliff Floyd    0.0%
0    Brian Giles    0.0%
0    Eddie Guardado    0.0%
0    Jason Schmidt    0.0%

*All candidates in italics received less than 5% of the vote on ballots cast and will be removed from future BBWAA consideration

[Admiral Yi]

What's the nomination process?

And which lunkheads didn't vote for Pedro?

[The Minsky Moment]

It's great that Smoltz made the hurdle.
But . . .

What's interesting about this ballot is that Smoltz, Mussina and Schilling all pitched about the same number of innings over their career.  Smoltz had a few more Ks than the other two but Mussina and Schilling walked fewer.   Mussina's ERA is a little higher but he pitched his entire career in the AL (with DH) and also played with some historically awful defenses (in particular the 2003-04 Yankees may be the worst fielding team in modern history).  Smoltz won a Cy Young and the other's didn't, but Mussina finished in the top 5 five times and another 3 times he finished 6th, and Schilling finished 2nd three times.

As I see it you need a microscope to tell the three apart in terms of value to their teams and they all are solid on character.  So great that Smoltz got 80+% but how do Mussina and Schilling end up so low?

[CountDeMoney]

So great that Smoltz got 80+% but how do Mussina and Schilling end up so low?

That's going to always be a problem, as long as its an election process where sports writers get to vote. 

Mussina was not flashy and won no championships or Cy Youngs, so he's just not sexy enough to warrant the exposed brickwork and brilliant fall foliage of Cooperstown.  Schilling?  Well, just as Yi asked the question about Pedro that answers itself, I believe there's a segment of the New York media that will eventually come around, but will not put Yankee killers into the HOF on the first ballot.  Kinda like how the entire Cleveland/Pittsburgh sports media bloc will never vote Art Modell into Canton. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I believe there's a segment of the New York media that will eventually come around, but will not put Yankee killers into the HOF on the first ballot. 

Willing to bet that it is not the NY writers that keeping him out.

In fact being a Yankee killer is traditionally a bonus for getting into the Hall because it means the otherwise provincial NY writers know who you are.  Exhibit A - Jim Rice.

[sbr]

What's the nomination process?

And which lunkheads didn't vote for Pedro?

No one has ever been unanimous, and there are writers who seem to think that if Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, etc weren't unanimous no one will be. 

The other problem is with the rule that they can only vote for 10 people each year, no matter how many players the writer thinks is HoF-worthy.  I saw a bunch of writers say that they weren't going to vote for Pedro or Johnson because they were a lock and there were other deserving candidates that needed their votes more.

[Admiral Yi]

The other problem is with the rule that they can only vote for 10 people each year, no matter how many players the writer thinks is HoF-worthy.  I saw a bunch of writers say that they weren't going to vote for Pedro or Johnson because they were a lock and there were other deserving candidates that needed their votes more.

OK, this makes sense.

Anyone know how nominations work?  I'm curious how some dudes on the ballot ended up with zero votes.

[Valmy]

I was sure Greg Maddux would be unanimous but no.  If he wasn't you know nobody else from this generation will be.

Ridiculous about Schilling.  Ah well maybe he has to wait a bit.

[sbr]

My thoughts.

First I don't think pure numbers are the most important thing in determining HoF, I think you should know with a minutes worth of though without ever having to go to baseball-reference.com to know.  Second, my hypocrisy know no bounds.

Nothing to say about Pedro or the Unit.  Both were as deserving of a unanimous selection as anyone has ever been.

My opinion hasn't changed from last year, I still don't think Biggio is a HoFer.  He stayed healthy enough to amass 11K ABs.  Only 10 guys had more ABs and all are in HoF.  Biggio's counting stats are crazy but his ratios are not all that impressive and while he played 3 important defensive positions very well (C, 2B, CF) he was never one of the very best players in baseball and only finished in the Top 10 in MVP voting twice.  It was inevitable though, so I am glad he is through so we can be done with him.

I think Smoltz was easy.  Wins and Saves are bunch junk stats but at one point or another Smoltz was one of the very best starters and relievers in baseball.  He was also one of the best around in the playoffs.

It is a joke that Rock Raines is not only not in already, but not close and seems to be losing ground each year.  The recent rule change to limit number of years on ballot is going to cost one of the est ever to not get into the Hall until he is eligible to get in through the vet committee.

Schilling/Mussina - To me Schilling is in but Mussina doesn't do much for me.  If not for Randy Johnson Schilling would have won a bunch more Cy Young awards and would be considered one of the best of his generation.  He was even better in the post-season.  Mussina was very good for a long time, but just doesn't stand out enough for me.  Sorry.

Lee Smith and Edgar Martinez are both HoFer held back by their positions.  Smith was the dominate closer of his, or any time, but relievers are not given enough consideration imo.  Edgar may be a case of bias (Mariners fan) and hypocrisy (his numbers) but whatever.  Since 1973 every AL team has had to have a DH in the lineup and with the possible exception of HoFer Frank Thomas (who played ~60% of his games in the field) Edgar is the best DH ever.  His numbers aren't great but for some strange reason he was stuck in the Mariners farm system and didn't play a full season until age of 27 (less than 300ABs before that).  But when he played he was unreal.  I don't know enough about some of the new analytical numbers like WAR and OPS+ but they show that over the course of a 8-9 year period Edgar was one of the ~25 best hitters in the history of the game.  That's enough for me.

Bonds/Clemens/Piazza/Bagwell - All would be in without steroid controversy and I am so over that.  Put them all in and let the museum decide how to present them.  No one has hit more HRs than Bonds.  Piazza is the best hitting catcher to ever play the game and is out because of back acne?  Bagwell was much better than Biggio, one of the best and most feared hitters.  Clemens is one of the very best pitchers ever.  The cases against Bagwell and Piazza are pretty sketchy and Bonds and Clemens would have been in even if they never took steroids.  Get them in and off the ballot.

There isn't anyone else close imo.  I have seen some writers talking about guys like Trammel, Walker, McGriff and Kent but even if the congestion of the ballot was cleared up I don't see it for any of them myself.

[sbr]

The other problem is with the rule that they can only vote for 10 people each year, no matter how many players the writer thinks is HoF-worthy.  I saw a bunch of writers say that they weren't going to vote for Pedro or Johnson because they were a lock and there were other deserving candidates that needed their votes more.

OK, this makes sense.

Anyone know how nominations work?  I'm curious how some dudes on the ballot ended up with zero votes.

I didn't spend a lot of time looking but this makes it look like any player that played at least 10 years in MLB and has been out of the game for 5 years is eligible for a vote.

[Valmy]

Huh.  Nobody in the HoF played less than 10 years?  Surprising, though I guess if even Koufax played 11 that should cover everybody.

[dps]

The other problem is with the rule that they can only vote for 10 people each year, no matter how many players the writer thinks is HoF-worthy.  I saw a bunch of writers say that they weren't going to vote for Pedro or Johnson because they were a lock and there were other deserving candidates that needed their votes more.

OK, this makes sense.

Anyone know how nominations work?  I'm curious how some dudes on the ballot ended up with zero votes.

To elaborate a bit:  basically, there is no nomination process as such.  Each year, anyone who retires 5 years ago and who played at least 10 seasons in the major becomes eligible.  A committee within the BBWAA goes over the list and screens out any of those who were essentially subs their whole career.  Note that the committee doesn't really screen out unqualified candidates, exactly--if you played 10 seasons and were a regular for a good portion of that, you go onto the ballot even if you're someone like Cliff Floyd or Jason Schmidt that it's obvious no one is going to vote for.  Once you're on the ballot, you stay there until either you're elected to the Hall, you fail to get at least 5% of the vote in an election, or you've been on the ballot for 15 election cycles. 

Those who fall off the BBWAA ballot (either because of the 5% rule or the 15 year rule) are still eligible to be elected later by the Veterans' Committee, though the exact rules the Veterans' Committee operates under have been repeatedly changed.

[The Minsky Moment]

So sbr

Agree Biggio is borderline - but I think he goes over.  The awards voting underrated him because he was one of those guys that does lots of things well as opposed to one or two things really well.  Sort of like Zobrist is underappreciated now.

Agree on Raines.  He is probably the most hurt by the rules.  Hopefully some of the Biggio voters will go to him next year.

Mussina was a consistent top of rotation anchor for 18 straight years.  It is hard to over-state the value of that.  The only reason he didn't get 300 wins is he chose to leave gracefully rather than hang around an extra 3 years just piling numbers a la biggio.  The HOF is chock full of rotation anchor guys like him who were neither as consistent nor as good.  Eight years of top 6 CY voting is very impressive even if his top finish was 2nd (behind Pedro in one of Pedro's greatest of all time kind of years).  But to me the most impressive year was 2003 - he didn't get a single Cy vote but posted a 3.40 ERA pitching in front of a comically bad defense - Giambi at first, Alfonso Soriano at second (!), Jeter at SS, Bernie Williams rag armed in CF, and Raul Mondesi and Matsui at the corner outfield slots.   He somehow managed a sub 1.1 whip.  Incredible.

Lee Smith - I disagree on the significance of closers. 
Edgar - close call but the combination of late start, mid career injuries and zero defensive value hurts him.  I'm on the fence with him but more on the other side.

PED cloud guys - agree on everything you say.

Other - I think Larry Walker is a real candidate.  Sensational defensive outfielder, the true cannon arm.  And yeah he could hit a bit too.   If not for all the nagging injuries and his charming personality he would be a compelling vote.  As it is I still think his case is a little better than Edgar given the defense.
Also would vote yes on trammel - again the combo of very good defense and very good offense without being A++ in either.  But two A-s is just as good if not better.