2011 Hall of Fame Voting

[Z]

Joe Ponte is on the Veterans ballot. I voted for him. He's one of the guys I'm frustrated isn't getting votes.

Is everyone not seeing the same ballot?

[Z]

If MR's and closers are that important - then to me, SP's are just that little bit less important. If I had to measure it, I'd say by about 4 guys over 33 years. ;-)

Sure.

Still though.

Ponte won two Pale Ales.

Gutierrez won a Pale Ale, eclipsed 200 career wins, and has the 6th best WHIP ever.

Dealba won 239 games, 4th best in league history.

There are some great starting pitchers on the ballot and we only have nine in the Hall, with six of them being guys who started pitching in 1978.

Guys are getting screwed in the voting.

[Delandis]

The fact people are talking about Noah George like he even belongs on the will call ticket list to look around is ridiculous. 1 AS; 100 OPS+; average defense at best. 2 of his best 3 seasons were injury shortened. In a hitters era, a career OPS sub .750. It's not there.

Healthy discussion. Thanks Jake for chiming in.

There are 8 retired MIF with an OPS of .800 or above. In 33 seasons, there have been a total of 10 MIF with an OPS of .800 or above in the BLB (min:2,000 PA). By contrast, there have been 55 OF with an OPS of .800 or above. Looking at those stats, it just seems that by holding a hardline of an .800 OPS for infielders is not allowing the game to dictate what a HOF level is as an infielder.

Wilton Harcourt has 9 All-Star Appearances and a Stout Slugger and is only at 50%. I think maintaining the hardline instead of looking at players amongst their peers at their respective positions is tough on the infielders.

[Delandis]

Ok also looking at Parongao and Nathan again.

Here are the Top 12 Pitchers All-Time in VORP.

1. Corrigan (HOF)
2. Nathan
3. Parongao
4. O'Moore (HOF)
5. Guardamagni (HOF)
6. Theodore (HOF)
7. McEvoy (HOF)
8. Ponte
9. Abe
10. Mapalo
11. Chavarraga (HOF)
12. Gugierrez (HOF)

Nathan and Parangao are not in the HOF? Why?

I'd argue that every pitcher in this Top 12 that isn't already in the HOF is getting overlooked because they didn't have eye-popping strikeout numbers. We are ignoring great pitchers because we can't "see" how dominant these other types of pitchers can be.

[Carlos]

I used all star appearances to make my votes because 1. VORP is a dead stat so it's worthless and favors longevity which is unfair to the veterans with shorter careers. 2. OPS+ and most of the cumulative stats we have are incredibly difficult to weigh in our league with such a short history and MLB in the back of my mind.

But the one constant we always had is the ASG. You simply don't make it unless you're one of the best for a season. It's not like MLB where favorites can get in because...fans.

That's was my strongest factor. It doesn't discriminate against infielders or starters. Either you were one of the best for several years or you weren't.

sent from my mobile device

[Delandis]

Incorrect.

All-Star appearances says you are one of the best for half of a season. Too many players don't start playing consistently until the 2nd half of a season or cool down after July.

[Carlos]

Incorrect.

All-Star appearances says you are one of the best for half of a season. Too many players don't start playing consistently until the 2nd half of a season or cool down after July.

It has its faults but it's not the only factor. I looked at stats and used all star appearances to determine the players value among peers when there were too many similarities.

If two players have 2,000 hits and a .750 OPS and nothing else, but one made 10 all star games and the other made two, I think something matters about that guy with 10 appearances.

sent from my mobile device

[Delandis]

It has its faults but it's not the only factor. I looked at stats and used all star appearances to determine the players value among peers when there were too many similarities.

If two players have 2,000 hits and a .750 OPS and nothing else, but one made 10 all star games and the other made two, I think something matters about that guy with 10 appearances.

sent from my mobile device

I guess therein lies an evaluation difference between two voters. To me, if two guys have identical stats and a different number of All-Star appearances I vote both in based on the complete body of work.

As far as cumulative stats go,I don't discount it because if everyone could do it, they would.

[Z]

It has its faults but it's not the only factor. I looked at stats and used all star appearances to determine the players value among peers when there were too many similarities.

If two players have 2,000 hits and a .750 OPS and nothing else, but one made 10 all star games and the other made two, I think something matters about that guy with 10 appearances.

sent from my mobile device

I mean no offense but it sounds like you're back-tracking or I'm just reading it wrong.

You said in your previous post that you "used it to make [your] votes" and that "it was the strongest factor."

In the second post I quoted above, you make it sound like a criteria you used to break ties between two guys with roughly equal stats.

Those two processes sound very different to me.

I tend to side with Delandis when it comes to All-Star game voting though I agree with you it can suggest one player was more highly thought of during his peak than another.

[mike]

Can't go solely based on playoff appearances I agree. Look at this year for example, just to tout my own guys but Bafford and Hightower both didn't make the all star game yet one led the league in Ks by about 20 and the other finished with 41 HR and 113 RBI

[Carlos]

I mean no offense but it sounds like you're back-tracking or I'm just reading it wrong.

I said it was the strongest factor. I wasn't clear enough in stating it wasn't the only factor which is what I was trying to explain in my second post.

But yes, all star votes was my strongest factor and will continue to be.

[funclown]

Can't go solely based on playoff appearances I agree. Look at this year for example, just to tout my own guys but Bafford and Hightower both didn't make the all star game yet one led the league in Ks by about 20 and the other finished with 41 HR and 113 RBI

Who cares about "K's"?

[funclown]

Well, I will say, I went back and changed my vote for Chamissa and Campo. And if the ballot stays out there much longer I might change back.

I have 9 guys on my ballot which makes me feel very dirty, but I'm trying to see the perspective here. But my natural inclination is to be much stingier than even Mike.

The fact people are talking about Noah George like he even belongs on the will call ticket list to look around is ridiculous. 1 AS; 100 OPS+; average defense at best. 2 of his best 3 seasons were injury shortened. In a hitters era, a career OPS sub .750. It's not there.

Sure, the MIF position is underrepresented. They all have flaws and maybe we looked too much at the offensive production alone. But between Carbajal, Durham, and Scott, it looks like we'll have 2 in if not 3 in a couple days. I think that's an accurate reflection of the position.

In the first 33 years of the BHOF, from my rough math it looks like there were 38 people voted in by the writers (not including veterans committee folks). This includes the first few ballots where you had 50 years worth of retired guys to get in like Ruth, Young, Wagner, etc. Now; to be fair, there were also less teams in the majors back then than the BLB.

That being said, we have 27 guys in the hall through 33 years. It's probably a little too discerning, but, we're correcting it with the veterans committee. As we get to 50, 75 seasons in the not-so-distant-realworld-future, we'll have a better feel for what's really HOF worthy numbers.

My other thoughts on the situation is that we keep saying that the MLB is not a fair comparison for the BLB. Ok, so why does the BLB HOF have to be comparable in numbers and relative ease of entry to MLB's? We go through seasons at a fast pace around here. In 4 real world years we're decades down the line. What's wrong with being stingy? The names will accumulate at a faster rate either way. For a real life comparison, 70% of folks, including myself, think Piazza should be in the HOF but he's not, yet. And that's fine; that's the way it works. We don't have a ton of owner turnover and if 75% of the guys don't think a guy is a HOF, or can be convinced by the old guys, then oh well, he's not.

I'd be down for something like a veterans "entry" similar to what we've done here every 15-20 years or so. If they get 50% of the vote, they can stay on until they fall off. It'll sort itself out and my guess is that every time we do it a couple guys will gain entry that fell through the cracks as we get more historical context.

I voted for 24. Even 2 closers (Bayer & JJ). I feel "clean"

[Z]

Who cares about "K's"?

Regardless, Hightower was one of the five or so best pitchers in the Domestic League — as the Pale Ale voting supports — despite him being left off the All-Star team.

Same thing for Bafford. He's top five in Stout Slugger voting.

[Delandis]

Who cares about "K's"?

Looking at the HOF voting, pretty much everyone.