BBF Mock HoF Election: 1982

[DoubleX]

Welcome to Baseball Fever's Mock HoF Election for 1982. The goal of this project is to conduct Hall of Fame elections from 1979-2007, as if we were the BBWAA, and then compare our results to the actual BBWAA results. For the most part, we will proceed just like BBWAA does.

This post will provide two things:

1) The Format and Rules

2) A Guide for the 1981 Election


Format and Rules
- The BBF ballot will consist of the same players that were on the BBWAA ballot, except for in instances where we have elected, dropped, or sustained on the ballot different players than the BBWAA (which will likely be quite a few).

- Voters may vote for between 0-10 candidates. A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot.

- Adjusting Ballots: Anyone who votes for more than 10 candidates will have all their votes discounted unless they inform me within 48 hours of submitting their vote (or the close of the election, whichever comes first) of the mistake and which players they wish to discount. In such a situation, if I am not informed of the players to be dropped, I will discount that voter's entire ballot. Additionally, if a voter habitually submits a ballot with more than 10 players, they risk having their votes discounted in all present and future elections. Otherwise, there will be no adjusting ballots after submitted, even if you forgot to vote for someone you meant to vote for or clicked on the wrong player. So please think carefully about your ballot before voting and make sure you have selected everyone you intend to vote for (up to 10).

- 75% support or greater will elect a player. Players receiving less than 5% will dropped from all future elections (even if in reality, that player was included in future BBWAA elections). Players receiving 5% or more but less than 75% will stay on the ballot for the next election, unless that player's 15-year eligibility is over.

- The election will close exactly a week after it started. The next election might not commence for another day or two.

- IMPORTANT: There is some concern about voters defrauding this process by voting with multiple screen names. First, please don't as there is really no point and it takes the fun out of this which is to see how we come out, more than it being a heated competition to get your player elected. Nevertheless, to take precaution against the possibility of a voter abusing the process, votes will be made public, so if we see unfamiliar screen names casting similar ballots, we'll see cause for concern, and if the concern proves to be founded, some form of punitive action could follow. So basically, ONE PERSON = ONE BALLOT. Anything else is really just moronic and defeats the purpose.

- This thread is also meant to be a discussion thread, so please feel free to stump for and/or against players, including players that will come up for election in the following year.


1982 Guide
There are 31 candidates on the 1982 ballot. Here's some information regarding the candidates:

First Timers (15)
Hank Aaron
Jim Brewer
Tommy Davis
Bill Freehan
Tommy Harper
Alex Johnson
Deron Johnson
Cleon Jones
Dave McNally
Tony Oliva
Rico Petrocelli
Frank Robinson
Tony Taylor
Cesar Tovar
Billy Williams

Holdovers (16)
Player Year of Eligibility High BBF Support
Luis Aparicio 4th 59.68% (1980)
Ken Boyer 8th 27.42% (1980)
Jim Bunning 6th 51.61% (1980)
Norm Cash 3rd 15.25% (1981)
Orlando Cepeda 3rd 64.52% (1980)
Don Drysdale 8th 74.19% (1980)
Curt Flood 7th 11.86% (1981)
Nellie Fox 11th 56.45% (1980)
Gil Hodges 14th 27.42% (1980)
Frank Howard 4th 13.56% (1981)
Roger Maris 9th 16.13% (1979)
Bill Mazeroski 5th 37.10% (1980)
Thurman Munson 2nd 16.95% (1981)
Vada Pinson 2nd 13.56% (1981)
Red Schoendienst 14th 22.58% (1980)
Maury Wills 5th 13.56% (1981)

Last Year of Eligibility
None

Players on BBF Ballot not on BBWAA Ballot
Ken Boyer - Dropped by BBWAA (1979)
Norm Cash – Dropped by BBWAA (1980)
Curt Flood - Dropped by BBWAA (1979)
Frank Howard - Dropped by BBWAA (1979)

Players on BBWAA Ballot not on BBF Ballot
Richie Ashburn - Elected by BBF (1979)
Gates Brown – Dropped by BBF (1981)*
Lew Burdette - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Leo Cardenas – Dropped by BBF (1981)*
Elston Howard – Dropped by BBF (1981)
Roy Face - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Harmon Killebrew – Elected by BBF (1981)
Harvey Kuenn - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Don Larsen – Dropped by BBF (1980)
Juan Marichal – Elected by BBF (1981)
Lindy McDaniel – Dropped by BBF (1981)*
Jim Northrup – Dropped by BBF (1981)*
Claude Osteen – Dropped by BBF (1981)*
Sonny Siebert – Dropped by BBF (1981)*
Hoyt Wilhelm - Elected by BBF (1979)

* These players were on previous BBWAA ballots but never received at least 5% from the BBWAA and were put on this ballot anyway. This seems to be a trend of the Screening Committee during the 1980s.


Ron Santo – Elected by BBF in 1980; Dropped by BBWAA in 1980 (though he was reintroduced in 1985 and stayed until 1998)

[U]Actual Hall of Famers on BBF Ballot
Hank Aaron (BBWAA – 1982)
Luis Aparicio (BBWAA - 1984)
Jim Bunning (VC - 1996)
Orlando Cepeda (VC - 1999)
Don Drysdale (BBWAA - 1984)
Nellie Fox (VC - 1997)
Bill Mazeroski (VC - 2001)
Frank Robinson (BBWAA – 1982)
Red Schoendienst (VC - 1989)
Billy Williams (BBWAA – 1987)

Players Elected by BBF
Player BBF Election Year BBF Election Percentage Year on Ballot
Richie Ashburn 1979 75.41% 12th (1st for BBF)
Bob Gibson 1981 89.83% 1st
Al Kaline 1980 90.32% 1st
Harmon Killebrew 1981 93.22% 1st
Juan Marichal 1981 79.66% 1st
Willie Mays 1979 98.36% 1st
Ron Santo 1980 82.26% 1st
Duke Snider 1979 83.61% 10th (1st for BBF)
Hoyt Wilhelm 1979 77.05% 2nd (1st for BBF)

Players Elected by BBWAA Between 1979-1981
Bob Gibson (1981)
Al Kaline (1980)
Willie Mays (1979)
Duke Snider (1980)

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past BBF Elections
1979: 61
1980: 62
1981: 59

[DoubleX]

Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson obviously highlight the newcomers. Billy Williams is also a very strong candidate (and an actual Hall of Famer). I expect Tony Oliva and Bill Freehan to have their supporters, and players like Tommy Davis, Dave McNally, and Rico Petrocelli might as well.

[John Shoemaker]

I voted for:

Hank AAron
Frank Robinson
Billy Williams
Frank Howard
Orlando Cepeda
Norm Cash
Gil Hodges

[DoubleX]

I voted for 9 players, which is the most I've voted for thus far in one election. I came close to 10 as I'm starting to really warm up to Frank Howard, but I'm not quite there yet. The 9 I did vote for are:

Hank Aaron
Luis Aparicio
Ken Boyer
Orlando Cepeda
Don Drysdale
Nellie Fox
Bill Freehan
Frank Robinson
Billy Williams


I would really like to urge people to take a long hard look at Bill Freehan. Terrific all around catcher whose era (the 1960s) depressed his production.

[AlecBoy006]

Bunning- Underrated pitcher.
Cepeda- Should've been in.
Freehan- Should be in, great defense.
Howard- Everybody knows how I feel about him.
Williams- Sweet Swingin. Could hit, for average and power.
Aaron- The most obvious pick. RBI, HR, king, and 3700 hits to his name.
Oliva- Great hitter, should be in the current.
Schoendienst- I think of him more as a manager, but could hit, and the best pair of hands ever seen by Stan Musial.
Wills- Ok hitter, great base stealer. Should be in.
Robinson- Excellent HR hitter, did so much for Baltimore.

[leecemark]

--Voted for 10, as I have each time, and definately would have voted for 2 more and possibly as many as 15 if permitted. I notice that so far we have either elected players the first year eligible or not at all. Its early, but maybe the BBF mindset is more "he is a Hall of Famer or he is not" and it will be tough for guys to build support if they don't make it immediately. I hope not because we are in an era where I think there were alot of Cooperstown oversights (players whose earlier peers are mostly in while they are not) and we have a very deep ballot of worthy candidates.

[AlecBoy006]

Indeed worthy.

Would it be ok to start a 2008 Mock Election, or should I wait?

[DoubleX]

--Voted for 10, as I have each time, and definately would have voted for 2 more and possibly as many as 15 if permitted. I notice that so far we have either elected players the first year eligible or not at all. Its early, but maybe the BBF mindset is more "he is a Hall of Famer or he is not" and it will be tough for guys to build support if they don't make it immediately. I hope not because we are in an era where I think there were alot of Cooperstown oversights (players whose earlier peers are mostly in while they are not) and we have a very deep ballot of worthy candidates.

Out of curiousit, who are the 15 you were considering voting for?

[Windy City Fan]

Full ballot for me as well:

Aaron
Apricio
Boyer
Cepeda
Drysdale
Fox
Howard
Maz
Robinson
Williams

I'm not convinced for Oliva. He's similar to the Cash, Hodges, Cepda, Howard crowd, which is right at the borderline for me. However, he has the shortest career of the group and a peak that's not exactly historic. For now, he's off my ballot, but a dedicated argument for him might persuade me in the future. Freehan also just missed the ballot, and there's a good chance he'll make it in the future if we clear some room. Besides his multiple gold gloves, does anyone have any info on his defensive performance? I think that will be what makes or breaks my decision.

[leecemark]

Out of curiousit, who are the 15 you were considering voting for?

Voted for: Aaron, Aparicio, Bunning, Cash, Cepeda, Drysdale, Fox, Freehan, Robinson and Williams
Have made my ballot in previous years: Boyer, Mazeroski and Schoendienst
Would consider in the future: Howard, Munson and Oliva
--Cash is the weakest member of my current ballot and he probably wouldn't be on it if he wasn't my favorite player as a kid. His numbers say decent selection, but very close to the borderline. His fame quotient is pretty low.

[John Shoemaker]

Well we still have 3 players that are unanimous this round - I wonder how long that will last?

[yankillaz]

I voted for:

Aaron
Aparicio
Pinson
Robinson
Schoendienst
Williams

[Erik Bedard]

Had to drop Schoendienst from my ballot this time. I voted for:

Aaron
Bunning
Cash
Cepeda
Drysdale
Fox
Howard
Mazeroski
Robinson
Williams

Debated Fox/Maz/Schoendienst/Oliva/Howard in my head for long time, and eventually went with Fox, Howard and Maz. Oliva will make my ballot next year, assuming Robinson, Williams, and Aaron all get in.

[digglahhh]

Voted for:

Aaron
Boyer
Cepeda
Drysdale
Robinson
Williams

Boyer is a new edition to my ballot.

I can see myself voting for Freehan in the future, but I highly doubt I'll be voting for Oliva.

[AstrosFan]

I'm going small hall. Don't know why, just felt like doing it. I voted for H. Aaron and F. Robinson, meant to vote for B. Williams too. Can a mod change it?

[The Dude]

Tony Oliva had a short career, but that is obvious. Tony Oliva had a great career, and that might not be obvious.

Let me throw some numbers out there that might intice someone to see his greatness.

1.14 Hits/Game played in his career

Now for some comparison, let me take a look at some of the players WCF mentioned as putting Oliva in with.

Cash: .87 H/Game played
Hodges:.93
Cepeda: 1.11
Howard: .94

Only Cepeda comes real close. Now this might seem like a bogus number to you, but I dare you too look at most players. This is a number usually only the best of the best get up to. In fact, Oliva's H/G number is better than Robinsons and tied with Aaron.

Now, not only does he have an advantage over a number of players worthy of induction, he is extremely close in some counting stats that he shouldn't be. Such as RBI's, he's about 150 behind Howard and Cash. Yet he played about 350 games less than each of them. Think of that. Two and 1/4th of a season advantage, and two power hitters like that can't put Oliva behind more in RBI's?

From 1964-1969, Tony Oliva had 4 seasons of .300+ batting average. Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson both had that same number between 1964 and 1969.

Not only that, but his defense

Despite his short career, Oliva was good in a number of categories. He was a great hitter for average, he was a good power hitter (4 top 5 apperances in slugging), a very good defensive player, and he had some speed before his injury to boot. However, due to an injury that probably should have left many players out of the game, Oliva came back to play 3 more good seasons, albeit not the great Oliva he once was.

I'll live you with just one more stat. 35th all time in black ink (41 points). Howard, Cepeda, Hodges, and Cash put together have 40 points of black ink ... and who knows how many more seasons played.

[Westlake]

Voted for:

Aaron
Cepeda
Drysdale
Robinson
Maz

[mtortolero]

Tony Oliva had a short career, but that is obvious. Tony Oliva had a great career, and that might not be obvious.

Let me throw some numbers out there that might intice someone to see his greatness.

1.14 Hits/Game played in his career

Now for some comparison, let me take a look at some of the players WCF mentioned as putting Oliva in with.

Cash: .87 H/Game played
Hodges:.93
Cepeda: 1.11
Howard: .94

Only Cepeda comes real close. Now this might seem like a bogus number to you, but I dare you too look at most players. This is a number usually only the best of the best get up to. In fact, Oliva's H/G number is better than Robinsons and tied with Aaron.

Now, not only does he have an advantage over a number of players worthy of induction, he is extremely close in some counting stats that he shouldn't be. Such as RBI's, he's about 150 behind Howard and Cash. Yet he played about 350 games less than each of them. Think of that. Two and 1/4th of a season advantage, and two power hitters like that can't put Oliva behind more in RBI's?

From 1964-1969, Tony Oliva had 4 seasons of .300+ batting average. Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson both had that same number between 1964 and 1969.

Not only that, but his defense

Despite his short career, Oliva was good in a number of categories. He was a great hitter for average, he was a good power hitter (4 top 5 apperances in slugging), a very good defensive player, and he had some speed before his injury to boot. However, due to an injury that probably should have left many players out of the game, Oliva came back to play 3 more good seasons, albeit not the great Oliva he once was.

I'll live you with just one more stat. 35th all time in black ink (41 points). Howard, Cepeda, Hodges, and Cash put together have 40 points of black ink ... and who knows how many more seasons played.

Oliva was a great hitter with poor discipline at plate: three times champion bat and other four times among top three in average in the AL but still never was any near to be leader in OBP of the league.
The best season of Oliva, let´s say 1964, when he had 217 hits, 34 BB and 6 HBP which means 257 times on base in 718 PA.
Let´s compare with the best of Frank Howard, let´s say 1969, when he had 175 hits, 102 BB and 5 HBP, which means 282 times on base in 702 PA.
Oliva played that season in a good hitters park meanwhile Howard played in a good pitchers park. The same happens if you compare their best three seasons and their best five seasons.
No way Oliva over Howard.

[dgarza]

I voted (in order):
Hank Aaron
Frank Robinson
Billy Williams
Orlando Cepeda
Tony Oliva
Don Drysdale
Jim Bunning
Frank Howard
Nellie Fox
Vada Pinson

I'm strongly thinking of modifying how I line my votes up for next year.
If I would have used my modified order this year, my vote would have looked like this:
Hank Aaron
Frank Robinson
Billy Williams
Orlando Cepeda
Tony Oliva
Nellie Fox
Don Drysdale
Jim Bunning
Ken Boyer
Vada Pinson

Since I already voted and don't want to create a hassle, I'll leave my vote the way it is.

[John Shoemaker]

Oliva was a great hitter with poor discipline at plate: three times champion bat and other four times among top three in average in the AL but still never was any near to be leader in OBP of the league.
The best season of Oliva, let´s say 1964, when he had 217 hits, 34 BB and 6 HBP which means 257 times on base in 718 PA.
Let´s compare with the best of Frank Howard, let´s say 1969, when he had 175 hits, 102 BB and 5 HBP, which means 282 times on base in 702 PA.
Oliva played that season in a good hitters park meanwhile Howard played in a good pitchers park. The same happens if you compare their best three seasons and their best five seasons.
No way Oliva over Howard.

I agree - I saw then both play many times and I'd definitily take Frank Howard over Tony Oliva.

[THE OX]

Voted for ten for the first time. This is, IMO, an unusually strong list of candidates.

[538280]

I totally mistakenly voted for Tommy Harper. Could a mod please take that vote away?

I think Bill Freehan is an interesting newcomer. Freehan had a great peak in '67-'68, and although he didn't sustain at that level he did have a quite a few seasons near there (1964, 1971, 1972, 1974). He had quite a few other decent seasons, those four very, very good ones, and two years when he was arguably the best in baseball and led the great Tigers team to a WS. He was good defensively, had a little power, drew walks, and handled the pitching staff well. He wrote the "Ten Commandments of Catchers" which stand today as good rules and things to remember when playing catcher. His career OPS+ was 112, very good defensiely, arguably the best player in the league for two years, to me he's kind of like a mini-Gary Carter, and Carter to me is pretty close to a first tier HOFer. That's a pretty impressive resume for a catcher. While I would want Torre and Simmons in first, Freehan probably would make my HOF.

[538280]

Dude, I don't really buy your argument for Oliva. Oliva's specialty was hits-of course he's going to look good at that. You can't just focus on a player's ultimate strength because that's only going to make him look good, you have to focus on his total game and don't think as a total hitter, with a short career, he's good enough to get in. I think he's similar to Roberto Clemente while playing but not the fielder and in a much shorter career. Black ink IMO is not a valid statistic in this case. Black ink focuses on the traditional categories, particularly the triple crown, which do not give a good idea of a player's true value to his team. Bill James created black ink (as well as HOF standards, HOF monitor, gray ink) to predict who was going to make the HOF, and NOT to determine who ws truly worthy.

You mention RBI. Looking at his peripheral stats it's hard to see Oliva as a better RBI man than Cash or Cepeda. I suspect a big reason was that he had Rod Carew in front of him for nearly his whole career. And even with Carew Oliva did not really do better in terms of driving in runs anyway:

RBI per PA/Out
.............RBI/PA....RBI/Out
Oliva........138.........204
Cash........139.........215
Cepeda.....157.........229

He was basically the same as Cash in per PA but behind in per out. Also Oliva had over 1000 less career PA than both of them-so the same rate in less time isn't as impressive. Another way to look at this issue, as it seems the jist of your argument is to focus on actual runs rather than run elements, is to look at (runs plus RBI) per out:

(Runs plus RBI) per out
Oliva: .391
Cash: .419
Cepeda: .419

And Oliva still had over 1000 less PA and by the normal measures-the player's non-team dependant offensive stats, both Cash and Cepeda are better hitters than Oliva. With a defensive edge I could see Oliva as better if he played the same amount of time, but the fact his career is so short makes him not a HOFer IMO. He just wasn't THAT special while he was playing-and you need to be to be a HOFer which such a short career.

[John Shoemaker]

Dude, I don't really buy your argument for Oliva. Oliva's specialty was hits-of course he's going to look good at that. You can't just focus on a player's ultimate strength because that's only going to make him look good, you have to focus on his total game and don't think as a total hitter, with a short career, he's good enough to get in. I think he's similar to Roberto Clemente while playing but not the fielder and in a much shorter career. Black ink IMO is not a valid statistic in this case. Black ink focuses on the traditional categories, particularly the triple crown, which do not give a good idea of a player's true value to his team. Bill James created black ink (as well as HOF standards, HOF monitor, gray ink) to predict who was going to make the HOF, and NOT to determine who ws truly worthy.

You mention RBI. Looking at his peripheral stats it's hard to see Oliva as a better RBI man than Cash or Cepeda. I suspect a big reason was that he had Rod Carew in front of him for nearly his whole career. And even with Carew Oliva did not really do better in terms of driving in runs anyway:

RBI per PA/Out
.............RBI/PA....RBI/Out
Oliva........138.........204
Cash........139.........215
Cepeda.....157.........229

He was basically the same as Cash in per PA but behind in per out. Also Oliva had over 1000 less career PA than both of them-so the same rate in less time isn't as impressive. Another way to look at this issue, as it seems the jist of your argument is to focus on actual runs rather than run elements, is to look at (runs plus RBI) per out:

(Runs plus RBI) per out
Oliva: .391
Cash: .419
Cepeda: .419

And Oliva still had over 1000 less PA and by the normal measures-the player's non-team dependant offensive stats, both Cash and Cepeda are better hitters than Oliva. With a defensive edge I could see Oliva as better if he played the same amount of time, but the fact his career is so short makes him not a HOFer IMO. He just wasn't THAT special while he was playing-and you need to be to be a HOFer which such a short career.

I agree - Norm Cash and Orlando Cepeda were better hitters than Tony Oliva.

[yanks0714]

I voted for a full 10 again this time:

* Aaron
* Robinson
* Williams
* Boyer
* Fox
* Cepeda
* Bunning
* Aparicio
* Drysdale
* Oliva

Freehan may well make my list next election. Had to drop Scheondienst.

[DoubleX]

I'm going small hall. Don't know why, just felt like doing it. I voted for H. Aaron and F. Robinson, meant to vote for B. Williams too. Can a mod change it?

and

I totally mistakenly voted for Tommy Harper. Could a mod please take that vote away?

Sorry, but no can do. I said in the rules section that the only way I'll modify a vote is if someone votes for more than 10 (in which case, I'll give them a couple of days to inform me of players to drop, or else I'll discount their entire vote). Otherwise, votes will not be amended after the fact. That's why I urge everyone to consider review their votes carefully before hitting submit. I wouldn't be surprised at all if in reality this same thing has happened - voters have submitted their ballots accidentally forgetting to vote for someone or checking off the wrong person (just ask voters in Florida from the 2000 presidential election). It's unfortunate, but once your votes are in, I don't think it would be a good policy to go back and made amendments after the fact, even if well-intentioned.

[Colorado Express]

Easily filled my ballot:

No-brainers:
Aaron
Robinson
Williams

A bit tougher, but still easy:
Cepeda
Drysdale
Fox
Hodges

Just above the border (view could change daily):
Howard
Oliva
Munson

Will give more thought to, next time:
Bunning
Pinson
Schoendienst
Wills (received my vote last time)

[iPod]

Strange that everyone is submitting full ballots and the past couple of elections I've only supported 5 or so people. People like Jim Bunning and Nellie Fox are in the Hall of Fame in reality and I'll accept that, but when you switch the status quo toward them not being in Cooperstown, and you start thinking about whether to change the status quo and put them in... ehh, I'm not nearly as enthusiastic.

I'm really surprised that Drysdale hasn't been elected yet. He seems like a pretty straightforward Hall of Fame pitcher to me, clearly above a guy like Jim Bunning. In all fairness, though, Bunning hasn't been chosen either.

[DoubleX]

I haven't really stumped for anyone yet but here's my case for Bill Freehan, whom I feel deserves very serious consideration:

- 11 All Star selections, which is the same amount as Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter, 2 more than Joe Torre, 3 more than Ted Simmons, and just 1 less than Mike Piazza. He was selected to 10 straight All Star Games - every year between 1964 and 1973. Fisk never went to more than 3 straight.

- 5 Gold Glove Awards, and he probably deserved at least a few more.

- 200 career homeruns, which is fairly impressive considering he was playing catcher during the 60s and 70s.

- He was almost certainly the best catcher in the AL between Yogi Berra and Carlton Fisk.

- He was also arguably the best catcher in baseball between Yogi Berra and Johnny Bench (Joe Torre is the biggest challenger here, but Torre caught 650 less games than Freehan and was not nearly the defender that Freehan was).

- Was the best or among the very best catchers in the game for over a decade.

[brett]

How does Billy Williams rate defensively? If he was a poor fielder he's going to be borderline for me.

Anyway, Aaron and Robinson go in.

Cepeda and Williams and Drysdale are on the bubble-about 50/50 for me right now.

And though I thought he was one of the worst selections at the time, I have gradually come to rate Mazeroski quite differently. First, I rate second base as a more important position than I used to and second, he turned double plays at an astronomical rate-probably due to staff and era trends, but I'm not really sure that matters, it just means that second base was more important in his era and situation.

Aparicio will be a hard sell for me.

Waiting for now.

[brett]

I haven't really stumped for anyone yet but here's my case for Bill Freehan, whom I feel deserves very serious consideration:

- 11 All Star selections, which is the same amount as Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter, 2 more than Joe Torre, 3 more than Ted Simmons, and just 1 less than Mike Piazza. He was selected to 10 straight All Star Games - every year between 1964 and 1973. Fisk never went to more than 3 straight.

- 5 Gold Glove Awards, and he probably deserved at least a few more.

- 200 career homeruns, which is fairly impressive considering he was playing catcher during the 60s and 70s.

- He was almost certainly the best catcher in the AL between Yogi Berra and Carlton Fisk.

- He was also arguably the best catcher in baseball between Yogi Berra and Johnny Bench (Joe Torre is the biggest challenger here, but Torre caught 650 less games than Freehan and was not nearly the defender that Freehan was).

- Was the best or among the very best catchers in the game for over a decade.


Thanks, I missed him. I do think that he is the best catcher not in the hall, and he gets my consideration.

[DoubleX]

Voted for:

Aaron
Cepeda
Drysdale
Robinson
Maz

I can't remember if this has been talked about, but you like Mazeroski more than Fox (and Schoendienst)? I was wondering if you could elaborate? If its the defense issue, why not also vote for Aparicio who was among the very best at SS, which IMO, puts him pretty much on par defensively with Mazeroski, but Aparicio also had value in stolen bases.

[DoubleX]

Thanks, I missed him. I do think that he is the best catcher not in the hall, and he gets my consideration.

Yup. Freehan for a long time was a bubble guy for me, but after thinking about it, I've concluded that he was a terrific all around catcher who was arguably the best in the game for a pretty good stretch and and whose numbers were probably fairly significantly depressed by his era. The 11 All Star selections are also pretty impressive and indicate to me that he was well-regarded for a long time when he played. In many ways, using All Star selections is not nearly the best way to evaluate a player, but I think it can be very relevant when discussing a player's Hall of Fame candidacy, which can transcend just statistical evaluation, IMO, especially when you have a player that might be statistically borderline like Freehan.

I don't know if he's the best catcher not in the Hall, but I think he's got a good argument. I think Torre was a better player, but Freehan was the better catcher due to better defense and 650 more games at the position. So that leaves Ted Simmons. Again, Freehan was the better defender, but Simmons played 200+ more games at the position and was a better hitter for longer. So I think even though Freehan was a more well-rounded catcher, Simmons advantages in hitting and longevity get him ahead of Freehan, IMO. Regardless, I will vote all three (Freehan, Torre, Simmons) when their times come.

[leecemark]

How does Billy Williams rate defensively? If he was a poor fielder he's going to be borderline for me.

.

--Williams wasn't a horrible defender. He was certainly better than a guy like Frank Howard, but you'd be pusing it to call him any better than average. He was probably a little worse than average over the course of his career with some solid seasons in his prime.

[brett]

Yup. Freehan for a long time was a bubble guy for me, but after thinking about it, I've concluded that he was a terrific all around catcher who was arguably the best in the game for a pretty good stretch and and whose numbers were probably fairly significantly depressed by his era.

Well an AVERAGE fielding catcher with a 112 OPS+ and close to 1600 games caught would be impressive enough. Throw in 5 straight gold gloves and its pretty much case closed unless he was largely undeserving of his gold gloves.

Boy, this shows how my views can change. At one point I thought that Gary Carter was not quite a hall of famer-now he is a god.

Anyway, I am looking at 3 basic things here-OPS+, games caught and defense compared to other catchers (which is subjective of course)

Carter---115---2056---(A-/B+)
Simmons--118--1771---(D/D+?)
Freehan---112---1581---(A-)
Torre-----129----903---(C-)
Bob Boone-82----2225--(A)
Sundberg--89----1927--(A)
Parrish----105----1818--(B)

Santiago---92----1917--(B/B+)
Tony Pena-84----1950--(A-)

[mtortolero]

Probably Freehan was ignored in the writers ballot becasue the year he was eligible, 1981, all that generation of Bench, Fisk, Carter, Simmons and Parrish were around leaving numbers in traditional stats as Hrs and rbi that Freehan never put in his resume.
The fact that he never had a "super-season" and his best seasons as hitter came at 1967 and 1968 when traditional stats were very depresed makes him look not better hitter than Elston Howard or Earl Battey, probably the best catchers comtemporaries to him in the AL in the 60´s.
Of course those writers never carried a bat in those years to know that in 1968 with only .301 you can be the batting champion. Freehan is very underrated due the time he played.

[DoubleX]

Throw in 5 straight gold gloves and its pretty much case closed unless he was largely undeserving of his gold gloves.

I think Freehan was probably deserving of a least a couple of more Gold Gloves.

[John Shoemaker]

Well we are at 36 votes and we still have 2 players that are unanimous. Could we possibly get 1 or both elected with a unanimous vote? That would be wonderful - both certainly are deserving players. Does anyone remember how many votes in our 1979 voting Willie Mays had before someone left him off their ballot ruining his chances?

[-Kyle-]

Drysdale is so close! Come on people!:waving

[AlecBoy006]

Oh God forbid.

Drysdale was good at best. Nothing spectacular.

[538280]

Sorry, but no can do. I said in the rules section that the only way I'll modify a vote is if someone votes for more than 10 (in which case, I'll give them a couple of days to inform me of players to drop, or else I'll discount their entire vote). Otherwise, votes will not be amended after the fact. That's why I urge everyone to consider review their votes carefully before hitting submit. I wouldn't be surprised at all if in reality this same thing has happened - voters have submitted their ballots accidentally forgetting to vote for someone or checking off the wrong person (just ask voters in Florida from the 2000 presidential election). It's unfortunate, but once your votes are in, I don't think it would be a good policy to go back and made amendments after the fact, even if well-intentioned.

Okay, it really is fine with me. It's not going to make a difference anyway, as Harper is not even going to get the 5% needed to stay on the ballot and surely will never be anywhere near election.

[AstrosFan]

Same here. Williams should get in easily. I'll just have to be more careful next time.

[digglahhh]

Tacosaregood/Metsguy,

Care to explain why chose to vote for Cleon Jones and not Billy Williams?

[John Shoemaker]

Oh God forbid.

Drysdale was good at best. Nothing spectacular.

I agree. He might get in some year but it has to be a year with a weaker slate of candidates than this year.

[DoubleX]

Okay, it really is fine with me. It's not going to make a difference anyway, as Harper is not even going to get the 5% needed to stay on the ballot and surely will never be anywhere near election.

and

Same here. Williams should get in easily. I'll just have to be more careful next time.

Thanks for understanding guys. I will hold myself to this same rule if/when I submit with a vote I didn't intend.

Also, if any Mods are reading this, PLEASE A) Do not ghange your votes after you submit, even if its just to correct your ballot; and B) Do not change anyone elses ballot if they ask after submitting. I really don't want to create a policy of making amends after the fact. Most of us will be well intentioned, but it will also make the process susceptible to flip-floppers. I'll take care of any votes that need to be changed due to voting for too many players, though if a voter is habitually submitting a ballot with more than 10 players, I will discount their votes in all elections going forward (and I'll amend the rules to state this as well).

[dgarza]

No way will Gil Hodges or Red Schoendienst be elected this year. Next year will be their last. I am going to be sure to find room for them in 1983.

[dgarza]

No way will Gil Hodges or Red Schoendienst be elected this year. Next year will be their last. i have voted to Gil in the past, but never for Red. I am going to be sure to find room for them in 1983.

[John Shoemaker]

No way will Gil Hodges or Red Schoendienst be elected this year. Next year will be their last. i have voted to Gil in the past, but never for Red. I am going to be sure to find room for them in 1983.

I voted for Gil Hodges every year and will again in 1983. I will seriously consider voting for Red Schoendiest in 1983. I cannot understand our lack of support for Gil Hodges. The BBWA cast over 3000 votes for him - the most for any candidate until Jim Rice broke that record this year. Gil Hodges deserves more support from us.

[DoubleX]

I might put Schoendienst back on ballot for '83. I voted for him in '79, then changed my mind and decided he's just on the outside. Still, I think when I'm dealing with a player I regard as very borderline but just on the outside, if they can survive the 15 years, I'll vote for them in the 15th year. Frank Howard is someone else I'll probably give that treatment to if he gets to 15 years, though I still might come around and vote for him sooner. I don't think there is anyone else currently on the ballot that I'm not voting for that I'd do that with, though I could be persuaded by strong arguments for Bunning or Mazeroski.

[DoubleX]

I hate to say this, but given that Willie Mays failed to receive 100%, I kind of don't want to see anyone receive 100%. I suppose if anyone were to do it instead of Mays, Aaron would be most appropriate given his abilities and the records, but we will not have a better player come up for election in this project than Willie Mays, IMO.

[John Shoemaker]

I hate to say this, but given that Willie Mays failed to receive 100%, I kind of don't want to see anyone receive 100%. I suppose if anyone were to do it instead of Mays, Aaron would be most appropriate given his abilities and the records, but we will not have a better player come up for election in this project than Willie Mays, IMO.

I think it's a shame that Mays didn't recieve 100% but I still hope Aaron and Robinson get 100%. In my opinion Aaron, Mays and Robinson are the three best players that we will be voting on.

[John Shoemaker]

I might put Schoendienst back on ballot for '83. I voted for him in '79, then changed my mind and decided he's just on the outside. Still, I think when I'm dealing with a player I regard as very borderline but just on the outside, if they can survive the 15 years, I'll vote for them in the 15th year. Frank Howard is someone else I'll probably give that treatment to if he gets to 15 years, though I still might come around and vote for him sooner. I don't think there is anyone else currently on the ballot that I'm not voting for that I'd do that with, though I could be persuaded by strong arguments for Bunning or Mazeroski.

I hope Frank Howard is not on the ballot for 15 years. I hope he is elected before that - but it doesn't look too good unless we start giving him the support he deserves.

[dgarza]

I hope Frank Howard is not on the ballot for 15 years. I hope he is elected before that - but it doesn't look too good unless we start giving him the support he deserves.
I don't see Howard getting much more support. He'll never see 50%.

[Erik Bedard]

Drysdale's back up to 72.5%...

[DoubleX]

We have a small handful of players who seem to be consistently receiving solid support, but don't seem to be making much progress. I think it might be a good idea of proponents of some of these players start making their cases for these players before the players eligibility is over. You never know, a good argument could sway just enough voters to make a difference. In particular, the players I'm talking about are:

Jim Bunning
Orlando Cepeda
Nellie Fox
Don Drysdale

There appears to be hope with Drysdale, but the other three are stagnated, yet close enough that a good argument could potentially make a difference.

I'm also kind of surprised that Richie Ashburn made it in on his first try with us - he seems to fit in pretty well with the aforementioned players.

[John Shoemaker]

We have a small handful of players who seem to be consistently receiving solid support, but don't seem to be making much progress. I think it might be a good idea of proponents of some of these players start making their cases for these players before the players eligibility is over. You never know, a good argument could sway just enough voters to make a difference. In particular, the players I'm talking about are:

Jim Bunning
Orlando Cepeda
Nellie Fox
Don Drysdale

There appears to be hope with Drysdale, but the other three are stagnated, yet close enough that a good argument could potentially make a difference.

I'm also kind of surprised that Richie Ashburn made it in on his first try with us - he seems to fit in pretty well with the aforementioned players.

I think Orlando Cepeda is a cut above these other 3 and once we get superstars Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson and Billy Williams elected and off the ballot Orlando Cepeda should get the support he deserves and be elected.

[DoubleX]

I think Orlando Cepeda is a cut above these other 3 and once we get superstars Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson and Billy Williams elected and off the ballot Orlando Cepeda should get the support he deserves and be elected.

I disagree. I vote for Cepeda, but he is extremely borderline for me. Being a 1Bman, his offensive production should be held to a pretty lofty standard, IMO, and he just barely meets that standard for his career for me. I think both Drysdale and Fox are more worthy Hall of Famers.

[Erik Bedard]

I've voted for Bunning, Fox, Cepeda, and Drysdale each year thus far.

[DoubleX]

I've voted for Bunning, Fox, Cepeda, and Drysdale each year thus far.

I've voted for Cepeda, Drysdale, and Fox each time thus far, but I just don't quite Bunning. Maybe I'm missing something, but he just seems like the archetypical Hall of Very Good/Not Quite to me.

[2Chance]

Aaron, Aparicio, Bunning, Drysdale, Fox, Freehan, Maz, Frank Robinson, Schoendienst and Billy Williams

(Looks like Robert Goulet stole my vote for Cepeda. He should have gone instead of one of the 2B's.)

[AlecBoy006]

What makes you think Aparicio and Drysdale are so deserving?

[John Shoemaker]

What makes you think Aparicio and Drysdale are so deserving?

I'd like to know that too as I don't consider either one quite up to hall of fame standards.

[2Chance]

Little Looie was one of my all-time favorites.
From Baseball Library (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/A/Aparacio_Luis.stm):
Playing side by side with Nellie Fox during the late 1950s and early 1960s, Aparicio helped form the nucleus of one of the slickest-fielding infield combinations in baseball. His 506 stolen bases ranked him seventh all-time when he retired, and he holds the lifetime shortstop records for games, double plays, and assists and the AL records for putouts and total chances. He dominated on a season-to-season basis too; in the first thirteen years of his career, he led AL shortstops eight consecutive years in fielding, seven times in assists, four times in putouts, twice each in total chances per game and double plays, and only once in errors.
Drysdale? Eight-time All Star. Awesome fastball with control and attitude. A workhorse who never missed a start and was perennially at or near the top of every major pitching category.

So at his retirement after 14 seasons he "only" had about 2500 K's? You gotta look at where he was then, not now. Several players now have better than 3,000. Back then it was only Walter Johnson, and some people thought his 3,508 was untouchable. This was what Big D was best at, strikeouts and intimidation. If not for Bob Gibson (btw the second to 3,000), he would have been the undisputed most feared pitcher of his time.

He pitched a lot of shutouts, including that outrageous streak of 6 in a row for 58-2/3 scoreless innings, another feat thought untouchable until fellow Dodger Orel Hershiser beat it 20 years later.

[The Dude]

I firmly agree with 2chance with his reasoning here. Drysdale at the start of 1982 was 16th all time in K's, not 29th. I'm guessing his K/9 ratio was also pretty high before the 1990's.

[Freakshow]

Through 1973

Career Strikeout Leaders

1 Walter Johnson 3509
2 Bob Gibson 2928
3 Jim Bunning 2855
4 Cy Young 2802
5 Warren Spahn 2583
6 Bob Feller 2581
7 Tim Keefe 2521
8 C. Mathewson 2502
9 Don Drysdale 2486
10 Sandy Koufax 2396

Strkeouts Per Nine Innings, 2250+ IP

1 Sandy Koufax 9.3
2 Sam McDowell 8.9
3 Mickey Lolich 7.5
4 Bob Gibson 7.5
5 Fergie Jenkins 7.1
6 Rube Waddell 7.0
7 Jim Bunning 6.8
8 Camilo Pascual 6.7
9 Don Drysdale 6.5
10 Hoyt Wilhelm 6.4

[DoubleX]

And Drysdale pretty much did all of this by age 31 as he was out of baseball by 32. 3400 innings by age 31 in a non-deadball era context, is extremely impressive, IMO. Had modern medicine been available to Drysdale, he probably could have continued and finished with pretty impressive counting stats across the board.

[John Shoemaker]

Through 1973

Career Strikeout Leaders

1 Walter Johnson 3509
2 Bob Gibson 2928
3 Jim Bunning 2855
4 Cy Young 2802
5 Warren Spahn 2583
6 Bob Feller 2581
7 Tim Keefe 2521
8 C. Mathewson 2502
9 Don Drysdale 2486
10 Sandy Koufax 2396

Strkeouts Per Nine Innings, 2250+ IP

1 Sandy Koufax 9.3
2 Sam McDowell 8.9
3 Mickey Lolich 7.5
4 Bob Gibson 7.5
5 Fergie Jenkins 7.1
6 Rube Waddell 7.0
7 Jim Bunning 6.8
8 Camilo Pascual 6.7
9 Don Drysdale 6.5
10 Hoyt Wilhelm 6.4


That's interesting - Jim Bunning had a higher strkeout ratio per inning than Drysdale. Maybe Jim Bunning should be the next pitcher we elect to the hall of fame insead of Drysdale. I'll have to take a closer look at Bunning in the next round.

[DoubleX]

That's interesting - Jim Bunning had a higher strkeout ratio per inning than Drysdale. Maybe Jim Bunning should be the next pitcher we elect to the hall of fame insead of Drysdale. I'll have to take a closer look at Bunning in the next round.

Bunning's extremely slight advantage in K rate is negligible, IMO, given that Drysdale has a noticeable lead in ERA+, 121-114. Moreover, Bunning's slight lead in K rate is made up for by Drysdale's slight lead in K:BB rate. Drysdale is about 2.9:1, while Bunning is 2.85:1. But in both cases, the difference is so small that it's really nothing to pick at.

Another big difference between them, IMO, is Drysdale's durability. Consider that he threw just 300 innings less than Bunning, yet Drysdale was done at age 32 but Bunning pitched until 39. Drysdale had four consecutive seasons with at least 308 IP. Bunning just once topped 300 innings, reaching a high of 302 (Drysdale's high was 321). Drysdale also strung together six consecutive seasons with at least 270 IP. Bunning topped 270 just three times in his entire career. Drysdale was just flatout a workhorse (of course, it led to him being out of the game by age 32).

For me, Drysdale's 7 point advantage in ERA+, his amazing durability during his peak, and his impressive counting numbers by age 31 are what do it for me. Just look at all Drysdale accomplished despite being out of baseball by 32. I think it's pretty incredible.

[dgarza]

What makes you think Aparicio and Drysdale are so deserving?
I see that you have voted for Maury Wills. What makes him better than Aparicio? Wills was only a slightly better batter than Aparicio (although Aparicio had more power), Aparicio was a much better fielder, the only other thing that I can see would be Wills's big stolen base numbers (of course, Aparicio stolen pretty many bases too and at a better rate).

I understand why people don't vote for Aparicio, but when Wills is voted for ahead of him, I'm at a loss.

[digglahhh]

He pitched a lot of shutouts, including that outrageous streak of 6 in a row for 58-2/3 scoreless innings, another feat thought untouchable until fellow Dodger Orel Hershiser beat it 20 years later.

Aided by Dick Dietz (I think it was) getting hit by a pitch with the bases loaded and then having it called a strike because Dietz "did not attempt to get out of the way." Terrible call, by the way. And, the player who drove in the run to end Drysdale's streak drove in 3 runs in his entire career (forget his name).

Of course, Orel had some help too, namely, a questionable call that called a runner tagging up from third out for leaving early.

[dgarza]

Drysdale's back up to 72.5%...
I think he's just about out of it at this point.

[KCGHOST]

Aaron
Robinson
Williams

[John Shoemaker]

I think he's just about out of it at this point.

Right now if we get 16 more votes in this round Drysdale would need to be on all 16 ballots.

[Brooklyn]

Aaron
Robinson
Williams
Drysdale

I'm consistenlty voting for the more selective Hall. The first three are easily in for me, Drysdale is a lot closer, but gets the nod.

[Brooklyn]

I was curious if the voters of this poll were more small Hall or bigger Hall in general, so I added up the votes of the four elections, through this one:


1979. 475 votes, 61 voters (7.8 per)
1980. 429 votes, 62 voters (6.9 per)
1981. 417 votes, 59 voters (7.1 per)
1982. 361 votes, 48 voters (7.5 per)


In total, voters have averaged 7.3 votes per ballot cast, which is probably right between the small Hall and the bigger Hall. it is interesting that with a healthy number of votes, we haven't voted that many people in, which just shows you how much people disagree.

Looking at the actual voters, they voted for 7.7, 7.7, 7.5 and 8.1 per ballot in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 respectively. Looks like we are being a little more conservative that the voters, but not much

Just thought that was interesting

[DoubleX]

I was curious if the voters of this poll were more small Hall or bigger Hall in general, so I added up the votes of the four elections, through this one:


1979. 475 votes, 61 voters (7.8 per)
1980. 429 votes, 62 voters (6.9 per)
1981. 417 votes, 59 voters (7.1 per)
1982. 361 votes, 48 voters (7.5 per)


In total, voters have averaged 7.3 votes per ballot cast, which is probably right between the small Hall and the bigger Hall. it is interesting that with a healthy number of votes, we haven't voted that many people in, which just shows you how much people disagree.

Looking at the actual voters, they voted for 7.7, 7.7, 7.5 and 8.1 per ballot in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 respectively. Looks like we are being a little more conservative that the voters, but not much

Just thought that was interesting

I think collectively, we're actually for a big Hall, at least compared to the BBWAA. In our three elections thus far, we've elected 9 players, an average of 3 a year, including Ron Santo who is not in the actual Hall and Richie Ashburn who was put in by the VC in 1995. In contrast, the BBWAA during this three year timeframe, only put in 4 players, so we've already put in more than twice as many as the BBWAA so far.

This year its looking likely that we'll keep with our 3 per year average and put in three more, while the BBWAA put in just 2 in 1981. So our four year total will be 12 players elected, while the BBWAA elected just 6.

Now the next few years should be interesting for us as there really aren't many standout candidates. The only actual Hall of Famers to come up for election between 1982-1988 are Brooks Robinson, Lou Brock, Catfish Hunter, Willie McCovey, and Willie Stargell. That's not a particularly strong group and I wouldn't be surprised if at least three of those players struggle to get elected by us. So it will be interesting to see if we stick with our three a year trend - will we form a consensus around some of these players that aren't quite getting there so far (Drysdale, Cepeda, Fox, Bunning, Aparicio)? Will we form a consensus about some of the strong non-Hall of Famers coming up for election like we did for Santo (Allen, Torre)?

[John Shoemaker]

It looks like we are on our way to electing 3 players this round - Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson are still unanimous (and I hope the stay that way) and Billy Williams looks pretty safe unless something unexpected happens. The rest don't seem to have much chance until next round when the field is weaker.

[DoubleX]

Looking ahead to next year...

After a couple of strong classes of first-timers, 1983 will mark the beginning of a string of down years, which, IMO, should make things more interesting.

Brooks Robinson headlines the next ballot, but there a number of other players that could receive strong support as well, notably Dick Allen, Joe Torre, Jimmy Wynn, and Boog Powell.

How do people feel about Powell? I don't really see much of a difference between him and Norm Cash. Will the Norm Cash supporters also be supporting Powell? What about the Orlando Cepeda and Frank Howard supporters?

[dgarza]

How do people feel about Powell? I don't really see much of a difference between him and Norm Cash. Will the Norm Cash supporters also be supporting Powell? What about the Orlando Cepeda and Frank Howard supporters?
The difference between Powell and Cash is 1961. Without that year, they're pretty much the same. I'm not a Cash supporter, so I'm not a Powell supporter. Frank Howard will probably always fall within that #9-11 range, so it'll depend on what year it is whether he'll make my ballot. Cepeda (and Oliva) will probably always make my ballot. I see them as being very similar, and well enough above the borderline area to really have any worry about droppping off my ballot.

[DoubleX]

The difference between Powell and Cash is 1961. Without that year, they're pretty much the same. I'm not a Cash supporter, so I'm not a Powell supporter. Frank Howard will probably always fall within that #9-11 range, so it'll depend on what year it is whether he'll make my ballot. Cepeda (and Oliva) will probably always make my ballot. I see them as being very similar, and well enough above the borderline area to really have any worry about droppping off my ballot.

That's true, except Cash admitted to cheating in '61, to me, that dillutes the significance of his '61. Powell also won an MVP and finished in the top 3 two other times. Cash only once finished in the top 10, finishing 4th in 1961.

[John Shoemaker]

Looking ahead to next year...

After a couple of strong classes of first-timers, 1983 will mark the beginning of a string of down years, which, IMO, should make things more interesting.

Brooks Robinson headlines the next ballot, but there a number of other players that could receive strong support as well, notably Dick Allen, Joe Torre, Jimmy Wynn, and Boog Powell.

How do people feel about Powell? I don't really see much of a difference between him and Norm Cash. Will the Norm Cash supporters also be supporting Powell? What about the Orlando Cepeda and Frank Howard supporters?

I will be voting for all of these players: Dick Allen, Boog Powell, Norm Cash, Orlando Cepeda, and Frank Howard, as well as Gil Hodges in his last year of eligibility. I won't even try to rank these players as they were all great players.

[Erik Bedard]

I'll definitely be voting for Allen and Cepeda, and probably Howard as well. Cash and Powell are maybes.

[BoofBonser26]

Drysdale has slipped all the way down to 2/3...what's going on? (New voters aren't voting for him, but come on...:( )

[J W]

1983 might be a "down year" but I'm just going to be replacing the three electees with Robinson, Allen, and Torre. And I may be voting for Jimmy Wynn down the line. So my ballot won't change much.

[AlecBoy006]

Drysdale not getting in= EXCELLENT

[538280]

The difference between Powell and Cash is 1961. Without that year, they're pretty much the same. I'm not a Cash supporter, so I'm not a Powell supporter. Frank Howard will probably always fall within that #9-11 range, so it'll depend on what year it is whether he'll make my ballot. Cepeda (and Oliva) will probably always make my ballot. I see them as being very similar, and well enough above the borderline area to really have any worry about droppping off my ballot.

There's a bit more to it than that. Powell wasn't known as much of a fielding 1Bman. While he was known for having a talent for scooping balls out of the dirt he was always very immobile and didn't have much an arm. Cash was a playmaking 1Bman who made more than just the routine plays. The statistical evidence has also confirmed this. Cash for me is just barely in and I may say the same to Powell, but this difference may be enough to break the tie.

I'm not sold on bat corking either. Most studies that have been done on it have shown that it's benefit it mostly a myth, and I don't see what's so horribly wrong about getting a little bit of an edge if there's not much morally wrong with it (as there is with steroids). I think players have been trying to get an edge on the competition since the game started. Rogers Hornsby was quoted as saying someone on his team cheated in some way in almost every game he had ever played in. Many players were known for being adept at stealing signs-is that a negative on their HOF resume? And many of the people around Cash or familiar with him have called into question whether or not he was just joking about the bat corking anyway.

[John Shoemaker]

There's a bit more to it than that. Powell wasn't known as much of a fielding 1Bman. While he was known for having a talent for scooping balls out of the dirt he was always very immobile and didn't have much an arm. Cash was a playmaking 1Bman who made more than just the routine plays. The statistical evidence has also confirmed this. Cash for me is just barely in and I may say the same to Powell, but this difference may be enough to break the tie.

I'm not sold on bat corking either. Most studies that have been done on it have shown that it's benefit it mostly a myth, and I don't see what's so horribly wrong about getting a little bit of an edge if there's not much morally wrong with it (as there is with steroids). I think players have been trying to get an edge on the competition since the game started. Rogers Hornsby was quoted as saying someone on his team cheated in some way in almost every game he had ever played in. Many players were known for being adept at stealing signs-is that a negative on their HOF resume? And many of the people around Cash or familiar with him have called into question whether or not he was just joking about the bat corking anyway.

Norm Cash was a known practical joker. Nobody around him ever took anything he said seriously. He probably joked about corking just to get a rise out of reporters. For me both Norm Cash and Boog Powell are definitily in - I think they are both worthy of hall of fame consideration.

[538280]

Norm Cash was a known practical joker. Nobody around him ever took anything he said seriously. He probably joked about corking just to get a rise out of reporters. For me both Norm Cash and Boog Powell are definitily in - I think they are both worthy of hall of fame consideration.

John, you planning on taking a look at Jimmy Wynn?

[DoubleX]

I'm not sold on bat corking either. Most studies that have been done on it have shown that it's benefit it mostly a myth, and I don't see what's so horribly wrong about getting a little bit of an edge if there's not much morally wrong with it (as there is with steroids). I think players have been trying to get an edge on the competition since the game started. Rogers Hornsby was quoted as saying someone on his team cheated in some way in almost every game he had ever played in. Many players were known for being adept at stealing signs-is that a negative on their HOF resume? And many of the people around Cash or familiar with him have called into question whether or not he was just joking about the bat corking anyway.

We had a long discussion on the bat corking earlier, but if there isn't something actually to it, I don't see why a player would resort to using it. The fact that his numbers in 1961 are so out of whack with the rest of his career by every possible measure, does suggest that perhaps there was something to the bat corking if he indeed limited the corking to 1961 (which would lead to a whole new discussion of why would he cheat for only a year, especially after having so much success).

And you ask what's wrong with gaining an edge - nothing, so long as its within the rules, if it's not, such as corking, it's cheating.

[DoubleX]

Norm Cash was a known practical joker. Nobody around him ever took anything he said seriously. He probably joked about corking just to get a rise out of reporters. For me both Norm Cash and Boog Powell are definitily in - I think they are both worthy of hall of fame consideration.

We discussed this too earlier and Cash when admitting to the cheating meticulously demonstrated how he corked the bat. That seems to be going beyond just a practical joke.

[538280]

We had a long discussion on the bat corking earlier, but if there isn't something actually to it, I don't see why a player would resort to using it.

Because there is a widespread belief that it does help. The problem is that studies done on the issue have not shown it to have benefit. The notion that it has benefit may be a myth rather than a fact.

The fact that his numbers in 1961 are so out of whack with the rest of his career by every possible measure, does suggest that perhaps there was something to the bat corking if he indeed limited the corking to 1961 (which would lead to a whole new discussion of why would he cheat for only a year, especially after having so much success).

I don't get that either. If he really did cork his bat, and was that good with it, then you'd think he'd stay with it. Perhaps he continued to try it but it just wasn't having an effect, who knows.

And you ask what's wrong with gaining an edge - nothing, so long as its within the rules, if it's not, such as corking, it's cheating.

Stealing signs is not within the rules either. Is there a limit to you as to what is appropriate and what is not? I can absolutely see the moral issue with PEDs, in that it hurts the credibility of the game and is bad for medical health. But what exactly separates bat corking from something like stealing signs, which is a "skill" that is often praised?

[DoubleX]

Because there is a widespread belief that it does help. The problem is that studies done on the issue have not shown it to have benefit. The notion that it has benefit may be a myth rather than a fact.

Perhaps the impact is more mental than anything else in that the batter has more confidence. Still, I believe there must be something to it and I'm sure ballplayers know a lot more about the art of corking a bat than any of us do, and how to best maximize the effects. Moreover, if it didn't help in someway, there would be no point to outlawing it. Changing the composition of the bat, should change how the ball bounces off the bat to some degree.

I don't get that either. If he really did cork his bat, and was that good with it, then you'd think he'd stay with it. Perhaps he continued to try it but it just wasn't having an effect, who knows.

The most curious thing about his '61 campaign to me is his high number of walks. He had 124 that year, his career high, and prett remarkable when his 162 game average is 81 and he only came close 124 in one other season (1962). So something was definitely different about his approach that year - perhaps it was just confidence due to using a corked bat. Regardless, it is also very curious that his corking was limited to that year. I tend to think that he corked throughout his career, but did so more frequently that normal in 1961 and then again in 1971.

Stealing signs is not within the rules either. Is there a limit to you as to what is appropriate and what is not? I can absolutely see the moral issue with PEDs, in that it hurts the credibility of the game and is bad for medical health. But what exactly separates bat corking from something like stealing signs, which is a "skill" that is often praised?

Altering equipment to gain an advantage seems to be going too far. Anyone can steal signs because all players can see - they just need to be stealthy. But tampering equipment to gain an edge is different as it involves external factors and gaining an edge that is not available to all players. There is a reason equipment is streamlined - so everyone is on a level playing field. Under your logic, you would say its fine for a player to walk up to the plate with a metal bat painted wood color. You would be fine with that? Corking is along the same lines - it's altering the equipment to gain an apparent advantage not available to everyone else.

[John Shoemaker]

John, you planning on taking a look at Jimmy Wynn?

I will be considering him. Right now he's on the borderline for me - probably a little under it but I'm willing to listen to arguments.

[iPod]

I'm not sold on bat corking either. Most studies that have been done on it have shown that it's benefit it mostly a myth, and I don't see what's so horribly wrong about getting a little bit of an edge if there's not much morally wrong with it (as there is with steroids). I think players have been trying to get an edge on the competition since the game started. Rogers Hornsby was quoted as saying someone on his team cheated in some way in almost every game he had ever played in. Many players were known for being adept at stealing signs-is that a negative on their HOF resume? And many of the people around Cash or familiar with him have called into question whether or not he was just joking about the bat corking anyway.

That's something I've honestly never heard before, that corking isn't morally wrong, but steroids are. To me, the only thing that causes corking and juicing to be "morally wrong" is that they are against the rules. Sounds like you think there's something inherently bad about juicing.

[dgarza]

I'm not sold on bat corking either. Most studies that have been done on it have shown that it's benefit it mostly a myth, and I don't see what's so horribly wrong about getting a little bit of an edge if there's not much morally wrong with it (as there is with steroids).
Since I there's no way to quantify how much effect the "corking" had and because MLB has not changed the records, I am not going to guess how much to deduct from Cash, or anybody. And there's always the slight possibility of "corking" to actually hurt performance. "Morally" is an individual thing. Does not figure with me.

[dgarza]

(which would lead to a whole new discussion of why would he cheat for only a year, especially after having so much success).


Maybe he actually felt bad about those numbers.

[Freakshow]

The most curious thing about his '61 campaign to me is his high number of walks. He had 124 that year, his career high, and prett remarkable when his 162 game average is 81 and he only came close 124 in one other season (1962). So something was definitely different about his approach that year - perhaps it was just confidence due to using a corked bat.
A few things were happening in 1961. 1) It was an expansion year, so a lot of young pitchers were thrown into the league. 2) It was still the era of a normal strike zone; they used the big zone 1963-68. 3) Cash batted 5th in the order in 156 games. The Tiger’s 6th spot compiled a line of .247-.340-.329 (ugh!).

It’s not surprising he was walked a lot that year.

[dgarza]

Maye it wasn't Cash, but the AL year 1961 itself. Many players boomed that year, possibly freakishly.

Mantle had other great years, but 1961 was one of his top 3, it was the year he hit the most homeruns, 2nd highest SLG.

Jim Gentile was never better, 46 HRs, 40 point OPS+ boost, 60 point OPS+ drop in 1962, it was also his 2nd full year (like Cash)

Uh, Maris.

Killbrew did better (not as much or as freakishly as others, but still)

I'm probably making too much of these things.

[dgarza]

A few things were happening in 1961. 1) It was an expansion year, so a lot of young pitchers were thrown into the league.
Oh, yeah, right, forgot abouot that

[DoubleX]

Even considering the AL Expansion in '61, Cash's jump is just astronomical by every measure - raw statistics, OPS+, win shares, everything was just well above the norm for Norm (heh :)). If it could be chalked up only to expansion, then everyone would have had a bump and Cash's OPS+ would not have been so freaskishly high for him. I'm sure the conditions were more favorable for hitting that year, but Cash's statistical leap is just so big that suggesting another factor, such as corking the bat, would seem to make sense.

[dgarza]

Even considering the AL Expansion in '61, Cash's jump is just astronomical by every measure - raw statistics, OPS+, win shares, everything was just well above the norm for Norm (heh :)).
At the time, Norm's norm was only based on one year. It's the rest of his career that makes 1961 stand out. What's your take on Jim Gentile's 1961?

[The Dude]

I've noticed a lot of us are supporting different candidates. Is there any way like we did in the BBFHOF, that we can get everyone to agree on a certain few per year to get in, that way everyone reasonable we want in, gets in? For example, I've been supporting Nellie Fox, but maybe next year those of us possibley only supporting fox could switch to Cepeda, and then the year afte Cepeda gets in, the Cepeda supporters support Fox?

[John Shoemaker]

I've noticed a lot of us are supporting different candidates. Is there any way like we did in the BBFHOF, that we can get everyone to agree on a certain few per year to get in, that way everyone reasonable we want in, gets in? For example, I've been supporting Nellie Fox, but maybe next year those of us possibley only supporting fox could switch to Cepeda, and then the year afte Cepeda gets in, the Cepeda supporters support Fox?

I don't think that would parallel the rules the BBWA used in those years.

I think the small hall people probably think we are voting in too many players now.

[Freakshow]

I've noticed a lot of us are supporting different candidates. Is there any way like we did in the BBFHOF, that we can get everyone to agree on a certain few per year to get in, that way everyone reasonable we want in, gets in? For example, I've been supporting Nellie Fox, but maybe next year those of us possibley only supporting fox could switch to Cepeda, and then the year afte Cepeda gets in, the Cepeda supporters support Fox?
Horse-trading such as this was the norm for the veterans committee up to 2001. I'm pretty sure there was never anything in the BBWAA rules prohibiting collusion or building of voting blocs such as this.

[Appling]

It was a joy to vote for Tony Oliva. Yes he had a short career (result of baseball injury) but when healthy he was a frequent leader in hits and BA. Won three batting crowns and led the AL in hits in five of his first 7 seasons. Played in 120 or more games in 11 of his 15 MLB seasons. Tony belongs as much as Puckett or Kiner.

It is interesting to see the vote on Don Drysdale -- certainly a contraversial candidate. In four mock polls so far, Don went from 67.2% to 74.2% to 61.0% to 68.6%. Don continues to hover just short of the 75% needed for election.

[John Shoemaker]

I've noticed a lot of us are supporting different candidates. Is there any way like we did in the BBFHOF, that we can get everyone to agree on a certain few per year to get in, that way everyone reasonable we want in, gets in?n Fox For example, I've been supporting Nellie Fox, but maybe next year those of us possibley only supporting fox could switch to Cepeda, and then the year afte Cepeda gets in, the Cepeda suppo rters support Fox?

So what hapens if all the Fox supporters switch their votes to Cepeda - then Fox won't even have 5% and won't be on the ballot the next year?

[538280]

That's something I've honestly never heard before, that corking isn't morally wrong, but steroids are. To me, the only thing that causes corking and juicing to be "morally wrong" is that they are against the rules. Sounds like you think there's something inherently bad about juicing.

I mean that they are against the federal laws, and they have potential damage to your health and well being. You're probably right that that doesn't make them any "morally wrong" if you're willing to take them but a widespread movement of steroids in baseball does a lot more to harm the integrity of the game than a few people trying to get away with bat corking.

I actually tend to agree with you but that is a view that I've heard quite often.

[DoubleX]

At the time, Norm's norm was only based on one year. It's the rest of his career that makes 1961 stand out. What's your take on Jim Gentile's 1961?

I think generally Gentile's '61 is in the same boat as extremely curious, but I think it can be distinguished from Cash. Cash had a fairly lengthy career in which he mainted a fairly consistent level of production for several years (which was good, albeit far below 1961's production). Gentile's career was very short by comparison and he only had 4 seasons with more than 400 ABs. So in Gentile's case, there is less of a career trend to compare to. I'm not sure why, but I'm assuming injuries cut short Gentile's career? If that's the case, perhaps if he were healthy, he could have had another season closer to his '61 campaign. But as it stands, yes, his '61 is very odd compared to the rest of his career, I just think we have more to base the oddity on with Cash. Hope I made sense.

[DoubleX]

I've noticed a lot of us are supporting different candidates. Is there any way like we did in the BBFHOF, that we can get everyone to agree on a certain few per year to get in, that way everyone reasonable we want in, gets in? For example, I've been supporting Nellie Fox, but maybe next year those of us possibley only supporting fox could switch to Cepeda, and then the year afte Cepeda gets in, the Cepeda supporters support Fox?

I'd say you're welcome to try, because as Freakshow pointed out, there's nothing in the rules against it. I just think you'll have a hard time convincing people to jump on board. This is a collective process, so there's going to be a lot of disagreement, but that's part of the fun IMO. I think the best a person can do is if they have a player that's not quite getting there (like Drysdale), to stump for that player and convince other voters of that player's merits. You read about BBWAA writers all the time changing their votes from year to year based on persuasive arguments made by others.

[John Shoemaker]

I'd say you're welcome to try, because as Freakshow pointed out, there's nothing in the rules against it. I just think you'll have a hard time convincing people to jump on board. This is a collective process, so there's going to be a lot of disagreement, but that's part of the fun IMO. I think the best a person can do is if they have a player that's not quite getting there (like Drysdale), to stump for that player and convince other voters of that player's merits. You read about BBWAA writers all the time changing their votes from year to year based on persuasive arguments made by others.

I completely agree with you. I think that if a player can't get 75% of the people to actually think he should be in then then he shouldn't make it.

[Appling]

So what hapens if all the Fox supporters switch their votes to Cepeda - then Fox won't even have 5% and won't be on the ballot the next year?
I wonder how many voters (BBWAA voters and BBF voters alike) actually turn in a full ballot? If I vote for only 6 or 8, I don't need to substitute Cepeda for Fox. We could agree to vote for BOTH.

What percentage of the BBF voters are turning in a full ballot of ten? For 51 voters so far, the average is 7.8 names per ballot -- not bad!!

[Colorado Express]

Although I DO NOT think Maris belongs in the HOF, I must admit that I am surprised that he isn't holding enough support to remain on the ballot.

[The Dude]

I've turned in a full ballot every year.

...and it's quite ludicrous to say that Fox would fall off, as there's only about 4 guys not voting for Cepeda who are voting for fox, and about for voting for Cepeda and not for fox.

[2Chance]

I've turned in a full ballot each time. That surprises me, because I thought I was more exclusive than that. But we do have a lot of good candidates to choose from. I can't justify a Hall that only Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson can measure up to.

[Erik Bedard]

Ditto above. I'd generally considered myself to be a relatively "small-Hall" guy, but either we're getting a lot of strong candidates, or I'm actually a "big-Hall" guy.

[DoubleX]

Ditto above. I'd generally considered myself to be a relatively "small-Hall" guy, but either we're getting a lot of strong candidates, or I'm actually a "big-Hall" guy.

Personally, while I can see justifiable arguments for 10 or more candidates, I think as you get closer to 10, you're getting around the borderline players. So if you're voting for 10, than IMO, you're probably a big Hall guy that's looking to incorporate some of the more borderline players.

[dgarza]

Ditto above. I'd generally considered myself to be a relatively "small-Hall" guy, but either we're getting a lot of strong candidates, or I'm actually a "big-Hall" guy.
Looking at who you voted for this round, it looks like you're more of a medium sized Hall guy leaning strongly towards a large Hall.

[Erik Bedard]

I strongly feel Cepeda, Fox and Bunning should be in. Howard I could go either way, and really just wanted to keep him on the ballot. Cash and Maz are people that I waver on a lot. I guess when I voted for them, it was on one of my big-Hall days.

[AlecBoy006]

Come on- Keep out Drysdale!

[Westlake]

Come on- Keep out Drysdale!
Care to give any reasons? And "he was nothing special" doesn't count.

[digglahhh]

I'd rather see players I think are deserving kept out than see players who I don't think are deserving let in.

[AlecBoy006]

No, he was special because of his scoreless inning streak. And for his 62 Cy Young, which he stole off of Bob Purkey. His only Dropdead season was 62. True, he had other all star seasons, but only received awards in 62.

But, there are a number of people who have around the same record or better than Drysdale that are not in.


What about Lolich? More wins, more losses, but was one of the best strikeout hitters of the second half of the 20th century.

Or Vida Blue? Who had a BETTER win/loss ratio, fewer strikeouts, also made quite a few all star games, won 1 MVP, and 2 TSN POY's. In Just 17 seasons!

If Drysdale is in, so should Blue.

[Westlake]

Just 17 seasons?

I promise you, I dont even know how many wins any of these guys have. I never look at that stat.

Drysdale is borderline for sure.

[DoubleX]

No, he was special because of his scoreless inning streak. And for his 62 Cy Young, which he stole off of Bob Purkey. His only Dropdead season was 62. True, he had other all star seasons, but only received awards in 62.

But, there are a number of people who have around the same record or better than Drysdale that are not in.


What about Lolich? More wins, more losses, but was one of the best strikeout hitters of the second half of the 20th century.

Or Vida Blue? Who had a BETTER win/loss ratio, fewer strikeouts, also made quite a few all star games, won 1 MVP, and 2 TSN POY's. In Just 17 seasons!

If Drysdale is in, so should Blue.

ERA+

Drysdale: 121
Blue: 108
Lolich: 104

It's not even close.

[AlecBoy006]

haha! You count only one stat. That's funny!

[tearforamariner]

haha! You count only one stat. That's funny!

That "one stat" shows you that Vida Blue was pretty close to the league-average pitcher in his career.

[AlecBoy006]

Hmm, yes, why not take out Don Sutton who has an Era+ of 108 as well?

[Westlake]

Hmm, yes, why not take out Don Sutton who has an Era+ of 108 as well?

I sure would.

[AlecBoy006]

I wouldn't. I'm convinced that 300 games, 500 Homeruns, 3500 strikeouts, and 3000 hits are my automatic tickets to the hall.

[CTaka]

I wouldn't. I'm convinced that 300 games, 500 Homeruns, 3500 strikeouts, and 3000 hits are my automatic tickets to the hall.

You must have forgotten to tell that to Mark McGwire. Raffy Palmeiro hopes you are right...but I suspect he'll get the same cold shoulder that Mac got received. One or both may eventually get elected, but I wouldn't call it "automatic" by any means.

[AlecBoy006]

Hey, I can support Big Mac. Palmeiro maybe a little but juiced it.

[John Shoemaker]

You must have forgotten to tell that to Mark McGwire. Raffy Palmeiro hopes you are right...but I suspect he'll get the same cold shoulder that Mac got received. One or both may -eventually get elected, but I wouldn't call it "automatic" by any means.

I don't think the voters intended to keep Mark McGwire out perminently - just send him a message "not on the first ballot". He was too great a player to be left out very long. I think the same will be true when Rafael Palmeiro comes up for election.

[iPod]

You made fun of DoubleX for using nothing but ERA, but you clearly only care about wins and losses when looking at pitchers. Vida Blue did have the best single season between the two, and they do have similar records, but apart from that Drysdale is clearly the superior pitcher.

A lot of your arguments (scratch that, all of your arguments) about your opinions on players consist basically of retyping the things we can read for ourselves on the baseball-reference site, and assuming this must be enough proof to substantiate your view. The thing is, though, these not only aren't enough, they often get you absolutely, literally nowhere closer to making the case you want to make. The numbers you point to in order to make a case for one guy over another are often practically matched or even exceeded by the person you're arguing against. I have absolutely no clue why you can't understand this. For example,

What about Lolich? More wins, more losses, but was one of the best strikeout hitters of the second half of the 20th century.


Drysdale had 8 fewer wins than Lolich, but also had 25 fewer losses. If Drysdale had played one more season, and gone 8-25, he would have the same record as Lolich. Does that strike you as a point in Lolich's favor?

As for the strikeout comment, Lolich only barely struck out more batters per inning than Drysdale, but Drysdale walked fewer batters giving him the better K/BB rate. And, Drysdale led his league in strikeouts 3 times to Lolich's 1.

So, in total, what was your argument for Lolich? He had a good record, and struck out a lot of guys. The problem is, Drysdale did the exact same thing. You didn't really give us any reason to put Lolich above Drysdale.


Or Vida Blue? Who had a BETTER win/loss ratio, fewer strikeouts, also made quite a few all star games, won 1 MVP, and 2 TSN POY's. In Just 17 seasons!

If Drysdale is in, so should Blue.

The MVP is a good point, but only because Drysdale didn't ever win one. It doesn't do any good to your argument to point to K, K/BB, or all star games, because all those favor Drysdale, and W/L record isn't all that relevant because the records are essentially equal. And you haven't given us any reason at all to think that these things you pointed out are more important than the significant difference in their ERAs.

[dgarza]

I'd rather see players I think are deserving kept out than see players who I don't think are deserving let in.
Opposite here.

[John Shoemaker]

Come on- Keep out Drysdale!

For me Drysdale is just under the line - that means while I haven't and won't vote for him I will not be upset if 75% of the voters think him worthy of the HOF.

[dgarza]

I wouldn't. I'm convinced that 300 games,
Do you mean 300 wins?

[dgarza]

haha! You count only one stat. That's funny!
I think this was to show that they were not similar, as you said they were.

[DoubleX]

haha! You count only one stat. That's funny!

Here are some more then:

Win Shares

Drysdale: 258
Lolich: 224
Blue: 202

And Drysdale did this despite being out of the game by age 32, whereas Blue pitched until 36 and Lolich to 38. That says to me that Drysdale's peak was better than both Blue and Lolich, and fairly significantly so, because he was able to accomplish more by a much younger age than both Lolich and Blue were able to accomplish by playing longer.

Other Stats:

K:BB Rate

Drysdale: 2.91:1
Lolich: 2.58:1
Blue: 1.84:1 - Blue is well, well off here.

WHIP

Drysdale: 1.148
Blue: 1.233
Lolich: 1.227

All Star Appearances
Drysdale: 8
Blue: 6
Lolich: 3

Strikeout Titles
Drysdale: 3
Lolich: 1
Blue: 0

IP/162
Drysdale: 237.3
Blue: 233
Lolich: 228.3
Lolich: 3

[dgarza]

Black Ink
Drysdale : 27 :1/19.2 games
Lolich : 15 : 1/39.1 games
Blue : 7 : 1/71.7 games

Grey Ink
Drysdale : 200
Lolich : 156
Blue : 140

[538280]

Perhaps the impact is more mental than anything else in that the batter has more confidence. Still, I believe there must be something to it and I'm sure ballplayers know a lot more about the art of corking a bat than any of us do, and how to best maximize the effects. Moreover, if it didn't help in someway, there would be no point to outlawing it. Changing the composition of the bat, should change how the ball bounces off the bat to some degree.

It probably is just a mental thing which comes with the thought that it really does help you. It is outlawed because it is commonly believed that it helps you even if it really doesn't. I think what it may come down to is intent vs. actuaility. The intent is not honorable, and if you want to punish him for that I can see the logic, evne if it may not have had a real effect.

The most curious thing about his '61 campaign to me is his high number of walks. He had 124 that year, his career high, and prett remarkable when his 162 game average is 81 and he only came close 124 in one other season (1962). So something was definitely different about his approach that year - perhaps it was just confidence due to using a corked bat.

Now that you say it it is interesting. I don't think it was just limited to '61 though, the more I look at it it appears that his approach may have been different as a younger player as he clealry drew more walks. Through 1962 his career battng line was .295/.423/.552. The difference between his OBP and BA was 128 points. Over his career there was a 103 point difference, so that's 24% higher. It's not just 1961 either-in 1962 he was actually walking at an even higher pace and his pace in 1959 and 1960 was also higher than his career norms. Very interesting especially given that most players tend to walk more as they age. Cash seemed to walk more as a young player.

Altering equipment to gain an advantage seems to be going too far. Anyone can steal signs because all players can see - they just need to be stealthy. But tampering equipment to gain an edge is different as it involves external factors and gaining an edge that is not available to all players. There is a reason equipment is streamlined - so everyone is on a level playing field. Under your logic, you would say its fine for a player to walk up to the plate with a metal bat painted wood color. You would be fine with that? Corking is along the same lines - it's altering the equipment to gain an apparent advantage not available to everyone else.

I think you're right in that there probably is a difference between corking vs. stealing signs. The thing is though is that I just don't really think it's something he should be penalized for much at all. What he did was against the rules of the game, but it wasn't really something that was going to hurt the integrity of the game or go against fans' enjoyment of it (as steroids or other PEDs probably would). It is along the lines of Gaylord Perry or Whitey Ford getting away with throwing a spitball. Considering that players have been attempting to "cheat" in all sorts of ways throughout history I don't think it's THAT big a deal. If this sort of thing disqualifies Cash for you then will you be voting for Perry when he comes up?

[DoubleX]

I think you're right in that there probably is a difference between corking vs. stealing signs. The thing is though is that I just don't really think it's something he should be penalized for much at all. What he did was against the rules of the game, but it wasn't really something that was going to hurt the integrity of the game or go against fans' enjoyment of it (as steroids or other PEDs probably would). It is along the lines of Gaylord Perry or Whitey Ford getting away with throwing a spitball. Considering that players have been attempting to "cheat" in all sorts of ways throughout history I don't think it's THAT big a deal. If this sort of thing disqualifies Cash for you then will you be voting for Perry when he comes up?

I agree that the situations are similar, but the difference between Cash and Perry is that if you ignore the cheating for a moment and take their careers at face value, Cash is at best, a very borderline candidate, IMO. Perry, on the other hand, is well over the line, IMO. So the cheating for me, while diminishing both players, IMO, is enough to keep Cash definitively out, while Perry, though diminished to some degree, is still over the line because he was much, much further over the line than Cash to begin with. If Perry's career were borderline, the spitballs, like Cash's corked bat, would probably be enough to put him firmly on the outside IMO.

I think you might misunderstand how I view cheating - I don't view cheating as akin to complete condemnation, just as a factor to consider. In both Cash and Perry's cases, it's a factor that weighs against them, and probably actually moreso against Perry because we know he did it throughout his career; but when all things are considered, the cheating factor isn't enough to bring Perry out of the Hall of Fame area for me, while for Cash, it is enough, especially because I consider Cash borderline at best anyway.

[538280]

XX, I see what you mean. It's a mild negative mark against them that in Cash's case, since he's not a no questions asked HOFer, becomes a deciding factor while for a shoo-in guy like Perry it is not. I wasn't clear at first that that was what you meant but now I understand. I just think that it comes down to a different theoretical view on the "badness" of cheating. I don't think cheating is a good thing, certainly not, but I think that it's not something that a very large number of baseball players would make an attempt at if they could. I think there are probably masses of players who cheated in one form or another in the history of the game, and I think we just don't know about it because they werne't foolish enough to admit it. I don't think people should be encouraged to cheat, but I don't think that, if it isn't something bad for the game as a whole like PEDs, then it isn't such a big black mark against you.

[DoubleX]

XX, I see what you mean. It's a mild negative mark against them that in Cash's case, since he's not a no questions asked HOFer, becomes a deciding factor while for a shoo-in guy like Perry it is not. I wasn't clear at first that that was what you meant but now I understand. I just think that it comes down to a different theoretical view on the "badness" of cheating. I don't think cheating is a good thing, certainly not, but I think that it's not something that a very large number of baseball players would make an attempt at if they could. I think there are probably masses of players who cheated in one form or another in the history of the game, and I think we just don't know about it because they werne't foolish enough to admit it. I don't think people should be encouraged to cheat, but I don't think that, if it isn't something bad for the game as a whole like PEDs, then it isn't such a big black mark against you.

I agree that cheating is likely much more rampant than we'll likely ever realize, but we have to deal with what we know. If I know a player cheated continuously, as is the case with Perry and Cash (for '61 at least), that will be another factor I'll consider when making my overall evaluation of their careers.

[yanks0714]

I think you might misunderstand how I view cheating - I don't view cheating as akin to complete condemnation, just as a factor to consider. In both Cash and Perry's cases, it's a factor that weighs against them, and probably actually moreso against Perry because we know he did it throughout his career; but when all things are considered, the cheating factor isn't enough to bring Perry out of the Hall of Fame area for me, while for Cash, it is enough, especially because I consider Cash borderline at best anyway.

Double X, are you stating that Perry threw the spitball throughout his career? My understanding is that Perry has admitted throwing it earlier in his career. But later on, actually for most of his career, he went through gyrations as if he were loading it up. He was playing a pschological game with the batters minds, and winning the battle most of the time.
If that were the case, would you penalize Perry even if he were not throwing it, using it only as a psyche tool?

As for Norm Cash, outside of his 1961, I simply do not believe he was HOF material and as such will not vote for him for HOF.

[Appling]

I think there are probably masses of players who cheated in one form or another in the history of the game, and I think we just don't know about it because they werne't foolish enough to admit it.
Whether or not McGwire cheated by use of PEDs. it would probably have gone unnoticed or ignored if Barry didn't then follow with his MONSTER HR season in 2001.

Bonds' series of fantastic seasons after McGwire retired put more attention on the entire issue. This is what killed McGwire's chances for a first ballot HOF.

[DoubleX]

Double X, are you stating that Perry threw the spitball throughout his career? My understanding is that Perry has admitted throwing it earlier in his career. But later on, actually for most of his career, he went through gyrations as if he were loading it up. He was playing a pschological game with the batters minds, and winning the battle most of the time.
If that were the case, would you penalize Perry even if he were not throwing it, using it only as a psyche tool?

As for Norm Cash, outside of his 1961, I simply do not believe he was HOF material and as such will not vote for him for HOF.

I was under the impression that Perry used it throughout his career, though perhaps with varying frequency at different times. I have also heard what you just said - that Perry did not need to resort to it so much at times because he was already in the batters head. However, given that Perry pitched until 44 and wasn't endowed with the best of stuff, I would say it's very likely that he resorted to shine balls with some regular frequency towards the end of his career, I don't think his stuff by itself, even with the help from some mind games, would be enough for him at that point. When I think of wily old veteran pitcher, I think of guys like Perry and Phil Niekro.

If Perry was not throwing it for much of his career and using it only as a psyche tool, I wouldn't penalize him anymore for it. As a batter, it's probably easier to hit a regular pitch that you have some apprehension about than a mystery pitch with an irregular trajectory. However, I really don't believe this is the case with Perry as I believe that in order for him to stay in the batters' heads throughout his career, he would have to keep throwing the pitch on occasion to give their concerns some basis. People would catch on otherwise.

[John Shoemaker]

I've noticed a lot of us are supporting different candidates. Is there any way like we did in the BBFHOF, that we can get everyone to agree on a certain few per year to get in, that way everyone reasonable we want in, gets in? For example, I've been supporting Nellie Fox, but maybe next year those of us possibley only supporting fox could switch to Cepeda, and then the year afte Cepeda gets in, the Cepeda supporters support Fox?

Couldn't this also be used to block candidates from getting in? If there was someone you really didn't want in who was close to being elected one year - the next year you could talk people into not voting for that candidate in exchange for voting for one of their favorites.

[DoubleX]

A little disconcerting that our voting turnout has dipped the last two years.

[John Shoemaker]

A little disconcerting that our voting turnout has dipped the last two years.

Hopefully we'll get some last minute voters tonight.

[THE OX]

A little disconcerting that our voting turnout has dipped the last two years.

At what point does the work involved in tabulating and managing the voting become more of a pain-in-the-posterior than what it's worth? Those who refrain from voting may jeopardize this (to me, anyway) interesting project. Bummer!

[Erik Bedard]

Considering that the percentages are listed right next to the totals, it's not that hard.

[John Shoemaker]

At what point does the work involved in tabulating and managing the voting become more of a pain-in-the-posterior than what it's worth? Those who refrain from voting may jeopardize this (to me, anyway) interesting project. Bummer!

I that way it mirrors the BBWA vote. There's always a difference in the numbers of voters voting from year to year - some writers probably choose not to vote in a particular year.

[Appling]

At what point does the work involved in tabulating and managing the voting become more of a pain-in-the-posterior than what it's worth? Those who refrain from voting may jeopardize this (to me, anyway) interesting project. Bummer!
So far we have 54 who voted on this ballot. That doesn't seem terrible to me. Most interesting to me is that many posts in this forum have complained that so few "real life" BBWAA voters turn in a "full ballot" -- or they vote for a particular player one year but then not support him the next year.

It seems to me our voting is pretty much the same -- just like real life. Three players voted into our HOF for 1982.

[DoubleX]

At what point does the work involved in tabulating and managing the voting become more of a pain-in-the-posterior than what it's worth? Those who refrain from voting may jeopardize this (to me, anyway) interesting project. Bummer!

That's a valid point and that's why I've abadoned spearheading the All Decade Team project (twice), but to be honest, before we started, I wasn't expecting the turnout we've had, so I can't really complain by a small downward trend. I think we're still well over the line of it being worthwhile, and hopefully as we move closer to present day, we'll pick up more people who have more interest in more recent players.

[John Shoemaker]

That's a valid point and that's why I've abadoned spearheading the All Decade Team project (twice), but to be honest, before we started, I wasn't expecting the turnout we've had, so I can't really complain by a small downward trend. I think we're still well over the line of it being worthwhile, and hopefully as we move closer to present day, we'll pick up more people who have more interest in more recent players.

Also the last few days of this round there was nobody close to the 75%cutoff - Aaron, Robinson, and Williams were obviously on their way in and nobody else was close to getting in.

The only thing left to decide tonight is if we get to 61 voters Curt Flood and Thurman Munson will need another vote to be over 5%.

Hopefully in these final hours nobody will turn in a blank ballot to deny Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson the unanimous vote they deserve.

[DoubleX]

Looks likely that we'll be bidding adieu to Roger Maris. That marks the third Yankee player that we've kept on the ballot for at least two elections, but we eventually dropped. Larsen and Howard were the only other two, and I think the only two we've kept on the ballot and then dropped at all.

[THE OX]

That's a valid point and that's why I've abadoned spearheading the All Decade Team project (twice), but to be honest, before we started, I wasn't expecting the turnout we've had, so I can't really complain by a small downward trend. I think we're still well over the line of it being worthwhile, and hopefully as we move closer to present day, we'll pick up more people who have more interest in more recent players.

Well, I'm happy to hear that the response has been large enough to continue with this enjoyable project. I've certainly enjoyed it, and will continue to participate as long as these BBHoF Mock Elections are held.

[Sockeye]

Seems like a pretty clear cut case for the big 3 (Aaron, Robinson, Williams) They are the only ones that make the grade for me.

[DoubleX]

Seems like a pretty clear cut case for the big 3 (Aaron, Robinson, Williams) They are the only ones that make the grade for me.

How come you didn't vote for Willie Mays back in '79?

[John Shoemaker]

How come you didn't vote for Willie Mays back in '79?

I'd like to know the answer to that too.

[DoubleX]

1982 is done and keeping with our three per year average, we've elected three new players to the Mock Hall of Fame:

Hank Aaron: 100%
Frank Robinson: 100%
Billy Williams: 80%

I believe this to be our strongest class thus far, and likely the strongest we'll have at all.

The following players received more than 5% of the vote and will thus be on next year’s ballot; if a player was on last year’s ballot, the change in their percentage is noted in parentheses (also we had no players this year whose 15-year eligibility ended):

Don Drysdale: 69.09% (+8.02%)
Orlando Cepeda: 56.36% (-1.27%)
Nellie Fox: 52.73% (+5.27%
Luis Aparicio: 45.45% ( -3.7%)
Jim Bunning: 43.64% (+2.96%)
Ken Boyer: 29.09% (+3.67%)
Bill Freehan: 27.27% (n/a)
Gil Hodges: 20.00% (+3.05%)
Frank Howard: 20.00% (+6.44%)
Bill Mazeroski: 20.00% (-3.73%)
Norm Cash: 18.18% (+2.93%)
Tony Oliva: 14.55% (n/a)
Red Schoendienst: 12.73% (-0.83%)
Maury Willis: 10.91% (-2.65%)
Vada Pinson: 7.27% (-6.29%)
Curt Flood: 5.45% (-6.41%)
Thurman Munson: 5.45% (-11.50%)

Everyone else was dropped, including Roger Maris who had made it through each of our previous elections. He received just 1.82% of the vote this time, a drop of 6.65% from last year). Others receiving a vote include:

Tommy Harper (which I believe was a misplaced vote)
Cleon Jones
Dave McNally (who I actually should have dropped from ’82, as he was on ’81 and didn’t receive any support)


I should have 1983 up and running sometime today. It should be an interested election as it’ll be the first time we won’t have any true standout candidates (depending on how you feel about Brooks Robinson).