BBF Mock HoF Election: 1983 [Archive]

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 10:56 AM

Welcome to Baseball Fever's Mock HoF Election for 1983. 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. 1979 was selected as the start date as that is when the BBWAA elections first implemented the 5% rule (though it was not always adhered to).

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.

1983 Guide
There are 40 candidates on the 1983 ballot. Here's some information regarding the candidates:

First Timers (23)
Dick Allen
Mike Cuellar
Larry Dierker
Pat Dobson
Al Downing
Dave Giusti
Tommy Helms
Joe Hoerner
Randy Hundley
Carlos May
Kevin McMullen
Bill Melton
Felix Milan
Gary Nolan
Boog Powell
Doug Rader
Brooks Robinson
Cookie Rojas
Ray Sadecki
Diego Segui
Bill Singer
Joe Torre
Jimmy Wynn

Holdovers (17)
Player Year of Eligibility High BBF Support Previous Year’s BBF Support
Luis Aparicio 5th 59.68% (1980) 45.45%
Ken Boyer 9th 29.09% (1982) 29.09%
Jim Bunning 7th 51.61% (1980) 43.64%
Norm Cash 4th 18.18% (1981) 18.18%
Orlando Cepeda 4th 64.52% (1980) 56.36%
Don Drysdale 9th 74.19% (1980) 69.09%
Curt Flood 8th 11.86% (1981) 5.45%
Nellie Fox 12th 56.45% (1980) 52.73%
Bill Freehan 2nd 27.27% (1982) 27.27%
Gil Hodges 15th 27.42% (1980) 20.00%
Frank Howard 5th 20.00% (1982) 20.00%
Bill Mazeroski 6th 37.10% (1980) 20.00%
Thurman Munson 3rd 16.95% (1981) 5.45%
Tony Oliva 2nd 14.55% (1982) 14.55%
Vada Pinson 3rd 13.56% (1981) 7.27%
Red Schoendienst 15th 22.58% (1980) 12.73%
Maury Wills 6th 13.56% (1981) 10.91%

Last Year of Eligibility
Gil Hodges
Red Schoendienst

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)
Bill Freehan – Dropped by BBWAA (1982)
Frank Howard - Dropped by BBWAA (1979)

Players on BBWAA Ballot not on BBF Ballot
Lew Burdette - Dropped by BBF (1979)
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)
Roger Maris – Dropped by BBF (1982)
Jim Perry – Dropped by BBF (1981)*
Hoyt Wilhelm - Elected by BBF (1979)
Billy Williams – Elected by BBF (1980)

* 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
Luis Aparicio (BBWAA - 1984)
Jim Bunning (VC - 1996)
Orlando Cepeda (VC - 1999)
Don Drysdale (BBWAA - 1984)
Nellie Fox (VC - 1997)
Bill Mazeroski (VC - 2001)
Brooks Robinson (BBWAA – 1983)
Red Schoendienst (VC - 1989)

Players Elected by BBF
Player BBF Election Year BBF Election Percentage Year on Ballot
Hank Aaron 1982 100.00% 1st
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
Frank Robinson 1982 100.00% 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)
Billy Williams 1982 80.00% 1st

Players Elected by BBWAA Between 1979-1982
Hank Aaron (1982)
Bob Gibson (1981)
Al Kaline (1980)
Willie Mays (1979)
Frank Robinson (1982)
Duke Snider (1980)

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past BBF Elections
1979: 61
1980: 62
1981: 59
1982: 55

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 11:05 AM

Welcome to 1983! While the new class lacks the punch of multiple bona fide Hall of Famers that we've had in the past, it's still a strong class IMO, and should make for some interesting debates/results. Might also provide an opportunity for us to break our trend of elected players on their first year with us and get in some of these holdovers, headed by Drysdale, Cepeda and Fox.

Brooks Robinson highlights the newcomers, but we could see strong candidacies from players like Dick Allen, Boog Powell, Joe Torre, and Jimmy Wynn.

Also, this is the last year of eligibility for Schoendienst and Hodges, so strong supporters of those players might want to plead their cases early on, if for nothing else, then perhaps to help convince people to vote for them in the VC Elections that I believe Freakshow will start conducting in the near future (I believe it will come after the close of this election).

Erik Bedard

02-10-2007, 11:27 AM

Drysdale's back up to 100%... so are Allen, Bunning, Cepeda, Fox, Mazeroski, Oliva, Robinson, Torre, and Wynn.

Westlake

02-10-2007, 12:50 PM

Voted for:

Allen
Cepeda
Drysdale
Mazeroski
Robinson

John Shoemaker

02-10-2007, 01:00 PM

I voted for:

Frank Howard
Orlando cepeda
Norm Cash
Gil Hodges ( in his last year of eligibility )
Dick Allen
Boog Powell

AlecBoy006

02-10-2007, 01:06 PM

Nooooooooo! Please no Drysdale!

digglahhh

02-10-2007, 01:14 PM

Nooooooooo! Please no Drysdale!

Please stop with these posts. They contribute nothing to the discussion.

We all know that you don't support Drysdale.

If you want to articulate a case for why he doesn't measure up the HOF bar, then we're all ears.

Note, I said articulate a case, cutting and pasting some numbers from his BBRef page (that, we too, have easy access to) does not count.

Just crying out "Don't elect this guy." is a waste of time and space.

In fact, I issue you a challenge to compose a convincing case for Drysdale's inadequacy.

John Shoemaker

02-10-2007, 01:23 PM

This should be an interesting round. Last round we had 2 unanimious players with 55 voters. This round we have had only 13 voters and already every player has dropped at least 2 votes.

digglahhh

02-10-2007, 01:32 PM

Interesting- no Inner Circle locks on this ballot, but by far my longest ballot.

1. Allen
2. Boyer (first voted for him last year, voted again)
3. Cepeda (been voting for him since he was first eligible)
4. Drysdale (ditto)
5. Freehan (new addition to my ballot)
6. Howard (ditto)
7. Robinson
8. Torre

italics indicate first year of eligibility

AlecBoy006

02-10-2007, 02:09 PM

Ok, I will.

1) Drysdale had 1 Cy Young he didn't deserve and one POY. In the same year.

2) Drysdale is in the Hall of Fame, but Luis Tiant should be in before him, because he has a better winning percentage, better record, and has longevity over Drysdale.

3) Drysdale had Koufax to help him.

4) His defense is bad.

5) Only average in postseason play.

6) Many times wasn't very accurate with pitching. 5 times led league in hit batsmen.

7) Bert Blyleven had more strikeouts, wins, played longer, and is still only 3 points behind in ERA+

leecemark

02-10-2007, 02:23 PM

Ok, I will.

1) Drysdale had 1 Cy Young he didn't deserve and one POY. In the same
year.

Why didn't he deserve it?

2) Drysdale is in the Hall of Fame, but Luis Tiant should be in before him, because he has a better winning percentage, better record, and has longevity over Drysdale.

Tiant is not on the ballot at this time. Even if you think he is better, its isn't like you have to choose between them.

3) Drysdale had Koufax to help him.

Gehrig had Ruth to "help" him. What exactly does this mean.

6) Many times wasn't very accurate with pitching. 5 times led league in hit batsmen.

I think those hit batsmen indicate good accuracy, not bad;)

7) Bert Blyleven had more strikeouts, wins, played longer, and is still only 3 points behind in ERA+

Blyleven probably is more deserving, but he is not on this ballot and once he is eligible in this project he will probably be quickly elected.

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 02:25 PM

1) Drysdale had 1 Cy Young he didn't deserve and one POY. In the same year.

Who then did deserve the Cy Young in '62? Bob Purkey has the best case, IMO, but there really was no clear frontrunner. Purkey had a nice ERA+ edge over Drysdale, 142-128, but Drysdale had a sizeable lead in IP (314-288) which narrows the ERA+ gap, a very small lead in WHIP (1.11-1.12), a huge lead in strikeouts (232-141), and a big lead in K:BB ration (2.97:1 to 2.20:1). 1962 was a fairly weak year for pitchers, but Drysdale's case is as good, if not better, than anyone else.

2) Drysdale is in the Hall of Fame, but Luis Tiant should be in before him, because he has a better winning percentage, better record, and has longevity over Drysdale.

What does "Tiant should be in" have to do with Drysdale? You think Tiant has better longevity? He stuck around longer, yet he only pitched 54 more total innings than Drysdale - that's barely anything. Consider that - Drysdale, by age 32, pitched just about as many innings as Tiant did by age 41. Tiant just once in his career had a 300 IP season, Drysdale did it four years in a row. Tiant pitched until he was older because he wasn't abused like Drysdale was, and if he was abused like Drysdale was, it's unlikely that Tiant would have been as successful as Drysdale under that much duress.

Drysdale also has leads in:

ERA+: 121-114
WHIP: 1.114-1.199
K:BB: 2.91:1-2.19:1
Ks: 2486-2416
IP/162: 237.3-224

Tiant, IMO, has a strong borderline case, but he's fairly considerably behind Drysdale, IMO.

3) Drysdale had Koufax to help him.

How exactly does that help him? Koufax wasn't even playing on the days Drysdale pitched - Drysdale was out there by himself then.

4) His defense is bad.

Since when does a pitchers defense really matter? I suspect most Hall of Fame pitchers were average defensively at best. Who cares - their defensive contributions are minimal at best.

On the other hand, Drysdale was actually a pretty good hitter for a pitcher, but I don't see you mentioning that.

5) Only average in postseason play.

2.95 ERA in 40 IP seems pretty successful to me.

6) Many times wasn't very accurate with pitching. 5 times led league in hit batsmen.

That didn't so much have to do with poor control, it was his style. It's very well known that Drysdale relished in intimidating batters, and batters took notice. He pitched inside and he went after hitters. It was his style that result in hits batsmen, not his poor control.

7) Bert Blyleven had more strikeouts, wins, played longer, and is still only 3 points behind in ERA+

I agree that Blyleven is the better pitcher, but again, these one on one comparisons don't really advance much in arguing one player's Hall of Fame candidacy.

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 02:31 PM

I voted for the maximum 10 players for the first time:

Dick Allen
Luis Aparicio
Ken Boyer
Orlando Cepeda
Don Drysdale
Nellie Fox
Bill Freehan
Red Schoendienst
Brooks Robinson
Joe Torre

I have not voted for Schoendienst since 1979, but I figure if I see a player as very borderline and they make it to their 15th year, I'll vote for them in that year if I haven't been voting for them already. I'll probably give the same treatment to Frank Howard if/when the time comes. Jim Bunning and Bill Mazeroski are also possibilities, but I doubt it at this point. Hodges is a little too far on the outside for me to do the same, though I wouldn't really object if he were put in one day.

AlecBoy006

02-10-2007, 02:32 PM

Yeah- a 2.95 ERA is pretty good, but he 3-3.

leecemark

02-10-2007, 02:38 PM

vtbub

02-10-2007, 02:50 PM

I didn't vote for Allen and was surprised to see him do so well. When I looked him up, he seems borderline. If he doesn't get in this time, why should I vote for him next time?

leecemark

02-10-2007, 03:00 PM

--Because he was a truely dominating hitter. Allen was probably the best hitter to debut in the decade of the 60s, although a few other guys may have compiled a little more career value. Allen didn't have an especially long carrer, but the combination of quality and quantity puts him easily over the line IMO.

AlecBoy006

02-10-2007, 03:01 PM

Allen has an OPS+ of 156. Look at that alone and he should be in.

BoofBonser26

02-10-2007, 03:02 PM

Out of curiosity, for those NOT voting for Brooks Robinson, what's your case against him? I personally voted for him.

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 03:11 PM

I didn't vote for Allen and was surprised to see him do so well. When I looked him up, he seems borderline. If he doesn't get in this time, why should I vote for him next time?

I agree that if you take just a quick glance at Allen's raw statistics, they don't especially jump out at you and seemed to be in the same territory as a number of very good, but not Hall of Fame players. But he was really a dominating hitter and his raw statistics were depressed due to the era he played in. Looking past the raw stats, the first thing that really jumps out at me is the 156 OPS+. That's incredible - good for 18th all time for players with at least 5000 Major League plate appearances. His peak was truly amazing from an OPS+ standpoint, year after year for a 12 year period his OPS+ was between 145-200. That's very impressive.

He also has four OPS titles, 3 slugging titles, 2 OBP titles, 2 HR titles (finished 2nd two other years), and finished in the top 10 in BAT 6 times. He was an incredible all around hitter. Plus he won an MVP award and had 7 All Star appearances.

From a Win Shares perspective, he twice had at least 40 win shares, leading the league both of those years and had three other seasons with at least 32.

Overall, on career value, he's lacking a little, but he more than makes up for that on peak, IMO, and his raw numbers, becacuse of his era, don't really tell you how good a hitter he really was.

AlecBoy006

02-10-2007, 03:13 PM

I vote for Robinson, but here is what may not attract people.

Here is his BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS+

.267 .322 .401 104

John Shoemaker

02-10-2007, 03:18 PM

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 03:42 PM

I'm surprised Joe Torre isn't get more support thus far. Normally, Torre would be just on the outside for me, but his 129 OPS+ while playing mostly C and 3B, is good enough, IMO. Depending on how you feel about Bill Freehan's advantage in games caught, Torre was arguably the best catcher in baseball between Berra and Bench, and certainly one of the best hitting catchers of all time. In the five season period of 1963-1967, his average OPS+ was 138. That's a tremendous offensive peak for a catcher. After a few more productive years at catcher and some at 1B as well, he went on to be a productive 3Bman, including a tremendous MVP campaign in 1971 in which he won 2/3 of the Triple Crown and which has to rank up there as one of the finest seasons ever by a 3Bman. He was also a 9 time All Star.

John Shoemaker

02-10-2007, 03:54 PM

I'm surprised at the lack of support for Boog Powell. Although he was overshadowed by Frank Robinson and probably Brooks Robinson he was a big part of Baltimore's success and in my opinion worthy of much more support than he is getting.

iPod

02-10-2007, 04:03 PM

1) Drysdale had 1 Cy Young he didn't deserve and one POY. In the same year.

It's debatable whether he deserved it, but there are many pitchers in the Hall of Fame who never won a Cy Young Award. Ryan, Marichal, Bunning, and Sutton come to mind. Consistently being amongst the best pitchers in the league is more important; Drysdale was, actually and in reputation.

2) Drysdale is in the Hall of Fame, but Luis Tiant should be in before him, because he has a better winning percentage, better record, and has longevity over Drysdale.

That's a (poorly contructed) case for Tiant, not a case against Drysdale.

3) Drysdale had Koufax to help him.

What is this even supposed to mean? This isn't like protection in the batting order. Drysdale was by himself out there on the mound.

4) His defense is bad.

So was Koufax's, incidentally. So is Randy Johnson's. So was Nolan Ryan's. Jim Kaat won 16 gold gloves and isn't in. Bobby Shantz won 8 and isn't in. Mark Langston won 7 and isn't in. Ron Guidry won 5 and isn't in. Kenny Rogers won 5 and probably isn't going in.

Besides which, even if we agree Drysdale was costing the Dodgers a bunch of runs with his bad fielding, shouldn't that be reflected in his ERA? His ERA was still excellent.

5) Only average in postseason play.

Admit it, you only are against Drysdale because you don't like his record. I don't know why really, since you support Bunning and Bunning's record isn't so great either. Drysdale wasn't "average" in the World Series; his record was average.

6) Many times wasn't very accurate with pitching. 5 times led league in hit batsmen.

Drysdale had fantastic control (shown by his K/BB ratio of nearly 3). He had high HBP totals because he would throw at a guy's head. This is beyond famous. You can hardly read anything at all about Drysdale without coming across his ruthless, intimidating pitching style.

7) Bert Blyleven had more strikeouts, wins, played longer, and is still only 3 points behind in ERA+

Again, this is a case for Blyleven, not a case against Drysdale.

Colorado Express

02-10-2007, 08:43 PM

1. Cepeda
2. Drysdale
3. Fox
4. Hodges
5. Howard
6. Munson
7. Oliva

----------

On the outside looking in, but still under consideration...
Allen
Bunning
Cuellar
Pinson
Robinson
Schoendienst (sorry, I just couldn't pull the trigger)
Torre
Wills

538280

02-10-2007, 08:50 PM

I'm sure you've all been waiting for this....I'm just going to throw in my case for James Sherman Wynn.

I've made a TON of arguments focusing on the statistical value of Jimmy Wynn. To me there is not much doubt that statistically, he is a HOFer. His OPS+ is 129, and that's in a decent length career from a good fielding center fielder. We elected Richie Ashburn, OPS+ of 111, career about Wynn's length, on the first ballot. Wynn ranks, among CFers in the NBJHBBA, 15th in career WS, 6th in top three WS seasons, 15th in five best consecutive seasons, and 19th in WS/162 (and behind many with shorter careers there). Bill James ranks him the 89th best position player of all time in that same book, and SABR Matt's PCA has him 13th among CFers.

Anyway, though, what I want to focus on more here, as I think we've already been over extensively the statistical credentials of Jimmy Wynn, are the things outside of the statistics, his intangible contributions, how he was viewed by his peers, whether he was believed, by those who saw him, to be a great player. I know that to many people this is what holds Wynn back as a HOF candidate.

I think it is quite clear if you research what was said about Wynn by those who actually watched him rather than assuming from his stats that he was a boring, HR or walk sluggish slugger. Wynn, after he had his breakout 1965 season in the first year of the Astrodome, was heralded as the new star of the new Houston franchise, and he did not dissapoint.

Wynn was looked at like players in the class of Darryl Strawberry, Bobby Bonds, and Eric Davis. Players who hit for a low batting average, but got on base a lot with walks and were extremely exciting with their fielding play, huge monster HRs, and stolen bases. He was given a very colorful nickname, the "The Toy Cannon" for hitting mooshot HRs, which he did-in 1967, when he was in a famed race with Hank Aaron for the HR crown, he hit a ball off the very top of the scoreboard in Crosley Field, which set the record for longest HR there and stood until the park closed in 1970. He also became the first batter ever to hit a ball into the upper deck of the Astrodome in 1970, and that spot was marked with a Cannon througout the rest of the Astrodome's time as a park, to commemorate him. Here is what Wynn had to say about his characteristically moonshot home runs, in a 2003 interview with Baseball Digest:

"I did have some big homers in Houston. There was one off a Phil Niekro knuckleball that landed in the yellow seats in the upper deck. That knuckler probably came in around 54 miles an hour. I have the seat where the ball landed.

I hit three homers in a game against the Giants in the Astrodome. The first two were hit off Bob Bolin, and the third homer came off Bill Henry, who was a left-handed relief pitcher.

There was one other homer that comes to mind. I hit one off the Budweiser eagle logo in St. Louis. That one probably went about 460 feet, but they didn't measure home runs in those days. When a player hits one today, it's measured even if the ball clears the fence by just a few feet."

He also had a cannon for an arm, and was a small man, 5'9'', 170 lbs, so "the Toy Cannon" was an apt nickname.

Before the 1971 season, Wynn was celebrating his anniversary with his wife, when he was stabbed by her. He went into the season not feeling too well an slumped the whole year. He had a pretty good year in '72 but then slumped in '73 and was traded to the Dodgers. He became the piece to get them over the top as they went to the '74 World Series and Wynn was the Comeback Player of the Year (though he certanly deserved the MVP over his teammate Steve Garvey).

This is a quote from then Astros president of baseball operations Tal Smith:
"Expansion teams are saddled with players other teams don't want, Jimmy was the beginning of our scouting and player-development system. He had an enormous impact on the franchise."

Larry Dierker once said Wynn was one of the most electrifying players he had ever played with and also said he would have hit 100 more HRs in another ballpark (not sure I agree with the latter statement, but I still think the former speaks volumes).

In a 2005 article after he got his uniform number retired, this is how Houston Chronicle wrtier Richard Justice desrcibed Astros' fans memories of Jimmy Wynn:

"To a generation of Houston baseball fans, Wynn was Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle rolled into one. He hit long home runs. He stole bases. He made spectacular catches in center field.

He played with a certain flair, too. When he made the final out of an inning, he laid his bat and helmet down gently near home plate, just as Mays did. When he trotted out to center field, he stepped on first base, just as Mays did. He became the first giant the Astros ever had."

Hardly faint praise! Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle rolled into one (not sure about that, but that's what he said)! He played with a certain flair. That's supposed to be the guy who has no originally, is not interesting, and is nothing but a HR/walk sluggish slugger?

The Astros Daily website, a great site for Astros fans, has called Wynn arguably the most popular player the Astros had until Nolan Ryan. People who actually saw him loved his play, the fans of a new franchise embraced him as the face of the franchise. He was more than numbers which appear to suggest a sluggish slugger. That's just the point I'm making here. I think that the interpretation that has been taken up by many of Jimmy Wynn on this website is NOT accurate.

Wynn got his number retired by the Houston Astros a few years ago and is today a treasurer in the MLB Player's Allumni Association. He even received a commendation from the Texas Legislature for his career in baseball.

milladrive

02-10-2007, 08:51 PM

Allen, Cepeda, Flood, Oliva, Robinson, and Torre.

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 08:56 PM

I'm sure you've all been waiting for this....I'm just going to throw in my case for James Sherman Wynn.

I had a feeling this was coming, which is good as I think we need more aggressive stumping for (or against) candidates. I'm wondering though, should we expect a similar effort in 1987 when Sal Bando comes up for election? ;)

As for your argument for Wynn, I don't see how Wynn and Ashburn had careers that were comparable in length. Ashburn had nearly 1800 more plate appearances than Wynn. Granted, that likely doesn't make up the OPS+ difference, but Ashburn does have decent to big leads in baserunning, fielding, and OBP (even when you adjust for era). Wynn has Ashburn on power, but he's miles behind Ashburn in batting average, OBP (again), and Wynn struckout a ton compared to Ashburn.

And I know you don't like counting numbers, but it can be part of what's a Hall of Famer, IMO, and Wynn's 1665 just isn't very many at all. Getting hits is the most fundamental aspect of offensive game, IMO, and getting so few in his career, at least when we're talking about the Hall of Fame, is a pretty big deficiency IMO that Wynn can't quite make up in peak value.

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 09:08 PM

538280

02-10-2007, 09:28 PM

I had a feeling this was coming, which is good as I think we need more aggressive stumping for (or against) candidates. I'm wondering though, should we expect a similar effort in 1987 when Sal Bando comes up for election? ;)

As for your argument for Wynn, I don't see how Wynn and Ashburn had careers that were comparable in length. Ashburn had nearly 1800 more plate appearances than Wynn. Granted, that likely doesn't make up the OPS+ difference, but Ashburn does have decent to big leads in baserunning, fielding, and OBP (even when you adjust for era). Wynn has Ashburn on power, but he's miles behind Ashburn in batting average, OBP (again), and Wynn struckout a ton compared to Ashburn.

I don't know that Ashburn has a big lead in baserunning. Wynn was a very fast player and stole over 200 bases in his career. He stole 43 and only got caught 4 times in 1965; after that year Astros management actually asked him to cut down on basestealing and focus more on power. They thought his stealing bases was an unneccessary risk to their young franchise player. I think Wynn was a better baserunner than the regular numbers would indicate-which is a very good one anyway. Ashburn was a very good baserunner as well, his SB totals are also deflated by the era that he played in. I don't think there's a big difference in their baserunning.

Basically offensively I think it's Wynn's power vs. Ashburn's average. And I think it's clear that Wynn's power makes him a better hitter by a good margin.

...............rel. BA.....rel. OBP....rel. SLG
Wynn...........97.........113..........115
Ashburn......115.........118...........93

Ashburn was better than Wynn at getting on base, but Wynn was really good too, it's not a rout at all. In power it is a rout, Asbhurn was almost no power while Wynn was a really good power hitter. BA is not really a key element of this, it is only key in that it pushes up OBP and SLG. Studies by Tango Tiger have actually shown that given equal OBP and SLG the player with the LOWER BA is more valuable offensively.

Defense is a plus for Ashburn, but Wynn was pretty good CFer himself, I just don't think that the difference between a B and A CFer is equal to the offensive difference between them. You're right about Asbhurn's career length, but Wynn's best seasons IMO were significantly better. Wynn got his OPS+ over 150 three times, Ashburn never did. Wynn's was over 140 six times, Ashburn's never was. Wynn's was over 130 8 times, Asbhurn's twice. Wynn has five seasons of over 30 WS, Ashburn has zero. Wynn was better offensively by a good margin, worse defensively but offense is more important, had significantly better peak seasons and only slightly less longevity, if one went in on the first ballot don't you think the other should eventually get himself in AT LEAST?

And did anyone ever call Ashburn the most exciting player they've ever seen? Did anyone ever THINK of calling him Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle-esque? I just don't think he came close to the excitement or popularity Wynn had in Houston, and that speaks a lot louder than counting stats (and actual value based analysis does as well).

538280

02-10-2007, 09:31 PM

Just to follow up, if I were to make a checklist of Wynn against Ashburn, it would probably go like this:

Career Value: Ashburn

Peak Value: Wynn

Batting Average: Ashburn (by a lot)

Power: Wynn (by a lot)

OBP: Ashburn (by a decent margin)

Fielding: Ashburn (by a pretty good margin)

Baserunning: Ashburn (by a good margin)

Other (i.e. Awards/Honors/Fame): Ashburn (though neither has a great case here anyway)

I agree with most of your evaluations (except for baserunning), but I just don't think separating it into categories and saying "Ashburn's won more" is a good way to look at it, at all. As I always tell Alec, you need to look at how these things combine to make a total picture of a player's value-how they make up the total picture. One guy could be totally dominant in one category and make up all the edges. For example, while Wynn isn't as good as Ashburn at hitting for average and slightly worse at getting on base, I'm pretty confindent his superior power makes him quite a bit better offensively-and I'm not sure that there's any metric or anything like that out there that would disagree.

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 09:43 PM

I agree with most of your evaluations (except for baserunning), but I just don't think separating it into categories and saying "Ashburn's won more" is a good way to look at it, at all. As I always tell Alec, you need to look at how these things combine to make a total picture of a player's value-how they make up the total picture. One guy could be totally dominant in one category and make up all the edges. For example, while Wynn isn't as good as Ashburn at hitting for average and slightly worse at getting on base, I'm pretty confindent his superior power makes him quite a bit better offensively-and I'm not sure that there's any metric or anything like that out there that would disagree.

I agree with that, but then you're still ignoring large pieces of the puzzle, namely: 1) Ashburn's longer career; 2) Ashburn's sizeable advantage in defense; 3) Ashburn's lead in baserunning (which, now that I have gone back over it, probably isn't much at all, so nevermind this point). I particularly think you're downplaying Ashburn's advantage in defense. I know you like Bill James - James has Ashburn with 30 more defensive win shares than Wynn. That's a lot. Only once did Wynn have more than 5 defensive win shares in a season and just three times more than 4. Ashburn had 7 seasons with more defensive win shares than Wynn had at best, topping at 8.0 (Wynn's high was 5.7), and Ashburn had 10 seasons with more than 4 defensive win shares (comparead to Wynn's 3).

Also, I believe you've argued in the past at the value of OBP over SLG, and that a player contributes more by making less outs. It would appear that by Ashburn's decent lead in OBP, he was making less outs than Wynn and was thus contributing more to his team's winning. Granted, Wynn contributed more when he wasn't making an out, I'm just pointing out this aspect given your position in past instances when you've argued that a player might be better than his OPS+ indicates in light of having a high OBP, which Ashburn has.

Also, a big part of the Hall of Fame is celebrating individual accomplishment, IMO. A discussion about the Hall is not quite the same as just making objective rankings. Individual accomplishment is traditionally measured in things such as raw numbers and awards. The awards are a pretty moot subject here (though Ashburn had more All Star appearances and better career showings in the MVP voting than Wynn), but Ashburn's raw statistics at least show some respectable personal accomplishments - the .308 BA, the 0.396 OBP, the nearly 2600 hits. Nothing at all stands out about Wynn when looking at his numbers. The .250 BA is attrocious, the 290 homeruns is fairly decent for his era and park, but it doesn't really jump out at you and can't by itself make a Hall of Fame case, the 1665 hits are pretty miniscule, the walks, stolen bases, and slugging are respectable, but again, not nearly enough to premise a Hall of Fame case on. His OPS+ is nice, but it didn't come in a particularly long career - Ashburn essentially had three full seasons more of plate appearances than Wynn - if Wynn played out those three seasons, his OPS+ almost certainly comes down quite a bit given the way his career was going in his last few years (though it would almost certainly still be higher than Ashburn). There's also the fact that the most fundamental skill of the offensive game is to put bat on ball - everyone who plays baseball aspires to master that skill, with striking out being the ultimate failure of that skill. By hitting just .250 and striking out a lot, it says that Wynn was lacking quite considerably at that fundamental skill for his career, especially when you're talking about the skill you'd like to see from a Hall of Famer. Yeah, he had good power and could take walks, but again, he just has peak there - his 290 homeruns, even consideirng the era and Astrodome depression, just don't leap out at you, and show that he didn't have enough career value at that skill to make a Hall of Fame case premised on that skill, like someone like Harmon Killebrew, Mike Schmidt, Reggie Jackson, or Willie McCovey. So to me, Wynn could have A) Been a better all around hitter by showing more individual mastery of hitting, which again, is part of what the Hall of Fame is celebrating IMO, or B) Been better for his career at his other skills, namely power, because his peak just doesn't stand out enough to make a case based on power alone. It all says to me that Wynn was talented but left a lot on the field and thus did not have a Hall of Fame career, though he had some Hall of Famesque seasons. How many other Hall of Fame caliber players have such unimpressive raw stats? Wynn's career value just isn't that impressive, IMO, and his peak, while nice, is not enough to make up the difference like say someone like Dick Allen or Mark McGwire (if you ignore the steroids).

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 09:51 PM

And did anyone ever call Ashburn the most exciting player they've ever seen? Did anyone ever THINK of calling him Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle-esque? I just don't think he came close to the excitement or popularity Wynn had in Houston, and that speaks a lot louder than counting stats (and actual value based analysis does as well).

Let me ask you something, have you actually looked for quotes from the Philadelphia media in the 1950s, or perhaps from when Ashburn was inducted into the Hall? I'm sure the Philadelphia press was laden with praise for Ashburn at those times. Presenting an article from the Houston Chronicle that makes this analogy with Wynn to Mantle and Mays isn't very convincing, and is extremely biased, especially in this discussion where you have likely have a huge predilection to scavenge for Wynn quotes but are without the same fervor to do the same for Ashburn. To be honest, I can't believe you would actually push this facet as hard you have been because I could see you jumping all over someone else for doing the same thing with another player. They retired Willie Horton's number in Detroit and the Detroit press and Tiger fans have almost certainly heaped tons of praise on Horton, so is that a good argument that he's a Hall of Famer? Seriously, pushing the hometown's view of a hometown player, and one like Wynn that stoodout when the team was both novel to the fanbase and a mostly bad team, is an extremely weak argument for the player to be in the Hall - perhaps a good argument to be in the Astros Hall or the Houston Sports Hall, but not the Baseball Hall. I'm really stunned that you would put so much weight into this.

2Chance

02-10-2007, 09:56 PM

Dick Allen
Luis Aparicio
Jim Bunning
Orlando Cepeda
Don Drysdale
Nellie Fox
Bill Freehan
Bill Mazeroski
Brooks Robinson
Red Schoendienst

AlecBoy006

02-10-2007, 10:23 PM

You use value- same old argument. Like with the MVP thread. You mean to tell me Bench was more VALUABLE than Carlton? Who else did the Phillies have that year? Schmidt wouldn't arrive for another 4. Bench had Morgan, Perez, Foster, Rose, Concepcion, it's just a great lineup, while Carlton was the sole star in Philly.

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 10:28 PM

AstrosFan

02-10-2007, 11:36 PM

I've prepared a chart comparing Ashburn and Wynn based on wOBA converted to Runs Above Average (RAA), and Runs Above Replacement (RAR). I factored in SB and CS, based on what I knew about the weight of the SB. Each player is measured through their best, second best, third, and so on, as the cumulative total is added up. This provides a useful look at career and peak value. The lead is how far ahead Wynn is, if he is at all.

ProgYr FName LName Year RAA ProgRAA ProgYr FName LName Year RAA ProgRAA LeadRAA
1 Richie Ashburn 1958 65.82 65.82 1 Jimmy Wynn 1965 77.83 77.83 12.01
2 Richie Ashburn 1955 58.5 124.32 2 Jimmy Wynn 1969 76.53 154.36 30.04
3 Richie Ashburn 1951 45.32 169.64 3 Jimmy Wynn 1974 59.05 213.41 43.77
4 Richie Ashburn 1948 43.99 213.63 4 Jimmy Wynn 1970 57.51 270.92 57.29
5 Richie Ashburn 1960 39.1 252.73 5 Jimmy Wynn 1972 57.27 328.19 75.46
6 Richie Ashburn 1954 38.44 291.17 6 Jimmy Wynn 1968 55.41 383.6 92.43
7 Richie Ashburn 1956 33.12 324.29 7 Jimmy Wynn 1967 48.13 431.73 107.44
8 Richie Ashburn 1957 33.01 357.3 8 Jimmy Wynn 1975 40.4 472.13 114.83
9 Richie Ashburn 1953 27.92 385.22 9 Jimmy Wynn 1966 22.99 495.12 109.9
10 Richie Ashburn 1962 26.77 411.99 10 Jimmy Wynn 1976 17.12 512.24 100.25
11 Richie Ashburn 1950 22.19 434.18 11 Jimmy Wynn 1973 12.58 524.82 90.64
12 Richie Ashburn 1952 17.37 451.55 12 Jimmy Wynn 1963 7.06 531.88 80.33
13 Richie Ashburn 1949 2.5 454.05 13 Jimmy Wynn 1964 0.13 532.01 77.96
14 Richie Ashburn 1961 0.01 454.06 14 Jimmy Wynn 1971 -7.81 524.2 70.14
15 Richie Ashburn 1959 -7.99 446.07 15 Jimmy Wynn 1977 -15.03 509.17 63.1

ProgYr FName LName Year RAR ProgRAR ProgYr FName LName Year RAR ProgRAR LeadRAR
1 Richie Ashburn 1958 112.04 112.04 1 Jimmy Wynn 1969 115.7 115.7 3.66
2 Richie Ashburn 1955 99.39 211.43 2 Jimmy Wynn 1965 114.98 230.68 19.25
3 Richie Ashburn 1951 90.39 301.82 3 Jimmy Wynn 1974 98.73 329.41 27.59
4 Richie Ashburn 1954 84.43 386.25 4 Jimmy Wynn 1970 98.57 427.98 41.73
5 Richie Ashburn 1960 80.15 466.4 5 Jimmy Wynn 1972 96.03 524.01 57.61
6 Richie Ashburn 1957 78.16 544.56 6 Jimmy Wynn 1968 91.94 615.95 71.39
7 Richie Ashburn 1948 77.39 621.95 7 Jimmy Wynn 1967 87.02 702.97 81.02
8 Richie Ashburn 1956 76.96 698.91 8 Jimmy Wynn 1975 72.04 775.01 76.1
9 Richie Ashburn 1953 73.65 772.56 9 Jimmy Wynn 1976 55.36 830.37 57.81
10 Richie Ashburn 1950 65.06 837.62 10 Jimmy Wynn 1966 49.93 880.3 42.68
11 Richie Ashburn 1952 61.04 898.66 11 Jimmy Wynn 1973 48.93 929.23 30.57
12 Richie Ashburn 1962 57.9 956.56 12 Jimmy Wynn 1963 23 952.23 -4.33
13 Richie Ashburn 1949 48.24 1004.8 13 Jimmy Wynn 1971 19.69 971.92 -32.88
14 Richie Ashburn 1959 34.88 1039.68 14 Jimmy Wynn 1964 14.33 986.25 -53.43
15 Richie Ashburn 1961 24.1 1063.78 15 Jimmy Wynn 1977 -0.18 986.07 -77.71

Based on the chart, Wynn seems to win pretty easily in peak value, and while Ashburn has him in career RAR, Wynn takes the title in career RAA. Based on the numbers, I would say Wynn is the clear choice for best overall offensive player. I will leave it up to the others to decide whether Ashburn's defense makes up for it.

yanks0714

02-11-2007, 06:55 AM

Here are my selections for 1983:

* Dick Allen
* Luis Aparicio
* Ken Boyer
* Jim Bunning
* Orlando Cepeda
* Don Drysdale
* Nellie Fox
* Tony Oliva
* Brooks Robinson
* Jimmy Wynn

After submitting my ballot I realized that I had 4 players on the list who are not in the BBHOF.
I also considered adding Red Schoendienst. If voting for Nellie Fox I feel that I should vote for Red as well. But who to drop?
I'm also considering adding Bill Freehan to my selections.
It lloks as though Tony Oliva will be the casulty.

Erik Bedard

02-11-2007, 09:38 AM

What does that have to do with anything in this thread? We're not voting for any of these players.

Alec's still stuck on Drysdale, and why having Koufax on his team makes a difference.

dgarza

02-11-2007, 10:06 AM

1. Dick Allen
2. Orlando Cepeda
3. Tony Oliva
4. Nellie Fox
5. Don Drysdale
6. Brooks Robinson
7. Joe Torre
8. Jim Bunning
(9.) Red Schoendienst (last year)
(10.) Gil Hodges (last year)
-----------------------------
Ken Boyer & Vada Pinson were bumped to make room for the 2 last year players.

AlecBoy006

02-11-2007, 10:12 AM

I feel Drysdale is a mistake, there are others who should be in before him.

538280

02-11-2007, 10:30 AM

I agree with that, but then you're still ignoring large pieces of the puzzle, namely: 1) Ashburn's longer career; 2) Ashburn's sizeable advantage in defense; 3) Ashburn's lead in baserunning (which, now that I have gone back over it, probably isn't much at all, so nevermind this point). I particularly think you're downplaying Ashburn's advantage in defense. I know you like Bill James - James has Ashburn with 30 more defensive win shares than Wynn. That's a lot. Only once did Wynn have more than 5 defensive win shares in a season and just three times more than 4. Ashburn had 7 seasons with more defensive win shares than Wynn had at best, topping at 8.0 (Wynn's high was 5.7), and Ashburn had 10 seasons with more than 4 defensive win shares (comparead to Wynn's 3).

Sorry, but I just don't think those two advantages (longer career, better defense) even come close to making up Wynn's advantages, when you look at things through a true value spectrum, not "he's better in area X but then the other guy's better here so they're equal". The defensive lead is nice, but I just don't get how it can come even close to making up for the offense. You bring up Win Shares-despite those DWS leads Ashburn has, Win Shares clearly and beyond any doubt shows Wynn as a distinclty superior overall player. Despite the playing time difference, Asbhurn is all of 24 WS ahead in his career (329 to 305). That's just not that big a difference and given that Wynn did have about 1800 less PAs it really shows that WS shows Wynn being quite a bit better when they actually did play. Wynn has four seasons of over 30 WS to Ashburn's zero. That's a big difference too. If we show their top 10 WS seasons this is how in comes out:

Wynn: 36, 32, 32, 31, 28, 28, 28, 21, 18, 17
Asbhurn: 29, 28, 28, 28, 26, 26, 26, 23, 22, 21

Ashburn does have a litte bit more on the end-but like I said it's not like there's a huge difference there. The difference between them on their career is 24 WS-do you really think that's enough to make up for the absolute rout at the top (Ws has Wynn's 5th, 6th, and 7th seasons about on the same line as Ashburn's best). Once again, I think it's ironic you bring up WS to show Ashburn's big defensive advantage when really what WS is telling us is that Wynn's superior hitting more than makes up for Ashburn's defense.

Also, I believe you've argued in the past at the value of OBP over SLG, and that a player contributes more by making less outs. It would appear that by Ashburn's decent lead in OBP, he was making less outs than Wynn and was thus contributing more to his team's winning. Granted, Wynn contributed more when he wasn't making an out, I'm just pointing out this aspect given your position in past instances when you've argued that a player might be better than his OPS+ indicates in light of having a high OBP, which Ashburn has.

I agree with this-the difference between Ashburn and Wynn offensively is probably overstated by OPS+. The problem though is that it is still there. If you look at measures which give more appropriate weights to getting on base than OPS+ does, Wynn still is definitely better on offense. I'll give you a sampling:

Offensive WS
Wynn: 260.6
Ashburn: 256.6

OWS/650 PA
Wynn: 21.15
Ashburn: 17.13

Total Baseball's Batting Runs (Palmer's linear weights essentially)
Wynn: 303
Ashburn: 189

Batting Runs/600 PA
Wynn: 22.70
Ashburn: 11.65

BP's Batting Runs Above Replacement (BRAR)
Wynn: 639
Ashburn: 586

BRAR/650 PA
Wynn: 51.86
Ashburn: 39.92

And remember-we elected Ashburn on the first ballot. Wynn doesn't necessarily have to be better than him to get elected (although I think he is defnitely better than him). Even if you don't accept Wynn as better, you have to admit he's at least really close. He should, given our treatment to Ashburn, be getting many more votes here.

Also, a big part of the Hall of Fame is celebrating individual accomplishment, IMO. A discussion about the Hall is not quite the same as just making objective rankings. Individual accomplishment is traditionally measured in things such as raw numbers and awards. The awards are a pretty moot subject here (though Ashburn had more All Star appearances and better career showings in the MVP voting than Wynn), but Ashburn's raw statistics at least show some respectable personal accomplishments - the .308 BA, the 0.396 OBP, the nearly 2600 hits. Nothing at all stands out about Wynn when looking at his numbers. The .250 BA is attrocious, the 290 homeruns is fairly decent for his era and park, but it doesn't really jump out at you and can't by itself make a Hall of Fame case, the 1665 hits are pretty miniscule, the walks, stolen bases, and slugging are respectable, but again, not nearly enough to premise a Hall of Fame case on. [/quote]

So you think the HOF should consider whose numbers are more eye catching and flashy? Look, I'm in total agreement we should take into account peer evaluations, in the guy was exciting, how people who watched him felt about him, because the HOF is there to celebrate the game of baseball (and as I showed above, I feel Wynn does have those things, from the people who saw him on a regular basis). I don't, however, think that we should just look at whose numbers are more flashy. Wynn's numbers look miniscule because 1. He was a diversified player-there isn't really one number that can sum up his value and that's going to make his numbers less eye catching, and 2. He played in one of the lowest possible run contexts of all time. I don't think these things are really related to the merits of Jimmy Wynn or his HOF credentials-just how initially impressive his stat line looks before you look deepr. I don't think there's room for improper statistical interpretation in determining player worthiness.

There's also the fact that the most fundamental skill of the offensive game is to put bat on ball - everyone who plays baseball aspires to master that skill, with striking out being the ultimate failure of that skill. By hitting just .250 and striking out a lot, it says that Wynn was lacking quite considerably at that fundamental skill for his career, especially when you're talking about the skill you'd like to see from a Hall of Famer. Yeah, he had good power and could take walks, but again, he just has peak there - his 290 homeruns, even consideirng the era and Astrodome depression, just don't leap out at you, and show that he didn't have enough career value at that skill to make a Hall of Fame case premised on that skill, like someone like Harmon Killebrew, Mike Schmidt, Reggie Jackson, or Willie McCovey. So to me, Wynn could have A) Been a better all around hitter by showing more individual mastery of hitting, which again, is part of what the Hall of Fame is celebrating IMO, or B) Been better for his career at his other skills, namely power, because his peak just doesn't stand out enough to make a case based on power alone. It all says to me that Wynn was talented but left a lot on the field and thus did not have a Hall of Fame career, though he had some Hall of Famesque seasons. How many other Hall of Fame caliber players have such unimpressive raw stats? Wynn's career value just isn't that impressive, IMO, and his peak, while nice, is not enough to make up the difference like say someone like Dick Allen or Mark McGwire (if you ignore the steroids).

This is wrong IMO. The goal of a hitter is to help his team win by helping his team score runs. Those things may be the "spirit of hitting" to many observers, but as you said on another thread Hiddengem, who himself is a professional baseball player, said that the goal of every major league player is to help his team win, not appeal to what the fans may want to see. Even if hititng for a high BA may be exciting or striking out is boring, I don't think that's any more than a made up standard that means nothing because the players are really focusing on winning. And, anyway, like I said above, I think Wynn was an extremely exciting player. Not that Ashburn wasn't, but I don't think he deserves any extra over Wynn for excitement.

jalbright

02-11-2007, 12:18 PM

I feel Drysdale is a mistake, there are others who should be in before him.
Alec, we know where you stand. Your repetitive comments like this on Drysdale are becoming an annoying chant. Any more such comments, without some substantive argument behind them, will be deleted by me. If Drysdale isn't elected this month, I hereby limit you to one "I don't like Drysdale, but I really have nothing more to say" comment like this per thread so long as Drysdale is on the ballot. If you defy this rule repeatedly, I will not hesitate to use more definitive measures available to me as the moderator of this forum.

Jim Albright

Erik Bedard

02-11-2007, 12:35 PM

As of right now.....

Getting In:

Don Drysdale :clapping
Brooks Robinson

Continuing to Future Ballots:

Dick Allen
Luis Aparicio
Ken Boyer
Jim Bunning
Norm Cash
Orlando Cepeda
Curt Flood
Nellie Fox
Bill Freehan
Gil Hodges
Frank Howard
Bill Mazeroski
Thurman Munson
Vada Pinson
Boog Powell
Bill Singer
Joe Torre
Maury Wills
Jimmy Wynn

Notable Eliminations

Red Schoendienst
Gil Hodges

indicates member of MLB HoF

538280

02-11-2007, 01:05 PM

Let me ask you something, have you actually looked for quotes from the Philadelphia media in the 1950s, or perhaps from when Ashburn was inducted into the Hall? I'm sure the Philadelphia press was laden with praise for Ashburn at those times. Presenting an article from the Houston Chronicle that makes this analogy with Wynn to Mantle and Mays isn't very convincing, and is extremely biased, especially in this discussion where you have likely have a huge predilection to scavenge for Wynn quotes but are without the same fervor to do the same for Ashburn. To be honest, I can't believe you would actually push this facet as hard you have been because I could see you jumping all over someone else for doing the same thing with another player. They retired Willie Horton's number in Detroit and the Detroit press and Tiger fans have almost certainly heaped tons of praise on Horton, so is that a good argument that he's a Hall of Famer? Seriously, pushing the hometown's view of a hometown player, and one like Wynn that stoodout when the team was both novel to the fanbase and a mostly bad team, is an extremely weak argument for the player to be in the Hall - perhaps a good argument to be in the Astros Hall or the Houston Sports Hall, but not the Baseball Hall. I'm really stunned that you would put so much weight into this.

I'm pushing this view to some extent for two reasons:

1. I think that in the past people have interpreted Wynn as being a very boring player who is not special at all outside of his statistics. I feel this feeling among many members is at least part of the reason he is not receiving much support, and I feel this perception many seem to have of him is not true and should be shown to be so, and

2. You and others (and I agree with you) have said in the past that you think that the HOF is based on a lot more than just an analysis of value, but also should contain what this player means to the game, his impact he left on the game, what contemporaries who saw him thought, etc. because the HOF is there to celebreate the game of baseball. I think that Wynn was thought of so highly and revered so heavily by Astros fans of his time shows that he did make a lasting impact on the game that is felt even to today. I would jump on people bringing up things like this when we're looking at objective rankings (romanticized quotes about old Yankees would probably come to mind first), but again this is part of attacking the perception that has developed of Wynn as a player who has no credentials outside of his stats. I really do think Wynn made an impotant impact on the game outside of just his numbers and that people should realize this. He's not the "nothing outside of pretty impressive stats" as many have made him out as.

Erik Bedard

02-11-2007, 01:13 PM

KCGHOST

02-11-2007, 01:29 PM

A lot of good players on this list, but I only voted for Brooks. For the Hall of the Very Good I could have voted for a bunch of these guys.

538280

02-11-2007, 01:31 PM

IMO, Wynn deserves to be in, and Ashburn does too. Chris makes a very good argument regarding Wynn's candidacy, and I'm inclined to agree with him. However, while I believe that both Wynn and Ashburn deserve induction, I also feel that Ashburn is more deserving than Wynn.

Why? I don't want to argue too much since you voted for Wynn, but looking at all the statistics I can, and giving an appropriate weight to hitting vs. fielding, I just cannot possibly come up with the answer that Ashburn is more deserving of the HOF than Wynn. On top of that there is not ONE single statistical system that's ever been made that would call Ashburn a better player than Wynn.

Erik Bedard

02-11-2007, 01:40 PM

I overrate defense a lot, and Wynn's OBP is lower than Ashburn's. Wynn did have a lot more power, but IMO, if he had played in a different park, and not struck out so much, then he might be ahead of Ashburn in my book. As it is, they are both very close.

John Shoemaker

02-11-2007, 01:40 PM

Now Boog Powell has dropped below the 5% to remain on the ballot for future rounds. I cannot believe the people voting ever saw Boog play or he would certainly get well over 5%. He along Frank and Brooks Robinson were the heart of the Baltimore Orioles.

Westlake

02-11-2007, 01:41 PM

On top of that there is not ONE single statistical system that's ever been made that would call Ashburn a better player than Wynn.

Try looking at WARP.

538280

02-11-2007, 01:47 PM

Try looking at WARP.

WARP3 has them a lot closer than any other than I've seen. With WARP3 you are right they're probably about the same-they give Ashburn a bit larger lead for career and a bit smaller on peak. WARP3 has them virtually the same, but I still think it far from justifies one of them being a first ballot selection and the other one struggling to get 20% support.

Westlake

02-11-2007, 01:55 PM

Wynn 93.4
Ashburn 104.9

They aren't the same, Ashburn is ahead.

538280

02-11-2007, 02:21 PM

Wynn 93.4
Ashburn 104.9

They aren't the same, Ashburn is ahead.

That's just career value-most systems (like WARP3) have Ashburn with a little more career value, but most of them have Wynn significantly better per game and in his peak seasons. WARP3 makes the difference in those two areas a bit smaller, but Wynn is still better in those areas. Given that I think it is still a reasonable interpretation by WARP3 that Wynn could have been better.

DoubleX

02-11-2007, 04:37 PM

2. You and others (and I agree with you) have said in the past that you think that the HOF is based on a lot more than just an analysis of value, but also should contain what this player means to the game, his impact he left on the game, what contemporaries who saw him thought, etc. because the HOF is there to celebreate the game of baseball. I think that Wynn was thought of so highly and revered so heavily by Astros fans of his time shows that he did make a lasting impact on the game that is felt even to today. I would jump on people bringing up things like this when we're looking at objective rankings (romanticized quotes about old Yankees would probably come to mind first), but again this is part of attacking the perception that has developed of Wynn as a player who has no credentials outside of his stats. I really do think Wynn made an impotant impact on the game outside of just his numbers and that people should realize this. He's not the "nothing outside of pretty impressive stats" as many have made him out as.

I questioned your post in this regard not because you brought it up, but in the biased manner you brought it up in comparison to Ashburn. You said something like that kind of praise was never heaped on Ashburn, but I'm betting you never really looked. It's likely that the Philadelphia press was just as kind to Ashburn as the Houston press was to Wynn, which was your reference point.

dgarza

02-11-2007, 05:32 PM

Bill Singer truely appreciates those votes, especially from the person who ONLY voted for Singer.

538280

02-11-2007, 06:08 PM

I questioned your post in this regard not because you brought it up, but in the biased manner you brought it up in comparison to Ashburn. You said something like that kind of praise was never heaped on Ashburn, but I'm betting you never really looked. It's likely that the Philadelphia press was just as kind to Ashburn as the Houston press was to Wynn, which was your reference point.

You're right. I probably shouldn't have made such statements without checking Philadephia press first. Really, though, are you thinking about now supporting Wynn? If not, why not?

Freakshow

02-12-2007, 07:50 AM

Bill Singer truely appreciates those votes, especially from the person who ONLY voted for Singer.
I suggest we delete Dave Kingman's ballot (the Singer vote) because it clearly is a non-serious vote and tends only to sabogtage the process here.

dgarza

02-12-2007, 09:00 AM

I suggest we delete Dave Kingman's ballot (the Singer vote) because it clearly is a non-serious vote and tends only to sabogtage the process here.
I don't know...the last few times DaveKingman voted for the players who actually got in (Aaron, Robinson, Williams, Killebrew)

DoubleX

02-12-2007, 09:31 AM

I suggest we delete Dave Kingman's ballot (the Singer vote) because it clearly is a non-serious vote and tends only to sabogtage the process here.

Not sure why anyone would vote for Singer, let alone making that your only vote. Perhaps he meant to vote for Joe Torre and clicked on the wrong player?

John Shoemaker

02-12-2007, 09:40 AM

I suggest we delete Dave Kingman's ballot (the Singer vote) because it clearly is a non-serious vote and tends only to sabogtage the process here.

I don't see how we can throw out anyone's vote unless they vote for more than 10 players. He followed the rules.

DoubleX

02-12-2007, 09:54 AM

Out of curiosity, for people not voting for Dick Allen, what's the argument?

John Shoemaker

02-12-2007, 09:57 AM

Out of curiosity, for people not voting for Dick Allen, what's the argument?

I'd be interested to know that too. He was a fantastic player.

Freakshow

02-12-2007, 10:07 AM

He followed the rules.
Rules can be amended as circumstance dictates.

DoubleX

02-12-2007, 10:18 AM

Rules can be amended as circumstance dictates.

I'm going to let this slide. Looking at DaveKingman's voting record, there really is no reason to suspect him of any bad motives. I suppose, if he habitually keeps submitting just one vote and for a seemingly underqualified player, then down the road there might be reason to interevene. As it stands now, I'm not going to question his motives. It is entirely possible that this is a sort of protest vote on his part, as if he were to submit a blank ballot. It's possible that he does not believe that any of the candidates are worthy for election this year so he goes with a personal favorite for the hell of it. It sucks for the rest of us because it counts against us, but this kind of thing frequently happens with the BBWAA, so we'll just have to live with it. Personally, given the circumstances, and without asking DaveKingman to explain himself, I actually think the likely scenario is that he doesn't think anyone was worthy so went with Singer for the hell of it. His voting record seems to indicates that he only supports strong Hall of Famers - only Aaron, Robinson, Williams, Killebrew, and Kaline received his vote in the past two years, and I think it's plausible to argue that there aren't really any strong Hall of Famers of that caliber on this year's ballot.

John Shoemaker

02-12-2007, 10:21 AM

Rules can be amended as circumstance dictates.

I think voting only for Bill Singer is not as bad as not voting for Willie Mays in 1979 and we counted that vote.

dgarza

02-12-2007, 10:30 AM

Out of curiosity, for people not voting for Dick Allen, what's the argument?
He's my #1 pick out of this bunch. I didn't think he'd get in on his 1st year. I know there's enough people who don't like his "short" career and reputation. I think he's at a reasonable place right now, much better than in the real 1983, when he received 3.74%.

DoubleX

02-12-2007, 10:48 AM

He's my #1 pick out of this bunch. I didn't think he'd get in on his 1st year. I know there's enough people who don't like his "short" career and reputation. I think he's at a reasonable place right now, much better than in the real 1983, when he received 3.74%.

That's true, but we heretofore have not established a reputation of building players towards election. It seems with us, a player is either in or he's not. Don Drysdale might be the first to buck that trend this year, but he's toting the line right now.

dgarza

02-12-2007, 10:56 AM

That's true, but we heretofore have not established a reputation of building players towards election. It seems with us, a player is either in or he's not. Don Drysdale might be the first to buck that trend this year, but he's toting the line right now.
This is true. When this 1st started and got Ashburn in, I thought it would be pretty easy to get players in. I see Ashburn as a player who's much closer to borderline than anything else. Now we can't get players who I would have thought were clearly better in.

dgarza

02-12-2007, 11:14 AM

Out of curiosity, for people not voting for Dick Allen, what's the argument?
Or, what does Billy Williams have that Dick Allen doesn't?
I see them as pretty similar players.

vtbub

02-12-2007, 11:16 AM

Out of curiosity, for people not voting for Dick Allen, what's the argument?

He was a bit before my time(35) and you never heard anyone talk about him really after he retired.

His career was short, his numbers don't jump out at you, and had a greedy reputation.

Now, going back and looking, yes he does have a legit case, but certainly isn't a slam dunk.

Freakshow

02-12-2007, 11:22 AM

This is true. When this 1st started and got Ashburn in, I thought it would be pretty easy to get players in. I see Ashburn as a player who's much closer to borderline than anything else. Now we can't get players who I would have thought were clearly better in.
Yes, I have thought this, too. Ashburn was #8 on my ballot in 1979.

As one point of reference, look back to The 500 Player Pyramid project from a couple years back. Ashburn was one of the 35 guys rated as "4's", the 152nd to 186th greatest players in history. So a 4 is a clear cut hall of famer.

Look at the entire group of "4's":

Dick Allen
Richie Ashburn
Earl Averill
Lou Boudreau
Lou Brock
Bill Dahlen
Ray Dandridge
Bobby Doerr
Don Drysdale
Dwight Evans
Rollie Fingers
Joe Gordon
Willie Keeler
King Kelly
Joe McGinnity
Hal Newhouser
Jim O'Rourke
Tony Perez
C. Radbourn
Manny Ramirez
Pee Wee Reese
Amos Rusie
Luis Santop
Gary Sheffield
Ted Simmons
Enos Slaughter
Don Sutton
Bill Terry
Joe Torre
Alan Trammell
Pie Traynor
John Ward
Lou Whitaker
Early Wynn
Jimmy Wynn

Appling

02-12-2007, 12:24 PM

Out of curiosity, for people not voting for Dick Allen, what's the argument?
I remember Dick Allen as a "me first' guy who didn't get along with his teammates or with the press. His clubhouse charm was similar to Vern Stephens (or perhaps Barry Bonds -- but he didn't HIT like Barry Bonds).

John Shoemaker

02-12-2007, 12:38 PM

I remember Dick Allen as a "me first' guy who didn't get along with his teammates or with the press. His clubhouse charm was similar to Vern Stephens (or perhaps Barry Bonds -- but he didn't HIT like Barry Bonds).

True - He didn't hit like Barry Bonds but in my opinion Dick Allen hit better than 50% of the players currently in the Hall of Fame.

abacab

02-12-2007, 01:12 PM

I gave Allen a "first ballot demerit" because of his various personality problems. I'll vote for him in '84.

John Shoemaker

02-12-2007, 01:18 PM

I gave Allen a "first ballot demerit" because of his various personality problems. I'll vote for him in '84.

I'll bet that was the case with a lot of the voters. He should do a lot better in 1984.

DoubleX

02-12-2007, 02:51 PM

True - He didn't hit like Barry Bonds but in my opinion Dick Allen hit better than 50% of the players currently in the Hall of Fame.

That's probably an understatement, especially when you consider all the lighter-hitting position players in there from C, 2B, and SS. If I made a list of the top 30 hitters of all time, I'd have a hard time seeing Allen not making that list.

DoubleX

02-12-2007, 03:44 PM

In addition to the two odd votes for Bill Singer, we have out first two "None of the Above" votes.

John Shoemaker

02-12-2007, 04:42 PM

In addition to the two odd votes for Bill Singer, we have out first two "None of the Above" votes.

On the bright side we already have 52 people voting and we still have over 4 days left to vote. We should easily get over 60 again.

BoofBonser26

02-12-2007, 05:52 PM

In addition to the two odd votes for Bill Singer, we have out first two "None of the Above" votes.
I think a "none of the above" vote is pretty reasonable this year for a small-hall person.

Erik Bedard

02-12-2007, 07:03 PM

Don Drysdale is now at 75.47! :clapping

Appling

02-12-2007, 08:59 PM

That's probably an understatement, especially when you consider all the lighter-hitting position players in there from C, 2B, and SS. If I made a list of the top 30 hitters of all time, I'd have a hard time seeing Allen not making that list.
Maybe if you rank him solely based on Adjusted Career OPS --where Allen ranks #21 all-time.

Dick Allen also is FAIR in other career Rate Stats, but...
He is not in the top 100 based on BA -- or OBP -- or Total Bases -- or RBI. These are departments where HOF First-Basemen usually excel.

He ranks #42 in career Slg. Pct., #55 in OPS, 71 in Homeruns, and 69 in career AB per HR. (These are his best career numbers but none are in the top 30.)

I don't see how those numbers put him in the "top 30 hitters of all time".
But maybe I am biased. I just didn't like the guy.

John Shoemaker

02-12-2007, 09:21 PM

DoubleX

02-12-2007, 09:38 PM

Maybe if you rank him solely based on Adjusted Career OPS --where Allen ranks #21 all-time.

Dick Allen also is FAIR in other career Rate Stats, but...
He is not in the top 100 based on BA -- or OBP -- or Total Bases -- or RBI. These are departments where HOF First-Basemen usually excel.

He ranks #42 in career Slg. Pct., #55 in OPS, 71 in Homeruns, and 69 in career AB per HR. (These are his best career numbers but none are in the top 30.)

I don't see how those numbers put him in the "top 30 hitters of all time".
But maybe I am biased. I just didn't like the guy.

First, for practical purposes, he's a littlie higher than 21st all time in OPS+. Albert Pujols is ahead of him but Pujols has just 4000 PA thus far, so he shouldn't qualify just yet. Dave Orr is also ahead of him but Orr never played in the Major Leagues (or what was then just the National League). He has just 3400 PA, none in the AL or NL.

Of players with at least 5000 PA since 1900, Allen ranks 18th, with Joe Jackson just barely qualifying to be ahead of Allen. But whether its 18th or 21st, that's nothing to sneeze at at all given that we're talking about OPS+.

You mention batting average, but don't mention the fact he played in an era where offense was extremely depressed, when .301 was good enough for a batting title in a season. Allen's .292 is extremely respectable given the era and is a +112. Compare that to someone like Jim Bottomley who hit .310, but was only +106. Basically, it's very, very deceiving to rely on Allen's raw rate stats on account of the era, and that is shown by his tremendous OPS+. 1Bman are supposed to put up high OPS+, and Allen did that, better than all but 20 (or 17 players depending on how you're counting). Just look at his OPS+ year after year for an 11 year period - very few players have put up numbers like that so consistently over such a stretch:

1964: 162
1965: 145
1966: 181
1967: 174
1968: 160
1969: 166
1970: 146
1971: 151
1972: 200
1973: 177
1974: 165

That's the epitome of being a great hitter, IMO - year after year Allen was putting up huge OPS+ numbers. Sure, he suffers on career value, but on peak value, there weren't that many players that were better than Allen, or had a peak so high for as long as Allen. Basically, Allen is almost all peak, but that's nothing to sneeze at given that it's 11 years - that's a long time for the kind of production Allen was putting up yearly.

John Shoemaker

02-12-2007, 10:14 PM

During his peak years there was no more feared batter than Dick Allen coming to the plate with his 44 ounce bat.

538280

02-13-2007, 12:36 PM

DoubleX

02-13-2007, 12:58 PM

Allen played in one of the lowest run scoring envionments of all time. Many of those numbers you cite are not adjusted for era-and that is why Allen does not appear to do so well in them. When adjusted for the context of the era in which he played, Allen is absolutely one of the absolute best hitters of all time. The only thing he doesn't have is great longevity. He was tremendous in his best seasons though and sustained that level over more than just one year. If he had a long career he would probably be one of the top TEN hitters of all time. As it is he has a good case for top 20.

His much publicized personal issues are quite overblown IMO as well. His managers and teammates had nothing but positives to say about him and his influences on the team. Anyone not voting for Allen should read this:

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=692819&postcount=9

And the thing about Allen is that his peak is nothing to sneeze at in terms of longevity and consistently. He really had 11 years where he hit at or around an all time great level and there are very few players who have a peak that high for that long. The thing that separates Allen from most others with high peaks is career value, as Allen's career is essentially all peak, whereas lots of others in the best hitter discussion had several more lesser seasons to tack onto career value. But on peak alone, Allen has one of the most phenomenal offensive peaks in history, IMO, and it's more than enough to compensate for not having a more full career with several lesser seasons tacked on. At that point, the extra seasons just become gravy for the other players in the discussion of the best couple of dozen all time hitters

DoubleX

02-13-2007, 04:57 PM

The turnout is looking pretty good in this elections, especially considering there are still 3+ days left. The votes start to dwindle in the last few days, but I'm hoping we can get back to 60 this time.

Looking forward to the next election...Well there's not much to look forward to actually. The 1984 incoming class might be the weakest we'll see in this project. So it will be interesting to see if we manage to elect anyone in 1984. If Drysdale is elected this year, it's looking doubtful that we'll have anyone else within 12% of election this year, so it would take a big jump for anyone to get in next year.

As for the newcomes in 1984, here they all are:

Bob Bailey
Nelson Briles
Jim Bouton
Clay Carroll
Ron Fairly
Jim Fregosi
Davey Johnson
Mickey Stanley
Wilbur Wood

Not very impressive at all I suppose it's possible that Wood and Fregosi (and maybe even Fairly) could pick up a couple of votes. I'll be tempted to vote for Bouton because I'm such a big Ball Four fan, but I won't.

So perhaps it's better to start looking towards 1985 when we'll have some more interesting candidates that should spark some debate. We'll have two Hall of Famers that don't seem to get much support around here, in Lou Brock and Catfish Hunter, and we'll also have Mickey Lolich who seems to have some strong supporters among us. Beyond that, Roy White or perhaps Rico Carty would appear to be the strongest of the new players.

It's entirely possible that we might not elect someone until 1986 when Willie McCovey headlines the ballot with Minnie Minoso appearing as well. It won't be until 1989 until we get back to having very strong incoming classes - that year will have a particularly deep first class featuring Johnny Bench, Carl Yastrzemski, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins and Jim Kaat.

iPod

02-13-2007, 05:09 PM

Yeesh. Next year looks pretty weak. Maybe that will help some people struggling to reach 75%, although I doubt it will do much.

538280, who is the man in your avatar?

John Shoemaker

02-13-2007, 05:57 PM

It looks like next year should be the year voters take another look at Dick Allen and Orlando Cepeda two vey deserving players.

AlecBoy006

02-13-2007, 06:03 PM

Amen! Allen has an OPS+ of 156. All I need to say for a yes.

538280

02-13-2007, 08:08 PM

And the thing about Allen is that his peak is nothing to sneeze at in terms of longevity and consistently. He really had 11 years where he hit at or around an all time great level and there are very few players who have a peak that high for that long. The thing that separates Allen from most others with high peaks is career value, as Allen's career is essentially all peak, whereas lots of others in the best hitter discussion had several more lesser seasons to tack onto career value. But on peak alone, Allen has one of the most phenomenal offensive peaks in history, IMO, and it's more than enough to compensate for not having a more full career with several lesser seasons tacked on. At that point, the extra seasons just become gravy for the other players in the discussion of the best couple of dozen all time hitters

I totally agree. Allen's level of performance wasn't really short lived-it was a sustained period of greatness over 11 years 1964-1974. What he doesn't have is lots of good seasons outside of his prime years that most of the all time greats have, and this puts him back some, but his prime/peak is right with just about anyone and the lack of non-prime years isn't enough to leave him out of at least the top 25 hitters of all time IMO.

Ipod, the avatar is one of the world's leading music producers, Timbaland. One of my favorites. Couldn't decide on another baseball player to put on there so I'm going with something else for a while.

yanks0714

02-13-2007, 08:35 PM

During his peak years there was no more feared batter than Dick Allen coming to the plate with his 44 ounce bat.

Yep, and he swung that tree branch like it was a toothpick. One of the best hitters I've had the privilege to watch....and I saw him plenty of times while he was with the Phillies.

I read ' September Swoon: Richie Allen, the '64 Phillies, and Racial Integration ' a couple months ago. Good book. Allen was pretty well liked by most of teammates. He didn't have the surly attitude he eventually developed. The Phillies didn't handle him well at all. They sent him to a Southern city to play minor league ball...in the early 60's. he took a heap of abuse from fans. The Phillies gave him no support whatsoever.

Then with the big league club, the Philly writers, a tough, mean, cynical, nasty breed, decided to make Allen their whipping boy. This caused the fans to turn on him as well. You can almost sense the likable talented young man turning into a a surly chip-on-his-shoulder man full of resentment in a racially divided city.

I have always felt Allen was a bit of a jacka$$. I still think of him that way but my attitude toward him as softened after reading what he went through. Despite my feelings toward Allen I still consider him to be HOF material. I honestly feel he didn't do well in the HOF balloting because of his reputation and the fact that he never made time for the sportswriters/reports after they destroyed what goodwill he had as a younger man.

538280

02-13-2007, 08:58 PM

Yep, and he swung that tree branch like it was a toothpick. One of the best hitters I've had the privilege to watch....and I saw him plenty of times while he was with the Phillies.

I read ' September Swoon: Richie Allen, the '64 Phillies, and Racial Integration ' a couple months ago. Good book. Allen was pretty well liked by most of teammates. He didn't have the surly attitude he eventually developed. The Phillies didn't handle him well at all. They sent him to a Southern city to play minor league ball...in the early 60's. he took a heap of abuse from fans. The Phillies gave him no support whatsoever.

Then with the big league club, the Philly writers, a tough, mean, cynical, nasty breed, decided to make Allen their whipping boy. This caused the fans to turn on him as well. You can almost sense the likable talented young man turning into a a surly chip-on-his-shoulder man full of resentment in a racially divided city.

Allen was sent to Little Rock in the early 60s. He was supposed to be the next big star of the Philadelphia Phillies, the new star of the minor leauge team, the man, but he was black, and the fact he was all those things only made most people in Little Rock resent him more. And the Phillies offered absolutely no support to him-it was like they just forgot this was the 60s and Arkansas. Then he went to Philadelphia only to find the press hated him just as much there after a little while. After they collapsed in '64 the press looked for someone to turn on. In '65 when he got into the fight with Frank Thomas he was the easy target right away and soon EVERYTHING was his fault.

About the Thomas fight. Thomas was a big white man who had already had a decent career in the big leagues. He was making racial comments towards young outfielder Johnny Briggs. Dick did not take too kindly to this, and jumped in to help Briggs. It turned out to be a huge brawl between him and Thomas. This is how then backup Phillies catcher Pat Corrales described the fight:

"It had really started earlier on our road trip in Chicago. Thomas was your tough
bully type, and he had been picking on Johnny Briggs [21-year-old black outfielder],
saying `Boy this' and `Boy that.' Dick didn't go for that, and there were some words
between them. We get back to Philly, and during early BP I'm down the line talking
with Mauch, when we see this commotion down at the cage. They were just pulling
them apart at this point, after Thomas swung the bat. During the fight, Thomas had
hit Dick with a bat -- on the shoulder."

That is probably the most publicized bad event of Allen's career, he supposedly stalled the Phillies from building off their somewhat successful 1964 (though they did blow the pennant that year). Not only do Allen's actions actually seem admirable according to those who were actually there, but that explanation is lacking in factual basis anyway. It happened in July, well into the 1965 season already to begin with, and the team was already doing worse than they had the previous season, and there was no forseen amount that they did worse after the fight. Craig Wright makes this chart showing how they did before and after the fight:

Phillies before and after Allen/Thomas fight:
.............W......L......Pct.
Before....40.....35.....526
After......45.....41.....523

That incident was really tough on Allen for the rest of his career. Gene Mauch sums that up well:

When Mauch told Allen that Thomas was being put on irrevocable waivers, Dick
protested on Frank's behalf. Mauch ordered Allen and his teammates not to speak to
the press about the fight and backed it up with a threat of stiff fines. That was
unfortunate as the press and the fans heard just Thomas's side, and they did not
take kindly to a young black guy popping a white veteran. Mauch told me, "They
really turned on him [Allen] after the Thomas fight. From there, if he did one little
thing wrong, they would see it as so much worse because it was Allen. They got it in
their heads that this was a bad guy, and they booed his every move."

And I think after that fight, the media, which didn't like him to begin with, had effectively labeled him as a clubhouse cancer and an idiot. His teammates still liked him, because he really had nothing more than a little chip on his shoulder, but this alienated Allen against the media and he never was good with it for the rest of his career. I think Allen could be a pain sometimes but the perception that has been made of him by Bill James for example or by the media is off IMO. IMO, there is no reason to deny him the HOF due to his personal issues.

yanks0714

02-14-2007, 06:07 PM

And I think after that fight, the media, which didn't like him to begin with, had effectively labeled him as a clubhouse cancer and an idiot. His teammates still liked him, because he really had nothing more than a little chip on his shoulder, but this alienated Allen against the media and he never was good with it for the rest of his career. I think Allen could be a pain sometimes but the perception that has been made of him by Bill James for example or by the media is off IMO. IMO, there is no reason to deny him the HOF due to his personal issues.

I agree with everything you said on this post. Allen was actually a very good guy whom most if not all his teammates liked. He got along well with them. I honestly feel the abuse that was heaped on him by the Philly writers and fans turned Allen's attitude sour. I'm entirely sure that it would have turned mine sour pretty darn quick as well.

jalbright

02-14-2007, 06:48 PM

We're not going to have a debate in this thread about sportsfans of certain cities, and therefore the gratuitous slams on Philly fans in the previous post have been deleted.

Jim Albright

digglahhh

02-14-2007, 07:16 PM

Great post, Chris.

John Shoemaker

02-14-2007, 07:55 PM

The bottom line is Dick Allen should not be denied the HOF for personal or performance reasons. That man could play baseball with the best of them.

Erik Bedard

02-15-2007, 09:15 AM

As of right now.....

Will be inducted:

Brooks Robinson
Don Drysdale

Will continue to future ballots:

Dick Allen
Luis Aparicio
Ken Boyer
Jim Bunning
Norm Cash
Orlando Cepeda
Curt Flood
Nellie Fox
Bill Freehan
Frank Howard
Bill Mazeroski
Thurman Munson
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Boog Powell
Joe Torre
Maury Wills
Jimmy Wynn

Received votes but will be dropped:

Mike Cuellar
Gil Hodges
Red Schoendienst
Bill Singer

indicates member of MLB HoF AND Hall of Merit or BBF HoF
indicates member of Hall of Merit or BBF HoF but NOT MLB HoF
indicates member of MLB HoF ONLY

DoubleX

02-15-2007, 09:17 AM

As of right now.....

Will be inducted:

Brooks Robinson
Don Drysdale

Will continue to future ballots:

Dick Allen
Luis Aparicio
Ken Boyer
Jim Bunning
Norm Cash
Orlando Cepeda
Curt Flood
Nellie Fox
Bill Freehan
Frank Howard
Bill Mazeroski
Thurman Munson
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Boog Powell
Red Schoendienst
Joe Torre
Maury Wills
Jimmy Wynn

indicates member of MLB HoF

Actually, Schoendienst will not continue on as this is his last year of eligibility.

Erik Bedard

02-15-2007, 09:27 AM

Right, forgot about that.

I'm currently editing the post to make it better (and more colorful).

John Shoemaker

02-15-2007, 09:34 AM

DoubleX

02-15-2007, 10:06 AM

It looks like we will be saying goodby to Gil Hodges - one of the true gentlemen in baseball and along with Duke Snider (who we inducted in the HOF) the heart of the great Brooklyn Dodger teams. He also recieved over 3000 votes by the BBWA during his 15 years on the ballot the second highest for anyone not elected. It's too bad we couldn't give him more support.

Hodges has been the focus of several contentious discussions here in the past. There are very few players that a fanbase is so passionate about getting into the Hall as Brooklyn Dodgers fans are about Gil Hodges. It's quite amazing, IMO. I personally don't believe he belongs in the Hall, but I wouldn't really begrudge his selection given how he inspires passion in his supporters like few others have - there's got to be something to do that, and this after all the Hall of Fame. Otherwise, I'd say the Dodgers of those last glory years in Brooklyn are quite amply represented in the Hall - four regulars (Robinson, Snider, Campanella, Reese), their GM (Rickey), two of their managers (Durocher and Alston), and a handful of players either at the very end of their careers or the very beginning (Medwick, Vaughan at the end, and Drysdale and Koufax at the beginning).

Brooklyn

02-15-2007, 10:30 AM

Hodges has been the focus of several contentious discussions here in the past. There are very few players that a fanbase is so passionate about getting into the Hall as Brooklyn Dodgers fans are about Gil Hodges. It's quite amazing, IMO. I personally don't believe he belongs in the Hall, but I wouldn't really begrudge his selection given how he inspires passion in his supporters like few others have - there's got to be something to do that, and this after all the Hall of Fame. Otherwise, I'd say the Dodgers of those last glory years in Brooklyn are quite amply represented in the Hall - four regulars (Robinson, Snider, Campanella, Reese), their GM (Rickey), two of their managers (Durocher and Alston), and a handful of players either at the very end of their careers or the very beginning (Medwick, Vaughan at the end, and Drysdale and Koufax at the beginning).

Hodges has always been an interesting case for me. As you can tell by my user name, I'm from Brooklyn, but am too young to have seen the Dodgers play. I still root for them, however, if it is possible to root for team that no longer exists and you've never seen play.

Hodges is probably the only player that I would want to see get in the HOF and would be excited to see get in, but I wouldn't personally vote for. Based on his raw stats I couldn't justify voting for him, particularly since I am more of a small Hall guy. Since I've never seen him play, I unfortunately have nothing to vote on other than stats and historical accounts, and I think he falls short. But I would be happy if he got in nonetheless.

John Shoemaker

02-15-2007, 11:08 AM

DoubleX

02-15-2007, 12:44 PM

538280

02-15-2007, 12:45 PM

I think one of the reasons Hodges did not get more support from the BBWA was that he died suddenly of a heart attack before his fourth year of eligibility so he wasn't around in the media's eye - although he certainly would not have been one to campaign for himself or complain about not getting in.

I think that worked in his favor. It actually put him MORE in the media's eye for that time and it added more fuel to the Brooklyn Dodgers' fans romantization. I respect the Dodgers fans' passion but I really don't see Hodges as a great player at all. In the context of his time his BA and OBP were just about average (OBP a little above), and while he had good power, it wasn't great power. His OPS+ is 120-that just isn't at the level you expect from a HOF 1Bman. His career value is similar to Lee May, Wally Joyner, or Mark Grace, not Dick Allen or even guys like Will Clark or Norm Cash or Boog Powell.

For all the talk about how well he was regarded and what a key member of the Dodgers he was as well, his performance in MVP voting is not that of a HOFer at all. He is in the 300s all time in shares of the MVP vote, and he never really was a threat to win the MVP. I think it is clear from that that, even at the time, he was not considered the key man on those Dodger teams. Boog Powell, for example, was clearly (both through the contemporaries and statistics) a much bigger part of the great Orioles teams than Hodges was of the Dodgers. It's not Boog's fault he didn't play in NYC and have a ton of old, yearning, romanticizing fans pleading his case.

DoubleX

02-15-2007, 01:08 PM

For all the talk about how well he was regarded and what a key member of the Dodgers he was as well, his performance in MVP voting is not that of a HOFer at all. He is in the 300s all time in shares of the MVP vote, and he never really was a threat to win the MVP. I think it is clear from that that, even at the time, he was not considered the key man on those Dodger teams. Boog Powell, for example, was clearly (both through the contemporaries and statistics) a much bigger part of the great Orioles teams than Hodges was of the Dodgers. It's not Boog's fault he didn't play in NYC and have a ton of old, yearning, romanticizing fans pleading his case.

I don't think it was just playing in NYC that has caused this romanticization of Hodges, as we don't get that with any former NY Giants players, or really that many former Yankees players that aren't in. Look at Joe Gordon, he has a pretty strong case for being in, but there really isn't much of a movement. I think it has something more to do with the very strong attachment that Brooklyn fans in particular had with their team, coupled with the fact that the team was ripped from them, leaving a massive wound in their hearts. With the team they loved no longer their to cheer on, waxing nostalgic about the team and its players from the glory years probably took hold. Playing in New York surely didn't hurt, but from what I've gathered, there was a pretty unique relationship between the Brooklyn Dodgers and their fans (again, there is nothing close to the same sentimentality for the departed Giants).

John Shoemaker

02-15-2007, 01:20 PM

I think that worked in his favor. It actually put him MORE in the media's eye for that time and it added more fuel to the Brooklyn Dodgers' fans romantization. I respect the Dodgers fans' passion but I really don't see Hodges as a great player at all. In the context of his time his BA and OBP were just about average (OBP a little above), and while he had good power, it wasn't great power. His OPS+ is 120-that just isn't at the level you expect from a HOF 1Bman. His career value is similar to Lee May, Wally Joyner, or Mark Grace, not Dick Allen or even guys like Will Clark or Norm Cash or Boog Powell.

For all the talk about how well he was regarded and what a key member of the Dodgers he was as well, his performance in MVP voting is not that of a HOFer at all. He is in the 300s all time in shares of the MVP vote, and he never really was a threat to win the MVP. I think it is clear from that that, even at the time, he was not considered the key man on those Dodger teams. Boog Powell, for example, was clearly (both through the contemporaries and statistics) a much bigger part of the great Orioles teams than Hodges was of the Dodgers. It's not Boog's fault he didn't play in NYC and have a ton of old, yearning, romanticizing fans pleading his case.

That brings up another point - why are Boog Powell and Norm Cash only getting only 4 votes each this round. Certainly they deserve more than that.
At least 4 votes is enough to advance to the next round where maybe they can both pick up the support they deserve.

538280

02-15-2007, 01:22 PM

I don't think it was just playing in NYC that has caused this romanticization of Hodges, as we don't get that with any former NY Giants players, or really that many former Yankees players that aren't in. Look at Joe Gordon, he has a pretty strong case for being in, but there really isn't much of a movement. I think it has something more to do with the very strong attachment that Brooklyn fans in particular had with their team, coupled with the fact that the team was ripped from them, leaving a massive wound in their hearts. With the team they loved no longer their to cheer on, waxing nostalgic about the team and its players from the glory years probably took hold. Playing in New York surely didn't hurt, but from what I've gathered, there was a pretty unique relationship between the Brooklyn Dodgers and their fans (again, there is nothing close to the same sentimentality for the departed Giants).

Yes, you are probably right, the Hodges movement (and romanticzation of other former Brooklyn Dodgers) is perhaps a way for old Brooklyn Dodgers fans to still root for and celebrate their team and its players even when they're not there anymore.

DoubleX

02-15-2007, 01:40 PM

That brings up another point - why are Boog Powell and Norm Cash only getting only 4 votes each this round. Certainly they deserve more than that.
At least 4 votes is enough to advance to the next round where maybe they can both pick up the support they deserve.

4 votes should get them through. I'd be more concerned if I were a Vada Pinson supporter - he's hanging on by a very thin thread. If we receive two more ballots, and he's on neither one of them, he'll be gone.

I think we're getting to a point where we have a number of the classic borderline/grey area players are adding up, and the result is that they're squeezing each other out. I think often, a player will only be perceived to be as good as his competition. I think this is why guys like Roger Maris and Elston Howard were able to stick around for a few elections, but then were later squeezed out. Someone like Norm Cash, who received better support in past years, has had his star he dilluted by an influx of other players with comparable or better cases.

DoubleX

02-15-2007, 01:47 PM

Erik Bedard

02-15-2007, 02:58 PM

I'll run Bunning through the Keltner List:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

If "best player" can be taken to mean "best pitcher", then yes, he was arguably the best pitcher in baseball in 1967. He also finished in the top ten in MVP voting in 1957.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

He was almost always the best pitcher on his team, with the exception probably being the years in which Chris Short held that honor for the Phillies.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

He never won a CYA, so I'll go with no on this one, but some could consider him such.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Without Bunning, the Phillies would not have been in a position to collapse in 1964.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Yes, he was.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

In this HoF project, no.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Two are in the real-life HoF (Walker and Drysdale) , and one is about to be in this HoF (Drysdale).

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

I'd say they do, but others might say that they do not.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Not really, no.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

Excluding Drysdale, yes.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

He came in second in CYA balloting once, and finished ninth in MVP voting once. Strangely, he appeared on more MVP ballots than CYA ballots.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

He had eight or nine ASG-type seasons. I'd hazard a guess that most pitchers with eight or nine ASGs are in, though I don't know for sure.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Not likely, but possibly.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Nope.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

I can't find any instances where he didn't.

Draw your own conclusions, but to me, he looks like a HoFer. Then again, I'm a little on the side of the "Big Hall".

DoubleX

02-15-2007, 04:11 PM

THE OX

02-15-2007, 04:15 PM

After a fairly strong start in the first two years, Jim Bunning has been falling off of late. I'm curious to hear explanations for why the drop in support for Bunning, why people aren't voting for Bunning, and why people should vote for Bunning.

I haven't voted for Bunning, but I think I could be convinced given a strong argument.

In addition to Erik Bedard's excellent treatise above, I'd like to mention his 100-plus wins in each league, his four 19-win seasons in addition to his lone 20-win season, and the very uncommon AL no-hitter and NL perfect game combination. And had there been a CYA in each league in 1957, I think he'd have been an extraordinarily strong candidate for it in the AL.

I always thought he should have been voted in by the BBWAA way back when instead of being selected by the Veterans Committee.

I personally would pick him over Drysdale......

dgarza

02-16-2007, 07:43 AM

While the Keltner tests are interesting exercises to conduct, I don't find them particularly helpful. I agree. Players like Blyleven would have a hard time getting a positive answer to even half the questions, and I think Blyleven is pretty well above a borderline candidate. Also, some of the questions are plain irrelevant in terms of the Hall.

Was he the best player on his team? - historically, this applies to too many average-at-best players

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? - pretty irrelevant

Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime? - longevity does have its merits, but peak without longevity does as well, no reason to knock a player just because of a lack of longevity

Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame? - how useful is this question when only one player can answer yes?

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics? - maybe soft evidence, and maybe if you don't look at all the stats, but if you look at all the stats in today's era then you will find adjustments to compensate for this

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant? - irrelevant, plus it depends on who else is on the team

What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way? - there are prbably more people who can answer yes to this question that are clearly not HOFers that there are people should be HOFers

dgarza

02-16-2007, 07:52 AM

I haven't voted for Bunning, but I think I could be convinced given a strong argument.
In the winter of 1983, Bunning was 8th on the all time K list, ahead of Phil Niekro.

He was also the active leader in Ks for 5 straight years. All other 20th century pitchers who have done that are HOFers.

Appling

02-16-2007, 12:37 PM

Also, some of the questions are plain irrelevant in terms of the Hall.

(1) Was he the best player on his team? - historically, this applies to too many average-at-best players

(2) Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? - pretty irrelevant

(3) If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant? - irrelevant, plus it depends on who else is on the team

I think the Keltner test is a fairly good indicator whether the HOF voters will admit a certain player -- but not whether the player SHOULD BE in the HOF.

I sometimes wonder why Kirby Puckett was a first-ballot HOFer but Tony Oliva never made it. These questions pretty much explain the voter thinking:
(1) Was he the best player on his team? Oliva usually played second fiddle to Killebrew. Puckett was better than Hrbek or Gaetti, but in total Kirby had more "help" than Oliva did.

(2) Impact on multiple pennant races? Oliva and the Twins usually were in the race, but the Orioles were better. The Twins led the AL-West in 1969 and 1970 but lost in the ALCS. Puckett's Twins won in 1987 and 1991.

(3) If no player on team was better than he, would they win the pennant? With Kirby -- who was the best player on his team and who won two pennants (and two WS) -- the answer is obviously yes. Oliva didn't win a pennant even with Killebrew as a teammate.

I personally think Oliva was at least equal to Puckett, but the Keltner test may explain why BBWAA didn't see it that way. (Oliva was also hampered by his poor English, which made him a weak interview subject. I think that matters a lot!)

538280

02-16-2007, 03:55 PM

While the Keltner tests are interesting exercises to conduct, I don't find them particularly helpful. Most questions will have very subjective answers, and it's tough, for me at least, to say what it all means in the end when put together. I feel like the Keltner test often just brings me back to where I started from.

Same here, and as you say the answers are so subjective, you really need to provide lots of evidence for each answer if you want to be persuasive. And when you do that you're really just better off looking at the player's total case. I think most little gimmicks like that can be interesting, but you're MUCH better off just looking at the total picture of the player's value and other external factors.

DoubleX

02-16-2007, 05:33 PM

I think the Keltner test is a fairly good indicator whether the HOF voters will admit a certain player -- but not whether the player SHOULD BE in the HOF.

I sometimes wonder why Kirby Puckett was a first-ballot HOFer but Tony Oliva never made it. These questions pretty much explain the voter thinking:
(1) Was he the best player on his team? Oliva usually played second fiddle to Killebrew. Puckett was better than Hrbek or Gaetti, but in total Kirby had more "help" than Oliva did.

I don't know if I agree that Puckett had better support than Oliva. Puckett was the only Hall of Famer on his teams, and he's not exactly a first tier Hall of Famer. Oliva had Killebrew and then Carew as well, who are both higher up the Hall of Fame chain than Puckett, IMO. Also on Oliva's teams were on of the better offensive catchers of the period (Earl Battey), and Zolio Versailles was no slouch at SS. As for pitching, the Twins during Puckett's time had pretty good pitching for the most part, but the only real ace was Frank Viola for a few years, whereas the Twins during Oliva's time got consistently good pitching from Jim Kaat, Jim Perry, and Camilo Pascual when all three were at their peaks (and both Kaat and Perry had pretty nice peaks). Of course, there's also Bert Blyeven who Oliva got at the beginning and Puckett at the end. Blyleven at the beginning was much better than Blyleven at the end. I suppose the pitching gap is somewhat made up for by the fact that Puckett had good bullpen pitchers like Reardon and Aguilera, but I'd rather have the starters that Oliva had.

John Shoemaker

02-16-2007, 05:49 PM

I don't know if I agree that Puckett had better support than Oliva. Puckett was the only Hall of Famer on his teams, and he's not exactly a first tier Hall of Famer. Oliva had Killebrew and then Carew as well, who are both higher up the Hall of Fame chain than Puckett, IMO. Also on Oliva's teams were on of the better offensive catchers of the period (Earl Battey), and Zolio Versailles was no slouch at SS. As for pitching, the Twins during Puckett's time had pretty good pitching for the most part, but the only real ace was Frank Viola for a few years, whereas the Twins during Oliva's time got consistently good pitching from Jim Kaat, Jim Perry, and Camilo Pascual when all three were at their peaks (and both Kaat and Perry had pretty nice peaks). Of course, there's also Bert Blyeven who Oliva got at the beginning and Puckett at the end. Blyleven at the beginning was much better than Blyleven at the end. I suppose the pitching gap is somewhat made up for by the fact that Puckett had good bullpen pitchers like Reardon and Aguilera, but I'd rather have the starters that Oliva had.

That's not entirely true. In 93 and 94 Puckett had hall of famer Dave Winfield on his team. And technically in 87 and 88 for a few games hall of famer Steve Carlton was on Puckett's team.

538280

02-16-2007, 06:00 PM

That's not entirely true. In 93 and 94 Puckett had hall of famer Dave Winfield on his team. And technically in 87 and 88 for a few games hall of famer Steve Carlton was on Puckett's team.

Both those guys were shells of their former selves at that time; those weren't the years that made those guys HOFers.

John Shoemaker

02-16-2007, 06:42 PM

We're up to 61 votes. Vada Pinson better find another vote or he's gone.

BoofBonser26

02-16-2007, 06:44 PM

We're up to 61 votes. Vada Pinson better find another vote or he's gone.
Eeep. I'll admit to being one of the voters for him. C'mon, someone else!

mtortolero

02-16-2007, 07:11 PM

4 votes should get them through. I'd be more concerned if I were a Vada Pinson supporter - he's hanging on by a very thin thread. If we receive two more ballots, and he's on neither one of them, he'll be gone.

I think we're getting to a point where we have a number of the classic borderline/grey area players are adding up, and the result is that they're squeezing each other out. I think often, a player will only be perceived to be as good as his competition. I think this is why guys like Roger Maris and Elston Howard were able to stick around for a few elections, but then were later squeezed out. Someone like Norm Cash, who received better support in past years, has had his star he dilluted by an influx of other players with comparable or better cases.

Allen, Howard and Powell are probably the best hitters in the 1983 candidates list by OPS+ peak. However if you think you are a voter in 1983 probably those four +200 hits seasons by Pinson sure were impresive for the standars of those times and more if you are a CF. In fact 2757 carrer hits are better than Ashburn figures, only to compare with other CF. If you see Vada Pinson´s Similars Batters in BBRF, the list includes Roberto Clemente and Zack Wheat which looks better players than those who are in the list of Richie Ashburn (Lloyd Waner and Harry Hooper).
However the main problem with Pinson´s carrer is that after his 8th season he was just an average player (at best) by the rest of his 18 years carrer and his acumulative stats are provided in a great percentage by that lapse of time (hits, rbi, games played, hrs). Probably Pinson was projected at some point of his carrer with as a 3000 hits carrer.

dgarza

02-16-2007, 07:51 PM

We're up to 61 votes. Vada Pinson better find another vote or he's gone.
I voted for him last time, but had to drop him this year. To be honest, I kind of hope he drops off, even though I can support him, just to clear some of the clutter.

DoubleX

02-16-2007, 10:48 PM

Probably Pinson was projected at some point of his carrer with as a 3000 hits carrer.

I'd say so. He had almost 1750 hits by age 28, that's quite a number by that age. Getting 1250 more should have seemed doable at that point - all he would have had to do is averaged 125 until age 37 - that wouldn't have seemed that difficult to accomplish. Instead he averaged 112 until age 36.

DoubleX

02-16-2007, 10:50 PM

I voted for him last time, but had to drop him this year. To be honest, I kind of hope he drops off, even though I can support him, just to clear some of the clutter.

I agree. I like Pinson and I'd really like to find a reason to vote for him, but I just can't. But we are getting cluttered with lots of grey area candidates, and there's likely more to come in the next few years, while on the flipside we won't be losing anyone due to eligibility for a few years and we might not be electing many in the next few years either, so unless we stop dropping people on account of the 5% rule, we're going to have a lot of holdovers from year to year.

John Shoemaker

02-16-2007, 11:06 PM

I voted for him last time, but had to drop him this year. To be honest, I kind of hope he drops off, even though I can support him, just to clear some of the clutter.

I agree - for me Pinson was just below the cutoff line. I haven't voted for him yet and probably won't even if he makes it to the next round. Since the ballot is getting a little cluttered I would prefer he not go on.

leecemark

02-17-2007, 08:28 AM

--I think Pinson is JUST below the line, but clearly enough that I won't regret his falling off the ballot.

dgarza

02-17-2007, 10:54 AM

I'm glad to see the turn out go back up!

And that Drysdale has gotten nearly 80%.

DoubleX

02-17-2007, 11:18 AM

1983 is done and we’ve elected two new players to the Mock HoF:

Don Drysdale: 79.03%
Brooks Robinson: 88.71%

I feel this election is notable for three reasons: First, after a couple years of declining voter turnout, we went back up to 62, tying our high turnout. Second, I believe this is the first time that we’ve had blank ballots submitted (two to be exact). With not many really strong candidates coming up for a election in the next few years, I wonder if this will become a trend. And Finally, this is the first time that we have elected a player that was not in his first year of eligibility (Drysdale). I consider this quite a breakthrough, as it gives hope to some other holdovers, especially in the next few elections when we will be without many strong newcomers – it would have been unfortunate and boring, IMO, if we just kept electing first timers and thus went a few years without electing anyone (which could still happen).

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 and players whose eligibility ended are in italics (Hodges and Schoendienst).

Dick Allen: 62.90% (n/a)
Luis Aparicio: 54.84% (+9.39%)
Orlando Cepeda: 54.84% (-1.52%)
Nellie Fox: 45.16% (-7.57%)
Jim Bunning: 35.48% (-8.16%)
Joe Torre: 33.87% (n/a)
Bill Freehan: 32.26% (+4.99%)
Gil Hodges: 27.42% (+7.42%) – Eligibility Over
Red Schoendienst: 25.81% (+13.08%) – Eligibility Over
Ken Boyer: 24.19% (-4.90%)
Bill Mazeroski: 22.58% (+2.58%)
Jimmy Wynn: 22.58% (n/a)
Tony Oliva: 20.97% (+6.42%)
Frank Howard: 17.74% (-2.26%)
Maury Wills: 14.52% (+3.61%)
Thurman Munson: 9.68% (+4.23%)
Boog Powell: 8.06% (n/a)
Norm Cash: 6.45% (-11.73%)
Curt Flood: 6.45% (+1.00%)

Maury Willis: 10.91% (-2.65%)
Vada Pinson: 7.27% (-6.29%)
Thurman Munson: 5.45% (-11.50%)

Everyone else was dropped, including Vada Pinson who had made it through two previous elections. He received just 4.84% of the vote this time, a drop of 2.43% from last year). Others receiving at least one vote include:

Mike Cuellar
Bill Singer (I’m still waiting for explanations on this)

I should have 1984 up and running sometime today. It should be an interesting election because it has what might be the weakest first year class we’ll encounter in this project, and thus it might be a terrific opportunity for some of these holdovers to make headway. Thus I encourage anyone who feels particularly strongly about a candidate, to state your case. I’d like to clear up the clutter a little, and getting a few of these guys elected would help.