BBF Mock HoF Election: 1984

[DoubleX]

Welcome to Baseball Fever's Mock HoF Election for 1984. 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 1984 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.

- Also, in the interest of making this process as genuine as possible, I strongly urge voters to not view the results before they vote, as viewing results before voting could influence a person's votes (perhaps subconciously).

- 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.


1984 Guide
There are 26 candidates on the 1984 ballot. Here's some information regarding the candidates:

First Timers (9)
Bob Bailey
Jim Bouton
Nelson Briles
Clay Carroll
Ron Fairly
Jim Fregosi
Davey Johnson
Mickey Stanley
Wilbur Wood

Holdovers (17)
Player Year of Eligibility High BBF Support Previous Year’s BBF Support
Dick Allen 2nd 62.90% (1983) 62.90%
Luis Aparicio 6th 59.68% (1980) 54.84%
Ken Boyer 10th 29.09% (1982) 24.19%
Jim Bunning 8th 51.61% (1980) 35.48%
Norm Cash 5th 18.18% (1981) 6.45%
Orlando Cepeda 5th 64.52% (1980) 54.84%
Curt Flood 8th 11.86% (1981) 6.45%
Nellie Fox 14th 56.45% (1980) 45.16%
Bill Freehan 3rd 32.26% (1983) 32.26%
Frank Howard 6th 20.00% (1982) 17.74%
Bill Mazeroski 7th 37.10% (1980) 22.58%
Thurman Munson 4th 16.95% (1981) 9.68%
Tony Oliva 3rd 20.97% (1983) 20.97%
Boog Powell 2nd 8.06% (1983) 8.06%
Joe Torre 2nd 33.87% (1983) 33.87%
Maury Wills 7th 13.56% (1981) 10.91%
Jimmy Wynn 2nd 22.58% (1983) 22.58%

Last Year of Eligibility
None

Players on BBF Ballot not on BBWAA Ballot
Dick Allen – Dropped by BBWAA (1983)
Ken Boyer - Dropped by BBWAA (1979, though reintroduced in 1985)
Norm Cash – Dropped by BBWAA (1980)
Curt Flood - Dropped by BBWAA (1979, though reintroduced in 1985)
Bill Freehan – Dropped by BBWAA (1982)
Frank Howard - Dropped by BBWAA (1979)
Boog Powell – Dropped by BBWAA (1983)
Jimmy Wynn – Dropped by BBWAA (1983)

Players on BBWAA Ballot not on BBF Ballot
Lew Burdette - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Don Drysdale – Elected by BBF (1983)
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)
Roger Maris – Dropped by BBF (1982)
Hoyt Wilhelm - Elected by BBF (1979)
Billy Williams – Elected by BBF (1980)

Actual Hall of Famers on BBF Ballot
Luis Aparicio (BBWAA - 1984)
Jim Bunning (VC - 1996)
Orlando Cepeda (VC - 1999)
Nellie Fox (VC - 1997)
Bill Mazeroski (VC - 2001)

Players Elected by BBF Between 1979-1983 (14)
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)
Don Drysdale 1983 79.03% 9th (5th 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
Brooks Robinson 1983 88.71% 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 1979-1983 (8)
Hank Aaron (1982)
Bob Gibson (1981)
Al Kaline (1980)
Juan Marichal (1983)
Willie Mays (1979)
Brooks Robinson (1983)
Frank Robinson (1982)
Duke Snider (1980)

BBF/BBWAA Election Ratio: 14:8

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

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past BBF Elections
1979: 61
1980: 62
1981: 59
1982: 55
1983: 62

Links to Past BBF Elections
1979 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=56114&highlight=Mock+Election)
1980 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=56470&highlight=Mock+Election)
1981 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=56809&highlight=Mock+Election)
1982 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57089&highlight=Mock+Election)
1983 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57376)

[DoubleX]

It's nice that this ballot is so short; the holdovers outnumber the newbies by almost 2:1. None of the newbies are particularly impressive, though I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of them pick up a vote or two. So no standout candidates entering the ballot, it will be interesting to see if we can elect any of the holdovers like we did for Drysdale last year. Allen seems to have the best chance.

I would like to start a campaign for Nellie Fox going given that he has just a few years left.

[DoubleX]

Ubi - you were amazingly quick with your blank ballot. You must have very strong conviction that no one on the ballot is worthy.

[dgarza]

In order of support :
Dick Allen
Orlando Cepeda
Tony Oliva
Nellie Fox
Joe Torre
Jim Bunning
Ken Boyer
Luis Aparicio
Frank Howard
Bill Mazeroski

This is the 1st time I stopped my voting at 10 because that's all I could support, not because of the voting limits. And I wouldn't have supported Maz if he wasn't already in the Hall.

[vtbub]

Arguments work, Allen and Oliva got votes this year that I didn't cast last.

[THE OX]

Go ahead, everyone, and laugh your fannies off, but I've gotta give Wilbur Wood some love. The man pitched a gazillion innings, redefining the word "workhorse," and the "pickin's are slim" this year.

I still am disinclined to vote for Richie Allen for two reasons. To me, his career was rather short and his numbers fell a bit short of what I consider HOF material. And then there's his reputation as a clubhouse cancer. For an admittedly highly-talented player in the pre-Free Agent area, his frequent trades (IMO) testify to the thought that his allegedly disruptive clubhouse persona was considered even more of a detriment than his ability was considered an asset.

Cepeda doesn't quite do it for me either. The injuries are the main thing here, and also numbers that just don't quite seem HOF material to me.

On the other hand, I'll be voting for Bunning as long as the opportunity presents itself. I've always thought it was immensely stupid that the writers didn't elect him during his eligibility.

(Steps down off soap box, embarrassed at his outburst.......)

[DoubleX]

I still am disinclined to vote for Richie Allen for two reasons. To me, his career was rather short and his numbers fell a bit short of what I consider HOF material. And then there's his reputation as a clubhouse cancer. For an admittedly highly-talented player in the pre-Free Agent area, his frequent trades (IMO) testify to the thought that his allegedly disruptive clubhouse persona was considered even more of a detriment than his ability was considered an asset.

Look at Allen's 11 year peak. It's amazing. How many players were that consistenty excellent for that long of a period. The only think Allen's career is lacking is the filler years that a number of other players have, but in terms of peak, Allen is right up there with most anyone both in height and longevity. Here's his OPS+ by year during that 11 year span:

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

11 Year Average: 166

There are very few players that can match that run of dominant hitting, and in again, in both height and longevity.

[DoubleX]

I voted for 7:

Dick Allen
Luis Aparicio
Ken Boyer
Orlando Cepeda
Nellie Fox
Bill Freehan
Joe Torre

I came close to checking of Frank Howard, but couldn't quite bring myself to do it.

[dgarza]

I still am disinclined to vote for Richie Allen for two reasons. To me, his career was rather short and his numbers fell a bit short of what I consider HOF material.
I can only assume you are referring to his cumulative numbers.

[John Shoemaker]

I voted for:

Frank Howard
Orlando Cepeda
Norm Cash
Dick Allen
Boog Powell

[digglahhh]

OX,

Wood's five workhorse seasons are the entirety of his case. So, in that respect, your assertion that Allen had a short career seems a little contradictory, no?

[John Shoemaker]

Look at Allen's 11 year peak. It's amazing. How many players were that consistenty excellent for that long of a period. The only think Allen's career is lacking is the filler years that a number of other players have, but in terms of peak, Allen is right up there with most anyone both in height and longevity. Here's his OPS+ by year during that 11 year span:

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

11 Year Average: 166

There are very few players that can match that run of dominant hitting, and in again, in both height and longevity.

I completely agree with everything you said. In my opinion I don't see how he can be kept out of the hall of fame.

[BoofBonser26]

I completely agree with everything you said. In my opinion I don't see how he can be kept out of the hall of fame.
Personally, I just can't get over the short career. I suppose I could be convinced, and won't mind if he gets in, but as of now I'm not voting for him.

[THE OX]

I can only assume you are referring to his cumulative numbers.

Your assumption is entirely correct. His "peaks" are just fine, but the overall totals and the generally unfavorable impression I've gained of his "clubhouse persona" convince me that (to me) he's not a HOF'er.

Would I have liked to have had him on my team? Assuming the allegations about his personality are unwarranted, hell yes! If they ARE warranted, probably not....

[THE OX]

OX,

Wood's five workhorse seasons are the entirety of his case. So, in that respect, your assertion that Allen had a short career seems a little contradictory, no?

If Wilbur Wood had accumulated the "reputation" that Allen did, I wouldn't even have given him a "mercy vote!" But he just went out and did his job quite well and kept his mouth shut. Gotta give him some respect for that......

[John Shoemaker]

I looks like if we are to elect a couple of players this round it will be Orlando Cepeda and Dick Allen - but it will be close - they need all the support they can get. I saw them both play many times and in my opinion they are both very deserving of the hall of fame.

[Erik Bedard]

Voted for:

Allen
Bunning
Cepeda
Fox
Freehan
Mazeroski
Oliva
Torre
Wynn

and I had one empty spot, so I gave it to Jim Bouton, because Ball Four was the greatest book ever.

[538280]

To anyone not voting for Allen due to his clubhouse problems, please read this:

http://www.expressfan.com/dickallenhof/docs/anotherview.pdf

Look at what the people who actually managed and played with Allen had to say. IMO Allen's rep was largely a media creation.

[538280]

I'm going to post this again, as I fear it got passed over by many people last election:

Jimmy Wynn

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.

[John Shoemaker]

To anyone not voting for Allen due to his clubhouse problems, please read this:

http://www.expressfan.com/dickallenhof/docs/anotherview.pdf

Look at what the people who actually managed and played with Allen had to say. IMO Allen's rep was largely a media creation.

Thank you for posting that. I hope that enlightens people's opinion of Dick Allen. I have voted for him every year and will continue to do so as long as it takes to get him elected. I hope he makes it this year.

[Colorado Express]

Allen
Cepeda
Fox
Howard
Munson
Oliva

others under consideration for future elections:
Aparicio
Bunning
Torre
Wills

I have voted for Munson every year of eligibility and I'm not sure why...I incredibly drawn to him despite his short career. He had solid numbers (even better considering his position), but not great. Someone please talk me down!!! :hp

Although I still doubt Freehan, DoubleX has made a valid enough argument to continue to keep him in the back of my mind for future consideration.

[Ubiquitous]

Ubi - you were amazingly quick with your blank ballot. You must have very strong conviction that no one on the ballot is worthy.

strong convictions? No but i don't think anyone on that list is worthy of enshrinement.

[Westlake]

Cepeda is finally getting the votes he deserves. Let's keep this up guys.

[John Shoemaker]

Cepeda is finally getting the votes he deserves. Let's keep this up guys.

I completely agree - finally after four years of not getting the support he deserves he seems to be on his way. He certainly deserves to be in the hall of fame. Let's hope he makes it this time.

[yanks0714]

I voted for:

Frank Howard
Orlando Cepeda
Norm Cash
Dick Allen
Boog Powell

You must be a huge fan of 1B men...even Howard played there a bit. why, if it wasn't for the 1B those infielders would really have to run to get the putout at 1B... :laugh

[yanks0714]

I'm going to post this again, as I fear it got passed over by many people last election:

Jimmy Wynn

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.

Chris, I agree with you. Jimmy Wynn got shafted by the the HOF voters and now we're doing the same thing.
Your comp to Ashburn is reasonable. The problem is that our BBF voters see that Ashburn is in the HOF and promptly voted him in. Wynn is not in the HOF and draw an erroneous conclusion that his not worthy.
They're wrong. Jimmy Wynn is most certainly worthy. Lets not make the same mistake the baseball HOF voters made in bypassing The Toy Cannon.

[yanks0714]

Go ahead, everyone, and laugh your fannies off, but I've gotta give Wilbur Wood some love. The man pitched a gazillion innings, redefining the word "workhorse," and the "pickin's are slim" this year.

I still am disinclined to vote for Richie Allen for two reasons. To me, his career was rather short and his numbers fell a bit short of what I consider HOF material. And then there's his reputation as a clubhouse cancer. For an admittedly highly-talented player in the pre-Free Agent area, his frequent trades (IMO) testify to the thought that his allegedly disruptive clubhouse persona was considered even more of a detriment than his ability was considered an asset.

Cepeda doesn't quite do it for me either. The injuries are the main thing here, and also numbers that just don't quite seem HOF material to me.

On the other hand, I'll be voting for Bunning as long as the opportunity presents itself. I've always thought it was immensely stupid that the writers didn't elect him during his eligibility.

(Steps down off soap box, embarrassed at his outburst.......)

I think you're making a mistake on Allen and Cepeda. Both of these guys had to play the majority of their careers during an extreme pitchers ERA. This obvioulsy depressed their numbers. depsite that they did quiet well.

Allen was not a clubhouse cancer. Most teammates describe him as a good guy. If he had problems it was generally with the front office. Plus, sportswriters had it in for him because he wouldn't give them the time of day after he was savaged in his early years in Philly.

Cepeda, the Baby Bull, was one of the most impressive players I ever saw when he first came up. He could flat out hit, with power to all fields. he hit for average/power, he was a solid 1B defensively, and could run well before knee injuries curtalked him into a lumbering shell of his former self.
Plus, the Giants had trouble figuring out what to do with both him and Willie McCovey. One had to play the OF. Cepeda was bad out there. How bad? McCovey, believe it or not, was the better OF'er. That's bad!
Of course, the Giants had a ton of young talent in the 1960's and early 1970's that they let go. You could almost make an all-star team out of that young talent they couldn't figure out what to do with or couldn't find a place for them.

I think you might want to review these two guys as they are certianly HOF worthy.

[yanks0714]

strong convictions? No but i don't think anyone on that list is worthy of enshrinement.

You must be a proponent for an extremely exclusive HOF. Id' be curious to know who is actually in your HOF...just to see who you wouldn't have had enshrined.

[DoubleX]

While I'm happy that it's looking good that we'll elect at least one player in this down year, I have to admit that I'm shocked by the support thus far for Orlando Cepeda. I've been voting for him every year he's been eligible, but what all the suddened happened for him to be up at 87.50% after declining in each of the past couple of years. Seems like a big leap. Also, if I had to rank the players, I'd have him behind Allen, so the gap between the two is pretty itneresting as well.

I'm also glad to see Allen making a good run. I think he could go either way at this point, but he's a player that his supporters seem to be making good headway with.

Would still like to see Nellie Fox get some more support given that his time left on the ballot is short.

[THE OX]

..... I have to admit that I'm shocked by the support thus far for Orlando Cepeda. I've been voting for him every year he's been eligible, but what all the suddened happened for him to be up at 87.50% after declining in each of the past couple of years. Seems like a big leap.

The smaller the pond, the bigger any fish seems.....

[Erik Bedard]

However, Cepeda is up a whopping 32.66 percent. That seems somewhat confusing to me.

[dgarza]

However, Cepeda is up a whopping 32.66 percent. That seems somewhat confusing to me.
Well, he's up 32.66 percentage points, but his percentage rise is 59.5%

[SweetLou]

1. Luis Aparicio
2. Jim Bunning
3. Orlando Cepeda
4. Nellie Fox
5. Bill Mazeroski
6. Curt Flood (Contributions to the game push him over)
7. Boog Powell
8. Ron Fairly
9. Thurman Munson
10. Jim Bouton (Contributions to the game push him over)

[John Shoemaker]

While I'm happy that it's looking good that we'll elect at least one player in this down year, I have to admit that I'm shocked by the support thus far for Orlando Cepeda. I've been voting for him every year he's been eligible, but what all the suddened happened for him to be up at 87.50% after declining in each of the past couple of years. Seems like a big leap. Also, if I had to rank the players, I'd have him behind Allen, so the gap between the two is pretty itneresting as well.

I'm also glad to see Allen making a good run. I think he could go either way at this point, but he's a player that his supporters seem to be making good headway with.

Would still like to see Nellie Fox get some more support given that his time left on the ballot is short.

In my opinion Orlando Cepeda and Dick Allen are the 2 best candidates on this years ballot so obviously I'm very happy with the results so far. I'm a little surprised that Cepeda has a higher % than Allen this year since Allen had about an 8% lead over him last year. I just hope they both get in this year.

[538280]

I think the support Cepeda is getting is interesting as well. I think Cepeda should be in, and so I'm happy, but I'm also kind of confused why he's getting so much more support than Allen. IMO Allen is easily the better player; Allen is an example of a truly great hitter; he was very good at all aspects of hitting and is one of the best hitters ever. His success was short lived, but still sustained; he had five or six hitting seasons than can stand up to just about anyone. Cepeda was a very good hitter, but clearly flawed; he didn't have all time great power like Allen and was rather impatient. Defensively neither was great but I'd have to give Allen the edge because he played third base for a good portion of his career. I'm glad at Cepeda's support but I perhaps find it even more strange that he's leaped ahead of Allen as I see Allen as a distinctly superior player, and based on last year's election we also preferred Allen. Interesting to see Cepeda shoot so high up and even above Allen.

[digglahhh]

It would have been nice to see Cepeda remain (generally) healthy for a full career. When he was young, he wasn't all too far from the total package- plate discipline was a major area of weakness though.

But, I agree with Chris.

I fail to see how Allen isn't, by far, the best player on this board.

[milladrive]

I went with Allen, Cepeda, Flood, Fox, Oliva, and Torre.

[BoofBonser26]

However, Cepeda is up a whopping 32.66 percent. That seems somewhat confusing to me.
Simple. We're doing the same thing the BBWAA does, that which we hate so much: weaker pool, vote for more borderline guys.

:)

[DoubleX]

I think the support Cepeda is getting is interesting as well. I think Cepeda should be in, and so I'm happy, but I'm also kind of confused why he's getting so much more support than Allen. IMO Allen is easily the better player; Allen is an example of a truly great hitter; he was very good at all aspects of hitting and is one of the best hitters ever. His success was short lived, but still sustained; he had five or six hitting seasons than can stand up to just about anyone. Cepeda was a very good hitter, but clearly flawed; he didn't have all time great power like Allen and was rather impatient. Defensively neither was great but I'd have to give Allen the edge because he played third base for a good portion of his career. I'm glad at Cepeda's support but I perhaps find it even more strange that he's leaped ahead of Allen as I see Allen as a distinctly superior player, and based on last year's election we also preferred Allen. Interesting to see Cepeda shoot so high up and even above Allen.

I agree with you. If I had to guess at an explanation for Cepeda's quantum leap, including shooting past Allen, based on what some non-Allen supporters have said, I would say that people think Allen's career was too short and Cepeda's just long enough. I don't think the difference is big enough to overcome Allen's sustained peak, which at 11 years, is nothing to sneeze. Yeah, his career was fairly short by typical Hall standards, but when you consider that it's almost entirely peak, then it becomes more impressive. I think people might not be realizing that even though is career was relatively short, his peak was actually relatively long and very high.

But I'm not going to split too many hairs at this point as Allen's support seems to be pretty strong right now and I do believe he's gaining momentum. With the newcomers being fairly weak until '89 (I believe McCovey and Stargell are the best between and now and then), I think Allen will get in, if not this year. Drysdale went up and down and flirted with election a few times before getting in, but there wasn't nearly as much Drysdale discussion as there has been Allen, IMO. I think Allen, if/when he gets in, will mark the first case in which there has been a successful movement to get a player elected, just like in real life (well not with Allen, but others).

[Erik Bedard]

I've been rethinking my position on Curt Flood. I feel that he deserves HoF induction, not necessarily for his playing career (which was fairly decent, better than that of Don Larsen and Bobby Thomson), but for his contributions to the game in the form of free agency. Curt Flood changed baseball in a way that only a few others had changed it before, others like Alexander Cartwright, William Hulbert, Ban Johnson, and Babe Ruth. Like it or not, Flood started a new era in baseball when he refused to report. And I believe that nobody has changed the game as much as he has.

I don't necessarily want to add a vote for him right now, but I will be voting for him in future elections, and I hope others will do the same.

[DoubleX]

I just realized that I made a mistake in my post with the guide for this election. This will be Nellie Fox's 14th year on the ballot, not 13th, so next year is his lats. I will check to make sure I didn't make a similar mistake with someone else.

EDIT: Made a mistake with Curt Flood as well. This is his 8th appearance on the ballot, not 9th.

[538280]

I agree with you. If I had to guess at an explanation for Cepeda's quantum leap, including shooting past Allen, based on what some non-Allen supporters have said, I would say that people think Allen's career was too short and Cepeda's just long enough. I don't think the difference is big enough to overcome Allen's sustained peak, which at 11 years, is nothing to sneeze. Yeah, his career was fairly short by typical Hall standards, but when you consider that it's almost entirely peak, then it becomes more impressive. I think people might not be realizing that even though is career was relatively short, his peak was actually relatively long and very high.

But I'm not going to split too many hairs at this point as Allen's support seems to be pretty strong right now and I do believe he's gaining momentum. With the newcomers being fairly weak until '89 (I believe McCovey and Stargell are the best between and now and then), I think Allen will get in, if not this year. Drysdale went up and down and flirted with election a few times before getting in, but there wasn't nearly as much Drysdale discussion as there has been Allen, IMO. I think Allen, if/when he gets in, will mark the first case in which there has been a successful movement to get a player elected, just like in real life (well not with Allen, but others).

You know what the funny thing is about Allen IMO? We always seem to have dissenters with him and I think the only reason we do is because of the era in which he played makes his numbers not really very eye-catching when you first look at them. I'd bet if Allen played in the 20s/30s he'd be being brought up quite frequently as one of the top 10 hitters of all time. Allen would be sort of similar to Joe Jackson; he'd have the pretty almost .400 BAs, he'd have the romanticized quotes of that time's sportswriters (and it's ironic especially that because he's modern; he has the exact opposite). Allen IMO is better than Joe Jackson, a career about 400 games longer, almost just as good a hitter in relative terms while playing and against MUCH stiffer competition, yet we have people calling Jackson a bette hitter than freakin' Henry Aaron. Allen can't even be a 1st ballot HOFer. Fortunately he'll get in now or at least in the next four elections.

[DoubleX]

You know what the funny thing is about Allen IMO? We always seem to have dissenters with him and I think the only reason we do is because of the era in which he played makes his numbers not really very eye-catching when you first look at them. I'd bet if Allen played in the 20s/30s he'd be being brought up quite frequently as one of the top 10 hitters of all time. Allen would be sort of similar to Joe Jackson; he'd have the pretty almost .400 BAs, he'd have the romanticized quotes of that time's sportswriters (and it's ironic especially that because he's modern; he has the exact opposite). Allen IMO is better than Joe Jackson, a career about 400 games longer, almost just as good a hitter in relative terms while playing and against MUCH stiffer competition, yet we have people calling Jackson a bette hitter than freakin' Henry Aaron. Allen can't even be a 1st ballot HOFer. Fortunately he'll get in now or at least in the next four elections.

I agree. No matter how much some of us try to hammer home that you can't take rate stats at face value, there are still people who put more stock in the inflated numbers and romanticized accounts of players from the 20s/30s. I don't know if I'd use Jackson has my reference point though, I'd probably go with someone like Harry Heilmann. Heilmann doesn't inspire passion like Jackson does, but I don't think Heilmann would have much trouble getting elected to the Hall of Fame if you were to poll people here. If you fast-forward a little, I think Greenberg and Mize would be even better reference points (though war credit could change that a little). I do competely agree with you though that Jackson can be overrated around here, and sometimes vastly so. But that's a conversation for countless other threads we've had on that topic.

[Skin & Bones]

I agree. No matter how much some of us try to hammer home that you can't take rate stats at face value, there are still people who put more stock in the inflated numbers and romanticized accounts of players from the 20s/30s. I don't know if I'd use Jackson has my reference point though, I'd probably go with someone like Harry Heilmann. Heilmann doesn't inspire passion like Jackson does, but I don't think Heilmann would have much trouble getting elected to the Hall of Fame if you were to poll people here. If you fast-forward a little, I think Greenberg and Mize would be even better reference points (though war credit could change that a little). I do competely agree with you though that Jackson can be overrated around here, and sometimes vastly so. But that's a conversation for countless other threads we've had on that topic.

You could add George Sisler to that list.

[DoubleX]

You could add George Sisler to that list.

On many levels, that's a perfect example for what 538 was talking about. Sisler has some shiny numbers, particularly in BA, on account of his era, and is one of those romanticized players whose reputation seems to greatly exceed his actual performance over his career. But on another level, it's not as good an example because Sisler, IMO, is pretty far behind Allen as a hitter for his career. But yeah, if people support Sisler, I really don't see how they can't support Allen. Sisler has the fielding and baserunning advantages, but Allen's peak as a hitter was almost twice as long and I think that more than makes up the gap (not to mention LQ adjustments and some 3B credit).

I think I might start a Sisler/Allen poll (if one hasn't already been done).

EDIT: Also, I just found this poll that we did a while back comparing Allen to other Hall of Fame 1Bman (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=45609&highlight=Allen+Comparison)(I started it and totally forgot about it).

[John Shoemaker]

Well we are up to 40 votes in and it looks like we are well on the way to electing 2 new members of the HOF. This is excellent to be able to elect 2 new members in a year when there are no strong new candidates. With only about 20 voters remaining of our normal around 60 voters both Dick Allen and Orlando Cepeda only need a little more than half of the remaining votes to be elected. Both players are very deserving and will be excellent additions to the HOF.

[Freakshow]

Simple. We're doing the same thing the BBWAA does, that which we hate so much: weaker pool, vote for more borderline guys.

:)
It's not quite that simple; it's a product of the structure, the 10 vote limit. Many of us would have voted for Cepeda before, but he was just outside of our top ten.

[dgarza]

Simple. We're doing the same thing the BBWAA does, that which we hate so much: weaker pool, vote for more borderline guys.

I really don't think "we" hate when the BBWWA does that, especially since we're following the pattern. I think Cepeda is pretty well above borderline and Allen is not even close to being borderline.

[Erik Bedard]

It's not quite that simple; it's a product of the structure, the 10 vote limit. Many of us would have voted for Cepeda before, but he was just outside of our top ten.

I don't think there's been a year yet with Cepeda on the ballot where he hasn't been one of the ten most deserving guys.

[Ubiquitous]

Cepeda has 35 votes now, last time around he had 34.

5 new voters have voted for him and not all of them had picked 10 players last year. Only two of those people voted for 10 last year. So 3 people didn't think he was a hall of famer last year but think he is now.

So theoretically Cepeda should only get about 6 or so more votes over the next 21 votes. If all of the people who voted for him the year before vote for him again.

[DoubleX]

Cepeda has 35 votes now, last time around he had 34.

5 new voters have voted for him and not all of them had picked 10 players last year. Only two of those people voted for 10 last year. So 3 people didn't think he was a hall of famer last year but think he is now.

So theoretically Cepeda should only get about 6 or so more votes over the next 21 votes. If all of the people who voted for him the year before vote for him again.

That got me thinking. I think one aspect of this project that hinders its genuiness, is the fact that voters can see the voting percentages before they vote and could thus have their vote influenced. I hope that's not happening, but I'm sure it is to some degree.

I think I'll add a caveat in the rules that voters are on the honor system to not look at the voting results until they have cast their vote. Votes should be as genuine as possible - I suspect the BBWAA could be very different if voters could see how much support a player already has by the time they vote.

[John Shoemaker]

I really don't think "we" hate when the BBWWA does that, especially since we're following the pattern. I think Cepeda is pretty well above borderline and Allen is not even close to being borderline.

I agree - Orlano Cepeda and Dick Allen have never been close to the borderline for me - always well above it.

[John Shoemaker]

That got me thinking. I think one aspect of this project that hinders its genuiness, is the fact that voters can see the voting percentages before they vote and could thus have their vote influenced. I hope that's not happening, but I'm sure it is to some degree.

I think I'll add a caveat in the rules that voters are on the honor system to not look at the voting results until they have cast their vote. Votes should be as genuine as possible - I suspect the BBWAA could be very different if voters could see how much support a player already has by the time they vote.

I was thinking the same thing. I don't know which way it works - if people see the results first - if the small hall people vote against anyone close to getting in or the large hall people vote for all the leaders close to getting in. Personally I vote first and then look at how the voting is going.

[Erik Bedard]

That's exactly what I do. I was the first to vote for Bouton in this election, and I was one of just five to vote for Bret Saberhagen in the mock 07 election.

[DoubleX]

I was thinking the same thing. I don't know which way it works - if people see the results first - if the small hall people vote against anyone close to getting in or the large hall people vote for all the leaders close to getting in. Personally I vote first and then look at how the voting is going.

It could work both ways. It's probably not a huge issue here as I remember a few elections ago when Drysdale was getting very close to election, the last few voters did not vote for him, dropping him just under 75%. If we had a problem with bandwagon voting, that would have been the time for it to manifest (though I suppose that could have been example of the small Hall people voting against Drysdale). I also don't think we've had much a problem with bandwagoning because we've only just elected our first holdover candidate. I think bandwagoning would manifest in the following election, but that really hasn't been the case as holdovers have fluctuated up and down and I suspect that has more to do with who else is on the ballot than anything else.

Like you, I vote before looking at the results as I pretty much have my mind made up anyway. But I do urge everyone to not look at the results before voting. Vote with your gut, and if you subsequently change your mind about someone, then let that be shown in the next election (if that player is still there).

[dgarza]

So 3 people didn't think he was a hall of famer last year but think he is now.


Not neccessarily, they might have thought him a HOFer but didn't have enough room on the ballot.

[Ubiquitous]

You didn't read what I wrote. Those three people did have room on their ballot for Cepeda but did not vote for him. Of the 5 new voters only two of them actually voted for 10 players the year before.

[DoubleX]

Is it too early to start looking ahead to next election? Barring an unforeseeable surge in voting in this election, it looks like the only two candidates that are in the running right now are Orlando Cepeda and Dick Allen.

Next year is interesting for a couple of reasons, IMO:

1) The Screening Committee looks to have reintroduced a number of candidates that were previously dropped due to the 5% rule. Guys like Santo, Allen, Boyer, McNally, McLain, and Haddix, among several others, were given new life. Obviously, if we've elected guys like Santo (and perhaps Allen), they'll not be on our ballot, and obviously guys like Boyer, who have remained on our ballot, will stay on our ballot. However, unlike the Screening Committee I will not be reintroducing (at least not deliberately) players that we have dropped (like McNally, McLain, Haddix, or Elston Howard, Roger Maris, Vada Pinson, Lew Burdette, and so on).

2) The incoming class is again weak, though not nearly as weak as this year. There are two Hall of Famers in the new class - Lou Brock and Catfish Hunter. Neither seem to enjoy particularly strong support around here (especially Hunter), so it will be interesting to see how we deal with them. I suspect that Hunter could end up being the first player that the BBWAA elected before we do. Might happen to Brock as well as he was elected in his first year by the BBWAA, and I'm not sure he enjoys that much support here (though I think it will be close).

Outside of Brock and Hunter, the newcomers also include Mickey Lolich and Roy White. I know Lolich has some strong supporters here, I don't think it will be nearly enough, but I think he'll get enough to stick on the ballot.

[John Shoemaker]

That got me thinking. I think one aspect of this project that hinders its genuiness, is the fact that voters can see the voting percentages before they vote and could thus have their vote influenced. I hope that's not happening, but I'm sure it is to some degree.

I think I'll add a caveat in the rules that voters are on the honor system to not look at the voting results until they have cast their vote. Votes should be as genuine as possible - I suspect the BBWAA could be very different if voters could see how much support a player already has by the time they vote.

I definitily agree that if the BBWAA could see how the voting is goingthe results would be different. A good example is the Mark McGwire vote. I think the voters wanted to send him a message "not on the first ballot" not keep him out of the HOF. If they could see that there was no way he would get to 75% on the first ballot many more would have voted for him.

[Ubiquitous]

2) The incoming class is again weak, though not nearly as weak as this year. There are two Hall of Famers in the new class - Lou Brock and Catfish Hunter. Neither seem to enjoy particularly strong support around here (especially Hunter), so it will be interesting to see how we deal with them. I suspect that Hunter could end up being the first player that the BBWAA elected before we do. Might happen to Brock as well as he was elected in his first year by the BBWAA, and I'm not sure he enjoys that much support here (though I think it will be close).

Outside of Brock and Hunter, the newcomers also include Mickey Lolich and Roy White. I know Lolich has some strong supporters here, I don't think it will be nearly enough, but I think he'll get enough to stick on the ballot.

Next year is going to be another no vote again for me.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Next year is going to be another no vote again for me.
Does Willie McCovey pass muster? He's eligible in 1986.

[Ubiquitous]

Does Willie McCovey pass muster? He's eligible in 1986.

Tough call, never had to seriously think about him. In terms of performance he has the Dick Allen peak but then hangs around awhile to get the counting stats. The guy played until he was 42 years old and in his career had some truly bad years and not in places you would expect.

[vtbub]

This has been a very fun project so far. It's nice to revisit this era of baseball.

As far as voting %'s influencing my vote, I try to vote as soon as possible when the new ballots come out.

Frankly, I'm more influenced by the discussion that goes on during the week on guys for the next season.

[DoubleX]

Tough call, never had to seriously think about him. In terms of performance he has the Dick Allen peak but then hangs around awhile to get the counting stats. The guy played until he was 42 years old and in his career had some truly bad years and not in places you would expect.

Wow, you must really be a small Hall person if Willie McCovey is a tough one for you. As you said, McCovey has a great peak with an MVP Award,, but also has the longevity which pushes up his counting stats, most notably his homeruns, where he was ranked 8th all time at the time of his retirement.

Out of curiosity, who have you voted for thus far in this project?

[DoubleX]

This has been a very fun project so far. It's nice to revisit this era of baseball.

As far as voting %'s influencing my vote, I try to vote as soon as possible when the new ballots come out.

Frankly, I'm more influenced by the discussion that goes on during the week on guys for the next season.

That's how it should be, IMO, and I think it's a great that we seem capable of learning from one another and evolving as an electorate. Perhaps the BBWAA could benefit from having its members partake in these kind of discussions prior to voting.

[Erik Bedard]

Out of curiosity, who have you voted for thus far in this project?

Aaron, Robinson, Gibson, Killebrew, Marichal, Santo, Mays, and Snider. All the no-doubters.

[Ubiquitous]

Wow, you must really be a small Hall person if Willie McCovey is a tough one for you. As you said, McCovey has a great peak with an MVP Award,, but also has the longevity which pushes up his counting stats, most notably his homeruns, where he was ranked 8th all time at the time of his retirement.

Out of curiosity, who have you voted for thus far in this project?


Well I would have to look but I'm thinking Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were picked. Frank Robinson as well. Gibson and MArichal. Harmon Killebrew. Ron Santo but that was more of a knee jerk reaction. I probably would have voted for Kaline but I missed his name when voting and finally Duke Snider.

Yeah and Cepeda has longevity but it isn't good longevity it is more like Pete Rose longevity. Cepeda has a good peak but lots of players have good peaks. A hall of famer for me is somebody who was either A)very good (and somtimes great)for a very long time or B)great for a good chunk of time followed up with some good to very good seasons at least. Optimally he would be great almost his entire time playing.

First layer would be of course the Babe Ruth-Lou Gehrig type players. The greats from the get go until basically the end.
The second layer are the Hank Aaron(though Hank would be at the very top of that list possibly even above that list, take your pick)-Al Kaline type list. Players that were very good for a very long time.

The third layer would be the Cepeda-Killebrew types and in that layer it is a grab bag of take your picks what do you like more.
Is players A's peak higher, is player B's peak longer, did player C do enough outside of his peak, so on and so on.

[DoubleX]

Well I would have to look but I'm thinking Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were picked. Frank Robinson as well. Gibson and MArichal. Harmon Killebrew. Ron Santo but that was more of a knee jerk reaction. I probably would have voted for Kaline but I missed his name when voting and finally Duke Snider.

Yeah and Cepeda has longevity but it isn't good longevity it is more like Pete Rose longevity. Cepeda has a good peak but lots of players have good peaks. A hall of famer for me is somebody who was either A)very good (and somtimes great)for a very long time or B)great for a good chunk of time followed up with some good to very good seasons at least. Optimally he would be great almost his entire time playing.

First layer would be of course the Babe Ruth-Lou Gehrig type players. The greats from the get go until basically the end.
The second layer are the Hank Aaron(though Hank would be at the very top of that list possibly even above that list, take your pick)-Al Kaline type list. Players that were very good for a very long time.

The third layer would be the Cepeda-Killebrew types and in that layer it is a grab bag of take your picks what do you like more.
Is players A's peak higher, is player B's peak longer, did player C do enough outside of his peak, so on and so on.

I thought we were talking about McCovey (not Cepeda)? McCovey probably hung around for a few years too long but he had a great peak that lasted for the better part of 15 years.

[Ubiquitous]

I thought we were talking about McCovey (not Cepeda)? McCovey probably hung around for a few years too long but he had a great peak that lasted for the better part of 15 years.


Oh sorry I was thinking about this voting thread and Cepeda.

[DoubleX]

Oh sorry I was thinking about this voting thread and Cepeda.

I vote for Cepeda, but I can certainly see not voting for Cepeda if one has a more elite Hall in mind. Even under the Hall's current standards, I don't believe it would be egregious for Cepeda to be on the outside, so I don't begrudge people too much who don't vote for him. He's slightly above borderline for me, but there are lots of player on the outside who are also slightly above borderline. But McCovey is a different story - I think you'd have to have a pretty small Hall not to have McCovey in there.

So looking a little ahead, can you see yourself voting for McCovey in '87 and/or Stargell in '88? Also, how do you feel about Minnie Minoso? He comes up in '86. I'm personally really looking forward to Minoso's candidacy, as like Santo, I see that as an opportunity for us to correct us to what I view as one of the Hall's greatest oversights.

[John Shoemaker]

I vote for Cepeda, but I can certainly see not voting for Cepeda if one has a more elite Hall in mind. Even under the Hall's current standards, I don't believe it would be egregious for Cepeda to be on the outside, so I don't begrudge people too much who don't vote for him. He's slightly above borderline for me, but there are lots of player on the outside who are also slightly above borderline. But McCovey is a different story - I think you'd have to have a pretty small Hall not to have McCovey in there.

So looking a little ahead, can you see yourself voting for McCovey in '87 and/or Stargell in '88? Also, how do you feel about Minnie Minoso? He comes up in '86. I'm personally really looking forward to Minoso's candidacy, as like Santo, I see that as an opportunity for us to correct us to what I view as one of the Hall's greatest oversights.

McCovey - Definitily Yes Stargell - Definitily Yes Minoso - Not likely

[DoubleX]

McCovey - Definitily Yes Stargell - Definitily Yes Minoso - Not likely

Why not Minoso?

[John Shoemaker]

Why not Minoso?

I saw him play many times and I guess I didn't think he was all that special. He was a very good player alright but not a dominant player like McCovey or Stargell.

[digglahhh]

Minoso was, I believe, one of the first six voted in by the Hall of Corrections thread.

I think we started with three and the first three were Blyleven, Allen and Santo. Minoso got his call in the next batch.

[2Chance]

Allen, Aparicio, Bunning, Cepeda, Fox, Freehan, Maz, and, okay Chris, you wore me down....Jimmy Wynn

[dgarza]

There are two Hall of Famers in the new class - Lou Brock and Catfish Hunter.
Unless the voting results do not maintain current trends, I will have room for both of these players and vote for them. Hunter is the closest to being cut and would be only if we ended up voting no players in this year. Brock will make my ballot for sure.

[DoubleX]

Allen has been steadily dipping in the past day, as he's down to 76.60%. Assuming I did my math right, if we reach our high of 62 ballots again, Allen will have to be named on at least 47 of them to make it. So that means that he will have to be on 11 of the next 15 ballots to make it. Suddenly, I'm not so optimistic about Allen's chances this year.

Cepeda seems to be pretty safe, as he'll just have to make 7 of the next 15 ballots (if we get 62 again). I'm glad it's looking very likley that we'll elect at least one player, but I'm still befuddled as to the disparity between Allen and Cepeda. Cepeda's longevity, IMO, doesn't really make a difference as Allen had a much better and longer peak.

[John Shoemaker]

Allen has been steadily dipping in the past day, as he's down to 76.60%. Assuming I did my math right, if we reach our high of 62 ballots again, Allen will have to be named on at least 47 of them to make it. So that means that he will have to be on 11 of the next 15 ballots to make it. Suddenly, I'm not so optimistic about Allen's chances this year.

Cepeda seems to be pretty safe, as he'll just have to make 7 of the next 15 ballots (if we get 62 again). I'm glad it's looking very likley that we'll elect at least one player, but I'm still befuddled as to the disparity between Allen and Cepeda. Cepeda's longevity, IMO, doesn't really make a difference as Allen had a much better and longer peak.

I'm surprised too that Cepeda has such a big lead over Allen. I consider them fairly equal. I certainly hope they both make it in - they certainly deserve it. What dropped their % is a third person checked none of the above.

[DoubleX]

Looking ahead a few years to Luis Tiant....I was thinking about voting for him when the time comes (1988), but now that I think about it, he's really not all that different than Jim Bunning and might have less of a case than Jim Bunning. Tiant was better at his best, Bunning had more peak years, and for their careers, they're pretty close, IMO. I haven't been voting for Bunning, so I was wondering how people measure Tiant against Bunning? Is there a reason to distinguish one from the other? While I'm looking for reasons to vote for Tiant, Bunning supporters should know that answering this could cause me to vote for Bunning (depending on the answer).

[dgarza]

Tiant was better at his best, Bunning had more peak years, and for their careers, they're pretty close, IMO. I haven't been voting for Bunning, so I was wondering how people measure Tiant against Bunning?
For me, what separates the two is the difference in Ink numbers. Bunning isn't too far off from doubling Tiant in both types of Ink. While Tiant had better peaks, but he also had what I consider deeper valleys (20 loss season, 4.00 ERA seasons). Tiant is below the line for me, while Bunning is over that line.

[538280]

For me, what separates the two is the difference in Ink numbers. Bunning isn't too far off from doubling Tiant in both types of Ink.

Who cares about ink? It isn't a real expression of value, it's just a totally arbitrary system (and leading the leauge in general is arbitrary anyway, you could perform worse than you did in a previous year yet still happen to lead the league). Given it's arbitrary nature and weighting, you make a system that isn't useful for much IMO. I do think it is considerably more useful for pitchers though than for position players (though it still isn't much useful) because I think the weighting of categories are more appropriate for pitchers, and I think with pitchers, when we often have trouble realizing the different IP levels of different eras, it can sometimes give us somewhat of a clue into how a player performed in context. For two close to contemporaries like Tiant and Bunning though I don't think it's useful at all given other measures we have. I'm undecided on Tiant (I've been voting for Bunning) but a difference in ink isn't going to do one thing to sway me one way or another.

[538280]

Okay, guys, I want to hear the case against Jimmy Wynn, and even more specifically why Richie Ashburn was a pretty automatic guy (first ballot) and Wynn is struggling to get more than a third of you guys to drop him a vote. I figure that if Ashburn is first ballot 75+%, Wynn should be AT LEAST 50%. Personally I'd call Wynn solidly better than Ashburn. Could someone here please tell me why Ashburn is SO much better than Wynn, as that seems to be the prevailing opinion.

[AstrosFan]

Those gaudy on-base averages and those high putout totals for Ashburn, and that .250 batting average for Wynn. You have to work with the numbers to get a better understanding of why Wynn was a superior hitter, and most people just don't want to bother.

[538280]

Those gaudy on-base averages and those high putout totals for Ashburn, and that .250 batting average for Wynn. You have to work with the numbers to get a better understanding of why Wynn was a superior hitter, and most people just don't want to bother.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. And those putout totals are greatly aided by the one of the biggest flyball staffs in history. There are just a lot more things eye catching about Ashburn but in terms of actual value he's below (or at least at the same level as) Wynn.

[AstrosFan]

I had been going small hall before this, and felt I would be contradicting myself if I voted for certain people. Then I decided the hell with it, and chose:

Allen
Cepeda
Freehan
Torre
Wynn

[Ubiquitous]

Ashburn got votes because Ashburn is in the hall of fame, he is viewed as a hall of famer already. So he gets the benefit of the doubt. Jimmy Wynn is not in the hall and will never be in the hall so he does not get the benefit of the doubt. If Richie did not get in we as a group probably would not have elected him. As it is he is a borderline HoF'er anyway and gets in probably because of the era he played in. It helps to have played in the so called "golden age" of baseball when it comes to fond memories.

[DoubleX]

Ashburn got votes because Ashburn is in the hall of fame, he is viewed as a hall of famer already. So he gets the benefit of the doubt. Jimmy Wynn is not in the hall and will never be in the hall so he does not get the benefit of the doubt. If Richie did not get in we as a group probably would not have elected him. As it is he is a borderline HoF'er anyway and gets in probably because of the era he played in. It helps to have played in the so called "golden age" of baseball when it comes to fond memories.

I think that's true to some extent, but I don't think we are collectively that easily swayed. Look at Ashburn's fellow VC inductees Aparicio, Bunning, Cepeda, Fox, Mazeroski, Schoendienst and Slaughter. Cepeda will almost certainly get in this year, but it's not looking good at all for Aparicio, Bunning, Fox, and Mazeroski, and the door has already closed on Schoendienst and Slaughter.

I do agree though that it's curious that Ashburn got in on the first time and yet players like Cepeda and Fox, who I consider to be on the same tier as Ashburn, have struggled (not to mention the viable candidates we have that are not in the real Hall).

[BoofBonser26]

I think that's true to some extent, but I don't think we are collectively that easily swayed. Look at Ashburn's fellow VC inductees Aparicio, Bunning, Cepeda, Fox, Mazeroski, Schoendienst and Slaughter. Cepeda will almost certainly get in this year, but it's not looking good at all for Aparicio, Bunning, Fox, and Mazeroski, and the door has already closed on Schoendienst and Slaughter.

I do agree though that it's curious that Ashburn got in on the first time and yet players like Cepeda and Fox, who I consider to be on the same tier as Ashburn, have struggled (not to mention the viable candidates we have that are not in the real Hall).
I personally didn't vote in 1979 (I missed the thread, somehow), but I wouldn't have voted for Ashburn.

[DoubleX]

I personally didn't vote in 1979 (I missed the thread, somehow), but I wouldn't have voted for Ashburn.

And you're vote would have made the difference and kept Ashburn out, at least for that year, as that one vote would have dropped him from 75.41% to 74.19%. With stronger classes on the horizon, I wonder if Ashburn would have been elected in a subsequent year.

[BoofBonser26]

And you're vote would have made the difference and kept Ashburn out, at least for that year, as that one vote would have dropped him from 75.41% to 74.19%. With stronger classes on the horizon, I wonder if Ashburn would have been elected in a subsequent year.
Woah! Yikes. I don't know if I would have wanted that responsibility. :o :rolleyes:

As to your question, I'm almost certain Ashburn wouldn't get in in later years. Look at how long it's taken Cepeda in our votes.

[DoubleX]

Woah! Yikes. I don't know if I would have wanted that responsibility. :o :rolleyes:

As to your question, I'm almost certain Ashburn wouldn't get in in later years. Look at how long it's taken Cepeda in our votes.

Yeah, Ashburn really is an annomally here in terms of players we've elected and when. But I guess it could be said that in theory, Ashburn toiled on the ballot for 11 years before we elected him in 1979, so perhaps even though it was our first year voting, there was some feeling that he had spent enough time on the ballot.

[John Shoemaker]

With about 2 days of voting left in this round Dick Allen has dropped to exactly 75%. I'm sure he will get in one of the next rounds if not this one but he was too great of a hitter to have to wait another several rounds. I sure hope he hangs on ang gets in this round. At least Orlando Cepeda is finally getting the respect he deserves.

[Freakshow]

Yeah, Ashburn really is an annomally here in terms of players we've elected and when. But I guess it could be said that in theory, Ashburn toiled on the ballot for 11 years before we elected him in 1979, so perhaps even though it was our first year voting, there was some feeling that he had spent enough time on the ballot.
The writers who saw him play didn't think he was a hall of famer. He drew less than 5% his first five years - he's lucky they didn't have the 5% rule then, or he would've been long buried. In only one year did he get even half the support needed to be elected. Look at his annual voting support:
Richie Ashburn
Year Election Votes Pct
1968 BBWAA 6 2.12
1969 BBWAA 10 2.94
1970 BBWAA 11 3.67
1971 BBWAA 10 2.78
1972 BBWAA 11 2.78
1973 BBWAA 25 6.58
1974 BBWAA 56 15.34
1975 BBWAA 76 20.99
1976 BBWAA 85 21.91
1977 BBWAA 139 36.29
1978 BBWAA 158 41.69
1979 BBWAA 130 30.09
1980 BBWAA 134 34.81
1981 BBWAA 142 35.41
1982 BBWAA 126 30.36

Maybe the BBWAA was right for once...nah!

[Brooklyn]

Okay, guys, I want to hear the case against Jimmy Wynn, and even more specifically why Richie Ashburn was a pretty automatic guy (first ballot) and Wynn is struggling to get more than a third of you guys to drop him a vote. I figure that if Ashburn is first ballot 75+%, Wynn should be AT LEAST 50%. Personally I'd call Wynn solidly better than Ashburn. Could someone here please tell me why Ashburn is SO much better than Wynn, as that seems to be the prevailing opinion.

I didn't vote for either, so I won't support the case for Ashburn. I can tell you that Ashburn has more of a look and feel of a HOFer. His .308 BA to Wynn's .250 BA is a large difference, I know you don't like ink scores, but if taken properly, can help you understand how dominant the player was compared to his league. Ashburn blows away Wynn on ink. He also had two batting titles and 4 on-base titles, Wynn never led the league in any significant category.

My biggest problem with Wynn is that the entire case for his is done with smoke and mirrors. Before having any insight into "advanced statistics", and this board in particular, all I knew about Wynn was as a solid major league ball player. He made a few all star teams, had a decent length career, but was nothing special. Before adjusting stats, there is no way he is a HOFer. The only way to get him anywhere close to Hall of Fame level is by adjusting his stats for era and ballpark. While I believe there needs to be some adjustment, I also believe that the metrics out there to do so do not always tell an accurate story. After reading more about him on this board, he definitely rates higher in my mind than he did before, but there is no way you are going to get me to believe that a player whose second most comparable player is Tom Brunanksy can be adjusted all the way to HOF level.

Being such a big Wynn fan, are you also a fan of Rusty Staub? He played on those same Astros teams for 6 years, played on a lot of bad Mets teams in Shea, and had a much longer career. I'd personally put Wynn behind Staub, and Staub is no HOFer.

[DoubleX]

I will likely be unable to close up this election and get the next one started until Sunday evening, at the earliest. So if anyone would like to post a closing summary after this election is over on Saturday, please PM me. Otherwise, you'll all likely have to wait until Sunday evening.

[KCGHOST]

strong convictions? No but i don't think anyone on that list is worthy of enshrinement.


I'm with Ubi. A lot of good players, but none of them trip my trigger.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm with Ubi. A lot of good players, but none of them trip my trigger.
I was voting for my full 10 out of the point of the exercise, but after what Ubi has been saying, I've taken a step back and realized I'm voting for some players I would not endorse for the HOF. It might be a long time coming before I vote for ten again. I won't retract anything from 1984, as Double X has requested us not to do that, but 1985 will be different for me.

[538280]

I didn't vote for either, so I won't support the case for Ashburn. I can tell you that Ashburn has more of a look and feel of a HOFer. His .308 BA to Wynn's .250 BA is a large difference,

BA is irrelevent IMO except for that it pushes up a player's OBP and SLG. Since Wynn's OBP and SLG, taken together, are better than Ashburn's (OBP is a bit worse but SLG is MUCH better and enough to make a solidly better hitter), I think BA is a totally moot point. I used to buy the notion that if OBP and SLG are equal the higher BA was better but I now know that that's not true. The only difference is in style; the player with a higher BA will have more singles but less extra base hits and less walks. The two goals of an offense are to get runners on (getting on base and higher BA and lower BA are equal there), and moving runners along to score (and they're both equal there too-even though the high BA gets more hits the low guy has more extra base hits that make up for it).

I know you don't like ink scores, but if taken properly, can help you understand how dominant the player was compared to his league. Ashburn blows away Wynn on ink. He also had two batting titles and 4 on-base titles, Wynn never led the league in any significant category

I don't see how ink helps you see how dominant a player was compared to his leauge any better than relative stats-and relative stats don't miss anything, they give a total picture of a player's value and compare him to leauge levels which define value (because the level of runs in the league determines the value of each run). Ink is even more irrelevent than BA-it truly means nothing about why teams win on the field, and it would be most frustrating to me if that's the reason Ashburn got in so easily and Wynn can't get a thrid of us to vote for him.

My biggest problem with Wynn is that the entire case for his is done with smoke and mirrors. Before having any insight into "advanced statistics", and this board in particular, all I knew about Wynn was as a solid major league ball player. He made a few all star teams, had a decent length career, but was nothing special. Before adjusting stats, there is no way he is a HOFer. The only way to get him anywhere close to Hall of Fame level is by adjusting his stats for era and ballpark. While I believe there needs to be some adjustment, I also believe that the metrics out there to do so do not always tell an accurate story. After reading more about him on this board, he definitely rates higher in my mind than he did before, but there is no way you are going to get me to believe that a player whose second most comparable player is Tom Brunanksy can be adjusted all the way to HOF level.

I would like to ask what's wrong with getting a more accurate perspective on a player's performance? Why should we bask in the inaccuracies of the past when we know they are just wrong? I agree, however, that many times modern metrics are not perfectly accurate and can miss important parts of the picture. But if that is your problem with Wynn then what is it exactly that leads you to believe that Wynn is a worse player than his statistics? I agree that part of the reason why Wynn is being rejected, I think, is that he represents (inaccurately IMO) a player who is not as good as his statistics. This is wrong though IMO and I adressed that in my earlier post.

I'm not sure Ashburn is much different anyway. I'm sure he got high praise from the Philadelphia fans and media when he was active, but I think it is clear that when he was active he was NOT thought of as a HOFer. He wasn't even usually a member of the All-Defensive Teams of contemporary magazines, despite his great rep today (which comes from statistical misinterpretation, like I said before). The BBWAA never gave him more than 41% and he would have been dropped from the ballot if they had the 5% rule. He's 352nd all time in MVP Vote Shares and was never even a big factor in the MVP vote any year. Wynn, and you should read that post I made earlier, was thought of as one of the most exciting players in the leauge in his day (like Darry Strawberry, Bobby Bonds, or Eric Davis-a great power/speed guy). He was also known for hitting some of the longest HRs of time.

Being such a big Wynn fan, are you also a fan of Rusty Staub? He played on those same Astros teams for 6 years, played on a lot of bad Mets teams in Shea, and had a much longer career. I'd personally put Wynn behind Staub, and Staub is no HOFer.

I like Staub somewhat. I think Wynn was clearly a better player at his best though, Staub has better longevity, but his career value is not as large because he wasn't as good while he was playing. I think Wynn is better though because in this case the peak/rates overcome pure longevity, but Staub may get my vote.

[DoubleX]

I'm not sure Ashburn is much different anyway. I'm sure he got high praise from the Philadelphia fans and media when he was active, but I think it is clear that when he was active he was NOT thought of as a HOFer. He wasn't even usually a member of the All-Defensive Teams of contemporary magazines, despite his great rep today (which comes from statistical misinterpretation, like I said before). The BBWAA never gave him more than 41% and he would have been dropped from the ballot if they had the 5% rule. He's 352nd all time in MVP Vote Shares and was never even a big factor in the MVP vote any year. Wynn, and you should read that post I made earlier, was thought of as one of the most exciting players in the leauge in his day (like Darry Strawberry, Bobby Bonds, or Eric Davis-a great power/speed guy). He was also known for hitting some of the longest HRs of time.

I still can't believe you're pushing the media thing. From my recollection, the only media examples you provided were a couple from the Houston press, who of course will be biased towards Wynn for three big reasons I stated earlier:

1) It's Wynn's hometown press, so provided he's not Dick Allen in 1960s Philadelphia, they're going to be favorable to him;

2) Professional baseball was very novel to Houston when Wynn was there and thus there was likely more a feeling of need to latch on to something and romanticize it as much as possible.

3) This is related to two - Houston was a mostly bad team while Wynn was there, so Wynn stood out as the hero, and coupled with the novelty of it all, he seemed like an easy choice to heap adulation on.

Providing a couple of excerpts from Wynn's hometown press is far, far cry from proving the Wynn was widely regarded as "one of the most exciting players of in the league in his day."

You also mention Ashburn's Hall of Fame voting and MVP totals as things against him, but curiously leave out that Wynn was even worse in both categories. Wynn didn't even get a SINGLE VOTE from the BBWAA and was dropped right off the ballot (and didn't resurface like several other high-quality dropped candidates did in the 80s, especially in '85) - that does not seem like someone at all who was regarded as "one of the most exciting players in the league in his day." Think about it, ZERO VOTES - not even the hometown press that you cited supported his Hall candidacy. Then you mention MVP shares and point out that Ashburn is 352nd, while not mentioning that Wynn is 400th. And you don't even mention All Star appearances where Ashburn has 5 to Wynn's 3. It seems pretty clear to me that Ashburn was more highly regarded when he played and afterwards. Again, Wynn got ZERO votes from the BBWAA, that's a huge statement that goes against everything you keep trying to say about Wynn being regarded as this exciting player, moreso than Ashburn.

I said this before and I'll keep saying, providing a few excerpts from Wynn's hometown press is not going to convince at all. Go look for Philadelphia press from the 1950s, you'll likely find tons of praise for Ashburn - it's not convincing. And then in the same paragraph for you to cite Ashburn's poor showing in MVP voting and Hall of Fame voting, without even mentioning Wynn's much worse showing, is shocking to me. I'm in complete disbelief that you would present an argument like that. You have much stronger arguments to point to for Wynn, so I think you're just undermining yourself when you try to denigrate Ashburn's candidacy in comparison to Wynn with certain information but withhold that same information for Wynn, to whom the information is more damaging (i.e. the Hall of Fame voting, MVP Shares, and All Star appearances).

I understand that you're trying to push the subjective element for Wynn, but that's really not his strong suit at all, IMO (and it's not really Ashburn's either, but I'd give Ashburn the subjective edge). The real strength of Wynn's case is rooted in statistical analysis. Highlighting subjective things are fine, but they don't help Wynn much, IMO, and could hurt Wynn when you try to make comparisons, as is the case here, IMO. I know this might sound a little confusing coming from me because I've argued in the past that there is room for both objective statistical analysis and subjectivity, but I think it's important to know when to highlight either. For Wynn, it doesn't really help him, IMO, to force the subjectivity.

[Ubiquitous]

Jimmy Wynn played about 12 full seasons of baseball. that is not a lot of time for a hall of famer. He has zero counting stats that would make him an obvious hall of famer, he has zero rate stats that would make him a hall of famer, and he has zero seasonal stats that would make him a hall of famer.

If he is a HoF'er then so his Ron Gant and Reggie Sanders.

[Brooklyn]

I would like to ask what's wrong with getting a more accurate perspective on a player's performance? Why should we bask in the inaccuracies of the past when we know they are just wrong? I agree, however, that many times modern metrics are not perfectly accurate and can miss important parts of the picture. But if that is your problem with Wynn then what is it exactly that leads you to believe that Wynn is a worse player than his statistics? I agree that part of the reason why Wynn is being rejected, I think, is that he represents (inaccurately IMO) a player who is not as good as his statistics. This is wrong though IMO and I adressed that in my earlier post.


I can't agree that modern metrics are always more accurate. They look at things like park factor. Park factor in itself is important. But when used in a one year situation, they are grossly misleading. A park can change from a pitcher's park to a hitter's park in one year. The park didn't actually change, but normal variances accounted for the change. This does get smoothed out over a career, but is a lot less valuable in one-year increments. Park factor also doesn't adjust for righties vs. lefties, which can be a huge difference.

And isn't there some responsibility on the player to adjust to his park? He is certainly going to want to do that for his own personal advancement / salary. Take a player like Boggs. he is often discounted as having a lot of slap doubles off the monster. But isn't there a skill to being able to take advantage of what your park has to offer? Stats from Colorado players are most frequently denounced due to the altitude. The biggest effect of the altitude is that pitches break less. Don't you think it is more difficult for Rockies players to go on the road when they are used to balls breaking less? It is no wonder their averages are significantly better at home. But park factor doesn't take into account that these players may have adjusted to their surroundings. Don't get me wrong, there needs to be a discount to players at Coors - but are we applying too much?

Era adjustments are tough, too. We compare players to league averages. But how do we really know if the league was weaker or stronger? The same player would do differently in different eras do to the way the game is played, the opposition, the fields, the ball, etc. What would he do as different as stats like OPS+ suggest? We can speculate, but don't really know.

As I stated above, these advanced stats can point you in the right direction. But the unadjusted stats can't be forgotten. And unless you forget the unadjusted stats entirely, Wynn is not a HOFer.

[Ubiquitous]

The Jimmy Wynn Keltner test:

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?

No, and as far as I know no one did. Perhaps some Houston journalists did. Never recieved a first place MVP vote in his life.

Was he the best player on his team?

Yes, he was probably the best player on his team in 1965, 1968, maybe 1969 (Larry Dierker was a god that year, 305 innings!), 1970, and 1974

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

Toguh call, from 1965 to 1970 Wynn was a centerfielder. He had to deal with Willie Mays who had some great seasons and then a slow decline. From 1971 to 1973 he was a right fielder. Clemente was better, Bonds might very well have been better, Frank Robinson, and if Hank Aaron had manned his usual position him too. In 1974 he moves back to center. Fred Lynn was better in 1975 his first year.

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
His first chance came in 1969. He started off strong but had a disastrous August which helped the Astro's lose traction and spin their wheels. 1974 is his next chance. Has a great May but then declines every month after that.

Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
No, last full time gig at age 34 in 1976. Out of baseball after part time work in 1977.

Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No
Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame? no

Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards? No

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics? They say his home parl cost him homers, that is about it.

Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame? Debateable, but probably not.

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close? Probably had 0 MVP type seasons, never won it. Got votes three times best finishing 5th in 1974 for the pennant winning Dodgers.

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? I would give him maybe 7 all-star type seasons, he got the nod 3 times, and no most players who only get 3 nods are not in the hall.

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant? No. His teams were never very good when he was the best player on the team, but even an average team with him on it probably wouldn't win the pennant.

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? No

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider? AS far as I know yes.

[dgarza]

It looks like I'' ne knocking Maz off next year's ballot. Reason being, I'll have to make room for Allen. He still has a chance, but it would require surpassing our vote total high and getting 100% support.

[538280]

I still can't believe you're pushing the media thing. From my recollection, the only media examples you provided were a couple from the Houston press, who of course will be biased towards Wynn for three big reasons I stated earlier:

1) It's Wynn's hometown press, so provided he's not Dick Allen in 1960s Philadelphia, they're going to be favorable to him;

2) Professional baseball was very novel to Houston when Wynn was there and thus there was likely more a feeling of need to latch on to something and romanticize it as much as possible.

3) This is related to two - Houston was a mostly bad team while Wynn was there, so Wynn stood out as the hero, and coupled with the novelty of it all, he seemed like an easy choice to heap adulation on.

Providing a couple of excerpts from Wynn's hometown press is far, far cry from proving the Wynn was widely regarded as "one of the most exciting players of in the league in his day."

Again, XX, I'm only pushing it because I feel that it needs to be pushed so that people don't think that Wynn is just a line of statistics that is being looked back at rather favorably-without looking at the whole picture. I'm trying to look at the infamous "whole picture" here to make a case for Wynn. I'm not a huge fan of this stuff, either, to be honest, I don't think it gives great insight into the value of greatness of a player, and I know that many of these quotes are biased (though no more biased than the "pure historical" quotes, articles, etc that are used in the History forum in favor of players like DiMaggio or Gehrig, and probably considerably less biased that those things used for a guy like Gil Hodges). But I'm just trying to bring another part of the story as well, so that people can get a good sense of not only Jimmy Wynn the statistics, but also Jimmy Wynn the man and ballplayer. What it was like for those who saw Jimmy Wynn and how he was indeed something special to many people while he was playing. I'm not a huge fan of it either, but I think many people are and I'm just hoping that some people may realize that there is more to Wynn than just his stats.

You also mention Ashburn's Hall of Fame voting and MVP totals as things against him, but curiously leave out that Wynn was even worse in both categories. Wynn didn't even get a SINGLE VOTE from the BBWAA and was dropped right off the ballot (and didn't resurface like several other high-quality dropped candidates did in the 80s, especially in '85) - that does not seem like someone at all who was regarded as "one of the most exciting players in the league in his day." Think about it, ZERO VOTES - not even the hometown press that you cited supported his Hall candidacy. Then you mention MVP shares and point out that Ashburn is 352nd, while not mentioning that Wynn is 400th. And you don't even mention All Star appearances where Ashburn has 5 to Wynn's 3. It seems pretty clear to me that Ashburn was more highly regarded when he played and afterwards. Again, Wynn got ZERO votes from the BBWAA, that's a huge statement that goes against everything you keep trying to say about Wynn being regarded as this exciting player, moreso than Ashburn.

My point was not necessarily that Wynn was great in those categories, moreso than that isn't necessarily Ashburn's strong suit either and that for those of you pushing the "not regarded as great" case against Wynn should also look at Ashburn, as while his subjective credentials are probably stronger than Wynn's they're not necessarily HOF worthy.

I said this before and I'll keep saying, providing a few excerpts from Wynn's hometown press is not going to convince at all. Go look for Philadelphia press from the 1950s, you'll likely find tons of praise for Ashburn - it's not convincing. And then in the same paragraph for you to cite Ashburn's poor showing in MVP voting and Hall of Fame voting, without even mentioning Wynn's much worse showing, is shocking to me. I'm in complete disbelief that you would present an argument like that. You have much stronger arguments to point to for Wynn, so I think you're just undermining yourself when you try to denigrate Ashburn's candidacy in comparison to Wynn with certain information but withhold that same information for Wynn, to whom the information is more damaging (i.e. the Hall of Fame voting, MVP Shares, and All Star appearances).

Let's look at it statistically, then, which is really what I first orginally asked, why is Ashburn better than Wynn? Ashburn is a little stronger in the subjective areas but he's not necessarily strong there either, but statistically I just think Wynn is easily better. Wynn was a better hitter by a good margin. Ashburn was a little better at getting on base, but not THAT much, and he also had no power whle Wynn had good power. I don't think there's any offensive metric that shows them being that close:

OPS+
Ashburn: 111
Wynn: 128

EqA
Ashburn: .289
Wynn: .302

Total Baseball's Batting Runs (shown as runs above average)
Ashburn: 189
Wynn: 303

Batting Runs/650 PA
Ashburn: 12.62
Wynn: 25.07

BP's BRAA (Batting Runs Above Average)
Ashburn: 311
Wynn: 403

BRAA/650 PA
Ashburn: 20.76
Wynn: 32.70

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

BRAR/650 PA
Ashburn: 39.12
Wynn: 51.85

I don't think there's any doubt, IMO, that Wynn is definitely a superior offensive player. Ashburn was better defensively and he has a little more longevity, though. As to defense, I don't think Ashburn's nearly as good as his putout totals make him seem. Bill James shows in the book Win Shares that the Phillies of that era had the lowest assists totals, year in year out, of any team in just about any era. Assist totals are a pretty good approximation of groud balls. So if the team had no ground balls then where were they getting their outs? On flyballs, of course. Ashburn was still a great CF, but he was playing in front of one of the biggest flyball staffs in history, he's not nealry as good as his putout totals make him seem. James' DWS has him at about 3.8 DWS/1000 innings. Very good but not all time great. He also had a weak arm, I definitely think Wynn had a much stronger arm than Ashburn. Wynn wasn't a great fielder but he was a solid one. He was pretty fast and his arm was very strong (that's partly why he was called the "Toy Cannon"). Ashburn has an edge here, but I just don't see how it's anywhere near the 15 or so runs a year he needs to catch up on offense.

With longevity, yes, Ashburn has more of it and he probalby has a little more career value because of it. The thing is though is that that lead is very small (24 WS, for example), and I think that Wynn's peak is plenty good enough to make up for it. Wynn IMO has a pretty big edge on peak. In his best seasons he was one of the best hitters in the NL, he had three top five finishes in OPS+. Here is how WS sees their top five seasons:

Wynn: 36, 32, 32, 31, 28
Ashburn: 29, 28, 28, 28, 26

Ashburn never got above 30 WS in his career. Wynn is up by a full 20 WS over their top five seasons. I think that Wynn is better than Ashburn overall. And remember anyway that even if you don't, even if you prefer Ashburn, don't you have to admit that it's VERY close? Don't you have to admit that with us giving Ashburn first ballot selection we SHOULD be giving Wynn more than we are?

I understand that you're trying to push the subjective element for Wynn, but that's really not his strong suit at all, IMO (and it's not really Ashburn's either, but I'd give Ashburn the subjective edge). The real strength of Wynn's case is rooted in statistical analysis. Highlighting subjective things are fine, but they don't help Wynn much, IMO, and could hurt Wynn when you try to make comparisons, as is the case here, IMO. I know this might sound a little confusing coming from me because I've argued in the past that there is room for both objective statistical analysis and subjectivity, but I think it's important to know when to highlight either. For Wynn, it doesn't really help him, IMO, to force the subjectivity.

It's not so much that I'm trying to push it as a big reason for his induction (and if I come off that way then I didn't mean to), it's that I want people to realize that Jimmy Wynn is more than just a line of stats that looks nice by modern statistical analysis. I want people to realize this and not become disgusted as they have in the past (inappropriately, IMO, but still) with "revisionist history" and all that.

[nerfan]

Well- I voted for Bill Mazeroski to make the Hall of Fame. And I'll tell you why. While some people point to his low OBP and OPS+, I'll point to his range factor. His range factor was .86 ABOVE THE LEAGUE'S! And Baseball Prospectus ranks him as one of the top 5 fielders in history in their book Baseball Between the Numbers. His OBP WAS .299. But his OPS was about .320 before the pitchers started taking over in 1964. Many people say that Mazeroski was a one-hit wonder. The man batted .323/.364/.581 during the playoffs. Not bad for someone who only bats .260/.299/.367 during the regular season. And during 1960, Mazeroski batted .366/.390/.462 in Late And Close situations.

Mazeroski also made 7 All-Star teams and won 8 gold gloves.

And while people regard Mazeroski as a terrible offensive player, how many players do you know in the 1960's that could give you 10 home runs and 150 hits and 50 RBI and Gold Glove caliber defense?

The 1933 New York Giants were World Series Champs. Despite a below-average offense and and only an okay pitching staff (only Hubbell was truly great), and two offensive black holes (Blondy Ryan and Hughie Critz) they won it all. The reason was their defensive effieciency. They were second in the league at defense.

I'd take a team of all Bill Mazeroskis over a team of all Jimmy Wynn's any day. Mazeroski is a TOP FIVE FIELDER and the ONLY SECOND BASEMAN on that list! His EQA is .249, which is a small price to pay for a 113 Rate...

Oh, and did I mention that Mazeroski has the most clutch hit of all time...:D

[AstrosFan]

If I remember correctly, Allen had received 39 out of a possible 49 votes, getting his percentage up to 79.6. Since then, six straight voters have submitted a ballot without him on it. Is this a conspiracy to keep Allen out of this Hall, because people still insist on believe the stories Bill James tells them, or what? Allen was cruising towards election, and now six straight nos?

[538280]

I can't agree that modern metrics are always more accurate. They look at things like park factor. Park factor in itself is important. But when used in a one year situation, they are grossly misleading. A park can change from a pitcher's park to a hitter's park in one year. The park didn't actually change, but normal variances accounted for the change. This does get smoothed out over a career, but is a lot less valuable in one-year increments. Park factor also doesn't adjust for righties vs. lefties, which can be a huge difference.

I understand all of this, but I don't see how this applies to Wynn? How do these problems you talk about manifest themselves to make Jimmy Wynn look better than he really was. You say that modern metrics aren't always totally accurate, and I agree, but why exactly is this the case with Jimmy Wynn is what I'm asking. We're not talking about metrics in general, we're talking about how they apply to Wynn. If Wynn is not as good as the metrics say he is in your opinion then I'm just asking you why they make him seem better than he is.

And isn't there some responsibility on the player to adjust to his park? He is certainly going to want to do that for his own personal advancement / salary. Take a player like Boggs. he is often discounted as having a lot of slap doubles off the monster. But isn't there a skill to being able to take advantage of what your park has to offer? Stats from Colorado players are most frequently denounced due to the altitude. The biggest effect of the altitude is that pitches break less. Don't you think it is more difficult for Rockies players to go on the road when they are used to balls breaking less? It is no wonder their averages are significantly better at home. But park factor doesn't take into account that these players may have adjusted to their surroundings. Don't get me wrong, there needs to be a discount to players at Coors - but are we applying too much?

I agree that adjusting the park is a factor. I think it is clear that Wynn did adjust to his park however. Despite the park hurting most players, as the park factor shows, Wynn's career splits were about even home and road:

Home: .256/.376/.443
Away: .245/.355/.429

Wynn being a power hitter it is strange that he did a little better at home. Wynn also adapted well to Dodger Stadium which gave most power hitters such as Wynn problems. Wynn was known for hitting some of the longest home rusn in his time, I wonder if that might have to do with his adjusting well to tough parks.

Era adjustments are tough, too. We compare players to league averages. But how do we really know if the league was weaker or stronger? The same player would do differently in different eras do to the way the game is played, the opposition, the fields, the ball, etc. What would he do as different as stats like OPS+ suggest? We can speculate, but don't really know.

I think Wynn is clearly a player who would adapt well to any era. He didn't hit well for average, but with his speed and good athleticism I think with a different approach (which wouldn't have been more valuable in his time and place but may have been in others) he would have been able to without much of a hitch. He also hit for pretty high averages in context in some of his seasons so I dont' think he was incapable of it. He also has good speed, a very strong arm, and hit home runs very far so he could hit them in any park.

[DoubleX]

It's not so much that I'm trying to push it as a big reason for his induction (and if I come off that way then I didn't mean to), it's that I want people to realize that Jimmy Wynn is more than just a line of stats that looks nice by modern statistical analysis. I want people to realize this and not become disgusted as they have in the past (inappropriately, IMO, but still) with "revisionist history" and all that.

I think knowing your candidate is important and knowing what to stress with the candidate is important. The strength of Wynn's candidacy is in statistical analysis, so I think you should focus more on that. There will be other candidates who will have more strength in subjective information rather than deep statistical analysis, Steve Garvey comes to mind, so his supporters should really try to push that aspect for him.

Also, I don't know if comparing Ashburn to Wynn statistically is the best argument for Wynn. Ashburn was elected by us, but I really think it was some weird annomally and had he not made it that year, I don't think we'd have put him in. But I digress. I don't think one on one comparisons advance a player much when you're comparing him to a marginal Hall of Famer anyway. If there is a way to take the statistics and show that in some way he compares favorable to a bona fide Hall of Famer, like Willie Mays or something, then it's probably worth while to do the one on one comparisons. Otherwise, I think the best thing to do is to take the stats and frame them into a picture you're trying to paint of that candidate. In painting that picture, it could also be helpful to show how multiple other Hall of Famers are portrayed in that picture as well - I call this the Bert Blyleven method. Showing how Blyleven measures up against Don Sutton is not by itself a great and convincing method, but showing that Blyleven, in whatever statistical method/picture you're using, performs well and compares favorably to a number of Hall of Famers, does say a lot. So if you could frame a picture of Wynn comparing favorable to a number of Hall of Famers, particularly peers, you'd have a stronger case. Not saying it can't be done, I'm just sayinig how you could, IMO, maximize your argument for Wynn.

I have to stress though, it's about knowing your candidate and we can again liken this to Bert Blyleven. Blyleven's candidacy, from a subjective standpoint, is a mess. Just one 20 win season, just two All Star apperances, underwhelming in Cy Young support, and a perception of not being dominant. However, Blyleven has an extremely strong case in the statistical analysis which shows that he was a much better pitcher than he appeared to be. His case is further enhanced when you take that thorough statistical analysis and compare it to how a number of his Hall of Fame peers compare under the same scrutiny. I think that's the way to go with Wynn. In contrast, we have someone like Steve Garvey. He had the accolades, the awards, the postseason success, and was regularly among the leaders in most offensive categories. But when you get into deeper statistical analysis, Garvey's case becomes fairly weak, and thus a proponent of Garvey will want to push those subjective things much more and stay away from deeper statistical analysis.

[538280]

I think I'm trying my best to push both, but I do agree that the statistical analysis is Wynn's strong point. The only thing is that I have pushed Wynn in the past as you know and people I feel have gotten sick of the statistical analysis. The reason why I come out now with the subjective element a little is to fight the perception that Wynn is nothing but a line of statistics who happens to look good through a modern lens. The reason why I'm choosing Ashburn here too is that since he was elected by us on his first time on the ballot, I think that at least to the majority of the electorate here he is a bona fide HOFer, not a marginal one.

[dgarza]

Is this a conspiracy to keep Allen out of this Hall, because people still insist on believe the stories Bill James tells them, or what? Allen was cruising towards election, and now six straight nos?
It seems that same thing is happening to Cepeda. I don't think he has gotten any new votes out of those 6 either.

I guess that happens when you have people who vote only for Aparicio.

[DoubleX]

I think I'm trying my best to push both, but I do agree that the statistical analysis is Wynn's strong point. The only thing is that I have pushed Wynn in the past as you know and people I feel have gotten sick of the statistical analysis. The reason why I come out now with the subjective element a little is to fight the perception that Wynn is nothing but a line of statistics who happens to look good through a modern lens. The reason why I'm choosing Ashburn here too is that since he was elected by us on his first time on the ballot, I think that at least to the majority of the electorate here he is a bona fide HOFer, not a marginal one.

I can see why you'd isolate Ashburn, but I have a feeling that if we were to put Ashburn back on the poll, he wouldn't get in. I also think its good to push subjective stuff when available, but it doesn't really help Wynn much, at least the stuff you were providing. A couple of quotes from his hometown paper don't really advance much - but it's along the right lines. If you could find opinions of Wynn from a more national perspective or from his contemporaries, that could certainly help him.

Personally, I have a hard time seeing how Wynn is clearly better than his successor, Cesar Cedeno. Other than a better peak, I don't see what Wynn's candidacy has that Cedeno's doesn't. Cedeno hit for better average, had more speed, was a better defensive player, had decent power, slightly better longevity, better counting numbers (except homeruns). Wynn gets the OPS+ edge, but it's just 5 points, and I think Cedeno's defensive and baserunning advantages close much of that gap (if not all of it). That being said, I don't plan on voting for Cedeno, but I guess I don't get why he doesn't get as much mention as Wynn.

EDIT: Just looking at win shares, Wynn does come out fairly comfortably ahead. Oh well, Cedeno still deserves more attention that he gets, IMO.

[John Shoemaker]

If I remember correctly, Allen had received 39 out of a possible 49 votes, getting his percentage up to 79.6. Since then, six straight voters have submitted a ballot without him on it. Is this a conspiracy to keep Allen out of this Hall, because people still insist on believe the stories Bill James tells them, or what? Allen was cruising towards election, and now six straight nos?

What's happening to Dick Allen makes no sense. I saw Dick Allen play many times and he certainly deserves to be in the hall of fame. It doesn't look too good for him - we'll have to get to 64 ballots and Allen will have to be named on all 9 new ballots.

[DoubleX]

It seems that same thing is happening to Cepeda. I don't think he has gotten any new votes out of those 6 either.

I believe that if we reach 62 votes again, which is 7 votes away, Cepeda would just need to get 2 of those 7 votes to get in. So I think Cepeda has a pretty good hold right now, Allen looks done this time around, but he will have made nice strides.

[dgarza]

I believe that if we reach 62 votes again, which is 7 votes away, Cepeda would just need to get 2 of those 7 votes to get in. So I think Cepeda has a pretty good hold right now, This is true, he's generally pretty safe, but not one of those two votes have come in since that past several voters.

[Freakshow]

If I remember correctly, Allen had received 39 out of a possible 49 votes, getting his percentage up to 79.6. Since then, six straight voters have submitted a ballot without him on it. Is this a conspiracy to keep Allen out of this Hall, because people still insist on believe the stories Bill James tells them, or what? Allen was cruising towards election, and now six straight nos?
This seems to happen every election, the frontrunners suffer as the week wears on. I suggest we shorten the election time to four days rather than seven. That leaves enough time for all the dedicated voters to be heard from, while limiting the time for drive-by hits. It would also give DoubleX three extra days to prepare the next election.

[vtbub]

Wynn never won a triple crown category, never finished in the Top 5 in OPS in any year, has less than 2000 hits, hit .250 for his career, and was done at 34.

He's a no-brainer no.

Was he an above average hitter? Yes, and the +127 OPS proves that, but he certainly was never a great player.

[dgarza]

This seems to happen every election, the frontrunners suffer as the week wears on. I think Drysdale actually built momentum at the very end of the week. Right now I think we are seeing the results of deliberate actions.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Wynn never won a triple crown category, never finished in the Top 5 in OPS in any year, has less than 2000 hits, hit .250 for his career, and was done at 34.

He's a no-brainer no.

Was he an above average hitter? Yes, and the +127 OPS proves that, but he certainly was never a great player.
Wynn walked an awful lot, which some seem to hold as the most important thing a player can do.

[DoubleX]

This seems to happen every election, the frontrunners suffer as the week wears on. I suggest we shorten the election time to four days rather than seven. That leaves enough time for all the dedicated voters to be heard from, while limiting the time for drive-by hits. It would also give DoubleX three extra days to prepare the next election.

I like that you're thinking of me, but I think it's better to leave it open for the week. A week is nice for continuity sake (as I might forget an election is over if it's less than a week), and I think it's better to get as many votes as possible, even if it's hurting candidacies. It's part of the process, but a larger electorate is a better one, IMO, considering that we're not that big to begin with. The larger and more diverse we are, the better we replicate reality. I might feel differently if from week to week we were getting wildly different turnouts with an influx of random people voting towards the end, but we've stayed pretty consistent with turnout, so I don't think there is an urgency to limit it to the more dedicated voters who vote at the beginning.

[John Shoemaker]

I like that you're thinking of me, but I think it's better to leave it open for the week. A week is nice for continuity sake (as I might forget an election is over if it's less than a week), and I think it's better to get as many votes as possible, even if it's hurting candidacies. It's part of the process, but a larger electorate is a better one, IMO, considering that we're not that big to begin with. The larger and more diverse we are, the better we replicate reality. I might feel differently if from week to week we were getting wildly different turnouts with an influx of random people voting towards the end, but we've stayed pretty consistent with turnout, so I don't think there is an urgency to limit it to the more dedicated voters who vote at the beginning.

I agree with everything you said even though I don't like what's happening to Allen and Cepeda today. Allen appears dead this round - hopefully Cepeda will survive.

[AstrosFan]

Wynn walked an awful lot, which some seem to hold as the most important thing a player can do.

Really? Who?

[Freakshow]

Wynn never won a triple crown category, never finished in the Top 5 in OPS in any year, has less than 2000 hits, hit .250 for his career, and was done at 34.

He's a no-brainer no.

Was he an above average hitter? Yes, and the +127 OPS proves that, but he certainly was never a great player.
An excellent discussion of Wynn at Baseballthinkfactory. (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/jimmy_wynn)

[Freakshow]

I think Drysdale actually built momentum at the very end of the week. Right now I think we are seeing the results of deliberate actions.
Check for duplicate IP addresses.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Really? Who?
They're out there. Naturally, I'm overstating this a bit, but you see players like Tony Gwynn and Ichiro take hits for lack thereof despite everything else they do or did, and Wynn getting elevated despite never putting up anything outstanding except his walk totals.

[dgarza]

Check for duplicate IP addresses.
I don't know how to do that, but I'm thinking its efforts by multiple people anyway.

[Windy City Fan]

I'd like to make a case for a few guys I've been quietly supporting for a while ...

Ken Boyer

Even by today's standards, I think Boyer has a strong case for being a top ten third baseman. Only Schimdt, Mathews, Brett, Boggs, Santo, Robinson, and Baker are clearly ahead of him in my mind. In 1984, I'd say only Santo, Robinson, Mathews, and Schimdt are clearly ahead of him. He's better in my mind than every other HOF 3B (Traynor, Kell, Lindstrom, Collins).

Defensively, he was very good. He has 109 RAA despite a short career of only 1785 games at third. Ron Santo, a comparable near contemporary, had 80 in 2130 games at third and was considered to be an outstanding gloveman at the hot corner. For those of you that put stock in Gold Gloves, he won 5 of them.

As far as how he was regarded in his time, Boyer won an MVP and finished in the top ten 3 other times. He's a respectable 128th all-time in MVP shares. Not bad for a third baseman with a short career. He was a 7 time all-star as well. If you like ink scores, his grey ink is 138 (110th all-time). 144 grey ink is considered a "typical" HOFer.

Offensively, his peak wasn't jaw dropping, but he did have 4 seasons with a 130+ OPS+. By way of comparison, Brooks Robinson topped 130 once in his much longer career.

Boyer has often been called a "poor man's Ron Santo" around here. We all know Santo has atrocious home/road splits, so I wanted to take a look at Boyer's splits. His career OPS is .840 at home and .787 on the road. Santo on the other hand has splits like this: .826 home, .748 road. I'd be willing to bet if the two were compared strictly on road OPS+, they'd be a lot closer than they are now.

The point of these comparisons isn't to tear down any candidate we've already elected.

[AstrosFan]

Sal Bando had better peak and career OPS+ numbers than Boyer. Will you be voting for him when he's on the ballot?

[Brooklyn]

I understand all of this, but I don't see how this applies to Wynn? How do these problems you talk about manifest themselves to make Jimmy Wynn look better than he really was. You say that modern metrics aren't always totally accurate, and I agree, but why exactly is this the case with Jimmy Wynn is what I'm asking. We're not talking about metrics in general, we're talking about how they apply to Wynn. If Wynn is not as good as the metrics say he is in your opinion then I'm just asking you why they make him seem better than he is.




Your missing my point. I think he is as good as the traditional metrics say he is, not as good as OPS+ says he is, but neither of those are Hall worthy. Your main statistical argument at the beginning of this thread was his 129 OPS+. You then got into more anecdotal information about him. I can't dispute the anecdotal information, but that doesn't really sway me either way.

Your only statistical argument that I saw in this thread is his 129+ OPS. You also use that to compare to Ashburn's 111 OPS+. I'm simply giving you reasons that I don't think OPS+ is enough to hang your hat on.

Reasons I don't think he belongs in the Hall.


129+ isn't even in the top 100 of all time, from an outfield position. Granted, he was a center fielder, and a reportedly good fielding center fiddler, but he never won a gold glove, so he couldn't have been that highly respected by his peers
He did his OPS+ without really having a chance to decline
I know you don't like ba, but .250 is atrocious for a HOFer
His raw stats look much worse than he adjusted stats, which is why I was stating that I don't necessarily buy the method for adjusting. But even his adjusted stats (see my first bullet) are not enough for me.
He's not in a single top-100 category of all time except walks (46th) and strikeouts (5n2d).
He was only in 3 all star games, meaning he wasn't thought of that highly while we was playing


I'm just finding it really hard to see how anyone can get excited about him

[Windy City Fan]

Sal Bando had better peak and career OPS+ numbers than Boyer. Will you be voting for him when he's on the ballot?

Yes, Bando will be getting my vote when the time comes, though he's not nearly the defensive third baseman that Boyer was according to RAA. (109 vs -23)

[AstrosFan]

I don't get that post. Of course Wynn's raw stats are worse than his adjusted stats; he played in one of the worst run contexts of all time. It doesn't make any sense to look at Wynn's raw stats.

[Erik Bedard]

I just have one question: Can someone please explain to me how getting a walk is more valuable than getting a hit? I understand why the person with the lower BA is more valuable, given equal OBP and SLG, but how is a walk more valuable than a hit?

[AstrosFan]

Tango Tiger estimates the value of the following hitting events in relation to the single:

1B = 1
2B = 1.6
3B = 2.2
HR = 3
NIBB = .7
IBB = .4
HBP = .7

Taken from his linear weights ratio.

These are approximations, and I think they apply to modern baseball, not a historical norm. Since Tango is the person who found that the low BA guy will have more value than the high BA guy, given equal OBA and SLG, I think we can assume he has no agenda to lower the value of the walk. I have never seen anyone suggest a walk was more valuable than a hit.

[Erik Bedard]

Wynn walked an awful lot, which some seem to hold as the most important thing a player can do.

Unless CCN is being sarcastic, this makes no sense to me.

[Windy City Fan]

Unless CCN is being sarcastic, this makes no sense to me.

Yeah, he's being sarcastic and laying it on pretty thick.

[nerfan]

Your missing my point. I think he is as good as the traditional metrics say he is, not as good as OPS+ says he is, but neither of those are Hall worthy. Your main statistical argument at the beginning of this thread was his 129 OPS+. You then got into more anecdotal information about him. I can't dispute the anecdotal information, but that doesn't really sway me either way.

Your only statistical argument that I saw in this thread is his 129+ OPS. You also use that to compare to Ashburn's 111 OPS+. I'm simply giving you reasons that I don't think OPS+ is enough to hang your hat on.

Reasons I don't think he belongs in the Hall.


129+ isn't even in the top 100 of all time, from an outfield position. Granted, he was a center fielder, and a reportedly good fielding center fiddler, but he never won a gold glove, so he couldn't have been that highly respected by his peers
He did his OPS+ without really having a chance to decline
I know you don't like ba, but .250 is atrocious for a HOFer
His raw stats look much worse than he adjusted stats, which is why I was stating that I don't necessarily buy the method for adjusting. But even his adjusted stats (see my first bullet) are not enough for me.
He's not in a single top-100 category of all time except walks (46th) and strikeouts (5n2d).
He was only in 3 all star games, meaning he wasn't thought of that highly while we was playing


I'm just finding it really hard to see how anyone can get excited about him


I agree. And here's my analysis...

He had one season where he helped a contending team. One. For the 1974 Dodgers. He batted .271/.387/.497 with 32 homers and a 151 OPS+. He was the best position player but not the best player- this was the year Mike Marshall pitched 208 1/3 innings and won 15 and saved 21...

His overall career translated EQA is .300. While that may be good, consider also that Dick Allen AND Frank Howard AND Orlando Cepeda AND Joe Torre all have higher EQA's than Wynn (or, in the case of Torre, have the same EQA) AND PLAYED FOR A MUCH LONGER TIME THAN WYNN!

Wynn was NEVER regarded highly. In fact, I didn't even know he played center field. I had always thought of him as a player from before I was born (I was born in 1976).

Wynn didn't look like a Hall Of Famer
His most comparable players are Ron Gant, Tom Brunansky, Bobby Murcer, Reggie Sanders, Jeromy Burnitz, the Non-Big Hurt Frank Thomas, Gary Matthews Sr., and Sal Bando- a couple of average Joe's and a steroid inflated McGwire wannabe.
Wynn's stats aren't impressive
He didn't play particularly long
He didn't really do well for any contenders (except 1974 Dodgers)
He was never the overall best player on his team

I think you could actually have more of a case for Frank Howard than Jimmy Wynn. The man was good, but not HOF worthy.

[yanks0714]

Wynn was NEVER regarded highly. In fact, I didn't even know he played center field. I had always thought of him as a player from before I was born (I was born in 1976).

Well, I can tell you that I was around when Jimmy Wynn was playing...and he most certainly was highly regarded.

The fact you didn't know he played CF says something more than your conclusion that he wasn't highly regarded. Look at those Astro teams of those years. Jimmy Wynn was the Astros. He was nicknamed the Toy Cannon for a reason. In addition, Wynn was fast, a good base runner and a solid OF'er.

[digglahhh]

There is a man for every place and time...

Wynn is "The Dude" for a certain type of statistical evaluation.

I certainly regard Wynn as a hell of a ballplayer (plus he hit those two homers in that game that was televised in the background in that scene in Apollo 13), but he's on the wrong side of the borderline for me.

I'm not here to bash Wynn and I can see why a person might support his candidacy; personally, I do not endorse him as a HOFer though.

[nerfan]

Okay... well here's my two cents.

You're right, Wynn was the best player on the Astros in 1965, 1968, probably 1969 (his competition is Larry Dierker, a 20-game winner and pitcher of 305 1/3 innings), and 1970.


BUT his teams weren't competitive and Wynn probably made little to no difference on the final standings... except...

That being said, he most certainly DID have an impact on the '74 Dodgers. Without him, they likely would have lost the Western Division to the the Big Red Machine... but he only batted .188/.333/.438 in the World Series (he did have a shiny .500 on-base percentage in the NLCS).

Overall, while Jimmy Wynn may have been the Astros face of the franchise, he was the face of the franchise for a pretty sucky team.

And he's still 6th in on-base percentage for the team. Being behind not worthy Bob Watson (like Wynn, a fine player but not Hall of Fame caliber) in on-base percentage and Morgan Ensberg in on-base AND slugging percentage and behind Cesar Cedeno in slugging percentage.

The thing is, when I think of the Astros, I think of Bagwell, Biggio, Cesar Cedeno, Berkman, Glenn Davis, Jose Cruz, Mike Scott, and Nolan Ryan.

Wynn is not even in the top five for a team that has never won a World Series.

Jimmy Wynn, after reviewing his statistics, was a fine fine player, but really only had one season where he made a different in the pennant race.

[538280]

They're out there. Naturally, I'm overstating this a bit, but you see players like Tony Gwynn and Ichiro take hits for lack thereof despite everything else they do or did, and Wynn getting elevated despite never putting up anything outstanding except his walk totals.

The difference is that Ichiro (and players like him) tend to get overrated by the general public and the media while players who walk a lot, are just as good (or in Wynn's case, better) tend to get badly underrated by the same groups. People, myself included of course, like to push the case of the underrated guy because chances are no one will question that Ichiro will be a HOFer, but of course many do question Wynn. I like Tony Gwynn a lot though, he's a lot better than Ichiro and a lot better than Wynn as well.

[538280]

I can see why you'd isolate Ashburn, but I have a feeling that if we were to put Ashburn back on the poll, he wouldn't get in.

I agree that us electing Ashburn that early was a real surprise. Do we REALLY think Ashburn was better than Dick Allen? Wynn is one thing, but Allen is just an ostensibly and clearly superior baseball player. I figured that when we started this I'd have a lot less to criticize this vote for than the BBWAA but I've already found quite a few things that I strongly disagree with or just don't make any sense (and Cepeda getting elected this year with Allen not is probably another example).

Personally, I have a hard time seeing how Wynn is clearly better than his successor, Cesar Cedeno. Other than a better peak, I don't see what Wynn's candidacy has that Cedeno's doesn't. Cedeno hit for better average, had more speed, was a better defensive player, had decent power, slightly better longevity, better counting numbers (except homeruns). Wynn gets the OPS+ edge, but it's just 5 points, and I think Cedeno's defensive and baserunning advantages close much of that gap (if not all of it). That being said, I don't plan on voting for Cedeno, but I guess I don't get why he doesn't get as much mention as Wynn.

Cedeno's gotten mention from me, though not as much as Wynn. I will be voting for him when he comes along and think he's pretty close to Wynn actually, I tend to think Wynn's peak makes up for Cedeno's career a little plus Cedeno spent almost half of his career and not really a useful player, Wynn was more consistent and had about 7 great seasons. Cedeno doesn't. You can read here though:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=48224&highlight=Cesar+Cedeno

[538280]

Your missing my point. I think he is as good as the traditional metrics say he is, not as good as OPS+ says he is, but neither of those are Hall worthy. Your main statistical argument at the beginning of this thread was his 129 OPS+. You then got into more anecdotal information about him. I can't dispute the anecdotal information, but that doesn't really sway me either way.

I think you missed the post I just made in response to XX. It's not only Wynn's 128 (not 129) OPS+, but I think he has plenty of other statistical support as well. Wynn is 7th in top three WS seasons among CFers in the New Bill James Historical Abstract, 15th in top five consecutive seasons, and 15th in career WS. Bill James' rating system, which he introduces in that same book, has him the 78th best position player of all time, and the 9th best CFer of all time (ahead of real HOFers Kirby Puckett, Larry Doby, Earl Averill, Edd Roush, Richie Ashburn, Hack Wilson, Hugh Duffy, and Max Carey. Those aren't just the radomly selected worst HOFers either. Most of those guys are considered legit middle of the road type HOFers). 9th all time at a position should be an automatic HOFer anyway. SABR Matt's PCA system has him 13th all time among CFers.

What standard are you comparing him to anyway? The standard of the HOF is not that of the worst candidate previously selected, but if a player is better than or right with a number of guys already in he should probably be in the HOF. Look at Wynn against that group I just talked about. How is Wynn NOT right in the midst of that group of usually considered solid HOFers? Look at them according to various stats, meant to encompass all aspects of a player's game:

.............PA......OPS+....SB....SB%....EqA....W S...3Y/5YPeakWS...FRAA
Wynn.....8010.....128.....225....69.....302.....30 5.....100/159..........0
Puckett..7813.....124.....134....63.....296.....28 1.......92/145.........45
Doby......6302.....136......47....56.....303.....2 68.......97/150.........-11
Averill.....7215.....133......70....55.....296.... .280.......93/146.........-53
Roush.....8156.....126.....268...54......284.... 314......96/147.........-33
Ashburn..9736.....111.....234....66.....289.....32 8......85/139..........75
Wilson....5556.....144......52.....ND....309.....2 22.......98/152.........-80
Duffy.....7827.....122......574...ND.....275.....2 95.......90/144.........56
Carey...10770.....107......738...81.....272.....35 1.......84/133.........53

Look at that, out of 9 players, Wynn ranks 4th in PA, 4th in OPS+, 5th in SB, 2nd in SB%, 3rd in EqA, 4th in career WS, 1st in 3 year peak WS, 1st in 5 year peak WS, and 5th in FRAA (Fielding Runs Above Average). I'd say he's in the top half of that group easily and is probably the best qualified one in that group-and every one there is a HOFer and normally considered to be pretty solid.

[Brooklyn]

I think you missed the post I just made in response to XX. It's not only Wynn's 128 (not 129) OPS+, but I think he has plenty of other statistical support as well. Wynn is 7th in top three WS seasons among CFers in the New Bill James Historical Abstract, 15th in top five consecutive seasons, and 15th in career WS. Bill James' rating system, which he introduces in that same book, has him the 78th best position player of all time, and the 9th best CFer of all time (ahead of real HOFers Kirby Puckett, Larry Doby, Earl Averill, Edd Roush, Richie Ashburn, Hack Wilson, Hugh Duffy, and Max Carey. Those aren't just the radomly selected worst HOFers either. Most of those guys are considered legit middle of the road type HOFers). 9th all time at a position should be an automatic HOFer anyway. SABR Matt's PCA system has him 13th all time among CFers.

What standard are you comparing him to anyway? The standard of the HOF is not that of the worst candidate previously selected, but if a player is better than or right with a number of guys already in he should probably be in the HOF. Look at Wynn against that group I just talked about. How is Wynn NOT right in the midst of that group of usually considered solid HOFers? Look at them according to various stats, meant to encompass all aspects of a player's game:

.............PA......OPS+....SB....SB%....EqA....W S...3Y/5YPeakWS...FRAA
Wynn.....8010.....128.....225....69.....302.....30 5.....100/159..........0
Puckett..7813.....124.....134....63.....296.....28 1.......92/145.........45
Doby......6302.....136......47....56.....303.....2 68.......97/150.........-11
Averill.....7215.....133......70....55.....296.... .280.......93/146.........-53
Roush.....8156.....126.....268...54......284.... 314......96/147.........-33
Ashburn..9736.....111.....234....66.....289.....32 8......85/139..........75
Wilson....5556.....144......52.....ND....309.....2 22.......98/152.........-80
Duffy.....7827.....122......574...ND.....275.....2 95.......90/144.........56
Carey...10770.....107......738...81.....272.....35 1.......84/133.........53

Look at that, out of 9 players, Wynn ranks 4th in PA, 4th in OPS+, 5th in SB, 2nd in SB%, 3rd in EqA, 4th in career WS, 1st in 3 year peak WS, 1st in 5 year peak WS, and 5th in FRAA (Fielding Runs Above Average). I'd say he's in the top half of that group easily and is probably the best qualified one in that group-and every one there is a HOFer and normally considered to be pretty solid.

You are still missing my point. The only stats you are throwing out to support him are OPS+, EqA, FRAA and WS (and SB / SB%, which is an interesting choice, this is hardly a HOF defining stat). These three stats are all the "advanced metrics" that I'm talking about. the only way to get him close to the Hall is to ignore is raw stats in favor of these "advanced metrics". These metrics should be used to help you understand what effect the park and league had on a player, but if this is the only way to get him in, it is not enough. And just because Bill James has him high on a list does not make him a HOFer

You asked for my standard. I'm a small Hall guy, so I think he needs to be well above the bottom of those in, as I believe there are mistakes. I'll grant you that he was hurt by his era / park. But the following players all played in his era and managed to put up better traditional stats: Aaron, Mays, Stargell, Bonds, Bench, Perez, McCovery, Torre. I don't think these are all Hall deserving, but they were better players than Wynn was.


Finally - your list is only center fielders. I compare all outfielders, then give a positional adjustment to the centerfielder. The positional adjustment he would get as a centerfielder doesn't make up for his lesser bat then most of the corner outfielders in the Hall.

[DoubleX]

You are still missing my point. The only stats you are throwing out to support him are OPS+, EqA, FRAA and WS (and SB / SB%, which is an interesting choice, this is hardly a HOF defining stat). These three stats are all the "advanced metrics" that I'm talking about. the only way to get him close to the Hall is to ignore is raw stats in favor of these "advanced metrics". These metrics should be used to help you understand what effect the park and league had on a player, but if this is the only way to get him in, it is not enough. And just because Bill James has him high on a list does not make him a HOFer.

But the point of these "advanced metrics" is to better understand how good the player actually was. Raw statistics can be very misleading on account of things like era and park - these advanced statistics help to level the playing field when analyzing a player's productivity. It's one thing to hit 50 homeruns in a bandbox, it's another to do so in a pitcher friendly park. If we were to rely solely on raw statistics, the player in the bandbox would come out on top, and we'd have no way to account for how the other player's statistics were supressed by a much less favorable park.

Basically, IMO, it doesn't seem fair to judge players solely by raw statistics, because raw statistics are inherently skewed based on external factors; these "advanced metrics" serve to level the playing field and give some better perspective. I wouldn't necessarily call them the bible, but I believe they are extremely valuable, especially in the case of someone like Jimmy Wynn whose raw statistics, due to era and very unfavorable park for hitters, belie how good he actually was. Not saying that these numbers make him Hall of Fame worthy, but they make a good and legitimate argument for Wynn when he would be written off otherwise.

[DoubleX]

I know people are probably getting concerned about Cepeda's steadily declining vote total, but if we reach our high of 62 votes (which is 2 away), 47 is the safe number, and he's already at that. Though, if we reach a new high, then Cepeda will obviously need a little help.

[digglahhh]

So, this will be the second consecutive year that the best player on the ballot (Allen) does not get elected.

I really try to refrain from making statements like that, statements basically saying that some terrible injustice has been done because consensus doesn't mirror an individual's opinion. But, it it very difficult for me to see how anybody on this board (or last year's) was better than Richie Allen.

[John Shoemaker]

So, this will be the second consecutive year that the best player on the ballot (Allen) does not get elected.

I really try to refrain from making statements like that, statements basically saying that some terrible injustice has been done because consensus doesn't mirror an individual's opinion. But, it it very difficult for me to see how anybody on this board (or last year's) was better than Richie Allen.

I completely agree - these people not voting for Dicjk Allen must never have seen him play.

[538280]

You are still missing my point. The only stats you are throwing out to support him are OPS+, EqA, FRAA and WS (and SB / SB%, which is an interesting choice, this is hardly a HOF defining stat).

I put in SB and SB% because I wanted to show all aspects of a player's game, and baserunning should at least be included somewhere. Of course, those are by far the least important of the stats up there.

These three stats are all the "advanced metrics" that I'm talking about. the only way to get him close to the Hall is to ignore is raw stats in favor of these "advanced metrics". These metrics should be used to help you understand what effect the park and league had on a player, but if this is the only way to get him in, it is not enough.

Why? Are you saying we should look at raw stats at the expense of these stats? I just don't get that. They're not used just to show the environment that the player played, they're used to show how good a player was in the context of his time. Wynn played in one of the lowest run scoring eras of all time in the 60s/70s, and also in one of the toughest hitters parks ever in the Astrodome (and later in his career Dodger Stadium too). Raw numbers are just not appropriate to evaluate a player like this with. There were very few runs scored when he was playing and this makes the value each run he contributed all the more valuable. When the average runs per game is 5 each run contributed by each player is going to have a lot less value than if the average is 3.5, each run becomes more crucial. This, along with the conditions, is why a easy and fundemental step in any evaluation is just putting numbers in context. Raw numbers are nice to look at, but why pay much attention to them when you can put everyone's numbers on a level playing field, to see what their real contributions to winning were?

You asked for my standard. I'm a small Hall guy, so I think he needs to be well above the bottom of those in, as I believe there are mistakes. I'll grant you that he was hurt by his era / park. But the following players all played in his era and managed to put up better traditional stats: Aaron, Mays, Stargell, Bonds, Bench, Perez, McCovery, Torre.

I don't think Bonds, Perez, and Torre necessarily put up better numbers than Wynn. They played in almost the same era and had about the same OPS+s, they OBP and SLG were about the same. Torre played catcher for about 40% of his career, but also played third and first for much of it and wasn't a good defender whereever they put him, and he was slow on the bases. He had one MVP year (which really IMO wasn't better than Wynn's 1969), and other than that his other seasons are definitely behind Wynn's other ones IMO. I support Torre, but I think Wynn is better; he was about the same offensively, probalby a little better defensively, a much better baserunner, and had a better peak IMO. I may support Bobby Bonds as well, but he clearly wasn't Wynn IMO. He had an OPS+ two points higher, but he also did it from a corner OF rather CF, so he loses a bit on position (he was better in the corners than Wynn was in CF, so they're probably equal defensively). The difference for me is again in their best seasons. Wynn was a forcein his best seasons, Bonds was really good but not quite with Wynn. Look at their top OPS+ and WS:

OPS+
Wynn: 167, 157, 151, 146, 143
Bonds: 153, 146, 143, 136, 135

WS
Wynn: 36, 32, 32, 31, 28
Bonds: 32, 31, 31, 31, 24

Perez has longevity on Wynn, but Wynn was a better defensive player from a much more important position and he was much better at his peak as well. Perez's case over Wynn would have to be all longevity IMO.

Other than that, I just don't think those other guys are the HOF Standard; they're all well above it. Aaron, Mays, and Bench are all top tier guys. Stargell and McCovey aren't quite at their level but are pretty solid no questions guys. You can be a small HOF guy if you want, but you have to abide somewhat by the standard of previous inductees. I'm not saying that the standard is the worst guy currently in, but I do think that if a guy is better than a number of guys in the HOF, who normally aren't considered mistakes (and I think Wynn is, as that chart showed), then he probably should be in the HOF. The people in that chart are the same position as Wynn and are usually considered solid (though not necessarily high tier) HOFers. I think Wynn is probably the best of the group or at least in the top 2 or 3. I think if you agree with that you have to say that Wynn is a HOFer. How can he not be if he's better than nearly half of the guys in the HOF at his position?

Finally - your list is only center fielders. I compare all outfielders, then give a positional adjustment to the centerfielder. The positional adjustment he would get as a centerfielder doesn't make up for his lesser bat then most of the corner outfielders in the Hall.

Why should Wynn be compared to players who aren't at his positoin. There are different standards for CFers than there are for LFers of RFers just like there are different standards for 1Bmen and SSs (less difference of course, but still there are different standards). That chart was all CFers because I wanted to compare him to those at his own positoin as that can better show the standard at that position. I think Wynn meets it rather well.

[Erik Bedard]

Speaking of Joe Torre, I'm glad that people are remembering that he hasn't managed yet.

[dgarza]

Speaking of Joe Torre, I'm glad that people are remembering that he hasn't managed yet.
Actually, he has...since 1977. Just a few years ago he lead the Braves to a pennant.

[Erik Bedard]

Well, not for the Yankees.

[538280]

Speaking of Joe Torre, I'm glad that people are remembering that he hasn't managed yet.

It's nice to know that people have their facts straight that he's not a HOF manager, but he should really be getting into the HOF IMO. Torre was about 40% catcher but was more catcher than anything else. He wasn't a great defender anywhere, but was good enough to play, and could hit. He has a 129 OPS+, and his career is of good length. Compare him to catchers and he's one of the best hitting catchers ever. He's behind Piazza, but he's truly right with Berra and Bench-and everyone else is below that:

Catchers, with Joe Torre
...............PA......OPS+...EqA.....BRAR....BRAA .....BRAR/650 PA
Torre.......8801....129.....298.......655.....399. ..........48.38
Bench......8669....126.....292.......595.....333.. .........44.61
Berra.......8364....125.....288.......529.....280. ..........41.11
Carter......9019....115.....281.......491.....224. ..........35.39
Fisk.........9853....117.....285.......589.....291 ...........38.86

Those are some of the best hitting catchers of all time, good defensively too but even based on their hitting and position they'd be HOFers. Torre is the best hitter in that gruop. With his hitting, if he were a catcher his whole career he'd be a no questions asked HOFer and I don't think there'd be much question. He'd be the 2nd best hitting catcher behind Piazza.

As a 3Bman he doesn't rank quite as well but I think he's still in an elite group as a hitter. He's not with top tier guys Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, or Boggs, but after that he more than holds his own. Outside of those guys the best hitting 3Bmen ever are guys like Frank Baker, Ron Santo, and Paul Molitor, and after that you go into a long list of guys like Sal Bando, Ken Boyer, Ron Cey, and Darrell Evans, among others. I think that if he played 3B his whole career Torre would be the 5th best hitting 3Bman of all time, behind those four.

As a 1Bman, he obviously would not do nearly as well. Almost all the top tier 1Bman are better hitters than Torre. Orlando Cepeda, however, being elected now, IMO is NOT a better player than Torre. Cepeda has a higher OPS+ by four points, but that's not that big of a lead, and while he played 1B his whole career, Torre played most of it at 3B and C. I think that's plenty to make up for those 4 OPS+ points. I think that if he were a 1Bman his whole career, with that hitting, he'd only be slightly behind Cepeda, who we're electing, and along with the play at much more important defensive positions IMO he should be ahead of Cepeda. I think Cepeda should be in as well, but I tend to think, like was said earler with Ashburn, that we're just supporting Cepeda over better candidates Torre and MUCH better candidates like Allen because he's in the actual HOF and this just makes people think more "HOF" when they hear his name.

[John Shoemaker]

I know people are probably getting concerned about Cepeda's steadily declining vote total, but if we reach our high of 62 votes (which is 2 away), 47 is the safe number, and he's already at that. Though, if we reach a new high, then Cepeda will obviously need a little help.

Good news - Cepeda picked up 2 more votes bringing his total to 49 - it looks like he will hang on and be elected. He certainly deserves it. It's too bad Dick Allen couldn't have joined him this round but hopefully he'll get to 75% next year.

[nerfan]

Perez has longevity on Wynn, but Wynn was a better defensive player from a much more important position and he was much better at his peak as well. Perez's case over Wynn would have to be all longevity IMO.

Well, let's see... Perez's was as good or BETTER as a player during the late 60's to early 70's... he posted more than 90 Equivalent Runs a season for 8 straight seasons (for a total of 1558 EQR), while Wynn posted 90 Equivalent Runs in his entire career 7 times (for a total of 1208 EQR).

And so what... even if Perez's only argument is longevity, I would take Craig Biggio over Ted Kluszewski any day (career wise of course)! Wynn also was a tad inconsistent. While he put up 87 BRAR in 1969, which was amazing, he also tended to go very Darin Erstad on us..(good/bad/amazing/miserable/good)

For their entire career, there is NO WAY I would pick Wynn over Perez.

That being said, I think Perez is a very borderline Hall of Fame candidate (although I barely support him.

See, I just proved Perez was a higher caliber player than Wynn WITH the advanced super stats..

BTW Please People, VOTE FOR DICK ALLEN (the man with a higher OPS+ than Joe DiMaggio, )

(god, please David Wright, have a Dick Allen type career... please)

[DoubleX]

One more time - if anyone would like to help out and close up this election tomorrow when it ends, that would be great. If not, I probably won't get to it (as well as start 1985) until Sunday evening. Please PM me if you're interested.

[yanks0714]

It's nice to know that people have their facts straight that he's not a HOF manager, but he should really be getting into the HOF IMO. Torre was about 40% catcher but was more catcher than anything else. He wasn't a great defender anywhere, but was good enough to play, and could hit. He has a 129 OPS+, and his career is of good length. Compare him to catchers and he's one of the best hitting catchers ever. He's behind Piazza, but he's truly right with Berra and Bench-and everyone else is below that:

Catchers, with Joe Torre
...............PA......OPS+...EqA.....BRAR....BRAA .....BRAR/650 PA
Torre.......8801....129.....298.......655.....399. ..........48.38
Bench......8669....126.....292.......595.....333.. .........44.61
Berra.......8364....125.....288.......529.....280. ..........41.11
Carter......9019....115.....281.......491.....224. ..........35.39
Fisk.........9853....117.....285.......589.....291 ...........38.86

Those are some of the best hitting catchers of all time, good defensively too but even based on their hitting and position they'd be HOFers. Torre is the best hitter in that gruop. With his hitting, if he were a catcher his whole career he'd be a no questions asked HOFer and I don't think there'd be much question. He'd be the 2nd best hitting catcher behind Piazza.

Chris, the problem here is that you are showing Torre's hitting stats for his career, are you not? If so, this is pretty unfair to the other four. Joe played by your estimate 40% of his career at catcher. That means you are showing 60% of his career playing positions, 1B and 3B, other than catcher.

If you really want to show him in direct comp show only his hitting while he was catching. Catching is much more draining than 1B or 3B. I got an idea he doesn't look as good compared to those 4 then.

It is true that Bench and Carter played other positions as well but not really enough to skew the comp as much as Torre.

I do agree that Torre is not a great manager. He's been fortunate that he's been the Yankee manager for some time now wher King George buys him what he needs or at least what he thinks he needs to win.

[dgarza]

Wynn also was a tad inconsistent. While he put up 87 BRAR in 1969, which was amazing, he also tended to go very Darin Erstad on us..(good/bad/amazing/miserable/good)


Although he did recover from that stabbing quite nicely. Does anybody know the full story to that domestic squabble?

[538280]

Chris, the problem here is that you are showing Torre's hitting stats for his career, are you not? If so, this is pretty unfair to the other four. Joe played by your estimate 40% of his career at catcher. That means you are showing 60% of his career playing positions, 1B and 3B, other than catcher.

If you really want to show him in direct comp show only his hitting while he was catching. Catching is much more draining than 1B or 3B. I got an idea he doesn't look as good compared to those 4 then.

It is true that Bench and Carter played other positions as well but not really enough to skew the comp as much as Torre.

I do agree that Torre is not a great manager. He's been fortunate that he's been the Yankee manager for some time now wher King George buys him what he needs or at least what he thinks he needs to win.

What I was doing was taking the three positions he played (C, 1B, and 3B), and seeing how he would stack up as a hitter against the players at that position. I was just showing how he was as a hitter against the best catchers, and I think if he was a catcher his whole careeer he would be the 2nd best hitting catcher ever. If he was a 3Bman he'd probably be 5th behind Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, and Boggs. That's like 75% of his games right there. And as a 1Bman, he wouldn't be top tier, but he'd be at least with some borderline guys. His hitting is only a sliver worse than Orlando Cepeda who we're electing, and he had a little longer career. Basically I came to the conclusion that there's no way Cepeda is better than Torre. Cepeda is a better hitter by a real small margin, but he played 1B his whole career while Torre played 1B plus two much more important defensive positions in 3B and C.

[538280]

Although he did recover from that stabbing quite nicely. Does anybody know the full story to that domestic squabble?

Wynn was stabbed by his wife when they were celebrating their aniversary. I don't know specifically why as they probably won't let us know anyway. He showed up in 1971 just not ready to play and somewhat out of shape because of how much this drained him. He worked hard after that season however and bounced right back after that.

[-Kyle-]

I think some of the cases that are being made (Torre, Wynn) are great, and convinced me pretty much, but there is a small problem. Some people probably don't even read the thread and the opinions, they just vote for people and scatter. They won't read what other people say before they vote, I bet they go on their own, somewhat biased, opinions. This makes this very similar to the real voters on the HoF.

[538280]

Well, let's see... Perez's was as good or BETTER as a player during the late 60's to early 70's... he posted more than 90 Equivalent Runs a season for 8 straight seasons (for a total of 1558 EQR), while Wynn posted 90 Equivalent Runs in his entire career 7 times (for a total of 1208 EQR).

I don't know where you're getting your numbers. Wynn had 7 seasons over 90 EqR, you're right about that, but they totaled 858 EqR. Perez did have 8 straight seasons of 90+ EqR, but they totaled 862 EqR. Per season Wynn would be at 122.6 and Perez at 107.8. I prefer BRAA or BRAR to EqR, but since you brought it up I'll make a chart of their top 5 seasons, Perez and Wynn:

Wynn: 131, 129, 124, 123, 119
Perez: 125, 122, 117, 105, 102

Wynn has more at his peak and it's not just that measure either, just about every measure has him a little ahead as an offensive player at his peak. Here's OPS and EqA:

OPS+
Wynn: 167, 157, 151, 146, 143
Perez: 163, 159, 145, 140, 125

EqA
Wynn: .344, .327, .321, .319, .318
Perez: .329, .326, .312, .305, .292

And this is coming from a pretty solid CFer and a good baserunner. Perez played 3B for part of that time, but not that well and was moved to 1B. He wasn't much on the basepaths. Wynn was a MUCH better player than Perez at his peak.

And so what... even if Perez's only argument is longevity, I would take Craig Biggio over Ted Kluszewski any day (career wise of course)! Wynn also was a tad inconsistent. While he put up 87 BRAR in 1969, which was amazing, he also tended to go very Darin Erstad on us..(good/bad/amazing/miserable/good)

I would Craig Biggio over Ted Kluszewski for peak as well but that's another argument. Peak and career (as well as career rates) deserve to be weighted appropriately, and a edge on career isn't going to win it for you if you're far behind on peak and rates and the difference for career isn't even that large. And because Wynn was so much better while they were playing-it's not. Wynn has 305 career WS, Perez has 349. The reason why it's somewhat close is because Wynn was so much better while he was playing (25.73 WS/162 vs. 20.36).

[THE OX]

I think some of the cases that are being made (Torre, Wynn) are great, and convinced me pretty much, but there is a small problem. Some people probably don't even read the thread and the opinions, they just vote for people and scatter. They won't read what other people say before they vote, I bet they go on their own, somewhat biased, opinions. This makes this very similar to the real voters on the HoF.

That's always going to be a "problem" for those who vote early, but the arguments that are propounded in favor of a player in the 1984 election will probably be considered by the early voters for the 1985 election, so I don't think they're in vain.

Even early voters such as I check back in several times during the "current" election to see how things are going and are probably influenced for the next one.

[Freakshow]

Well, I guess that's it. Congrats to Cepeda. Anyone care to compare Allen and Brock for the 1985 election?

Oh, and say buh-bye to Jim Bouton.

[DoubleX]

1984 is done and we’ve elected one new players to the Mock HoF:

Orlando Cepeda: 79.03% (+24.19%)

It’s nice to see that for the second year in a row, we’ve elected a player that has spent many years on the ballot. Also, our turnout stayed steady at 62 (I wonder if we’ll ever get 63?).

Cepeda’s election is also interesting because his vote total shot up by nearly 25% from the last election, zooming past Dick Allen and Luis Aparicio (who received the same amount as Cepeda in 2003). That’s a huge one-year surge, IMO, after several years of consistently being in the 50-60% range.

This election in general is notable because it is the first time that not a single newcomer managed to stick on the ballot past this year. Also, every holdover, with the exception of Luis Aparicio, experienced an increase in support this year, suggesting that holdovers really do benefit in weaker years.


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:

Dick Allen: 69.35% (+6.45%)
Luis Aparicio: 53.23% (-1.61%)
Nellie Fox: 51.61% (+6.45%)
Jim Bunning: 50.00% (+14.52%)
Bill Mazeroski: 37.10% (+14.52%)
Joe Torre: 37.10% (+3.23)
Bill Freehan: 33.87% (+1.61%)
Jimmy Wynn: 29.03% (+6.45%)
Ken Boyer: 27.42% (+3.23%)
Tony Oliva: 27.45% (+6.45%)
Frank Howard: 24.19% (+6.45%)
Boog Powell: 17.74% (+9.68%)
Thurman Munson: 16.13% (+6.95%)
Maury Wills: 16.13% (+1.61%)
Norm Cash: 11.29% (+6.45%)
Curt Flood: 8.06% (+1.61%)


Everyone else was dropped. Others receiving at least one vote include:

Jim Bouton: 4.84%
Wilbur Wood: 3.23%
Ron Farily: 1.61%
Jim Fregosi: 1.61%
Davey Johnson: 1.61%


I should have 1985 up and running tonight. As always, I encourage anyone who feels particularly strongly about a candidate, to state your case – I think it can make a difference.

[DoubleX]

Since we've been talking a little about Joe Torre, I figured I'd chime in before the next election starts. What exactly is holding people back from voting for Torre? He has good rate stats considering his primary positions (C, 3B), he has pretty good counting stats considering his primary positions and era, and he was highly regarded when he played - an MVP Award, 9 All Star Apperances, and a Gold Glove catching. His 1971 campaign has to rank as one of the best ever by a 3Bman as he captured two-thirds of the triple crown that year and had a 171 OPS+. And, as 538280 has already pointed out, even though his career is split between C and 3B, neither are particularly easy positions to play and be an offensive force, but Torre, while he played catcher, was one of the best hitting catchers of all time, and then he went on to play 3B and was similarly productive for a few years.

[RuthMayBond]

Since we've been talking a little about Joe Torre, I figured I'd chime in before the next election starts. What exactly is holding people back from voting for Torre? He has good rate stats considering his primary positions (C, 3B), he has pretty good counting stats considering his primary positions and era, and he was highly regarded when he played - an MVP Award, 9 All Star Apperances, and a Gold Glove catching. His 1971 campaign has to rank as one of the best ever by a 3Bman as he captured two-thirds of the triple crown that year and had a 171 OPS+. And, as 538280 has already pointed out, even though his career is split between C and 3B, neither are particularly easy positions to play and be an offensive force, but Torre, while he played catcher, was one of the best hitting catchers of all time, and then he went on to play 3B and was similarly productive for a few years.Maybe people thought he was a little short on stats and would vote him in with his combined player and manager, but that wouldn't apply in 1984

[538280]

Maybe people thought he was a little short on stats and would vote him in with his combined player and manager, but that wouldn't apply in 1984

I think XX's post was only dealing with Torre as a player-what exactly is holding people back on voting for him as a player? For me at least he's a pretty easy choice as a player. Perhaps being a managers has actually hurt him as many people tend to just think of him as a manager or have just lumped him in as a combined type. Really IMO as a player he should be in even if he had never managed a game.

[dgarza]

Nellie Fox: 51.61% (+6.45%)
Hopefully he can make a Cepeda-esque leap next year. I believe it's his last chance.

[BoofBonser26]

Maybe people thought he was a little short on stats and would vote him in with his combined player and manager, but that wouldn't apply in 1984
I think Torre is a no-doubt HOFer - but as a player and manager.