BBF Mock HoF Election: 1985

[DoubleX]

Welcome to Baseball Fever's Mock HoF Election for 1985. 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 1985 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. 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 be 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 subconsciously).

- 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.


1985 Guide
In 1985, the BBWAA’s screening committee reintroduced several players that failed to receive at least 5% in previous BBWAA elections. I have not reintroduced any players that have failed to receive 5% in our elections.

There are 30 candidates on the 1985 BBF ballot. Here's some information regarding the candidates:

First Timers (14)
Jesus Alou
Lou Brock
Rico Carty
Dock Ellis
Ken Holtzman
Catfish Hunter
Don Kessinger
Ed Kranepool
Mickey Lolich
Jim Lonborg
Andy Messersmith
George Scott
Bobby Tolan
Roy White

Holdovers (16)
Player Year of Eligibility High BBF Support Previous Year’s BBF Support
Dick Allen 3rd 69.35% (1984) 69.35%
Luis Aparicio 7th 59.68% (1980) 53.23%
Ken Boyer 11th 29.09% (1982) 27.42%
Jim Bunning 9th 51.61% (1980) 50.00%
Norm Cash 6th 18.18% (1981) 11.29%
Curt Flood 9th 11.86% (1981) 8.06%
Nellie Fox 15th 56.45% (1980) 51.61%
Bill Freehan 4th 33.87% (1984) 33.87%
Frank Howard 7th 24.19% (1984) 24.19%
Bill Mazeroski 8th 37.10% (1980 & 1984) 37.10%
Thurman Munson 5th 16.95% (1981) 16.13%
Tony Oliva 4th 27.42% (1984) 27.42%
Boog Powell 3rd 17.74% (1984) 17.74%
Joe Torre 3rd 37.10% (1984) 37.10%
Maury Wills 8th 16.13% (1984) 16.13%
Jimmy Wynn 3rd 29.03% (1984) 29.03%

Last Year of Eligibility
Nellie Fox

Players on BBF Ballot not on BBWAA Ballot
Luis Aparicio - Elected by BBWAA (1984)
Norm Cash – Dropped by BBWAA (1980)
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)
Clay Carroll - Dropped by BBF (1984)
Orlando Cepeda - Elected by BBF (1984)
Elston Howard – Dropped by BBF (1981)
Roy Face - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Ron Fairly - Dropped by BBF (1984)
Harvey Haddix - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Harvey Kuenn - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Don Larsen – Dropped by BBF (1980)
Roger Maris – Dropped by BBF (1982)
Denny McLain - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Dave McNally - Dropped by BBF (1981)
Vada Pinson - Dropped by BBF (1983)
Ron Santo - Elected by BBF (1980)
Hoyt Wilhelm - Elected by BBF (1979)
Billy Williams – Elected by BBF (1982)
Wilbur Wood - Dropped by BBF (1984)

Actual Hall of Famers on BBF Ballot
Luis Aparicio (BBWAA - 1984)
Lou Brock (BBWAA – 1985)
Jim Bunning (VC - 1996)
Nellie Fox (VC - 1997)
Catfish Hunter (BBWAA – 1987)
Bill Mazeroski (VC - 2001)

Players Elected by BBF Between 1979-1984 (15)
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)
Orlando Cepeda 1984 79.03% 5th
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 1979-1984 (11)
Hank Aaron (1982)
Luis Aparicio (1984)
Don Drysdale (1984)
Bob Gibson (1981)
Al Kaline (1980)
Harmon Killebrew (1984)
Juan Marichal (1983)
Willie Mays (1979)
Brooks Robinson (1983)
Frank Robinson (1982)
Duke Snider (1980)

BBF/BBWAA Election Ratio: 15:11

Players Elected by BBF but not BBWAA (through 1984)
Richie Ashburn
Orlando Cepeda
Ron Santo
Hoyt Wilhelm
Billy Williams

Players Elected by BBWAA but not BBF (through 1984)
Luis Aparicio

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past BBF Elections
1979: 61
1980: 62
1981: 59
1982: 55
1983: 62
1984: 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)
1984 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57694)

[John Shoemaker]

I voted for:

Frank Howard
Norm Cash
Dick Allen
Boog Powell

[DoubleX]

With this election underway, I wanted to share some thoughts I've had...

1) Newcomers: Real life Hall of Famers Lou Brock and Catfish Hunter headline this year's ballot, making it already much stronger than last year's incoming class. Brock and Hunter should be interesting, IMO, as neither seem to enjoy overwhelming support here (especially Hunter). Mickey Lolich also appears on the ballot and I suspect he will have strong supporters. Also wouldn't surprise me if players like Rico Carty, George Scott, and Roy White picked up a vote or two.

2) Orlando Cepeda and Hope for Holdovers: 1984 was the second year in a row we elected someone who has been on the ballot for a number of years. However, the curious thing about Cepeda's election, as opposed to Drysdale, is that while Drysdale flirted with election in the past and was consistently over 60%, Cepeda had been pretty consistently under 60%, including 1983. He jumped by almost 25% from 1983 to 1984, and that was more than enough to get him elected. So it goes to show that there is hope for instantaneous success for some players, most notably players like Nellie Fox, Luis Aparicio, and Jim Bunning, who get strong support, but not more than 60%.

3) Nellie Fox: This is Fox's last year of eligibility and I for one, hope that he experiences a Cepeda-like surge this year. I consider Fox to be on the same level as players we've elected like Ashburn and Cepeda. No one's really made a strong case yet for Fox, so I'm hoping someone takes the time to do it this year before too many votes come in.

4) Luis Aparicio and 1984 Election: An interesting side-note to the 1984 election is that it marked the first time that the BBWAA elected someone before us - Luis Aparicio. I suspect this could happen again with Catfish Hunter and perhaps Lou Brock as well. Aparicio has been fairly strongly supported by us, so he could be line for a Cepeda surge at some point. It's also interesting to note that the BBWAA gained ground on us in 1984. Previously, we had elected 14 players since 1979 compared to just 8 for the BBWAA, but the BBWAA elected 3 players in 1984 while we elected just 1, bringing the ratio much closer to 15:11.

5) Dick Allen: Allen came pretty close last year and was looking in pretty good shape until the last dozen or so votes came in. For everyone who thinks Allen's career was to short, I urge you to look at his peak - he had 11 consecutive years where he hit as well as just about anyone who ever played. An 11 year peak, as consistently high year after year as Allen's was, is pretty remarkable, IMO. He doesn't have the filler and decline years that others have, but his peak is more than enough, IMO, and much better, in terms of both height and longevity, than several others. I don't get the point in voting for players over Allen who might have hung around for longer, but weren't as good as Allen at best and didn't have a peak as long as Allen's.

6) Joe Torre: I made this case for Torre at the end of the 1984 thread, but I'll repeat it here anyway. 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+. 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. And also as 538280 pointed out, don't let his managerial career overshadow his playing career - separate the two and look just at what Torre did as a player, keeping in mind that he played mostly C and 3B and did so during a very difficult era for hitters - I think it's enough to put him over the line.

[DoubleX]

I voted for 8 this year and I'm already seriously questioning one of my votes:

Dick Allen
Luis Aparicio
Ken Boyer
Lou Brock
Jim Bunning
Nellie Fox
Bill Freehan
Joe Torre

Bunning is the one I'm questioning. This is the first time I've voted for him. I suppose for that fleeting moment in which I was selecting players, Bunning just narrowly crossed over the line to the insider, whereas he's usually on the outside. It remains to be seen if he'll stay on the inside of me.

[dgarza]

Order of support:

1. Dick Allen
2. Tony Oliva
3. Nellie Fox
4. Lou Brock
5. Joe Torre
6. Jim Bunning
7. Ken Boyer
8. Luis Aparicio
9. Frank Howard
10. Catfish Hunter
-----------------------
11. Bill Mazeroski

[Erik Bedard]

Allen
Boyer
Bunning
Flood
Fox
Freehan
Mazeroski
Oliva
Torre
Wynn

[John Shoemaker]

It looks like Dick Allen is off to a good start. After 10 voters he has been named on all ballots except the one that voted none of the above. Maybe Allen will finally get his due reward. He was doing fine last round until the bottom fell out of his support at the very end. Go Dick!

[vtbub]

Regarding Bunning, winning 100 in both leagues doesn't tilt you towards yes?

[dgarza]

Regarding Bunning, winning 100 in both leagues doesn't tilt you towards yes?
I never understood why this is so great. There is no difference between doing that and winning 200 in just 1 league, or even 50 in one and 150 in the other.

[dgarza]

3) Nellie Fox: This is Fox's last year of eligibility and I for one, hope that he experiences a Cepeda-like surge this year. I consider Fox to be on the same level as players we've elected like Ashburn and Cepeda. No one's really made a strong case yet for Fox, so I'm hoping someone takes the time to do it this year before too many votes come in.


I'm not constructing a complete agrument here, just throwing a few things out there:

12 All Star games.

The guy never struck out. Obviously, that's not entirely true, but he K'ed rarely. One year, he hit more homeruns than strikeouts, and that's from a career .363 SLG player. Never K'ed time a season. He certainly had the chances with all those PAs.

182 hits/162 games.

Great defense.

304 career Win Shares.

AL MVP in 1959.

Great, albeit short, post-season batting : .375/.464/.500

[2Chance]

Dick Allen
Luis Aparicio
Lou Brock
Jim Bunning
Nellie Fox
Bill Freehan
Frank Howard
Bill Mazeroski
Joe Torre
Jimmy Wynn

I think I may have done this one time in my whole life: Stump for Lou Brock.

Looking at him in the context of his time, he was the new career and single season leader in stolen bases. Nowadays that doesn’t play well, but then it was considered very important. Every team had to have a base stealer or two, and Lou was the best. It wasn’t until later that statisticians looked at the upside and downside of SBs, and decided that overall they are not good for a team.

Plus he had reached the exclusive 3,000 hit milestone. I believe he was the 14th or 15th player to get there. Good company.

The biggest knock against him, IMO, is that he was a leadoff hitter without an ability to draw walks, forcing down his OBP.

[jalbright]

I'll stump for Fox, with this from my musings thread:

Nellie Fox

He had the most win shares of any middle infielder of the 1950's. His 304 career win shares is 15th among second basemen, his total of his best three years in win shares is also 15th among second basemen in the latest BJHA, and his best 5 consecutive seasons in win shares is 16th among second basemen.

He was a MVP, a 12 time all-star and a 3 time gold glover. He is 60th in MVP award shares, 83rd in black ink, and 131st in gray ink. He is 48th in career AB and 61st in career hits. He was also in the top ten in average eight times and the top eight in runs seven times. Five of his 10 most similar players as determined by baseball-reference.com are in the HOF.

I'll add this fine analysis by AG2004, which I have slightly edited:
1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

He was the best player on the White Sox during the late 1950s.

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

He was the best 2B in baseball from 1955 through 1960. During that span, he led AL 2B in win shares every year except 1958 (when he was second), and led major league 2B in win shares four times, finishing second the other two seasons.

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

He led the AL in win shares in 1959, when Chicago won the pennant. Otherwise, he didn’t have much impact, as the Yankees kept running away with the pennant year after year.

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

Yes.

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

No.

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

By similarity scores, the most similar players are: Red Schoendienst, Doc Cramer, Omar Vizquel, Willie Randolph, Bobby Wallace, Lave Cross, Rabbit Maranville, Buddy Myer, Billy Herman, and Luis Aparicio. Five are in Cooperstown, but only Herman is in the BBFHOF. However, since no player has a similarity score over 900, nobody is that similar to Fox.

By career win shares, 2B: Lifetime WS, 2B: Willie Randolph 312, Bid McPhee 305, FOX 304, Billy Herman 298, Larry Doyle 289, Bobby Doerr 281 + 1 season war credit. Herman and Doerr are in, and the others are candidates.

Win Shares, top three seasons, 2B: Frankie Frisch 96, Bobby Grich 92, Billy Herman 90, Larry Doyle 90, Cupid Childs 90, FOX 88, Joe Gordon 85, Eddie Stanky 85, Johnny Evers 82, Bobby Avila 82, Chuck Knoblauch 82, Tony Lazzeri 81, Dick McAuliffe 81, Bobby Doerr 81, Jim Gilliam 81. Fox is at the cutoff line. Adjusting for timeline, Fox may be the best 2B outside the BBFHOF by this measure.

Top five consecutive seasons: Frankie Frisch 135, Billy Herman 135, Joe Gordon 134, Roberto Alomar 131, Larry Doyle 130, Chuck Knoblauch 129, FOX 128, Cupid Childs 127, Bobby Doerr 127, Bobby Avila 124, Lonnie Frey 121, Dick McAuliffe 119. Fox is at the cutoff line here, too.

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

Fox has a black ink score of 23 (84th all-time) and a gray ink score of 131 (132nd all-time), both of which are good for 2B. However, the HOF Standards score of 31.9 is a liability.

Fox won three Gold Gloves, but the award only started in mid-career. He won five Win Shares Gold Gloves at second. He is a member of Cooperstown, but has not been inducted into the Hall of Merit.

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

James gives Fox a grade of “A” for his defense, so Fox was better than his offensive numbers indicate.

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

I would say that he is the best major league 2B outside the BBFHOF.

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

Fox won the MVP award in 1959, and was fourth in the 1957 voting. He led all AL players in win shares in 1959 (technically, he was tied with Mantle, but Fox’ team won the pennant). Overall, he had 2 seasons with 30+ win shares.

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

Fox played in twelve All-Star games, which is BBFHOF territory. He had nine seasons with 20+ win shares, which is good for a position player.

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

His team would contend for the pennant, and occasionally win it.

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

Fox holds the major league record for most consecutive games played at second base, with 798.

15. 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.

CONCLUSION: A combination of being the best major league at a position for six years, a merited MVP award, and a career with over 300 win shares makes a good argument for inducting Fox into the BBFHOF.

[DoubleX]

Fox is hanging tough right now, but I fear it might be too little too late for him. It will be ashame. I think he'll be the best player we've had thus far that will have succumbed to the 15 year rule.

[Colorado Express]

Allen
Aparicio
Brock
Fox
Howard
Munson
Oliva
Wills

[yanks0714]

My votes went to:

* Dick Allen
* Luis Aparicio
* Ken Boyer
* Lou Brock
* Jim Bunning
* Nellie Fox > C'mon let's get Nellie in the BBFHOF
* Catfish Hunter
* Bill Freehan
* Tony Oliva
* Jimmy Wyn

I am generally a small hall type person. It should be reserved for the great, not the very good or pretty good, and definately not the plain old good.

But I vote for 10 because I would hate to leave off one of the above and have them miss by 1 vote, mine. I think in our first vote, my not voting for Drysdale may well have cost him. He didn't miss by many votes and failed to vote for him.

There are only 2 of the above that I want to absolutely see make the BBFHOF....Dick Allen and Nellie Fox. Let's not make the same mistake that the HOF voters made, never voting Allen in and forcing Fox to be a Vets pick.

[KCGHOST]

I went with Brock and Fox.

[Westlake]

I voted for Dick Allen, Bill Mazeroski, and Joe Torre.

[milladrive]

Allen
Aparicio
Brock
Flood
Fox
Lolich
Oliva
Torre

[DoubleX]

I voted for Dick Allen, Bill Mazeroski, and Joe Torre.

You said in another thread that you vote for Mazeroski because you believe the best glovemen should be in, right? That's fair enough and I can understand that logic, but why not Luis Aparicio then? He might not be the best defensive SS, but he's generally considered among the very best defensive SS, which probably gives him at least as much defensive value as Mazeroski (and perhaps slightly more). Aparicio also had more offensive value than Mazeroski, IMO. They had a similar OPS+ and were both generally fairly inept hitters, but Aparicio's speed really makes him stand out between the two, IMO. Aparicio led the league 9 straight years in stolen bases. Mazeroski hit a few more homeruns than Aparicio, but otherwise, didn't do anything well offensively. At least Aparicio was among the best baserunners of his time. I believe you also mentioned in that other thread Rabbit Maranville as someone you support because of his defensive prowess, so why not Aparicio?

[BoofBonser26]

1) What the heck is up with Brock's low total?

2) Why do we seem to be electing Fox now, after making him wait forever, and then all voting for him? (I didn't)

3) I can understand Hunter not getting much support, but 30% seems way too low.

4) I urge you to join me in voting for Aparicio.

[John Shoemaker]

1) What the heck is up with Brock's low total?

2) Why do we seem to be electing Fox now, after making him wait forever, and then all voting for him? (I didn't)

3) I can understand Hunter not getting much support, but 30% seems way too low.

4) I urge you to join me in voting for Aparicio.

My answer to question #1 is maybe it's the fact that he ranks #13 all time in number of times he struck out with 1730. Everybody above him on the list were power hitters with at least 300 homeruns.

I have no answer for question #2 - I don't understand the flocking to Fox either.

[Erik Bedard]

This is an exceptionally weak year, though not as weak as last year. Red Schoendienst got a "last-ballot boost", though it wasn't enough. Perhaps Fox is getting the "last-ballot boost" combined with the "Cepeda surge", where we inexplicably elect a holdover.

Aparicio and Brock will probably make my ballot next year, assuming Allen is elected this year.

[Westlake]

You said in another thread that you vote for Mazeroski because you believe the best glovemen should be in, right? That's fair enough and I can understand that logic, but why not Luis Aparicio then? He might not be the best defensive SS, but he's generally considered among the very best defensive SS, which probably gives him at least as much defensive value as Mazeroski (and perhaps slightly more). Aparicio also had more offensive value than Mazeroski, IMO. They had a similar OPS+ and were both generally fairly inept hitters, but Aparicio's speed really makes him stand out between the two, IMO. Aparicio led the league 9 straight years in stolen bases. Mazeroski hit a few more homeruns than Aparicio, but otherwise, didn't do anything well offensively. At least Aparicio was among the best baserunners of his time. I believe you also mentioned in that other thread Rabbit Maranville as someone you support because of his defensive prowess, so why not Aparicio?

I dont care about defensive 'value' when it comes to something like the HOF. I like the guys who play their position well defensively. I'd be more inclined to put the best first baseman in than an average SS (Also, to brett and anyone else reading this, im not getting into a debate about that). I find Maranville and Mazeroski to be the very best at their respective positions... Maranville the best SS ever defensively, and Mazeroski the best 2B defensively. However, as good as Aparicio might have been, I dont think he was on the level as Maranville at short. When I say that I want the best defenders in the Hall, that's exactly what I mean.. the best. I dont think Aparicio was that. This has nothing to do with 'value' for me... IMO, it's not the hall of the most valuable.

[Westlake]

1) What the heck is up with Brock's low total?

2) Why do we seem to be electing Fox now, after making him wait forever, and then all voting for him? (I didn't)

3) I can understand Hunter not getting much support, but 30% seems way too low.

4) I urge you to join me in voting for Aparicio.

1. I believe Brock to be a very boderline HOF candidate.

2. The case that was made for Fox made me kind of regret my decision to not vote for him.

3. I would never vote for Hunter. He was not one of the games greatest pitchers. He had some good years, but then was very mediocre at time.

4. I'm thinking about it, but at this point, he does not get my vote.

[Brooklyn]

I only voted for Brock. I was on the fence with Hunter and may vote for him next year. If someone can lay out a case for Hunter, I'd be interested in hearing it. I'm actuallay surprised by his low totals so far, too

[Westlake]

I only voted for Brock. I was on the fence with Hunter and may vote for him next year. If someone can lay out a case for Hunter, I'd be interested in hearing it. I'm actuallay surprised by his low totals so far, too

I dont understand Hunter... unless you are going a lot more for fame than you are for how good the player was.

Hunter's career ERA was 3.26, but the whole league's ERA was 3.39, gave up a ton of HRs, and won 1 Cy Young that I think should have gone to Perry. I think he belongs in the hall of pretty good.

[DoubleX]

I dont care about defensive 'value' when it comes to something like the HOF. I like the guys who play their position well defensively. I'd be more inclined to put the best first baseman in than an average SS (Also, to brett and anyone else reading this, im not getting into a debate about that). I find Maranville and Mazeroski to be the very best at their respective positions... Maranville the best SS ever defensively, and Mazeroski the best 2B defensively. However, as good as Aparicio might have been, I dont think he was on the level as Maranville at short. When I say that I want the best defenders in the Hall, that's exactly what I mean.. the best. I dont think Aparicio was that. This has nothing to do with 'value' for me... IMO, it's not the hall of the most valuable.

So if Maranville is the best defensive SS, in your opinion, and you will only vote based on defense for the player whom you regard as the absolute best defensively at the position (meaning you won't vote for the second best defensive player based on defense alone), will you be voting for Ozzie Smith when we get to him?

Also, will you be voting for Bobby Grich when his turn comes?

[DoubleX]

I dont understand Hunter... unless you are going a lot more for fame than you are for how good the player was.

Hunter's career ERA was 3.26, but the whole league's ERA was 3.39, gave up a ton of HRs, and won 1 Cy Young that I think should have gone to Perry. I think he belongs in the hall of pretty good.

Hunter was fortunate to play for some very successful teams - the A's of the early 70s and the Yankees of the late 70s. So he was frequently in the spotlight and was able to rack up high win totals - five straight seasons with 21-25 wins, and seven straight with at least 17 wins, and probably seemed a good bet for 300 when he won 200 by age 30. When it comes to pitchers, historically people infatuated with shiny win totals without realizing that win totals are very much team oriented. To me, Hunter is the anti-Blyleven, in that he was lucky to play for great teams, lucky to have received tons of support, lucky to have racked up high win totals, and thus was lucky to get more acclaim that his talent deserved. A career 104 ERA+ generally doesn't win like he did. It's pretty much the opposite for Blyleven, who ended up being judged as less dominant than he was because of his low win totals.

[Westlake]

So if Maranville is the best defensive SS, in your opinion, and you will only vote based on defense for the player whom you regard as the absolute best defensively at the position (meaning you won't vote for the second best defensive player based on defense alone), will you be voting for Ozzie Smith when we get to him?

Also, will you be voting for Bobby Grich when his turn comes?

Yes, I will be voting for Ozzie Smith. I can not distinguish between Maranville and Smith as the best defensive shortstop. If someone made me give them an answer, I'd say Maranville, but it's way too close to call. There's a certain level I would call the 'best' and although I dont view Aparicio at that level, I do see both Smith and Maranville there.

And yes, I will be voting for Grich as well.

[DoubleX]

Why does Bobby Tolan have a vote?

[nerfan]

From 1965 to 1970, Catfish Hunter was not a very good pitcher. His ERA+ totals ranged from 82 to 114 (he was named to 3 All-Star teams) and went 73-78. In other words, he was hardly dominant.

But in 1971, something clicked. He posted an ERA+ of 112 while striking out 181 batters and won 21 games. From 1971 to 1975, he was one of the very best pitchers in baseball.

Then from 1976-1979, he was injured frequently and was again a below average pitcher.

So the only way to argue for Catfish is to look at those 5 years.

In 1971 he was far from the best pitcher in the league. Vida Blue, Lolich, Wilbur Wood, and Dave McNally were all better than him. But he was still better than most pitchers in the American League.

1972 may have been his finest year. With an ERA+ of 140 and 21 wins, he probably was the second best pitcher behind Gaylord Perry (and possibly Jim Palmer). He was regarded as one of the best pitchers in the AL at this point.

1973 he was behind Palmer and Ryan and Blyleven and a whole bunch of other people.

Which brings me to his Cy Young year, 1974. His ERA+ of 132 was fourth in the league and he won 25 games. There can be an argument made that Catfish Hunter was the very best pitcher in the American League. But Gaylord Perry and Blyleven were still probably better than Catfish.

In 1975 Hunter started 39 games and completed 30 of them (probably leading to his decline). He pitched 328 innings, tops in the league by 5 over Palmer. His ERA+ was the third best in the league and he was tied with Palmer for wins. He was worse than Palmer and that's it. In the time period from 1971-1975 he won 111 games.

So from 1971-1975, his peak years, was he the best pitcher in all of baseball?

No. Blyleven had far better ERA+ numbers than Catfish, and only because he played on the poor Minnesota Twins and Catfish played on the great A's and Yankees. Palmer, minus 1974, was consistently a better pitcher than Catfish. Gaylord Perry, although he was old and moderately inconsistent, was a better pitcher than Catfish. And the Majors? Forget about it! You had Seaver, Sutton, Carlton, Niekro, Fergie Jenkins, hell, even the Mets' third pitcher, Jon Matlack, posted better ERA+'s than Catfish.

If you look at it sabermetrically, Catfish looks like a low top 10 pitcher in his peak at best. His career numbers aren't that good.

On the other hand, he won 129 games in 6 seasons.:D

[BoofBonser26]

Hunter was fortunate to play for some very successful teams - the A's of the early 70s and the Yankees of the late 70s. So he was frequently in the spotlight and was able to rack up high win totals - five straight seasons with 21-25 wins, and seven straight with at least 17 wins, and probably seemed a good bet for 300 when he won 200 by age 30. When it comes to pitchers, historically people infatuated with shiny win totals without realizing that win totals are very much team oriented. To me, Hunter is the anti-Blyleven, in that he was lucky to play for great teams, lucky to have received tons of support, lucky to have racked up high win totals, and thus was lucky to get more acclaim that his talent deserved. A career 104 ERA+ generally doesn't win like he did. It's pretty much the opposite for Blyleven, who ended up being judged as less dominant than he was because of his low win totals.
I completely understand the case against Hunter. In fact, I could be tempted to NOT vote for him in future elections. But I thought he'd be getting more than 30%, that's all. Maybe 50%, at least.

[Erik Bedard]

Hunter was fortunate to play for some very successful teams - the A's of the early 70s and the Yankees of the late 70s. So he was frequently in the spotlight and was able to rack up high win totals - five straight seasons with 21-25 wins, and seven straight with at least 17 wins, and probably seemed a good bet for 300 when he won 200 by age 30. When it comes to pitchers, historically people infatuated with shiny win totals without realizing that win totals are very much team oriented. To me, Hunter is the anti-Blyleven, in that he was lucky to play for great teams, lucky to have received tons of support, lucky to have racked up high win totals, and thus was lucky to get more acclaim that his talent deserved. A career 104 ERA+ generally doesn't win like he did. It's pretty much the opposite for Blyleven, who ended up being judged as less dominant than he was because of his low win totals.

Then again, it is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats, the Hall of Talent, or the Hall of Value.

[BoofBonser26]

Then again, it is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats, the Hall of Talent, or the Hall of Value.
True, but when you read what the HOF intends to measure, it goes deeper than just "fame."

[RuthMayBond]

Then again, it is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats, the Hall of Talent, or the Hall of Value.Then why not put in Jose Canseco, Fernando Valenzuela, Bobby Thomson, Ralph Branca, Jimmy Piersall, John Rocker, Donnie Moore, Bob Uecker ...?

[John Shoemaker]

With 40 votes in Dick Allen has dropped to exactly 75%. I hope we don't do what we did last round and keep one of the best hitters ever to play the game out of the HOF again!

[Erik Bedard]

Then why not put in Jose Canseco, Fernando Valenzuela, Bobby Thomson, Ralph Branca, Jimmy Piersall, John Rocker, Donnie Moore, Bob Uecker ...?

I don't know, I was just trying to give a rationale as to the case for Hunter.

[DoubleX]

True, but when you read what the HOF intends to measure, it goes deeper than just "fame."

That's true, and that's an argument I've made, but I think in Hunter's case, the stats more than offset (mitigate) the fame the factor. For me, the fame factor helps someone like Lou Brock. I don't necessarily believe that Brock has a strong case on statistics alone, but the fame associated with his steals and the 3000 hits is what does it for me.

[Erik Bedard]

Excellent point, DX, and that's why I'll be voting for Brock once Fox is off the ballot. Hunter, though... the 104 ERA+ cancels out being the ace for some excellent teams.

[DoubleX]

Excellent point, DX, and that's why I'll be voting for Brock once Fox is off the ballot. Hunter, though... the 104 ERA+ cancels out being the ace for some excellent teams.

Ooops, I actually meant to quote your post about it being the Hall of Fame and not the Hall of Statistics, but the point is the same nonetheless.

[BoofBonser26]

Just wanted to bump this up. It looks like more people are just voting and not discussing this year...:confused:

[iPod]

I'll add this fine analysis by AG2004, which I have slightly edited:

Does anyone else agree that the Keltner test could use some revision? It's meant to be sort of subjective, but there are some questions on there where you just think... I mean, how in the hell is this supposed to contribute anything?

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

95% of the time, the answer to this question is "no". And in rare case when the tester actually answers "yes", it's almost impossible to take the rest of his or her answers seriously, because you know an agenda is probably being pushed. Besides which, if the question is there because a tester could conceivably answer "yes", all a "yes" would do is reveal the result of the test before all the data is presented, since anyone who believes a guy is absolutely the best player outside the Hall will believe he should be in it. To a much lesser extent I have the same objection to #10.

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

This is essentially just a repetition of #7, "Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?" It's on here because James wanted to plug his "HoF Standards" formula. Now its just redundant.

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

I've never liked this question because it's so vague. Is it meant to help glove men, whose hitting numbers underrate them, or "clutch" players, whose overall numbers underrate them?

[RuthMayBond]

Does anyone else agree that the Keltner test could use some revision? It's meant to be sort of subjective, but there are some questions on there where you just think... I mean, how in the hell is this supposed to contribute anything?

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

95% of the time, the answer to this question is "no". And in rare case when the tester actually answers "yes", it's almost impossible to take the rest of his or her answers seriously, because you know an agenda is probably being pushed. Besides which, if the question is there because a tester could conceivably answer "yes", all a "yes" would do is reveal the result of the test before all the data is presented, since anyone who believes a guy is absolutely the best player outside the Hall will believe he should be in it. To a much lesser extent I have the same objection to #10.Absolutely agree with you. It AT LEAST needs to be worded as "Could you make a reasonable argument that this player is among the best handful of players who are not in the Hall of Fame?"

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

This is essentially just a repetition of #7, "Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?" It's on here because James wanted to plug his "HoF Standards" formula. Now its just redundant.>

You go, iPod :clapping

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

I've never liked this question because it's so vague. Is it meant to help glove men, whose hitting numbers underrate them, or "clutch" players, whose overall numbers underrate them?>

Not sure, but this question needs to be on here. Think in terms of Jim Rice, Bill Dahlen, Blyleven. I wonder if this is being used against Santo or Dick Allen? :confused:

[dgarza]

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

95% of the time, the answer to this question is "no".
The answer is NO is you're the second best player not in the Hall. Being 2nd best doesn't mean you shouldn't be in the Hall. The answer is NO to the 2nd best as equally as it is NO to the 1000th best.

[Erik Bedard]

I agree, some questions on the Keltner test are useless, especially the "very best" and "very best at his position". However, some are very useful, such as the "comparable statistics" question.

[DoubleX]

Looks like Fox is all but done. Oh well. I hope we at least elect someone and it's looking like Allen right now, but Allen was in similar shape after about this many votes last time and then spiraled down in the last few days.

[BoofBonser26]

Can someone present a case against Brock? I understand if you think he's a weak HOFer, but he's still a HOFer.

[DoubleX]

Can someone present a case against Brock? I understand if you think he's a weak HOFer, but he's still a HOFer.

I vote for him, but I suspect his detractors just don't view him as a very good ballplayer and see him like a glorified Juan Pierre. Brock hit for good average and got lots of hits in a season, stole lots of bases, but couldn't get on base, struck out a lot, didn't have much power, and wasn't a particularly good fielder. For me, Brock is someone who is really getting in on the subjective factor, because objectively, he wasn't particularly great player, but he has the steals and the hits, which go towards the subjective factor.

[BoofBonser26]

I vote for him, but I suspect his detractors just don't view him as a very good ballplayer and see him like a glorified Juan Pierre. Brock hit for good average and got lots of hits in a season, stole lots of bases, but couldn't get on base, struck out a lot, didn't have much power, and wasn't a particularly good fielder. For me, Brock is someone who is really getting in on the subjective factor, because objectively, he wasn't particularly great player, but he has the steals and the hits, which go towards the subjective factor.
I look at him and see consistency, speed, LOTS OF SPEED!!!, hits, more speed, strikeouts, but not a terrible amount, speed, average, speed, more average, more speed, and some speed. I think his longevity should be credited. He made 3 WS teams. He was an All-Star.

I know he is one of the weaker HOFers. But I still think he belongs.

[John Shoemaker]

Can someone present a case against Brock? I understand if you think he's a weak HOFer, but he's still a HOFer.

I hate basing it on one statistic but the one that stands out for me is Brock ranks #13 in times striking out with 1730. Everyone above him is a power hitter with over 300 homeruns.

[BoofBonser26]

I hate basing it on one statistic but the one that stands out for me is Brock ranks #13 in times striking out with 1730. Everyone above him is a power hitter with over 300 homeruns.
I understand that that's a serious drawback. For the sake of this discussion, pretend Brock struck out an acceptable lower amount. What would you think of him then? Would the hits and steals be enough for the HoF?

[John Shoemaker]

I understand that that's a serious drawback.his strike our ratio For the sake of this discussion, pretend Brock struck out an acceptable lower amount. What would you think of him then? Would the hits and steals be enough for the HoF?

With an acceptable strike out ratio I would have put him just above the cutoff line and voted for him - but his strike out ratio being what it is put him under the cutoff line IMO and I didn't vote for him.

[BoofBonser26]

With an acceptable strike out ratio I would have put him just above the cutoff line and voted for him - but his strike out ratio being what it is put him under the cutoff line IMO and I didn't vote for him.
OKay. I was just curious if the strikeout ratio was the tipping point for you. Anyone else who didn't vote for Brock feel like making their anti-case?

[Erik Bedard]

I honestly don't see how a strikeout hurts a team any more than any other kind of out. If anyone else does, please explain it to me.

That said, I had to cut Brock from my planned ballot after I had a change of opinion about Curt Flood.

[brewcrew82]

I honestly don't see how a strikeout hurts a team any more than any other kind of out. If anyone else does, please explain it to me.


My guess would be that a strikout doesn't have a chance of advancing a runner, therefore it's not as beneficial as putting the ball in play. :confused:

[Erik Bedard]

All right, but a shallow fly ball that is caught has the same chance of advancing a runner - extremely slim to none. And a strikeout hurts LESS than a GIDP.

[dgarza]

My guess would be that a strikout doesn't have a chance of advancing a runner, therefore it's not as beneficial as putting the ball in play. :confused:
How about a strikeout to help a runner steal a base?

[DoubleX]

All right, but a shallow fly ball that is caught has the same chance of advancing a runner - extremely slim to none. And a strikeout hurts LESS than a GIDP.

That's true, but with a strikeout, there's no chance for anything positive happening. With a ball in play, anything can happen, especially when you have speed like Brock that pressures fielders to rush throws, thereby increasing the chance for errant throw.

[brewcrew82]

How about a strikeout to help a runner steal a base?

I would say that a bunt attempt would he more beneficial in that instance. Putting the ball in play forces the defense to make a play and with the ball in play there is always a chance of an error being made. An intentional K puts no pressure on the defence whatsoever.

[nerfan]

How could anyone NOT vote for Dick Allen? The man was a great hitter to say the least...

Allen had a propensity to strike out. But, again, a strikeout is just another kind of out. Plus, he drew a more than respectable amount of walks.

IMO, the biggest knock against Dick Allen is that he was frequently injured. Well, in my definition, 500 PA is a full season. He totaled that amount his first 9 times in the majors, and totaled that once more in 1974. That's 10 full seasons plus a bonus 1333 PA- 7333 PA in total. That's more than Hack Wilson, Ozzie Guillen, Larry Doby, Tony Oliva- this list goes on and on.

But by pure hitting and nothing else, Allen is a Hall of Famer. The man had a higher OPS+ (156) than DiMaggio, Hank Aaron, Wagner, Schmidt, Stargell... and higher EQA (.323) than Wagner, Schmidt, McCovey, Stargell- in other words- better than Hall of Fame hitters.

And here's the Keltner test-

I am going to say that Dick Allen was a third baseman because he was for his peak in the early 60's and his played first base in the decline stage of his career (minus 1972).

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball?

Yes, in 1972 Dick Allen was regarded as the best player in the game. (I would have included his early 60's peak as well, but Sandy Koufax was better by a pinch)

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Yes, in 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, possibly 1970 (highest OPS+ but Torre/Gibson great), 1971, 1972, and 1974. That's all ten of his full seasons. And he didn't play on terrible teams, either. In fact, Dick Allen was the best player on his team anywhere he went.

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

There was Santo. He and Santo were about the same with maybe a slight edge to Allen in hitting though. Santo was a much better fielder than Dickie Allen though. In 1972 he was the best 1Bman in the league.

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

No. He helped his team but they always seemed to come in second.

I'll now go straight to Number 11.

11. How many MVP type seasons did he have?

5

Nuff said.

[John Shoemaker]

How could anyone NOT vote for Dick Allen? The man was a great hitter to say the least...

Allen had a propensity to strike out. But, again, a strikeout is just another kind of out. Plus, he drew a more than respectable amount of walks.

IMO, the biggest knock against Dick Allen is that he was frequently injured. Well, in my definition, 500 PA is a full season. He totaled that amount his first 9 times in the majors, and totaled that once more in 1974. That's 10 full seasons plus a bonus 1333 PA- 7333 PA in total. That's more than Hack Wilson, Ozzie Guillen, Larry Doby, Tony Oliva- this list goes on and on.

But by pure hitting and nothing else, Allen is a Hall of Famer. The man had a higher OPS+ (156) than DiMaggio, Hank Aaron, Wagner, Schmidt, Stargell... and higher EQA (.323) than Wagner, Schmidt, McCovey, Stargell- in other words- better than Hall of Fame hitters.

And here's the Keltner test-

I am going to say that Dick Allen was a third baseman because he was for his peak in the early 60's and his played first base in the decline stage of his career (minus 1972).

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball?

Yes, in 1972 Dick Allen was regarded as the best player in the game. (I would have included his early 60's peak as well, but Sandy Koufax was better by a pinch)

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Yes, in 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, possibly 1970 (highest OPS+ but Torre/Gibson great), 1971, 1972, and 1974. That's all ten of his full seasons. And he didn't play on terrible teams, either. In fact, Dick Allen was the best player on his team anywhere he went.

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

There was Santo. He and Santo were about the same with maybe a slight edge to Allen in hitting though. Santo was a much better fielder than Dickie Allen though. In 1972 he was the best 1Bman in the league.

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

No. He helped his team but they always seemed to come in second.

I'll now go straight to Number 11.

11. How many MVP type seasons did he have?

5

Nuff said.

I agree with everything you said. To keep Allen out of the HOF makes no sense. He was doing fine last round until the bottom fell out of his support the last 2 days. He's hovering a little bit over 75% this year and I sure hope he makes it. Anyhing less would be a big mistake - the numbers speak for themselves!

[Erik Bedard]

That's true, but with a strikeout, there's no chance for anything positive happening. With a ball in play, anything can happen, especially when you have speed like Brock that pressures fielders to rush throws, thereby increasing the chance for errant throw.

Ah, but if the ball is dropped by the catcher, then the runner can advance.

And the end result of a strikeout is usually the same as the end result of any other out (the exception being with less than two outs and a runner on second or third advancing on a fly ball or groundout).

[BoofBonser26]

Nerfan, could you explain your no-vote for Brock? You must have a reason other than strikeouts, because you disregard them for Allen.

(Allen, by the way, had too short a career, imo).

[DoubleX]

(Allen, by the way, had too short a career, imo).

But his peak ranks up there in terms of both length and height, as one of the best all time, especially considering his era. Over an 11 year period, longer than a decade, Allen had an average OPS+ of an incredible 166. How many other players can boast that over an 11 consecutive year period?

[BoofBonser26]

But his peak ranks up there in terms of both length and height, as one of the best all time, especially considering his era. Over an 11 year period, longer than a decade, Allen had an average OPS+ of an incredible 166. How many other players can boast that over an 11 consecutive year period?
I honestly don't know. I won't care one bit if Allen gets in. He's ultra-borderline, but when it's all said and done I think he didn't last long enough. I would have no problems with his election.

I just think being great for a long time is almost as important as being great in the first place.

(and just so I don't get it thrown at me, I won't be voting for Hunter next year. I reviewed his stats and realized just how merely above average he was.)

[DoubleX]

I just think being great for a long time is almost as important as being great in the first place.

(and just so I don't get it thrown at me, I won't be voting for Hunter next year. I reviewed his stats and realized just how merely above average he was.)

I agree with you that longevity is an important factor, but being an all time great hitter for 11 years isn't enough? Sure there are hitters who had longer careers and put up better counting stats, but not many had a peak as good as Allen's and for as long as Allen's. Would you prefer a player who was great for say 6 years, good for 6, then average to mediocre for say 5 more, over the player that was great for 11, good for 1 and mediocre for 2 more? The second player was the better player for nearly twice as long, he's just lacking those mediocre filler years that push up the counting stats, but I'd much rather have him on my team for those 11 great years, then the first player for 6 great years, 6 good years, and 5 mediocre ones.

I agree with your decision on Hunter. He's someone, like Brock, who gets a big subjectivity boost. In Hunter's case, it isn't enough, IMO. He is the Anti-Blyleven, IMO. Speaking of Blyleven, do you think you'll vote for him when we get to him in 13 years?

[Windy City Fan]

I vote for him, but I suspect his detractors just don't view him as a very good ballplayer and see him like a glorified Juan Pierre. Brock hit for good average and got lots of hits in a season, stole lots of bases, but couldn't get on base, struck out a lot, didn't have much power, and wasn't a particularly good fielder. For me, Brock is someone who is really getting in on the subjective factor, because objectively, he wasn't particularly great player, but he has the steals and the hits, which go towards the subjective factor.

This pretty much nailed it on the head for me. Brock is a HOF lead off man who's not a very good leadoff man. Brock had no power, no plate discipline, and despite his speed was a subpar left fielder. I'd take Kenny Lofton over Lou Brock, and you won't see me leading the Lofton for the Hall movement.

I can see the subjective or "fame" reasons for Brock, namely 3000 hits and being the steals leader, so I don't consider him a horrible choice, but he'll have to get in without my support.

[Windy City Fan]

I honestly don't know. I won't care one bit if Allen gets in. He's ultra-borderline, but when it's all said and done I think he didn't last long enough. I would have no problems with his election.

I just think being great for a long time is almost as important as being great in the first place.

(and just so I don't get it thrown at me, I won't be voting for Hunter next year. I reviewed his stats and realized just how merely above average he was.)

Allen had a really extended peak. He had an 11 year run with an OPS+ that never dipped below 145 and was 160 or higher 7 times! A comparable player to Allen at the plate is Jeff Bagwell, who many folks around here consider to be a slamdunk HOFer. Both played 15 years. Bagwell has more PA, but Allen has a 6 point OPS+ and played over a third of his games at third.

[John Shoemaker]

I agree with both the last 2 posts. I would not be upset if Lou Brock gets in but he'll have to do it without my support - he's just below the cutoff line in my opinion.

Dick Allen is another story - I will be very upset if he does not get in this round. He is way way way above the cutoff line in my opinion.

[BoofBonser26]

Thanks to everyone for taking the time for well-put responses. :)

How do you guys feel about his low BBWAA support? Was it the whole attitude thing discussed before? (I personally don't really care in regards to the HOF - I mean, Ty Cobb - but I'm just curious if that's what killed him.)

Speaking of Blyleven, do you think you'll vote for him when we get to him in 13 years?

I'll be voting for Blyleven enthusiastically. :gt

[nerfan]

Boof, I do have a reason not to vote for Brock, and it's not the K's (Allen racked the K's up big time)

Brock, over a 162-game average, batted .293/.343/.410 with 9 homers and 58 stolen bases (for an OPS+ of 109).

What about Willie Davis? He was dropped pretty quickly, but he has similar career numbers to Brock.

Brock... I will say that he belongs in the Hall of the Very Very Very good. But maybe next time I will vote for Brock-

(btw, disregard my vote for Holtzman... and Kranepool- I love the Original Steady Ed)

[DoubleX]

Wonder why voting turnout is so low this year? We might not even cross 50.

[Erik Bedard]

Even worse, Allen is at exactly 75%. One more negative vote, and he goes just under the line... again.

[-Kyle-]

Simply put, if Dick Allen had the media love of Tony Perez in his days, he would be in the HOF. Sad, sad.

[Ubiquitous]

Simply put, if Dick Allen had the media love of Tony Perez in his days, he would be in the HOF. Sad, sad.


Well yeah but in order to get the media love he needed to do things differently. And doing things differently probably would have resulted in more games then 1739 in 14 seasons, and better numbers. He gave the media very little reason to love him.

[nerfan]

Well yeah but in order to get the media love he needed to do things differently. And doing things differently probably would have resulted in more games then 1739 in 14 seasons, and better numbers. He gave the media very little reason to love him.

YOU ARE JOKING, RIGHT? THE MAN HAD A HIGHER EQA THAN HONUS WAGNER OR AL KALINE OR TONY GWYNN OR ROBERTO CLEMENTE OR PAUL WANER OR EVEN WILLIE McCOVEY!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE MAN HAD A HIGHER OPS+ THAN JOE DI MAGGIO!!!!!!

ARE YOU CRAZY??????????? THE MAN WAS AMAZING!!!!!!!!!

WHY WAS TED WILLIAMS HATED BY THE MEDIA? NOBODY KNOWS! ARGUABLY THE BEST HITTER IN MAJOR LEAGUE HISTORY WAS HATED BY THE MEDIA... IN A SEASON IN WHICH TEDDY BALLGAME BATTED .400 THE MEDIA DIDN'T VOTE HIM MVP!!!!!!! THE MEDIA...

I'm done ranting now.

[John Shoemaker]

Well yeah but in order to get the media love he needed to do things differently. And doing things differently probably would have resulted in more games then 1739 in 14 seasons, and better numbers. He gave the media very little reason to love him.

Why should the media have to love him to vote for him? All they should consider is how he played the game. For his 11 peak years there was none better.

[Ubiquitous]

Why should the media have to love him to vote for him? All they should consider is how he played the game. For his 11 peak years there was none better.


The reason they didn't love him was because of the way he played the game and handled himself in public.

[Ubiquitous]

YOU ARE JOKING, RIGHT? THE MAN HAD A HIGHER EQA THAN HONUS WAGNER OR AL KALINE OR TONY GWYNN OR ROBERTO CLEMENTE OR PAUL WANER OR EVEN WILLIE McCOVEY!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE MAN HAD A HIGHER OPS+ THAN JOE DI MAGGIO!!!!!!

ARE YOU CRAZY??????????? THE MAN WAS AMAZING!!!!!!!!!

WHY WAS TED WILLIAMS HATED BY THE MEDIA? NOBODY KNOWS! ARGUABLY THE BEST HITTER IN MAJOR LEAGUE HISTORY WAS HATED BY THE MEDIA... IN A SEASON IN WHICH TEDDY BALLGAME BATTED .400 THE MEDIA DIDN'T VOTE HIM MVP!!!!!!! THE MEDIA... I'm done ranting now.

Ted Williams was not hated by the media. Some members of the media did not like him and he did not like them. but it was nothing close to anything that we see nowadays in terms of hate. Dick Allen has a higher EqA (as if that is the only measuring stick needed) because the guy barely played compared to everybody else. He had no decline phase because nobody wanted him around when he was in decline. Have him play 20-22 years and see if his EqA is higher then a lot of those other guys.

[John Shoemaker]

Well now we have dropped Dick Allen below 75%. Are we really going to deny him entrance to the hall of fame again? I can't believe what is hapening!

[yanks0714]

I'm really disappointed Dick Allen has dropped below 75% but not surprised. Allen has many detractors. I personally think much of it has to do with what some see as character flaws, not baseball achievements. If they looked at his on-the-field success I simply don't understand how they could not vote for him.
Those that say he had too short a career, all I can say is look at his extended peak. This coming from someone who prefers career over peak.

That said, Allen has other chances. Nellie Fox, OTOH, is in his final year eligibility and is not going to make it again. That is just sad. We are doing him the same disservice that the HOF baseball writers did by not electing him. I was sincerely hoping he would garner a Cepeda-like charge and be elected but it is not to be.
When I look at some of the guys getting votes and Allen and Fox falling short of election it just makes me wonder what we gauge HOF worthy credentials on.

[jalbright]

Don't give up on Allen yet--he's got 39 of 52, or exactly 75%, with just a few hours to go.

[DoubleX]

Ted Williams was not hated by the media. Some members of the media did not like him and he did not like them. but it was nothing close to anything that we see nowadays in terms of hate. Dick Allen has a higher EqA (as if that is the only measuring stick needed) because the guy barely played compared to everybody else. He had no decline phase because nobody wanted him around when he was in decline. Have him play 20-22 years and see if his EqA is higher then a lot of those other guys.

I think the media had a pretty strong disliking for Ted Williams, especially his hometown media who left him off MVP ballots altogether in years he was clearly deserving. The Boston media leaving him off the ballots cost him at least one MVP, and perhaps two.

[Ubiquitous]

I think the media had a pretty strong disliking for Ted Williams, especially his hometown media who left him off MVP ballots altogether in years he was clearly deserving. The Boston media leaving him off the ballots cost him at least one MVP, and perhaps two.


The MVP takes two writers votes from each baseball city. I don't think we can infer that the Boston media did not like Ted Williams because of two writers votes. Egan did not like Williams but Egan was not flanked by a sea of Boston reporters in this belief. There were some who shared his view.

Check out the Sporting News archive which uses articles from writers all over the country including Boston. Check out the New York Times, check out the Boston area papers. I think what you will find is not a "pretty strong disliking".

[DoubleX]

The MVP takes two writers votes from each baseball city. I don't think we can infer that the Boston media did not like Ted Williams because of two writers votes. Egan did not like Williams but Egan was not flanked by a sea of Boston reporters in this belief. There were some who shared his view.

Check out the Sporting News archive which uses articles from writers all over the country including Boston. Check out the New York Times, check out the Boston area papers. I think what you will find is not a "pretty strong disliking".

I'll check into that (perhaps you'll do the same), but pretty much everything I've heard about Ted Williams' relationship with the media, at least in Boston, was that it was it was thorny while he played. Much of my impression came from while living in Boston for several years and hearing about this from Boston fans and the media reflecting upon Williams. Doing a quick google search seems to suggest the same thing.

[Ubiquitous]

Sure it was thorny. You had two to three reporters who hated him Egan being the head guy and you had Williams doing things that would garner negative pub. But like a rose bush you also had some beautiful flowers to go along with those thorny stalks. I'm not saying Ted Williams was loved by all reporters and he was treated like Tony Gwynn by the home town press. What I am saying is that the level of hate for Ted Williams never approached Dick Allen level or even Barry Bonds level.

[John Shoemaker]

Sure it was thorny. You had two to three reporters who hated him Egan being the head guy and you had Williams doing things that would garner negative pub. But like a rose bush you also had some beautiful flowers to go along with those thorny stalks. I'm not saying Ted Williams was loved by all reporters and he was treated like Tony Gwynn by the home town press. What I am saying is that the level of hate for Ted Williams never approached Dick Allen level or even Barry Bonds level.

They were different kinds of hate.The hate for Dick Allen was racial. The hate for Barry Bonds is because of accusations of steroids - an accusation that has never been proved.

[Ubiquitous]

They were different kinds of hate.The hate for Dick Allen was racial. The hate for Barry Bonds is because of accusations of steroids - an accusation that has never been proved.

Some might very well have hated Dick Allen for racial reasons, but Dick Allen did more then enough to not be liked by reporters regardless of skin.

Without detailing his early years in Philadelphia I can only guess that yes it is possible that the racial dislike created a snowball effect which allowed future reporters to jump on Allen in later years for his misdeeds. That could have happened I don't know. I've never really studied 60's era Philadelphia reporters with regards to Dick Allen or really anybody. I have seen 70's articles with Dick Allen and I can't really see where race played into the article. Those articles were more about what Dick Allen and the team was doing and not doing to win games.

[DoubleX]

Can Allen survive for the last two and a half hours? Our vote totals are down this month, but that could work in his favor as last month, the votes coming in at the end were his undoing.

[John Shoemaker]

Can Allen survive for the last two and a half hours? Our vote totals are down this month, but that could work in his favor as last month, the votes coming in at the end were his undoing.

As much as i'd like to see Dick Allen get in, i'd like to see as large a sample as possible so i'm hoping for some more votes this last two and a half hours and hopefully at least 75% will vote for Dick Allen.

[DoubleX]

1985 is done and we’ve elected one new player to the Mock HoF (and by the thinnest of margins):

Dick Allen: 75.00% (+5.65%)

After years of only electing first year players (or players that were first year to us), we’ve elected a player that has spent multiple years on the ballot three years in a row. However, our turnout did dip to our lowest thus far, just 52 votes.

We also say goodbye to Nellie Fox this year, who after lingering on the ballot for 15 years (7 with us), gave it a good push at the end, but couldn’t quite get over the hump. I personally think we let one go here, but that’s why this is a consensus project.

And while we’re at big jumps – did anyone notice that Joe Torre shot up to 61.54%? Instant hope!

Also, this is the second year that the BBWAA elected a player before we did – Lou Brock (the BBWAA already elected Luis Aparicio in 1984).


The following players received more than 5% of the vote and will thus be on next year’s ballot, except Nellie Fox whose eligibility has run; if a player was on last year’s ballot, the change in their percentage is noted in parentheses:

Lou Brock: 73.08% (n/a)
Nellie Fox: 67.31% (+15.70%) – Eligibility Over
Joe Torre: 61.54% (+24.44%)
Luis Aparicio: 55.77% (+2.54%)
Jim Bunning: 53.85% (+3.85%)
Bill Freehan: 38.46% (+4.59%)
Jimmy Wynn: 34.62% (+5.59%)
Ken Boyer: 32.69% (+5.27%)
Catfish Hunter: 32.69% (n/a)
Bill Mazeroski: 30.77% (-6.33%)
Tony Oliva: 26.92 (-0.53%)
Frank Howard: 21.15% (-3.04%)
Norm Cash: 17.31% (+6.02%)
Thurman Munson: 11.54% (-4.59%)
Maury Wills: 11.54% (-4.59%)
Curt Flood: 9.62% (+1.56%)
Boog Powell: 9.62% (-8.12%)

3 Biggest Gainers: Joe Torre (+24.44%); Nellie Fox (+15.70%); Norm Cash (+6.02%)
3 Biggest Losers: Boog Powell (-8.12%); Bill Mazeroski (-6.33); Thurman Munson and Maury Wills (-4.59%)

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

Ken Holtzman: 3.85%
Ed Kranepool: 3.85%
Mickey Lolich: 3.85%
George Scott: 1.92%
Bobby Tolan: 1.92%
Roy White: 1.92%


I should have 1986 up and running today. As always, I encourage anyone who feels particularly strongly about a candidate, to state your case – I think it can make a difference.