BBF Mock HoF Election: 1991 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Mock HoF Election: 1991

DoubleX

04-10-2007, 01:56 PM

Welcome to Baseball Fever's Mock HoF Election for 1991. 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 three things:

1) The Format and Rules

2) A Guide for the 1991 Election

3) Some Personal Thoughts and Observations

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.

1991 Guide
There are 42 candidates on the 1991 BBF ballot. Here's some information regarding the candidates:

First Timers (24)
Bob Bailor
Larry Bowa
Al Bumbry
Jeff Burroughs
Rod Carew
Rich Dauer
Rollie Fingers
Oscar Gamble
Larry Gura
Mike Hargrove
Richie Hebner
Burt Hooton
Art Howe
Mike Jorgensen
Bruce Kison
Jerry Koosman
John Lowenstein
Al Oliver
Steve Rogers
Rusty Staub
Ellis Valentine
John Wathan
Pat Zachry
Geoff Zahn

Holdovers (18)

Player Year of Eligibility High BBF Support Previous Year’s BBF Support
Sal Bando 5th 19.57% (1987) 13.73%
Bobby Bonds 5th 28.26% (1987) 27.45%
Jim Bunning 15th 69.57% (1987) 56.86%
Norm Cash 12th 19.57% (1987) 9.80%
Curt Flood 15th 13.04% (1987) 7.84%
Bill Freehan 10th 41.17% (1986) 37.25%
Frank Howard 13th 27.46% (1986) 23.53%
Catfish Hunter 7th 32.69% (1985) 19.61%
Jim Kaat 3rd 29.41% (1990) 29.41%
Bill Mazeroski 14th 37.10% (1980/1984) 33.33%
Tony Oliva 10th 36.96% (1987) 21.57%
Amos Otis 2nd 5.88% (1990) 5.88%
Boog Powell 9th 17.74% (1984) 9.80%
Reggie Smith 4th 23.81% (1988) 19.61%
Gene Tenace 3rd 7.32% (1989) 5.88%
Luis Tiant 4th 40.48% (1988) 31.37%
Joe Torre 9th 61.54% (1985) 54.90%
Jimmy Wynn 9th 34.62% (1985) 29.41%

Last Year of Eligibility
Jim Bunning
Curt Flood

Penultimate Year of Eligibility
Bill Mazeroski

Players on BBF Ballot not on BBWAA Ballot (10)
Sal Bando – Dropped by BBWAA (1987)
Norm Cash – Dropped by BBWAA (1980)
Bill Freehan – Dropped by BBWAA (1982)
Frank Howard - Dropped by BBWAA (1979)
Catfish Hunter – Elected by BBWAA (1987)
Amos Otis – Dropped by BBWAA (1990)
Boog Powell – Dropped by BBWAA (1983)
Reggie Smith – Dropped by BBWAA (1988)
Gene Tenace – Dropped by BBWAA (1989)
Jimmy Wynn – Dropped by BBWAA (1983)

Players on BBWAA Ballot not on BBF Ballot (13)
Dick Allen – Elected by BBF (1985)
Ken Boyer – BBF Eligibility Ended (1989) – The BBWAA extended his eligibility until 1994 for reasons explained in our 1989 guide.
Orlando Cepeda - Elected by BBF (1984)
Harvey Kuenn - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Fergie Jenkins – Elected by BBF (1989)
Mickey Lolich – Dropped by BBF (1985)
Sparky Lyle – Dropped by BBF (1989)
Minnie Minoso – Elected by BBF (1990)
Thurman Munson – Dropped by BBF (1989)
Gaylord Perry – Elected by BBF (1989)
Vada Pinson - Dropped by BBF (1983)
Ron Santo - Elected by BBF (1980)
Maury Wills – Dropped by BBF (1989)

Actual Hall of Famers on BBF Ballot (5)
Jim Bunning (VC - 1996)
Rod Carew (BBWAA – 1991)
Rollie Fingers (BBWAA – 1992)
Catfish Hunter (BBWAA – 1987)
Bill Mazeroski (VC - 2001)

Players Elected by BBF between 1979-1990 (27)

Player BBF Election Year BBF Election Percentage Year on Ballot
Hank Aaron 1982 100.00% 1st
Dick Allen 1985 75.00% 3rd
Luis Aparicio 1990 76.47% 12th
Richie Ashburn 1979 75.41% 12th (1st for BBF)
Johnny Bench 1989 95.12 1st
Lou Brock 1988 76.19% 4th
Orlando Cepeda 1984 79.03% 5th
Don Drysdale 1983 79.03% 9th (5th for BBF)
Bob Gibson 1981 89.83% 1st
Fergie Jenkins 1989 82.93% 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
Willie McCovey 1986 100.00% 1st
Minnie Minoso 1990 76.47% 5th
Joe Morgan 1990 88.24% 1st
Jim Palmer 1990 80.39% 1st
Gaylord Perry 1989 80.49% 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)
Willie Stargell 1988 88.10% 1st
Hoyt Wilhelm 1979 77.05% 2nd (1st for BBF)
Billy Williams 1982 80.00% 1st
Carl Yastrzemski 1989 92.68% 1st

Players Elected by BBF by Position
Catcher (1): Johnny Bench
First Base (4): Dick Allen, Orlando Cepeda, Harmon Killebrew, Willie McCovey
Second Base (1): Joe Morgan
Shortstop (1): Luis Aparicio
Third Base (2): Brooks Robinson, Ron Santo
Left Field (5): Lou Brock, Minnie Minoso, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams, Carl Yastrzemski
Center Field (3): Richie Ashburn, Willie Mays, Duke Snider
Right Field (3): Hank Aaron, Al Kaline, Frank Robinson

Starting Pitcher (6): Don Drysdale, Bob Gibson, Fergie Jenkins, Juan Marichal, Jim Palmer, Gaylord Perry
Relief Pitcher (1): Hoyt Wilhelm

Players Elected by BBWAA between 1979-1990 (21)
Hank Aaron (1982)
Luis Aparicio (1984)
Johnny Bench (1989)
Lou Brock (1985)
Don Drysdale (1984)
Bob Gibson (1981)
Catfish Hunter (1987)
Al Kaline (1980)
Harmon Killebrew (1984)
Juan Marichal (1983)
Willie Mays (1979)
Willie McCovey (1986)
Joe Morgan (1990)
Jim Palmer (1990)
Brooks Robinson (1983)
Frank Robinson (1982)
Duke Snider (1980)
Willie Stargell (1988)
Hoyt Wilhelm (1985)
Billy Williams (1987)
Carl Yastrzemski (1989)

BBF/BBWAA Election Ratio
27:21

Players Elected by Year between 1979-1990 (BBF and BBWAA)

Year BBF (27) BBWAA (21)
1979 Richie Ashburn Willie Mays
Duke Snider
Hoyt Wilhelm
Willie Mays
1980 Al Kaline Al Kaline
Ron Santo Duke Snider
1981 Bob Gibson Bob Gibson
Harmon Killebrew
Juan Marichal
1982 Hank Aaron Hank Aaron
Frank Robinson Frank Robinson
Billy Williams
1983 Don Drysdale Juan Marichal
Brooks Robinson Brooks Robinson
1984 Orlando Cepeda Luis Aparicio
Don Drysdale
Harmon Killebrew
1985 Dick Allen Lou Brock
Hoyt Wilhelm
1986 Willie McCovey Willie McCovey
1987 None Caftish Hunter
Billy Williams
1988 Lou Brock Willie Stargell
Willie Stargell
1989 Johnny Bench Johnny Bench
Fergie Jenkins Carl Yastrzemski
Gaylord Perry
Carl Yastrzemski
1990 Luis Aparicio Joe Morgan
Minnie Minoso Jim Palmer
Joe Morgan
Jim Palmer

Players Elected by BBF but not BBWAA between 1979-1990 (7)
Dick Allen (1985)
Richie Ashburn (1979)
Orlando Cepeda (1984)
Fergie Jenkins (1989)
Minnie Minoso (1990)
Gaylord Perry (1989)
Ron Santo (1980)

Players Elected by BBWAA but not BBF between 1979-1990 (1)
Catfish Hunter (1987)

Players Dropped by BBF After 15 Years on Ballot (7)

Player Year Dropped High BBF Support
Ken Boyer 1989 33.33% (1986)
Nellie Fox 1985 67.31% (1985)
Gil Hodges 1983 27.42% (1980/1983)
Ted Kluszewski 1981 9.68% (1980)
Don Newcombe 1980 12.90% (1980)
Red Schoendienst 1983 25.81% (1983)
Enos Slaughter 1979 45.90% (1979)

Players Heldover by BBF but Dropped Before Eligibility Ended (8)

Player (Year Dropped) Years on Ballot High BBF Support
Willie Horton (1988) 3 6.52% (1987)
Elston Howard (1981) 8 (3 for BBF) 11.29% (1980)
Don Larsen (1980) 7 (2 for BBF) 6.56% (1979)
Sparky Lyle (1989) 2 7.14% (1988)
Roger Maris (1982) 9 (4 for BBF) 16.13% (1979)
Thurman Munson (1989) 9 17.39% (1987)
Vada Pinson (1983) 3 13.56% (1981)
Maury Wills (1980) 12 (11 for BBF) 16.13% (1984)

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past BBF Elections
1979: 61
1980: 62
1981: 59
1982: 55
1983: 62
1984: 62
1985: 52
1986: 51
1987: 46
1988: 42
1989: 41
1990: 51

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)
1985 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58020)
1986 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58308)
1987 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58590)
1988 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58882)
1989 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=59147)
1990 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=59516)

Thoughts and Observations
1) Newcomers: Rod Carew and Rollie Fingers headline the newcomers for this election. My guess is that Carew will receive strong support and should have no trouble getting in, but Fingers could be interesting and will be a great test for how we treat relievers. Not counting Hoyt Wilhelm, Sparky Lyle thus far has had the best success among relief pitchers, but we dropped him in his second year of eligibility. In the coming years, we’ll start see more and more relievers coming on the ballot.

After Carew and Fingers, we have a number of interesting candidates, and with players like Amos Otis, Gene Tenace, and Willie Horton a few years back, being able to stick on the ballot for at least a year, there could be hope for a number of players. On this year’s ballot, players like Al Oliver and Rusty Staub might fit the bill.

Among starting pitchers on the ballot, Jerry Koosman appears to be the best and I wouldn’t be that surprised to see him sneak by with enough support.

2) Holdovers: We managed to elect two holdovers last year, Luis Aparicio and Minnie Minoso. Aparicio had been on our ballot each year since we started in 1979, and thus should give hope for all players that are lingering on the ballot for a number of years. We did not lose any holdovers to the 5% rule last year and picked up one new player, Amos Otis, who just very barely got by. Also, after a rash of good new candidates in 1989 likely caused many voters to have to push some players off their ballots, most players rebounded nicely in 1990 and picked up much of the support they lost, notably Bobby Bonds, Jim Bunning, Luis Tiant, and Jimmy Wynn.

Here are some of my thoughts/observations on some of the holdovers:

- Jim Bunning: This is Bunning’s last year of eligibility. He’s consistently had pretty strong showings, receiving the highest support among holdovers from last year’s election (56.96%) and reaching as high as 69.57% in 1987. It might be ominous that he didn’t quite crack 70% that year because we’ve eventually elected every holdover that received at least 70% in at least one election. I’d suggest that any supporters of Bunning get out early and state their case for Bunning in this election before it’s too late. Based on the surge in support that Nellie Fox received in his last year (1985), I believe that with some good early arguments, and perhaps some additional support due to sentimentality, I think it is possible that Bunning can make a Cepeda-like-surge and get in. I view Bunning as very borderline and only once decided to vote for him. However, with any player that I’m very borderline with and am not voting for, I will vote for them in their 15th year (should they get that far), so I will vote for Bunning this year, and wouldn’t be surprised if others have a similar mentality.

- Curt Flood: This is also Curt Flood’s last year on the ballot. Personally, I’m amazed he’s survived this long. His highest support was just 13.04% (1987) and he’s consistently been under 10%. It seems that most every holdover we’ve had with such consistently weak support eventually succumbed to the 5% rule, but not Flood. It’s almost certainly too much to expect him to come anywhere close to being elected, but the fact that he’s survived the full 15 years (13 with us) deserves some recognition in its own right.

- Bill Mazeroski: This is the next-to-last year for Mazeroski’s eligibility. He’s never really mounted much of a charge, but with last year’s election of Aparicio and Morgan, we’ve finally acknowledged middle infielders, so perhaps Mazeroski will benefit from that.

- Joe Torre: Torre received the second most support among holdovers from last year (54.90%). Torre, like Bunning, consistently has strong support but can’t ever quite get over the hump. I actually believe the election of Aparicio is particularly encouraging for Torre. Aparicio, like Torre, spent years on the ballot consistently getting good support, but making little headway. Aparicio’s example shows that over time, it is possible to muster enough support and get over the hump. I think if you look at his offensive production, a career 129 OPS+, and consider that it came while playing mostly catcher and 3B, and also consider the era, he seems to have a strong case to me. He has an MVP, one of the finest offensive campaigns ever by a 3Bman, was perhaps the best catcher in baseball (or at least the NL, with Bill Freehan having the strongest rival claim - another player I urge voters to take a good look at) during most of the 60s, a Gold Glove at catcher, and nine All Star selections. Seems like a pretty strong case to me.

- Amos Otis: Personally, I was surprised to see Otis get through, but perhaps I shouldn’t have been. I think we have a history of being pretty kind to CFers. Curt Flood has survived 15 years, Vada Pinson made it through 3 years, Jimmy Wynn gets a lot more love from us than he ever did from the BBWAA (though some will argue that it’s still not nearly enough), and we elected Richie Ashburn on his first year of eligibility with us.

- Gene Tenace: I think Tenace is a generally underrated player and is like that great little secret that Bill James exposed for us, but I really scratch my head as to why he’s still on the ballot. No question that Tenace could hit as a catcher, his career 135 OPS+ attests to that. However, he strikes me as a far cry from a Hall of Famer. The argument in favor of Tenace is that he was a very good offensive catcher. However, he played about only 8 full seasons, had just 5525 plate appearances, only twice did he catch more than 100 games in a season (plus one more 99 game season), only once more than 104, and he played 1B almost as often as he caught. I just don’t see how he had a Hall of Fame career at any position, especially catcher. To me, Thurman Munson and even Elston Howard seem more deserving as Hall of Fame catchers than Tenace, yet they were both dropped by us (I never voted for either Munson or Howard). I’m not trying to tell people how to vote, just saying why I don’t see Tenace as a Hall of Famer and would ask his supporters to state his case in response.

3) Positional Adjustments: After 10 elections in which we did not elect any middle infielders or catchers, we now have one at each position. I still think though, that some of us are holding the offensive standards of 1B and corner OF positions to everywhere on the diamond, and that is naturally prejudicing players at other positions that feature and excel in different skill sets.

4) Voter Turnout: I don’t know what it was, perhaps the fact that the season started and ignited general baseball interest in people, but after five years of declining vote totals, we jumped by 10 votes last year. I hope the trend continues as I think a larger and more diverse electorate only adds to this process (though I do insist that all voters vote thoughtfully and carefully).

6) BBF vs. BBWAA: After we had some lean years in the mid 80s, the BBWAA was rapidly catching us in the number of players elected. After last year, when for the second time in a row we elected four players in a year, we’ve again put some good distance between us and the BBWAA. Personally, I think it’s a good thing as we’ve managed to put in some players that the BBWAA just plain dropped the ball on, IMO (such as Santo, Cepeda, Allen, and Minoso), but I’ll let you be your own judge as to whether it’s a good or bad thing.

Windy City Fan

04-10-2007, 02:14 PM

I'm holding off to see if any of the Bunning supporters can make a case for their man. I've never voted for him, and feel pretty comfortable saying he's a Hall of Very Good but not Great player, but I'm willing to listen to arguments.

That said, Bando, Howard, Maz, Freehan, Oliva, Torre, and newcomers Carew and Fingers have my vote.

DoubleX

04-10-2007, 02:33 PM

Normally I would have voted for now, but I'm really conflicted about Fingers. I've never been that impressed by Fingers, but I feel like I should be voting for him. For example, I don't see him in Gossage's class. Anyone care to state his case?

-Kyle-

04-10-2007, 02:34 PM

Strategically did not vote for Fingers or Carew.

THE OX

04-10-2007, 02:44 PM

I'm holding off to see if any of the Bunning supporters can make a case for their man. I've never voted for him, and feel pretty comfortable saying he's a Hall of Very Good but not Great player, but I'm willing to listen to arguments......

Well, Bunning had over 100 wins in each league, a no -hitter in the AL and a perfect game in the NL. Had he been a member of contending teams, might have had an additional 20-30 career wins.

Should have had a Cy Young in the AL in 1957 if each league had one at the time. In serious contention for several others.

Ace of Detroit and Philadelphia pitching staffs for a period of about 10 years.

Along with Herb Score, one of the leading edge of real strikeout pitchers in the mid-to-late 1950s. Fine K/BB ratio for a power type of pitcher.

Pitched in the big leagues for 16 seasons. A starter for about 14 of them.

A real thorn in the side of Ted Williams with his "little s**t slider!"

If those won't swing you over to his side, you're beyond help or reason......

leecemark

04-10-2007, 02:45 PM

--Three of our first five voters have passed on Rod Carew. We're going to look pretty foolish if he doesn't coast in first ballot.

The Dude

04-10-2007, 03:39 PM

Jim Bunning was the best pitcher in the AL in 1957 and 1960, and the best pitcher in the NL in 1967. I would say it's hard to find a guy with 200+ wins, who was the best pitcher in his league 3 times, whose not in the Hall of Fame.

Bunning wasn't great at any one thing, but he was excellent at everything. He always had a low WHIP, always had a low ERA, always struck a lot of guys out, and always threw a lot of innings. You might ask how he lost so many games, right? Well, it's a simple answer. Bunning gave up a lot of home runs with his hard slider to that short porch in Tiger Stadium. His HR totals were higher than most players, as were his HBP, which led to baserunners we can't see. But I raise the question, if we discredit how important wins are, why don't we do the same with losses?

At this point in time, Bunning was:
47th AT in IP.
11th AT in K's (All but Sutton, who isn't elligable yet, and Blyleven, who hasn't retired yet were elected that are in front of him).

DoubleX

04-10-2007, 03:47 PM

I voted for:

Jim Bunning
Rod Carew
Bill Freehan
Frank Howard
Joe Torre

I couldn't pull the trigger on Fingers. I just don't see what's Hall of Fame great about Fingers other than the mustache. A very good reliever and even a pioneer of sorts. Sure. But his 119 ERA+ is particularly impressive, IMO for a Hall of Fame reliever. Still, I'm very open to arguments in favor of Fingers.

Windy City Fan

04-10-2007, 06:08 PM

Well, Bunning had over 100 wins in each league, a no -hitter in the AL and a perfect game in the NL.

A hundred wins in each league is no better than 200 wins in one league, or 150 in one and 50 in another. I never understood why people made a big deal out of this sort of thing.

Had he been a member of contending teams, might have had an additional 20-30 career wins.

Perhaps, but then again wins aren't a big deal for me.

Should have had a Cy Young in the AL in 1957 if each league had one at the time. In serious contention for several others.

1957, I'd agree Bunnign was the best AL pitcher, but its not like he had a lot of competition. No other stand outs were among AL regulars that year. In fact, the AL was definatley the weaker league during Bunnings time, due it being slower to embrace integration.

Ace of Detroit and Philadelphia pitching staffs for a period of about 10 years.

Jack Morris was the ace of the Tigers for 10 years, but that doesn't make him a HoFer to me.

Along with Herb Score, one of the leading edge of real strikeout pitchers in the mid-to-late 1950s. Fine K/BB ratio for a power type of pitcher.

Bunning does have a very nice K/BB ratio. I was surprised it was impressive as it was. However, as another poster mentioend, he did give up a lot of HR. 372 total which is good for 17th all time. Considering he pitched in a pitcher's era, that's not a good thing.

Pitched in the big leagues for 16 seasons. A starter for about 14 of them.

16 years isn't a particularly long career. I wouldn't consider that a point to consider for a HoF case.

If those won't swing you over to his side, you're beyond help or reason......

If you say so ...

Brooklyn

04-10-2007, 06:33 PM

Carew was an no-brainer, but he is the only one to make my ballot

The Dude

04-10-2007, 07:11 PM

At this point in time, Fingers was:
1st in Saves
4th in Games
1st in Games Finished

How about inherited runners though? I believer there's only been 5 relievers on our ballot that we actually have considered at some point. Fingers, Lyle, Hiller, Marshall, and Wilhelm.

Bold=Already on ballot. May have been dropped by now
Bold & Italic=Elected
Italic=Retired, but not yet eligable for the ballot.

Name IR IRS %
Rollie Fingers 819 231 0.28
Sparky Lyle 970 330 0.34
John Hiller 550 178 0.32
Hoyt Wilhelm 448 150 0.33
Mike Marshall 513 173 0.34
Bruce Sutter 445 137 0.31
Kent Tekulve 771 216 0.28

What does this show? Well, Fingers was 2nd in coming into games with inherited runners, but he was the best at not letting them score! This shows that Fingers, not only holds all these records, but at this point in time, was the best fireman that has been on the ballot.

DoubleX

04-10-2007, 07:14 PM

How about inherited runners though? I believer there's only been 5 relievers on our ballot that we actually have considered at some point. Fingers, Lyle, Hiller, Marshall, and Wilhelm.

We must have had more relievers than that. Roy Face comes to mind and there are probably more.

The Dude

04-10-2007, 08:05 PM

DoubleX

04-10-2007, 08:52 PM

Name IR IRS %
Rollie Fingers 819 231 0.28
Sparky Lyle 970 330 0.34
John Hiller 550 178 0.32
Hoyt Wilhelm 448 150 0.33
Mike Marshall 513 173 0.34
Bruce Sutter 445 137 0.31
Kent Tekulve 771 216 0.28
Frank Linzy 436 155 0.36
Don McMahon 592 225 0.38
Lindy McDaniel 792 279 0.35
Roy Face 551 189 0.34
Wilbur Wood 302 96 0.32

I found a few more. Fingers still remains 2nd in IR, and First in IRS %

Well tied with Tekulve, and the number of inherited runs between them isn't that great to make much a difference given the large sample size.

Tekulve is a reliever I find very underrated. Tekulve didn't have as many saves as Fingers, but that might largely be explained by the fact that Tekulve was more a product of his era than Fingers, whereas Fingers was more of a forerunner. Tekulve also had a 132 ERA+ compared to 119 for Fingers, though Fingers pitched 250 more innings.

DoubleX

04-10-2007, 08:56 PM

For people not voting for Carew - why? His 3053 career hits not good enough? What about the .328 BA, which came during an era when it was actually difficult to hit that high (unlike so many of the high BAs of players from the 20s and 30s)? The 353 stolen bases? The .393 OBP? The 131 career OPS? The doing this all while playing half his career at 2B? The 18 consecutive All Star appearances? The 1977 MVP Award? The 7 Batting Titles? The 12 top 5 batting finishes? The four OBP titles? The three runs created titles? Seriously, what's not to like about Carew?

John Shoemaker

04-10-2007, 08:57 PM

18 voters and nobody over 75%. We may have trouble electing anyone this year. IMO there are a lot of very good candidates but no great ones.

vtbub

04-11-2007, 06:02 AM

In the pre-closer era, there was nobody better than Fingers in closing the door. (69-80 era).

The Gossage's, Sutter's, and Smith's that followed have Fingers tothank. He could get you nine outs if he needed too.

He doesn't have the "hallmark" number that people like, but IMHO he's a no-brainer.

Erik Bedard

04-11-2007, 06:16 AM

Only went with eight this time, my smallest ballot yet:

Bunning
Carew
Fingers
Flood
Freehan
Mazeroski
Torre
Wynn

2Chance

04-11-2007, 06:26 AM

Bando
Bunning
Carew
Freehan
Howard
Mazeroski
Oliver
Torre
Wynn

I don't expect Al Oliver to get in, but he was too good to be one and done. Nor do I expect to keep him around for long, unless somebody can make a strong enough case for him.

KCGHOST

04-11-2007, 06:28 AM

Carew was an no-brainer, but he is the only one to make my ballot

Same here.

Captain Cold Nose

04-11-2007, 06:38 AM

DoubleX

04-11-2007, 07:01 AM

John Shoemaker

04-11-2007, 07:10 AM

Strategy, I guess.

When 2 people vote for none of the above what kind of strategy is that?

dgarza

04-11-2007, 08:24 AM

Was Fingers injured in 1983?

dgarza

04-11-2007, 08:30 AM

1. Rod Carew
2. Tony Oliva
3. Rollie Fingers
4. Al Oliver
5. Joe Torre
6. Jim Bunning
7. Frank Howard
8. Bobby Bonds
9. Reggie Smith
10. Catfish Hunter

The Dude

04-11-2007, 10:45 AM

Fingers tore a muscle in his arm in September '82, which made him miss the Brewers playoffs (He might have helped win the WS otherwise), and all of '83.

Ubiquitous

04-11-2007, 10:47 AM

I've never been enamored with the 3,000 hit club members from the 70's and 80's, and I have never been a big fan of Rod's. The guy hit singles and like to run, yet he generally didn't make good decisions on the basepaths and for all the derring-do on the basepaths he was still basically a singles machine that wasn't very good defensively.

If somebody had all of baseball to assemble a team would he make the team? To me that is no. Would he make the second team? To me again no. Third team? So on and so on. If I confined the team to eras would he make the starting lineup? At what point does Rod Carew look like a viable choice? I'm sure some would say at the era level but for me I would disagree.

On a side note I think Rod's style of hitting would be the least affected style of hitting for that era. His era was not a power pitching era it was a finesse era. Of the sinker/slider combo, the splitter, and of astroturf. Rod's style of hitting the non-power controlled swing style generally does well with stuff that isn't overpowering. Players like Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew, Ichiro generally do best against these crafty type players while it is the sluggers that generally have the most trouble with these guys.

I'm not saying his stats are artificial I just don't think he should get any bonus simply because he had a high batting average in that era.

Ubiquitous

04-11-2007, 10:53 AM

Fingers tore a muscle in his arm in September '82, which made him miss the Brewers playoffs (He might have helped win the WS otherwise), and all of '83.

Kind of doubt it. Best case scenario would be bringing in Rollie in the 8th inning of Game 2. Otherwise there is no late inning events that changed the outcome of a game.

Game 1: Brewers win 10-0. No need for fingers

Game 3: Cardinals win 6-2 with the Cards getting 5 runs by the end of the 7th, and 3 by the 5th. Rollie wouldn't have changed that.

Game 4: Brewers win 7-5 with all the Cards runs before the 7th. No need for fingers

Game 5: Brewers win 6-4. No need for fingers. Though he might have ended up coming in in the 9th.

Game 6: Cards win 13-1. No need for fingers.

Game 7: Cards win 6-3 with the last 2 runs coming in the 8th. No need for Fingers.

The Dude

04-11-2007, 10:57 AM

Ubi, I'm kind of lost on what your defenition on "bonus" is.

Are you saying we shouldn't elect Rod Carew because he had seven batting titles in a time when he was facing the best pitchers for his style of hitting, or are you saying we shouldn't elect Rod Carew because his seven batting titles aren't enough to elect him, so Carew supporters are trying to find something else to argue him in?

I just don't think it's correct to hold it against a guy who had seven batting titles. I mean, if you want to compare him to another 2B and say they were better because they played in this era and did the same thing, blah blah, that's fine by me. But Carew went out there and performed to the best of his abilities in the era he had to play in, by no fault of his own. He got on base a lot, and he still scored a lot, even though his base running ability was ... not great.

Back to fingers:
Had he been uninjured, I'm guessing the Brewers would have brought him in the 8th in game seven, as he was a 2 inning fireman. If the lead would have only been one run, who knows what would have happened in the 9th.

Ubiquitous

04-11-2007, 01:48 PM

I just don't find tapping out singles in an era conducive to tapping out singles to be all that great of an accomplishment. He has value, probably even great value but hitting singles and doing little of anything else doesn't really mean much to me.

Rod Carew isn't somebody that I think shouldn't be in the hall. I have never thought of him as a mistake or somebody whose election has embarrassed the hall. If he gets elected he gets elected he is just not my idea of a hall of famer.

As for Rollie I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that if Rollie came in in the 8th and did in fact keep the two runs from scoring that would have been enough or even close to it. For starters STL still had the lead and secondly an even better reliever was pitching those final innings for STL and did in fact keep the Brewers from scoring even when it was close. That pitcher being Bruce Sutter. Sutter came in in the 8th and didn't give up a hit or walk and struck out 2 of his 6 batters faced, and he did that against the heart of the order when in fact it was still a one run game. Molitor Ground out, Yount struck out, Cooper ground out. Then the 9th inning two ground outs and a strike out. The splitter was working perfectly those last two innings.

538280

04-11-2007, 03:52 PM

Can someone tell me why Gene Tenace is still on the ballot? Like I've said in my opening post the past two years - I don't get it. I think people are too enamored with his OPS+. I don't see anything else going for Tenace but the OPS+, and I don't see how that by itself is enough to make a Hall of Fame case. The argument is that he was a good offensive catcher, but that really wasn't the case, because he wasn't really a catcher, especially by what should be Hall of Fame standards:

Not just Tenace's OPS+, but his overall offensive value to his team. You can use OPS+ to give you a good idea of that though, and as you say Tenace's is 135 which for primary catchers is 2nd all time. Tenace is about 60% catcher and 40% 1Bman. The average OPS+ for catchers in the HOF is 119, the average for 1Bmen is 140. Giving a little extra weight to catcher because he played more there that means the HOF standard for OPS+ for Tenace is about 125.

Other than that we have longevity and defense to consider. Tenace was probably a roughly average fielder at both catcher and first base. He wasn't great at either, but certainly good enough that they could put him out there and he could do pretty well. Statistically he also comes out about average, so I think that's probably about where his defense was. We don't have to make any adjustments for that.

Then we have longevity. Tenace's 1555 games played over his career are acceptable for a catcher, but not for a 1Bman. I'd say for a C/1B hybrid the amount of games you'd expect a HOFer who is above average offensively is not THAT far above that. Probably about 2000 games. I think this is definitely a weakness for Tenace though.

Upon reviewing further I still think Tenace is close, but I"m not quite sure I should be voting for him. He has in the low 200s for Win Shares over his career. That's low, though it's pretty good given his games played it still isn't good by HOF standards; to have a HOF career he needed to play longer, and that's what really hurts him IMO. Also, I don't think anyone at the time when Tenace played really thought of him as a HOFer as is evidenced by his no years where he was a factor in MVP voting and only 1 All Star appearance. I strongly feel Tenace was a great intangible player; Reggie Jackson talks in his autobiography about how he was a great guy in the clubhouse and how pitchers liked it when he caught, he worked well with them. But, overall, I think his short career really does kill his chances, though he WAS a legitimate offensive force, especially from catcher, and his offense wasn't far off from a HOF level from a 1Bman either.

DoubleX

04-11-2007, 04:42 PM

Not just Tenace's OPS+, but his overall offensive value to his team. You can use OPS+ to give you a good idea of that though, and as you say Tenace's is 135 which for primary catchers is 2nd all time. Tenace is about 60% catcher and 40% 1Bman. The average OPS+ for catchers in the HOF is 119, the average for 1Bmen is 140. Giving a little extra weight to catcher because he played more there that means the HOF standard for OPS+ for Tenace is about 125.

Other than that we have longevity and defense to consider. Tenace was probably a roughly average fielder at both catcher and first base. He wasn't great at either, but certainly good enough that they could put him out there and he could do pretty well. Statistically he also comes out about average, so I think that's probably about where his defense was. We don't have to make any adjustments for that.

Then we have longevity. Tenace's 1555 games played over his career are acceptable for a catcher, but not for a 1Bman. I'd say for a C/1B hybrid the amount of games you'd expect a HOFer who is above average offensively is not THAT far above that. Probably about 2000 games. I think this is definitely a weakness for Tenace though.

Upon reviewing further I still think Tenace is close, but I"m not quite sure I should be voting for him. He has in the low 200s for Win Shares over his career. That's low, though it's pretty good given his games played it still isn't good by HOF standards; to have a HOF career he needed to play longer, and that's what really hurts him IMO. Also, I don't think anyone at the time when Tenace played really thought of him as a HOFer as is evidenced by his no years where he was a factor in MVP voting and only 1 All Star appearance. I strongly feel Tenace was a great intangible player; Reggie Jackson talks in his autobiography about how he was a great guy in the clubhouse and how pitchers liked it when he caught, he worked well with them. But, overall, I think his short career really does kill his chances, though he WAS a legitimate offensive force, especially from catcher, and his offense wasn't far off from a HOF level from a 1Bman either.

I agree with everything you say, especially that longevity really hurts him. If maybe, he had the 135 OPS+ while playing almost his entire career at catcher, I'd probably be more open to his being the Hall, but even then, his career would still be pretty short with just 8 full years (and perhaps less if he had to catch full time in reality). His career is just essentially 8 years, and even though he had good value as a great hitting catcher, that was only for about 4 years.

DoubleX

04-13-2007, 08:18 AM

Just giving a little bump...

Ubiquitous

04-13-2007, 08:30 AM

Jim Bunning is a bit of a head scratcher. Times like these I always wonder if the guys in question are geting votes because they are already in the real hall.

He has the two no-hitters and retiring second in strikeouts. But retiring second in strikeouts was more a matter of being the oldest of a new generation of strikeout pitchers. 2 years later Bob Gibson surpasses him. By 1979 3 more pitchers surpass him. By 1985 he is completely off the top 10 leader board.

Brooklyn

04-13-2007, 09:53 AM

Jim Bunning is a bit of a head scratcher. Times like these I always wonder if the guys in question are geting votes because they are already in the real hall.

.

This raises the fame question that was asked in a different post. there are players that are famous because they are in the Hall. People here their name and think "Hall of Famer", not because of what they did, but becasue they are in the Hall.

I'm hoping people voting here take a fresh look at each player as if they were the real voter, but I suspect some people do vote on the fame aspect, which will skew toward the writer's votes

leecemark

04-13-2007, 10:14 AM

DoubleX

04-13-2007, 10:29 AM

--The writers don't have alot of truely bad selections, so I expect we will elect most of their choices. They are actually a little conservative, so we may elect ALL the BWAA players and will certainly elect some they didn't. The VC guys are a little more questionable (although most of the worst are before the scope of our project) so I expect us to reject some Hall of Famers who got in my that route. There are a good many outside looking in for the BBHoF project, which started with all retired players as the eligible pool.

Of players the writers elected, it's not looking very likely that we'll elect Catfish Hunter. We also struggled to get in Lou Brock and Luis Aparicio much more than the writers did. As for players who got in through the VC in real life, we did not elect Enos Slaughter (though he was only on our ballot for a year), Red Schoendienst, and Nellie Fox, and we didn't show much support for Gil Hodges (who consistently gets strong support from the VC). We also don't appear likely to elect Bill Mazeroski, another who eventually got in through the VC.

We have though, already elected a number of players that the BBWAA did not, and a number of players before the BBWAA did. The players we elected that the BBWAA did not are: Richie Ashburn, Ron Santo, Orlando Cepeda, Dick Allen, and Minnie Minoso. Of these, only Ashburn and Cepeda have thus far made it in reality through the VC.

So while I do think, at least on a subconcious level, that Brooklyn is right and that players that were put in through the BBWAA or VC have an advantage in that we tend to perceive them as being Hall of Famers, it doesn't appear to have significantly altered who we've been putting in and not putting in, as we've already elected a number of players that did not have the real life Hall of Fame aspect going for them, and we've already rejected a number of players who do. If anything, it might make it a little more difficult for players such as Allen and Minoso to get than it would if they were actually in the Hall, and vice versa, it probably makes it a little easier for guys like Bunning to get in (and if he gets in, his being in the Hall would probably be a factor). But overall, I don't think it's significantly impacted voting as we seem to be crafting our own standards.

Ubiquitous

04-13-2007, 10:38 AM

DoubleX

04-13-2007, 11:08 AM

Well I think players like Allen, Hodges, and Santo are getting a hall of fame bump. Because the real Hall does not have them in they consequently get talked about a lot. Probably a lot more then their actual playing stats would accord them. At times I think Santo gets talked about then Mike Schmidt who was clearly better then him and I definitely believe that he gets talked about more then Eddie Mathews ever did or will.

I can see where you're coming from, but debating about someone who is not in the Hall probably does not give them as much of a boost or benefit of the doubt as someone in the Hall. Santo might be talked about more than Mathews, but if you were to take a poll, strong chances are Mathews would come out ahead anyway. With someone like Mathews, there isn't much to talk about it. There seems to be a strong consensus on his place. He's in the Hall, as most feel he deserves to be, but there really isn't much of a question as to whether he's among the truly elite, as there is with Schmidt (and thus there is more conversation about Schmidt). If Santo were in the Hall, there wouldn't be much conversation about him, an he would likely receive some kind of subliminal benefit here in voting. But the fact that he is out of the Hall, and that so many believe he should be in, is why there is so much discussion debating whether he should or should not be in. But that discussion can also backfire as it can expose why perhaps he shouldn't be in the Hall. Attracting attention will also attract negative attention. Gil Hodges did not do that well at all in our voting, and I believe that is because of all the negative attention he gets here when his name is brought up. He has a strong group of supporters, but when that's brought up here, there is also a very strong group of people expressing why he doesn't belong in the Hall, and the latter seems to be the majority consensus here.

John Shoemaker

04-13-2007, 12:53 PM

I can see where you're coming from, but debating about someone who is not in the Hall probably does not give them as much of a boost or benefit of the doubt as someone in the Hall. Santo might be talked about more than Mathews, but if you were to take a poll, strong chances are Mathews would come out ahead anyway. With someone like Mathews, there isn't much to talk about it. There seems to be a strong consensus on his place. He's in the Hall, as most feel he deserves to be, but there really isn't much of a question as to whether he's among the truly elite, as there is with Schmidt (and thus there is more conversation about Schmidt). If Santo were in the Hall, there wouldn't be much conversation about him, an he would likely receive some kind of subliminal benefit here in voting. But the fact that he is out of the Hall, and that so many believe he should be in, is why there is so much discussion debating whether he should or should not be in. But that discussion can also backfire as it can expose why perhaps he shouldn't be in the Hall. Attracting attention will also attract negative attention. Gil Hodges did not do that well at all in our voting, and I believe that is because of all the negative attention he gets here when his name is brought up. He has a strong group of supporters, but when that's brought up here, there is also a very strong group of people expressing why he doesn't belong in the Hall, and the latter seems to be the majority consensus here.

I wonder how many of those that think Gil Hodges doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame ever saw him play.

AstrosFan

04-13-2007, 03:21 PM

What does that have to do with anything? Should we be disqualified from voting because we are too young to have see the old-time players? That's what we have statistics for - evaluation of players that many of us did not witness. I can say without hesitation that Eddie Collins belongs in the Hall of Fame, and Buck Weaver does not, just by looking at their numbers. Now if there is a player whose statistics don't indicate him one way or the other, I look immediately to historical opinion of the player.
Gil Hodges averaged about 31 home runs and 100 RBI during the 1950s. Absolutely meaningless. Those numbers are a product of his talent, but also of Ebbets Field and playing in one of the most high-powered offenses in history. His OPS+ for his career is 120. That's good, but it puts him out of "great" range for first basemen. I can name 25 first basemen who were better overall than Hodges, and if I can do that, I'm pretty sure he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. No position save pitcher goes 25 deep in Hall of Fame careers at this stage in the game's history.
Sorry for going off on Hodges, since he isn't part of the list. Regarding a player who is, I would like to see some persuasion for Rollie Fingers. I didn't vote for him this time, but I am not confident that that was the right choice.

DoubleX

04-15-2007, 11:23 AM

Two days left here, hopefully we can get to at least 40 votes. Don't quite understand why there was a surge in support last year and now it seems to have dropped to a potentially new low.

Tom Seaver and Tony Perez will headline the 1992 ballot. There are a number of other interesting candidates as well, IMO, such as Bobby Grich, Cesar Cedeno, Vida Blue, Dave Kingman, Toby Harrah, George Foster, and Ben Ogilvie, among others.

Also, Pete Rose would have been eligible in 1992, but I have decided not to include him on the ballot.

Westlake

04-15-2007, 11:31 AM

I'm wondering what the big difference between Tiant and Bunning is...

John Shoemaker

04-15-2007, 11:42 AM

I'm wondering what the big difference between Tiant and Bunning is...

I have been wondering the same thing.

John Shoemaker

04-15-2007, 11:47 AM

Two days left here, hopefully we can get to at least 40 votes. Don't quite understand why there was a surge in support last year and now it seems to have dropped to a potentially new low.

Tom Seaver will headline the 1992 ballot. There are a number of other interesting candidates as well, IMO, such as Bobby Grich, Cesar Cedeno, Vida Blue, Dave Kingman, Toby Harrah, and Ben Ogilvie, among others.

Also, Pete Rose would have been eligible in 1992, but I have decided not to include him on the ballot.

Two others are Cincinnati Reds Tony Perez and George Foster.

AstrosFan

04-15-2007, 12:44 PM

I have been wondering the same thing.

Both of you are right. There is virtually no difference between the two, except that Bunning shows up as the best pitcher in his league a few more times.

DoubleX

04-15-2007, 01:01 PM

Two others are Cincinnati Reds Tony Perez and George Foster.

Totally forgot to include them - you're absolutely right.

nerfan

04-15-2007, 01:03 PM

I'm wondering what the big difference between Tiant and Bunning is...

Which is why I'm voting for El Tiante every time.

John Shoemaker

04-15-2007, 01:55 PM

Which is why I'm voting for El Tiante every time.

I agree - I'll be voting for him too.

DoubleX

04-15-2007, 02:03 PM

Also, next year will be the last for Bill Mazeroski, so his proponents might want to start stating his case. I'm near the fence on Mazeroski, mostly because of his defensive reputation, but not quite close enough that I anticipate voting for him.

Westlake

04-15-2007, 05:21 PM

I missed Maz on this year's ballot. I'll be voting for him next poll and I hope he gets a last year boost.

BoofBonser26

04-15-2007, 05:41 PM

Crap. I left off Torre. Oops. :(

DoubleX

04-15-2007, 05:42 PM

I missed Maz on this year's ballot. I'll be voting for him next poll and I hope he gets a last year boost.

I know you're one of the bigger Maz supporters, so care to state your case for him in his waning days on the ballot? It looks like he could reach a new high in support this year, though he'll still be far off from election.

Westlake

04-15-2007, 05:46 PM

I'll do that pretty soon.

DoubleX

04-16-2007, 11:09 AM

Bunning has given it a good run, but it's looking likely that he won't get enough.

Colorado Express

04-16-2007, 12:25 PM

Carew
Howard
Oliva

catbox_9

04-17-2007, 12:11 AM

I voted for Bunning amongst others. Looking at the numbers he's pretty borderline but I'm a bit biased and give all former Tigers the benefit of the doubt. With that said, he pitched 2 no-hitters (one was perfect) so when a pitcher is borderline I think multiple no-hitters or perfect games should be the deciding factor. The whole point of being a HOFer is to be great but to also do it over a long period of time. Bunning had a full career and was fairly successful so that isn't the issue. The issue was Bunning was whether or not he was great. 2 games doesn't make a guy great (Virgil Trucks isn't in the HOF) but when you can be a very good pithcer for a career and demonstrate greatness (what's better than a perfect game?) you're a HOFer in my book.

2Chance

04-17-2007, 12:48 AM

Looks like Rollie Fingers' moustache will have to wait, and Oscar Gamble's afro gets the Squadoosh.

DoubleX

04-17-2007, 03:45 PM

This election is over and we elected just one player - Rod Carew.

Rollie Fingers came the closest to election with 72.09%. After that, Jim Bunning mounted a good effort in his last year of eligibility, similar to Nellie Fox a few years back, but couldn't quite get there (67.44%). We also say goodbye to Curt Flood, who often flirted with being dropped, but survived every year and bowed at this year with 16.28%.

Amos Otis failed to get 5% and will be dropped from our holdovers, while Al Oliver and Rusty Staub have joined their ranks.

Erik Bedard

04-17-2007, 06:12 PM

I'd like to thank my fellow Flood voters for helping keep him on the ballot these fifteen years.