David Cone in 2009

[dgarza]

David Cone's was a one-and-done in the 2009 HOF vote, his first year.
What did Cone deserve?

[NewYork NewYork]

He's not a HOFer but I think he should've deserved mild support (5+%). He was a very good pitcher but he simply didn't pitch enough innings (2898.2 IP) to have a realistic shot at the Hall.

[curveball]

I don't think Cone is anywhere near deserving, but the way the HoF writers have voted in the past, he definitely should have at least garnered the 5% minimum to stay on the ballot.

[dgarza]

Am I the only one who thinks that Cone is at least and at most a borderline candidate?

[curveball]

I think Cone was a very good pitcher who had some fine years, but he just did not pitch long enough in my opinion. I just don't think his peak was high enough to justify him getting in, but I honestly think he is better than Catfish Hunter, a ridiculous HoF selection, or Jack Morris, unless further research changes my opinion.

[Freakshow]

I think Cone was a very good pitcher who had some fine years, but he just did not pitch long enough in my opinion. I just don't think his peak was high enough to justify him getting in, but I honestly think he is better than Catfish Hunter, a ridiculous HoF selection, or Jack Morris, unless further research changes my opinion.I tend to agree. FWIW, in the Collaboration Game all three are ranked closely, well outside the hall of fame circle:

#345 Morris
#361 Cone
#369 Hunter

[hudsonharden]

To me, every Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets players vote totals get padded a bit. I think he get near 40%, but it wouldn't infuriate me if he was dropped the first year. Good pitcher, by no means a great pitcher.

[KCGHOST]

I think a showing better than 5% would have been more appropriate rather than being dropped from the ballot.

[jjpm74]

I am very surprised Cone ended up being a 1 and done. Maybe his role in the 1994-95 strike hurt him a little here?

[Brooklyn]

I am very surprised Cone ended up being a 1 and done.

It is hard to predict that. If any writer released his ballot with Cone's name on it, the general sentiment around here would be that the writer shouldlose his priveledge. If writer's got to vote on a 5 point scale (5 being a HOFer, and 1 being good but not great), I suspect a lot of voters would have given him some points. but since it is binary, it is really hard to predict how many people will throw him a vote.

[Mongoose]

One and out? I'm astonished. He was one of the best big game pitchers of his era, 5 WS rings and was a vital contributor to all of them... Plus the perfect game, 19k game, 1 Cy Young award and really deserved another in 1988... Over his prime 12 years, only Maddux could solidly claim to be better...

I always thought the writers liked him. HOF voting has been goofy in recent years anyway: O'Malley; Kuhn; guys like Rice getting in if they squawk loud enough; totally enigmatic choices like Sutter...

It seems Cone got screwed, but nothing should be surprising any longer.

[brett]

Cone is closer to the hall of fame level than Jim Rice.

He's a top 100 pitcher and Rice is outside the top 200 position players.

[dgarza]

Maybe his role in the 1994-95 strike hurt him a little here?What was his role?

[jjpm74]

What was his role?

Wasn't he head of the player's union at the time?

[brett]

He also had some public indecency charge.

[philipthegreat]

All the things the voters like, yet dropped immeadiately. I expected him to garner a little more than 50% of the vote.

[STLCards2]

All the things the voters like, yet dropped immeadiately. I expected him to garner a little more than 50% of the vote.

Not once did I ever hear a single time a single sportscaster, jornalists, or the like ever use the phrase 'future Hall of Famer" when describing David Cone. Not once in any lead-up story by actual BBWAA voters regarding who deserves (or who the specific writer really voted for) the HOF was Cone ever mentioned. Never once in BF history has Cone ever achived over 50% approval rating for the HOF. Why in the world would you excpect Cone to recieve over half the vote?

That being said, the consensus is right - Cone was a fabulous pitcher and a better HOF candidate than Rice. He is vastly underrated and underrapreciated. I personaly, have him in the 80's or so all-time as a pitcher.

However, would I vote for him for the HOF? No. Then how can I be upset at the writers for feeling he wasn't a HOFer too? I certainly couldn't be upset an any individual voter - they voted like I would. Who is there to be upset with? It was like a whole lot of "me's" voting. If I had it my way, the guys who deserve it would all get in right away, and the guys who didn't wouldn't get a single vote. Why should we be upset when a guy that doesn't deserve the HOF doesn't get votes? That is what is supposed to happen. That doesn's excuse the writers from giving more votes to worse players, but that shouldn't happen either!

He was close, but he didn't deserve it and he didn't get in. The system worked this time.

It shouldn't be though of as a scale in which HOFers get 75%, great, but non HOFers get 50-60% and so forth down. In my opinion, HOFers (as I see them) get 100% of my support and non- HOFers (like Cone) get 0%. Why does he "deserve 50-60%? He either deserves it or doesn't! Who cares if an inferior pitcher like Lee Smith :hide: gets a better % of vote. I don't get concerned until inferior pitchers like Hunter and Pennock get voted in.

Bottom line: in my opinion, the only people who should be complaining about him getting bounced are those who would vote "yes" themselves if they had a chance.

[mtortolero]

Until 1999 (36 years old) he was 180-102 and 3.19 ERA (around 129 ERA+).
In his three last seasons he was 14-24 and 5.75 ERA hurting his chances with final totals (194-126, 3.46 ERA, 120 ERA+)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Cone's failure to make it to 200 wins was critical. He'd still be on the ballot if he had done so.

Cone is another case of the BBWAA penalizing a slow finisher.

[henrich]

David Cone deserved a better fate-I have him ranked very high as well (dgarza). 55th all-time for starting pitchers. His number for me is 11,223, very near Curt Schilling and Mussina. I wonder if they will receive the same fate...I doubt it, but that could be like Fuzzy said about the 200 win mark.


I also thought Williams would have scored in the 8-10% range, though the Mitchell report may have done him in. 3B is such a poorly represented position that I thought he may gather some votes.

[Los Bravos]

Cone's failure to make it to 200 wins was critical. He'd still be on the ballot if he had done so.I agree with that, absolutely. Like it or not, that's a de facto minimum requirement for anyone who spent the majority of his career as a starter (absent a Koufaxesque peak.) It hampers the similar cases of Gooden and Jimmy Key, as well.

Considering his resumé and his generally good relations with most writers, I'm really surprised that he's off after one shot.

[mwiggins]

All the things the voters like, yet dropped immeadiately.

Like what? Less than 200 wins? A 3.46 ERA? Nobody is in the Hall with an ERA that high and less than 200 wins, other than Eck. All he really has to attact a voter's attention is a Cy Young and 3 other top 5 finishes and his big year for the '98 Yanks. And that Cy Young was in 1994, so who even remembers that he won it.

[Paul Wendt]

Wikipedia notes that ten years have passed without election of a starting pitcher.

Measured by their mlb debut dates, Tom Seaver 1967 is the "youngest" mainly-starting pitcher in the Hall.
(Fingers, Gossage, Eck, and Sutter are younger.
Blyleven is "younger" than Seaver and Fingers. Lee Smith would extend the run of largely-relief pitchers.)

[jjpm74]

Wikipedia notes that ten years have passed without election of a starting pitcher.

Measured by their mlb debut dates, Tom Seaver 1967 is the "youngest" mainly-starting pitcher in the Hall.
(Fingers, Gossage, Eck, and Sutter are younger.
Blyleven is "younger" than Seaver and Fingers. Lee Smith would extend the run of largely-relief pitchers.)

With Maddux and Mussina retired and Schilling unlikely to return, we may more than make up for that in 5 years. Not to mention Glavine being a big ?

[STLCards2]

Like what? Less than 200 wins? A 3.46 ERA? Nobody is in the Hall with an ERA that high and less than 200 wins, other than Eck. All he really has to attact a voter's attention is a Cy Young and 3 other top 5 finishes and his big year for the '98 Yanks. And that Cy Young was in 1994, so who even remembers that he won it.

That was exactly my point- deserved or not - nobody ever talked about him being a HOFer - why are we suprised at the result?

In the recent 2008 HOF poll (closed 12-31), Cone got only 22% of the genius BBF members' vote. Staying on the ballot wouldn't have done him any good - he would have never gotten close.

Again, this is not a slight to Cone - he wouldn't be a "bad" HOFer - but I am not suprised by his voting totals.

[dgarza]

Wikipedia notes that ten years have passed without election of a starting pitcher.
The last 2 non-300 game winner were Jenkins and Palmer. I wonder if the run of several 300 game winner HOF inductees from the last 20 years have spoiled the chances of many <300 game winners.

[STLCards2]

The last 2 non-300 game winner were Jenkins and Palmer. I wonder if the run of several 300 game winner HOF inductees from the last 20 years have spoiled the chances of many <300 game winners.

Maybe, but once Pedro gets in, everybody will be reminded that 300 wins isn't a prerequisite for election. Mussina will be an interesting test. Smoltz is on everybodies lips as a "future HOFer" but he has the closer nastalgia in his favor too. Schilling has the bloody sock.. Moose might be the only guy who tests the 300 win thing without a "gimmicky" or famous situation in his favor. Not that they don't all deserve it.

[Pine Tar]

Cone should be in the hall. I didn't figure he would ever get in but I thought he would at least stick around for a while. I believe he was hurt by two things 1. he was really a career free agent and 2. the strike shortened seasons of 94 and 95. If he had played before free agency, and therefore put up these career numbers all for one team, I believe he would still be on the ballot. If he had played for one team and there had not been a strike in 94 and 95, he would also have 4 20-win seasons and 200 wins. That, along with 5 world series rings, seven 200 strike outs seaons (I'll give him another one since I am pretending the strike never happenned), and 120 era+ would be really hard to keep out. To me, he is Lefty Gomez with more strikeouts. He even has the same number of rings (5) as Gomez.

[White Knight]

I think Cone was a very good pitcher who had some fine years, but he just did not pitch long enough in my opinion. I just don't think his peak was high enough to justify him getting in, but I honestly think he is better than Catfish Hunter, a ridiculous HoF selection, or Jack Morris, unless further research changes my opinion.

Not saying he deserves to be in or not, but Hunter won 20+ games five years in a row, unheard of these days. That helped his case a lot.

[curveball]

Not saying he deserves to be in or not, but Hunter won 20+ games five years in a row, unheard of these days. That helped his case a lot.

Absolutely. The voters salivate over wins, and 20 win seasons, and that is the only reason Catfish Hunter got in.

What I see is a pitcher with a career era+ of 104, over just 3449 innings. A pitcher who is only 4% better than league average in no way qualifies as a HoFer in my book. 7 out of the 15 years he pitched, his era+ were 76, 82, 84, 84, 85, 93, and 98.

He benefitted from pitching in a pitcher's park, and had excellent run support. He never had a high peak. I could go on and on, but he is in, and there isn't anything that can be done about it.

[mwiggins]

Not saying he deserves to be in or not, but Hunter won 20+ games five years in a row, unheard of these days. That helped his case a lot.


He also started an average of 38 games a year during that stretch. When's the last time anyone started more than 35 games in one year, much less averaged 38 over a 5 year stretch.

And he was pitching for teams that averaged 92.2 wins a year.

And remember that he wasn't much of a pitcher before that 5 year stretch, and his career fell apart soon after that stretch. That 5 year stretch is pretty much all he has to offer. He's a guy who was a little bit above average workhorse type pitcher for most of his career, with 5 All-Star years ( right in the middle. Nothing to be ashamed about, but he wasn't a great pitcher other than probably '74 & '75.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree with that, absolutely. Like it or not, that's a de facto minimum requirement for anyone who spent the majority of his career as a starter (absent a Koufaxesque peak.) It hampers the similar cases of Gooden and Jimmy Key, as well.

Considering his resumé and his generally good relations with most writers, I'm really surprised that he's off after one shot.

The other thing, other than winning 200, that would have helped Cone would have been if he had edged out Hershiser for the 1988 NL Cy Young Award. Had the Mets edged the Dodgers in the 1988 NLCS to win the pennant, that would have been another plus for Cone. These pluses would probably not have gotten him into the HOF, or even real close, but they would have enabled him to escape the one-and-done fate.

[Brad Harris]

It shouldn't be though of as a scale in which HOFers get 75%, great, but non HOFers get 50-60% and so forth down. In my opinion, HOFers (as I see them) get 100% of my support and non- HOFers (like Cone) get 0%. Why does he "deserve 50-60%? He either deserves it or doesn't!

Bottom line: in my opinion, the only people who should be complaining about him getting bounced are those who would vote "yes" themselves if they had a chance.
My thoughts exactly. Just another way to highlight the problem of using a percentage threshold rather than inducting X players with the most votes/points.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree with that, absolutely. Like it or not, that's a de facto minimum requirement for anyone who spent the majority of his career as a starter (absent a Koufaxesque peak.) It hampers the similar cases of Gooden and Jimmy Key, as well.

Considering his resumé and his generally good relations with most writers, I'm really surprised that he's off after one shot.

The guys who have been exceptions to Los Bravos' criteria have tended to be guys who had "star" quality of their own. Most of these guys played in New York in the 1st half of the 20th century. Let's look at a few:

Dazzy Vance:

Black Ink: Pitching - 66 (15) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 171 (68) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 35.0 (94) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 89.0 (124) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Hmmmm . . . That's a WHOLE lotta black ink for a guy who pitched his first full season in the big leagues at age 31.


Lefty Gomez:

Black Ink: Pitching - 46 (28) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 182 (53) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 34.0 (103) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 127.5 (59) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

A pretty decent black ink total for a guy who pitched only 14 seasons in the bigs (really, 12 full seasons). Gomez' HOF monitor total is boosted over Vance's by the advent of the All-Star Game.


David Cone:

Black Ink: Pitching - 19 (101) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 165 (76) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 39.0 (73) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 103.0 (90) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

That's a LOT less black ink than the other guys, isn't it?

Cone was cheated more than a bit. He would have won 20 in 1994 had the season been of normal length, and well may have won 20 in 1995 had that season been of normal length. He was, arguably, the best pitcher in the NL in 1988, and he may have won the Cy Young if the Mets, rather than the Dodgers, had prevailed in the postseason. The strike games lost, plus Cone's decision to initially retire after 2001 (when it appeared he could still have piched some more) cost Cone 200 wins.

Cone's 3.46 ERA is pretty good, given his era. He's 0.71 below league in ERA, and that's pretty good for a HOFer. Cone was also a power pitcher, so I'm surprised that he didn't get more love than he did, given the bias for power pitchers.

Still, Cone's career is not, IMO, of the value of a Gomez or a Vance. These guys led their leagues in more categories than Cone did, and while Cone pitched in the era of Clemens and Maddux, Cone's relative lack of black ink takes the exclamation point off his career. He wouldn't be a BAD HOF selection, but he's not an unprecedented rejection, either.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Wasn't he head of the player's union at the time?

I believe you're confusing him with Tom Glavine. I don't think Cone played any major role in the players' strike. The strike did, however, hurt his HOF chances, as he was having a phenomenal season when it happened. He ended up winning his only Cy Young in '94, but the strike probably cost him a 20 win season, and may have also cost him a 200 win career. Cone is a much better HOF candidate than most people realize. I don't support his induction, so I have a hard time saying that he "deserved" more from the BBWAA - they didn't have the option to give him some fraction of a vote or an honorable mention, so the guys who left him off of their ballots got it right in my opinion. I will say this though: weaker candidates than Cone have stayed on the ballot for longer.