A Candidate-by-Candidate Look at the 2020 Hall of Fame Election Results

For an unprecedented seventh year in a row, and as part of a still record-setting surge, the BBWAA elected multiple candidates to the Hall of Fame with the 2020 ballot. Derek Jeter and Larry Walker had very different playing careers and voting paths, but both gained entry via results that carried a fair bit of drama into Tuesday evening’s announcement, as the questions of whether the former would join former teammate Mariano Rivera as the second unanimous selection in as many years, and of whether the latter would end up on the right side of 75%, were both up in the air.

The Surge: BBWAA-elected Hall of Famers 2014-20
Year 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
2014 Greg Maddux (97.2%) Tom Glavine (91.9%) Frank Thomas (83.7%)
2015 Randy Johnson (97.3%) Pedro Martinez (91.1%) John Smoltz (82.9%) Craig Biggio (82.7%)
2016 Ken Griffey Jr. (99.3%) Mike Piazza (83.0%)
2017 Jeff Bagwell (86.2%) Tim Raines (86.0%) Ivan Rodriguez (76.0%)
2018 Chipper Jones (97.2%) Vlad Guerrero (92.9%) Jim Thome (89.8%) Trevor Hoffman (79.9%)
2019 Mariano Rivera (100%) Roy Halladay (85.4%) Edgar Martinez (85.4%) Mike Mussina (76.7%)
2020 Derek Jeter (99.7%) Larry Walker (76.6%)
SOURCE: Baseball-Reference

We now know the answers, of course, and I’ve already delved into the ballot’s big take-home points. What follows here is my look at how each candidate fared, with a few lumped together for obvious reasons. Having written so much about the two honorees, I’m starting at the bottom of the results and working my way to the top, though of course I do hope you stick around to the end, if only to meet Robinson Canoe.

Josh Beckett, Heath Bell, Chone Figgins, Rafael Furcal, Carlos Peña, Brian Roberts, José Valverde (1st year on ballot, 0.0%)

There’s no shame in being shut out on a Hall of Fame ballot. That check box next to these players’ names is the reward for their unique, impressive careers. As Vin Scully liked to remind viewers, “They also serve who only stand and wait.”

Adam Dunn, Raúl Ibañez, Brad Penny, J.J. Putz (1st, 0.3%)

Each of these guys received exactly one vote — that would be One for Dunn, if not One and Dunn, and can we please let the big lug be on next year’s ballot so I can give that joke a callback? Anyway, none of the lone votes were recorded in Ryan Thibodaux’s Hall of Fame Ballot Tracker prior to the announcement, so we’re left wondering as to whether they came from brothers-in-law, secret Santas, or beat writers who thought they deserved a small tip of the cap, the last of which was a common and widely-accepted gesture before the ballots got too packed.

Cliff Lee (1st, 0.5%)

Though he had the stronger postseason resumé, Lee wasn’t quite the equal of Johan Santana in terms of Cy Youngs or JAWS, and even Santana received rude treatment from the voters on a more crowded ballot (2.4% in 2018). Both remain members of that fraternity of pitchers we recall fondly — Fernando Valenzuela, Dave Stieb, David Cone, Bret Saberhagen, and so on — while wondering what might have been had it not been for so many injuries.

Eric Chávez (1st, 0.5%)

A six-time Gold Glove winner who rates among the best players (by WAR) never to be selected for an All-Star Game, Chavez avoided a shutout in the voting in part because longtime A’s beat writer Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle included him on a ballot that otherwise matched my own virtual ballot (swapping out Andruw Jones). Wrote Slusser, “My formerly small-Hall stance has gone out the window because I’d like worthy candidates to stay on the ballot more than a year or two. That’s why I included Chavez this year — watching him play third base throughout his entire 12-plus years with Oakland was a joy. I’m hopeful he gets at least one more year of consideration, though I suspect this might be one of just a handful of votes for him.”

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Jason Giambi (1st, 1.5%)

The former AL MVP has a higher peak score (42.2) than BBWAA-elected Hall of Fame first basemen such as Jim Thome, Bill Terry, Eddie Murray, Harmon Killebrew, and Tony Perez, but thanks in part to his BALCO connection, his candidacy went the way of another former MVP who’s right below in him the JAWS ranking, 2006 one-and-done candidate Will Clark. The Giambino got even less support than Will the Thrill, six votes to 23. Should have kept the mustache.

Alfonso Soriano (1st, 1.5%)

Sorry, Sori.

Paul Konerko (1st, 2.5%)

I get that his pivotal role in helping the White Sox to their first championship in 88 years means the world to the team’s fans, but the number of earnest articles I saw in November, suggesting he deserved serious consideration for Cooperstown — it was like watching somebody send a bunny across a crowded interstate highway. Still, Konerko has got a statue at [Googles White Sox ballpark name] Guaranteed Rate Field, and that’s more than the rest of this year’s candidates can say.

Bobby Abreu (1st, 5.5%)

The underappreciated Abreu — who made just two All-Star teams during an eight-year span across which he averaged 5.7 WAR — is the only one of this year’s 17 non-Jeter newcomers who made the 5% cut and will remain eligible for the 2021 ballot. I couldn’t quite justify including him on my virtual ballot, choosing Gary Sheffield and (ugh) Curt Schilling over him for its final two spots. Nonetheless, I’m happy to see the guy with the sweet swing and the .395 career on-base percentage survive for another year, when I and others can mull his candidacy further.

Andy Pettitte (2nd, 11.3%, up 1.4%)

While all 14 holdovers on this year’s ballot gained ground relative to last year — the second year in a row that’s happened — none gained less than Pettitte, despite the clearance of two superior starters (Roy Halladay and Mike Mussina) from the slate. Next year’s top pitching newcomers, Tim Hudson and Mark Buehrle, outrank Pettitte slightly in JAWS and crossed the 200-win threshold themselves, but the bet here is that they’ll go one and done while Dandy Andy’s candidacy will persist for awhile without really going anywhere.

Sammy Sosa (8th, 13.9%, up 5.4%)

The clearance of ballot space helped Sosa return to double-digit support for the first time since his 2013 debut. He’s still got no shot at election, and I have yet to include him on my virtual ballot due to the logjams, but I have a special spot in my heart for him, and not just because during a previous non-baseball-related career I once chose Sosa to appear on the cover of the World Almanac For Kids, for which I was the creative director.

Sosa’s continued presence on the ballot should serve as a reminder of the different and sometimes unfair and hypocritical ways that PED questions get parsed. He wasn’t part of BALCO or the Mitchell Report, and never drew a suspension once testing and penalties were in place. If commissioner Rob Manfred can exonerate David Ortiz for his failing the supposedly anonymous 2003 survey test on the grounds that a certain number of samples that tested positive would have been challenged by the players’ union if suspensions were at stake, then Sosa ought to be extended the same courtesy.

This piece from The Athletic’s Marc Carig, who did include Sosa on his ballot and received a surprise phone call from the slugger himself, is worth reading.

Andruw Jones (3rd, 19.4%, up 11.9%)

Jones’ double-digit gain was the sixth-largest in absolute terms but the largest in relative ones; he’s the only candidate on this year’s slate who got more than two-and-a-half times last year’s support. That’s still not much to write home about, but it does take him off the watchlist when it comes to falling victim to the Five Percent Rule, and with seven years of eligibility remaining, there’s still a chance he gains traction.

Jeff Kent (7th, 27.5%, up 9.4%)

I’ve never given Kent strong consideration for a ballot spot, and he doesn’t fare well in JAWS, but I’m always mystified by the dearth of support he receives even from more old-school voters given the easy selling points of his all-time lead in home runs by a second baseman, ranking number two behind Rogers Hornsby in slugging percentage for the position, and eight 100-RBI seasons. Seven years into his candidacy, this is the first time he’s cleared 20%. Maybe, like Jack Morris and (probably) Fred McGriff, he’s a candidate who’s more likely to be smiled upon by an Era Committee than a body of voters often put off by his prickly persona.

Manny Ramírez (4th, 28.2%, up 5.4%)

This is the first time Ramirez has broken out of the 22-24% range, but given that four other players whom he outpolled last year leapfrogged him, it’s clear that those two suspensions for PED usage might as well be concrete bricks chained to his candidacy.

Todd Helton (2nd, 29.2%, up 12.7)

Though his was merely the fifth-largest gain in this year’s cycle, Helton has to be the greatest beneficiary of Walker’s election, as it helps to validate his own considerable accomplishments in Coors Field. Per the Tracker, he actually gained more votes from returning voters (38) than Walker (35), but for some reason, he also lost more returning votes (six) than any other. As Tracker team member Anthony Calamis pointed out, at least a couple of the drops among published ballots came from voters who added Walker as a matter of prioritizing his final-year bid, suggesting they’ll return to the fold. Also worth noting is Helton’s unusually poor showing among first-time voters (1-for-9); of the surviving candidates, only Abreu did as poorly. Helton can already count on this 2021 newcomer’s vote, at the very least.

Gary Sheffield (6th, 30.5%, up 16.9%)

Sheffield posted the third-largest gain of any player on this year’s ballot by percentage and the second in terms of net votes among returning voters (44). By percentage, his is also the largest gain ever by a PED-linked candidate, a reflection both of his peripheral entanglement in BALCO (he briefly trained with Bonds and claims not to have known the cream he was given was a steroid) and the impression his style at the plate left upon those who watched him; reading ballot explainers, I sensed the same genuine excitement among those who finally found room to add him as I felt when including him on my virtual ballot for the first time.

Sheffield’s gain is the 22nd-largest of any candidate in the modern voting era (since 1966, when the writers returned to annual voting). Setting the six surges that carried candidates across the 75% threshold aside, 10 of the 15 players besides Sheffield who had gains of such size or larger were eventually elected by the writers. The five that weren’t — Phil Caveretta, Nellie Fox (later elected by the Veterans Committee), Gil Hodges, Minnie Minoso, and Johnny Sain — averaged 15.5% before the jump and 36.7% after, though those percentages are weighted down by Minoso’s absurd 1.8% showing in 1985, a consequence of the way his pinch-hitting comebacks caused his candidacy to fade into obscurity in front of voters less familiar with his career. None of the eventually elected players vaulted from such a low percentage as Sheffield, and in fact, the list of writer-elected candidates who ever polled below 15.0% at any point is a short one: Bert Blyleven (14.1% in his second year out of 14 on the ballot) and Walker (10.2% in his fourth year out of 10). All of which is to say that Sheffield is still looking at a steep climb to 75%, though reaching 50%, which could help his case in front of Era Committee voters, seems more doable.

Billy Wagner (5th, 31.7%, up 15.0%)

Billy Wags posted the fourth-largest percentage gain, and the third in terms of net votes among returning voters (40, with not a single voter dropping him). He’s still a long way from election, but it’s worth noting that he actually received a higher share of the vote than Bruce Sutter did in his fifth year (31.1%) — notable not only because Sutter is now in the Hall but because he has the smallest body of work of any of the eight enshrined relievers (1,042 innings, still 139 more than Wagner). Of course, Sutter was elected in his 13th year, which is time that Wagner doesn’t have, but given voters’ reactions to the urgency created by the shrinking of the eligibility window from 15 years to 10, he may not be licked yet.

Scott Rolen (3rd, 35.3% up 18.1%)

Outside of Walker’s election, Rolen’s big jump — the second-largest of the cycle, and the largest in terms of net votes gained among returning voters (54, without a single voter dropping him) — is the most gratifying aspect of this year’s results. The parallels to Walker’s case are striking, in that both contended with injuries that cut into their career totals; they’re not obvious Hall of Fame material if you’re looking only at their hit and homer numbers, but once you account for their elite defense and smart baserunning, their overall value is such that each ranks 10th at his respective position in JAWS. The two were teammates in St. Louis for the latter part of 2004 and all of ’05, though they combined to play just 156 games in the latter season due to injuries.

With Martinez and Walker off the ballot, Rolen may be the next candidate to get the spotlight from statheads (I’d include him in the next edition of The Cooperstown Casebook, if there is one). Craig Edwards wrote a good look at just how special Rolen’s prime was. Bookmark that and show it to a voter or three next November.

Omar Vizquel (3rd, 52.6%, up 9.8%)

He missed out on a double-digit gain, but as I noted on Tuesday night, Vizquel’s climb above 50% is of greater significance; the above trio of holdovers aside, nobody aside from Hodges has ever reached that threshold and then failed to gain entry eventually, either via the writers or a small committee. Vizquel still has another seven years to make up the remaining ground, but then again, Hodges reached exactly 50.0% in year three of a 15-year run and didn’t get to 75%.

Like Jack Morris before him and Yadier Molina soon enough, Vizquel is a polarizing candidate. Many voters, going by the eye test, consider him the most spectacular shortstop of his time (a subjective call, but not an unreasonable one) and therefore on par with light-hitting Ozzie Smith in terms of his all-around game, but that assertion is at odds with any advanced statistics. To say that Vizquel is no darling of the statheads is an understatement; he fares so poorly in JAWS that Andrelton Simmons would have overtaken him in 2019, his eighth season, if not for injury, and already crushes his seven-year peak score. Last year, in our inaugural crowdsource balloting, Vizquel received just 4.9%, and this year, he got 11.1% — but of course, those people don’t have an actual vote.

The problem for Vizquel, I think, is that a good chunk of the electorate is influenced enough by advanced stats that getting to 75% won’t be easy. His net gain of 22 votes from among returning voters merely ranked eighth, he received just three out of nine votes from first-timer, and a greater share from among private ballots (56.6%) — a demographic that tends to be older and thus vulnerable to being sunsetted out of the electorate — than pre-election public ones (49.3%).

Barry Bonds (8th, 60.7%, up 1.6%) and Roger Clemens (8th, 61.0%, up 1.5%)

It would be inaccurate to say this pair has been completely stopped in their tracks, but their rates of gaining ground have slowed to the point that it appears there’s enough entrenched dissent to filibuster until their eligibility runs out with the 2022 cycle. Bonds’ last three elections have seen bumps of 2.6%, 2.7%, and 1.6%, with Clemens in a similar boat. While each received votes from eight out nine newcomers who published their ballots prior to the election, neither changed many minds, with Bonds netting just two votes from returning voters, and Clemens just one. They benefited from the sunsetting of long-inactive voters in 2016 and the election of steroid-era commissioner Bud Selig in ’17, but would appear to need another ground-shaking event to cause voters to reconsider their positions. Maybe the sign-stealing scandal and reminders of the commonalities between MLB’s belated response to that mess and to the influx of PEDs in the 1990s will have an impact, or perhaps it will take until the pair’s final ballot appearance, which will mark the arrivals of Ortiz and Alex Rodriguez, who served a year-long suspension for PED usage. But don’t hold your breath.

Curt Schilling (8th, 70.0%, up 9.1%)

This is the fourth time since his debut that Schilling has posted a gain of at least nine points; of course, he’s lost at least seven points twice thanks largely to matters of his own doing. As noted on Tuesday, of the 21 modern voting era candidates who received at least 70% but fell short of 75% and still had eligibility remaining, 20 of them — all but Jim Bunning in 1988 — were elected the next year. Particularly in an election year, Schilling’s ongoing capacity for self-sabotage makes his closing the gap less of a sure thing than most.

I included Schilling on my virtual ballot this year, but I’ll revisit that decision with my real ballot next year, because I don’t find the thought of voting for him any more satisfying than that of leaving him off the ballot on the grounds of, say, my aversions to hoarders of Nazi regalia, those who cozy up to white supremacists, and those who pretend they were joking when comes to the various expressions of hatred they’ve spewed on social media. If Schilling isn’t able to show genuine contrition or self-reflection for his mistakes, why should a voter wrestle with the decision to include or exclude him on a ballot?

The thought of Schilling being the only living honoree at a 2021 induction should have denizens of Cooperstown quaking in fear over the economic hit. Short of whipping the Golden Days Era Committee vote in favor of Dick Allen or Jim Kaat or Tony Oliva or whomever, or praying that Bonds, Clemens, or Vizquel is miraculously elected, I’m not sure how that can be avoided.

Larry Walker (10th, 76.6%, up 22.0%)

I love the video clips of players getting the call from BBWAA secretary/treasurer Jack O’Connell with the news that they’ve been elected. Like those of Tim Raines, Edgar Martinez, and Mariano Rivera, I got choked up watching this one, even though I didn’t see it until Wednesday:

I have questions not just about that SpongeBob SquarePants shirt but also if any of the other men in the picture are brothers Gary, Carey, or Barry — and no, I’m not making this up, as parents Larry Sr. and Mary were certainly committed to the bit.

I went on at length in Tuesday’s writeup about the distinctions of Walker’s election, so I’ll go brief here. He’s the first Canadian-born position player elected, the first Rockies player (even via a cup of coffee) elected, the third former Expos outfielder elected in the past four years (Raines and Guerrero being the others), and, ahem, the seventh out of 14 players profiled at length in The Cooperstown Casebook to be elected in that same span. Among post-1966 candidates, his 10.2% in 2014 now stands as the second-lowest mark received by a candidate eventually elected by the writers, his 22-point jump from last year’s 54.6% is the second-largest of any post-1966 candidate who cleared the 75% bar, his two-year gain of 42.5% is second only to Luis Aparicio‘s 42.7% (from 41.9% in 1982 to 84.6% in ’84), and his 54.7% gain over three years is tops, dusting Early Wynn’s 48.1% (from 27.9% in 1969 to 76.0% in ’72).

In case you’re wondering, Walker said at the Hall’s Wednesday afternoon press conference that his preference is to wear a Rockies cap on his plaque, “a hard decision as a Canadian” given his pioneering status in the Hall as well as his time with the Expos.

Derek Jeter (1st, 99.7%)

I get that there’s outrage — and schadenfreude — over Jeter missing out on unanimity, whether it was due to strategic voting or sabotage by a disgruntled writer in New York, Boston, Miami, or elsewhere. The local Fox affiliate even reached out to me for my perspective as part of a segment in which you can hear Jeter handling the matter with the same trademark aplomb he applied to every other controversy in his career (watch also for appearances by The Athletic’s Tim Britton and the Jaffe-Span household mascot Robinson Canoe, a taxidermied squirrel visible over my left shoulder):

In the grand scheme, the rogue no-Jeter vote doesn’t matter. We should be grateful that this person’s grandstanding yielded less of a payoff than that of the trio of voters who publicly trumpeted their own one-candidate ballots, making the situation about themselves for a moment. All of this will be forgotten by the time Jeter is inducted on July 26; what will be remembered and celebrated is his spectacular 20-year career, his unflappability in the glare of the white-hot New York media spotlight, and his strong work as an ambassador for the game.





Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.

89 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The GuruMember since 2026
6 years ago

If jeter didn’t play in NY it wouldve been more along the lines of Pudge Rodriguez total percentage count. He probably got a 10% bump just playing for the yankees. If griffey didn’t get 100%, then no one should. Couldn’t believe a closer got 100%….only reason was he was with the yankees.

abgb123
6 years ago
Reply to  The Guru

Are you like TheGuru of bull$hit or somethin, cause it isn’t baseball.

rudemeister
6 years ago
Reply to  abgb123

Jeter had the 2nd highest WAR of anyone elected this year. That means he finished behind a guy that took 10 years to get elected. There is certainly some credence that Jeter’s vote total overstates his qualifications.

Pepper Martin
6 years ago
Reply to  rudemeister

Players, historically, have not been voted in unanimously because of idiocy related to what happened to Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth 85 years ago. Now that Rivera has broken that particular superstition, the only question that needs to be asked is: is this person deserving of being in the Hall of Fame?

There is no plausible argument that Derek Jeter is not deserving of being in the Hall of Fame. Period. You can make arguments against Larry Walker — despite his WAR total — and every other player on the ballot. But you can’t make any actual, legitimate argument that Jeter isn’t deserving of being in the Hall of Fame. No, he wasn’t the best shortstop ever. But there’s just no way to argue that he’s undeserving of the Hall of Fame.

rudemeister
6 years ago
Reply to  Pepper Martin

Pepper: Most of your comment is about Jeter belonging in the HOF. Did someone make an argument above that Jeter didn’t belong in the HOF? I didn’t. And I don’t think AGB or The Guru did either?

Pepper Martin
6 years ago
Reply to  rudemeister

You said “his vote total overstates his qualifications.” No, it doesn’t. He’s qualified for the Hall of Fame, and that’s indisputable. Him getting a higher vote total than other players on the ballot with him doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a better player than they are — just that he’s more qualified for the Hall of Fame.

There will be other players coming up on future ballots who are absolutely, positively, unquestionably qualified for the Hall of Fame. Albert Pujols and Ichiro Suzuki come to mind. Those players should sail in to the Hall either unanimously or close to unanimously. There are other players who are better than Jeter or Pujols or Ichiro — like, say, Alex Rodriguez — who will absolutely not sail into the Hall of Fame, and who might very well not get in at all. That doesn’t make ARod a worse player than Jeter or Pujols or Ichiro. It does, however, make him “less qualified” for the Hall of Fame. There are legitimate arguments — whether you agree with them or not, that people can make in good faith that ARod should not be in the Hall of Fame. That, by definition, makes him less qualified for the Hall of Fame than, say, Ichiro. Ichiro is clearly more qualified for the Hall of Fame than ARod, even though ARod was clearly the better player.

There have been plenty of players in the past who were even more qualified than Jeter — Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Greg Maddux, Cal Ripken, whomever — but their vote totals weren’t as high because the voting electorate used to have a bias against unanimity because of nonsense dating to Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth. That stigma no longer exists, after Rivera was unanimously voted in. So, going forward, the only question to ask is: is this person deserving of being in the Hall of Fame or not?

By that measure, Derek Jeter was perfectly qualified for the Hall of Fame. He was good enough to get in, and no one disputes that. There was absolutely nothing about him that raised any kind of plausible argument that he should not be in the Hall of Fame, which cannot be said of any number of players who were clearly better than him as players. There is no longer a stigma against unanimously voting in players. Hence, Derek Jeter’s vote total doesn’t overstate his Hall of Fame qualifications, because he was perfectly qualified.

Famous Mortimer
6 years ago
Reply to  Pepper Martin

There are no good faith arguments against letting people like ARod in the Hall. It’s moralising from the writers, whose backbone appears to have materialised right when it became a national scandal.

Pepper Martin
6 years ago

I’m somebody who has taken steroids before. Steroid users should not be in the Hall of Fame. That’s not a bad-faith argument.

Fatalotti
6 years ago
Reply to  The Guru

This is hilarious. First of all, why is Griffey the standard bearer? How about if Hank Aaron, or Willie Mays or Babe freaking Ruth didn’t get 100% of the vote, no one should?

Or better yet, maybe they all should have gotten 100% and so should have Griffey and Jeter and several others. This 100% thing by baseball writers couldn’t be anymore ridiculous and nonsensical.

Derek Jeter is as about as obvious a Hall of Fame candidate as any player of the last 50 years. So what if he played in NY? Part of the NY bias that you are referencing is because of Derek Jeter himself. NY wasn’t a great baseball team for years before Jeter showed up. He (along with Bernie, Mo, Posada, etc) put that team back in the spotlight and helped them win 5 WS over 20 years.

Shirtless George Brett
6 years ago
Reply to  Fatalotti

The Yankees were the most storied team in baseball history long before Jeter showed up. They won multiple world series every single decade outside the 80’s an even more AL Pennants. They were the team of Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle etc etc. They basically had one decade in 100 years where they were not absolutely dominant. And even in that one decade (the 1980’s) they actually won more combined games than anyone else and had perennial all stars and even an AL MVP. This is a franchise that was considered to be “struggling” because they went a whole decade without a world series lol.

Its a bit rich to suggest Jeter put the yankees “back in the spotlight.”

Pepper Martin
6 years ago

Two things on that: keep in mind that not only were the Yankees down in the 80’s, but the Mets were up (with Strawberry and Gooden and Hernandez and Carter etc.). When Jeter debuted, the Yankees hadn’t made the playoffs in 14 years. They had just lost their number one overall draft pick and former number one overall MLB prospect to a bar fight. Don Mattingly was about to retire. It had been a pretty grim decade and a half for the Yankees, even though, yes, they were the more storied franchise in the sport.

SnowLeopard
6 years ago

According to Mr. Tibb’s tracker, the 70 voters who left Bonds and Clemens off had some different voting trends than the 161 who included them.

As one would expect, they were notably less keen on other PED-implicated candidates than those who included Bonds and Clemens:
13% – 45% : Scheff
1% – 44% : Manny
0% – 22% : Sosa
3% – 13% : Pettitte
(how does one vote for Manny (or Jason Giambi!) and not for Bonds or Clemens?)

But the no voters also however generally voted less in favor of candidates who I see as more deserving and more in favor of guys who I see as less deserving:
80% – 85% : Walker
63% – 85% : Schilling
39% – 49% : Rolen
20% – 25% : Andruw

60% – 47% : Vizquel
41% – 33% : BillyWags
40% – 30% : Kent
3% – 0% : Konerko

Bottom line – in my opinion, voters who got one thing wrong were more likely to get more things wrong.

I think these two guys are viable candidates, however, and here the no Bonds/Clemens votes did relatively well:
36% – 31% : Helton
7% – 6% : Abreu

[disclosure: also posted similar stats at bottom of two other threads]

Pepper Martin
6 years ago
Reply to  SnowLeopard

Manny, I have no idea, but I have heard people say before that they respect Giambi for apologizing for his actions, which Bonds and Clemens have never done.

As for the voting trends, I think it’s just a matter of some people only caring about on-field performance in Hall voting and other people taking off-field issues into account. If you’re concerned about keeping Bonds and Clemens out of the Hall for their… all of their stuff, you’re also probably going to care more about Schilling’s insanity; Jones’ domestic violence charges and the circumstances surrounding his signing with the Dodgers; Rolen’s repeated inability to get along with his managers; etc. That doesn’t really strike me as shocking.

Also, absolutely WILD that you think of Billy Wagner as a “less deserving” Hall candidate since his big argument is the clear superiority of his stats to other non-Mariano relievers’ stats.

Shirtless George Brett
6 years ago

Randy Johnson, Pedro, Vladdy (that one really hurt), now Walker.

Being an Expos fan at Hall of Fame time is like getting a postcard from your dad who left when you were 10 telling you how much better his new family is.

SnowLeopard
6 years ago

Raines, Dawson, and Carter are all however wearing the elb Expos cap on their plaques (although the Hall themselves apparently chose it for the latter two, for Dawson non-consentually).

Da Bear
6 years ago

What about being an Expos fan come World Series time? “Yeah, sorry about that strike 25 years ago, but our trophy is in another castle now.”

Lanidrac
6 years ago
Reply to  Da Bear

…that “castle” being the District of Columbia.

Dag Gummit
6 years ago

Being upset about Randy Johnson not getting in as an Expo is like a Yankees fan being upset about Jay Buhner.

Sincerely,
Seinfeld-watching Mariners Fan

southie
6 years ago
Reply to  Dag Gummit

I heard good things about Ken Phelps

Shirtless George Brett
6 years ago
Reply to  Dag Gummit

Not so much upset that he didnt go in as an Expo (because that would be ridiculous), moreso that the Expos managed to let another hall of famer leave for another team.

Even if it is a bit more understandable in Johnsons case (IE: he was terrible lol)

bigchuck
6 years ago

Jeff,

As per your reasons to not vote for Schilling…his politics never entered into his performance on the field. He should be evaluated on his baseball stats, not on his opinions and politics after baseball. Now had he committed a crime, then we have something else. But we do have Freedom of Speech in this great land of America. It’s free for him, you and me. To keep him from the HOF because of his beliefs when his baseball career qualifies him for inclusion requires some deeper contemplation.

Like it or not, our expression of our Freedom of Speech must not stand in the way of the recognition of our life’s work and accomplishments. Please reconsider your support of Schilling in 2021 as a qualified candidate…not as someone who looks at America in a different way.

TheRuckus
6 years ago
Reply to  bigchuck

He’s free to say what he thinks. Others are free to respond in kind, up to and including choosing not to bestow an honor upon him.

And while I don’t take issue with the substance of your argument, we’re not talking about things in a vacuum, here. Schilling’s chosen method of expression is in line with the type of people who would like to limit a whole lot of other folks’ ability to speak at best and their ability to live at worst.

We’ve elected a lot of assholes to the Hall of Fame. We don’t necessarily have to keep doing so. I’m resigned to the fact that he’s almost guaranteed to get in next year. It’ll be rather poetic if he’s the only inductee and attendance plummets as a result. That’s the beauty of a free market, something folk in his orbit profess to believe in fervently. I’m sure he’ll appreciate the irony.

OddBall Herrera
6 years ago
Reply to  TheRuckus

Schilling is a tough hill to die on, because he’s a giant douche, even though he is clearly a Hall of Famer on baseball merit. I do think that people need to think long and hard before we start saying that hall voting should be an expression of approval of the player as a person. That’s how we got dumbass “Before you vote for Mariano, remember he’s a *gasp* Trump supporter” articles last year. You open the door on this stuff and the factions who want to make virtue signalling pageants out of everything will take it over and ruin it if at all possible. You think Schilling’s induction would be a low draw? Imagine what would happen if the baseball hall of fame stops being about baseball – you’re on the fast track to “The Oscars Method for Making Your Event Socially Irrelevant”.

Maybe I am being pessimistic and extrapolating from a single example, but I guess I don’t have a lot of faith that moderation will win out these days.

Personally, I want Bonds, Schilling, Clemens, Arod etc. All in the hall, because the story of greatness in baseball is simply incomplete without them, and that’s the story the hall is supposed to be telling. If some players or eras require proper contextualization, there are plenty of ways to make sure that’s provided.

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago

The hall of fame for people Jezebel and Buzzfeed approve of would turn Cooperstown into a ghost town. Those writers probably couldn’t even get their trips to the ceremony comped.

I agree with the general argument of Herrera here, but it seems crazy to me, separate and apart from all politics, that people have to vote for a guy that wants them dead. Like, literally, without hyperbole and really not joking, threatened violence against them. Sure, we need to be careful about turning admission into a progressive (or conservative) litmus test, but this situation is NOT that.

also the argument above this from Ruckus is a form of classic motte and bailey-
“all people should be able to essentially live their lives”- person one.
“ok I agree with that, within reason”-person two.
“well your lack of support for [insane fringe policy X] means people can’t live their lives”- Person 1
“wait wtf”- person 2
“well then you just want people to die”- person 1
TBF to all above…. Schilling really does have extreme views, even by normal people who don’t live on the internet standards.

Bobby Ayala
6 years ago
Reply to  dukewinslow

Jezebel and Buzzfeed aren’t the only folks who don’t approve of comparing muslims to nazis.

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Bobby Ayala

yeah Schilling is definitely a standard deviation beyond “acceptable public discourse.” Rivera? Supporting a president I loathe doesn’t exactly disqualify you from, ahem, living in the building.

Shirtless George Brett
6 years ago
Reply to  Bobby Ayala

Yeah, I love how many people are, purposely or not, really underselling what a POS Schilling is. Its not even in the same realm as “Rivera is a Trump supporter, booo!”

sadtromboneMember since 2020
6 years ago

I used to really support Schilling’s candidacy claiming he really needed to be in, but his behavior the last couple years has been just too much for me to bear. I can forgive campaigning for someone I disagree with (which he did, many times) pretty easily. Publicly disbelieving in evolution? Really not a big deal. Stealing millions of dollars from Rhode Island? Might have been a misunderstanding. But the guy has morphed into full-on evil, palling around with the Nazis and collecting their memorabilia and parroting their talking points. I don’t really think anyone can be blamed if they don’t want to check that box next to his name.

CliffH
6 years ago
Reply to  Bobby Ayala

Well, really he compared them to Germans, didn’t he? The analogy was that the number of extremists among Muslims was similar to the number of Nazis among Germans, right? I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to compare ISIS to Nazis, but maybe I’m wrong.

TKDCMember since 2016
6 years ago

Considering literally no one voted against Rivera, I think it is fair to say that door has not been opened.

B N
6 years ago

Schilling is also tough because he’s like… an emblem of how people are complex and can do both good and bad things:
– Good: Hall of Fame Level Baseball player
– Bad: Very poor producer of video games, wasted a ton of public money
– Good: Highly active for charities for cancer, ALS, etc.
– Bad: Pattern of insensitive and harmful language against marginalized groups, possibly increasing as he ages?

And etc. So it’s a tough one. Is somebody who kept their mouth shut their whole life but didn’t do a lick of charity outreach or donations a better person? Is saying some harmful things actually worse than blowing millions of public funds trying to do something you have no expertise in, even? How does one balance the good and bad that a person does? It gets to something a lot deeper than just a Hall of Fame vote if you pull that thread.

Pepper Martin
6 years ago

There’s a vast, vast difference between “I disagree with this person’s politics” and “this person is a danger to society and we should not be honoring him in any way.”

To whit: I disagree with Mariano Rivera’s politics, but I was overjoyed when he was unanimously voted in to the Hall of Fame and was very happy to see him be inducted.

Conversely, I also, ahem, disagree with Curt Schilling’s politics. However, unlike Mariano Rivera, Curt Schilling is a vile human being who is an actual, active danger to society. I don’t think people fully realize how he’s gone full-on Nazi the last few years. Honoring him allows him a platform to spread hate speech that presents a danger to vulnerable members of society. Curt Schilling is not somebody who deserves any kind of platform, let alone one of honor.

stanMember since 2019
6 years ago
Reply to  TheRuckus

I think its important to interject that freedom of speech, like all other freedoms, is only a limitation on government action. The government can’t take action against you based on your opinions, but private citizens and associations can. So, if hall of fame voters want to keep some guy out of the hall of fame based on his opinions about anything at all, they can. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

(And btw, there are lots of total jerks in the hall already. I’d say the hall set a precedent by putting Ty Cobb in the initial class that indicates that being a jerk doesn’t keep you out of the hall of fame).

B N
6 years ago
Reply to  stan

Look man, America has freedom of speech. So if I go to a job interview and call you a jerk-face, if I’m the best qualified candidate you still need to hire me. But wait, as an employer who I hire might be considered free speech! So now we have a free-speech paradox! The only solution is for everyone to shout as loud as possible until the free-est, loudest speech wins out. 🙂

Seriously though, people invoking free speech as a principle seem to forget that even spending money (according to the Supreme Court) is a form of free speech. So if baseball decides it doesn’t want to pay for a plaque in Cooperstown for someone, that’s their free speech. Just as protected as Schilling’s.

CliffH
6 years ago
Reply to  B N

I agree that the principle of free speech is not very relevant here, but it’s important in my opinion to push back against this very common claim that free speech is “only” a restriction on government action. In fact it is a much more general principle with wide support well prior to the bill of rights. The Bill of Rights relates to the powers of the federal government, that’s why the 1st Amendment only applies the principle of free speech to federal government action.

Lanidrac
6 years ago
Reply to  CliffH

True, but it’s also important to remember that there are also limits to it such as the often cited fire in a theater example, slander/libel, (depending on the location and situation) profanity, and in Schilling’s case hate speech.

Lanidrac
6 years ago
Reply to  B N

You weren’t paying attention to his/her comment. Those are examples of things that are NOT covered by freedom of speech.

Luy
6 years ago
Reply to  bigchuck

Meh. Maybe don’t call for the people who vote on your candidacy (media members) to be killed by lynching.
Say dumb things, win dumb prizes.

Also…It’s forever intriguing to me when people invoke the 1st Amendment as a way to protect certain speech (Schilling’s), while simultaneously telling others (Jay) not to express their thoughts. Free speech is not freedom from consequences. Even the broader idea of free expression does not exist to tell folks that they’re not allowed to disagree with or even act against unpopular opinions. It’s either for everyone, or what’s the point?

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Luy

While free speech is not freedom from consequences, there are significant upsides to a culture that protects unpopular speech from things like losing your job. We’re not talking about that here, it’s just that there’s value to encouraging a philosophy of protected speech outside the bounds of legal protections.

B N
6 years ago
Reply to  dukewinslow

Absolutely. However, with that said, giving someone an award or honor is very much a matter of speech itself. So I mean, sure: most people didn’t think Schilling should be fired when he said dumb things during his career. They’re just saying that maybe he isn’t a great guy to give its highest honors to. I mean, you probably don’t give Employee of the Decade to the guy who is out there pushing Soros conspiracy theories.

Ironically, I’m probably more lenient on Hall of Famers for baseball because there’s such a history of jerks inducted and because he’s a serious part of a major event in baseball history. As a comparison, it would be hard to consider nominating somebody like Schilling for a lifetime achievement award in a place that I work if he was acting like that in public. You might accept it. But to award a public honor?

soddingjunkmailMember since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  bigchuck

.

Mike NMN
6 years ago
Reply to  bigchuck

I agree that Schilling belongs, on performance, in the Hall of Fame, and I think that, if I were a voter, I’d even consider holding my nose and voting for him. But along with Free Speech we have capitalism, and the market often decides outcomes when the freeness of speech is too “free” for comfort. The writers are reacting like fans–but that’s their right, just as football fans had a right to boo Kapernick

The Duke
6 years ago
Reply to  Jay Jaffe

I’m just going to have to disagree with you here. It’s not who Jay (or Jay’s Identical twin Jeff) thinks should be in the Hall. It’s who the broader baseball fandom wants in the Hall expressed through you. You guys are chosen, I think correctly, because you are knowledgeable, fans of the game, open to new ideas etc. and all 400 will have different opinions on the baseball Merits of each candidate. But mostly you are a great representative of all of us out here.

Now, as to the character clause, it’s really supposed to be focused on character during their career, not some broader canvass of their life. So bad character such as gambling on games, PEDs, electronic sign stealing. That should be in your wheelhouse. Good character should be as well including all the great things he did using his platform as a player to do. Without a doubt he should get a plus not a minus for that. Hardly anyone ever mentions this (Posnanski did)

As bad as his politics and tweets post -career have been, it just shouldn’t be a factor just like when a judge tells a jury to ignore some prejudicial statement that has no bearing on the trial at hand.

You’re letting your emotions get the better of your intellect. If you think about it, your whole system was designed to get people away from the eye test. You should do the same here.

abgb123
6 years ago
Reply to  The Duke

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/news/baseball-hall-of-fame-character-clause-voting-changes-president-jeff-idelson-ballot/113qff8norkd51rdnxg5iwl4pc

Jeff Idelson, President of The Hall of Fame responded to the following question.

SN: Does the character clause, in your opinion, only apply to players’ respective playing careers or should the character clause extend to anything in their lives, even outside of baseball and after they played?

JI: The voters can define it as they wish.

emh1969
6 years ago
Reply to  abgb123

FYI: Idelson is no longer President of the HOF. It’s now Tim Mead.

And in an earlier interview, Idelson was quite clear that the character clause should apply only to on the field behavior. Of course, he may personally believe that while also believing that writers can apply it as they see fit

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2017/8/4/16090372/jeff-idelson-character-clause-racism-hall-of-fame

Backdoor SliderMember since 2025
6 years ago
Reply to  Jay Jaffe

I’d like to personally thank you Jay, for being a hero. I know it’s a baseball museum of great baseball players that’s already loaded with mean people, but what would I do without self-important writers like you to hold the bad man out so I don’t have to see his plaque when i go there?? I’m not sure I could go on. So again, thanks Jay!

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Jay Jaffe

this comic gets trotted out every time, and is justifying Mccarthyism. The flaws in the argument are a mile wide, and easy to see if you thought for like a second about it.

It’s cool if you control the levers of power. Currently, progressives don’t! It’s amazing to me that people argue for social, economic, and political censure when they’re more likely to be the targets of said censure.

Pepper Martin
6 years ago
Reply to  dukewinslow

Man, saying that that is “justifying McCarthyism” is the wildest thing I’ve seen all day. Literally the first panel of the comic says “the right of free speech means the government can’t arrest you for what you say.” Joe McCarthy was a United States Senator — i.e., the government. McCarthy chaired the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations — a branch of the government — which made it its goal to ruin people’s lives for their political speech. The right to freedom of speech protects people precisely from what McCarthy attempted to do.

But it does not mean that people get to be Nazis and private baseball museums have to honor them.

docgooden85Member since 2018
6 years ago
Reply to  bigchuck

Violence is not a political opinion.

Backdoor SliderMember since 2025
6 years ago
Reply to  docgooden85

Yeah, all that violence Schilling did shouldn’t be tolerated!
Some say these voters should be adults and be able to separate their feelings from this, and simply elect the best players into the baseball museum. But I’m with you! Schilling being elected will make way too many people sad, and that’s way more important here than his accomplishments on the baseball diamond!

gettwobrute79Member since 2026
6 years ago
Reply to  bigchuck

While I think Schilling is a HOF guy on performance, everything else you’ve said is pretty much wrong here. Freedom of speech means the government can’t punish you for expressing your thoughts as Jay said. The amount of times people get that concept wrong is stunning. Also, I’m guessing that you’re probably a big “actions have consequences guy.” So…doesn’t that work for Schilling? If it’s between him or Sheffield on a guys ballot and his actions have pissed off those who vote for him, I won’t shed any tears for him if he doesn’t get votes.

Garys of OldeMember since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  bigchuck

You don’t even know what Free Speech means. Why should we listen to you?

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  bigchuck

I mean, in general, if you want to buy a place in a co-op, don’t hang a noose outside of the co-op president’s door?
This is being framed as someone being silenced for their politics, which is a bait and switch on what this is actually about, which was that he threatened violence against the group of people who control his access to the club. Sure, if they were excluding him solely on his politics, that would be stupid- we’re not revoking Ty Cobb’s status anytime soon.

Certainly, there are people arguing that politics alone disqualifies you from the Hall. Those people are stupid. This guy made violent threats, and frankly you’re allowed to not like people who say they want to kill you!

Lanidrac
6 years ago
Reply to  bigchuck

Maybe if the rules were different, but the Character Clause doesn’t make such distinctions…would be my argument if the Character Clause weren’t a complete joke that has only ever been enforced over the last decade and a half.

Baseball Analyzed
6 years ago

I don’t understand the “ugh” about Schilling, he says things that most people believe but are afraid to say due to political correctness. I’m talking about his comments on transgender for example. Him collecting WWII memorabilia doesn’t mean anything and I’m yet to see him sat anything wrong or racist. It seems that his “crime” is that he isn’t a Liberal who is talking about how white people are the problem in our country.

Colin Kaepernick openly supports genocidal dictators and says racist anti-white people things, but he gets a million dollar deal from Nike because hating white people exclusively for things that all races committed in history is currently the in thing to do in our culture.

Anyone blaming Schilling should take a look at the first amendment and vote for talent not politics.

drewsylvaniaMember since 2019
6 years ago

See Jay’s comment above, it applies to you as well.

abgb123
6 years ago

I’m going to give you a couple great pieces of free advice.

#1 you should always research before speaking/writing I don’t mean listen to talking heads or “hot takers”, I mean read, read from many various sources, it will help you not sound like a buffoon.
#2 if it takes you longer to say/write then it does to think of you should probably put a little more thought into it, this should also help with you not sounding like a buffoon.

docgooden85Member since 2018
6 years ago

Calm down, Adolf.

gettwobrute79Member since 2026
6 years ago

Here’s another one who doesn’t get the Constitution. I’ve yet to see him say anything wrong or racist…get outta here.

wOBA Fett
6 years ago

Interesting. “…take a look at the first amendment…” Maybe you should take your own advice and actually read the first amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Since the author of this article is not a member of Congress, by definition he cannot violate the first amendment. Educate yourself. The first amendment only means that you can’t face criminal charges for speaking freely, and even then there are certain types of speech (threatening violence, yelling “fire” in a theater, etc.) that are not protected by the first amendment.

So A. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The first amendment doesn’t apply here. B. It’s ironic that anytime someone incorrectly calls out the first amendment in this kind of scenario, they’re doing the exact same thing for which they’re criticizing the other person, only they’re the only one making a fool out of themselves. Schilling has said some bad things (free speech), and the author doesn’t plan on voting for him as a result (free speech). You criticized (free speech) the author for his stance (free speech) but then said he’s violating the freedom of speech. Yikes.

B N
6 years ago

Also, as a final issue not addressed here, this statement is simply not correct: ” he says things that most people believe but are afraid to say due to political correctness.”

The specific reason why Schilling gets heat is that he says things that most people absolutely do not believe. He’s not out there saying ice cream is tasty or even that Saudi Arabia is run by some pretty ruthless folks. He’s saying stuff like:
– Soros conspiracy theories
– T-shirts about hanging journalists
– Comparing Muslims (a population of 1b people, spread across huge geographic areas, the largest being Indonesia which doesn’t give anybody much trouble) to Nazi’s
– etc.

These aren’t the things that most people believe but don’t say. These are the things your drunk uncle says at Thanksgiving before your other aunt tells them to stop picking fights with the college kids or else they’ll need to finish their beer out on the deck. And don’t get me wrong, we all love our uncles, but some of them have just truly gone off the rails with their ideas. If you happen to believe all these things, it’s probably time to look critically at how your Thanksgivings are going and if there’s anything you can do to make it easier on the hosts. Just saying.

And I say this as someone who probably on average might vote for Schilling. But definitely not on the grounds of “Well, everybody is thinking it.” They definitely are not.

OddBall Herrera
6 years ago

If your take is that Schilling literally wanted or was calling for journalists to be killed frankly I find that intellectually dishonest and I would wager many of the same people who want to take his every word in deadly earnest would and do bend over backwards with excuses when progressives say regrettable things.

Contributing to an atmosphere of hostility against the media? Sure. And I have lot of patience for that as a basis for a limited protest vote. But Schilling’s tweet as a call to arms? Give me a break.

docgooden85Member since 2018
6 years ago

There are options besides binary black/white. You can incite violence while not being 100% literal and serious. And as I said above, violence isn’t a political opinion.

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  docgooden85

“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest” was a joke, remember

JustinPBGMember since 2018
6 years ago

Do the “derrrrrfreedom of speech” people go around looking for things to yell about?

gettwobrute79Member since 2026
6 years ago
Reply to  JustinPBG

Only if it’s a way to misinterpret it!

TheGarrettCooperFanClub
6 years ago

Holy smokes, talk about a small world. Jay Jaffe was the editor of the 2003 World Almanac for Kids? I remember reading that (mainly just looking at the pictures, but whatever) when I was in 1st-2nd grade, mainly because there was a baseball player on the cover, and now I’m reading Jay Jaffe talk about baseball all these years later

aweb
6 years ago

I’ve seen it in a few places, and I’m not sure why people are throwing words like “grandstanding” at the non-Jeter voter. This might change, but that voter, being anonymous and all, has so far been the exact opposite of attention seeking, shouting it from the rooftops, grandstanding, what have you. Also, if you take other defensive metrics seriously (Tango’s WoWY for one), he was near the bottom of the list in terms of career value for those who made it/stayed on the ballot, not near the top.

stanMember since 2019
6 years ago

Let’s break down Omar Vizquel’s candidacy:
272/336/352 career batting line, 82 OPS+. 400 stolen bases and 2700 hits. 45.6 bWAR in 24 years, 42.5 fWAR. A peak of 6 WAR in one year but after that there are only 5 years where he put up 3 WAR. He made three all star games and his only showing in the MVP voting was a single 16th place finish, so its safe to say that sportswriters and fans at the time did not believe that he was hall of fame material.
Defense can be somewhat underrated by both versions of WAR and the public, but even if there was a hall of fame for defenders-only, Vizquel would be a borderline candidate. He has 262.1 points in fangraphs’ defensive WAR. That puts him 9th overall, but…. he also has 2709 games played at shorstop, the most all-time. That means that on a rate basis, he’s only good, not great. He never once led the league in assists, putouts or even double plays. He won 11 gold gloves, and I’m sure several of them were earned, but we all know gold gloves sometimes aren’t earned too. The hall of famers to whom Vizquel’s fans like to compare him, Aparacio, Maranville, and Smith, led the league in those categories an aggregate of 11, 10 and 13 times to Vizquel’s zero. On a rate basis, his dWAR and fangraphs fielding rating are comparable to Cal Ripken’s and below contemporaries like Rey Sanchez and Rey Ordonez. So, if you squint and give him credit for longevity and being a nice guy, you could maybe make an argument for a defense-only hall of fame. But if you are trying to shoehorn him into the real hall of fame, you have no case whatsoever. He has virtually the same OPS+ as borderline candidates Maranville and Aparacio and as I’ve shown above, he’s not close to them defensively. In fact, since Rey Sanchez has virtually same batting line (272/308/334) and far better fielding numbers, you could make a case that he was a better player.
In short, this is a Jim Rice, Harold Baines level of stupidity. Clearly there’s some sort of campaign among the voters that is not being run on behalf of the many contemporaries who were superior players to Vizquel.

emh1969
6 years ago
Reply to  stan

To be fair, Rice finished in the top 10 in AL position player WAR 4 times, including leading the AL in 1978. He doesn’t belong in the Hall but unlike Baines and Vizquel, he actually had an excellent peak.

stanMember since 2019
6 years ago
Reply to  emh1969

That’s true. Rice’s peak was too short whereas Vizquel’s peak was essentially nonexistent.

aweb
6 years ago
Reply to  stan

Not a Vizquel fan for the Hall, but Rey Sanchez’s hitting was much, much worse than his. In fewer than half the PA, he “accumulated” pretty much the same offensive career “value” as Vizquel (-229 to -234 at this site, -189 rBat to -244 at bbref). Being a better hitter (and worse fielder) than Sanchez describes 99% of all MLB position players, though, so that’s hardly a HoF case.

His entire case is being average-ish for a very long time. So yeah, Harold Baines almost exactly, just playing SS. Which does seem more impressive, to me, than DH-ing, even if the overall value ended up similar.

D-WizMember since 2019
6 years ago

Can we please do something about Guaranteed Rate Field? Nothing in this world is so bad to deserve that name.

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  D-Wiz

Truist: because Ayn Rand was really shitty at naming things (this is a way inside BB&T joke)

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago

As the local Andruw Jones Stan, what’s it gonna take over the next 3 years, in terms of voting percentage, for his candidacy to go from “possible” to “plausible” to “probable?” If we’re REALLY gonna put Vizquel in…. why not Jones (the personal stuff notwithstanding, which hey if that’s disqualifying I’m not going to blame people)

Pepper Martin
6 years ago
Reply to  dukewinslow

I’m against Andruw Jones’ candidacy, and it’s for two reasons. One is, obviously, the domestic violence issue. I understand that for some people that’s not relevant, so put that aside for a moment.

The way he showed up to Dodgers’ camp out of shape and was never an effective player again is an actual, concrete on-field baseball issue. In my view, there’s a difference between somebody who gets injured and has a shortened career as a result, and somebody who just flat-out stops caring about being a good baseball player after signing a big contract and has a shortened career as a result. Dude was 30 years old and he just decided he didn’t care about being a great player any more. I don’t see how you can possibly not ding somebody for that. The Hall of Fame is about honoring baseball players — and why would you want to honor somebody who so clearly didn’t care about baseball all that much?

JD, Too
6 years ago

Jay Jaffe is a joke. So is Larry Walker in the HOF.

BobbyJohn69
6 years ago

Thank you for sharing the Walker clip. Could not have been happier to hear his name announced. I am pretty sure I scared my wife in the next room over when I bellowed.

rudemeister
6 years ago

The 1995 Indians had HOFers Murray, Winfield, and Thome. They also had Lofton (over 60 WAR), Ramirez (over 60 WAR), Hershiser (over 50 WAR), Albert Belle (over 40 WAR in a 12 year career), and Omar Vizquel (over 40 WAR in his 42 years playing SS). Two points:

1) That is a crazy collection of WAR Win totals on one team.

2) The fact that Omar Vizquel is close to election, while the rest have been denied or have vote totals significantly below Vizquel is an embarrassment to the HOF voting statistics. Just my $0.02.

jgrub7
6 years ago
Reply to  rudemeister

Also Sandy Alomar (6x AS) and not to mention their bench which also included Brian Giles and Jeromy Burnitz who both became all-stars. That team was loaded. They were totally dominant (115 team wRC+ and 81 team ERA-). Only the 1927 Yankees and 1910 Athletics were equal or better in both team wRC+ and ERA-. As a result, I have them ranked as the 24th greatest team of all time — if they had beaten the Braves in the WS that would have put them in the top 4 or 5.

Lanidrac
6 years ago

Anyone who compares Vizquel’s defense to Ozzie Smith is delusional. The Wizard was also a better hitter (judging by wRC+) and baserunner.

stanMember since 2019
6 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

Ozzie: fangraphs defensive value/ year 19.75. Putouts/ game 1.69. Assists/ game 3.34.
Vizquel: 10.9; 1.51; 2.83. (I only used Vizquel’s assists and putouts at shortstop). There’s also just no comparison in their offensive numbers.
The better comparison is:
Luis Aparicio 16.8; 1.76; 3.10
Btw: Aparicio also had 100 more stolen bases in far fewer games and the same wRC+ of 83. Sooo. Luis Aparicio, a controversial veteran’s committee pick in 1984, is clearly better defensively than Vizquel and also a bit better offensively too.
If Aparicio is a borderline candidate, then why are we even talking about Vizquel’s candidacy?

bluerum29
6 years ago

If Shilling is the only inductee next year, that would be great television. Ratings bonanza right there.

Fredchuckdave
6 years ago
Reply to  bluerum29

Yeah I don’t really get that angle, the demographics of (non-media) people that go to hall of fame speeches is probably not too far off of Schilling’s buddies. Particularly compared to if no one was elected; of course if David Ortiz, Bonds, or Clemens gets elected the following year it’ll be an even bigger spectacle.

dch
6 years ago

Hey Jay , we get it you don’t like Curt Schillings politics, stop with the endless hyperbole laden attacks on him. Or should we start linking your various political social media postings here, so everyone gets it? BTW been on this site for like 7-8 years, first time I have ever said anything like this to a contributor.