History for the Hall with Unanimity, and Another Quartet
Our long national nightmare is over. For 82 years, in one of the dumbest traditions in all of sports, no candidate in the history of the Baseball Hall of Fame had ever been elected unanimously. If all 226 of the BBWAA voters who participated in the Hall’s inaugural election in 1936 couldn’t completely agree on Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth, the logic went, then some voter somewhere needed to take it upon themselves to ensure that the candidacies of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Ken Griffey Jr. didn’t arrive without blemish either.
In a reflection of the universal respect that he amassed throughout the industry, as not only the greatest closer in the game’s history but also the last wearer of Jackie Robinson’s otherwise-retired jersey number 42, Mariano Rivera slammed the door shut on that dumb tradition. Per the voting results of the BBWAA’s 2019 balloting announced on Tuesday evening, Rivera ran the table, receiving all 425 votes cast in this year’s election. He’s one of four players elected this year, alongside the late Roy Halladay (85.4%), Edgar Martinez (85.4%), and Mike Mussina (76.7%).
This is the second year in a row, and the third year out of five, that the writers have elected four players in a single year. The Cooperstown-bound parade of candidates elected by the writers over the past six years now numbers 20, more than in any other six-year span; the previous record of 15 was set from 1951-1956. This year’s class of six — including Harold Baines and Lee Smith, elected by the Today’s Game Era Committee last month — will be inducted in Cooperstown on July 21.
What follows here is my best attempt to collect several scattered thoughts in a timely fashion. I’ll follow this with a full candidate-by-candidate breakdown on Wednesday.
On This We Can Agree
When the writers first voted in 1936, Cobb led the pack with 98.2%, followed by Ruth and Honus Wagner (95.1% apiece), Christy Mathewson (90.7%), and Walter Johnson (83.6%). Regardless of what the various dissenters objected to about those candidates, the fact that somebody did was enough for at least some voters to justify non-unanimity for future candidates. Ted Williams? 93.4% in 1966. Stan Musial? 93.2% in 1969. When Mays received 94.7% in 1979, his share was the highest since Cobb’s, and the same was true of Aaron, at 97.8%, three years later, but here and there, one of the old guardians of the Cooperstown gates still spit on their ballots. In 1992, Tom Seaver finally surpassed Cobb with 98.84%, and after Nolan Ryan fell short by an eyelash seven years later (98.79%), Griffey came along and set the new standard with 99.3% in 2016.
What was different about Griffey’s share was that it took place in an era of greater transparency. Interested observers could follow along in real time on social media as voters revealed their ballots, and at the point just prior to the announcement of the results, The Kid had been on every one of the 249 ballots published in Ryan Thibodaux’s Hall of Fame Ballot Tracker. In the end, three of the 440 voters left him off their ballots, none of whom ever identified themselves, but Griffey still set the record. While many believed that the BBWAA’s late-2016 resolution to publish every ballot received starting with the 2018 election might open the door for unanimity, the Hall of Fame unilaterally scuttled those plans.
Even as Rivera was named on all 232 ballots published in the Tracker pre-election, it was apparent that some voter, somewhere, might leave him off on purely philosophical grounds. After all, Rivera’s 1,283.2 innings are just over a third of those thrown by Mussina (3,562.2), for example, and 14 players on the ballot accumulated higher WAR totals in their careers (by Baseball-Reference’s version, at least). Along those lines, one voter, the Worcester Telegram’s Bill Ballou, announced in late December that he had reached a similar conclusion but was abstaining rather than be That Guy. Then, earlier on Tuesday, he admitted to reconsidering his position and casting a ballot that included Rivera.
Anyway, here’s the new leaderboard, which should remind us that while the Hall is supposed to reward the best on the basis of merit, the messy process can turn it into a popularity contest along the way. It’s the Hall of FAME, after all, and the wiry Panamanian closer, who set the all-time saves record (652) and sealed four World Series championships for the Yankees, has that in spades, too.
| Rk | Name | Year | Votes | % of Ballots |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mariano Rivera | 2019 | 425 | 100.0% |
| 2 | Ken Griffey Jr. | 2016 | 437 | 99.3% |
| 3 | Tom Seaver | 1992 | 425 | 98.8% |
| 4 | Nolan Ryan | 1999 | 491 | 98.8% |
| 5 | Cal Ripken Jr. | 2007 | 537 | 98.5% |
| 6 | Ty Cobb | 1936 | 222 | 98.2% |
| 7 | George Brett | 1999 | 488 | 98.2% |
| 8 | Hank Aaron | 1982 | 406 | 97.8% |
| 9 | Tony Gwynn | 2007 | 532 | 97.6% |
| 10 | Randy Johnson | 2015 | 534 | 97.3% |
Last Licks
A seven-time All-Star who has a claim as the best designated hitter in the game’s history, Martinez not only helped put the Mariners on the competitive map during an 18-year career spent entirely in Seattle, he may have saved baseball for the Emerald City with “The Double,” his 1995 Division Series-winning walk-off hit against the Yankees. His candidacy followed the path of 2017 honoree Tim Raines: a modest start (36.2% in 2010 in his debut) but then a failure to make headway with the voters (25.2% in 2014, and just 27.0% a year later), the loss of five years of eligibility due to the Hall’s unilateral rule change shortening candidacies from 15 years to 10, and a late surge that carried him over the top in his final year of eligibility.
Martinez is the sixth candidate in modern electoral history (since 1966, when the writers returned to annual voting) to be elected in his final year, after Red Ruffing (1967), Joe Medwick (1968), Ralph Kiner (1975), Jim Rice (2009), and Raines. He’s the first player in modern history to gain at least 10 percentage points in four straight elections, thanks in part to the testimonials he received from his former Mariners teammates now in the Hall, Randy Johnson (2015) and Griffey, as well as a strong boost from the franchise’s PR department and a little love from the stathead crowd, which helped to convince voters that a player who spent 72% of his career plate appearances as a designated hitter could nonetheless produce enough value to match those of the average Hall of Fame third baseman.
Bittersweetness
The joy of election day was tinged with sadness when it came to Halladay, an eight-time All-Star and two-time Cy Young winner who died on November 7, 2017 at the age of 40 while flying his Icon A5 light sport airplane. He became the first player elected posthumously by the BBWAA since Roberto Clemente in 1973. The Pirates great, who himself died in a plane crash on December 31, 1972 while delivering humanitarian aid to earthquake-stricken Nicaragua, was honored via a special election conducted shortly after the announcement of that year’s voting results. The last player posthumously elected by the BBWAA in a regular election was Rabbit Maranville in 1954, while the only other one elected by the writers in his first year of eligibility was Mathewson, who died in 1925, at the age of 45, due to tuberculosis and a respiratory system compromised by exposure to poison gas during World War I.
From a statistical standpoint, Halladay, who had “only” 203 career wins and fewer than 3,000 total innings, may not have had a case quite as strong as the ballot’s other top starters, namely Mussina, Roger Clemens, and Curt Schilling. Nonetheless, the weight of his death lent an urgency to his candidacy. Based upon the results in the Tracker, where he received 92.7% of the pre-election votes but a more modest 76.4% from those ballots yet to be published, some voters might have been uncomfortable with anointing him so quickly, even given the circumstances. That said, his public-to-private drop-off was less than those of the more controversial Schilling (20.3%, from 69.8% to 49.5%) or Clemens (24.4%, from 71.1% to 46.7%).
The Moose Is Loose!
Aside from the question of Rivera’s potential unanimity, the major suspense around Tuesday’s announcement centered around whether Mussina, a five-time All-Star who spent his entire 18-year career in the crucible of the AL East, would sneak over the 75% line or fall just short. Based on the Tracker, he received 81.5% on the published ballots, but several projection systems still had him finishing in the low 70s based upon his falloffs in years past, and Jason Sardell’s probablistic model gave him “only” a 63% chance of reaching the threshold this year.
Both at the outset of this election, when I noted that candidates in his position (63.5% last year) generally need two years to close the deal, and in the hours before the announcement, when I told a few people I thought that he’d finish a handful of votes short, à la Bert Blyleven in 2010, even I was surprised by the results. Pleasantly so, I might add, because I’ve been stumping for Mussina ever since he became a candidate in 2014. And yet another slow starting one, at that, with 20.3% that year, and 24.6% in 2015. Mussina made double-digit gains in three years out of the four since then, and cleared the bar by a mere seven votes.
Walker’s Jump
Among the 31 candidates who did not get 75%, none made more headway than Walker, who jumped 20.5 percentage points from last year, the ninth-largest jump in modern history:
| Rk | Player | Yr0 | Pct0 | Yr1 | Pct1 | Gain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Luis Aparicio+ | 1982 | 41.9% | 1983 | 67.4% | 25.5% |
| 2 | Barry Larkin+ | 2011 | 62.1% | 2012 | 86.4% | 24.3% |
| 3 | Gil Hodges | 1969 | 24.1% | 1970 | 48.3% | 24.2% |
| 4 | Nellie Fox+ | 1975 | 21.0% | 1976 | 44.8% | 23.8% |
| 5 | Hal Newhouser+ | 1974 | 20.0% | 1975 | 42.8% | 22.8% |
| 6 | Jim Rice+ | 1999 | 29.4% | 2000 | 51.5% | 22.1% |
| 7 | Don Drysdale+ | 1976 | 29.4% | 1977 | 51.4% | 22.0% |
| 8 | Vladimir Guerrero+ | 2017 | 71.7% | 2018 | 92.9% | 21.2% |
| 9 | Larry Walker | 2018 | 34.1% | 2019 | 54.6% | 20.5% |
| 10 | Johnny Sain | 1974 | 14.0% | 1975 | 34.0% | 20.0% |
| 11 | Early Wynn+ | 1970 | 46.7% | 1971 | 66.7% | 20.0% |
| 12 | Minnie Minoso | 1985 | 1.8% | 1986 | 20.9% | 19.1% |
| 13 | Phil Cavarretta | 1974 | 16.7% | 1975 | 35.6% | 18.9% |
| 14 | Early Wynn+ | 1969 | 27.9% | 1970 | 46.7% | 18.8% |
| 15 | Yogi Berra+ | 1971 | 67.2% | 1972 | 85.6% | 18.4% |
| 16 | Ralph Kiner+ | 1966 | 24.5% | 1967 | 42.5% | 18.0% |
| 17 | Billy Williams+ | 1982 | 23.4% | 1983 | 40.9% | 17.5% |
| 18 | Luis Aparicio+ | 1983 | 67.4% | 1984 | 84.6% | 17.2% |
| 19 | Bob Lemon+ | 1972 | 29.5% | 1973 | 46.6% | 17.1% |
| 20 | Eddie Mathews+ | 1977 | 62.4% | 1978 | 79.4% | 17.0% |
Similarly, Walker’s two-year jump of 32.7 points (from 34.1%) ranks fourth, while his three-year jump of 39.1 points (from 15.5%) ranks fifth.
That’s the good news, as is the fact that he’s crossed the 50% threshold, a virtual guarantee of future election; current candidates aside, only Gil Hodges has received at least 50% and never gained entry. The bad news is that Walker, who was polling at 65.9% in the Tracker prior to the election, will need to almost exactly replicate this year’s boost to get to 75% next year, his final year of eligibility for election via the writers. Those of us who have chewed our fingernails while sweating out every single ballot on behalf of Raines and Martinez might need to pay more regular visits to the manicurist.
Going Big Yet Again
Last year, BBWAA voters set a new modern record by averaging 8.46 names per ballot, the third time in five years they’ve set a new standard. This year, they were not quite as generous, nor did as high a percentage use all 10 spots, but the numbers from these past six cycles remain in the stratosphere:
| Year | Votes Per Ballot | All 10 |
|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 6.60 | 22% |
| 2014 | 8.39 | 50% |
| 2015 | 8.42 | 51% |
| 2016 | 7.95 | 42% |
| 2017 | 8.17 | 45% |
| 2018 | 8.46 | 50% |
| 2019 | 8.01 | 43% |
And what of Clemens? Schilling? Barry Bonds? Scott Rolen? For now, I’ll leave you with a table of the results, and my promise that I’ll write about ’em all in my next installment.
| Player | YoB | Votes | %vote |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mariano Rivera | 1 | 425 | 100.0% |
| Edgar Martinez | 10 | 363 | 85.4% |
| Roy Halladay | 1 | 363 | 85.4% |
| Mike Mussina | 6 | 326 | 76.7% |
| Curt Schilling | 7 | 259 | 60.9% |
| Roger Clemens | 7 | 253 | 59.5% |
| Barry Bonds | 7 | 251 | 59.1% |
| Larry Walker | 9 | 232 | 54.6% |
| Omar Vizquel | 2 | 182 | 42.8% |
| Fred McGriff* | 10 | 169 | 39.8% |
| Manny Ramirez | 3 | 97 | 22.8% |
| Jeff Kent | 6 | 77 | 18.1% |
| Scott Rolen | 2 | 73 | 17.2% |
| Billy Wagner | 4 | 71 | 16.7% |
| Todd Helton | 1 | 70 | 16.5% |
| Gary Sheffield | 5 | 58 | 13.6% |
| Andy Pettitte | 1 | 42 | 9.9% |
| Sammy Sosa | 7 | 36 | 8.5% |
| Andruw Jones | 2 | 32 | 7.5% |
| Michael Young* | 1 | 9 | 2.1% |
| Lance Berkman* | 1 | 5 | 1.2% |
| Miguel Tejada* | 1 | 5 | 1.2% |
| Roy Oswalt* | 1 | 4 | 0.9% |
| Placido Polanco* | 1 | 2 | 0.5% |
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.
We spent like 30 years penalizing DH’s and basically keeping them out of the hall of fame because “they dont play the whole game” and then a guy who only pitched an avg of 67 innings a year comes along and gets 100% on his first ballot.
Ladies and gentleman, the Baseball Hall of Fame. lol.
Were any of the DHs penalized the most productive hitter, on a rate basis, in the history of baseball?
And also, of course, the most dominant postseason hitter in the history of baseball?
Edgar absolutely deserves to be in the Hall.
It’s also entirely unsurprising that the most dominant reliever in history got in before the 30th best hitter, when that hitter made literally no defensive contribution for the final 10 years of his career.
The most dominant reliever who only pitched the ninth inning of games his team was winning by between 1 and 3 runs.
But yeah, Edgar didnt stand in the field doing nothing most of the game so screw him. lol.
The unwillingness to even admit how the wildly inconsistent the voting is what makes me laugh.
Just for the record, out of 96 postseason appearances by Rivera, only 10 were cases when he entered the game with the Yankees winning by 1~3 runs in the 9th inning.
That’s actually amazing.
I mean…if “he only pitched the 9th!!!!” is your first argument against Rivera, that offers a greater indictment on your knowledge of his career than it does Rivera’s status as a first-ballot HoF.
I mean, 72.9% of his career innings during the regular season came in the 9th (and that includes his time as a starter ad set-up man).
I’m honestly not sure what the issue is here. He was a closer. Like most modern closers he pitched the vast majority of his innings in the 9th. That’s not exactly a controversial statement is it????
The issue, of course, is his assertion that Rivera’s Hall of Fame credentials are based off, in this child’s words “only…the ninth inning of games his team was winning by between 1 and 3 runs.”
The issue, of course, is that the only people who would ever describe Rivera’s career as such…are idiots who have never read Rivera’s FG page, and people who are genuinely illiterate.
I’m pretty sure SBG is capable of reading…meaning the only rational explanation is that he’s an idiot who’s never having read Rivera’s FG page.
Either way…both his comments are fvcking hilarious.
I see we have reached the final stage of internet debate “hurling baseless insults at a complete stranger because they refuse to admit I’m right”
Take a lap.
I’m not sure “anyone who bases his primary argument against Rivera on his being a ‘one inning reliever’ is either illiterate or entirely unfamiliar with Rivera’s career” is a “baseless insult” against someone whose primary argument against organized baseball’s career leader in 4+ out finishes is his being a “one inning reliever.”
I’m…sorry you don’t research topics, before providing hawt taeks that do nothing but display amusing ignorance of the subject at hand?
Is that the “lap” you want me to take, hon?
Or would you prefer I pretend that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Rivera’s career would parrot critiques that even Dan Shaughnessy would be embarrassed by?
I absolutely love it, all those guys who didn’t vote for Maddux, Johnson, Griffey Jr, Seaver, guys who were clearly first ballot HOFers, no question, this unanimity hill was the one they chose to die on. They could have voted for those guys – they chose not to. And now, their hill was undermined by a pitcher who is tied for 167th in pitcher fWAR, and there wasn’t exactly a campaign to make him unanimous. A reliever, as good as he was, is still a failed starter. Now, he is the precedent for unanimity. This is amazing.
Maybe they realized that only thing dumber than the unanimity rule is regressing BABIP over a 1000+ inning sample size?
What’s amazing is how anyone could seriously use WAR to compare a closer and all other pitchers, like it’s the same.
Maybe when you noticed that a HOF closer is ranked 167th in pitcher fWAR, you should’ve also noticed that WAR is a horrible metric to use in your complaint.
But nah, lets continue the current narrative since it’s easier. ?
Did you miss the part where he’s a failed starter? In what world does someone pick Mariano over Maddux? Or Johnson? Or Griffey Jr? They don’t, and don’t give me the rings thing, he got to close out leads that other people handed to him, he didn’t get or protect the lead along the way.
Using fWAR was intentional. It’s a cumulative stat, and relievers compile so little because their impact is so small. That’s the point of using fWAR, to highlight how little of an impact the first unanimous selection has made, overall, and the irony for those reporters who didn’t vote for guys like Maddux to protect this unanimous hill, that is now blown to smithereens.
On the list of things in the world to care about, the fact that the first MLB player to be voted into the hall of fame unanimously isn’t the one you wanted is so far down the list that it’s laughable.
Is Rivera a deserving hall of famer? Undoubtedly. Is it, in and of itself, a *bad* thing that he was voted in unanimously? Not at all. So what if a tiny subset of HOF voters did the wrong thing in the past? This time they didn’t. Stop complaining.
You have this backwards, I’m feeling nothing but joy borne out of schadenfreude.
Using fWAR to determine the value of over 1000 IP is also, of course, something only a moron would do..because it presupposes that Ichiro was wildly overrated, because his batting average was entirely based on “luck”…and that the same “luck” is the only reason fewer runs were score on Mark Buerhle than Ricky Nolasco.
Are you willing to stake your rep on either assertion?
Because both claims form the basis or pitching fWAR.
The only complicating factor that fWAR offers is the idea that exit velocity and launch angle have, quite literally, nothing to do with balls in play other than IFFBs or HRs.
The available data outgrew DIPS theory a few years ago.
Why pretend otherwise?
Holy crap! My “rep” is at stake here? Why, I had no idea! Thank you, white knight! I will now re-think everything I have and haven’t done!
Yeah, “rep” was the wrong word (I’m 5 hours ahead of US time, so it was a bit late).
The fact that DIPS theory became obsolete with the introduction of Statcast, however, stands.
Was using a stat that pretends that pitchers have zero control on batted ball outcomes, and that we have no access to exit velocity data, “intentional”?
Or do you just not know what “fWAR” actually means?
Asking for a friend.
WPA has only been around since 1974 but among relievers Rivera has 55.75 and second is Hoffman at 32.78. He was more then bit better than the rest. He’s 3rd in career WPA if you count starters, just behind Maddux and just ahead of Randy Johnson. He certainly helped his team win.
I don’t want to say it…but shouldn’t we look at the evidence? The first unanimous is a Yankee? Wouldn’t that point to some evidence that the one of the people withholding votes is a Yankee writer? Speculation but I refuse to believe baseball writers consider Rivera the best, most accomplished, most deserving Hall of famer of all time….
These are reporters who are voting on this. A lot of it has to do with how well liked the person was. Rivera was universally, unanimously liked by everybody who dealt with him. That helps a lot. Throw in the fact that he was unquestionably the best pitcher of all time on an inning-for-inning basis, and the best reliever of all time by miles, and literally the only negative mark was that he was a reliever rather than a starter. We’ve already established that relievers can make the Hall of Fame. Therefor, there just isn’t any conceivable argument against the guy.
“he was unquestionably the best pitcher of all time on an inning-for-inning basis”
Sure, if we’re talking about pitching 1-2 innings a game. But since guys like Seaver, Clemens, Johnson, Grove, etc. never got to do that, I don’t think we can really say it’s “unquestioned”.
“We’ve already established that relievers can make the Hall of Fame.”
I’m not sure who “we” is. I don’t have a HOF vote (do you???). Anyway, I’m sure there were voters who had never voted for a reliever before Rivera. So they might dispute the idea that it was “already established”.
I don’t think it’s baseless to say “a relief pitcher has been elected to the HoF before, therefor it’s established that a reliever can make it to the hall of fame.” I think he’s just framing/setting terms of the discussion, not saying he’s included in the group that put the reliever in the hall.
Your first point is fine. I disagree, but that’s just opinions. There are relief pitchers in the hall though. This is a fact and not disputable.
Is “the universe has established that relievers can make the a
HoF” preferable, honey?
I’d take peak Walter Johnson over Rivera, inning for inning. Take 1912-1915, Johnson pitched more innings in those four years than Rivera pitched in his carer. He also has a higher ERA+ than Rivera, career. Then there’s the fact that Johnson had to hold back to pitch complete games. So, inning for inning, I’d take peak Walter Johnson over Rivera.
Well, we’ll never know how Rivera would have performed in Walter Johnsons’s era.
Quite literally, too – even if we put Rivera in a time machine, and sent him back to 1912, he wouldn’t be allowed to pitch!
Yes. But at the same time, this taboo about 100% had to be busted, and he’s as good a guy as any for that. At least Jeter won’t be the first, oh heavens the special slobbering over that. Rivera is a fun player to root for (when he’s not beating you) — sharing the cutter around, seeming genuinely humble, praising Edgar. And everyone knows he’s nothing like the greatest player in history so maybe now voters could start voting based on “is this player a HOFer y/n” without the taboo.
Though the “first ballot” distinction has to die too. In or out, yes or no, get it right and let’s go listen to some induction speeches. Momentum is not a good thing to have here and any voter who deliberately says “no” on a candidate they think should be second-ballot is failing at Categorical Imperative 101.
Yeah I know Edgar would probably have failed a one-shot up-or-down vote in 2010. Okay, we could have a one-shot vote held ten years after retiring instead of five years after? There can be value in more perspective.
Though I guess there can be value in a repeat vote, if it gives people a chance to see the low first result and say hold on, please listen to why he’s better than you think.
If there’s a limit of 10 per ballot, there have to be multiple ballots.
“have to”?????????????????????? No one “has to” do anything of the sort. Try again.
he was unanimous because the hall publishes the ballots now, so if you’re the one chump who denies him the 100%, everyone will know it’s you now. that’s got to be the reason, right?
I don’t think the Hall publishes the ballots, but I do think that in the era where nearly every sportswriter is expected to reveal who they voted for and why they did it, nobody wanted to be “that voter.”
RE public ballots: this is what i’m thinking of: https://www.mlb.com/news/anonymous-hall-of-fame-balloting-ends-in-2018/c-210445566
I may be missing something though.
“While many believed that the BBWAA’s late-2016 resolution to publish every ballot received starting with the 2018 election might open the door for unanimity, the Hall of Fame unilaterally scuttled those plans.”
Explained in the article.
The PED apologists are so sad. When you ask a small child why they play a game by the rules they say that you get in trouble if you don’t. When they get a bit older the story changes: if you don’t play by the rules, you’re not playing the game. Bonds played the game, then he broke the game. It’s a good reason to keep him out.
….whaaa??
The rules said nothing about not being allowed to use PEDs….
Nope. Banned 15-20 years before the Mitchell Report.
A ban without a penalty is not a ban.
So are you saying they also have rules in the MLPA contract that says, oh for instance, one cannot MURDER another person, and all the consequences of that? Because, if they had known that that sort of thing was frowned upon, I gotta say they were a victim themselves. Maybe they also have in their contracts that being a Russian spy is also not looked upon favorably? smh
The CBA does indeed have a clause that allows clubs to discipline players for murdering someone, yes.
This is weird and quaint and a whole lot of “Cool Story Bro ™” but not a terribly good reason for keeping the best hitter of his era out of the baseball hall of fame. Players of all eras cheated. Players right now are cheating. Players in the 40s were cheating. It’s part of the game.
best batter, or was not not even playing baseball. Ask a kid, they can tell you.
Thrilled for Mo, Edgar, and Moose, proud for Doc. BUT: With those four guys elected, McGriff off the ballot, Jeter the only slam dunk candidate in the next two cycles, and things coming to a head on Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling, we are heading into what should prove to be the most interesting two-year period in HOF history. Voters who have had angst about the 10-vote limit should have a reprieve now. If I was betting, I could make a reasonable argument that only 1 guy gets in during the next two years, or that more than 5 guys do.
Yeah it could be very well be possible that all four of:
Schilling/Clemens/Bonds/Walker make it in the next two years (well if Walker doesn’t next year he’s done).
Manny has a shot with seven years left and in the twenties.
What’s sad is Bonds and Clemens, but no Sosa.
8.5%??
And while I don’t think Andruw Jones will ever make it, he will go down as one of the top-three CF ever, defensively.
Not sure it’s “sad”…Sosa is the Kingman of the steroid era.
What is Bonds then?
Now we should split hairs between PED users?
How exactly is Sosa the “Kingman”? And what exactly qualifies him for that title?
Bonds is the Babe Ruth of the steroid era…and he was Willie Mays before he started using in 1999.
What makes Sosa “the Kingman” is that he’s a compiler whose career 124 wRC+ belies his gaudy HR totals.
I don’t particularly mind guys like Sosa using PEDs – he was on his way out of the league before both his forearms and head grew two inches after the 1992 season, but their candidacies are meaningfully distinct from guys like Bonds, and even Sheffield.
I can’t believe that not a single writer had the guts to leave Rivera off to make sure someone like Berkman didn’t fall off the ballot. Rivera is an inner circle guy whether he got 99 or 100 percent of the votes. Surely there are more than 10 worthy candidates on the ballot.
Well, at least one writer got heavily abused for saying he would not have voted for Mo and not submitting a ballot.
Papi may have more influence over HOF voting than any sportswriter. Martinez arguably only made it because voters could look ahead and see the hypocrisy of electing Ortiz and not Edgar. And for the same reason, Bonds and Clemens are surging. No one wants to explain why s/he voted for Ortiz and not for Bonds.
“And for the same reason, Bonds and Clemens are surging.”
Are they? Their totals both went up by less than three percentage points this year.
Have to agree. Big Papi is going to sail in, and there’s going to have to be a reckoning of why he’s unquestionably a better candidate than Bonds or Clemens. Let’s see the knots the moralistic writers get themselves into.
I’m not at all convinced Papi sales in. Aside from the Bonds and Clemens precedent, A-Rod will be on the ballot for the first time the same year as him, and that presents an even more evident quandary for the PED scolds who still might be inclined to vote for Papi.
Also, he’s a very borderline candidate by JAWs, which could work against him as more and more saber-friendly writers become credentialed voters.
Then again, the ballot could be very weak. It’s probably going to be A-Rod and Ortiz, the PED guys on their final ballot, a couple stragglers from the current class (maybe Rolen or Helton or Jones), and then… Joe Nathan? There’s not much there.
By the way, I would probably say yes to Papi given a binary, in-or-out choice, but I don’t have strong feelings on it now that Edgar’s in.
Unbelievable Mariano got 100% of votes. I couldn’t believe it. The guy was just a closer. Voters are sadly way more lenient than ever. Yes he was a 1st ballot HOF I’m not disagreeing with that, but he shouldn’t have been close to 100%. Nolan Ryan, cal Ripken jr, and ken Griffey didn’t even get 100%….crazy.
On a side note, If Mariano played today and started out his career today he wouldn’t have a hof career if I was willing to bet. The reason he was so elite and unhittable was because he practically invented the cutter the same way Bruce sutter invented the splitter and and he reaped the benefits of it and rode it to HOF. Now every single pitcher is throwing that cutter pitch and hitters know how to hit it more so than they did.
That and the ice water in his veins. But among the clutch subset, Mariano’s ability to locate the cutter exactly where he wanted it, and then freeze a guy with a straight fastball once in a while — a pitch that if he expected it might crush — was what set him apart. He got dinged a couple of times, but you knew once he came in with a lead it was probably over.
Mariano would likely be a very good reliever but he would have been used differently enough that the stats accumulation would not have been there most likely, a la Chapman/Jensen/Kimbrel (who obviously aren’t close to as good as Rivera)
As in, he wouldn’t have also be the most dominant multi-inning fireman of all time, along with being the most dominant closer of all time?
Right, because in the almost two decades that Rivera was throwing the same pitch over and over again with greater per inning success than anyone in the history of baseball (career 205 ERA+), no one ever thought, “hmm, maybe I should try that”. Rivera’s ERA+ split over the second half of his career is identical, if not better, than that over the first. This is despite the fact that his velocity declined 5 mph over the course of his career. No one could learn a thing that would help them.
But, but, Rivera was only a one-inning guy!
Just look at his 141 postseason IP in 96 appearances!!!!
Everyone knew the cutter was coming. EVERYONE. There was no “watch enough tape and figure it out” experience a hitter could get. This wasn’t dontrelle willis and his 15 pitch repertoire. This was a guy throwing one pitch perfectly.
You understand that nobody gets to decide whether Rivera is unanimous or not, right? You either vote for him or you don’t.
Well, any one voter could decide that he wouldn’t be unanimous.
Laughable to say that Mariano wouldn’t have been a superstar today. Literally no pitcher ever has had the control he had – – go take a look at his location charts against left handed batters. Only the left and right corners of the plate, never anything at all in the middle.
Like, watch his pitching motion here and tell me that he wouldn’t be the best reliever in the game today.
Also, being able to throw 5 balls at once would be a great advantage in today’s game!
All that means for Trout is 2+ hits on 1 swing.
Edgar Martinez would have three hits on those five pitched balls! (career .545 BA against Mo)
What a strange context-devoid bet you’re making lol. More people throw cutters nowadays, yes, but I’d like to believe Mariano’s success with the pitch was one of the driving forces behind the pitch’s ascent to prominence in the first place.
Besides, what does that matter anyway? Nolan Ryan was a fireballer in an age without an abundance of them. Does it make his strikeout totals any less impressive now that most relievers throw as hard as he might’ve?
I mean, jeez, nowadays Newtonian Physics are taught to high schoolers. That doesn’t make those formulas any less Earth-shattering as they were at the time of their development. Mo was special for what he did, and was among the first and the few to have done it for as long as he did. Honestly, I think most big leaguers would tell you they’d have a hard time hitting him right now haha.
Right! People talk like Mo pitched 50-60 years ago. He last pitched in 2013. There are still lots of active major leaguers who faced Mo.
rivera is a unicorn because his dominance lasted through a major dynasty, and he was absolutely amazing in the playoffs… 141 IP with a 0.7 ERA in the playoffs…
also, everyone can learn to throw a cutter… but only rivera had HIS cutter…
Playing the “vote percentage is equivalent to level of greatness” game is the same mistake that all the voters have made for so many years, and it’s a good thing that it’s finally over.
Not a single person in the world is saying that Rivera is the best player to ever play. The vote is a binary, yes/ no thing, and while there should have been many more unanimous players, at least now we will see more.
I’m very much looking forward to Adrian Beltre likely being the next.
Really Happy for Mariano (and Mussina); hopefully this paves the way for Mike Trout and future Mike Trouts to get 100% on their first ballots. My personal favorite player Frank Thomas’ career numbers vs Mussina: 366/458/805 in 96 at bats.
Seems like the Logjam is over; probably just 10-11 strong candidates to debate over for a bit instead of 15+; I’m not all that optimistic for Bonds and Clemens based on this year; though once again the Hall is a farce without them; Clemens is worth about 3.5 Mariano Riveras (one of the best pitchers of all time) and Bonds is worth about 4.5 Harold Baineses (nice guy). Can’t wait for the David Ortiz hypocrisy *Rubs hands together*
That’s the main thing: No one wants there to be a controversy about Trout’s unanimity.
Hell, the only reason to leave Pujols off the ballot now is his presence in “Juiced”.
“Future Mike Trouts” in my mind are just the clones the MLB of the future pumps out in order to create a perfect league of perfect players.
I’m thrilled Mussina got in, in large part because it frees up somewhere around 150 votes on 10-person ballots that can now be reapportioned. With Edgar and McGriff also coming off and only Jeter coming on, I’d expect to see big — and well-deserved — jumps for Rolen and possibly Andruw Jones next year.
My ballot this year was the 4 inductees + Bonds/Clemens/Schilling/Ramirez/Sheffield/Walker. Really tough calls to leave off Rolen and Jones, plus a couple of other more borderline guys.
Next year’s would be the 6 above + Jeter/Rolen/Jones/Sosa
That’s a lot more freedom for voters to pick up some candidates whose shares have lagged, or boost Walker over the top. It also means that voting for Vizquel is less likely to take away a spot from someone more deserving. That said, I suspect we’ll see a lower % of ballots with 10 votes.
I have to echo some of the comments that have been getting some down votes. I am happy that the asinine unanimous drought is over, but did it seriously have to be a closer that ended the drought? Musial, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Ozzie Smith, Maddux, Griffey would have made so much sense. For a relief pitcher to be the one to break through is mind-boggling.
To be clear, literally nobody is saying that Mariano doesn’t deserve it. I think a writer should have been embarrassed to leave him off, but they should have been extra extra embarrassed at some of their previous denials. If it doesn’t happen again somewhat routinely I will remain flummoxed.
Yeah, the main takeaway should be “Thank God we can finally be done with this bullshit” rather than “But, but, it’s a reliever!”
It honestly might help that there’s literally no one comparable to Rivera who wasn’t unanimous (Eck accumulated almost all of his WAR as a starter – his numbers in relief don’t come all that close to Mariano’s at a similar age, which tends to give the lie to the “any starter could do it” line).
He’s inarguably the best ever at his position, denying the opportunity to say “But Mays” or “But Cy Young” or whatever.
A closer who never even won a Cy Young
That being said, better him than Jeter being the first. Mo really does come off as a truly decent dude.
Jeter doesn’t?
Eh. Jeter wouldn’t move when A-rod came to town. He was a playboy. His run with the marlins so far has also helped tarnish him in the eyes of some people, even if it doesn’t reflect his player years.
I’m not saying Jeter is a bad guy (I don’t know him, IDGAF about character as a voting criteria either) but there are some (weak?) points that people will make against him.
On the other hand…Jeter and A-Rod were best friends in the 90s.
Jeter almost certainly expected A-Rod’s physical breakdown, even if it came 5 years after the trade.
I am not really against Mussina being in, but if I were Kevin Brown I’d be furious right now. I really don’t understand why two pitchers with such similar Hall cases got such disparate treatment from the voters. Steroid rumors can’t be the entire difference between 2% of the vote and 75%, can they?
Being mean to journalists might, though.
The other factor, of course, is that Moose had 64 more career Wins and 10 more career RA9-WAR (15 more rWAR, if you want to give him extra credit for suffering through those mid-2000s NYY defenses).
When one player beats the JAWS standard and the other comes in 5 WAR below, it’s hard to talk about how similar their HoF cases were.
I’d be more aggrieved on behalf of Jim Edmonds, personally, with Edgar in the Hall.
Of the factors you listed I’d bet it’s mostly about the Wins. It’s hard for me to really model but I am probably discounting how many voters still think pitching wins matter a lot.
Yep.
Moose beats Brown by, quite literally, every measured, by both saber and traditional standards…but the biggest gap that the BWAA sees is almost certainly wins.
Labeling Kevin Brown’s case as “rumor” is a massive understatement.
The following are the excerpts from the Mitchell Report.
Radomski said that Brown was “very knowledgeable” about human growth hormone. […]
After Brown got hurt, he called Radomski again and asked for human growth hormone.
Radomski said that he sent human growth hormone to Brown by overnight mail and called Brown several times to make sure he had received it.
[…]
According to Radomski, over the next two or three years he sold performance enhancing substances to Brown five or six times.
[…]
Brown’s name, with an address and several telephone numbers, is listed in the address book seized from Radomski’s residence by federal agents. Agents also seized an Express Mail receipt dated June 7, 2004 addressed to “Kevin Brown, [address].”
[…]
In the notes of the October 2003 meetings among Dodgers officials, it was reportedly said of Brown:
Kevin Brown – getting to the age of nagging injuries . . . Question what kind of medication he takes . . . Steroids speculated by GM.
Steroid hearsay, then. The point was just to differentiate the circumstantial evidence from an actual positive test.
Great point!
His evidence of steroid use is only on the same level as Bonds, Clemens and Canseco.
One thing that hurts Kevin Brown, I think, is that he was too transient. He pitched the most innings with the Rangers; he accumulated the most WAR with the Dodgers; he had his best season with the Padres; and he won a World Series with the Marlins.
I think when a player isn’t associated with a specific team it’s harder for them to imprint “Hall of Famer” onto people’s brains for some reason. Also, there is no franchise or fan base to advocate for him like there were for guys like Raines and Edgar.
Tim Raines is a bit of a weird example for you to have chosen. He played for five different teams, and the team he was most associated with no longer existed when he became HoF eligible. Its hard to believe Raines is a HoFer thanks to Expos fans.
Next year will get interesting for Schilling and Walker specifically, because with McGriff dropping off, four guys going in, and only really Jeter being added, there’s going to be a lot of space on the ballot for the first time in years
the question is will voters use that space or leave more blanks. This year was 2nd lowest number of players per ballot in 5 years and also the 2nd lowest in terms of voters using all 10 slots.
I just don’t think we can assume that voters are going to check off 10 names. About 30 fewer voters did so this year.
Anyone else surprised that Oswalt fell off the ballot so quickly despite posting a respectable (though not entirely HoF worthy) 52.4 fWAR?
It’s just a function of how insanely stuffed this year’s ballot was.
Yeah, I can sort of see that, but usually there are voters that will vote for their underdogs to keep them around that will bail on the guys that they know will get in (basically the exact opposite of what happened with Mo). Doesn’t seem right that Vizquel is sitting in the low 40’s and Oswalt is off the ballot entirely.
I actually think Berkman — whose numbers are identical to Helton’s — is a better example of this effect.
This may come across as insensitive, but why did “the weight of his [Halladay’s] death lent [lend] an urgency to his candidacy.”? He is still going to be dead next year, isn’t he?
To me, urgency of candidacies would be players like Ron Santo and Minnie Minoso, where they were obviously nearing the end of their lives and it would have been really nice to put them in while they were alive to enjoy and appreciate it.
I took this to be a euphemism for what it really lent his candidacy, which was a lot of media coverage.
I think it’s because it gives people a chance to honor him while he’s still relatively fresh in our collective memory. The Hall of Fame induction ceremony can serve as a vigil of sorts, and that would likely be lost if he didn’t get in for another few years.
So long Fred McGriff…?
2022, mark your calendar.
Hmm…
Vizquel at 42.8% after two years.
That could get…interesting…
Larry! Walker! For! The! Hall! Of! Fame!
Let’s get it done! Logjam cleared up now that Mussina and Martinez are in, with only Jeter and the controversial holdovers this year left. No one should have an excuse that he’s not one of the Top 10 guys on there. Let’s do it!
Whatever you may think of Rivera being the first unanimous selection (and, if you dig into some of the writer’s explanations, not everyone wanted to vote for him, but went along) he’s actually done us a service. We can now look at HOF voting in a more binary way–is the player Hall-worthy, and, in comparison to the other candidates on the ballot, do we want to select him as a “top-ten”? No one thinks Mo was the best player of all time, and I would imagine only a very few would think him inner circle. It’s really irrelevant. He belongs in. Now that he is, we don’t need to waste time on whether a player should wait a year, etc.
It’s difficult to put Mo in context because of the nature of the reliever position. By definition, he didn’t rack up nearly as much value as a top starting pitcher. But he also has an argument for being the greatest pitcher of all time (since he clearly was that on an inning-for-inning basis). Like, you could put him in the top ten pitchers of all time, or outside the top 50, and either way have a completely reasonable argument.
That is an incredibly flawed argument though because the vast majority of the most skilled pitchers pitch multiple inning at a time. They are starters. The ones that dont are forced to pitch limited innings out of necessity (IE: the are not good enough to be starters).
To believe this is to believe that someone like Greg Maddux or Pedro or Randy Johnson would not be literally unhittable if deployed on a 1 inning at a time basis.
The issue with this argument, of course, is that unambiguous HoF pitchers like Smoltz and Schilling can’t carry Rivera’s jock in terms of their relief stats…and they actually were “one-inning pitchers” (and at notably younger ages than Rivera) rather than aspersions on their legacies being victims of morons who never really paid attention to their careers.
Dude wasn’t even the best pitcher in a season
They surely didn’t pay him like the greatest ever … and that was no accident
If you don’t account for leverage at all…he was “only” as valuable as Johan Santana over the course of his career, despite pitching 800 fewer innings.
(Provided you pretend that being the most dominant postseason pitcher of all time is entirely irrelevant to his HoF case.)
Mussina
2014: 116 (20.3%)
2015: 135 (24.6%)
2016: 189 (43.0%)
2017: 229 (51.8%)
2018: 268 (63.5%)
2019: 326 (76.7%)
Isn’t this ridiculous? In six years, Mussina gets 210 (!) more votes. Why? Did SABR find that he pitched another 50 games that weren’t recorded? He didn’t do anything and, yet, more than half of the votes went from “no” or “can only take 10 and your not on my top 10” to “yes”. Is it really all a backlog of candidates? Or, somehow, more than half of the baseball writers changed their mind on a pitcher who did nothing during those six years. His stats and their memories are still the same. If the argument is that the many baseball writers had to be convinced of his worthiness for the HOF and this increased during these past six years, then I would counter that we have the wrong people voting. I can certainly see a smaller change in percentage should voters on the fence be convinced or their ballot was filled (10) and now they have room…but 210 more votes?
Ridiculous.
You’ve never changed your mind about anything?
People get convinced about things over time. I initially didn’t think Edgar Martinez was a Hall of Famer, but after years of discussions I changed my mind on it. With Larry Walker, I went from “absolutely not” to on-the-fence. That’s part of the Hall process.
My point was not that people changed their mind, it was that so many of them changed their mind. These are not regular people on the street changing their mind or casual fans, they are (I assume) people that have watched and written about baseball for a long time.
A lot of older retired writers have been dropped from the rolls as new blood has come in. That doesn’t explain it all but it does cover a significant percentage of his gains.
The power of propaganda
If the argument is that the many baseball writers had to be convinced of his worthiness for the HOF and this increased during these past six years, then I would counter that we have the wrong people voting.
When are you, 2007?
The 2014 ballot now has 12 HoFers from it.
And only ten slots.
Add in the “debatables” and “still elegibles” and votes were diluted across a couple dozen candidates. With the 5% rule in place some voters need to be strategic to keep players worthy of consideration eligible.
Lance Berkman with his 30 bWAA (net of negatives), and 2.7 Postseason WPA should have gotten more consideration. They could change the rule to “must get at least 5% in one of the preceding two years” to stay on the ballot. Jim Edmonds had a really good HOF case and was similarly dismissed.
lets just let everyone in
I believe that is going to be the theme of Harold Baines’ induction speech.
Jayson Stark had a great piece on the HOF results…
With Rivera- he was looking at the gap between top guy getting into the HOF and 2nd highest vote total at each position…
going into yesterday
Catcher- Bench to Berra 10.80%
1B- Thome to Baglwell 3.60%
SS- Ripken to Wagner 3.40%
CF- Griffey to Cobb 1.10%
3B- Brett to Jone 1.00%
well the gap between Rivera and Goose Gossage….. 14.2%!!!!
The other factoid I found amazing…
Rivera is the fifth player just since 2014 to reel in at least 97 percent of the vote. That had happened only seven times in all the previous Hall of Fame elections combined.
Great read! had to let out a laugh at what this writer was getting at 😀 what other sport does this? Only baseball could justify withholding a vote for “the greatest hitter who ever lived”, “the babe” “say hey kid” etc
It’s great to see the voters acknowledge their sport for what it is (closers and DHs) and not pine for “the good old days” and vote against certain players “on principle.”
I’ve never seen an NL manager leave the DH spot open in interleague play or the World Series, because that’s not how baseball works.
actually think Bochy did that with Madbum at least once during the regular season.
I remember him using Madbum as a DH when someone else was starting an an AL park, but at that time at least, he still used someone else as the DH when Madbum pitched as letting the starter hit for himself costs you the DH for the rest of the game.
Also comes up with Ohtani, who DHs for other pitchers, but they use someone else to DH when he pitches.
Just for the record, the rule that you lose the DH slot for the rest of the game if you start without one is one of the stupidest rules in baseball. Hey! Let’s have a rule whose only purpose is to screw two way pitchers! That’ll teach them to try to be good at more than one aspect of the game.
This election showed a couple of things:
— Finally, people are acknowledging the significance of relief pitching and being a DH.
— Voters continue to break down “hallowed” barriers, like wins for pitchers.
— Voters need to grow up. Just because a player doesn’t like you or broadly criticizes your profession passing him up for the HoF is just petty.
Journalism continues to be a house built entirely on hypocrisy. Far too many claim objectivity yet display nothing of the sort if someone were to critique their industry.
Tell us what you really think, Jay.
I don’t think it’s necessarily “dumb” for folks to want to categorize and draw distinctions between groups of players in a group that’s gotten as big as our modern Hall of Fame. To some, there’s meaning in being a “first-ballot” hall-of-famer, and there’s meaning in being the first unanimous hall-of-famer. I think I’ve seen you use the term “inner circle” hall-of-famer, and it’s the same idea.
Personally, I agree the “no unanimity” precedent should be broken eventually, but I would have reserved the “first unanimous hall-of-famer” distinction for a guy who finished his career in the Top 5 or maybe Top 10 of career WAR, at least. But that’s just me.
The main thing is, it’s sad that today’s internet-bullying culture has created a situation where voters are unwilling to actually vote their true preferences, and instead feel compelled to do what everyone expects them to do. What kind of voting process is that?
That said, I’m not going to cry over spilled milk by somehow trying to denigrate Rivera and his accomplishments. By all accounts, he’s a good guy, he was an excellent relief pitcher, and he deserves to enjoy his moment in the spotlight. Congratulations, Mariano!
The same should be said for Harold Baines, by the way. Perhaps many of us wouldn’t have voted for him, but by all accounts he’s a good guy (which surely helped his candidacy), and he was a good player for a long time in the league. Perhaps we can give him some grace and allow him to enjoy his moment too. Congratulations, Harold!
And, of course, congratulations to the other inductees: Edgar, Roy, Mike, and Lee!
Think of it as congressional representatives. We, the fans/people are able to make our voice heard by attempting to influence our representatives/writers. I’m fine with this. If some old boner gets shamed for leaving Ken Griffey Jr. off his ballot, that’s fine. He’ll be fine.
(Obviously disclaimer: there’s a distinct difference between “you’re a fucking idiot” and “you’re a fucking idiot and I hope you die” when it comes to shaming someone, and no threats of violence or actual intimidation should ever be used)
There’s a good reason why you felt you needed to add that disclaimer, and that’s why the “open” voting process is so flawed.
An interesting (but, as far as I know, never cited by an actual voter) justification for voting against Rivera (or Griffey, Seaver, Ryan, etc.) is a matter of triage- not that you *don’t* think they’re Hall-worthy, but rather because you think >10 people on the ballot are, and you don’t want to waste a vote on somebody who will easily be inducted without it. If I think Rivera, Halladay, Mussina, Martinez, Schilling, Clemens, Bonds, Walker, Vizquel, McGriff, Ramirez, and Kent all belong, wouldn’t it make more sense to leave off Rivera than one of the others?
Totally understand strategic voting…but it’d make a lot more sense to leave Vizquel off, so that we can pawn the embarrassment of his inevitable induction onto the Veteran’s Committee.
Doesn’t seem likely right now.
Right now it looks like he’ll be in within two-three years and with the glut relieved, possibly even next year.
Close to 50% in two years despite the glut. That’s not just strategic voting.
I just think that there’s a very binary case for Vizquel…and I don’t think the influx of internet voters will help him at all.
The current system of 10 max votes per ballot is broken anyway.
Really seems like baseball’s HOF will include Vizquel and exclude Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and Manny Ramirez, huh? At least for a time, anyways. I love Vizquel, but… jeez.
as a side note, it’s quite funny to me that a reliever was the first unanimous HOFer, while a guy with 65% more career WAR had to wait all 10 ten years to get in.
Which player “with 65% more career WAR had to wait all ten years to get in”?
Or are we pretending that vanilla fWAR is at all meaningful for pitchers, after their IP passes the point where BABIP stabilizes?
Some of it is familiarity because of time zone issues.
Rivera was an east cost standout for years and years on some very good teams. Lots of screen time and media coverage. Edgar was a late-starting player ignored for years on a west coast team. And for years and years it was Griffey and Ishiro getting the bulk of the press.
It was only late in his career that the masses caught on to just how good he was.
Add in anti-DH bias…
Life ain’t fair and neither is the media.
we just gonna ignore them two votes for placido friggin polanco, people?
That was my plan. I was hoping that others had that plan too.
I’d rather cut the votes for Vizquel, a worse player than Polanco.
Now that the seal has been broken, I think we’ll see more unanimous votes in the future. Jeter, maybe Beltre, Ortiz, Ichiro.
Ichiro, yes.
Beltre very likely. (What’s not to like?)
Jeter unavoidably.
Not Ortiz, though.
He’ll almost certainly get in…eventually… but I doubt he’ll even be first ballot. He may start around 70% but I think there are enough naysayers out there to keep him out for a year or two.
He needs Bonds and Clemens to get in first to be first ballot.
I can see Shaughnessy saying that Jeter wasn’t “feared” enough to make up for his defense, haha.
I definitely see Ichiro being unanimous, but can definitely imagine someone saying “Chipper was better!” and leaving him Beltre off out of spite.
Rivera’s unanimity was definitely helped by the absence of a superior player in his role who *wasn’t* unanimous.
For the love of all that is good, Moose, please go in wearing an O’s cap. They drafted you twice, you came up through their system, you spent more time there, the majority of your WAR was accrued there…. I had enough trouble seeing you in pinstripes the first time around.