The Big Questions About the 2019 BBWAA Hall of Fame Ballot
On Monday, the Baseball Writers Association of America released its 2019 Hall of Fame ballot, with 15 holdovers — led by Edgar Martinez, who received 70.4% of the vote last year — joined by 20 newcomers including the late Roy Halladay, Todd Helton, Andy Pettitte, and Mariano Rivera. In all likelihood, this will be the sixth year in a row the writers elect multiple candidates, something that hasn’t happened since their run of six straight years from 1951-1956. Already, the 16 players elected from the past five cycles exceeds the record of 13 elected in either of the two overlapping five-year spans within that earlier stretch. And once again, this will be a fairly top-heavy ballot; the five holdovers who have received at least 50% of the vote could prevent some of the candidates further down the ballot from gaining momentum.
Over the next six weeks, I’ll profile all 35 candidates, either at length or more in brief, examining their cases in light of my Jaffe WAR Score (JAWS) system, which I’ll be using to break down Hall of Fame ballots in an annual tradition that’s on the verge of earning its drivers’ license. The series debuted at Baseball Prospectus (2004-2012), then moved to SI.com (2013-2018), and now I’m excited to bring it here to FanGraphs. The candidate profiles will begin next week; today I’ll offer a quick look at the biggest questions attached to this year’s election cycle.
First, it’s worth reviewing the basics. To be eligible for election to the Hall of Fame via the BBWAA ballot, a candidate must have played in the majors for parts of 10 years (one game is sufficient to be counted as a year in this context), have been out of the majors for five years (the minors or foreign leagues don’t count), and then be nominated by two members of the BBWAA’s six-member screening committee. Since the balloting is titled with respect to induction year, not the year of release, the current slate of players will have last appeared in the majors in 2013. Each new candidate has 10 years of eligibility on the ballot, a reduction from the 15-year period that was in effect for several decades; the 2017 ballot marked the final one for Lee Smith, the last candidate grandfathered into a longer run. To be elected, a candidate must receive at least 75% of the ballots cast, and in this case, they don’t round up; 74.9% won’t cut it. Likewise, candidates who don’t receive at leasts 5% of the vote fall off the ballot and can then only be considered for election by the Today’s Game Committee, an entirely separate process — but not until what would have been their 10-year run of eligibility expires.
The voters, each of whom has been an active BBWAA member for 10 years and is no more than 10 years removed from active coverage, can list as many as 10 candidates on their ballots, a number that’s become a point of contention in recent years given the high volume of qualified candidates. In 2015, the Hall tabled a BBWAA proposal to expand to 12 slots (I was on the committee that recommended the change). Last year, the third since the Hall purged the rolls of voters more than 10 years removed from coverage, 422 ballots were cast, 20 fewer than the year before and 127 fewer than in 2015.
Last year, acting on a motion its membership voted to accept in December 2016 by an overwhelming 80-to-9 margin, the BBWAA planned to begin publishing every voter’s ballot, similar to what the organization does with its annual awards. Only when the ballots were mailed did voters and the general public discover that the Hall’s board of directors had rejected the proposal. Voters may still reveal their ballots prior the announcement, as 57.6% did last year; you can track the reported ballots via Ryan Thibodaux’s Ballot Tracker if you want. Voters can also check a box on the ballot to authorize the publication of their choices via the BBWAA’s website two weeks after the election results are revealed. Ballots must be postmarked by December 31, with the results to be announced on MLB Network on January 22, and inductions to take place next July 21 in Cooperstown, New York.
The 35 candidates, with the newcomers in italics:
Rick Ankiel, Jason Bay, Lance Berkman, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Freddy Garcia, Jon Garland, Travis Hafner, Roy Halladay, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Jeff Kent, Ted Lilly, Derek Lowe, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mike Mussina, Darren Oliver, Roy Oswalt, Andy Pettitte, Juan Pierre, Placido Polanco, Manny Ramirez, Mariano Rivera, Scott Rolen, Curt Schilling. Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa, Miguel Tejada, Omar Vizquel, Billy Wagner, Larry Walker, Vernon Wells, Kevin Youkilis, Michael Young
In a cool new feature we’ve added, you can see the career statistics of the candidates in sortable tables, one apiece for hitters and pitchers. And yes, Ankiel — who spent as an outfielder after wildness ended his pitching career — is in both. He’s the most surprising inclusion on the ballot, particularly as he’s been reportedly mulling a comeback. That’s a story for another day, though.
Now, on to the big questions…
Will Rivera be the first unanimously-elected candidate?
Probably not. Even outside of our current, ultra-polarized political scene, getting hundreds of baseball scribes of all shapes and sizes to agree on any player has proven to be an impossible task. In the 71 times the BBWAA has voted (excluding special elections, more on which momentarily), there’s never been a unanimous selection — not for Babe Ruth (95.1% in 1936), Willie Mays (94.7% in 1979), Hank Aaron (97.8% in 1982), or Greg Maddux (97.2% 2015). The highest share of the vote came in 2016, when Ken Griffey Jr. received 99.3%; all but three of the 440 voters included him on their ballots.
None of those three voters published their ballots or came forward to explain their reasoning, likely because they didn’t want to face the resultant firestorm of criticism. To understand why, one need only go back a few years to see the blistering responses received by Dodgers beat writer Ken Gurnick of MLB.com in 2014 for only voting for Jack Morris, and refusing to vote for Maddux or any candidate “who played during the period of PED use,” or by Twins beat writer Mike Berardino of the Pioneer Press in 2015 for leaving Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez off — both were locks anyway — to find room for Walker and Alan Trammell. As in so much else in life, the public doesn’t reward nonconformity, even or especially when it’s a matter of conscience.
Some observers, including this scribe, thought that if the Hall allowed the BBWAA to follow through with its plan to publish every ballot, it might increase the chances of a player running the table, with Rivera a strong possibility given his accomplishments as the all-time saves leader, as an incredible postseason performer who closed out four World Series, and as a public figure with a sterling reputation. But with naysayers still able to cloak themselves in anonymity, unanimity seems less likely, and that’s on top of the fact that some voters may be philosophically opposed to including relievers in the Hall — even the best in baseball history.
Will Halladay’s death lead to his election?
Before his tragic death in a plane crash in November 2017, Halladay appeared to have a solid but not overwhelming case for Cooperstown. Perhaps not a player who would be elected on the first ballot, but one with a very good chance of getting there eventually. On the one hand are the modest wins (203), strikeouts (2,117), and innings (2,749.1) totals, and on the other the eight All-Star selections and two Cy Youngs, a perfect game, and the second postseason no-hitter in history. From a JAWS standpoint, his 64.3 career WAR (the Baseball-Reference version, which I’ll use throughout this series) is a bit short of the standard for pitchers (73.4), but his 50.6 peak WAR is bit above (50.1) — and higher than holdovers Mussina (44.6) and Schilling (48.7), both of whom had longer careers (with higher JAWS), topped 50% last year, and appear to be on the pathway to eventual election.
As anyone who has studied the history of the Hall of Fame in depth can tell you, one uncomfortable reality about the collision between human mortality and baseball immortality is that death may work in a candidate’s favor. Apart from Roberto Clemente, who was elected when the BBWAA took a special vote in March 1973, just two months after he died in a plane crash, several other players have been elected in the short period after their demise, including Roger Bresnahan and Jimmy Collins (both elected in 1945), Herb Pennock (1948), Three-Finger Brown (1949), Harry Heilmann (1952) and Ron Santo (2012). My educated guess — and really, this is still just a guess — is that on a ballot that already has enough darkness, voters will focus on the positives surrounding Halladay and elect him in short order.
Is this finally the year for Martinez and Mussina?
Back in 2015, Martinez (27.0% in his sixth year) and Mussina (24.6% in his second year) were both a far cry from election, but with five holdovers elected in that timespan since (along with four newcomers), the pair are now the top returnees. Martinez, who has posted double-digit gains in each of the past three cycles, fell just 20 votes short of election last year. Mussina, with two years of double-digit gains out of three, received 63.5%.
The situation is rather urgent for Martinez, who’s in his 10th and final year of eligibility, but does appear to have a good chance to join Red Ruffing (1967), Ralph Kiner (1975), Jim Rice (2009), and Tim Raines (2017) as candidates elected in their last go-round; in fact, he’s 0.6% ahead of Raines’ “pace.” Since the voters returned to annual balloting in 1966, 19 out of 20 candidates who received at least 70% of the vote and had eligibility remaining were elected the following year, with Jim Bunning the exception; he received 70.0% in 1987 (his 11th year of eligibility), then 74.2% in 1988 before slipping to 63.3% in 1989. He couldn’t get back to 75.0% via the writers, but the Veterans Committee elected him. For what it’s worth, the VC also came to the rescue of two other candidates who made bigger jumps into the 70-something range but fell short in their final year, namely Nellie Fox (74.7% in 1985) and Orlando Cepeda (73.5% in 1994). Still, it would be a great thing to see Martinez, the most potent DH in history (and an adequate third baseman before that) gain entry via the writers, particularly as the Hall’s 2015 rule change unilaterally reduced his remaining eligibility from nine years to four.
As for Mussina, in the big picture, he’s clearly trending towards election, but historically speaking, it might not be imminent. Since 1966, just one of the three previous candidates with a percentage within five points of Mussina’s in year five, Luis Aparicio (67.4% in 1983), was elected the following year; both Andre Dawson (61.0% in 2006) and Tony Perez (65.7% in 1996) needed four more years. What’s more, of the 19 times a candidate received somewhere between 58.5% and 68.5% — again, within five points of the Moose — at any point from year three to year seven, just four times was that candidate elected in the next year, with Aparicio, Eddie Mathews (from 62.4% in 1977 to 79.4% in 1978) and 300-game winners Early Wynn (from 66.7% in 1971 to 76.0% in 1972) and Phil Niekro (from 68.3% in 1996 to 80.3% in 1997) the only ones getting in. The average gain of those 19 was just 4.2 percentage points; six actually lost ground. That said, all of this took place during the period when candidates had 15 years on the ballot and voters were generally filling in far fewer names, so progress was slower. Still, it seems more likely that Mussina falls short of 75.0% this time around.
And how about those ultra-polarizing candidates, Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling?
Speaking of darkness on the ballot, I wrote over 400 words about this trio, all of whom are in their seventh year of eligibility. But you know what? The debates surrounding them — which concern connections to performance-enhancing drugs for Bonds and Clemens, and the post-career conduct of Schilling — will suck up much of the oxygen in the coming weeks while making everybody surly. So while I promise that I’ll fully explain what’s happening with this trio down the road, today, I’m going to skip the tea leaves and instead mention a few other noteworthy newcomers. You’re welcome.
And those newcomers?
From a traditional standpoint, the one who stands out is Pettitte, with his 256 wins, five World Series rings and several postseason records. With last year’s Modern Baseball Era Committee election of Jack Morris, owner of a career 3.90 ERA, Pettitte’s 3.85 mark would no longer be the Hall’s highest, though of course he stands up much better relative to his league’s averages, with a 117 ERA+ to Morris’ 105. That said, Pettitte ranks just 91st in JAWS (47.2), well below the standard for pitchers (61.8), not to mention the aforementioned trio of Schilling (64.1), Mussina (63.8) or Halladay (57.5), and he’s got the additional burden of having been mentioned in the Mitchell Report for using HGH. No candidate has overcome that yet.
From an advanced statistical standpoint, the newcomer who stands out the most is Helton, who’s ranked 15th at first base in JAWS (61.2 career WAR/46.5 peak WAR/53.7 JAWS, versus the average Hall first baseman’s 66.8/42.7/53.9). While WAR contains adjustments for park and league that bring his Coors Field-inflated numbers back down to earth, that hasn’t been enough for Walker, who’s 10th among right fielders. And where Walker won three batting titles and an MVP award, Helton won just one batting title and was never MVP. While I think he’s worthy of a spot in Cooperstown, he’ll face an uphill climb.
Who stands out further down the ballot?
It will be very interesting to see which direction the support of Vizquel goes. The 11-time Gold Glove winner, whose comparisons to Ozzie Smith simply aren’t supported by the advanced stats on either side of the ball, received 37.0% in his debut. Of the 10 modern (post-1966) candidates within five points of him on either side, four are still on the ballot (Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, and Schilling), while five were elected (Jeff Bagwell, Hoyt Wilhelm, Gossage, and Mathews by the writers, Bunning by the VC). Only Steve Garvey, who received 41.6% in his 1993 debut, remains outside, as does the just-out-of-range Smith (42.3% in 2003), to these eyes the top candidate on the Today’s Game ballot.
Two other 2018 debutantes, the JAWS-supported Andrew Jones (7.3%) and Scott Rolen (10.2%), need to get out of no-man’s land quickly lest they become afterthoughts or worse, slide off the ballot. And at this point, the returns for Walker (34.1% in his eighth year) and Fred McGriff (23.2% in his ninth) are more about setting themselves up for a better outcome via the Today’s Game committee down the road, as Trammell — who didn’t top 37% until his 15th year on the ballot (40.9%) — did before being elected by the Modern Baseball committee last year.
Do you get to vote yet?
Alas, no. I’m about to begin my ninth year of BBWAA membership, which means that I’m two years away from getting an official ballot. As with previous years, after cycling through profiles of all of the candidates, I’ll fill out my virtual ballot to illustrate the hard choices voters must make. And, in a new wrinkle at FanGraphs, so will you, via a cool, crowd-sourced feature we’re cooking up behind the scenes.
Obviously, there’s a whole lot more to be said about all of these candidates, the burning questions that surround them, and the ones I’ve dodged. We’ll get to those all in due time, I swear.
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.
cheaters shouldn’t prosper
have great success, some numbers better than anyone in the history of the sport, get paid insane amounts of money…but cheat doing it…and it is okay. Nice fxcking role models you down voting clowns make.
You’re allowed to curse on the internet.
That doesn’t mean you should.
Is there a Hall of Fame criteria requiring candidates be role models? No? Then I would suggest that you setting up a straw man argument to knock down merits multiple thumbs down. Hall of Fame is a museum telling the story of baseball’s best players. Maybe some of us think the museum is incomplete when folks such as Bonds and Clemens are left out. Maybe it isn’t about fanboys love or hero worship. Maybe some of are bothered by the peds, but still think they belong, because on the field, they were dominant performers.
Actually, yes there is. It’s called the character clause.
It’s just that it’s never been enforced prior to the PED candidates, so I still support them all as long as we’re willing to let other cheaters like Gaylord Perry in the Hall.
Integrity, sportsmanship, and character are the exact words. So, no, there is not a requirement to be a role model. Role model means setting an example for others to follow. I might want my child to have those three words, but role model means the athlete is being judged by his influence on others.
take two players that have precisely equal on field playing accomplishments. One player was silent, played, and went home. Second player made lots of public appearances in order to influence kids to be good people. Second guy is being a better role model. I don’t see how HOF rules give him a priority for induction over the first player. While I get your point on cheaters in the HOF, I prefer to focus on the borderline candidates with fabulous character such as dale murphy. They never get a bump on their character.
The federal government, who has a 95% conviction rate, brought charges against both Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens related to their alleged use of PED’s.
Clemens was found not guilty on six counts.
Bonds was guilty only on obstruction of justice charges – and that charge was dropped on appeal by a 10-1 court decision.
You can say that “cheaters shouldn’t prosper” – and that’s great! They shouldn’t! – but actual professional investigators tried to build a successful case against those two, and failed.
To be opposed to Clemens & Bonds at this point is just worthless virtue signaling.
What in the world are you talking about? Nobody seriously thinks that Bonds and Clemens were clean. It’s just that most don’t really care, especially in light of Bud Selig’s induction. Whether or not opposing Clemens and Bonds is “virtue signaling” (in this case, as usually, that term is used in an obnoxious way by someone who has no idea what he is talking about), that has nothing to do with whether or not they used steroids. They almost certainly did.
What does “has a 95% conviction rate” even mean? Also, if your standard for figuring out if someone did something bad is “is there enough evidence to convict them in court” how do you even function in life on a day to day basis?
It means OJ didn’t kill Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, apparently.
Reminds me of the great Norm McDonald line “it’s official, murder is now legal in the state of california”
Clemens and Bonds weren’t on trial for their PED usage, since it’s not actually illegal.
Besides, there were a number of charges where Bonds wasn’t found not guilty, either (one of them by an 11-1 vote against him). The government just didn’t think it was worth retrying him on those charges.
Presumably you refer to peds players and you do so in a very black/white manner. Many of us see a great deal more nuance in this situation. Perhaps you got thumbs down for the shallowness of your comment?
Ted Lilly and Darren Oliver are real weird inclusions on the ballot. Were there any notable exclusions?
Just to refute my own point both Oliver and Lilly had substantially better careers than I would have guessed. Oliver obviously had longevity but put up 22 bWAR and won 118 games and Lilly had 27 bWAR and won 130 games. So not such strange inclusions, for example Hafner had nearly 25 bWAR and is a very reasonable player to have on the ballot.
I was trying to think of a good rationale for leaving Rivera off the ballot. The only one I could consider was that I think everyone else will elect him and I’d like room for Martinez, Larry Walker, Andruw Jones, Scott Rolen, and Curt Schilling (who are more polarizing candidates who would need my help in this scenario). But even with those five on the ballot, I’m not sure I’d get to 10 candidates, which would put Rivera back on.
Rivera is the best closer ever, and the greatest reliever of recent years, and the guy deserves a spot in the hall.
Even if you did get to ten, Mo shouldn’t be the one left off. If you are willing to look at Mo and say “from an objective standpoint, I can be sure that he will make it and my vote won’t make a difference so I don’t need to vote for him”, then you need to be willing to say similar things about other guys who your vote wouldn’t effect. You know, for example, that Walker won’t make it either way and won’t fall off the ballot either way. So, if you are choosing between candidates whom your vote won’t affect, you should vote for the one most deserving.
I do think that there is value in voting for guys who won’t necessarily get in to build momentum. But it really doesn’t affect Rivera either way.
I’ve always been skeptical of this “building momentum” claim and I don’t think that we really have data either way to prove the point. Guys often pick up votes along the way, but I don’t think that it has anything to do with how many votes they gained the previous year. I have never seen an HoF voter who explained their votes giving any reason that would lead one to that belief.
People sometimes vote for guys that they didn’t previously vote for because they don’t have much time left to make it or because the ballot is less full one year than it was before or because with more years to exam a case, it has grown on them, etc. None of those reasons have to do with picking up momentum though. If a guy doesn’t get a few votes one year so that someone else who is borderline can get those votes, I don’t think that it changes anything for those guys going forward. All the various reasons for them to pick up votes don’t change.
Just last year, Jayson Stark chose Larry Walker over Vizquel/Andruw/Rolen/Kent/etc. because he had momentum in the early returns (Stark sent in his ballot late) and the others largely did not (except Vizquel, but even he was significantly lower at the time). Others have cited seeing a player building momentum year over year or in early returns as a tie-breaker (some in adding Edgar in recent years when he’s got limited time left). Also, there is value in voting to keep guys on the ballot so there aren’t more Jorge Posadas, Kenny Loftons, Jim Edmondses, Kevin Browns happening. In 2015, one voter left off Johnson and Pedro to vote for Walker, who iirc was tracking below 10%. Now, Walker’s gotten momentum and a big push for continued momentum. Maybe it shouldn’t work this way, but it sorta does.
I mean what was the rationale for leaving Maddux or Johnson or Martinez off the ballot?
As for Rivera, I’ll be honest but my opinion is “meh”. Yeah he’s the best closer ever but it’s not like the role has existed for very long (and even less so in it’s modern incarnation). Beyond that we’re talking about someone with 39.7 career WAR with a single season high of 4.3. We wouldn’t accept those numbers as being HOF level at any other position. So why should we accept them for the role of closer?
He’s the best relief pitcher of all time, not simply the best closer and relief pitchers have been around longer. Also, his WAR is much better by bWAR. Mostly though, WAR doesn’t do a good job of showing the contributions that a relief pitcher makes.
Lastly though, while some candidates should not be let in because of the character clause. He is definitely one who should make it in because of that same clause.
1) Yeah, I know that Rivera has more WAR via BR than Fangraphs. But I was responding to SadTrombone and I know that he greatly prefers Fangraphs version. Which is why I used that one.
2) And yeah, relief pitchers have been around for longer than closers. But come on…for most of baseball history, they’ve been an afterthought.
3) “Mostly though, WAR doesn’t do a good job of showing the contributions that a relief pitcher makes.” According to whom? I could just as easily say “WAR overstates the contributions that relief pitchers make”. But without evidence it’s just a baseless statement.
4) Re;the character clause: Dale Murphy is a two-time MVP and considered a great guy. Should he also be in the Hall of Fame?
Mariano Rivera threw 141 innings in the postseason — the equivalent of two full seasons for a modern closer — and put up an 0.70 ERA with an 0.759 WHIP; 110/21 K/BB; and in 32 series over 16 years and 141 innings gave up… 2 home runs. He pitched the final out of 4 World Series (and was on the mound for the walk-off loss in a fifth). He went seven straight postseason series (all three series in 1998 and 1999 plus the 2000 ALDS) without allowing an earned run.
Also, fWAR underrates Rivera because it ignores the .263 BABIP he surrendered (as a result of the difficulty of getting good contact on his cutter), which is why BBREF gives him 27 more career WAR.
I dunno…can we really be sure that Tom Glavine was better at preventing runs than, say, Ricky Nolasco?
It might be luck!
For HoF arguments, you have to use RA9-WAR. It’s firmly established that it correlates more closely to future performance than FIP given sufficient sample size.
HoF voting isn’t about future performance.
No doubt Rivera was amazing in the postseason. But I don’t think there’s any consensus on how to weight postseason relative to regular season in HOF discussions.
Also, a correction: BR has River with 16.6 more WAR than Fangraphs, not 27.
So because by your opinion there’s no consensus, we should just ignore it? Come on.
It depends how you look at it. If you just want to take the highest WARs regardless of position, then that’s one way to do it. But JAWS is really good because it compares players to others based on position, and so if we take that at a starting point, then Rivera is probably going to best any other reliever (or come in close to first).
I’m not a person who really thinks that WAR dramatically undervalues relievers. For the most part, they just don’t play enough to make a big difference. But for the absolute best at their position–the guys like Rivera, Eckersley, and Gossage–I think you have to let them in.
See I think that’s where the issue you. You (and many others) refer to closer as a position. It’s not. It’s a role. The position is pitcher. The job of any pitcher is the same: to get batters out while preventing runs from scoring. The fact that some do it in early/middle innings and others do it in later innings should be irrelevant to how we compare players at that position.
Closers already get the benefit of a leverage bonus (which btw starters don’t receive even when they pitch in the later innings). Now it’s like we want to give them a secret extra bonus because they have a fancy title attached to their role. I know I’m in the minority but personally I find it absurd. Do we actually believe what WAR tells us about the limited impact of closers or not?
Of course, if someone wants to argue that Rivera’s better than all the others closers that are in the Hall, I can’t argue against that. But on the merits alone, I don’t see it.
I’m in more or less complete agreement with you. Generally speaking, relievers don’t belong in the Hall. They don’t pitch enough innings or face enough batters to where their overall contributions compare to position players or starting pitchers, even after adjusting for leverage. Every reliever is a failed starter, so choosing the best relievers is somewhat akin to choosing the best 5th starters.
However, for me, Rivera is the one exception. His 55 rWAR just absolutely blows every other reliever out of the water. There are 226 players in the Hall for their MLB play, and if you look at the all-time WAR leaders, the 226th best Hall-eligible guy is right around 55 WAR. When you add in his postseason accomplishments on top of that, to me he is a no-brainer. Just a very special and unique player who somehow amassed a Hall of Fame career in spite of the absolute idiocy of modern reliever usage patterns.
Relievers being nothing more than failed starters hasn’t been true for decades. These days, most top relievers are groomed for the job in the Minor Leagues for a number of factors. While some factors like number of reliable pitches and lack of stamina may count against them, others like extremely high velocity and max effort mechanics do not or even support their level of talent.
Simply put, relief pitchers these days are so much more than than the pitcher’s bench players, which is why the best ones get to be All-Stars and even get into the Hall of Fame.
I think when the Hall of Fame says “we aren’t letting any relievers in because they didn’t pitch enough”, then it’s cool to make those judgements.
Do you also think DHs shouldn’t be in the Hall?
Johnson/Martinez got left off one ballot to vote for ten other clearly worthy players (Bagwell, Biggio, Martinez, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Smoltz, Trammell, Walker). The 2014 ballot has already yielded 9 HoFers (Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell, Raines, Morris, Trammell) and that’ll be up to possibly 12 after this cycle if Martinez, Mussina and Smith get in, and it’s only been 5 years! I could understand a voter who supported 11 or more of these guys leaving off Maddux.
It’s notable to me that Lee Smith is off the ballot now as Rivera is likely to be a 1st-ballot inductee. The same problem DH’s are having has been a problem for closers. The role is ‘new’ relative the bulk of the Hall’s inductees. Hoffman, Eckersley, Fingers, Gossage, Sutter and Hoyt Wilhelm are the only other closers in the HOF, and ‘closer’ is only about 15-20 years older than ‘DH’. Also, think of this; Ryan Yarborough is the best ever at the second-starter role.
Really boils down to how you feel about the steroid guys
Edgar, Larry, Andruw, Rolen, Schilling, Halladay and Mussina are deserving and on the borderline (of either election or falling off the ballot).
Then, if you’re in on Bonds and Clemens, it comes down to Rivera or one of Manny and Sheffield (or even Pettitte, if you want to give him credit for 275 IP at a 84 ERA- against top competition).
I can easily get to 12 or 13 candidates if I were willing to vote for PED-users.
There may still be voters who won’t vote for ANY relief pitcher.
Rick Ankiel? Really? He has less than 10 total fWar between pitching and hitting stats. How the hell does he even end up on the ballot?
Well he meets the requirements of 10 years in the Majors and none 2014 onward. As it says in the write-up above, beyond that, all it takes is two members of a six member panel to say OK. Given little downside of including players, unless the player did some really lousy stuff, I think that is a pretty low hurdle.
Perhaps the pitching and hitting even helped — how many players in MLB history have had 2+ win* seasons as both a hitter and as a pitcher?
Guys on BBWAA HoF ballots with under 10 career rWAR:
8.9 Rick Ankiel (2019, ?)
9.9 Jeffrey Leonard (1996, 0)
9.1 Mike Jorgensen (1991, 1)
8.9 Bob Bailor (1991, 0)
7.9 Brad Lidge (2018, 0)
7.9 Mark Davis (2003, 1)
7.7 Bill Robinson (1989, 0)
7.4 Mitch Williams (2003, 0)
5.7 Dante Bichette (2007, 3)
5.0 John Wathan (1991, 0)
4.4 Tony Scott (1990, 0)
3.0 Champ Summers (1990, 0)
2.4 Tony Womack (2012, 0)
2.2 Terry Crowley (1989, 0)
1.7 Lenny Harris (2011, 0)
0.1 Jose Morales (1990, 0)
So, about every other ballot on average has one of these guys an in the average year, the worthy candidates lost a sixth of a vote to them. So it doesn’t really affect the worthy players, while being a nice final nod to some role players.
*by rWAR atleast… fWAR has his best year at just 1.7 wins
That’s a good explanation and list – thanks for that!
Dante Bichette gettin’ some love. What are the odds that Bo Bichette (a) gets more than 5.7 career WAR, and (b) more than 3 HOF votes?
Ankiel, in addition to actually qualifying, falls into the fame category of going from a number 1 starter (briefly) to a power hitting outfielder with a highlight reel of best ever throws including two in one game.
I hope he gets back as a LOOGY for a year or two. It would be an amazing finish for him.
I bet he gets 2-4 votes
He wasn’t a #1 Starter. The 2000 Cardinals had Daryl Kile in that role.
So is the narrative about Schilling mainly about his playing career at this point, or his political leanings? I would argue that it should be soley on his career. I don’t care what public entertainers think about politics, since they know about as much as me (not much) Any thoughts?
It has nothing to do with his politics. It has to do with him being a sad excuse for a human being. Racism, homophobia, and the belief that certain journalists should be lynched are opinions, but they definitely aren’t political ones.
Yup – he likes to blame it on the fact that he’s conservative…but it’s because he’s an asshole.
Yes he is. And based on performance between the lines, he should be in the Hall.
The Hall has never just been about the stats, though. You’re thinking of the actual website Hall Of Stats. There’s a character clause in the Hall’s definition and everything.
The character clause — which as written by a commissioner who spent 24 years upholding the color line isn’t worth the toilet paper it’s printed on — is supposed to pertain to on-field stuff, not off-field stuff.
But even if you believe that Schilling is a worthy HOFer on the basis of his playing career, you might find yourself with 11 or 12 names for 10 spots. It’s not unreasonable to then decide that the guy joking about lynching journalists and accusing Parkland survivors of being crisis actors is gonna lose the tiebreaker. That’s the price of being an asshole.
Agreed, as the Hall of Fame includes known illegal spitballer Gaylord Perry and a number of amphetamine users and racist jerks, so why has it only been within the last dozen years that the voters have bothered to enforce that clause?
I think there’s more than just political beliefs. He’s made some pretty inflammatory comments (or really, he shared memes that were inflammatory). It’s not just his political beliefs; it’s how he’s presented them.
Now I don’t think he’s done enough real damage to deserve not getting in, but I do think that if a person says or does a lot of grotesque things, it can be grounds for not being inducted.
I think they mean less about which presidential candidate he likes and more stuff like:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/09/years-after-bankruptcy-curt-schilling-settles-rhode-island-gaming-loans/
Schilling has made a number of rather awful statements about journalists, which I think got their attention in a negative way. I’m also of the mind that Schilling should be in because his character issues were post-playing and seem to have nothing to do with his baseball career. But he is also scum.
(I do think there are some people who are dinging him for being so far away from 300 wins. If that’s really a problem, we won’t be seeing many pitchers in the HoF from here on out).
Comparing Schilling ‘s and Mussina’s yearly vote totals is interesting. Schillng debuted a year before Mussina and got 38.8% of the vote. Since then, it’s gone like this (Schilling listed first):
2014: 29.2% vs 20.3%
2015: 39.2% vs 24.6%
2016: 52.3% vs. 43.0%
2017: 45.0% vs. 51.8%
2018: 51.2% vs. 63.5%
So Schiliing was clearly on track to get elected before Mussina. And then he made his anti-journalist comments. Now it’s Mussina who will get elected this year or next. And who knows when, or if Schilling gets in?
I for one hope he doesn’t. I generally am vote for players for players based on what they did on the field (and I would probably end up voting for him myself also) but he seems like such a horrible human being that I simply wish nothing good happens to him. Lets say OJ was up for election after his “not guilty”, would you vote for him? That I think is how far it has come with Schilling.
There aren’t many comparables in other sports, but OJ very likely and quite literally killed some people. Any amount of completely heinous and inflammatory quotes would pale next to that.
He’s a victim of writers publishing their votes. Stripped of anonymity, many of them are afraid to vote for him now. It’s just another example of virtue-signaling where voters don’t want the press mob to attack them. Having said that, he’s his own worst enemy so it’s hard to feel sorry for him.
Time for a plug for my favorite weird candidate: Andy Pettitte. He had more career fWAR than first balloter Tom Glavine in about 1100 fewer innings (Glavine is substantially ahead by bWAR). He had a higher K rate and lower BB rate than Glavine and a lower FIP and xFIP. Glavine has him slightly on ERA (3.54 to 3.85) and obviously Glavine got to magic no. 300 in wins, whereas Pettitte had 256.
I’m not saying Player X has to get in if Player Y is in, but I think the perception gap is interesting here where Glavine is first ballot and I doubt Pettitte ever gets elected. He’s so far away from getting elected on the merits, I don’t even hear steroid arguments against his candidacy. I assume no one bothers.
Also interesting comparison to CC, who I think has a good shot at the Hall: Pettitte has the same ERA- as Sabathia (86) and a FIP- 3 points better than Sabathia (83 to 86). And interestingly, when you include postseason IPs, they are within 5 career innings of each other, although of course Sabathia should widen that gap this season.
a) Glavine has one of the highest discrepancy between fwar and bwar/ra9-war.
b) Glavine threw 33% more innings (~1100) than Pettitte so simply looking at their ERA is misleading.
c) Glavine has two Cy Youngs and Pettitte has zero.
The perception gap seems well justified.
a) This is definitely the most valid point in Glavine’s favor.
b) If you like fWAR, then Glavine’s innings advantage is essentially useless since Pettitte accumulated more WAR in fewer innings. Pettitte could have been exactly replacement level for 1100 innings and still had more WAR. Do 1100 replacement level innings improve his credentials? I would argue no. If you prefer bWAR, Glavine’s extra 1100 innings resulted in about 13 more WAR, or a little more than 2 per 200ip. Better, but not exactly anything more than decent accumulation.
c) Don’t care about arbitrary awards. If you’re trying to argue that Glavine had a better peak, Pettitte had three seasons (’97, ’01, and ’05) that were better by fWAR than any season Glavine had. By bWAR, their best seasons were basically exactly equal – 8.4 for Pettitte and 8.5 for Glavine – and Pettitte’s 6.8 bWAR in ’05 was better than Glavine’s 2nd best season. Doesn’t seem like there’s any meaningful difference in their peaks.
Point a) may make a difference in Glavine’s favor, but it’s not the difference between a first ballot Hall guy and a guy people will barely even consider.
Andy had 3 seasons above 4 rWAR.
Glavine had 9.
That’s where the 14 win gap comes in (26 if you use raw FG RA9/WAR – rWAR docks him pretty heavily for the glory that was Andruw Jones).
“Do 1100 replacement level innings improve his credentials? ”
Good question. Nolan Ryan was elected on his first ballot and has similar rWAR as Mussina, but with 1800 more innings. In this case, it seems that a bunch of extra replacement level innings made a big difference.
How about Don Sutton vs Kevin Brown, Luis Tiant, Rick Reuschel, etc? Early Wynn vs David Cone?
It is just a fact that some/many/most voters look for big counting numbers on certain stats and playing longer, even the innings aren’t even good still add to those.
Add to that if the voter is going to ignore that the player accumulated lots of losses and walks while crediting them for the strikeouts and wins, then there is little downside to the replacement level innings.
Andy Pettitte should be in the Hall of Fame for Uncalled Balks.
After a few years, past run prevention correlates much more closely to future run prevention than past FIP does.
There’s no reason to use pitching fWAR when it comes to the HoF, even if there are arguments to use it for individual seasons.
Source?
Besides, we’re analyzing a player’s past performance, not predicting his future performance, which is where ERA is better than FIP…although that may just be another way of saying the same thing.
Petite took PEDs and that seems to matter to a lot of voters.
It would be interesting if a marginal hall of game PED user got in before a guy like bonds.
Those 1100 fewer innings are important, though. Part of the consideration for what makes a Hall of Famer is his longevity in the game.
However, I do agree that Pettite belongs in the Hall.
I’m mostly interested to see how Vizquel does. He did better than I wanted or expected the first time around. Really hope he doesn’t have any momentum but I honestly have no idea.
Is the WAR7 component of JAWS a player’s best 7 years or a player’s best 7 consecutive years?
Best 7, order doesn’t matter.
Martinez will 100% get in. Really the only thing that keeps trending-up players out is a crowded field (newcomers and other trending players). For the most part, the player with the highest vote that does not get in, gets in the next year. Go look it up. It follows almost all the time, and when it doesn’t, it is because of a crowded field. That’s not the case here. None of the guys creeping up on Martinez have more momentum and the only sure-fire first timer is Rivera. Martinez is gold. Mariners fans go ahead and book your hotels now, if Yankees fans have not already booked every last one.
Re: “Will Rivera be the first unanimously-elected candidate?”
Your entire paragraph was written with the assumption that people who didn’t vote for slam dunks were tragically uninformed. Personally if I were voting these days and watching some deserving guys in danger of hitting the cutoffs (in years or in % of votes) I could easily rationalize voting strategically, knowing some of these guys are making it in regardless, and it might keep guys like Andruw Jones or Scott Rolen from dropping off.
You can easily justify a no-Mo vote this way. Helton (first year, maaaybe 5% danger), Rolen (5% danger), Andruw (5% danger), Halladay (election), Mussina (election), Walker (running out of time), Edgar (election/running out of time), Schilling (running out of time more than you’d think) is 8. If you’re a staunch Bonds/Clemens person, there’s 10, and that wouldn’t consider others with low percentages such as Sosa, Pettitte, Kent, Wagner, Sheffield or throwing a 5%-save vote at Oswalt/Berkman, neither of which seems likely to get 5%.
Let’s have all ballots from eligible voters from 1960 made public. Let’s evaluate all voters by their votes. There need to be some benchmarks to evaluate voters, my recommendation from the earlier years would be Orestes Minoso. If a writer failed to list Minoso on a ballot, the writer and the media organization are expelled from the BBWAA. Each writer and their organization they represented were and are racist. It is a small start to rectify a sad period.
Is this satire ? If so, it’s well done
I have a hard time with you speaking on guys not voting for 100%. If I knew a guy was getting in, and I could use my vote to help get another guy who I knew wasn’t getting in a shot, that is 100% the decision I would make.
Frankly, it’s hard to imagine a more meaningless number.
Pitcher wins?
That makes sense if only if there is no one else whose status you know for sure, but I think that it’s pretty unlikely that everyone will be borderline so what you are really doing is not leaving off the best guy who is a sure shot to help another guy who is borderline, but rather picking between which of a bunch of guys whose fate is known (either definitely in, definitely off the ballot, or definitely not in but staying on the ballot) to leave off and choosing to leave off the most deserving one.
Actually there’s quite a bit of foregoing discussion on Bonds/Clemens of late; they’re still the most fun B Ref pages to look at though.