RedsZone's 2022 BBWAA HOF Ballot Vote

[krm1580]

As I noted in a prior post on 12/21 on this thread, Ortiz denied taking PEDs as alleged in the leaked report, there were questions raised as to the accuracy of that test, and commissioner Manfred conceded it was possible Ortiz had not taken PEDs. Do I think Ortiz took PEDs? Sure. Does anyone, other than Ortiz, know for sure. Nope. My guess is that there are already several HOF members who juiced and were not caught.

I remember reading this article years ago and it pretty much sums up on my feelings on Ortiz getting in the HOF, while guys like Clemens and Bonds do not. The first half of this article is a little whiny but I think the conversations around steroids are spot on.

https://theweek.com/articles/645685/...-myth-big-papi

Which leads us to the elephant in the room: David Ortiz's name was on a list of 104 players who failed a PED test in 2003, the same year he went from a marginal player approaching age 30 to launching the legend of Big Papi…

But unlike Alex Rodriguez — whose name appeared on the same list as Ortiz and immediately became mud, his career's worth of accomplishments forever perceived as "tainted" — Ortiz was able to spin the narrative to his favor, a narrative that remains the prevailing assessment of the baseball-consuming public to this day.

[757690]

I still don't get the case for Rizzuto outside of he was famous. Larry Bowa is a hard no. Awful hitter. JAWS ranks him as the 111th best SS of all-time, right between Jack Wilson and Rick Burleson. IOW, he was no Mike Bordick.

This has been the problem with HOF votes. They’re based on comparing players from different era’s, all time rankings.

The way I like to determine who belongs in the HOF is by comparing him to his contemporaries. Was he one of the best at his position for at least 10 years? That was an easy yes for Rizzuto, Trammell and Aparicio, yet it took forever for them to get in. It’s an easy yes for Concepcion and Visquel, and a borderline call for Bowa.

I’m fine with leaving off Bowa, he’s borderline. But the HOF struggles with SS, even when they eventually do let them in.

[757690]

I remember reading this article years ago and it pretty much sums up on my feelings on Ortiz getting in the HOF, while guys like Clemens and Bonds do not. The first half of this article is a little whiny but I think the conversations around steroids are spot on.

https://theweek.com/articles/645685/...-myth-big-papi

This backs up what was said earlier. The writers like Big Papi personally, and that is what allows them, in their minds, “forget” about his positive PED test result.

[M2]

This has been the problem with HOF votes. They’re based on comparing players from different era’s, all time rankings.

The way I like to determine who belongs in the HOF is by comparing him to his contemporaries. Was he one of the best at his position for at least 10 years? That was an easy yes for Rizzuto, Trammell and Aparicio, yet it took forever for them to get in. It’s an easy yes for Concepcion and Visquel, and a borderline call for Bowa.

I’m fine with leaving off Bowa, he’s borderline. But the HOF struggles with SS, even when they eventually do let them in.

I'm all for taking a broader view of the position, Concepcion's problem is three years at the beginning of his career and six at the end were bad, and it means he didn't pad his 10-year prime. Doesn't help that roughly 16 shortstops with better career numbers have come along since Davey ruled the SS roost. I would love to see him inducted, but Bert Campaneris probably has a better case. And Vizquel's longevity case would be interesting, but I doubt anyone wants to hear it given his personal problems.

And Bowa's not borderline. Contemporaries like Bill Russell, Gary Templeton, Chris Speier and Roy Smalley were all better than Bowa, and none of those guys are close to HOF material.

[HokieRed]

Palmeiro>Ortiz, and it's not even close.

[Chip R]

Shortstops and relievers have never gotten enough love from the HOF.

Relievers are a relatively new position. The closer as a specialist has really only been in vogue for around 50 years. So there are few they can compare to from before that time since pitchers weren't used like that. Designated hitter is a good comparison. Now there's two guys in the HOF whose only job was to hit four times a game. Now writers are being asked to vote guys in whose only job was to pitch the 9th inning. When you compare them to someone who played offense and defense or pitched 200-300 innings in a season, even the best guys suffer in comparison - except for Mo Rivera.

[westofyou]

The HOF is an enigma wrapped in a conundrum

It was a laughingstock when Jesse Haines, Ray Schalk and Ross Youngs got voted in, just like Harold Baines and someone else we all could name (we all have a guy that irks us)

It's never been a perfect institution, it's always been a magnificent museum and keeper of the history of the game.

Too bad it's nestled in upstate NY though, if it was in say Cincinnati it would probably be bigger and alas even less charming.

[757690]

Relievers are a relatively new position. The closer as a specialist has really only been in vogue for around 50 years. So there are few they can compare to from before that time since pitchers weren't used like that. Designated hitter is a good comparison. Now there's two guys in the HOF whose only job was to hit four times a game. Now writers are being asked to vote guys in whose only job was to pitch the 9th inning. When you compare them to someone who played offense and defense or pitched 200-300 innings in a season, even the best guys suffer in comparison - except for Mo Rivera.

The irony about relievers and the HOF is that it’s the old school writers who vote for them but it’s the new school, saberminded writers that don’t.

WAR doesn’t recognize the value of the leverage of pitching situations and values every inning the same. That makes it impossible for a reliever to earn the WAR necessary to be even considered for the HOF.

I strongly disagree with them, and think that leverage needs to be a part of WAR or at least in understanding the true value of relievers. If we added leverage to WAR, guys like Wagner would likely produce the WAR necessary to get more HOF votes.

Btw, this is just one argument why it’s mistaken to only use WAR when discussing who deserves to be in the HOF.

[elrojo]

Well said. Interesting about mentioning the museum. The site's full name is "National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum." As someone
else posted, a good idea is to stick memorabilia from marginal players and cheaters, including Bonds et al., in the museum with full
videos and discussions of the controversies surrounding them.

[TRF]

Wait, are you saying Schilling was on track to get elected, despite anyone's personal misgivings about him and despite many voters not originally being convinced he has the playing resume for entry, and then he went scorched earth and told them not to vote for him? Wow. That's almost like it has nothing to do with his opinions on anything. Next you'll tell us the rest of his quote was "I don't think I'm a hall of famer, as I've often stated, but if former players think I am then I'll accept that with honor."

It's almost like the difference between Schilling and guys who made it after a long time on the ballot like Jim Rice, Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina and Larry Walker is Schilling decided to be a petulant child.

Did he decide to be a petulant child or is he just a petulant child?

I mean that may have bearing later.

Also, I'm struggling with the "Fame" part of HoF.

Other than one bloody sock, Schilling was never "that guy" to me. He was good. He was even great. But was there ever a season where you did not want 10 other guys before you picked him? He was on a team with Randy Johnson. I prefer Johnson. In 2004 he had the best season of any pitcher in Boston, but I'd have rather had Pedro. His production was really inconsistent until he got to AZ. He had two really weird spikes in K rate.

Maybe he should be in the HoF. Maybe the numbers say yes. But despite the fact that he has admitted to PED use, I'd rather see Pettite inducted. Because if you told me tomorrow Schilling used, looking at how his K rate just super spiked the way it did, i'd go, I can see it.

[Roy Tucker]

From https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-fam...s-for-election

“5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”

As long as these are the criteria, I don’t see how Bonds, Clemens, etc will be voted in. But “integrity, sportsmanship, character” are criteria that I don’t think belong. Sure, we’d all like them to be golly gee whiz kinds of guys, but those things are very difficult to measure and prove.

If they strike out “sportsmanship, integrity, character” and make it just what they accomplished on the playing field, the criteria would be easier to measure.

[hthe620110]

Don't forget the ability to kiss the writer's butts. That is the major thing that you need to do to get voted in. As for these so-called writers and their decision to vote someone into the Hall of Fame, they should never have that right to vote, it should be the players' peers, not some scum writer that never played the game.

[westofyou]

Don't forget the ability to kiss the writer's butts. That is the major thing that you need to do to get voted in. As for these so-called writers and their decision to vote someone into the Hall of Fame, they should never have that right to vote, it should be the players' peers, not some scum writer that never played the game.

That in itself could be a problem as the players are full of their own bias as well. The Frisch era proved that

https://www.cooperstownexpert.com/20...0Chick%20Hafey.

In that way, Frisch’s influence on the committee’s choices have helped define and damage the Hall of Fame. His five most glaring selections were George Kelly, Jesse Haines, Dave Bancroft, Ross Youngs, and Chick Hafey. Lowering the bar for admission creates problems. Here’s why: Imagine if your favorite player is Keith Hernandez and you think he should be in Cooperstown. He’s flat out a better first baseman than already-inducted George Kelly. Hernandez was in fact a better player than any of the five Frisch selections. There are likely hundreds of players better than the Frisch Five. If they’re all in, how can Hernandez be left out

[RedsBaron]

The irony about relievers and the HOF is that it’s the old school writers who vote for them but it’s the new school, saberminded writers that don’t.

WAR doesn’t recognize the value of the leverage of pitching situations and values every inning the same. That makes it impossible for a reliever to earn the WAR necessary to be even considered for the HOF.

I strongly disagree with them, and think that leverage needs to be a part of WAR or at least in understanding the true value of relievers. If we added leverage to WAR, guys like Wagner would likely produce the WAR necessary to get more HOF votes.

Btw, this is just one argument why it’s mistaken to only use WAR when discussing who deserves to be in the HOF.

The question I have with the concept of "leverage" is measuring how valuable it is. It makes sense that pitching in a one-run or tie game in the late innings is more important than pitching in a game with a big lead or when you are well behind, but how much more valuable is that? If a position player plays 140 full nine inning games, he plays 1,260 innings; if he is Cal Ripken or Pete Rose and plays in all 162 games he plays in 1,458 innings. A modern closer probably pitches in 60 to 70 innings or so. Those 70 innings are important but how important, especially when some teams "save" the closer for a situation where he can get credited for a save.
The Reds primary closer during 2008 through 2011 was Francisco Cordero. I never had confidence in him, as it seemed that even when he closed out a game it was a high wire act of letting a lot of runners on base and nearly always almost giving up the lead. He was never dominant. Cordero was replaced as closer by Aroldis Chapman, a dominant pitcher whose fastball reached such absurd speeds that it made me laugh during 2012 through 2015.
In his four years of 2008-11, Cordero saved 28, 21, 32 and 20 games, with WAR each season of 1.6, 1.7, 0.3 and 1.7, total cumulative WAR of 5.3. In 2012-15 Chapman saved 38, 38, 36 and 33 games with WARs of 3.4, 1.8, 1.9 and 2.7, for cumulative WAR of 9.8. Clearly Chapman was much, much better. Maybe WAR doesn't truly measure a reliever's worth, but over four seasons, one of the most dominant closers ever over four seasons had a cumulative WAR of only 4.5 over a mediocre at best closer, an average difference of 1.1 WAR per season. That difference seems to understate Chapman's value but it also makes me wonder how valuable a closer really is.

[RedsBaron]

From https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-fam...s-for-election

“5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”

As long as these are the criteria, I don’t see how Bonds, Clemens, etc will be voted in. But “integrity, sportsmanship, character” are criteria that I don’t think belong. Sure, we’d all like them to be golly gee whiz kinds of guys, but those things are very difficult to measure and prove.

If they strike out “sportsmanship, integrity, character” and make it just what they accomplished on the playing field, the criteria would be easier to measure.

The Hall of Fame includes Cap Anson (helped institute the "color line" which kept non-white players out of MLB for a half century); Tris Speaker (KKK member); Rogers Hornsby (once nominated by Bill James as the "biggest horse's ass" in baseball history); Leo Durocher and John McGraw (their respective sins could fill a book); Babe Ruth (lived much of his life boozing and womanizing) ; Tom Yawkey (racist who kept the Red Sox all white for decades); Judge Landis (racist who helped keep MLB all white for decades) ; Ty Cobb (yes, I know a recent biography rehabilitated his memory but "sportsmanship" doesn't come to mind when his name is mentioned). All except Yawkey should be, and are, in the HOF. Had he not bet on baseball Pete Rose would deservedly be in the HOF despite his other sins.