Circle of Greats 1962 Ballot

256 Replies

This post is for voting and discussion of the seventh round of voting for the Circle of Greats, which adds players born in 1962. Rules and lists are after the jump.

As always, each ballot must include three and only three eligible players. The one player who appears on the most ballots cast in the round is inducted into the Circle of Greats. Players who fail to win induction but appear on half or more of the ballots that are cast win four future rounds of ballot eligibility. Players who appear on 25% or more of the ballots, but less than 50%, earn two years of extended eligibility. Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances (or who appear on at least 10% of the ballots) wins one additional round of ballot eligibility.

All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EST on Saturday, February 2, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Thursday, January 31.

If you’d like to follow the vote tally, and/or check to make sure I’ve recorded your vote correctly, you can see my ballot-counting spreadsheet for this round here: 1962 COG Vote Tally . I’ll be updating the spreadsheet periodically with the latest votes. Initially, there is a row for every voter who has cast a ballot in any of the past rounds, but new voters are entirely welcome — new voters will be added to the spreadsheet as their ballots are submitted. Also initially, there is a column for each of the holdover players; additional player columns from the born-in-1962 group will be added as votes are cast for them.

Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The holdovers are listed in order of the year through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the eligibility year is the same. The 1962 birth year guys are listed in order of the number of seasons they played in the majors, and alphabetically among players with the same number of seasons played.

Holdovers:
John Smoltz (eligible through 1956)
Mike Mussina (1958)
Curt Schilling (1958)
Tom Glavine (1959)
Craig Biggio (1960)
Larry Walker (1961)
Barry Larkin (1961)
Roberto Alomar (1962)
Edgar Martinez (1962)
Fred McGriff (1962)

Everyday Players (born in 1962, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues):
Eric Davis
Tony Fernandez
Jeff Reed
Darryl Strawberry
Devon White
Wally Joyner
Dave Magadan
Randy Velarde
Darnell Coles
Darren Daulton
Joe Orsulak
Dick Schofield
Terry Steinbach
Danny Tartabull
Dave Clark
Kevin Mitchell
Alvaro Espinoza
Kevin Seitzer
Tom Pagnozzi
Dion James
Jody Reed
Robby Thompson
Rich Amaral
Ivan Calderon
Kelly Gruber
Chris James

Pitchers (born in 1962, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues):
Jamie Moyer
Roger Clemens
Dan Plesac
Chuck Finley
Dennis Cook
Sid Fernandez
Danny Jackson
Mark Portugal
Mark Gubicza
Randy Myers
Doug Drabek
Mark Gardner
Jeff Montgomery
Dwayne Henry
Bill Wegman
Greg Cadaret
Donn Pall

0 0 votes

Article Rating

256 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Jeff Harris

11 years ago

Smoltz
Schilling
Walker

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Jeff Harris

Probably no unanimity this time, then.

latefortheparty

11 years ago

Roger Clemens Larry Walker Eric Davis Clemens and I were born on the same day and attended Southwest Conference schools in the ’80s. The difference is he graduated summa cum laude in baseball and I got drummed out of grad school. Eric Davis gets my vote that usually goes to Curt Schilling. This vote is my shout out that he was one of the most exciting players I ever saw and not that I am seriously arguing for him to be in the Circle of Greats. I expect it will be the only vote that Davis gets and that he… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to latefortheparty

I’m not going to vote for Finley either, but he deserves some mention. I was amazed looking at the stats just how similar he and Andy Pettitte are right now. C Finley: 115 ERA+ / 3197 IP / 54.3 WAR / 3.85 ERA Pettitte: 117 ERA+ / 3131 IP / 54.5 WAR / 3.86 ERA Wow. Pettitte has more Cy Young love and of course a way better W-L record, but Finley has 15 shutouts while Pettitte amazingly has only 4. Finley actually rates higher in JAWS and noses out Pettitte in Hall of Stats but of course Pettitte has… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

I wonder how much Pettitte’s low shutout total can be “blamed” on Mariano Rivera.

Though he is a product of his times, amassing only 25 CG in 491 starts.
(And zero in 44 playoff starts).

Since 2004, only 2 complete games in 215 starts.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

And though Pettitte has 12 seasons with at least 190 IP, he has never been in the Top 5 in Batters Faced.

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

I would say a little of Pettitte’s low shutouts could possibly be attributed to Mariano’s presence, but not much. I think you’d have to prove that the Yankees go to the bullpen much, much quicker than other teams and use their closer much more often than everyone else, and I just don’t think the evidence is there to make that kind of a statement. Sure, Mo has more appearances than any other specific closer, but does he average more than the typical closer on other teams? The fact still remains that from 1995-2012 (Pettitte’s career to date, and this is… Read more »

James Smyth

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Interesting question, so I looked it up… Pettitte had 23 games for NY in which he did not allow a run and went 7+ IP. He went the distance three times. Of the other 20 games, Pettitte left in the 8th or 9th inning in a save situation with the shutout intact in nine of them. There were three that went straight from Andy to Mo, one that went from Andy to Ramiro Mendoza and five in which Andy threw 7 innings before Torre/Girardi turned to a middle reliever. His average pitch count in those nine games was about 112,… Read more »

MikeD

11 years ago

Reply to James Smyth

Do shutout totals mean anything anymore? The Yankees rarely let their pitchers complete games, even when they have a shutout going with a low pitch count. My guess is this is not just a Yankee thing, but a nearly every team thing, especially ones with a good bullpen. Short of a Roy Halladay, seems most pitchers just get yanked. Is there a stat that shows percentage of complete games by teams? That might show a willingness to allow complete games, yet even that would not be useful. Teams with weaker starting pitchers will have less opportunities, and yes I do… Read more »

James Smyth

11 years ago

Reply to James Smyth

Mike D got me thinking…and I charted the percentage of games that resulted in CG shutouts:

http://jamessmythbroadcast.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-decline-in-complete-game-shutouts.html

MikeD

11 years ago

Reply to James Smyth

James, glad my ramblings inspired something more positive.

The fluctuations are interesting. The spike in 1968 is certainly understandable, yet I see other spikes, both up and down, at various points for single seasons. I wonder if they correspond to years with great hitting increases or decreases. Seems likely.

Last, I suspect we’re going to see a season that drops under 1%. I think trend of less innings from starters and more from specialized relievers is going to continue to rise.

Jason Z

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

Wow.

Couldn’t get much more similar than those numbers bstar.

I have second hand knowledge of something else they have
in common. The source is one of my oldest friends from
high school.

He pitched for the Angels during the early 90’s.

I will give everyone a clue.

The answer is not that Andy Pettite also slept
with Tawny Kitaen.

As for the lovely Ms. Kitaen, she graced the clubhouse
often with her presence, and is way more beautiful
in person I am told.

11 years ago

Reply to latefortheparty

Was thinking of giving Davis a shout out vote as well. And I may still do it even though you beat me to it. Could have been a great one if he didn’t get hurt so often.

Artie Z.

11 years ago

Reply to latefortheparty

Building a composite career by picking the “best” season from Eric Davis and Darryl Strawberry (speaking of someone who isn’t going to get many votes) I get a player with 2010 G, 6799 AB, 1179 R, 1849 H, 392 HR, 1249 RBI, 374 SB, 111 CS, 972 BB, and 3408 TB. The player had a .272/.362/.501 triple slash line with 46.8 WAR. I didn’t pick the best years by WAR – I eyeballed the hitting statistics. Building by WAR can get the composite WAR up to 50. While there are clear parallels between Strawberry and Davis the problem with building… Read more »

Mr. Dave

11 years ago

I’d say Glavine, Smoltz, and Clemens.

Phil

11 years ago

Clemens (somewhat reluctantly), Glavine, and (sigh) Alomar.

The Diamond King

11 years ago

Clemens, Smoltz, Glavine

Jeff Hill

11 years ago

Clemens, Mussina, Smoltz.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

If you want to review the COG voting from previous rounds, the spreadsheet summarizing past COG voting is now up to date through the 1963 round: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AklDUJiangSrdF8tMHg2Yi0ycVBVOWx6OGJCeXU1TVE#gid=0

Dr. Remulak

11 years ago

Biggio, Schilling, Clemens

ATarwerdi96

11 years ago

Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, John Smoltz

Nick Pain

11 years ago

Roger Clemens (my favorite player growing up), Craig Biggio (I recently came across a card of him as a catcher, I still think it’s cool that he was an All Star catcher and second bagger), and Larry Walker.

11 years ago

Larry Walker and Roger Clemens. Then Jamie Moyer.

Moyer’s a personal favorite and I have no illusions that he’ll actually get in

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to qx

When we get to 1883, if Moyer has been voted back onto the ballot, do you vote for him or Jack Quinn?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/q/quinnja01.shtml

Jason Z

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Jamie Moyer has always been a favorite of mine. One reason is that I drove 250 miles round trip from West Bend, Wisconsin to see this game… http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN198707030.shtml I had the good fortune to attend several games at Wrigley field between 1986-89. I also made the trek to old Comiskey once. In that one I saw Rich Dotson retire the first 22 batters of the game against my bombers. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN198707030.shtml At this point, with one out in the top of the 8th, I was like everyone else that day in the Windy City. I wanted to see a perfect game.… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Jason Z

Wow, I remember that game. And also remember Pinella phoning it in in the last week. Ugh. Falling short with an amazing team in ’85, watching the Mets and Red Sox in the WS in ’86, stumbling down the stretch in ’87, and then proceeding to suck for half a decade… before rising to playoff prominence in a year in which The Playoffs Were Canceled…………. it was pretty heartbreaking to come of age as a Yankee fan in the 80’s, knowing the history of greatness, and never seeing it in real-time. Oh, and I remember Dotson coming to the Yankees… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Still Moyer! It’s fascinating to watch him pitch and for a while get people out throwing 80

DaveR

11 years ago

Clemens, McGriff, Smoltz. McGriff is SO overlooked.

Mike

11 years ago

Smoltz
Biggio
(Holding my nose) Clemens

Artie Z.

11 years ago

Clemens, Larkin, and Alomar

Dr. Doom

11 years ago

Clemens
Schilling
Walker

Abbott

11 years ago

Clemens, Glavine, Biggio

David Horwich

11 years ago

Clemens, Larkin, Glavine.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

As one of the (apparent) few who is not going to persecute Clemens for the collective hypocrisy of the entire nation, I vote for him without hesitation. If I could pick three guys to start building a team, and I get them for their 5-10 year peak, who would it be? Clemens Larry Walker Roberto Alomar There was a time when I hated Tony Fernandez. It was the 80’s, and my Yankees could not find a shortstop. I hated the Red Sox, for all the historical reasons. But my real venom as a fan was for the Blue Jays, whose… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Just for the record, and speaking only for myself, I’m persecuting Clemens for a thousand reasons that have nothing to do with his steroid use or our nation’s hypocrisy. Like using a special glove emblazoned with “300” when he was going for his 300th win. That is, being a boastful jerk on the field about something he hadn’t done yet, just to make a few extra bucks on the memorabilia. Oh, and then lying about having gotten league approval for it, which was immediately contradicted by the league office. It all adds up to him being such an enormous fathead… Read more »

Brooklyn Mick

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

How do you really feel John? 🙂

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Brooklyn Mick

A little under the weather, Mick. I think I have a touch of the Clemens Is A Swine Flu. 🙂

Brooklyn Mick

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Some Boston folks use to take Schill Pills for that. Didn’t work out. 🙂

Brooklyn Mick

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I shouldn’t say it didn’t work out, because Schilling was a big part of two WS in Boston. But now they hate him in Sox Nation. Most will say it’s because of Studio 38, but it’s mostly because he’s outspoken and isn’t shy about criticizing his former team. They call him a blowhard. How ungrateful!

RBI Man

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Clemens and Schilling are both blowhards.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Mick @ 26, Schilling’s shilling for GW Bush a week after the 2004 World Series didn’t exactly win fans in Red Sox Nation either.

I was also turned off by his actions in 2005, when he spent some time in the closer role, but refused to sit in the bullpen with the rest of the relievers. Rather, he’d sit in the dugout until the seventh inning stretch , when he’d stroll across the field, giving the crowd a chance to cheer for him one extra time.

Hell of a pitcher though.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Glad to be able to stimulate the inevitable Clemens tirades.
(smiley face emoticon)

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

ROGER CLEMENS Glove 300th Win Signed Limited Edition #87/300 Hologram Certified
$575

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROGER-CLEMENS-Glove-300th-Win-Signed-Limited-Edition-87-300-Hologram-Certified-/180919390536

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Wait a minute, JA, here’s the info about the “300” glove: ” In trying to win his 300th game against the Red Sox, Clemens used a specially logoed glove, an act that rankled the Red Sox, causing manager Grady Little to ask it be removed. The umpire consented and Clemens, who lost the game, was forced to use his normal glove.” Come on Autin, it was against the Red Sox. It was against the freaking Red Sox. If you’re going to cherry pick one reason to offer the (wholly undocumented and subjective) statistic that Clemens is 10x worse that douchebag… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

But did you know that Clemens was in the movie Kingpin?
He played a redneck named Skidmark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DN4jqynmLs

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Voomo @35 — I’m not sure how much of your retort is tongue-in-cheek, so I’ll respond in my embarrasingly earnest fashion. I don’t get the significance of it being against the Red Sox. Is it supposed to be OK because they were his first team? Or because of the NYY-BOS rivalry? Or were you just funnin’? Help me out here. Here are some passages from the Associated Press game story the next day: __________ Clemens was wearing a new glove with a shiny “300” logo on the back, and plate umpire Bill Miller agreed with Little that it was not… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

I don’t watch many Boston-NYY games, especially back then when the rhetoric was so thick, so this is the first I’ve heard about this 300 glove thing.

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

I am a tad surprised at the extent of your outrage JA. If anything it’s actually quite funny considering he didn’t even win the game. And it’s not like the logo is particularly prominent; if he had been been wearing a special cap with the number scrawled across the peak, or perhaps changed his shirt number to 300 for the day, then we might have a different story. For the record, similar things happen in soccer where players will on occasion wear undershirts commemorating goal-milestones. It usually doesn’t attract anything more than widespread mirth when you can see the shirt… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

JA @56, I’m pretty sure MLB puts in commemorative balls when a milestone is imminent. Is it unheard of for a player to use a special bat when sitting on 2999 hits? I don’t know, but to call out Clemens as an egomaniac for that maneuver, to me, that seems like a reach. As for it being against Boston, the Sox are notorious for ending relationships with their players (and managers) on a sour note. And Clemens’ issue with them was well documented. So yeah, to go after #300, against Boston, as a Yankee, six and a half years after… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

RJ @67 — I welcome your feedback, and I respect your view that the glove was no big deal. But I’m not sure what glove you mean when you say “it’s not like the logo is particularly prominent.” Did you see the glove? If you were looking at Voomo’s ebay link, that’s not the glove in question. I haven’t found a photo of the controversial glove, but the AP story states “Clemens was wearing a new glove with a shiny ‘300’ logo on the back of it.” No such logo appears on that ebay glove. But perhaps you’re just taking… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

At least Clemens didn’t give a speech when he won his 300th, proclaiming, “Today….I am the greatest…of all-time.”

Actually, I find that Rickey Henderson speech after he broke Lou Brock’s record quite humorous.

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

JA @69 – Ah, I was indeed looking at Voomo’s link and using that as judgement. If members of the opposing team could see it then that definitely changes things a bit for me. Essentially I don’t have a problem if it is done discreetly, like the one in Voomo’s picture, or if something is revealed after the fact, like a player taking off his jersey after he has scored a goal. Even in baseball, players put on commemorative shirts after they have clinched the division/pennant/World Series. But yes, having a big ol’ shiny 300 on the outside of your… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

I clipped out that picture of Rickey holding the base above his head and posted it on my dorm room door.

Somebody added the bubble caption:

“This is the biggest piece of crack I have ever seen!”

Nash Bruce

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

I met Schilling at the Hammonton Mall in NJ in September of ’92, he was signing autographs. At that time, no one cared, there were only a couple of younger kids hanging out, and a passer by every now and again. I remember thinking that he had to have been the biggest dude I’d ever seen. He was real cordial, gracious. No I don’t agree with his politics or some of the other stuff, but for sure I’d hangout with him, before Clemens. I also remember him hating and talking smack about Bonds (didn’t he even throw at him in… Read more »

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

At least he never threw a bat barrel at a runner during a game.

Mike L

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

I have to say as a Yankee fan, the day they traded Wells for Clemens my heart sank. The Yankees had some rough years, then had a rebirth, with terrific young players and savvy vets. They played hard, they were likeable, and they had just finished what was arguably one of the best seasons in baseball history. And, then, they import the original big blowhard, a strutting egomaniac who constantly needed to be stroked with attention and customized contracts. And he did throw the barrel of the bat at Piazza, and if it had been a regular season game, he… Read more »

Jason Z

11 years ago

Reply to Mike L

The trade for Clemens can also be interpreted as a tipping point for the Yankees. I too was upset by the deal. Afterward, I couldn’t help but think that Clemens was a remora. Obviously the Yankee franchise being the big fish. As for being a tipping point, by this I mean the following: The Yankees coming off that fabulous 1998 season in which they had many outstanding players and yet none, other than Mo and maybe Jeter that could be called the best at their position. There were many teams that had better individual players and yet the Yankees dominated… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Mike L

I did not yet dislike Clemens when the Yanks acquired him. And although I’ve been a Mets fan since moving to NYC in ’84, I also rooted for and liked the Yankees of 1996-98. I didn’t bemoan the trade because of Clemens per se, only because it signaled their transition from excellent, likable team put together with good drafts and trades, into a juggernaut. I can’t root for a juggernaut. The Yankees did not have the AL’s top payroll in 1996 or ’98. Their payroll was about 50% above the AL median both years. By ’99 (Clemens) it was about… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Mike L

Barry Bonds’ personal trainer, Greg Anderson, repeatedly went to jail for refusing to testify against Bonds. Roger Clemens’ personal trainer, Brian McNamee, in contrast, repeatedly testified against Roger. I don’t consider that contrast favorable to one’s view of Roger. The whole thing with Roger and that country music singer, Mindy McCready, seemed distinctly creepy. And then throwing that bat at Piazza — what the …..? If I had to choose who to have dinner with, Bonds or Clemens, I’d choose Bonds every time.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Mike L

Has anybody else noticed the absurdity of the fact that the guy who Named everybody has a name that would be an adolescent nickname for somebody who tattles and gives names?

Gary Bateman

11 years ago

Mussina, Alomar, Biggio

Atlcrackersfan

11 years ago

I see no one from 1962, apart from Clemens, who deserves consideration. Clemens fall into the self-righteous can’t consider category with McGwire, Bonds-Barry, Sosa, Rose, Jackson-Joe and probably a few others.

Glavine
Smoltz
Mussina

RonG

11 years ago

Biggio, Smoltz, Schilling

bstar

11 years ago

Sticking with another all-pitcher ticket because I think they’re a touch above the pack:

Clemens
Schilling
Glavine

Mike L

11 years ago

I don’t have a problem persecuting Clemens (I persecuted Bonds for the same reason) and I fully expect him to be elected. That being said, I just can’t do it. Returning to my last ballot, I’m going for Mussina, Larkin, and Walker. Close call between Walker and Schilling.

Jason Z

11 years ago

Here I am voting early this round. Just posted some factoids regarding Eric Davis as a candidate for the Hall of Could’ve Been. That was before I came here, good timing. If he had been healthy, I think he wins this round easily. A quick glance at the list reveals that only Roger Clemens should be considered from 1962 IMO. Every other hold over candidate is better than anyone else 1962 has to offer. Having previously stated my intention to remove steroids from the equation, I have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for Roger Clemens. Since… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

1) Clemens. Disgusting person, incredible ballplayer. He’s too good for me to deny on grounds of personal prejudice.

2) Schilling, who is Mahatma Gandhi compared to Clemens.

3) Mussina, who if put in a room with Clemens and Schilling, would suffocate due to the oxygen consumed by the first two’s egos.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

Well done, GrandyMan.

Tom

11 years ago

Clemens, Martinez, Mussina

John Z

11 years ago

Wow so many names from the “WHAT IF?” category, names like Kevin Mitchell, Kevin Seitzer, Wally Joyner, Danny Tartabull and of course Daryl Strawberry. They all came into the league with a bang but fizzled out almost as quickly as they appeared. All these men were ROY candidates and Strawberry even took home the hardware. Strawberry stayed his ground the longest and put together some respectful seasons (9) but his career was destroyed by his drug abuse. For those who did not vote for Clemens because he was a bad guy or because he used PED’s just don’t get it.… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to John Z

Well said, John Z. I disagree with your assessments of Sosa and Palmeiro — in the context of all baseball history they may appear dominant, but my definition of dominance is limited to guys like, say, Babe Ruth or Lefty Grove, who were clearly the best pitchers or overall hitters for multiple seasons. I would call Bonds and Clemens dominant, not Sosa or Raffy. However, I agree with your general premise. This isn’t the Hall of Role Models, this is the Hall of Fame. Clemens and Bonds would’ve been all-time greats regardless of whether they juiced — they belong in… Read more »

John Z

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

Thanks Grandyman for your words. My opinion comes over very strong and maybe a bit rude, but I am very passionate about this subject. They either are, or are not dominant during their respectful eras, and to not include Clemens, Bonds, Rose etc into the Hall or in this case the “Circle of Greats” is a disservice to MLB history and some of the greatest that ever played the game. You mention Aaron, I could mention Mays and Mantle (Both worked in casinos after their playing careers were over, and were even banned by MLB by then Commish Bowie Kuhn… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to John Z

John Z, I think you echo the sentiments of a large part, if not the majority, of the baseball public. (The voting evidence suggests that probably two-thirds of this readership supports you.) I didn’t read your post as rude – you’re simply expressing the frustration of a lot of fans with the hypocrisy we perceive with baseball’s powers-that-be. P.S.: The whole Babe Ruth sheep testes thing was actually a joke started by a baseball blogger that has been widely propagated as fact. The most likely explanation for his “Bellyache Heard ‘Round the World” was a combination of bad diet and… Read more »

John Z

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

Thank you again GrandyMan, I am pretty sure I knew that the whole Testes thing was made up, but did not know it was by some random Baseball Blogger. As you responded in your initial post “It is not to enshrine the best people, but the best ball players” and Ruth was one of the best if not the best there ever was. I do not think anyone will ever confuse The Babe as one of the best people, but he is arguably one of the best ball players as are Clemens and Bonds, Mantle and Mays. IMO if this… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

GrandyMan, I’d like to discuss this sentence of yours: “If we’re going to prosecute people based on character, then let’s also nail Hank Aaron and all the guys who were popping greenies.” First, sorry to single you out. You are hardly the first person to say something similar to this on these boards. But I think it’s a little unfair to think that someone who, for example, didn’t vote for Sammy Sosa in the Circle of Greats or a writer who won’t vote for Sosa for the Hall of Fame in the coming years is always doing so because of… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

Bstar – I want to push back on this a bit: 1) How do we know that Bonds and Clemens weren’t also taking greenies? Maybe their crazy late career performance was due to the combined effect of steroids and greenies? 2) “If the effect were the same, wouldn’t we see examples of bizarre swings in performance late in players’ careers during the amphetamine era (like those of Bonds and Clemens)?” Not if someone took greenies their whole career. I believe (though I could be wrong) that the “greenie period” lasted a lot longer than the “steroid era” and there are… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Fair points all, Ed. But are you suggesting that Willie Mays and Hank Aaron had the careers they had because of what amounts to glorified caffeine pills? They weren’t taking street-grade speed. If they were, I think you would have seen a lot of addiction issues arise from that era. Are there examples of that? I honestly don’t know, so that’s an open question for anybody who might read this. I do think steroids + weightlifting is a magic pill, absolutely, but not to the extent you’re suggesting. Just because there are terrible players who took steroids means very little… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Bstar (#122): “But are you suggesting that Willie Mays and Hank Aaron had the careers they had because of what amounts to glorified caffeine pills?” No, that’s why I partially qualified my comment by recognizing that I was being argumentative. “I do think steroids + weightlifting is a magic pill, absolutely, but not to the extent you’re suggesting.” Fair enough but I do think a lot of fans do view them that way. They leave out the weightlifting part entirely or fail to recognize that you (probably) have to do a lot of weightlifting for them to have an effect.… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Ed, I think we’re actually not far off from total agreement here.

I’m glad you brought up (weightlifting – steroids) because that’s always been my assumption about Jeff Bagwell.

As to your examples of those with fluke seasons while older, I really don’t think that’s close to the change that happened to Bonds’ numbers. But I’m fine with agreeing to disagree on that point.

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Bstar – I wasn’t really trying to disagree with you. I was just using your post as a jumping off point to say some things I had been thinking about. You’re right that the examples I gave aren’t quite the same as Bonds. But guys have been having fluke seasons since the beginning of baseball history. And no one seems to think those players were cheating. But if someone had a fluke season that happened to coincide with the steroid era, they’re automatically assumed to be cheating. I guess the closest comparison to Bonds might be Jose Bautista (though at… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

I agree with you on Palmeiro. In fact when you look at his career, as you said, I don’t see any crazy artificial spike in his career except for 1993 on, but the whole league was following suit there. He’s a big question mark, and I’m inclined to say he’s gotten somewhat of a raw deal somehow. Wagging his finger and lying to Congress certainly didn’t help at all. Again, Barry Bonds is not a one-year fluke, so I don’t see any valid comparisons from the amphetamine era. Bautista? I don’t know. The changes in his hitting approach are pretty… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Just to clarify re: Bautista….my point is that if he can go from 15 to 50 home runs via a change of his hitting stroke, why can’t/couldn’t other players have done the same? Why do we have to assume that their numbers are the result of PEDs just because they player during the PEDs era?

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

bstar, I’m not going after anyone who didn’t vote for Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro, etc, etc. I dumped them for the same reasons you did – they are marginal candidates with inflated numbers, who deserve no consideration. I’m voicing opposition to the people who deny clearly deserving candidates like Bonds and Clemens on the grounds that “they juiced” or “they’re cheaters,” or something of the like. Thankfully, that sentiment doesn’t seem to pop up too often on here, as we typically enjoy a comparatively elevated level of discussion, but it seems to be pretty popular in the public and the media.… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

(addendum to #123) I should remove Hornsby from my list of bad examples. I have often conflated him with Cobb, as both had surly personalities, but Hornsby evidently was not openly racist.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

I’ve seen this aside about Tyrus Cobb dozens of times in these discussions lately, the aside that he was a “racist”, and thus worthy of our judgement and scorn. Cobb was a product of his environment and upbringing, as far as his social attitudes. And his sociopathic behavior over the entire course of his lifetime suggests a trauma-based mental disorder. It is so much more complex than “he was an asshole.” We have failed, and continue to utterly fail, as a society, to have an open and intelligent discussion about what has happened in our own lifetimes. Steroids have been… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

Voomo (#128), I wasn’t trying to deliver a full-fledged condemnation of Cobb’s racism. (In fact, the question of whether or not he was openly racist is starting to come into question.) While I don’t condone his racism if it was, indeed, a historical fact, I do understand that it was the prevailing attitude of the time. The point I was trying to make is that if we are going to jump on the moral high horse, then we should do it with consistency lest we be hypocrites. Since so many players have engaged in some form of cheating, held or… Read more »

Mike L

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

I have to say that these posts (Ed, Grandyman, Bstar, John Z) are some the best argued I’ve seen. I just can’t vote for either Clemens and Bonds at this point. Their “wrong” wasn’t an unpleasantness of character or a defect in morality. It was something more basic; there came a point in baseball where PEDs were neither explicitly or tacitly tolerated, and at that point PED use needed to stop. It clearly didn’t. I’m conflicted about both Bonds and Clemens because they had already had Hall-worthy careers before that hard stop came. But I don’t see this as a… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

Grandy @132 Yes, your point was very clear and well-reasoned. Just wanted to mention the bigger picture w/r/t Cobb, as I’ve been reading his later biography by Al Stump, which is riveting in it’s tabloid-worthy detail… …and I’ve been reading the rebuttals of Stump online, by those who claim he is full of a lot of baloney. Stump’s book was the basis for the Tommy Lee Jones movie, and movies serve to influence people’s perceptions maybe more strongly than books (my idea of Jim Morrison is very much Val Kilmer). So, what is the truth? I have no idea. None… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

Grandyman, I appreciate the response. Yes, I think we actually agree on a lot of things here. I’m just not into the “morality” thing either. I thought you were one of those people who wants to say, “Well, we don’t know who did what and how much and when, so let’s just pretend like everyone’s steroid numbers are actually not artificial.” That is the beef I have, with that line of thinking. The best example is Barry Bonds. For some reason (and I’m startled by this), even people whose opinion I really respect are putting Barry Bonds into a historical… Read more »

Phil

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

Echoing Mike L: I’ve made the same point on another message board where I post. I don’t understand why people link disapproval of Bonds/Clemens/whomever to Ty Cobb. As morality goes, racism is several thousands time worse than PED use–which, if you were using before any restrictions were set, is really not a moral issue at all, since you were playing within the rules. But I’d never deny a racist entrance into the HOF. His racism did not give him any advantage on the field, except for the advantage that it gave equally to all white players at the time; with… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

@bstar (139) “Well, we don’t know who did what and how much and when, so let’s just pretend like everyone’s steroid numbers are actually not artificial.” Yeah. It seems like we agree that that line of thinking, and its corollary, “Let’s throw out everything Bonds and Clemens did in the first n years of their career because they picked up a syringe in year (n+1),” are both illogical. As for Bonds, though, I still consider him a historically good player because of his combination of hitting and speed. Looking at his career numbers, his age-21-through-30 seasons seem to pass the… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

Grandyman, I consider Bonds an all-time great also. Let me emphasize that when I call Bonds’ steroid numbers into question, it’s only his hitting stats. Certainly, even before steroids, he was an all-time great based on his hitting, baserunning, and defense combined. Someone pointed out that Bonds’ girlfriend said that Bonds told her that he hurt his elbow in 1999 because he was on steroids and his muscles were growing too fast for his body to catch up, so to me he’s clean from 1996-1998. He’s got 97 career WAR at that point, which makes him a shoo-in all-time great… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

@bstar (168) Gotcha, b. It’s totally fair to call his hitting numbers into question. I was just making sure you weren’t ignoring his baserunning — which you weren’t — as a lot of casual fans might, especially those around my age or younger who don’t remember much before the Barroid Bonds days. My numbers came from what is essentially a worst-case scenario estimate, in which he only increases his career numbers by less than 50 percent over 7 years. Taking Kimberly Bell’s claim, which you referenced and is plausible considering the freak show Bonds began in 2000, I would give… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

Oh cool, you got a Maysian number too. I just tried this: Consider that when combining offense, defense, and speed, Bonds’ best comp has always been Mays. No two modern players have combined excellence in these three areas better than these two. So I just looked at Mays’ production post age-33: 207 HR. Could we use that number? Well, Barry had around 400 more PA past 33, so we have to account for that. That gives Mays 20 more HR with the increased PA, which takes the total to 227. Then we have to account for the different offensive context,… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

@bstar (173)

I just took Bonds’ total of 411 through 1998, then added what I believed to be a reasonable average of 30 per year for the next 7 years, then threw in another 20 or 30 for his final two seasons, which gets you to 641 or 651.

topper009

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

“If the effect were the same, wouldn’t we see examples of bizarre swings in performance late in players’ careers during the amphetamine era ”

Sorry if this was mentioned but…

Hank Aaron was the definition of late career production before Bonds. Aaron had his career high in HR and SLG at age 37.

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to topper009

Well, we can look at the numbers and see if that’s a valid comparison. I think Bonds started juicing in 1999, so this will be a before/after age 33 look at certain stats for Aaron and Bonds. Aaron before/after OPS+: 157/151 – 4% decrease Bonds before/after OPS+: 164/217 – 30% increase Aaron b/a HR per 162: 37/38 – 3% increase Bonds b/a HR per 162: 35/53 – 51% increase Aaron b/a Rbat per 162: 44/36 – 18% decrease Bonds b/a Rbat per 162: 45/83 – 84% increase For Aaron, we see his OPS+ and HR rate stay about the same… Read more »

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to topper009

When he was 32 years old Aaron moved from County Stadium in Milwaukee to Fulton County Stadium in Atlanta- a.k.a. “The Launching Pad”. As bstar has pointed out above- it was the stadium change that superficially masked Aaron’s decline phase in his career, much like moving from the Astrodome to Enron field did for Jeff Bagwell for a few years.

Mike L

11 years ago

Reply to topper009

To Hartvig’s point, take a look especially at his year 37 (1971) home and away splits. He was incredible at home (numbers that in the pre juice era were pretty astonishing). 31 HR, 75 RBI, OPS 1.197 in 66 games at home. BTW, they also brought the fences in ten feet in the power alleys.

Robbs

11 years ago

Glavine
Biggio
Schilling

Doug

11 years ago

Clemens, Walker, McGriff

BryanM

11 years ago

Man, I love this concept. I’m going to break my tradition of one line entries to talk a little about peak value and postseason. Getting into the postseason and succeeding there is why they play the 162 – and a player bunching a lot of wins into one season helps with that. Up to now , I’ve been basically going with a straight regular season WAR ballot , with occasional adjustments for personal prejudice – I’ve come to the conclusion that i need to find a way to include peak and offseason, while of course keeping the personal prejudice. For… Read more »

11 years ago

Through the first 20 ballots I count precisely one matching pair of votes, which is remarkable when you consider that most of the ballots have one consensus pick in Clemens. Some of these guys have been on the ballot for years now, and yet no one is emerging as the favourite for the next “open” election. Given how little there is between many of the candidates, this is entirely understandable.

Artie Z.

11 years ago

Reply to RJ

Next year is the next “open” election. Mattingly, Galarraga, Greg Gagne, and Kruk are the only hitters born in 1961 with WAR>=20 and Jimmy Key, Tim Belcher, and Kevin Gross are the only pitchers that meet the same criteria. Trying to find the next “open” year (I’m only including players with 50+ WAR except for Puckett who would have had 50+ if not for the eye injury): 1960 adds (Cal) Ripken, (Tony) Gwynn (Sr.), and Puckett 1959 adds Raines and Sandberg 1958 adds Henderson, Boggs, and Trammell 1957 adds Whitaker and Stieb 1956 adds Molitor and Murray 1955 adds Yount,… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to Artie Z.

Just checked Chet Lemon’s page. I remember reading about him as a kid and I have tons of (not particularly valuable) baseball cards from his later years. I knew he was good, but I had no idea he was THAT good. It seems like he did everything well, but nothing spectacularly, thus making him a perfect fit on the ’84 Bengals.

Jason Z

11 years ago

Voomo @36

Can’t help but smile. Skidmark huh! Not unlike the stain some
would say he put upon the game.

I just watched Cobb with Tommy Lee Jones again, just the other day.

Roger Clemens was in that one too. He plays an opposing pitcher.

Perhaps more interesting is that the real life Crash Davis, portrayed
by Kevin Costner in Field of Dreams, played “Wahoo” Sam Crawford.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Jason Z

Crash Davis was Bull Durham.
You’re confusing your Costner films.
Field of Dreams is the one where he lives in an aquatic post-apocalypse.

Jason Z

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

I even looked it up, just to be sure, and still made
a mistake. Oh well.

And you just confused Field of Dreams with Waterworld
I think.

I am sure you are joking so let me just add this…

If we combine Field of Dreams with Waterworld we
get a movie where Kevin Costner forces Joe Jackson
to drink his recycled urine that is delivered return
receipt requested by the USPS.

Artie Z.

11 years ago

Reply to Jason Z

And that movie could be called “Field of Streams”.

Jason Z

11 years ago

Reply to Artie Z.

Well done Artie Z.

Jason Z

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Voomo @55

I just got it. Very funny indeed. Outstanding sense of humor.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Career Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasons: Clemens 94.2 Schilling 56.2 Mussina 49.4 Walker 48.6 Larkin 45.5 Glavine 42.2 Martinez 41.6 Smoltz 40.2 Alomar 37.3 Biggio 36.7 Finley 30.9 McGriff 26.3 Like so many of you, I’m going to let emotions drive my ballot this time. I think Roger Clemens should be in the Hall of Fame and the Circle of Greats and any other group of the greatest baseball players with more than 6 or 7 names on it. But as far as I know, he’s also the only player to throw the barrel of a bat at a… Read more »

MikeD

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

Ty Cobb would laugh at your suggestion. He would consider Clemens soft!

11 years ago

Clemens, Mussina, Glavine. (Still pondering on voting for the ’61 winner, who I believe will be Schilling.)

11 years ago

Clemens, Mussina, Glavine. (Still pondering on whether or not to vote for the ’61 winner, whom I believe will be Schilling.)

11 years ago

Reply to PP

Ooops, didn’t think that first vote went through…

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Voomo @68 (I’m tired of being indented so far) — Yes, MLB uses marked balls when a hitter is approaching a milestone. But they don’t actually print the milestone number. Here’s an MLB.com story about the balls used for Jeter’s 3,000th hit, complete with pictures: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110705&content_id=21444908&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb Whether I like that practice or not, two things distinguish it from what Clemens did: 1) Using numbered balls is an established practice. Using emblazoned gloves is not. 2) MLB dictates the use of the balls. Jeter does not get 100 balls printed up and tell the umpire to use them. MLB did not… Read more »

Editor

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I don’t know if that eBay glove is supposed to be the same type of glove Clemens used when winning no. 300 (presumably it is, other than the commemorative insignia), but it has a very visible embroidered patch on the exterior of the glove.

The patch reads “Rocket Man” with the letter “o” represented by a baseball in the right hand of a stylized ballplayer image (presumably Roger). Does anyone know whether Clemens actually had these patches on his real gloves?

Mike HBC

11 years ago

…And we’re back to Smoltz/Glavine/Larkin.

MikeD

11 years ago

Voting early, this round.

Clemens, Mussina, Alomar.

elkboy3

11 years ago

Clemens, Martinez, Schilling

Nash Bruce

11 years ago

just the same as voting for Bonds, I’m trying to avoid becoming ill as I’m voting for Clemens, but there it is- Clemens, Larkin, Alomar.

koma

11 years ago

Jamie Moyer, Roger Clemens, Craig Biggio

RBI Man

11 years ago

McGriff, Walker, Biggio

brp

11 years ago

Personally I don’t think it’s worth sorting out clean/not clean, but for the sake of argument, let’s cut Clemens’ career in half and just consider 1984-1995, his first 12 seasons, and pretend he started roiding out in 1996 (probably cutting a year too early):
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero02.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.highheatstats.com#1984-1995-sum:pitching_standard

Short version:
3 Cy Youngs, 36 shutouts, WHIP of 1.14, 650 win pct (FWIW), 145 ERA+. Still great.

So, my votes:
Clemens
Walker
Biggio

Last two to keep them on the ballot because Clemens will win no problem.

Chris

11 years ago

Clemens, Smoltz, Schilling

Hartvig

11 years ago

I’ve decided against waiting this round. In my opinion we have 10 serious candidates on this years ballot for the Circle of greats- the holdovers plus Clemens, with apologies to Crime Dog and Tawny’s old squeeze. Of those 10: -Clemens is going to get in and deservedly so, PED’s or no -So far I just can’t get past Walker’s home & away splits enough to have enough confidence in how WAR ranks him- I need to find time to look at the splits for guys like Santo & Banks & Boggs & Ott & Greenberg & a bunch more to… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Hartvig, just a small note. Hall of Stats doesn’t include current players and those not yet eligible for the Hall of Fame in its prominent list on the front page. Those listed here are those with the highest ratings that are now eligible or were eligible in the past. For example, you won’t find Greg Maddux in the Hall of Stats until next year. Adam has added a new feature, though. You can now get a player’s all-time rank (including all players in MLB history) which includes current players and those recently retired for less than 5 years. On this… Read more »

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

And you’re right, of course. While Maddux IS listed among the pitchers rankings, he NOT listed among the Hall of Stats inductees— at least not yet. Thanks for catching that.

And that’s closer to where I personally think he belongs- somewhere in the 80’s.

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

-Clemens -Biggio -Alomar I am tempted to give a “strategic” vote to someone (probably one of the four deserving “carryover” pitchers) in place of Clemens, since PEDS or not, Clemens will win overwhelmingly, but I just can’t do it. I’ve voted for all the previous truly obvious candidates; Piazza, Bonds, Maddux, and Randy Johnson. I am disregarding PED usage, because figuring out: -IF a particular player used PEDS and -HOW MUCH of a particular player’s career he used PEDS is akin to determining the exact number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth, and just about… Read more »

Thomas Court

11 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

I totally respect your contributions to this site Lawrence. But I have to disagree with your decision to disregard PED usage.

By not punishing players who clearly benefited from PED usage, you are punishing the players who made the choice to stay clean.

I agree that it is impossible to truly know who is clean and who wasn’t, but I think that any player that has admitted or has tested positive should not get any benefit of the doubt in any exercise where a person is casting a ballot.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Thomas Court

If we start with the assumption that PEDs tended to improve player performance, and that players knew that, then in the pre-testing era, a guy who for whatever reason chose not to use steroids made a presumably conscious decision to give up a way to improve his team’s performance, free of any likely penalty for their team. That decision in turn presumably affected (negatively) the number of wins the team that guy played for produced. Take McGriff, for example — if he consciously decided to avoid PEDs when he could have, like others, gotten away with using them, his teams… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

Reply to Thomas Court

Thomas, Well, we’ll have to “agree to disagree”. What is more impossible than to truly know who is clean and who wasn’t? – to determine how much PEDS helped those who used, and how much of a discount to apply to them… It’s a reluctant decision on my part, but it eliminates from the process a subjective element of guesswork. If we wish this to be an objective exercise concerning PEDs, we should not consider _at all_ any player that tested positive. Otherwise, both your position and mine, as regards to PEDS and eligibility, have merit. You choose to make… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

Thomas,

I should’ve added to the my above comment:
I totally respect your position on PEDs in #95 above, and agree 100% that you can discount/disregard players with positive tests/admission of PED usage.

Where I part ways is penalizing players such as Piazza and Bagwell, who are the subject of hearsay and conjecture, with no positive tests or indeed any tangible evidence besides “he looks like he used” or “his career makes a lot more sense if he used”.

Insert Name Here

11 years ago

Reply to Thomas Court

Although I agree in principle Thomas, I don’t really think that argument can be used here since Roger Clemens never confessed, nor was found guilty in court, nor did he ever test positive (not even in 2003, according to lawyers who may have seen the official 2003 list). For that reason, I even voted for him.

Vinny

11 years ago

Larkin, Mussina, Clemens

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

I am mulling over a bit of a course correction to future voting rounds, so as to expand a little the number of inductees we are voting in during the modern baseball years. The goal all along has been to work within the 112 number, which is the number of inductees voted into the Hall of Fame by the BBWAA. But by voting in only one guy per year, we are not really creating an apples-to-apples comparison with the BBWAA. At one per year going back from the 1968 birth year, it would take us to the 1857 birth year… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

GREAT IDEA!! Two points; one small, one big: 1) Any reason we can’t start with two candidates/year with the very next election (1961)? We’ve already “bounced” at least a couple legit candidates (Lofton, Kent). 2) Why only five/six pre-1886 selections? Looking over the five listed, four are overwhelmingly qualified candidates that will almost certainly be elected by us ((Mathewson, Honus, Lajoie and Cy). This would leave only one/two spots for all the other pre-1886 candidates. However, there are FAR MORE than one/two more serious pre-1886 C-O-G candidates: -Cap Anson -Dan Brouthers -Mordecai Brown -Fred Clarke -Jimmy Collins -Roger Connor -Sam… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

The reason for limiting the 19th century guys would simply be to preserve the apples-to-apples comparison with the BBWAA. I think the writers got that Cap Anson was a Hall-of-Fame type guy; I think their understanding was that there was a division of labor in which the Old-Timers’ Committee was responsible for voting on the Cap Ansons of history. If we get to the 112 with the same scope as the BBWAA used, I would then support a 19th century wing of the COG where we vote on more of the early guys you’ve listed.

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

birtelcom,

OK, I do understand why you wish to keep the ratio of 19th century players to the 112 total the same as the BBWAA elected, as long as you allow for a decent number more of those pre-1886 players to be elected _after_ we select the 112.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

Lawrence, the reasons to not start immediately with a two-induction round are: (1) Voters have been casting ballots based on assumptions about how the next few rounds would be conducted and I don’t want to undermine that, (2) I’d like to conduct a “redemption round” first so that players who have been dropped, such as the ones you mentioned, get a fair shot at re-entry before the new two-induction rule is implemented.

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Again good points, I hadn’t thought of that. You’re doing your avatar (Henry Chadwick?) proud.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

Yes, that’s Chadwick. Don’t ask me to explain cricket, though.

MikeD

11 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

Henry Chadwick. BillJames. Is it a requirement that game-changing stats gurus have beards?

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

#108/MikeD,

So does Sean Forman, founder of B-R.

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

I think the idea behind this is a really good idea. It’s actually far closer to how the original Hall of Fame voting was SUPPOSED to work. As were doing it now we have to correct for both the mistakes the BBWAA made AND try to do the job the Old Timers committee was supposed to be doing- which means that even some worthy BBWAA inductees are going to have to go. If we did either 105 of 112 and then picked a reasonable number for those players in the 30 or so years prior to the cutoff- maybe a… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Hartvig, as to the point in your last sentence, we will have a chance to bring them back. But I do find it somehat implausible that we’ve dropped as many as four guys deserving of induction. We have 16 either inducted or still eligible just from the first six birth years. Even with an extra inducteee every third round, in order to get us more promptly to 112, there are still gonna be plenty of tough choices. The 113th best major leaguer born between 1968 and the 1880s was still one heck of a ballplayer, whoever he is.

Bells

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

I like the idea of this, but I see a few problems, one logistical, another of personal preference. First, leaving only 5-6 slots before 1886 not only constrains the guys born before then, it constrains the guys born after then. It’s been noted a few weeks back that 1888 (Tris Speaker plus Zach Wheat and Red Faber, both of whom have 50+ WAR) and 1887 (Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander, Eddie Collins, not to mention Shoeless Joe) are fairly stacked, and 1886 has Cobb. So leaving only 5-6 spots means not only that the remaining guys will have to compete with… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to Bells

Bells – I agree with your comments. I’ll add one more minor point. The division between the BBWAA and the Veteran’s committee (at least in the first election) was between players who played in the 20th century vs. players who played in the 19th century. (Cy Young straddled the centuries and received votes from both). So in that sense Birtlecom is correct. But we also know the BBWAA is far from perfect and I count at least three 20th century players who were born before 1886 and who probably should have been elected by the BBWAA. Those three are Eddie… Read more »

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Bells

Bells, your thoughtful and articulate comments are much appreciated. Much of what you say about the one induction per round process has been running through my mind as well and I do suggest moving off of it with some hesitation. In theory, if the holdover process worked perfectly it would make no difference if we stuck with one winner per round for many rounds — an overload of talent in one decade which simply lead to holdovers who would make it all the through to whenever and then win induction if deserved. But watching the process as it is unfolding… Read more »

David Horwich

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

What about doing away with the redemption process entirely by permanently holding over anyone who receives more than a certain percentage of votes? This would be similar to the HoF’s “5% or more you stay on the ballot, less than 5% you’re done”, except without the 15-year limit (and the percentage could be tweaked to whatever seems appropriate). One obvious downside to this suggestion is that we’ll eventually end up with a rather long list of holdovers. One potential positive would be that – well, it seems to me that a fair amount of the voting has become strategic voting… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

Interesting idea David (#138). I’ve certainly been guilty of doing strategic voting but mainly cause sometimes it seems like the only way my vote can have value. For example, I could vote for Clemens this round, but what’s the point? He’s going to win either way.

Another thought…rather than having designated years in which two guys get elected, how about changing the rules to say that any player who receives more than 50% of the vote gets elected?

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

David: We have a 10% rule in place now — as long as you get 10% you stay on the ballot. The main difference between us and the BBWAA is that with only three names per ballot (the BBWAA allows up to 10) you are unlikely to get a huge number of players holding over for an extended period based on the 10% number. And its intended that way: getting held over is supposed to be something that is not easy, and that shows some real interest on the part of numerous voters. I do think the competitive nature of… Read more »

David Horwich

11 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

Ed @144 – I should note that I don’t fundamentally have a problem with strategic voting – it doesn’t interest me all that much, so I’ve tried to be “purist” in my voting (with the exception of a semi-sentimental vote for Glavine). But, if others are enjoying that part of the process – hey, have at it. I have wondered whether some year enough people will think to themselves, “I don’t need to ‘waste’ my vote on [overwhelmingly qualified] Player X because surely he’s going to win” that Player X ends up not winning (or, to take it to its… Read more »

David Horwich

11 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

birtlecom @148 –

But 10% only provides another year on the ballot, correct? My suggestion is that a player who receives 10% (or 25%, or whatever) achieves *permanent* inclusion on the ballot, rather than an additional year or two or four.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

David @ 151: Now I get what you are proposing, sorry I misunderstood. It does seem a little bit of an extreme reward, though, to give anybody who hasn’t won induction a permanent carry-over right. That does as you point out run the risk of creating an unwieldy ballot with so many options that it waters down the voting. It also takes a lot of the competitive interest out of each vote if we have a corps of permanent holdovers for whom eligibility extensions have no more relevance. On the other hand I do see the advantages of your suggestion.… Read more »

David Horwich

11 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

Thanks for the response, birtelcom (and apologies for misspelling your handle). There are definitely some shortcomings to my suggestion, but then I don’t think there’s a “perfect” voting structure for a project such as this one, just structures with different strengths & weaknesses. After all, there’s inevitably going to be a lot of murk at the margins. Last summer I participated in a similar project for Graham Womack’s Baseball: Past and Present website, voting on a “Hall of Fame Inner Circle” (top 50 players of all time) . In his commentary on the results (7/19/12), Adam Darowski wrote: “…there are… Read more »

Artie Z

11 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

I don’t think we would have a problem with no one voting for Ripken … or, let’s make it more extreme, Lou Gehrig when his time comes up, because they think everyone else will vote for Gehrig because the ballots are public. I see people voting strategically because they can see that Roger Clemens is winning – if the voting were private you might have Clemens receiving even more votes than he does under this system. And, if Maddux wasn’t a unanimous choice in the actual voting, he may have been if the voting were private, because I think everyone… Read more »

Bells

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

I hear what you’re saying. Forget what I said about the ‘honor’ of putting one guy in per round, that’s just me being silly – maybe what I feel more is the personal feeling of honoring this process of tough debate that I feel a lot of buy-in to. Personally, I’ve followed the blog/site in its iterations for 5 years but haven’t been a major contributor at all, partially because I’m a recent comer to baseball as a more-than-peripheral thing. But this argument for the all-time greats has been a good jumping-on point for me to feel comfortable contributing here.… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Bells

Bells, I’m glad that the COG has helped encourage you to participate. You clearly have much to contribute. I hope, and I’m pretty sure, that the tweaks I’m suggesting will have very little negative effect on the things you like about the current process. But I get your concerns, and the intention is indeed to be cautious about changes.

Bells

11 years ago

Reply to Bells

Oh yeah, I’ll be into this process regardless, just wanted to articulate my thoughts. You have created a big thing here birtelcom, just remember what my Uncle Ben once told me: ‘with great power, comes great responsibility’.

Dave W

11 years ago

Clemens, Glavine, Alomar

Chris C

11 years ago

Clemens, Biggio, Alomar