COG-Like Vote Tracking of the “Real” Hall of Fame Vote

Announcement of the results of the Hall of Fame voting by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America is scheduled for this Wednesday, January 8.  About 20% of the votes that will likely be cast by the writers have already been publicly disclosed.  A running tally via Google spreadsheet (much like the Circle of Greats spreadsheets that we use here at HHS) is available that is recording all those publicly available ballots as they come in: Hall of Fame Publicly Available Ballots Spreadsheet . The spreadsheet shows, among other things, that Maddux has appeared on every one of the publicly disclosed ballots so far.  Somewhat to my surprise, Glavine is doing almost as well on these ballots as Maddux.  Frank Thomas also looks like a sure thing, based on this group of ballots.  In short, it looks like a bunch of Circle of Greats inductees are on their way to Cooperstown induction, which is nice thing for them, albeit a less prestigious honor than the Circle.

Keep in mind that the votes collected on the spreadsheet linked above do not represent a random sample of the total ballots that will be cast by the baseball writers as a whole.  Most ballots will not be publicly disclosed before Wednesday’s announcement, and although the spreadsheet is capturing all the publicly available ones, it is beyond doubt that the sort of voters who publicly reveal their choices will have different characteristics on the whole than the sort who choose not to disclose their votes.  So you can’t assume that the votes cast by non-disclosers will look completely like those cast by the disclosers.  On the other hand, this same process has been used the last few years and the final results as announced by the Hall have not differed wildly from the publicly disclosed ballots, so the spreadsheet may be useful as a general guide (though subject to meaningful error) to how the voting is going.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

79 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago

Over at baseballballthinkfactory.com, they have something quite similar: Newsblog: The 2013 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo! (not sure how to activate a link) Maddux (very close to 100%!), Glavine appear to be mortal locks, Thomas has a quite decent cushion, Biggio has a real shot, Piazza is j u s t short. On the negative side, Smith and Martinez are losing a lot of votes, Sosa and Palmeiro are getting very close to falling off, while Mattingly probably _will_ fall off. Of course it’s all unofficial till the actual totals are revealed. I’d say three, probably four, mebbe even five players… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

I’m the first poster! – at last!

I actually enjoy very much following how the HOF candidacies of particular players rise and fall over the years, and what the patterns are for particular types of players and how their qualifications are perceived by the BBWAA voters.

Does anyone else here also like to follow this (yeah, that’s like asking here “… Is the sun going to rise in the East and set in the West tomorrow?”

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

@3/birtelcom,

Thanks for clearing that up, the %’s in your link _did_ look awfully similar to BBThink’s ‘Gizmo’. No wonder…

MikeD
MikeD
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

BTW Where exactly does BaseballThinkFactory.com hide that HOF running total? I am either blind and it gets lost on their home page, or it’s not linked on their home page, which is very strange. They probably get more site visits around this time because they keep the running tally. Then again, maybe that’s why they don’t make it easy to find. They want visitors to stick around and check out the rest of the site!

John Autin
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

MikeD, here’s a link to the BBTF HOF tally:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2013_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo

I don’t know how to get there from their home page. I googled the phrase Lawrence posted, “2013 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!”

Their site does seem to be busy — last couple times I tried the gizmo, I couldn’t get there.

MikeD
MikeD
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

John A, thanks. Out of annoyance (at myself), I went back to the site again and found the link. It’s really hidden. It was a small link on the left side of the screen with a very vague and generic sounding name, like “recent news” or something like that. See, I’ve forgotten already! At least I know where it’s located now.

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

@19,@21;

At BBthinkfactory, articles that are no longer displayed on the current Newsstand, but are still “active” (being discussed), get posted on the right-hand side of the home page.

I don’t post there, but but have been reading them (BBThF)for many years; I think it’s a great site. I’m sure there are other people here who also read it.

bstar
10 years ago

Lines 97-99 of the spreadsheet have anonymous voters who voted for way over the max of ten players. Why are all of these votes being counted when 10 is the max?

What am I missing here?

Jeff B
Jeff B
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Scroll all the way to the right and it says: “Only total votes are accounted for in the Anon. section – not acutal cast ballots.”
Therefore each line isnt a voter, just a count of how many votes each player got from an anon. voter.

Phil
10 years ago

Someone want to take a shot at explaining a vote for either Bonds or Clemens but not both? So far, three voters have done that—two for Bonds but not Clemens, one for Clemens but not Bonds. I can’t figure out the thinking there.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  Phil

The for-Clemens-not-for-Bonds thing I have seen explained as Clemens being found not guilty, and Pettitte retracting some of the things he said. Bonds admitted taking ‘roids, though he said he did so unknowingly. So some people have decided that Bonds was a liar, while Clemens was falsely accused.

I’m not sure I understand the opposite (for-Bonds-not-for-Clemens). Perhaps someone else has some insight.

Insert Name Here
Insert Name Here
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

I love birtelcom’s argument, but from a more serious standpoint, I guess it’s hypothetically possible that the voter believes Barry’s story (that he used PEDs but didn’t know he was using them), but thinks Roger’s claims about never using it are complete BS. Alternatively, a voter that doesn’t care about steroids could think Clemens is just too much of an as–excuse me, too lacking in character to be honored in the HOF (although to that person I would say: “And what’s your opinion of Ty Cobb?”)

oneblankspace
oneblankspace
10 years ago

And one could be considering the career of Bonds before his HR totals took an unusual upturn, under the assumption that his career was HOF-worthy before he started juicing.

MikeD
MikeD
10 years ago
Reply to  Phil

I actually read one BBWAA member explaining why he voted for Clemens and not Bonds. I can’t remember who it was, but he had a full ballot. He believes both Bonds and Clemens should be elected, but he knows neither will be elected this year and neither will fall off the ballot, but he felt it was important he vote for at least one of them but he couldn’t bring himself to vote for both of them because he already had a full ballot. He said next year he’d vote for Bonds but would probably leave Clemens off if once… Read more »

Phil
10 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

Normally I’m not big on strategic voting, but that does make sense—make your point, free up an extra spot.

Joseph
Joseph
10 years ago

It’s very hard for me to believe that players as talented as Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire, and the rest of the suspected PED using crowd may never be admitted to the HOF. Some day 100 years from now some kid will be looking back and wondering what happened, the way I used to wonder about things like why Babe Ruth didn’t get any MVP votes between 1924 and 1930.

MLB should either ban the players outright from the HOF ballots or make a decree that the PED scandal should not be considered. Or something.

I’m just tired of it.

Mike L
Mike L
10 years ago

One of the things that I find off-putting is that the steroids kings are going to hurt other worthy (but clean) candidates twice. The first will be when their careers overlapped, and what would have been great historically looks more ordinary and diminishes what they accomplished cleanly. The second will be when the dam finally breaks, and the same tainted players finally start getting high percentages of votes, crowding out the careers of some of the same clean players they overshadowed while both were active. I agree with Joseph @8; sooner or later most of the juicers will be in.… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  Mike L

In addition I can’t help but think that there are a number of voters who are thinking “I don’t want 7 or 8 guys going in all in the same year” so they’re only voting for their top 5 or something and when 2 of them are Jack Morris and Lee Smith… To me, this has become almost as bad a backlog as the initial HOF voters faced and we know how many problems that ended up creating down the road a bit. Still, it heartening to see so many voters voting for 9 or 10 candidates and some of… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Good grief. I vaguely knew who Murray Chass was before this election and I’m sure I’ve probably read some of his stuff at some point in years gone by but nothing that I can directly recall. Then I saw Adam Darowski briefly mention him in an article on The Hall of Stats website (an article, not coincidentally, also about Hall of Fame voters ballots). Then when I saw his name and ballot on the list I decided I should find out more about this so I Googled him. And lo and behold what should I find (among many other interesting… Read more »

Mike L
Mike L
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Chass wrote for the NY Times for nearly 40 years, and, if I recall, the Times expressly forbids its writers from voting for the HOF. He retired in 2008. I’m not sure how that affected his thinking, but he’s kind of been a loose cannon since he’s been on his own and pretty sloppy. My opinion only–he was solid but never in the class of Dave Anderson or Red Smith (both of whom also wrote for the Times, and both of whom won Pulitzers). The larger point, I think, is that if you are going to vote for the Hall… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  Mike L

I’ve got a couple of books by Smith & 1 by Anderson. But other than knowing his name I didn’t know really anything about Chass. From what I see I think Lawrence’s description of him in 28 is about perfect. I wonder if it’s some sort of issue for him because he can’t grasp mathematical or statistical concepts or what. I suspect so because he doesn’t seem to understand that if you have a dozen or more well qualified candidates and everyone only votes for 2 or 3 that the result is that nobody gets in except for the most… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Chass used to have a pretty rep decades ago when he covered labor issues evenhandedly (he was a supporter of Marvin MIller, unusual in the 70’s), but lately he’s become the epitome of the “get off my lawn” sportswriter, totally dismisive of anything involved in the advanced stats approach to analyzing baseball players.

John Autin
Editor
10 years ago

Random thought: If I could either block all steroids users getting in, or kick Cap Anson out, I’d choose the boot. What’s worse: cheating against your fellow players, many of whom are also cheating; or using your power and prestige to deny a whole class of people the chance to play? I think every defense that can be applied to Anson — he was a product of his culture; if it hadn’t been him it would have been someone else — works just as well for any individual steroids user. So I say, let the users in, and put every… Read more »

MikeD
MikeD
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I wonder if they will come to some sort of resolution similar to what you mention. I don’t expect they’ll go back and issue new plaques for players like Cap, but they may agree to include some wording, even softly, on the plaques of players from the so-called steroid era. It still would be challenging. Imagine you’re a player elected to the Hall and your plaque has some steroid branding on it. You might be quite pissed, especially if you really weren’t a PED user. The BBWAA gets a lot of blame from fans, yet in the end it is… Read more »

John Autin
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

MikeD, I know my plaque idea is a pipe dream. But FWIW, I did say “proven steroid facts” — meaning failed tests, admissions, non-appealed suspensions and the like. Not rumors of bacne. And if Rafael Palmeiro doesn’t want to come to his own induction or be part of the HOF community because his plaque says he failed a PED test, I’m OK with that. As for the current quagmire with PED-tainted players on the HOF ballot, I have a hard time blaming any of the BBWAA, the Hall, or even MLB. I don’t think more guidance is needed — and… Read more »

MikeD
MikeD
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Certainly reasonable and can’t disagree with anything you said.

It’s easy to focus on the crazy element (Murray Chass types), but the BBWAA has still done a better job than the voters for the HOF in other sports.

Mike L
Mike L
10 years ago

There’s another article in this article, if someone had the patience. Would be interesting to cross-reference who the voters cover (or used to cover) and who they are voting for. I noticed Lynn Henning (Detroit News) voted for Trammell but not for Morris.

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago
Reply to  Mike L

Yeah, but that makes sense — Trammell is clearly deserving, even if I can see possibly having to leave him off this massively stacked ballot. If it was the other way around, I’d wonder about him.

JasonZ
10 years ago

Mike Mussina ERA+ 123
WAR. 82.7

Tom Glavine ERA +118
WAR. 76

With 125 votes publicly disclosed:

Glavine 97.6%
Mussina 31.2%

Mike L
Mike L
10 years ago
Reply to  JasonZ

Jason Z: Mike Mussina ERA+ 123, WAR 82.7 and 270 wins, Jack Morris ERA+ 105, WAR 43.8 and 254 Wins. Morris has 60.8 percent to Mussina’s 31.2%. Not to be too partisan, but I’d love to ask certain writers what their thinking was on that. It’s a joke. I’m not going to insist that Mussina is Hall-worthy (especially on a first ballot) but if he’s not, there is no metric that could possibly make Morris superior. Glavine did break 300, and that still counts. BTW, interesting split among the Boston Globe writers. Pete Abraham, who is younger, voted for Mussina… Read more »

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
10 years ago
Reply to  Mike L

Jack Morris allegedly pitched to the score in 540 career regular and postseason starts. Mike Mussina (allegedly) never did anything of the sort. That allegation probably has about as much truth to it as the Biggio steroid rumors but … it’s a positive allegation for Morris. From the Morris Wikipedia page … “On Tuesday, April 6, 1993, Morris set a major league record by making his 14th consecutive opening day start, an impressive achievement since he played on numerous title-contending teams. The opening day start is usually given to either the best pitcher in the rotation or the pitcher with… Read more »

JasonZ
10 years ago

You are right about Morris. Horrible.

Clearly the BBWAA voting will frustrate many.

fireworks
fireworks
10 years ago

The 8th just needs to happen already. I wouldn’t have been upset a couple years ago if Morris had gotten in but the argument about his candidacy has stayed at volume 11 for a couple years now and the thing about it is that his supporters have not been able to be remotely convincing. Winningest pitcher of a single arbitrary time frame when great careers were ending and great careers were beginning! Ace of a staff! Pitched to the score! BEST WORLD SERIES PERFORMANCE EVER!

MikeD
MikeD
10 years ago
Reply to  fireworks

It looks pretty unlikely that Morris will be elected, unless the non-public voters put in a strong push for him. I don’t that will happen. Yet if he’s elected it won’t bother me for one simple reason: He is going to be elected eventually. If not now, then one of the veteran committees will elect him in a few years.

JasonZ
10 years ago

INH: IMO what we are seeing play out is the the voters attitudes toward steroids and a reliance on the classic stats and numbers. With 132 votes disclosed, Bonds has 56 votes Clemens 55. It is common knowledge that both used steroids and both were HOF before that usage started. Jeff Bagwell should be in, but at just below 65% he has no chance this year. I guess the voters think his forearms were too large in the steroid era. Jerks! Mike Piazza is now just under 73%. It is going to be close. It should not be. He is… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  JasonZ

I would be pretty amazed if there’s not still a couple of “If player X couldn’t get 100% then no one should” boneheads who still have a vote. I don’t really understand this first ballot hoopla myself and why so many voters wait 3 or 4 ballots before they start voting for a player. Take Biggio for example. If the vote forecast is correct he’s going to get about 55 votes more than he did last year. How do those voters explain why he wasn’t a Hall of Famer 12 months ago but suddenly now he is? I suppose it’s… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  JasonZ

I don’t know that it’s just the “no one gets in on the first ballot” crowd that could hurt Maddux. You may also have a strategic-minded voter who doesn’t have a problem electing steroid users. If so, that person may be interested in posting a ballot like this: Bonds Clemens Trammell Raines McGwire Mussina Schilling Bagwell Walker Martinez That’s a pretty good ballot (72 points on the ballot-grading scale Tango is using), and that ballot excludes not only Maddux BUT ALSO Glavine and Thomas and Biggio – four guys with enough of a groundswell of support that I could see… Read more »

JasonZ
10 years ago

Excluding known steroid users, here is my ballot,

Maddux
Glavine
The Big Hurt
Piazza
Bagwell
Martinez
Raines
Mussina
Trammel
Schilling

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  JasonZ

My way (at least so far) of dealing with the steroids issue that I would vote for them if I believe that they would have gotten in without ‘roids but if there’s any doubt then I wouldn’t. So with that in mind I’d add Bonds & Clemens to your list and make maybe Raines and Thomas wait another year. But going by my “as good as the average Hall of Famer” at their position criteria for getting in, not only do I agree with all of your choices but I would add Biggio and Walker to the list as well.… Read more »

JasonZ
10 years ago

On my ballot, Clemens and Bonds would make Raines and probably Mussina wait until next year.

Not completely sold on Walker, but Biggio would make my ballot next year.

That gives me 16 through next year.

In a world without steroids, Palmeiro should be in too.

Mike L
Mike L
10 years ago

My best guess is that Hartvig’s approach “do I think they would have made the Hall without juice?” is probably going to be the model tacitly adopted by many voters. Baseball has an interesting problem right now: It’s in the middle of fighting with A-Rod and it continues to grasp for a way to effectively to enforce it’s PED’s prohibition, but at the same time is willing to pay top dollar (and publicize) for talent, tainted or not. So, I don’t think it can come up with some formal policy statement or position (or plaque, or special room in the… Read more »

John Z
John Z
10 years ago

what is the over / under that Luis Gonzalez, Moises Alou, Ray Durham, Eric Gagne and/or J T Snow receive even one vote? I mean someone in southern Cali should remember JT’s 6 GG? How about Gagne’s Cy Young and 3 seasons as this worlds best closer not named Mariano Rivera? How about some North side Pale Stockings reporter that remembers Durham as the poor mans Grich, Biggio, Morgan, some of his comparables on Bbref? Just saying…can these super vets get some love from their home town BBWAA members? What you say…..inquiring mind(s) want to know? Anyone on your mind… Read more »

Jason Z
10 years ago

My best guess is that Hartvig’s approach “do I think they would have made the Hall without juice?” is probably going to be the model tacitly adopted by many voters.

At this point Bonds has 57 votes and Clemens has 56.

Both are undeniably looked at the same way as players who were
HOF’ers before the juice.

55 writers have voted for both.

Therefore 40.74% of the BBWAA have adopted this position already.

It will increase over time and both will eventually make it.

Phil
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

I’ve adopted the Hartvig model myself at the very top of the ballot—and would extend it to A-Rod, too—but I’m not so sure this will take hold over time. Bonds and Clemens aren’t really budging at the moment. There simultaneously seems to be a two-four year penalty taking hold for the players who are strongly suspected, and I’m guessing I-Rod will be treated the same as Bagwell and Piazza. For everyone in between, from McGwire and Palmeiro to Sosa and Sheffield, I think that, rightly or wrongly, PEDs have effectively killed their candidacies with the writers.

Mike L
Mike L
10 years ago
Reply to  Phil

Phil, if A-Rod doesn’t make the Hall of Fame (first ballot) I expect he will sue every voter who didn’t mark their ballot for him.

mosc
mosc
10 years ago

My Ballot:

Maddux
Bonds
Clemens
Piazza
Biggio
Thomas
Schilling
and three empty spots

oneblankspace
oneblankspace
10 years ago

MLB.com has posted the ballots of their eligible writers; Paul Sullivan of the Chi Tribune tweeted it, and Derrick Goold of the StL Post-Dispatch retweeted it.

http://atmlb.com/1bNVZB3

Some have been included in the chart.

ATarwerdi96
10 years ago
Reply to  oneblankspace

I’m sure I’m not the only one appalled by Ken Gurnick’s ballot. I mean, by his own reasoning he shouldn’t have even voted for Morris, as he also played in the so-called “Steroid Era”.

Mike L
Mike L
10 years ago
Reply to  ATarwerdi96

I hate to break it to Mr. Gurnick, but steroids/PEDS have been in use since the late 70’s early eighties. Jack Morris played from 1977 to 1994. If he wants to fool himself that there wasn’t a single player who ever stuck a needle in his whatever prior to 1994, then nothing is going to convince him otherwise. But, it’s a remarkable expression of willful blindness wrapped in a phony principle. Just don’t vote for anyone, if you feel that way about it. The interesting thing is that the only person that the vote diminishes is Gurnick, not Maddux.

bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  Mike L

I wasn’t expecting Maddux to get 100% and, really, the fact that he won’t get unanimous support seems minor compared to all the other injustices involving the Hall of Fame. I would guess that the lion’s share of “no” votes for incredibly obvious players over the years have been rooted in strategy, and I do think it’s at worst slightly defensible. What’s more important between these three things: 1. making sure Jeff Kent doesn’t fall off ballot (if you think he’s worthy) 2. trying to get Craig Biggio over 75% 3. changing Maddux’s vote % from 98.1 to 98.3% I… Read more »

JasonZ
10 years ago

I cannot find the words to express my disgust for the individual whose name I choose not to mention.

I really hoped that Maddux would be the one to end this tradition.

Now it remains to be seen if he breaks Ssaver’s record for percentage.

As for the individual who shall remain nameless,
may you be accorded the highest level of ridicule by your peers, those you serve and from whom you make your living.

Your lunacy, incompetence and stupidity is sure to be remembered for as long as people like us exist.

You sir are a disgrace.

JasonZ
10 years ago

Seaver’s.

My college professor just gave me an F.

One fact error, all it took.

Laziness is an enduring trait folks.

G-d I am pissed!!!!

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
10 years ago
Reply to  JasonZ

Four exclamation points are the gates of hell.

JasonZ
10 years ago

I texted a friend who played for Anaheim in the 90’s, Asked if he knew the nameless individual. He did, described him as “having short man’s disease. I then conveyed the idiots rationale regarding steroids. My friend, who I have known 33 years and is one of the smartest and wittiest folks I know, then told me he looks like a horse jockey. I have known this guy since 9th grade. When the Braves started 13-0 in 1981, one of us always made sure to write their record on the chalkboard before Spanish class started. For several days Ann “Bristol”… Read more »

bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  JasonZ

I know you know this, Jason, but it was ’82 not ’81. Thanks for reliving that streak. I think Claudell Washington’s 2-run single in game 13 to take Atlanta from down one run to a win was the highlight.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ATL/ATL198204210.shtml

I always thought Claudell’s hit was off Mario Soto but Soto exited in the seventh. Reliever Joe Price gave up the game-winner.

JasonZ
10 years ago

The fact that the guy omits Maddux and votes only for Morris has me steamed.

He then compounds it through indefensible logic.

John Z
John Z
10 years ago
Reply to  JasonZ

I dont know if this helps at all Jason but think of it this way, Randy Johnson becomes eligible for his first ballot next season and the Baseball Writer that will remain nameless is quoted as saying this will be his last ballot. So this means RJ could indeed become the first unanimous inductee to the hallowed halls. Big Unit’s WAR7 and JAWS are better then Mr Maddux.

mosc
mosc
10 years ago
Reply to  John Z

I would argue Johnson performed as a pitcher in MLB over his career in totality and context better than any other human being ever.

So yeah, 100% would be cool.

Bryan O'Connor
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  mosc

17 voters didn’t vote for Maddux. Euthanizing one dinosaur won’t get the Unit 100%.

JasonZ
10 years ago

Their careers overlapped for nine seasons.

I hope he keeps his promise and never turns in another ballot.

Yes, the big unit has a shot at 100%.

JasonZ
10 years ago

Thanks BStar.

I can’t think straight.

bells
bells
10 years ago

Oooh, Biggio falls short by 2 votes. Raf finger-wags his way off the ballot. At least the lack of Jack Morris will ‘clear up’ next year’s ballot a bit.

Does that mean the CoG is up to 115 now?

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
10 years ago
Reply to  bells

6, not 3.
Cox, Torre, LaRussa count.
So 118.

We need more redemption rounds and a faster voting period.
Let usurp this BBWAA nonsense forthwith!

bstar
10 years ago

Apropos of nothing: Looking at Greg Maddux’s player page for the umpteenth time, I noticed he gave up a staggering amount of unearned runs in the postseason. 198 innings, 97 runs allowed but 25 were unearned. That’s a 25.7 UER% (UER/R) over basically 200 innings, or a full season. I checked Phil Niekro, who gave up a high amount of unearned runs, but he doesn’t have a season with an UER% over 20%. Can someone find maybe a 180+ inning season where a pitcher gave up a higher percentage of unearned runs than that? I’m not suggesting that Andruw Jones… Read more »

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Looking quickly I found that in 1927 Urban Shocker’s UER% was 23/86 = 26.7%. I would venture to say that a UER of more than 25% happened many times.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago

Since 1991 the number of total ML unearned runs in each season has been less than 10%. Prior to that it was almost always above 10%, and prior to 1921 it was always above 20%. From 1991 to date there have been 200 pitcher-seasons with more than 229 IP. There have been 2 occasions of UER% greater than 20%. Pedro Martinez’s rate in 1997 was 21.5% and Felix Hernandez’s rate in 2010 was 21.3%.

bstar
10 years ago

That’s what I suspected, Richard, that Maddux’s UER% in the postseason would be really high for modern times but not so much for prior eras.

Thanks RC and also to Lawrence below for the research!

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

@70,74 (bstar, RC) High % of UER: In 1910 Ed Walsh gave up 39.0% UER (35% UER of 87 runs total); for his career he gave up 27.1% UER. That explains both why his ERA looked so great (1.27), but his W-L record didn’t that year (18-20). For his career he gave up 27.1% UER. Other spitballers of the DBE probably had similarly high UER% rates. Of more recent vintage, Charlie Hough in 1987 had a 24.5 UER%. The last prominent knuckleballer, Tim Wakefield had a 19.8% UER in 1996 (his 1st full yr w/the Red Sox), but improved considerably… Read more »

JasonZ
10 years ago

I think there may indeed be something here.

His W-L record in the post season never did reconcile with how well he pitched.

JasonZ
10 years ago

Since we now know that 17 people didn’t vote for Maddux, until the system is completely revamped, we can never hope to have a unanimous selection.

Mike L
Mike L
10 years ago

Interesting article about steroid use and what the press knew by Bryan Curtis in Grantland. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10261642/mlb-hall-fame-voting-steroid-era

teddy
9 years ago

the power innovator system is a superb merchandise manufactured for a multi
thousand buck price savings on electricity bills. This is a certain way to reduce the monthly expenses by cutting almost 82% of
the energy bill. Using this product or service I was able to achive
some great resutls and so i suggest for everybody to give it a try !