Hot Stove League: Modern Baseball HOF Ballot 2020

[Gil Dobie]

Wills is more deserving than Phil Rizzuto

[JoltinJoe]

As for Munson/Simmons.

No stat metric is perfect. WAR itself significantly shortchanges catchers, i.e., it fails to measure many of the things a good catcher must do (things at which Munson generally excelled). However, when measuring catcher v. catcher, WAR/162 is a highly legitimate and highly relevant metric, to account for the facts: (I) that catchers usually player fewer of the 162 games in a season than other field players do; and (ii) catchers tend to have shorter careers. Re: WAR/162, I'm not saying it's the only stat that matters, but how can you ignore the all-time list?

WAR/162 (Catchers, 1,000 games caught): (1) Cochrane HOF. 5.69, (2) Bench HOF. 5.65 (3) Munson. 5.25, (4) Dickey HOF. 5.05, (5) Piazza HOF. 5.05, (6) Carter HOF. 4.95, (7) Campanella HOF. (8) Berra HOF. 4.54. (9) Fisk HOF. 4.44, (10) Rodriguez HOF. 4.38, (11) Hartnett HOF. 4.35).

I mean that's an amazing group of catchers there. Munson is 3rd all-time, and he's the only guy not in the Hall on that list. Yes, a tragically short career, but one that was historically brilliant while it lasted. When I look at this ballot, I see nine players who have a legitimate case for the Hall. However, Munson's case is the only one which stands out as compelling in historical context, when measured against the truly all-time greats at their respective positions. There is no player on this ballot who nestles in more comfortably with the truly all-time greats at their respective positions than Munson does. In my judgment, that makes his case the best one on this ballot.

I know the knock on WAR/162 is that it is a "rate stat" that can decline due to later, less productive seasons, and that Munson had no such decline. But even if you extend Munson's 11 year career, and add 135 games per year (a lot of games for a catcher in his mid-30s) for another four seasons; while adding only a mere 2 WAR per season; he is, at 4.45, still ahead of Fisk and all others behind Fisk on that list. And still WAY ahead of Ted Simmons, his head-to-head competitor on this ballot. Heck, don't even add the additional 8 WAR total for the additional four seasons. Add four zero seasons of 135 games, and Munson comes in at 3.80, still nearly .5 ahead of Simmons (3.31). And don't get me wrong. I think Simmons has a legitimate case for the Hall.

Munson only caught over 130 games 3 times in his career. He was on the verge of playing more outfield, DH etc. It's not negative, it's just a fact about catchers. Tough to catch that many games in a season. Yogi Berra only did it 7 times, he was the left fielder watching Mazeroski's Home Run in the 1960 World Series. Johnny Bench 7 times.

Gil, Munson caught 130 games or more in five seasons of his complete nine seasons.

BUT, by adding FOUR seasons of 135 games in what would have been later in his career, I intentionally tried to dilute his overall WAR/162. This was to make the point that even if Munson had four "decline" years -- but still played a LOT of games during that decline -- he still manages to make the all-time top 10 for WAR/162 at the catching position.

I agree with that Munson would not have caught anywhere near 135 games per year in his decline years. I could have assumed he would have caught 110 games per year (a much more realistic assumption). Then even adding four really bad decline years, his WAR/162 would have been 4.69 rather than the assumption I made above (4.45).

[Gil Dobie]

Munson only caught over 130 games 3 times in his career. He was on the verge of playing more outfield, DH etc. It's not negative, it's just a fact about catchers. Tough to catch that many games in a season. Yogi Berra only did it 7 times, he was the left fielder watching Mazeroski's Home Run in the 1960 World Series. Johnny Bench 7 times.

Gil, Munson caught 130 games or more in five seasons of his complete nine seasons.

BUT, by adding FOUR seasons of 135 games in what would have been later in his career, I intentionally tried to dilute his overall WAR/162. This was to make the point that even if Munson had four "decline" years -- but played a LOT of games during that decline -- he still makes the all-time top 10 for WAR/162 at the catching position.

I agree with that Munson would not have caught anywhere near 135 games per year in his decline years. I could have assumed he would have caught 110 games per year (a much more realistic assumption). Then even adding four really bad decline years, his WAR/162 would have been 4.69 rather than the assumption I made above (4.45).

I looked it up again, and yes, Munson did have 5 season of 130 or more games caught. Point taken.

[dbackjon]

Tommy John. Maybe Garvey and Miller.

No on the others. Got to keep JoltinJoe bitching about something Yankee related

[Ivytalk]

Tommy John. Maybe Garvey and Miller.

No on the others. Got to keep JoltinJoe bitching about something Yankee related

Miller? You’d put a goddam community organizer in the HOF?

But of course you would.

[css75]

Marvin Miller is responsible for most of the chaos in the game today.. Garvey should be in, but he was a clank with the glove. Wills certainly better than Reese and Rizzuto.

Wills had better average, more steals, generally numbers very similar, but Wills crushed him in steals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dbackjon]

Noted that Ivy and Joey are against players having any freedom.

[Ivytalk]

Noted that Ivy and Joey are against players having any freedom.

Bring back the reserve clause.

[JoltinJoe]

Noted that Ivy and Joey are against players having any freedom.

I love Marvin Miller. Without him, how would the Yankees have bought all those World Series championships?

They should put Miller in Monument Park at Yankee Stadium.

[JoltinJoe]

It's just amazing how new metrics have influenced the perceptions of Munson's career.

Articles like this one are all over the place all of a sudden. Hopefully the voters take note.

https://alleverythingentertainment.com/ ... viganygogI

[dbackjon]

Noted that Ivy and Joey are against players having any freedom.

I love Marvin Miller. Without him, how would the Yankees have bought all those World Series championships?

They should put Miller in Monument Park at Yankee Stadium.

Joey in this case is css (old name is JJoey)

And yes, big spending teams love Marvin Miller.

[CAA Flagship]

Tommy John. Maybe Garvey and Miller.

No on the others. Got to keep JoltinJoe bitching about something Yankee related

[css75]

Noted that Ivy and Joey are against players having any freedom.

Bring back the reserve clause.

Getting rid of that ruined the competitive balance, and raised ticket prices.

Example: Kansa City Royals. They were the model small market franchise until free agency went crazy. They floundered for over 20 years,built and developed a great team in early 2010s, then lost it all to free agency. Under the old rules could have had a dynasty.

Another case is the Pirates.

[Gil Dobie]

Whitaker was a great player. Look how he ranks with the top 20 second basemen JAWS ranking. Uses longevity and best 7 years of career. Listed by WAR, Best 7 years WAR and Jaws

1 Rogers Hornsby HOF 127.0 73.5 100.2
2 Eddie Collins HOF 124.0 64.2 94.1
3 Nap Lajoie HOF 107.4 60.4 83.9
4 Joe Morgan HOF 100.6 59.3
5 Charlie Gehringer HOF 80.7 50.5 65.6
6 Rod Carew HOF 81.3 49.8 65.5
7 Robinson Cano 69.6 50.5 60.0
8 Bobby Grich 71.1 46.4 58.7
9 Ryne Sandberg HOF 68.0 47.1 57.5
10 Frankie Frisch HOF 70.4 44.4 57.4
11 Chase Utley 65.4 49.3 57.3
12 Avg of 20 HOFers at this position 69.4 44.4 56.9
13 Jackie Robinson HOF 61.4 52.0 56.7
14 Lou Whitaker 75.1 37.9 56.5
15 Roberto Alomar HOF 67.1 42.9 55.0
16 Craig Biggio HOF 65.5 41.8 53.7
17 Joe Gordon HOF 57.2 45.8 51.5
18 Willie Randolph 65.9 36.3 51.1
19 Ian Kinsler 57.2 40.4 48.8
20 Dustin Pedroia 51.7 42.4 47.1

[JoltinJoe]

Whitaker was a great player. Look how he ranks with the top 20 second basemen JAWS ranking. Uses longevity and best 7 years of career. Listed by WAR, Best 7 years WAR and Jaws

1 Rogers Hornsby HOF 127.0 73.5 100.2
2 Eddie Collins HOF 124.0 64.2 94.1
3 Nap Lajoie HOF 107.4 60.4 83.9
4 Joe Morgan HOF 100.6 59.3
5 Charlie Gehringer HOF 80.7 50.5 65.6
6 Rod Carew HOF 81.3 49.8 65.5
7 Robinson Cano 69.6 50.5 60.0
8 Bobby Grich 71.1 46.4 58.7
9 Ryne Sandberg HOF 68.0 47.1 57.5
10 Frankie Frisch HOF 70.4 44.4 57.4
11 Chase Utley 65.4 49.3 57.3
12 Avg of 20 HOFers at this position 69.4 44.4 56.9
13 Jackie Robinson HOF 61.4 52.0 56.7
14 Lou Whitaker 75.1 37.9 56.5
15 Roberto Alomar HOF 67.1 42.9 55.0
16 Craig Biggio HOF 65.5 41.8 53.7
17 Joe Gordon HOF 57.2 45.8 51.5
18 Willie Randolph 65.9 36.3 51.1
19 Ian Kinsler 57.2 40.4 48.8
20 Dustin Pedroia 51.7 42.4 47.1

By the JAWS7 standard, Munson ranks as the 7th best catcher ever.

Funny story about Bobby Grich and why these oversight committees are needed.

There was Baseball Writer at the Star Ledger by the name of Moss Klein back in the day. Good writer; knowledgeable baseball guy, but very much the product of his day.

So, the year Bobby Grich appeared on the ballot, Klein wrote that he considered Grich a Hall of Fame player, but he was not going to vote for him until his second year on the Hall of Fame ballot. He said that only guys like Seaver, or Mays, or Mantle should be voted in their first year. I remember saying to my brother that this position was nuts; if everyone did that, guys like Grich would drop off the ballot after one year.

Sure enough, Grich got less than 5% of the vote and was dumped off the writers' ballot forever.

Look at Grich on the last list. He absolutely merits the HOF. But many writers back then didn't think of him as a "first ballot" guy. Many writers were very much like Moss Klein.

[css75]

Grich , while very good, was not a dominant great player. The HOF bar was lowered by letting Harold Baines in, let’s not devalue it more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Where is the everyone who never played for the Yankees shortcut?

[SuperHornet]

Ken Griffey, Sr.

Pete Rose

George Foster

Cesar Geronimo

Orel Hershiser

[JoltinJoe]

This isn't what you are thinking. This is the revised "Veterans Committee" vote. This isn't the most recent eligible players.



https://sports.yahoo.com/lou-whitaker-l ... 54220.html

So this is the second chance list for guys who weren't super. I nominate John Kruk.

It's really more of an oversight committee. The fact is that, apart from the obvious choices, the writers have historically done an awful job selecting players for the Hall of Fame. And that is especially true when it comes to the players of the 1970-1980s eras. During the 1980s and 1990s, the writers pretty much chose (i) only the best of the best or (ii) those who compiled big career numbers through longevity. And they punished all scandal.

This ballot consists of nine players who were not elected due to the biases of the writers in the 80s and 90s.

Garvey. The writers portrayed him as too-good-to-be true throughout his career. Post-career scandal, divorce, adultery, and a child born out-of-wedlock turned the writers against him.

Parker. Admitted cocaine use and involvement in Pittsburg drug trials. Committee members forgave Raines a few years ago, so there's hope.

Munson. Career was too short in an era where longevity was king.

Mattingly. Ditto.

Simmons. Reputation as a me-first guy; refusing to move to first base when asked to do so in St. Louis. Also hung on as a way below average player to collect his guaranteed contract. Also known as a poor defensive catcher.

Whitaker. Batting average not high enough in an era where BA was king.

Evans and Murphy. See Whitaker, above.

Tommy John. Yea, longevity is important, but when your average season is 11 wins, don't count on the Hall. (I can actually agree with that).

[93henfan]

Appreciate the post. I knew most of that and was being silly, but still good info.

[css75]

So this is the second chance list for guys who weren't super. I nominate John Kruk.

It's really more of an oversight committee. The fact is that, apart from the obvious choices, the writers have historically done an awful job selecting players for the Hall of Fame. And that is especially true when it comes to the players of the 1970-1980s eras. During the 1980s and 1990s, the writers pretty much chose (i) only the best of the best or (ii) those who compiled big career numbers through longevity. And they punished all scandal.

This ballot consists of nine players who were not elected due to the biases of the writers in the 80s and 90s.

Garvey. The writers portrayed him as too-good-to-be true throughout his career. Post-career scandal, divorce, adultery, and a child born out-of-wedlock turned the writers against him.

Parker. Admitted cocaine use and involvement in Pittsburg drug trials. Committee members forgave Raines a few years ago, so there's hope.

Munson. Career was too short in an era where longevity was king.

Mattingly. Ditto.

Simmons. Reputation as a me-first guy; refusing to move to first base when asked to do so in St. Louis. Also hung on as a way below average player to collect his guaranteed contract. Also known as a poor defensive catcher.

Whitaker. Batting average not high enough in an era where BA was king.

Evans and Murphy. See Whitaker, above.

Tommy John. Yea, longevity is important, but when your average season is 11 wins, don't count on the Hall. (I can actually agree with that).

Joe, what is your take on Wills? Also, now that Lemahieu has thrived outside of Denver, does this help Larry Walker in his last year?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JoltinJoe]

Joe, what is your take on Wills? Also, now that Lemahieu has thrived outside of Denver, does this help Larry Walker in his last year?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wills is interesting, because he changed the way the game was played for a significant time.

In the 1950s through 1970s, an era of pitching dominance, a stolen base was obviously more valuable than today. Today, managers steal less frequently because, for many reasons, power production has so much significantly increased. In the smaller-ball era in which Wills played, reaching second base was critical, because then a single could possibly deliver a run.

The knock on Wills is that he only got on base 33% of the time; and his career OPS+ is only 88.

Yet, sabermetrics does not seem to have a grasp on how to value the stolen base. If a batter walks and then steals second base as frequently as Wills did, that's like a double. But Wills wouldn't get any credit in his slugging percentage for reaching second; and thus, his OPS would not increase. All he got was a slight uptick in his on-base percentage.

Yet he accomplished something as valuable for his team as a player who ripped a double in the game -- a hit that improves batting average; slugging percentage; and on-base percentage.

Plus, Wills being on base had the capacity to distract the opposing pitcher, which has identifiable but unmeasurable benefit for his teammates.

I believe you could justify Wills on the basis that he re-introduced the stolen base as a significant aspect of the game. But his overall case is never going to excite anyone using the modern metrics.

As for Walker, the 2020 Writers' Ballot has only one lock (Jeter). There are three players who finished ahead of Walker on the 2019 Ballot: Schilling, Bonds, and Clemens. They are all in their eighth year. I suspect that all three of them eventually get in, but I think their cases are going to the oversight committees. I think more than 25% of the voting writers have made a negative decision on all three.

So Walker, who finished with about 55% of the vote in 2019, needs to get a 20% jump in his voting percentage this year. A jump that big might ordinarily be too much, but with only one sure thing on this ballot, enough writers might have an extra slot to throw Walker's way.

The case for Walker is pretty clear. The knock is that he played in Colorado and that inflated his stats. Yet his career OPS+ is 141, which ranks among the top 70 offensive players all-time. This means, according to the best models we have to adjust for ballpark and era, Walker's stats, as adjusted, are still HOF worthy. On top of his offensive production, you can throw in a reputation as a great OF defender.

They have a baseball team in Colorado. Are we going to tell an entire fan base that their best players will never get into the Hall?

Walker should have already been elected long ago.

[Gil Dobie]

Rocco Baldelli, Minnesota Twins wins the AL Manager of the Year award.

[css75]

Rocco Baldelli, Minnesota Twins wins the AL Manager of the Year award.

That is a great selection.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[css75]

Joe, what is your take on Wills? Also, now that Lemahieu has thrived outside of Denver, does this help Larry Walker in his last year?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wills is interesting, because he changed the way the game was played for a significant time.

In the 1950s through 1970s, an era of pitching dominance, a stolen base was obviously more valuable than today. Today, managers steal less frequently because, for many reasons, power production has so much significantly increased. In the smaller-ball era in which Wills played, reaching second base was critical, because then a single could possibly deliver a run.

The knock on Wills is that he only got on base 33% of the time; and his career OPS+ is only 88.

Yet, sabermetrics does not seem to have a grasp on how to value the stolen base. If a batter walks and then steals second base as frequently as Wills did, that's like a double. But Wills wouldn't get any credit in his slugging percentage for reaching second; and thus, his OPS would not increase. All he got was a slight uptick in his on-base percentage.

Yet he accomplished something as valuable for his team as a player who ripped a double in the game -- a hit that improves batting average; slugging percentage; and on-base percentage.

Plus, Wills being on base had the capacity to distract the opposing pitcher, which has identifiable but unmeasurable benefit for his teammates.

I believe you could justify Wills on the basis that he re-introduced the stolen base as a significant aspect of the game. But his overall case is never going to excite anyone using the modern metrics.

As for Walker, the 2020 Writers' Ballot has only one lock (Jeter). There are three players who finished ahead of Walker on the 2019 Ballot: Schilling, Bonds, and Clemens. They are all in their eighth year. I suspect that all three of them eventually get in, but I think their cases are going to the oversight committees. I think more than 25% of the voting writers have made a negative decision on all three.

So Walker, who finished with about 55% of the vote in 2019, needs to get a 20% jump in his voting percentage this year. A jump that big might ordinarily be too much, but with only one sure thing on this ballot, enough writers might have an extra slot to throw Walker's way.

The case for Walker is pretty clear. The knock is that he played in Colorado and that inflated his stats. Yet his career OPS+ is 141, which ranks among the top 70 offensive players all-time. This means, according to the best models we have to adjust for ballpark and era, Walker's stats, as adjusted, are still HOF worthy. On top of his offensive production, you can throw in a reputation as a great OF defender.

They have a baseball team in Colorado. Are we going to tell an entire fan base that their best players will never get into the Hall?

Walker should have already been elected long ago.

Agree, obviously. If Walker played anywhere else, he would already be in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk