Baseball Toaster Mike's Baseball Rants
This is my site with my opinions, but I hope that, like Irish Spring, you like it, too.
Frozen Toast
Google Search
Mike's Baseball Rants


10  09  07 
06  05  04  03 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
Links to MBBR
The State of the Hall 2009
2009-01-20 20:16
by Mike Carminati
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world—and never will.
—Inscription under Mark Twain's bust in the New York University Hall of Fame.

The Hall of Fame voting for 2009 is in the books, and the net result is that three new members will be greeted in the hallowed halls (or hall, actually) of Cooperstown: Rickey Henderson (a no-brainer), Jim Rice (in his last year of eligibility) and Joe Gordon (by the easier of the two bifurcated veterans committees).


Henderson was arguably the best player eligible not in Hall. It would be difficult to argue against that assertion given he is the all-time leader in stolen bases, times caught stealing, runs, and leadoff home runs (and walks when he retired) and he had 3000 hits and 535 Win Shares.

The only argument seemed to be how a handful of dolts could leave Rickey off their ballots. Henderson appeared on 511 of the 539 ballots cast or, rather, did not appear on 28 of them. However, his 94.81% voting percentage was twelfth all time and was just slightly ahead of Willie Mays, not such bad company after all. Also, Henderson was 106 votes above the number he needed for election (405). That's the five most votes over the number needed all-time (behind Ripken, Gwynn, Ryan, and Brett). Here are the top 15 Hall of Famers by voting percentage:

98.84%Tom Seaver1992425323102
98.79%Nolan Ryan1999491373118
98.53%Cal Ripken2007537409128
98.23%Ty Cobb193622217052
98.19%George Brett1999488373115
97.83%Hank Aaron198240631294
97.61%Tony Gwynn2007532409123
96.52%Mike Schmidt199544434599
96.42%Johnny Bench198943133695
95.82%Steve Carlton199443634294
95.13%Babe Ruth193621517045
94.81%Rickey Henderson2009511405106
94.68%Willie Mays197940932485
94.63%Carl Yastrzemski198942333687
93.75%Bob Feller196215012030

Henderson is behind some players, even contemporaries, who were clearly inferior players though Hall of Famers all (Gwynn in particular seems unfair), but it's hard to gripe when you reach such (deservedly) rarified air.

The other two men who will be enshrined were far more controversial because of their selection, not omission. The argument against Rice starts with his being a sentimental pick given he was in the last year of eligibility (on the Baseball Writers ballot at least). Some have argued that he played in a hitter's park and didn't produce on the road. Some will say his career was too short, he was a defensive liability, and that he was a slug around the bases. Some (including me) would argue that his teammate and follow outfielder Dwight Evans was a better player and he fell of the ballot years ago.

As Rob Neyer most acerbically put it, "[W]e can simply add him to the list of good players -- Bruce Sutter, Catfish Hunter and Orlando Cepeda come to mind -- who don't really belong in the Hall of Fame but are there anyway…[T]he election of Rice will do little to lower the standards of the institution, as it's unlikely that players like Dave Parker, Albert Belle, Dick Allen and big Frank Howard now will be knocking on the Coop's door (even though, it should be said, all of them were at least Rice's equal)." To quote Tina Fey, "Cat sound!" Wow, Albert Belle is a hard case to make, but luckily for Neyer, he rarely deigns to make it. And what? No mention of the execrable choices like Tommy McCarthy or the spate of other Veterans Committee choices? (More on Joe Gordon later)

There are valid arguments in there. Clearly, Rice was not a first ballot-type candidate, but the question remains as to whether he was a viable candidate for enshrinement. Like Mr. Owl, let's find out…

First, as a thumb rule (and a thumb rule only) where does Rice fall in the career Win Shares list for eligible players who are not in the Hall as of 2009? Henderson comes in first, nearly 150 Win Shares ahead of the next highest player with 535. Rice is tied for 69th with Boog Powell, a player who has more chance to land in the advertising hall of fame, at 282. Gordon is even lower tied at 155th at 242 Win Shares (but as I said, more on him later).

Next, we can look at some of the standards that Mssr. Neyer's mentor put together in his Hall of Fame book many years ago. These sorts of arguments are the ones that James cites ad nauseum to make a point in that work. The point is anyone can manipulate the facts to meet his opinion. James strove to set up some of independent set of tools to analyze candidates.

In addition, what makes Rice an ideal candidate for this treatment is that he is the perfect high-peak, short-career type player. James designed his tools to weight career milestones as well as single-season highlights.

Here are the results for all of the candidates on the 2009 BBWAA ballot. Note that I added one for meeting the criterion of average HoFer Win Share total (337):

NameFirst YearYrs Elig LeftBlack Ink (Avg 40 P, 26 B)>HOF AvgGray Ink (Avg 185 P, 144 B)>HOF AvgHOF Standard (Avg 50)>HOF AvgHOF Monitor (Likely >100)Likely HOF?# Similar in HallSim Elig? Similar in Hall >50%Win Shares> HOF Avg (336.89)% Passed
Bert Blyleven1999516No239Yes50.0Yes120.5Yes810Yes339Yes83%
Andre Dawson2002811No164Yes43.7No118.0Yes58Yes340Yes67%
Tommy John199518No137No44.0No111.0Yes710Yes289No33%
Don Mattingly2001723No111No34.1No133.5Yes27No263No17%
Jack Morris2000620No190Yes39.0No122.5Yes68Yes225No50%
Dale Murphy1999531Yes147Yes34.3No115.5Yes18No294No50%
Dave Parker1997326No145Yes41.1No125.5Yes28No327No33%
Jim Rice1995133Yes176Yes42.9No146.5Yes46Yes282No67%
Lee Smith2003912No48No13.0No136.0Yes15No198No17%
Alan Trammell200280No48No40.4No118.5Yes15No318No17%
Mark McGwire20071336Yes110No42.0No169.5Yes24Yes343Yes67%
Harold Baines2007133No40No43.5No66.5No38No307No0%
Rickey Henderson20091550Yes143No52.6Yes183.5Yes58Yes535Yes83%
Tim Raines20081420No114No46.6No89.5No47Yes390Yes33%
Mark Grace2009153No86No38.0No60.5No19No294No0%
Matt Williams2009158No58No29.4No70.0No19No241No0%
Mo Vaughn2009154No78No29.9No86.5No05No200No0%
Jay Bell2009150No32No26.9No30.5No08No245No0%
Jesse Orosco2009151No17No13.0No62.0No08No140No0%
David Cone20091519No165No39.0No103.0Yes29No205No17%
Ron Gant2009150No52No26.0No41.5No06No206No0%
Greg Vaughn2009150No22No25.0No50.0No08No199No0%
Dan Plesac2009150No17No8.0No54.0No07No113No0%

Note that Henderson and Bert Blyleven are "best" candidates by this method, meeting 83% of the criteria. Anyone who is familiar with ERA+ is already on the Blyleven bandwagon, so I will let that dog lie. However, the next set at 67% is comprised of Rice along with Andre Dawson, another oft-dissed candidate, and Mark McGwire, who would be in the Hall (probably first ballot as well) if not for the steroid scandal.

The next tier, at 50%, is Jack Morris and Dale Murphy, two more highly controversial candidates. Unfortunately, Tim Raines, who ranks second in Win Shares among the BBWAA candidates and who is the one candidate that I would champion above all the rest (if I went in for such things), comes in at just 33% along with Tommy John and Dave Parker—and yet more controversy!

Are these tests conclusive? No, but it's a preferable approach to searching for facts to fit ones opinion. It puts all the candidates on the same level playing field.

Is Rice a HoFer? Apparently so according to the standards established for the Hall by the players yet far selected.

Is he the best candidate? No, but one could make an argument that he was a "good" choice. He is better than the 69th showing he put up in career Win Shares.

As for my personal opinion of Rice (for full disclosure), frankly, me dear, I don't give a damn. I considered Rice a great hitter in my youth, but clearly he was not as complete a player as, say, Henderson. He is a borderline candidate, so why not the Hall members make the decision based on their own makeup.

And before I get to Gordon, I should mention a number of phantoms who stayed only too briefly on the BBWAA ballot before falling into a pre-Vets Committee purgatory. There are a number of very good candidates that got short shrift from the writers. Some seemed like writer faves (like Will Clark) so maybe it's not just personality that causes the writers to overlook, or underlook, a candidate (e.g., the 28 missing votes for Henderson).

The Forgotten (and other crappy Julianne Moore movies with misplaced alien encounters)

Of the top 25 eligible candidates not in the Hall based on career Win Shares, just eleven of them were on one of the various Hall ballots this year. Here they are:

RankWin SharesNameVoted ByOn Ballot?Inducted?
1535Rickey HendersonBBWAAYY
2399Tony MullaneVeterans
3394Bill DahlenVeteransY
4390Tim RainesBBWAAY
5363Darrell EvansBBWAA
6358Rusty StaubVeterans
7354Sherry MageeVeteransY
8351Lou WhitakerBBWAA
9347Dwight EvansBBWAA
10344George Van HaltrenVeterans
11343Mark McGwireBBWAAY
12342Dick AllenVeteransY
13340Andre DawsonBBWAAY
14339Jimmy SheckardVeterans
14339Bert BlylevenBBWAAY
16337Bob CaruthersVeterans
17334Jim McCormickVeterans
18331Will ClarkBBWAA
19329Bobby GrichVeterans
20328Tommy LeachVeterans
21327Dave ParkerBBWAAY
22325Reggie SmithVeterans
23324Ron SantoVeteransY
24322Willie DavisVeterans
25321Vada PinsonVeteransY
25321Graig NettlesVeterans

So one could argue that not only are the best candidates not being picked, they do not even appear on any ballot. BBWAA candidates today either seem to take one of three routes: 1) quick election, usually in the first year, 2) life in limbo staying on the ballot until their time runs out, or 3) failing to get the requisite 5% vote to remain on the ballot and falling quickly into oblivion.

The five-percent rule is arbitrary and unfair. There are good many current Hall of Famers, for good or ill, who would never have made it to the Hall had they been dumped upon failing to reach this magic number. Newly minted HoFer Joe Gordon got just 1 vote in 251 ballots in his first year of eligibility, and did not exceed the magic 5% number for another nine. Before getting the necessary 75% this year, he never exceeded 29% in the 17 previous elections and runoffs (though to be fair, that includes one vote he received in 1945 when he was at war).

But I digress…perhaps using Win Shares alone is not the best way to gauge whether the best candidates are getting looked at by one of the ballots. As with Rice, we can look at the Bill James tests for each to determine his worthiness. Let's take a look at the eligible players no longer on the BBWAA ballot, either off the ballot altogether or shifted to one of the vets committees. Here they are sorted by Win Shares:

Vets/ineligiblesBlack Ink (Avg 40 P, 26 B)>HOF AvgGray Ink (Avg 185 P, 144 B)>HOF AvgHOF Standard (Avg 50)>HOF AvgHOF Monitor (Likely >100)Likely HOF?# Similar in Hall Similar in Hall >50%Win Shares> HOF Avg (336.89)% Passed
Tony Mullane28No202Yes51.0Yes169.0Yes7Yes399Yes83%
Bill Dahlen4No96No44.9No78.5No7Yes394Yes33%
Darrell Evans8No82No40.3No42.0No2No363Yes17%
Rusty Staub4No89No38.2No58.0No2No358Yes17%
Sherry Magee35Yes210Yes35.0No60.5No2No354Yes50%
Lou Whitaker1No31No42.8No92.0No2No351Yes17%
Dwight Evans15No113No43.3No69.5No3No347Yes17%
George Van Haltren10No138No57.2Yes111.0Yes8Yes344Yes67%
Dick Allen27Yes159Yes38.7No99.0No0No342Yes50%
Jimmy Sheckard19No124No29.1No43.5No1No339Yes17%
Bob Caruthers27No159No65.0Yes174.0Yes3No337Yes50%
Jim McCormick40Yes220Yes51.0Yes184.5Yes4No334No67%
Will Clark13No94No42.0No83.5No1No331No0%
Bobby Grich8No40No31.7No42.0No0No329No0%
Tommy Leach11No114No25.7No27.5No3No328No0%
Reggie Smith4No124No34.7No63.0No0No325No0%
Ron Santo11No147Yes40.9No88.0No4No324No17%
Willie Davis2No64No27.5No39.5No0No322No0%
Graig Nettles4No56No30.8No63.0No3No321No0%
Vada Pinson18No135No36.3No95.0No2No321No0%
Jack Clark9No87No34.4No27.0No0No316No0%
Jimmy Ryan12No122No48.3No84.5No6Yes316No17%
Stan Hack11No125No37.9No76.0No2No316No0%
Ted Simmons0No95No44.5No125.0Yes4Yes315No33%
Norm Cash7No104No29.0No50.0No0No315No0%
Joe Torre12No71No39.9No96.0No5Yes315No17%
Jose Cruz3No71No27.7No27.0No0No313No0%
Willie Randolph2No39No32.9No92.0No3No312No0%
Keith Hernandez14No118No32.0No86.0No0No311No0%
Jimmy Wynn4No94No30.3No36.0No0No305No0%
Al Oliver16No127No40.3No116.5Yes4No305No17%
Ken Singleton1No69No30.4No38.0No0No302No0%
Bobby Bonds6No132No36.0No65.5No0No302No0%
Buddy Bell2No33No29.7No67.0No0No301No0%
Jim Kaat19No128No44.0No120.5Yes7Yes268No33%
Joe Gordon2No111No29.9No87.5No0No242No0%

Using this method a strong argument could be made for antediluvian pitcher Tony Mullane, Sherry Magee, George Van Haltren, Dick Allen, Bob Caruthers, and Jim McCormick. Of these just Magee and Allen appeared on a ballot.

Why Joe Gordon?

You will note in the comparison above that Joe Gordon does not meet one of the criteria, not one. There's not really any kind of coherent argument you could make for Gordon's election. He's about 100 Win Shares below the average Hall of Famer, had a remarkably short career—he was washed up by age 34 (though some credit should be given for his years lost to WWII), and had some very sub-par years mixed in even before his precipitous decline—1943, his last full season before the war, was execrable (79 OPS+!). Besides his peak was never all that great. His best OPS+ was an impressive but far from earth shattering 155, and his career average even with the quick hook was 120.

The best argument for Gordon's election is that the newly constantly revamped Veterans Committee had to pick a player before they were jettisoned for good. They had to split the vote down to pre-1943 and post-1942 before they could election someone. And Gordon's ballot consisted of just ten men with 12 voters. We are getting closer to Ted Williams cajoling a couple of minions into picking his old buddies like Dom Dimaggio, the kind of cronyism that the new Veterans Committee was supposed to stem.

To Be Continued…

2009-01-20 21:43:20
1.   Agronox
This is a good post, but I still can't get over the fact that NYU has a Hall of Fame. I'm an alumnus and have never even heard of such a thing.
2009-01-30 23:45:30
2.   PDH5204
With all due respect to the college dropout [Neyer], Catfish belongs in the HOF. On that note, kindly also note for the record that the dropout doesn't have a wit, much less an ascerbic one.

Oh, almost forgot, but this a real gem, of the plain stone variety that one can find just about anywhere:

"Next, we can look at some of the standards that Mssr. Neyer's mentor put together in his Hall of Fame book many years ago. These sorts of arguments are the ones that James cites ad nauseum to make a point in that work. The point is anyone can manipulate the facts to meet his opinion. James strove to set up some of independent set of tools to analyze candidates."

You can manipulate the "facts" while you can manipulate the "criteria" even more easily. Usually, you "hide" the bad "fact" by choosing other "criteria". The "debate" was otherwise not over the "facts" but over the "criteria", and so the one soul, Mr. James, believes his to be more accurate when it comes to assesing player skill/worth.

Truly lastly, speaking of players that were left out, Reggie Smith was one of those one-time with less than 5% of the vote souls. As I remarked in a post on Dodger Thoughts, one HOF RF has this career line:


Reggie's line:


So if you take Clemente and the only other RF left on the board is one Reginald Carl Smith, have no pity for me, as I won't exactly be crushed in having to draft Reggie with the pick following yours.

Sorry, I lied, and so one more. If one considers where Mr. Wynn had to play the majority of his games, and then add to that the "golden era of pitching", his numbers look a whole lot better. Hell, just look at his line from '68 and then consider the pitching numbers from that year. Or take the NL avg line: .240/.300/.341 and compare with Jimmy's line of .269/.376/.474. He's a HOF too.

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.