HOF vote in

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Not to change the discussion but with this healthy debate over which closers should be in the HOF it makes me wonder how soon will the first player who made his name as a DH be elected into the hall.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

If it is even remotely close to the truth that Sutter got some consideration simply because he popularized the use of the split-fingered fastball as Steve suggested above, do we then enshrine Ron Blomberg for being the first designated hitter?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Top 10 MVP finishes:

Sutter - 5
Gossage - 2
Wetteland - 0 (highest was 16th)

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Jimi,baseball actually had one election similar to what you mentioned.

During one of the veterans committee elections 2 players received enough votes to be elected but at the time they only let one player in.Of the 15-20 members of the vets committee a player had to receive 75% of the votes,but if 2 players both got at least 75% the player with the most votes was the only one elected.If this didnt happen or the rules were different where as both players made it,then Mel Harder would be in the HOF today

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

--

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I am less interested in the debate over whether a marginal guy like Sutter belongs than in whether any writer will be so stupid or so petty as to not vote for Tony Gwynn. We can debate the marginal elections until the cows come home but for me the real critique of the system comes if an 8-time NL batting champ, good guy, no-drugs 3000 hit member, stayed with the home team for less money guy doesn't get 100% of the vote. And yes, I realize that no one has been elected unanimously, a few jerks did not vote for Ruth, Cobb, etc., and others (possibly for racist reasons) did not vote for Mays and Aaron, but this is the 21st century. Is there anything any of us can think of that doesn't make Gwynn a 1st ballot HOFer?

Perhaps what we need is no more anonymity in the vote: let the jerk who doesn't vote for Gwynn show it publicly.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Adam,there will be people who for some unknown reason will only look at negatives and say if so and so didnt make it unanimous i'll find a reason Tony Gwynn or Cal Ripken isnt the first.

They might say Gwynn was a singles hitter who didnt walk much and only once led the league in on base % despite 8 batting titles and he also never won the world series,so im keeping him off my ballot

Obviously if you only look at negatives then Gwynn doesnt look as great but thats the reasoning a few guys will use to say he cant be the first 100% guy

They could also look at Zack Wheat and say,hey hes the most comparable player in history to Gwynn and the highest % of votes he ever got was 22% and thats over a 20 year span!!! Why should a guy who put up similar stats make it in on his first try,especially not be the first perfect one.

Basically,the first voters ruined it for everyone else and you know Gwynn will make it the first ballot but he wont be 100%

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The big reason that Gwynn won't get in on the first vote is that there are some writers that will not vote for any player that first year they are on the ballot. The rationale I've heard for this is that they want to make sure thatno one gets a higher percentage than Ruth who did not get 100%.

As for DHs, I don't see the problem. They elect one trick ponies that only hit HRs and cost their teams games in the field. Why not elect hitter that did not negatively impact his team by playing the field? Edgar MArtinez would have been the same hitter whether he was a DH or played 1B as badly as McGwire. If he was worst 1B in the history of the game, no one would be questioning Martinez's qualifications for the Hall.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Right now Tom Seaver has the highest vote percentage followed by Nolan Ryan, Ty Cobb, George Brett, and Hank Aaron. The older players were victim of having fewer people vote. That one or two votes that were not cast for them more negatively effect their percentage.

I may be too old school in that it is hard to accept a closer or a DH in the HOF unless they were the greatest at their craft. Baseball, unlike football is a game were the players play both offense and defense (AL pitchers do not have a choice in the matter.) IMO the closer and the DH is about the equivalent of the kicker and punter. But none the less, the game changed and the Hall needs to change with the game.

I do like the idea of making the voter's choices public. Make them accountable for their votes. It will eliminate some of the politics and personal issues. However by doing that it would make the voter subject to unending redicule. Can you imagine Walt Weiss calling up each voter and chewing him out for not voting for him?

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

George Brett got a greater percentage of HOF votes than Ruth, Wagner and Cobb. Ozzie Smith got more than Matty and lots more than Walter Johnson.

So Jay, the reason you stated for not electing HOFers on the first ballot (although it may be true) appears to make no sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Ryan

Dave Parker,Steve Garvey,Jaun Gonzalez,Albert Belle had 5 top 10 mvp season
Jim Rice and Vern Stephans had 6

Pedro Guerrero had 4 top 4 finishes while Sutter had none
Cecil Cooper had 3 top 5, while Sutter had 1
Quisenberry had 4 top 10's but also finished top 3 which Sutter didnt
Al Oliver got mvp votes in twice as many seasons as Sutter

Gossage had both Cy Young and MVP votes in the same amount of seasons as Sutter did but those werent Gossage's only good seasons.Goose had 9 all-star appearances while Sutter didnt even have 9 good seasons.Im taking Goose anyday between the 2

baseball-reference has stats listed for mvp shares and Sutter is ranked tied for 187(obviously any player before mvp awards were announced arent included)

All those guys mentioned above arent hall of famers.For some reason and it has to be an inside joke by now otherwise no ones reading what i write,i never ever said Wetteland deserved to be a hall of famer so he shouldnt be compared to Sutter other than to say why one is or isnt 400 votes better than the other.Wetteland had 4 seasons with MVP votes and 5 ist place finishes, 6 mvp vote seasons for Sutter and 1 1st place club. That 5 to 1 closes the mvp voting gap for me.Wetteland had 9 top 5 save seasons to 8 for Sutter,blah blah blah blah blah all the other stuff i said that can be read above and after all that all i was trying to say is there isnt an obvious 400 vote difference between the 2 players.

I did say id take Wettelands career but thats common sense because everyone wants to close for a winning club rather than a loser.Sutter pitched for teams over his 12 years that were 111 games under .500,Wetteland's teams over a 12 year span were 152 games over .500.....i'll take the latter anyday,plus the more quality seasons(9-7).Sutter was a specialty player who was real good for 5 seasons at his specialty,but any day id take a great starter over a great reliever so to be a hall of fame closer you have to look better than John Wetteland on paper.Its a total joke to consider him equal to everyday players that were numerous time all-stars or starting pitchers who won over 250 games(Morris,Blyleven,John,Kaat)

How come almost everyone ignores the Quisenberry comparison and keeps going back to Wetteland when the only reason i mentioned him was because of what Jay said? This is definitely my last post on this because theres nothing else i can say and no other way to break it down for everyone unless i come to your house and point to stuff for people

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

John, does that mean you think that Wetteland deserves to be in the HOF or deserves to get votes? JUST KIDDING!!!

I pretty much agree with John on the main points here.

To me, the truly deserving players that are living (Aaron, Mays, Seaver, et al) might feel the HOF is watered down but they wont say it. It would be so neat to let the elite of the elite have a big say in who gets in amongst the current players. Those guys know who belong...

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

John,

Believe it or not, many people actually understand the points you are trying to get across in your posts. They are not as complex as you think. Make room for the possibility that some of us might happen to disagree with you.

To be clear, my understanding of your main point is that there isn't an obvious 400 point difference between Sutter and Wetteland. My understading is also that you are not in any way saying that Wetteland should be a HOFer, only that there isn't as big of a difference between the two as the HOF voting would make it seem. Am I more or less accurate in my understanding of your point?

Either way, I disagree with it. Sutter and Wetteland are only comparable in that they were both relief pitchers. Wetteland was good, but never approached greatness. Sutter did. Maybe not for as long as many would like to see out of a HOFer, but he wasn't a fluke or one-hit wonder.

You said you'd take Wetteland's career over Sutter's and claim that it's common sense. What??? Bruce Sutter has just as many World Series rings as Wetteland. He was better in every possible way. There is no comparison. Wetteland SHOULD get 400 fewer votes than Sutter because he shouldn't even get one. And please note the absence of terms like "forkball" and "split-fingered fastball" from my post.

Your point about seasons where a player got MVP votes holds no weight at all. When you try to compare Wetteland having 4 seasons with MVP votes to Sutter's 6, you lose some credibility. That's an obviously misleading statement that, on the surface, makes them seem similar. Hmmm, 4 for Wetteland, 6 for Sutter, pretty similar, right? Sorry. That's like saying Tony Gwynn and Babe Ruth were pretty equivalent home run hitters since Gwynn hit home runs in 20 different seasons compared to 21 for Ruth. Sometimes one can make the numbers fit whatever argument one is trying to make. But let's take a closer look at the numbers in the Sutter vs. Wetteland MVP voting:

Wetteland's MVP votes:

1992 - 1 of 336 possible points (20th - 4th among pitchers, 2nd among relievers)
1993 - 1 of 392 possible points (24th - 8th among pitchers, 4th among relievers)
1996 - 4 of 392 possible points (19th - 2nd among pitchers, 1st among relievers)
1998 - 3 of 392 possible points (16th - 3rd among pitchers, 2nd among relievers)

Sutter's MVP votes:

1977 - 68 of 336 possible points (7th - 2nd among pitchers, 1st among relievers)
1978 - 5 of 336 possible points (20th - 7th among pitchers, 2nd among relievers)
1979 - 69 of 336 possible points (7th - 2nd among pitchers, 1st among relievers)
1981 - 59 of 336 possible points (8th - 2nd among pitchers, 1st among relievers)
1982 - 134 of 336 possible points (5th - 1st among pitchers, 1st among relievers)
1984 - 67 of 336 possible points (6th - 2nd among pitchers, 1st among relievers)

Wetteland received a total of 9 points out of a possible 1,512. That's about .6%.
Sutter received a total of 402 points out of a possible 2,016. That's about 20%.

So to summarize:

Bruce Sutter: 402 MVP points, 400 HOF votes.
John Wetteland: 9 MVP points, 4 HOF votes.

I guess you might be right. Wetteland should have gotten 9 votes instead of 4.

Oh, and of Dave Parker, Steve Garvey, Juan Gonzalez, Albert Belle, Jim Rice, Vern Stephens, Pedro Guerrero, Cecil Cooper, Dan Quisenberry and Al Oliver, how many were pitchers? One. Relievers? One. Do another list like that one, but include only pitchers. Then do one with only relievers. You will find Sutter near the top.

Incidentally, Quisenberry is Hall-worthy, in my opinion, and will probably get some respect from the veteran's committee. Who knows if he'll ever get in, but he is the closest to Gossage and Sutter, for me. Many will disagree with me, but I'm all for Quiz in the Hall.

I've also never been able to understand the lack of love for Al Oliver. Why isn't everyone on the Bert Blyleven bandwagon also on the Al Oliver bandwagon? 2,700+ hits with a .303 career average. Hell, Oliver had 10 of John's "seasons receiving MVP votes".

Gossage will get in, Rice will get in, Dawson will get in. Like Sutter, those 3 are deserving. I'm on the fence about some of the others. And don't get me started about Steve Garvey receiving twice as many votes as Don Mattingly.

-Ryan

P.S. I should mention that I'm a big Wetteland fan as he was on the mound for perhaps my greatest moment as a sports fan on October 26th, 1996.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Gil, the voters that withhold first year votes are old school writers. In the 70s and 80s, this had some impact since there were far fewer voters back then. Today, with over 500 voters and the number of old school writers dwindling, their impact on the percent vote is minimal. Their main goal is to ensure that no one gets 100%.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.