HOF results
 

Griffey and Piazza were elected. Griffey set a new record with 99% of the votes, breaking the record held by Tom Seaver. As a lifelong Seaver fan, I'm saddened.

Begs the question...who are the three asses that left Griffey off and why?

Joshua

why are you saddened?

I never really understood all the hoopla over %. You're in youre in right?

I think how many years it takes is more important to a players legacy.

+1

I'm saddened because it was just nice to be able to say that my favorite player held the all time record for HOF votes. No big deal though.

If I remember correctly, 4 guys didn't vote for Seaver. Two were protesting Pete Rose being left off the ballot. One was sick in the hospital and mismarked his ballot. And one always voted no for first year players just to ensure that no one ever was a unanimous selection. I wonder if there are similar stories for the three no votes for Griffey.

HOF Voting
 

Fyi Paul, the real sad thing is that of the 5 writers that didn't vote for Seaver, 3 of them totally boycotted the HOF voting that year because the HOF banned Pete Rose. Those 3 writers publicly stated they were offended the HOF chose to take the Rose situation completely out of the writers hands, thus choosing to submit empty ballots. In restrospect, only 2 writers left Seaver off the ballot because of not voting for "1st timers". Had there been NO Rose ban, Seaver would still own the highest %. Oh well....

JoeT

HOF Voting
 

Paul - never saw your 2nd post until now. It was 5 non-voters and I'm almost certain 3 boycotted the vote. I assumed the other 2 were non-first ballot voters, but as you stated, one might have misparked his ballot. Bottom line is with no Rose ban, Seaver would still stand at the top of the charts!

I guess im biased since im from seattle but griffey deserves 100% imo

+1 Joshua, totally agree...

I grew up watching Griffey. I think it should of been 100% for sure

Probably the same 3 that voted for Mike Sweeney.

Here is a plausible explanation. They wanted to vote for 11 guys but were limited to 10. If I was in that situation I could see leaving off the guy (Griffey) that was getting in no matter what I did.

Anybody that doesn't vote for someone just because they "never vote people on first ballot" deserve the honor of voting revoked.

First of all, the reason the three guys left off Griffey probably was because of someone getting hurt feelings on something as stupid as an interview where there were hurt feelings. Maybe someone didn't like the way Griffey treated him. In other words, someone getting pissed off and telling their other writer buddies. Maybe one of them agreed. Yes, human nature does come into the equation ( even though it shouldn't). Secondly, I look at Griffey from the time he was an 18yr old rookie to the time he retired, he basically had the same physical structure and abilities. Then I look at guys like McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa. Please.....Go back to their early photos and then look at how they ballooned up later in their careers. It's borderline ridiculous, and so obvious as well. Griffey was clean, and had the best swing ever in the game with maybe Ted W. getting a close argument. If he had not had the serious injuries, he would have hit 800 home runs. Just my opinion....

I think it's a joke that Piazza got in. He was a liability behind the plate. The most important part of a catcher's game is on defense.

I'll bring up Jeff Kent again. How does a guy with his run producing numbers at second base not get more votes?? Your statements probably say it all.

I think Kent was hurt by the 10 player rule on the ballot. A lot of voters are still putting PED users on the ballot because they don't believe they should be excluded. Therefore, somewhat more "marginal" HOFers are losing significant numbers of votes.

I think Kent will eventually be voted in by the Veterans Committee, and I don't really have a problem with that approach.

Personally, I still don't believe PED users should get into the HOF. Their numbers aren't "real" numbers. People argue that they were competing against other PED users so those stats were legit. However, to me, it's like Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France. You can say that he was competing against other users on the Tour, so you shouldn't strip him of his titles? That doesn't make sense to me. The Hall honors the best players, and you can't really say you deserve to be one of the best if you cheated your way there.

Well said. But I do hope the voters wake up and elect Kent the traditional way. For all of the steroid heads, I hope to God they never get to Cooperstown.

Well, there's probably already a few in.

Griffey was a great player but he was no Tom Seaver when it comes to HOF players. Of course they weren't apples to apples as on was a pitcher and the other an outfielder so I guess there were other criteria to be evaluated.

3 Voters Identities Revealed:
 

Reliable sources indicate a strong possibility that two of the three voters who did not vote for Griffey are brothers: Moe and Curly. The third voter goes by Larry.



I was happy to see that one of my favorite players, David Eckstein, got two votes...but, I hope those two votes did not come at Griffey's expense.


Like Jayson Stark, I would have had Billy Wagner (another of my favorites) as one of my full ballot of ten. (check out Starks comments from this morning on ESPN.com)

Good to see Trevor Hoffman get so much support in his first year.

I think with Piazza getting in, Bagwell should get in next year, then perhaps Sheffield and even Bonds and Clemens and Sosa.

I'm not yet accepting of those last few getting in but the Commissioner made a good, sound argument as to why they should get in.

The same reasoning would keep out Palmeiro, McGwire, and Manny Ramirez since they have actually been caught in the act.
.
.

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

I very much doubt Sheffield ever gets in even if they start inducting roiders.

However, if the other players producing those numbers were roiders, and Kent wasn't, wouldn't that mean something? I've never heard of Kent being tainted by roid rumors, so I assume he's clean. Like McGriff, I think this is another place where PED users hurt legitimate players because their stats get lost in the forest.

I agree that it was nice to see Hoffman get support, but also sad that Lee Smith did not gain any ground. Lee was the premeir closer in his era and players should be grouped with their peers. Nobody was better than Lee in his time but the fact that he in general was not associated with any particular team has hurt his chances. In my Hall, he is a first round winner as not only was he a great closer, but he is also a top notch human being. Great guy and none of the nasty attitude that so many stars have. All positives in my book. Maybe he will eventually make it in through the veterens committee.

In context, Peter??? What the hell other second baseman produced as many runs as him year after year? And according to your logic, since it was the era of 'huge numbers,' why were Piazza and Griffey elected?? They, too, played in the same era as Kent.

A good article that points out that, while Piazza was poor at throwing out runners, he was a plus defender in addition to an all-time great offensive catcher: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...han-a-big-bat/

Ken Griffey Jr is right up there with seaver.

Well, since to date he is only getting 15 percent of the vote, sounds like you have your work cut out for you to convince people that that is the relevant criterion, to be the leading run producer at a given position. FWIW JAWS has him at 18th all time second baseman. Piazza is 5th at catcher. Griffey is 5th in center.

Griffey is #4 all time in the NON Steroids Home Run Category, and was the best defensive CF of an entire generation, while playing for mostly bad teams.

Yeah...I guess he wasn't better than Seaver...:rolleyes:

I would say not quite. Seaver is a top 10 all time pitcher. Griffey is probably more in the top 25 than top 10 tier.

Being 71-92 didn't help Smith either. He comes in 14th among relief pitchers in the JAWS metric. Hoffman, interestingly, is 21st. I have read that he was very overrated but I can't place that now, maybe Bill James?

Ha ha. Now it's about everyone's favorite new stat of relevance, WAR?? Only moments ago you said he shouldn't be elected because, "Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers." So when one stat doesn't fit your narrative, you find one that does? Is that where we're at?

Griffey was a monster. I'd say he's top 10. Elite defense, elite hitter, the prettiest swing you ever saw. Had a real shot at breaking Aaron's record if not for getting hurt.

Do you even know how WAR works? It's adjusted for the era.

Nah.
Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 26 (73), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 162 (71), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 235 (29), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 61 (28), Average HOFer ≈ 50

HOF Voting
 

Peter - Seaver is top 7 WAR & JAWS with a "cheater" (Clemens) and two 19th century pitchers (Kid Nichols & Cy Young for half a career) rated above him. Thus, a top 4/5 pitcher of all time which Griffey cannot nearly boast among position players. Not taking anything away from Junior because he is one of my all-time favorites, but on a comparable basis, not as highly ranked as Tom Terrific.

JoeT

Exactly. Now if Junior didn't get hurt, who knows, but we can't rate guys on what might have been. It always amuses me to hear people who say Ryan was better than Seaver. Not.

I would put Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker in before Kent. Especially Grich.

Tom C

Yeah, although I don't think contemporaneously he was considered a superstar, Grich rates as the number 7 all time second baseman by the JAWS metric. He's ahead of Sandberg and Alomar and Biggio, and just behind Carew, which I really can't figure out. Must be one of those era adjusted phenomena.

HOF Voting
 

LOL - I totally agree....not even close Peter. Nolan Ryan was NEVER the equal of Tom Seaver. Post WWII, Combination peak value and career, only Maddux and Randy Johnson rate with Seaver. Pedro Martinez doesn't have the same longevity, Koufax was a 4/5 year pitcher and Clemens was a cheater. Here's a Seaver stat that is absolutely remarkable. Over the first 15 consecutive seasons of his career, Seaver posted a 2.62 ERA, an incredible feat considering he averaged approximately 252 IP per season over that span!

Yeah, Reggie really said it best, didn't he.

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Did not say that Griffey didn't belong in the Hall of Fame. What I basically said is that in his era, Seaver was in a league of his own. In the Griffey era, there were quite a few guys that could hit the ball and field so when you look at his peers, he was awesome but some other players had almost as much value. Also keep in mind that many of Griffey's peers were steroid users so it is harder to judge his class of position players. Seaver did not come from the steroid era so talent was easier to judge.

Anyone have thoughts in Mussina jumping up in the voting to 43%? Think he eventually gets there?

Lee Smith started there and his % has not change much and even declined a little. Great player but with the way HOF voters do things, I doubt if he will.

Mussina has been increasing each year on the ballot....and has a bunch of gold gloves to go with his pitching stats.

Premier closer in his era? Really? Early 80s, Sutter was better. Late 80s & Early 90s, Eck was better. Mid-late 90s? No.

And who is third on the list of all time saves in MLB? Wasn't Sutter or Eckersley last time I checked. Believe the order is Hoffman, Rivera, Smith. Don't see Sutter or Eckersley in the top 5 of the list. Sutter is 26th on the list with 300 saves and Eckersley is 6th with 390 saves. Smith had 478 career saves. The numbers speak for themselves.

I think Bagwell, Sheffield and Sosa would get in because while there was only speculation, none ever failed a drug test or were otherwise suspended for same.

Palmeiro, Ramirez, and Rodriguez were all suspended for PEDs, while McGwire got caught with some in his locker (funny how he never got charged for anything, but the known presence of the stuff in his locker put him in this group). I think McGwire skated at the time because, admit it, we were all caught up in that HR race. I was really more offended by his lying to the Maris family.

Bonds and Clemens are a more difficult discussion: Both were arguably the best players at their position well before 'strange things' started showing up. Neither was ever convicted of using PEDs, although if you want to believe in such, no one would be better prepared to have the finest 'masking' product available.
.
.

He was an excellent offensive player in an era with many many excellent offensive players. Thus the reason his career OPS+ is just 123. For his career he was approximately 23% better than league average. That is excellent for a second baseman. Still not as good as Bobby Grich, but certainly excellent. When you add in the poor defense, I would say he is more like a Lou Whitaker. Whitaker had excellent defense and a career OPS+ of 117. Kent isn't as good as Bobby Grich either offensively or defensively (when compared to league average during their respective careers), but he is better than a number of current HOF 2B men. Kent should certainly be pulling higher numbers than he is no doubt. But there are other 2B who were better an are not in the Hall.

Tom C

I think to many people get into the hof. Let's be honest I mean players who were good not great seem to always squeak in. I think it's overrated the hof now. I say you have 3 ballots to get in and if by then u don't well sorry you don't get in. Plain and simple.

A little serve off topic...
 

But speaking of Griffey Jr., IMHO it's a real shame that a century player like that had all of his early baseball cards created in a crap time of mass production. If he had played 100+ years ago can you imagine what a T206 high grade Griffey would go for? :D

And 15 percent of the voters who were "around to watch him play" agree with you!!

And 15 percent of the voters agree with you!! And I haven't changed my narrative at all it's just that you are unable to appreciate what I am saying -- that in context, on an era adjusted basis, his stats are less impressive than they might be in absolute terms. But again, 1 in 7 voters agree with you, so I will defer.

Mc Gwire got caught with Andro in his locker which was legal at the time, sold at GNC, but later banned. Do you know who else was caught using Andro? Newest hofer Mike Piazza.

McGwire admitted to using steroids long after his career was over, but didn't say what he used. It is widely believed that he used illegal drugs too, but he wasn't caught doing so.

Eckersley won CY and MVP in the same season. Sutter was CY. Lee Smith won....uh....

Hmm, wasn't Sheffield on the 2003 list? And Sosa got caught with a corked bat. That's still cheating, right?

Right, but those big(steroid) numbers came from guys in other positions. It's unfair to compare a 2nd baseman to a 1st baseman or catcher as far as numbers is concerned. You just don't.

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

OPS+ shows how a player rates offensively when compared to their contemporaries and when adjusted for park factors.

Jeff Kent career OPS+ 123
Bobby Grich career OPS+ 125

Bobby Grich 4x Gold Gloves (and should have won several more)
Jeff Kent Gold Gloves...BWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kent should absolutely be getting a higher percentage than he is currently. He may get in eventually and I have no problem with that at all. But you MUST take his numbers within the context of his times...whatever position he plays. Bobby Grich was a better second baseman (relative to his era) than was Jeff Kent. Lou Whitaker was a slightly worse offensive player but a much better defensive player. Heck, taking defense into account, I could make a case for Willie Randolph not being that far off from Kent.

Tom C

Well, try to convince the 6 out of 7 voters who don't agree, what can I say. Maybe his stock will go up over time.

Grich rates 7th per JAWS, Kent 18th. But just ask Darren, we saw Kent so we don't need JAWS.

Kent shouldn't be penalized for playing avg defense. If that's his only flaw then I don't have a problem getting in.

Edgar is getting quite a few votes and he didn't even play defense at all. At least Kent played a defensive position.

Plus he was on Survivor!

You don't need JAWs to tell you anything about a player you watched. You can use JAWs to talk about Bill Dickey if you want, but Jeff Kent's entire career was played out before our eyes. Tell me who was a better hitter at second base than he was. There was no one. If he's not getting in it's because people think he juiced, not because he wasn't the best offensive second baseman of his time.

And that's exactly the point of JAWS, to enable a meaningful comparison where you can't make one from personal observation, as well as to eliminate bias. Anyhoo, Alomar ranks ahead of Kent statistically. And Biggio.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_2B.shtml

Kent has more home runs than any other 2nd baseman in history, and by a considerable margin (377 to 301), 3rd in RBI's for all 2nd basemen in history, 2nd in slugging, 6th in OPS, and he has an MVP to boot. He's one of the few 2nd basemen in history who consistently batted 3-5 in a lineup during his entire career. Sure, he might not be as good as Alomar, but he's still a legitimate HOFer.

In context to the era in which he played he was not as good as Bobby Grich. When taking defense into consideration, Grich was a MUCH better player.

Tom C

No doubt. Completely agree Alomar was a better player than Kent overall. And I'm ok if Alomar and Biggio rank ahead of Kent. They're both HOF'ers. Kent ranks ahead of them in other stats as well.

So why on an objective metric (JAWS) is he so far below Alomar and Biggio?

Right, but Kent was playing in an era with a bunch of juicers, where as far as I know, that is something Kent has never been accused of. Is there some WAR where all of the suspected juicers are excluded?

You need an objective metric where the suspected juicers in that era are excluded. For example, you have known juicers like Bret Boone at 2nd base who impact the WAR for players like Kent.

This is true. All of it.

Wouldn't Lee Smith have been considered the "Premier Closer" of that 1993-96 window when Eck dropped off and pre-Rivera taking over as Yankee closer?

Not really an era, but I do remember a short period of time when Lee Smith was considered THE closer.

That said, I'm not sure I would put him either.

The juicer issue may affect Kent's standing relative to guys in other eras, but why would it affect his standing vis a vis guys in the same era, i.e. Alomar and Biggio? Any change to the weight factor is going to affect all equally, I would think?

From 1992-1997, Tony Phillips and Roberto Alomar and Chuck Knoblauch were better than Kent both offensively and defensively.

I have no problem saying that over a 8 year period from 1998-2005, Kent was the best offensive second baseman in baseball. Likely the best overall, as I value offense to defense about 80/20.

After 2005, guys like Utley and Cano and Pedroia are better than Kent all around.

Does being the top in your position in the majors over and 8 year period, plus being in the top 6-8 at your position for another 8 or so years, make you a Hall Of Famer? I think in conjunction with the way his counting stats look, most likely the answer is yes. I just don't think it is as ct and dry as some are making it out to be.

Tom C

Unless I am missing someone obvious, Bill Freehan was the best offensive catcher of the 60s. Jim Fregosi or Bert Campaneris were the best offensive shortstops (same caveat). It's too narrow a criterion.

Production is production regardless of whether it was enhanced with drugs or not. Since we will never know if he definitively did or did not use, we are left with his numbers.

As to whether there was any speculation, you would likely have to ask Mets and Indians fans their thoughts on what he "suddenly" became once he became a teammate of Barry Bonds.

Tom C

The thing is though: Alomar and Biggio were typical second basemen, just better than most. Alomar had some pop, but not so much more than the average second baseman. He topped out at 24 homers. Kent's power sets him apart. It makes him a unique player. He stands alone at second. And I would think that being unique trumps being better than usual. But I understand Kent is under the PED cloud and that is the only logical reason not to vote for him. You can't argue with his numbers, no matter how hard you try.

I tend to agree that Kent should get into the Hall. But you and others seem to be stuck on the raw numbers. Yes he had more power than any other 2B in terms of the raw numbers. But when put in the context of the era in which he played, the numbers (whether he was a second baseman or first baseman or catcher) are not quite what they seem.

Pie Traynor hit .366 in 1930. Great year.

Roberto Clemente hit .320 in 1963.

Looking at each just as raw numbers, Traynor seems to have had the much better year in terms of this one statistic, batting average. However, The National League hit .303 as a whole in 1930. Thus Traynor was 20.8% better than average. The league as a whole hit .245 in 1963. Thus Clemente was 30.6% better than average.

Clemente had the better year in terms of batting average because the year in which he and Traynor played must be taken into consideration.

For Kent, his raw offensive numbers blow away those of someone like Bobby Grich. However, when adjusted against the league average during their years played and then adjusted again for park factors, Bobby Grich was actually a better hitter than Jeff Kent.

Tom C

You say that but you're ignoring an important aspect too: there have been a thousand Bobby Grich's at second base and only ONE Jeff Kent.