Mlb hof tracker

[chaddurbin]

raines, mussina, bonds, clemens, pudge r locks for me. schilling, bagwell, martinez, manny, and vlad would round out my ballot (vlad is borderline but i love the dude so he's in for me). if you don't want to vote manny in because he failed 2 official drug tests i'm not gonna argue...but imo in 5 years bonds and clemens will be locks anyway and that'd clear up a path for other ped guys like manny and arod.

these voters who write in 1-2 guys should have their voting privileges taken away with their action today could affect the potential future gridlock.

[dgo71]

How can WAR be considered an accurate stat when it's not even calculated the same way by those who provide it? I like WAR as a quick, at a glance look at a player's worth but if that was the only stat I could muster to argue for enshrinement I don't think it's a compelling enough arguement. My biggest problem is that because it's a cumulative statistic, it gives longevity the appearance of dominance, like the Rick Reuschel for the Hall statement a few posts back. Reuschel was never what I'd consider the dominant pitcher in baseball, or even his league, or heck even his own team in many instances. But he was good over a very long time so his WAR ranks very high.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by dgo71

How can WAR be considered an accurate stat when it's not even calculated the same way by those who provide it? I like WAR as a quick, at a glance look at a player's worth but if that was the only stat I could muster to argue for enshrinement I don't think it's a compelling enough arguement. My biggest problem is that because it's a cumulative statistic, it gives longevity the appearance of dominance, like the Rick Reuschel for the Hall statement a few posts back. Reuschel was never what I'd consider the dominant pitcher in baseball, or even his league, or heck even his own team in many instances. But he was good over a very long time so his WAR ranks very high.

every different variation of WAR does exactly what the creators of them desired. Fangraphs chooses to use FIP and UZR/DRS in their WAR, baseball reference choose era+ and DRS ...etc as long as you know what the underlying stats are used you can choose which one you want to use and why. (tho i think most people should pick one and stick with it so as not to get caught up trying to cherry pick)

is WAR perfect? no, not at all, (mostly because of defense being so hard to determine accurately) but it's pretty good. If you take cumulative fWAR for at team and compare it to their true record and pythagorean record it tends to match up fairly well. But, it really IS the best stat for comparing players across positions. It's a thumbnail, but a good thumbnail.


as far as the HOF and WAR goes, well of course you need to dig deeper than just their WAR number. But if a guy has a career WAR north of 60 generally they are going to be ,at worst, on the cusp. Once you cross over the 80 threshold you are talking guys that should be shoe ins. Even if it was over 20 years, a player who built up 80 WAR over 20 years was so good for so long as to be enshrined i think. If Koufax can be in for a few hyper-dominant years, other players should be in for a long body of consistently great work. Even if they were never a dominant player.

[hysell]

Ok,here is the thing that pisses me off about the HOF voting,if a player, lets say Ron Santo,{ME} ,no problem with him!Is not a HOFer in all the past votes, than, at the end is?why now ?{AND} what's that say about {YOU} ase a HOF voter! THINGS need to change! At the time he retired I thought Vada Pinson should have gotten in,but not even close! I think it"s time to put 25% of the votes to the fans,25% of the vote to the players, who player against them,25% of the vote to the coach"s & managers who saw them play & only 25% of the vote to the HOF voters!That is 100% of a vote combined with 75% of the combine vote to get in !This would seem much better way to handle it & there should {NEVER} be a year of no players getting in!Also,please,some one tell me ,how Ossie Smith is a 1st round HOF, but Barry Larkin & Ryne Sandberg were not?Also if Ossie is a HOF, than Omar Vizquel sure is, just ase good if not better hitter & I see nothing worst in the fielding part & better arm!THanks,ROBERT.Tinkers to Evans to Chance,please! Maybe if you put all of there careers all in to one,no way!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by hysell

Ok,here is the thing that pisses me off about the HOF voting,if a player, lets say Ron Santo,{ME} ,no problem with him!Is not a HOFer in all the past votes, than, at the end is?why now ?{AND} what's that say about {YOU} ase a HOF voter! THINGS need to change! At the time he retired I thought Vada Pinson should have gotten in,but not even close! I think it"s time to put 25% of the votes to the fans,25% of the vote to the players, who player against them,25% of the vote to the coach"s & managers who saw them play & only 25% of the vote to the HOF voters!That is 100% of a vote combined with 75% of the combine vote to get in !This would seem much better way to handle it & there should {NEVER} be a year of no players getting in!Also,please,some one tell me ,how Ossie Smith is a 1st round HOF, but Barry Larkin & Ryne Sandberg were not?Also if Ossie is a HOF, than Omar Vizquel sure is, just ase good if not better hitter & I see nothing worst in the fielding part & better arm!THanks,ROBERT.Tinkers to Evans to Chance,please! Maybe if you put all of there careers all in to one,no way!

I have a related issue. Intentionally leaving off a no-doubt HOF'er so they don't get elected unanimously.

I have a solution for that,as well as for the PED situation.

Let every voter score his candidates from 0 - 10. You need 75% of the available points for enshrinement so it still has a similar feel. I think you could easily make the case for almost any player "only" scoring a "9", certainly a better argument than you can make for leaving a Ryan, Griffey, Seaver, Aaron etc off your ballot completely. Therefore you don't have to worry about the unanimous problem.

As for PED's if you have a player like Bonds you can decide how much you want to penalize his obviously HOF career while still not denying him entry. Do you want to give him 8 points, or 7 or 0? Even if you give him a "0" it only takes 3 voters giving him a "10" or 5 voters giving him a "9" or 10 "8's" to counteract your "0" so its not as devastating as being left off a ballot in the current system. not to mention I think very few writers would score him a "0" so any points he accrues from the disapproving writers would help him reach the necessary total and be more easily counteracted by those who give him a high score.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by hysell

Ok,here is the thing that pisses me off about the HOF voting,if a player, lets say Ron Santo,{ME} ,no problem with him!Is not a HOFer in all the past votes, than, at the end is?why now ?{AND} what's that say about {YOU} ase a HOF voter! THINGS need to change! At the time he retired I thought Vada Pinson should have gotten in,but not even close! I think it"s time to put 25% of the votes to the fans,25% of the vote to the players, who player against them,25% of the vote to the coach"s & managers who saw them play & only 25% of the vote to the HOF voters!That is 100% of a vote combined with 75% of the combine vote to get in !This would seem much better way to handle it & there should {NEVER} be a year of no players getting in!Also,please,some one tell me ,how Ossie Smith is a 1st round HOF, but Barry Larkin & Ryne Sandberg were not?Also if Ossie is a HOF, than Omar Vizquel sure is, just ase good if not better hitter & I see nothing worst in the fielding part & better arm!THanks,ROBERT.Tinkers to Evans to Chance,please! Maybe if you put all of there careers all in to one,no way!

A- the HOF is a private entity not affiliated with MLB and thus they can do their voting any way they see fit (and fans are generally idiots so no they shouldn't have a vote)

B- why are player's somehow magically capable of judging past player's ability? just because someone is good at something doesn't make them a good judge of it. Quentin Tarantino is a great director, but his list of the greatest movie of all time is pretty lackluster

C- the problem of when guys get in is pretty lame (some voters refuse to vote for a guy on the first ballot unless they think he deserves "first ballot" recognition) but, the solution is to give voters a "yes/no" ballot rather than a "vote for up to 10" ballot. If they had to give a yes or no to every player I think you'd see a lot better result.

D- they did get rid of a lot of older voters who no longer covered baseball recently so hopefully the voting will improve, but remember, the HOF was created by a hotel magnate in Cooperstown to generate tourism for his hotels not by MLB to celebrate the game. so take it all with a grain of salt.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

A- the HOF is a private entity not affiliated with MLB and thus they can do their voting any way they see fit (and fans are generally idiots so no they shouldn't have a vote)

B- why are player's somehow magically capable of judging past player's ability? just because someone is good at something doesn't make them a good judge of it. Quentin Tarantino is a great director, but his list of the greatest movie of all time is pretty lackluster

C- the problem of when guys get in is pretty lame (some voters refuse to vote for a guy on the first ballot unless they think he deserves "first ballot" recognition) but, the solution is to give voters a "yes/no" ballot rather than a "vote for up to 10" ballot. If they had to give a yes or no to every player I think you'd see a lot better result.

D- they did get rid of a lot of older voters who no longer covered baseball recently so hopefully the voting will improve, but remember, the HOF was created by a hotel magnate in Cooperstown to generate tourism for his hotels not by MLB to celebrate the game. so take it all with a grain of salt.

As to (B) Just because someone plays a sport does not mean they follow it. I boxed amateur for 4 years and won 3 state titles. Besides Ali I couldn't name more than a couple champions from any era.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bnorth

As to (B) Just because someone plays a sport does not mean they follow it. I boxed amateur for 4 years and won 3 state titles. Besides Ali I couldn't name more than a couple champions from any era.

Ben- I have to disagree with that statement.

Baseball players definitely are more in touch with the past players because they are constantly being compared to them and/or they are always approaching various statistical levels which are used, either justifiably or not, to gauge their standings in comparison to those same past players.

More is written and discussed about Baseball's past than any other sport...and it's not even close. There is no net54boxing or net54golfing, etc.

Players, especially great ones, are keenly aware of their place in the Game's history and who is there with them.
.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by dgo71

How can WAR be considered an accurate stat when it's not even calculated the same way by those who provide it? I like WAR as a quick, at a glance look at a player's worth but if that was the only stat I could muster to argue for enshrinement I don't think it's a compelling enough arguement. My biggest problem is that because it's a cumulative statistic, it gives longevity the appearance of dominance, like the Rick Reuschel for the Hall statement a few posts back. Reuschel was never what I'd consider the dominant pitcher in baseball, or even his league, or heck even his own team in many instances. But he was good over a very long time so his WAR ranks very high.

While I understand viewing it as a cumulative stat, it can be negative, so it's not like hits or k's or something of that nature.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

these voters who write in 1-2 guys should have their voting privileges taken away with their action today could affect the potential future gridlock.

This is ridiculous. Maybe they don't want to vote for undeserving players. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of above average or Hall of cheaters. I think it is dumb to vote for 10 just because you can. The HOF should be for the best of the best. It is already too watered down.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is ridiculous. Maybe they don't want to vote for undeserving players. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of above average or Hall of cheaters. I think it is dumb to vote for 10 just because you can. The HOF should be for the best of the best. It is already too watered down.

Agree. Should be you can vote for up to 10. When I see who the 9th and 10th voters are for some of these guys is absurd.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Agree. Should be you can vote for up to 10. When I see who the 9th and 10th voters are for some of these guys is absurd.

I also agree.


Andy, thanks for sharing - keeping track as the votes become known is fun...


although, the old traditional announcements frequently occurred on my birthday - and I will miss that.


.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is ridiculous. Maybe they don't want to vote for undeserving players. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of above average or Hall of cheaters. I think it is dumb to vote for 10 just because you can. The HOF should be for the best of the best. It is already too watered down.

well the problem is that by limiting it to ten you can end up where we are now, logjammed. If they gave them a simple "yes/no" ballot and took guys off after 5 years then we could clear the jams and probably have simple 1-2 guys getting in each year .