HOF BBWAA Ballot (Henderson & Jim Rice)

[TruffleShuffle]

NSBB gets a little shout-out in today's blog entry about the Hall:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1236

 

Enjoy

 

i encourage you to revisit alan trammell's qualifications, bruce.

[Bruce Miles]

I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth.

 

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball.

 

And you might want to take a look at some of the comments on this site about how many journalists still dismiss and even ridicule sabermetrics:

 

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php/topic,65754.0.html

 

You might even come back thinking I'm Voros McCracken by comparison. :D

[SouthSideRyan]

I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth.

 

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball.

 

Just because there are 4 things listed doesn't mean it's a 25% split across the board. Though I don't know what he means by "how a guy helped his team win" and I think "perceived dominance" spills into "what teammates and opponents thought of him"

[Bruce Miles]

NSBB gets a little shout-out in today's blog entry about the Hall:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1236

 

Enjoy

 

i encourage you to revisit alan trammell's qualifications, bruce.

 

Been noted and will do.

[jersey cubs fan]

I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth.

 

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball.

 

And you might want to take a look at some of the comments on this site about how many journalists still dismiss and even ridicule sabermetrics:

 

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php/topic,65754.0.html

 

You might even come back thinking I'm Voros McCracken by comparison. :D

 

Don't take offense if I say I hate you for introducing me to that site.

 

Now, if some of these newer statistics were the rage when Dale Murphy or Jim Rice were playing, fine, use them to judge their Hall of Fame worthiness. But I don't think voters should feel compelled to retroactively apply them.

 

Players should be evaluated by the stats that were en vogue at the time they played. That site would be perfect for an FJM-style assault.

[Tracer Bullet]

I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth.

 

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball.

 

Well, I actually looked at some of the "comparables" to Morris over at baseballreference.com. My first thought, without looking, was Jim Bunning, a Hall of Famer. He was on the list, along with Bob Feller, Bob Gibson and Burleigh Grimes, all Hall of Famers. Then I ran the numbers. Morris' compare pretty well, except for ERA (he played in a DH era, though) and WHIP. Wow, I'm citing stats. No, I do take a balanced approached. Maybe I should have delineated all the stats I consider.

 

And the top 2 on the list were Dennis Martinez and Jamie Moyer. 2 other non-Hall candidates that weren't (aren't) great but pretty good for a long time.

[SouthSideRyan]

I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth.

 

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball.

 

Well, I actually looked at some of the "comparables" to Morris over at baseballreference.com. My first thought, without looking, was Jim Bunning, a Hall of Famer. He was on the list, along with Bob Feller, Bob Gibson and Burleigh Grimes, all Hall of Famers. Then I ran the numbers. Morris' compare pretty well, except for ERA (he played in a DH era, though) and WHIP. Wow, I'm citing stats. No, I do take a balanced approached. Maybe I should have delineated all the stats I consider.

 

But you also have Dennis Martinez, Jamie Moyer, and Chuck Finley on the list who are much closer in era to Morris than the hall of famers you listed. Similarity score are flawed, and when you go across eras they get worse.

[Bruce Miles]

I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth.

 

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball.

 

And you might want to take a look at some of the comments on this site about how many journalists still dismiss and even ridicule sabermetrics:

 

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php/topic,65754.0.html

 

You might even come back thinking I'm Voros McCracken by comparison. :D

 

Don't take offense if I say I hate you for introducing me to that site.

 

Now, if some of these newer statistics were the rage when Dale Murphy or Jim Rice were playing, fine, use them to judge their Hall of Fame worthiness. But I don't think voters should feel compelled to retroactively apply them.

 

Players should be evaluated by the stats that were en vogue at the time they played. That site would be perfect for an FJM-style assault.

 

No offense taken. RIP FJM.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why do people get so worked up over the Hall debate? These guys spend the majority of their lives being worshipped for the ability to play baseball, and then we spend years/decades debating on whether we should worship them some more? I just don't get it.

[Tracer Bullet]

I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth.

 

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball.

 

And you might want to take a look at some of the comments on this site about how many journalists still dismiss and even ridicule sabermetrics:

 

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php/topic,65754.0.html

 

You might even come back thinking I'm Voros McCracken by comparison. :D

 

Don't take offense if I say I hate you for introducing me to that site.

 

Now, if some of these newer statistics were the rage when Dale Murphy or Jim Rice were playing, fine, use them to judge their Hall of Fame worthiness. But I don't think voters should feel compelled to retroactively apply them.

 

Players should be evaluated by the stats that were en vogue at the time they played. That site would be perfect for an FJM-style assault.

 

That might be enough to bring them out of retirement.

 

I like the guy that says Rice was basically punished for being a jerk and several voters may have always intended to eventually vote him in, but may have not voted for him for years just to let him stew. Goodness.

[Bruce Miles]

Why do people get so worked up over the Hall debate? These guys spend the majority of their lives being worshipped for the ability to play baseball, and then we spend years/decades debating on whether we should worship them some more? I just don't get it.

 

Hell of a good question.

[Bruce Miles]

I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth.

 

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball.

 

And you might want to take a look at some of the comments on this site about how many journalists still dismiss and even ridicule sabermetrics:

 

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php/topic,65754.0.html

 

You might even come back thinking I'm Voros McCracken by comparison. :D

 

Don't take offense if I say I hate you for introducing me to that site.

 

Now, if some of these newer statistics were the rage when Dale Murphy or Jim Rice were playing, fine, use them to judge their Hall of Fame worthiness. But I don't think voters should feel compelled to retroactively apply them.

 

Players should be evaluated by the stats that were en vogue at the time they played. That site would be perfect for an FJM-style assault.

 

That might be enough to bring them out of retirement.

 

I like the guy that says Rice was basically punished for being a jerk and several voters may have always intended to eventually vote him in, but may have not voted for him for years just to let him stew. Goodness.

 

If there are voters like that, they are in a vast minority. As I wrote in the blog, most members of the BBWAA take the responsibility very seriously. It's fine to debate the merits of their vote and their methodology, but the writers I know are very responsible. But in any crowd, there always are a few....

[SouthSideRyan]

Why do people get so worked up over the Hall debate? These guys spend the majority of their lives being worshipped for the ability to play baseball, and then we spend years/decades debating on whether we should worship them some more? I just don't get it.

 

Hell of a good question.

 

Cause it's fun.

[imb]

sportsjournalists is the worst when it comes to actually talking about sports. i gave up about a week in. it's just a bunch of old has-beens doing their best angry columnist impersonation all the time.

[rocket]

Why do people get so worked up over the Hall debate? These guys spend the majority of their lives being worshipped for the ability to play baseball, and then we spend years/decades debating on whether we should worship them some more? I just don't get it.

 

Hell of a good question.

 

what else is there to talk about in january?

[jersey cubs fan]

Why do people get so worked up over the Hall debate? These guys spend the majority of their lives being worshipped for the ability to play baseball, and then we spend years/decades debating on whether we should worship them some more? I just don't get it.

 

Hell of a good question.

 

what else is there to talk about in january?

 

if you have to talk baseball, the hot stove, pitchers and catchers, spring training are all far more interesting than HOF talk.

[SouthSideRyan]

What is there to say about spring training right now?

[jersey cubs fan]

What is there to say about spring training right now?

 

The lack of anything to say about spring training is more intriguing than HOF debates.

[Tracer Bullet]

 

That might be enough to bring them out of retirement.

 

I like the guy that says Rice was basically punished for being a jerk and several voters may have always intended to eventually vote him in, but may have not voted for him for years just to let him stew. Goodness.

 

If there are voters like that, they are in a vast minority. As I wrote in the blog, most members of the BBWAA take the responsibility very seriously. It's fine to debate the merits of their vote and their methodology, but the writers I know are very responsible. But in any crowd, there always are a few....

 

Oh, I don't think they aren't taking it seriously. I think that guy probably looks at the character component, says "Rice was a jerk" and thought he deserved some sort of punishment. That's not a question of taking it seriously, imo. I just don't think many of them are qualified to determine who the best baseball players are or were.

[Tracer Bullet]

What is there to say about spring training right now?

 

The lack of anything to say about spring training is more intriguing than HOF debates.

 

You're posting a lot in a thread about the HOF for a guy who doesn't care about the HOF debate.

[TruffleShuffle]

if you're wondering why a guy like blyleven isn't getting in, i'm watching PTI and mike wilbon is saying "how can you let blyleven in if jack morris isn't in? it's a ridiculous oversight that jack morris isn't in the hall of fame." then tony kornheiser goes on to say that he's not appreciably better than morris, kaat or tommy john. he also mentioned something about winning percentage.

 

these types of arguments are what keeps blyleven out.

[SouthSideRyan]

I can't figure out the disconnect between Jack Morris getting support and Joe Carter getting next to none. Morris is more qualified, but if so much of Morris's case is from his postseason peformance, where was this for Joe Carter??

[jersey cubs fan]

What is there to say about spring training right now?

 

The lack of anything to say about spring training is more intriguing than HOF debates.

 

You're posting a lot in a thread about the HOF for a guy who doesn't care about the HOF debate.

 

A lot? If you think that's me posting a lot in a thread, well, you'd be wrong. I really haven't posted anything about whether or not a guy belongs in the hall, I've commented on the way people frame the debates.

[jersey cubs fan]

I can't figure out the disconnect between Jack Morris getting support and Joe Carter getting next to none. Morris is more qualified, but if so much of Morris's case is from his postseason peformance, where was this for Joe Carter??

 

It seems like you've accurately described the disconnect. If a very good but not amazing pitcher had some fantastic postseason appearances, it's enough to sway fence sitters to vote for him, while an inconsistent decent hitter's postseason success isn't enough to sway people who probably weren't even on the fence.

 

I think voters are probably not very sympathetic to hitters with inconsistent performances like Carter and probably aren't as impressed with a couple homeruns as they are with a great game pitched by a starter. Also, pitcher's win totals are always more interesting to people than their w/l record, so a guy who wins 20 is going to be respected, regardless if he lost 13, likewise, a 17-game winner is going to be called a 17-game winner even if he went 17-16.

 

And Carter may also be subconsciously hurt by the HR backlash of the post-steroid era.

[jersey cubs fan]

Steve Phillips says Tim Raines doesn't pass his gut check.