2014 hall of fame

[HalfSmokes]

Well, I guess by that measure Jose Canseco should get a medal and perhaps a holiday named after him even if his actual on-field performance isn't worthy of the HOF

I would think that play would be a prerequisite

[nobleisthyname]

Hopefully there will be some reform for next year even if it's as simple as removing the 10 player maximum ballot restriction.

[comish4lif]

Let's not say that "technology" isn't going to effect how well ballplayers perform in the future.  What if a manufacturer of sporting equipment such as Spalding or Rawlings came up with a new material that made ballplayers hit more HRs ?  Would we ban players using an improved bat from the HOF ?  Steriods can be viewed as a medical improvement, for steroids are used to help people overcome a medical problem.

However, I like the way the sports writers are approaching this issue.  The ballplayers who juiced can always get reconsideration on the oldtimers ballot.

The Rule book states that the bat must be made from a single piece of wood:

1.10
(a) The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 23/4 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.
NOTE: No laminated or experimental bats shall be used in a professional game (either championship season or exhibition games) until the manufacturer has secured approval from the Rules Committee of his design and methods of manufacture.

[imref]

Hopefully there will be some reform for next year even if it's as simple as removing the 10 player maximum ballot restriction.

the conventional wisdom seems to be that the rule of 10 is gone after this year.

[HalfSmokes]

I like the 10 rule- there should never be more than 10 qualified players on a ballot, the only reason there is now is because the writers are hopelessly deadlocked on the steroid users- removing the cap just gives everyone an easy out rather than making the writers fight it out (aren't arguments key to why HOF voting is interesting?)

[comish4lif]

I like the 10 rule- there should never be more than 10 qualified players on a ballot, the only reason there is now is because the writers are hopelessly deadlocked on the steroid users- removing the cap just gives everyone an easy out rather than making the writers fight it out (aren't arguments key to why HOF voting is interesting?)

The 10 was never a problem up until the past few rounds of voting.

The writers needs to figure out a way to reach consensus on the PED era. It would be fine to make it policy that eligible steroid users should receive votes. Fine. But I would suspect that many of the writers now that don't vote for those players, still won't vote for those players. So, I don't have a working solution.

Temporarily, I could support raising the 10 player limit. But that probably just kicks the can down the road and the ballot would continue to grow.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

It was kind of amazing to me that, until Maddux and Glavine,  no starting pitcher who began his career after about 1970 had been elected to the HOF, and only one in the last 14 years.  The writers had not adjusted their counting stat  (wins and Ks) expectations for the 5 man rotation.  Is 300 wins in a 4 man rotation the equivalent of 225 in a 5 man rotation?  May very well be, but the folks who think non-traditionally tend to view wins as a team stat so discount it in voting.  Reliever usage probably also cuts down on Ks and wins.

After Maddux and Glavine, you'd think Pedro, Johnson and Smoltz are likely quick to be elected, and then you have the Mussina / Schilling debate.  Add in Kevin Brown, who is already off the ballot, and it turns out the 90s and the early 00s had some extraordinary pitchers despite the general offensive outburst.  Maybe it is easier to shine when most of the rest of the pitchers are shinola.

[blue911]

Yesterday on the MLB Network, Jon Heyman said that Jack Morris didn't get in because of people on the internet were against him. May be the single dumbest thing said this year.

[imref]

I don't know why schilling isn't getting more consideration.

[HalfSmokes]

I don't know why schilling isn't getting more consideration.

because people view him as a buffoon now? I really think perception matters to  a lot of the voters more than anything else. BR has him as a shoe in by almost all of their hall metrics, throw in the bloody sock (plus the rest of his post season success), and he should be first ballot

[imref]

because people view him as a buffoon now? I really think perception matters to  a lot of the voters more than anything else. BR has him as a shoe in by almost all of their hall metrics, throw in the bloody sock (plus the rest of his post season success), and he should be first ballot

Statistically he's an easy hof'r, especially when you look at his post season numbers. He's probably a victim of timing given the other pitchers on the ballot. Should be a lock for 2016 though.

[HalfSmokes]

Statistically he's an easy hof'r, especially when you look at his post season numbers. He's probably a victim of timing given the other pitchers on the ballot. Should be a lock for 2016 though.

I'd put him in above glavine. They are close, but I think Shilling was more dominant at his best and had better post season success

[blue911]

I don't know why schilling isn't getting more consideration.

I think JCA's post is probably the reason.

[Terpfan76]

I'd put him in above glavine. They are close, but I think Shilling was more dominant at his best and had better post season success

Two Cy Youngs and 5 20 win seasons and 300 career wins puts Glavine in over Schilling. I definitely think Schilling will end up in the Hall. I was wondering at first if he could end up with the Jack Morris treatment, but honestly, Schilling is a much easier player to vote in to me than Morris. I honestly don't even think it's close.

[mitlen]

I think JCA's post is probably the reason.

Are we looking at a coming surge in pitching entrants to the Hall of Fame?

[blue911]

Are we looking at a coming surge in pitching entrants to the Hall of Fame?

I think Kaat and Tommy John go in via the old timers route. Maybe Morris on his mustache alone. After this bottleneck gets cleared out more starters will get in due to some the old bastards dying.

[HalfSmokes]

Two Cy Youngs and 5 20 win seasons and 300 career wins puts Glavine in over Schilling. I definitely think Schilling will end up in the Hall. I was wondering at first if he could end up with the Jack Morris treatment, but honestly, Schilling is a much easier player to vote in to me than Morris. I honestly don't even think it's close.

glavine's best season was 5.1 war (the only year he broke 5), shilling has seasons of 9.3, 8.4, 8.3, 7.4, 5.7 and 5.4. Shilling was a more dominant pitcher, glavine racked up wins (a stat most people discount)

[nobleisthyname]

Glavine vs. Schilling is a good example of longevity vs peak.

Glavine was never dominant but he got the job done and was pretty good for over 4400 innings. Schilling was by far the more dominant pitcher by just about any metric you can look at but only did it for 3200 innings.

Personally I tend to prefer peak over longevity (which is why I'm also not as high on Biggio) so I would have voted in Schilling before Glavine but I'm also a big hall kind of guy so I think they all belong(Biggio too). I wouldn't vote for Morris though. Maybe I would if I had actually seen him pitch.

[HalfSmokes]

Even with those extra 1200 innings Galvin managed to put up almost 20 fewer War than schilling.  I get peak vs longevity if the longevity tallies up more value than the peak,  but that's just not the case here

[nobleisthyname]

I don't know if WAR grades Glavine fairly. He made a career out of beating his peripherals. His RA9-WAR, which is based on runs allowed per nine innings, is 88. Obviously it's still not a perfect way of measuring his contributions but I think it may be more accurate than FIP based WAR.

[blue911]

I don't know if WAR grades Glavine fairly. He made a career out of beating his peripherals. His RA9-WAR, which is based on runs allowed per nine innings, is 88. Obviously it's still not a perfect way of measuring his contributions but I think it may be more accurate than FIP based WAR.

Both rWAR and WARP have them just about equal. Eye test says Schilling was better but he's an jerk and a Phillie even if that's redundant. So screw'em

[Lintyfresh85]

I think the 300 wins is what made the voters go Glavine.

[Terpfan76]

I think the 300 wins is what made the voters go Glavine.

As it should be. 300 Wins and 3,000 hits should be automatic first ballot selections. Of course 500hr guys have a lot of question marks over them. Biggio should be in.

[nobleisthyname]

As it should be. 300 Wins and 3,000 hits should be automatic first ballot selections. Of course 500hr guys have a lot of question marks over them. Biggio should be in.

Why is it as it should be? The only reason Biggio got to 3000 was because he stuck around for one more season where he was absolutely terrible and a detriment to his team (-1 WAR). Why should he be rewarded for that? I believe he's a HOFer but not because of his hit count. Wins are even shakier as they are a team stat first and foremost and not an accurate judge of pitching talent.

[imref]

Even with those extra 1200 innings Galvin managed to put up almost 20 fewer War than schilling.  I get peak vs longevity if the longevity tallies up more value than the peak,  but that's just not the case here

Schilling was a victim of bad relief, he had something like 40 games where he left with leads that got blown.  Every pitcher with similar stats regular is in the HoF already.  On top of that add what might be the best playoff numbers ever.   He should be in already but actually lost votes this year.

I watched the guy who run Sabr on the MLB Network tonight, he said that what he thinks happened is that voters went for the locks (Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas), and the guys who needed votes to stay on the ballot, and thus drained votes away from the guys in the middle.