2012 Baseball HOF ballot

Sounds like he saw the error of his ways.

 

But like Murphy, he was basically washed up at 32.

 

Jones was done at 30. He hasn't had more than 331 plate appearances or hit better than .247 since. The only thing he's got left is power.

 

But he started at 20.

 

Pedro Martinez, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling and John Smoltz should all be in. Martinez should be in on the first ballot without a doubt. (I say this to to mean that there's a difference, but that those who think there's a difference should be voting for Martinez on the first ballot because he's that kind of Hall of Famer.)

 

I would have had Pedro in first ballot, but I think the writers will give him the "Alomar treatment" for his brawl with Don Zimmer and force him to wait until his second year. Personally, I think Schilling is Hall-worthy, but I don't think he's generally portrayed by the media as a legitimate contender for the Hall, which will influence the writers. He'll probably eventually be elected before his time runs out, but like Blyleven he may have to wait a while.

I was iffy on Smith, predicting he might be elected by a slim margin in his last year of eligibility ("Jim Rice style"), though I do not support him for the Hall. 2017 looks to be the next off-year for newcomers after this year, so if Smith is going to make it at all, his best chance is then. He could just as easily fall short of 75% as cross above it.

 

A few numbers that, in my estimation, point to Schilling's worthiness:

4.38 strikeouts per walk, the best mark since 1900 and second-best mark ever
Four-time National League leader in complete games
69.7 pitching wins above replacement; everyone eligible with more is in the Hall of Fame
3,116 strikeouts, 15th most in baseball history; again, everyone eligible with more is in the Hall of Fame

Schilling grades out above the average Hall of Famer on three of baseball-reference's predictive stats. And he was a key role player on three World Series-winning teams and one pennant-winning team.

Schilling has a better Hall of Fame case than Smoltz or Mussina, and I think both of those two should be in, as well.

 

Predictive stats? His career is over.

 

I would vote for him, because I'm a fan of memorable peaks. When he was at the top of his game, there was no way to pitch to him, and .300/.400/.500 lifetime reflects that. 147 career OPS+, and 11 full seasons with an OPS+ of 130 or higher.

But there's a case against him for a career voter -- for a guy who could only be judged by his hitting, he should've come closer to some milestones.

That said, I would love to see who wouldn't vote for a DH, but has no problems voting for a closer. At least the former is a recognized position.

 

He means this:

Black Ink Pitching - 42 (35), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 205 (36), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 171 (34), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 46 (48), Average HOFer ≈ 50

 

A lot of people have been saying things like writers will "penalize" steroid users and presumptive steroid users by not voting them in on the first ballot.

Is it fair to think that maybe some writers would prefer to wait 10 or 12 years on some of these guys to allow them to get a better perspective on the steroids era and thus evaluate guys more accurately?

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this. They give these guys 15 years of eligibility (after the five-year waiting period) for a reason. What's the harm in waiting a while for context or further explanations or science to catch up or "confessions" or whatever? The downside of that compared to the downside of rushing someone in and then having them write a tell-all about their druggist makes it easy to wait and see.

If a few extra years of waiting is the price that guys from the Steroids Era have to pay, it seems small overall. The "first ballot" thing is totally bogus, and there's even an upside to having your Hall worthiness bandied about for a few years. Guys like Blyleven would have been warehoused in Cooperstown and not received nearly the attention if he had gone in after 2-3 years.

The above is why I waited on Bagwell. He's got another dozen years or so and probably will make it, barring bad disclosures or something.

Haven't heard what Cooperstown would do if someone already in the Hall was found to have done something that might merit his removal. Don't think there's even a mechanism for that.