2013 BJOL HOF Results

December 29, 2012
 
Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens have been elected by BJOL readers as our representatives for 2012 class:
 
NAME
Votes
2013
Craig Biggio
100
97.1%
Mike Piazza
90
87.4%
Barry Bonds
85
82.5%
Roger Clemens
84
81.6%
 
They join our nine previous entrants:
 
2009 - Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Bert Blyleven, and Alan Trammell
2010 - Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, and Mark McGwire
2011 - Jeff Bagwell
2012- Edgar Martinez
 
For this accomplishment, the players will receive a gift basket containing a bottle of Pert Plus, the barrel-half of a splintered baseball bat, a plastic arm guard, a ‘Zest’ towel, a vinyl copy of Belle and Sebastian’s Dear Catastrophe Waitress, an asterisk, a #-symbol, an exclamation point, and the letter ‘F’.
 
This was a record turnout for the BJOL: we had a total of 103 votes cast. Craig Biggio and Mike Piazza finished ahead of Bonds and Clemens in the voting, which seems appropriate. A few voters mentioned that they were passing on Bonds and Clemens for this first ballot, presumably a punishment for steroid use.
 
But…I’m glad we’re not going to have to debate their candidacy anymore. Clemens and Bonds will eventually make the Hall of Fame – they’re too good not to be in – and the writers will get around to discussing the more interesting cases. I’m ready to move on.
 
Mike Piazza was selected in the 62nd round of the 1988 draft, as the 1390th player selected. With a nod to Josh Gibson and Johnny Bench, it is likely that Piazza is the best hitting catcher of all-time. I’m still not sure about that 1997 MVP vote….
 
Craig Biggio built his Hall-of-Fame career slowly: at thirty, his most comparable players included Barry Larkin and nine players unlikely the make the Hall (Jay Bell, Tony Fernandez, Julio Franco, and Orlando Cabrera). At thirty-five, his comparables included Joe Morgan, Ryne Sandberg, Barry Larkin, Paul Molitor, Alan Trammell, and Lou Whitaker. He holds the (modern) record for being hit by a pitch, and has the NL record for leadoff homers.
 
 
The 50%-ers
 
NAME
Votes
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
Curt Schilling
56
54.4%
x
x
x
x
Larry Walker
51
49.5%
50%
23%
x
x
Rafael Palmeiro
50
48.5%
48%
33%
x
x
 
 
Three players tallied about 50% of the vote this year, which suggests a solid base of support. This was Curt Schilling’s first year on the ballot, and while he might get buried by the arrival of Maddux, Glavine, and Mussina in 2014, and Pedro and Smoltz in 2015, getting across 50% gives me some confidence that he’ll be elected. I have an article about Schilling that I need to get to.
 
Larry Walker posted a second vote hovering around the 50% mark, after starting at 23% during his first year. I was surprised by this….I figured that Walker’s jump last year was a result of a weak class, and this year’s strong class would knock him back a bit. That he stayed around 50% suggests that people are coming around on him.
 
Rafael Palmeiro, too, maintained the ground he gained last year. Again, I was surprised by this…I assumed that Raffy would lose some votes to some of the arrivals in 2013, but he did not.
-
 
Respectable Showing
 
NAME
Votes
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
Andre Dawson
40
38.8%
52%
18%
25%
21%
Sammy Sosa
34
33.0%
x
x
x
x
Fred McGriff
29
28.2%
36%
25%
18%
x
Kenny Lofton
26
25.2%
x
x
x
x
Kevin Brown
19
18.4%
24%
22%
x
x
 
 
The player who lost ground was Andre Dawson. Dawson is one of the players that the BBWAA have elected, who we haven’t elected. The other one is Jim Rice. I think that we’re right about Rice, but I hope we elect Dawson. I suspect that the dominant image that most people have of Dawson is the 1987 version: the sluggardly slugger who didn’t do a whole lot less except him homeruns. I wish that the earlier version of Dawson was remembered: the gifted played of 1980-1983, who won four Gold Gloves and averaged 28 HR and 31 steals per 162 games.
 
Fred McGriff decreased, while Sammy Sosa made a strong initial showing on the ballot. I wonder if these players are as drastically far apart as they appear: both players had two HR titles, both were mostly sluggers, and neither was really considered the very best power-hitter of their generation. Sosa’s years look significantly more dramatic, but they’re not too far off. I’d probably vote for Sosa ahead of McGriff, but it’s close.
 
Kenny Lofton made a strong first appearance on the ballot, netting a quarter of votes. When the ballot thins out, he could jump up. He’s an interesting case, one which relies significantly on advanced defensive metrics.
 
Kevin Brown declined a bit, and it’s possible that he’ll decline further when the crest of pitchers comes in 2014-15. But he has a solid base of support.
 
 
Hanging on the Ballot
 
NAME
Votes
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
Dale Murphy
11
10.7%
15%
15%
27%
17%
Bernie Williams
10
9.7%
18%
x
x
x
Jack Morris
9
8.7%
13%
22%
10%
10%
Lee Smith
8
7.8%
15%
40%
35%
14%
John Olerud
6
5.8%
18%
5%
x
x
 
 
Dale Murphy has lost ground, and is now hanging around 10%. He shares with Dawson a clear peak value, but his decline was fast. I started caring about baseball in the 1980’s, so I’m always pulling for the likes of Dawson, Murphy, Mattingly, and Gooden. My next write-in vote will be for Eric Davis.
 
Bernie Williams went from 18% to 10%....it’d be interesting to contrast him with Lofton. Lofton seems the kind of player sabermetric types are going to rally around, but I don’t know that he’s significantly better than Bernie. They seem an interesting pair to contrast….
 
Jack Morris is hanging on. He will struggle to survive the crush of pitchers.
 
Lee Smith remains the most interesting player, in terms of voting results. He had two good years on the ballot, netting 35 and 40% of the vote, but he’s lost ground precipitously since then. I voted for Smith once or twice, but on a crowded ballot, it is difficult to find a place for him. In a way, his case is the Jack Morris case: he might’ve been the best closer for a decade, but it was a) a thin crop of closers, and b) not really clear that he was exceptionally talented.
 
Finally…John Olerud. Reader ‘chuck’ cast the last ballot we counted. Chuck’s vote for Olerud pushed him over 5% (to 5.7%), which keeps Olerud on the ballot. Every vote counts.
 
 
Dropping from the Ballot
 
NAME
Votes
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
Jim Rice
4
3.9%
7%
10%
x
6%
Dave Parker
4
3.9%
11%
7%
15%
5%
David Wells
3
2.9%
x
x
x
x
Steve Finley
1
1.0%
x
x
x
x
Julio Franco
1
1.0%
x
x
x
x
Ryan Klesko
1
1.0%
x
x
x
x
 
We’re losing the 1978 MVP’s….Jim Rice and Dave Parker have slipped below 5%. Parker had some traction with BJOL voters….he’s similar to Larry Walker, I suppose: a right fielder who could throw and run a bit. Parker’s mid-career decline probably kept him out of the Hall-of-Fame.
 
David Wells got three votes: I don’t see Wells as a drastically different pitcher than Jack Morris, in terms of career or peak value. His career WAR ranks ahead of a few Hall-of-Fame pitchers, including Waite Hoyt, Red Ruffing, and Early Wynn.
 
Steve Finley, Julio Franco, and Ryan Klesko each received one vote. Sentimental fools.
 
Reggie Sanders, Shawn Green, Jeff Cirillo, Woody Williams, Rondell White, Aaron Sele, Roberto Hernandez, Jeff Conine, Royce Clayton, Mike Stanton, Sandy Alomar, Jr., Jose Mesa, and Todd Walker received no votes.
 
Write-In Candidates
 
This was the inaugural year of the write-in vote: any player not in the current Hall-of-Fame is eligible for a write-in vote. The player who gets the most votes will appear on next year’s ballot. Here are the results:
 
Name
Write-In Votes
%
Lou Whitaker
16
45.7%
Pete Rose
5
14.3%
Keith Hernandez
4
11.4%
Bobby Grich
2
5.7%
Dwight Evans
2
5.7%
Minnie Minosa
2
5.7%
Ross Barnes
1
2.9%
Will Clark
1
2.9%
Don Mattingly
1
2.9%
Harry Stovey
1
2.9%
 
Lou Whitaker blew away the competition, netting 46% of the write-in vote. Pete Rose and Keith Hernandez made a charge for second place, but it was Sweet Lou’s moment. Next year, he’ll have the chance to join double-play partner Alan Trammell in our faux-Hall.
 
See you in 2014. Thanks for voting, everyone.  
 
Dave Fleming is a writer living in Wellington, New Zealand. He welcomes comments, questions, and suggestions here and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com.
 
 

COMMENTS (22 Comments, most recent shown first)

KaiserD2
Sorry, I only just got around to reading these comments.

RGregory, if Bill has fixed that anomaly I an only applaud. Of course I don't know what version of winshares seamheads is using and that seems to be the easiest place to find data for anyone. But I've never been particularly interested in win shares as measurements of career value, I've focused on them as evidence of peak value, and my rough definition of a Hall of Famer is some one with more than 30 of them in several seasons. (Very rough, obviously.)

Win Shares and WAR do measure different things, that I can see. Win Shares tell you how many of his team's wins a particular player was responsible for--but unless I am very much mistaken, the same individual stats will work out to the same number of win shares, whether the team won 65 games or 105 games. So it's a measure of the player's total value that year. WAR is evidently how many games the team won because they had player X instead of a replacement-level player, which is another way of stating his value to the team. What that means to me is that if you graphed any player's WS and WAR on the same axis, year to year, the lines should be roughly parallel. But it's obvious that they would not be at all, hence my argument with Mr. Fleming about Dawson and others.

Again, I'm sorry to have taken so long with this and I hope we can continue it--you can reach me at KaiserD2@gmail.com.

DK
9:04 AM Jan 24th
 
rgregory1956
Brian, the simple answer is "no", 45 WAR does not mean that the team actually won 90 games. It's more along the lines of what a team should/would theoretically win given the players' stats. Every season some team will have more WAR than another team, but have fewer actual wins. Teams that win substantially more than their Pythagorean Estimate, like this year's Orioles, often have fewer WAR than a team that matches its Estimate, like the Tigers. The Orioles had 33.1 WAR to the Tigers 36.9, but won 5 more games. This is NOT an uncommon occurrence with WAR. Happens every season.

I am not positive, but I don't believe that Bill's new Win Shares methodology equals three times wins anymore.
10:03 PM Jan 16th
 
Brian
One advantage of win shares - if we use WAR we run the risk of a long discussion of why it is WAR (singular) but RBIs (plural)

I apologogize if I have just touched off this discussion....​
9:44 PM Jan 16th
 
Brian
Question-Do the individual WAR totals for all the players on a team have to add up to the actual team number? For instance, if the replacement level is 45 wins(.278 W-L pct), and the team wins 90 games, does the WAR for all the team's players have to add up to 45?
9:37 PM Jan 16th
 
rgregory1956
DK, I'll take a stab at trying to explain the difference between WAR and Win Shares, not that anyone will agree with my assessment. I basically see Win Shares as a "quantity" measurement of a player's ability to help his team gather wins. I basically see WAR as a "quality" measurement of a player's ability to help his team gather wins. They aren't really trying to measure the same thing in my view.

Which is the "better" stat? I have no idea. If one prefers "peak", one tends to like WAR more. If one prefers "career", one tends to like Win Shares more. (Personally, I prefer career over peak, so I like Win Shares more. There are also components in WAR's basically formula that I don't agree with mathematically. But that's another topic....)
1:44 PM Jan 16th
 
KaiserD2
Well, Fleming, you raise an interesting point, because I have to admit that I had no idea that win shares and wins above replacement could be so uncorrelated, not only from player to player, but from year to year for the same player. Thus, according to seamheads, Murphy had 31.9 WS and 6.9 WAR one one year, and 31.0 WS and 4.7 WAR in another. I thought these were both measurements of overall player value, and thus, unless I'm mistaken, something has to be pretty wrong with one of them. Any information from you or anyone else on how these discrepancies arise will be much appreciated.

DK
8:54 AM Jan 14th
 
DaveFleming
Well...you're using a pretty narrow lens, aren't you, Kaiser? I don't know that topping 30 Win Shares in a season is proof of a player's greatness.

We could just as easily substitute rWAR for Win Shares....

Four-Year Peak:
Murphy (1982-1986) - 22.6
Dawson (1980-1983) - 28.2

Six-Year Peak:
Murphy: (1982-1987) - 32.3
Dawson: (1978-1983) - 36.1

Stats like Win Shares and WAR are extremely useful, but I don't buy that Murphy's ability to exceed an arbitrary number of Win Shares (30) for an arbitrary number of years (4) is definitive proof that his peak was better than the peaks of Dawson or Mattingly.

Also: Murphy has a very good chance to make the Hall. He has no chance to make it via the BBWAA vote, but the vets will almost certainly get him in.
3:47 PM Jan 13th
 
KaiserD2
Dave Fleming wrote:

"Dale Murphy has lost ground, and is now hanging around 10%. He shares with Dawson a clear peak value, but his decline was fast. I started caring about baseball in the 1980’s, so I’m always pulling for the likes of Dawson, Murphy, Mattingly, and Gooden. My next write-in vote will be for Eric Davis."

Sorry, Dave, but the other hitters you mentioned are not in Dale Murphy's league in peak value. Murphy had four consecutive seasons over 30 win shares. Mattingly topped 30 twice and Dawson didn't top 30 once in his entire career. Neither did Eric Davis. Murphy is looming as the great HOF injustice of our time, in my opinion, since he evidently has no chance.

DK
11:32 AM Jan 12th
 
DaveFleming
Well....one benefit is to have a Hall-of-Fame that has some chronology. If you have a giant blank space over the years between 1990-2010, that'll seem strange.
6:57 PM Jan 10th
 
shaneyfelt
Anybody that negatively effects the game, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed in. What benefit is it to the HOF to have players that negatively effected the game that the HOF so chooses to honor? It would appear, that is the sole conflict with gambling on games that one is either playing in or managing. My stance on PEDs is no different. What is the benefit to the HOF to have them in? I see no benefit to the HOF just integrity loss, conflict and finally lost value.
9:28 AM Jan 10th
 
Brian
The problem with putting him in when he is alive is that it would seem to require that he be reinstated. And if he is, then the freakin' Reds will hire him to manage again. And can anyone really be sure that he has stopped gambling?
3:28 PM Jan 7th
 
jimgus
I have forever been a, "Pete goes in after he dies" guy.

I just don't believe that he should ever be given the pleasure of receiving the honor.

Just one man's opinion.

3:53 PM Jan 2nd
 
brewcrew
I think Rose should go in-after he's dead. For one thing he doesn't deserve the satisfaction of enjoying the honor of being HOF. For another we don't deserve the spectacle of having a Hall of Famer autographing baseballs on a shopping network, using his election to crassly make money, which Rose is almost sure to do going by his past actions. If someone like Ron Santo couldn't get in until he was dead, neither should Rose.
11:28 AM Jan 2nd
 
craigjolley
Pete Rose didn't go to prison for betting on ball games. He had opportunities for days in court both for the baseball ban and with the criminal justice system, but he copped pleas in both cases rather than allowing details to be on public reccord. The low lifes he associated with and partnered with in money-raising activities would not have been strong witnesses so it seems likely he got less jail time than his crimes merited. Monte Irvin is in the Hall in partly because of his strong character and possibly for contributions to the game after his playing career. It seems equally fair to consider character when evaluating Rose's candidacy.
1:42 PM Jan 1st
 
Steven Goldleaf
PS Dude's name is Minoso, not Minosa. Makes him sound like a mixed drink served at brunch.
1:02 PM Jan 1st
 
Steven Goldleaf
I am (and have been) so disgusted by Rose's behavior over the years that if Giametti and Vincent had intentionally lied to him in order to screw around with him, which I don't think they have done for a second, I'd be okay with that. Good one, Bart and Fay! WTG!
1:00 PM Jan 1st
 
cderosa
I agree that gambling on baseball was clear rule violation and clearly inviting a ban at the time Rose bet on the Reds. Treating steroid use that way, to me, smacks of imposing new standards on the past, somewhat unfairly.

I do make a distinction between on the one hand, actually throwing a game (Jackson), and on the other hand, putting oneself in a position where people might think one wasn't trying as hard (Rose). They're both bad; they both go to undermining the integrity of the contest. But in the first case, I'm comfortable with "forever banned" and in the second case twenty years seems like enough.

I'm also influenced by two other considerations (admittedly, possibly irrelevant):

1) There's something unsavory about how in 1989, Giamatti said MLB would make no finding on betting on baseball if Rose accepted an indefinite suspension, and then announced such a finding, and then, a few years ago, Selig said Rose had to cop to betting on baseball before his ban could be reconsidered, and has since treated his admission as of no count. I don't think baseball has been straight with Rose.

2) I'm not a big Pete Rose fan, and I think it would be nice if Rose went in the Hall and about 85% of the Pete Rose news vanished.

Happy new year to you all,
Chris


8:29 AM Jan 1st
 
MWeddell
At least three reasons.

Cheating to try to lose a game is much worse than cheating to try to win a game. Even if we believe that Rose only bet on his team to win, the days he didn't bet on his team, he may not have been trying as hard to win.

Making bets with gamblers is more insidious. They can exercise other control over athletes. Just associating with gamblers is punishable (e.g. Leo Durocher, Mantle/Mays when they were retired).

MLB very, very, very clearly prohibited gambling on baseball and tried to enforce the ban. MLB (and the MLBPA) did not wink at betting on baseball games.
6:50 AM Dec 31st
 
CharlesSaeger
Because Rose broke a fundamental rule: he put his own interests ahead of his team. (If John Dowd can be believed, and I'm not sure he can, he might have been trying to keep his team from winning.) Bonds's crimes (Clemens was acquitted for good reason) are akin to Gaylord Perry's: breaking the rules of the game to help his team win. They're really not any different, the only difference is that we lionize Perry's powers of deception and we scream at Bonds for taking shots in his ass.

The very idea that Bonds's offenses and Rose's offenses are remotely equivalent is abhorrent, so much so that I would want the BBWAA to take away the voting credentials of anyone thinking so.
8:10 PM Dec 30th
 
bravesfan15
If one votes for Bonds and Clemens how can one not write-in Pete Rose?
3:12 PM Dec 30th
 
georownd
Love the Belle and Sebastian reference... pop at its finest.
8:21 AM Dec 30th
 
MWeddell
Thanks, Dave, for running this annual project.

By electing four candidates this year, our Hall of Fame (or is it Basement of Fame still?) is in good shape to avoid the crunch created by the 10-person limit and a large backlog of candidates as more highly qualified players become eligible next year.
2:26 PM Dec 29th
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy