MLB Hall of Fame class of 2015

[rasputin]

Here is a nice article from Grantland on the guys likely to get in for the next half dozen years or so.

Lots of focus on Tim Raines and Jeff Bagwell.



-Jason "ummm, why hasn't Raines made it yet?" Evans

I can think of four reasons:
1. Cocaine.
2. He played most of his career for the Montreal Expos.
3. As a previous poster has pointed out, he was the second-best leadoff hitter ever, but he suffered by comparison to his contemporary, Rickey Henderson.
4. At the time he played, the sabermetrics weren't as advanced, and weren't as well-received, as they are today. People just didn't understand that getting on base is the most important thing for an offensive player to do, and therefore didn't appreciate Raines for what he was.

Having said that, obviously Raines should be in.

[YmoBeThere]

1. Cocaine.

Having said that, obviously Raines should be in.

Why would a Clapton song impact his Hall chances? Oh, is that why he was called "Rock"?

I know, I know, I kid.

[Olympic Fan]

I can think of four reasons:
1. Cocaine.
2. He played most of his career for the Montreal Expos.
3. As a previous poster has pointed out, he was the second-best leadoff hitter ever, but he suffered by comparison to his contemporary, Rickey Henderson.
4. At the time he played, the sabermetrics weren't as advanced, and weren't as well-received, as they are today. People just didn't understand that getting on base is the most important thing for an offensive player to do, and therefore didn't appreciate Raines for what he was.

Having said that, obviously Raines should be in.

I think it's a simple matter of the split between the sabermetric guys -- who view Raines as a great, great player -- and the old-time baseball guys, who look at him as a .294 hitter with only moderate power. Maybe the old guys credit him for his 800-plus stolen bases, but I doubt they pay much attention to the fact that he had the best stolen base success rate of any significant base stealer.

As the BWAA electorate gets young and younger by the year, those who admire Raines increase their percentage. But I'm not sure it will be fast enough to get him in (he has two elections left).

[Mal]

As the BWAA electorate gets young and younger by the year, those who admire Raines increase their percentage. But I'm not sure it will be fast enough to get him in (he has two elections left).

Interesting demographic point. A lot of Raines supporters were 15 or younger when he passed out of his prime, so either never or barely even saw him play. That's a pretty unique phenomenon.

Rasputin points out the two biggest reasons he doesn't get more cred: he toiled in Montreal, and he had the utterly terrible misfortune to play, and peak as a base stealer, at the exact same time as the guy widely seen as creating the mold that he played in. It also didn't help that Vince Coleman showed up and stole 550 bases during a 6 year period that literally sat right on top of Raines' thieving peak (which was 20% less prolific). He's one of the top 4 base stealers in the history of the modern game, and during his prime he was probably the 3rd best in the league. That's unbelievably unlucky.

[Olympic Fan]

Interesting demographic point. A lot of Raines supporters were 15 or younger when he passed out of his prime, so either never or barely even saw him play. That's a pretty unique phenomenon.

Rasputin points out the two biggest reasons he doesn't get more cred: he toiled in Montreal, and he had the utterly terrible misfortune to play, and peak as a base stealer, at the exact same time as the guy widely seen as creating the mold that he played in. It also didn't help that Vince Coleman showed up and stole 550 bases during a 6 year period that literally sat right on top of Raines' thieving peak (which was 20% less prolific). He's one of the top 4 base stealers in the history of the modern game, and during his prime he was probably the 3rd best in the league. That's unbelievably unlucky.

The top 10 stolen base guys in baseball history are:
1. Ricky Henderson 1406
2. Lou Brock 938
3. Billy Hamilton 914
4. Ty Cobb 897
5. Tim Raines 808
6. Vince Coleman 752
7. Arlie Latham 742
8. Eddie Collins 741
9. Max Carey 738
10. Honus Wagner 763

Of this list, three stole bases at an 80 percent success rate. That's important because getting caught stealing costs your team runs. Sabremeticians have calculated the a 66 percent stolen base success rate is roughly the break-even point. Steal 60 bases and get caught 30 times and your running has no impact on the number of runs your team scores. Steal 10 and get caught twice and your team's runs increase. Steal 50 and get caught 30 and you actually cost your team runs.

The best stolen base success rate for the top 100 base stealers in baseball history:

1. Tim Raines 84.7 percent
2. Vince Coleman 80.95 percent
3. Ricky Henderson 80.8 percent

special notice to Joe Morgan who stole 689 bases (11th most in history) at an 80.96 success rate -- second in the top 20 (and top 100) to Raines.

It is possible to argue that the three most successful stolen base guys in baseball history -- if you measure both total steals and success rate --- were almost exact contemporaries.

PS Just for for the record, Brock stole bases at a 75.3 percent rate; Cobb's is harder to figure. We KNOW he was caught 212 times (which would be a 79.6 percent rate). But we only have his caught stealing data for 13 of his 24 years. If you extrapolate his average caught stealing for the years we know (16.3 a year), his stealing rate drops to 67.9. It's probably not quite that low, but he's also unlikely to much over 70 percent. We have zero caught stealing info for Sliding Billy Hamilton, who played in the 19th century.

[Blue in the Face]

I'm not privy to what the hall of fame voters talk about at their sewing circle, but I'm pretty sure they don't give a crap about Curt Schilling's politics.

I know that as a Republican that there's some people who really don't like that," Schilling told Boston radio station WEEI. "I don't think it... kept me out, but I do know that there are guys who will probably never vote for me because of the things I said or did. That's the way it works.

Perhaps by the time they get to him on the ballot, they're just distracted wondering why apes don't still evolve into humans...

[Mal]

Curt Schilling's politics...

Yes, Curt, because if ever there were a group of left-leaning hyperpartisans, it would be one comprised primarily of white males over 50. If I recall, John Smoltz is also an outspoken Republican (somewhat less outspoken, I guess) and he had no trouble on the ballot this year.

If anything, Schilling probably indirectly loses some votes because of his reputation as something of a horse's rear end. I think Bert Blyleven had a hard time mustering a lot of public sympathy for a long time in part because he was pretty vocal about his case and saying the voters just didn't get it. This episode could have the same effect on Schilling. Being seen as a whiner with a persecution complex, who has now publicly accused BBWAA members of placing politics above legitimate voting criteria, probably won't translate to a lot of folks with an audience taking up his cause.

[sagegrouse]

I have longstanding problems with the baseball HOF as a private organization that makes questionable decisions. My main complaint is leaving out Marvin Miller, the strongest sports labor leader we have ever had, while adding his adversary Bowie Kuhn, an OK commissioner but whose personal life was sullied by bankruptcy and relocation to Florida to protect assets.

But never mind.

As a social scientist (although not a political scientist), expanding the number of voters by 150 percent and leaving the election hurdle at 75 percent is not smart. The HOF ballots have increased from about 225 in the 1930s to 550 or so now. A larger group is far less likely to mediate points of view ahead of time and create a consensus. Moreover, the number of ML cities has increased from ten before 1950 to more 25 today, also contributing to a more diverse electorate with divergent opinions.

I would probably reduce the threshold to 67% to reflect the lack of consensus prevailing today. And, given the evidence that some voters are gaming the system, I would remove the cap of ten on number of votes. That is less likely to have strong effect, since the average voter ballot recently has been around 6 players from 1992 to 2012 as opposed to over nine in the first 20 years of the Hall. In the past two years, however, the size of the ballot has been 8.4 in both years with a number of strong candidates (not linked to PEDs).

My two cents, change freely given.

[Olympic Fan]

I have longstanding problems with the baseball HOF as a private organization that makes questionable decisions. My main complaint is leaving out Marvin Miller, the strongest sports labor leader we have ever had, while adding his adversary Bowie Kuhn, an OK commissioner but whose personal life was sullied by bankruptcy and relocation to Florida to protect assets.

But never mind.

As a social scientist (although not a political scientist), expanding the number of voters by 150 percent and leaving the election hurdle at 75 percent is not smart. The HOF ballots have increased from about 225 in the 1930s to 550 or so now. A larger group is far less likely to mediate points of view ahead of time and create a consensus. Moreover, the number of ML cities has increased from ten before 1950 to more 25 today, also contributing to a more diverse electorate with divergent opinions.

I would probably reduce the threshold to 67% to reflect the lack of consensus prevailing today. And, given the evidence that some voters are gaming the system, I would remove the cap of ten on number of votes. That is less likely to have strong effect, since the average voter ballot recently has been around 6 players from 1992 to 2012 as opposed to over nine in the first 20 years of the Hall. In the past two years, however, the size of the ballot has been 8.4 in both years with a number of strong candidates (not linked to PEDs).

My two cents, change freely given.

Good points. Anybody interested in all this should read Bill James "The Politics of Glory" (which I think was re-released in paperback as "What's Wrong with the Hall of Fame"). He provides a pretty good historical overview about how the Hall of Fame selection has been screwed up over the years.

As for Schilling ... he now claims that his comments about politics keeping him out were meant to be tongue-on-cheek.

Personally, I think it has more to do with the ketchupy sock.

[rasputin]

Good points. Anybody interested in all this should read Bill James "The Politics of Glory" (which I think was re-released in paperback as "What's Wrong with the Hall of Fame"). He provides a pretty good historical overview about how the Hall of Fame selection has been screwed up over the years.

As for Schilling ... he now claims that his comments about politics keeping him out were meant to be tongue-on-cheek.

Personally, I think it has more to do with the ketchupy sock.

OF, I think the title was Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame.

As to Schilling, you can add lying (about the supposed tongue-in-cheek nature of his idiotic remarks) to the long list of reasons to dislike him. I know of one thing that counterbalances that list: Schilling has long been an advocate and donor for research to find a cure for ALS, and he has a child named Gehrig IIRC.

[Blue in the Face]

OF, I think the title was Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame.

As to Schilling, you can add lying (about the supposed tongue-in-cheek nature of his idiotic remarks) to the long list of reasons to dislike him. I know of one thing that counterbalances that list: Schilling has long been an advocate and donor for research to find a cure for ALS, and he has a child named Gehrig IIRC.

Yeah, he's a big fan of Gehrig. His twitter handle is Gehrig38, and he used to post under that name on a yankee fan forum (presumably elsewhere too, but that's all I knew him from). Aside from it being kind of cool to have an actual former player posting, I thought he posted interesting stuff about the game that typical fans really know nothing about. As one might expect though, eventually some posters baited and insulted him to the point that he left.

[sagegrouse]

Yeah, he's a big fan of Gehrig. His twitter handle is Gehrig38, and he used to post under that name on a yankee fan forum (presumably elsewhere too, but that's all I knew him from). Aside from it being kind of cool to have an actual former player posting, I thought he posted interesting stuff about the game that typical fans really know nothing about. As one might expect though, eventually some posters baited and insulted him to the point that he left.

What?! Insults on a Yankee forum? Who would have thought?

[brevity]

As the BWAA electorate gets young and younger by the year, those who admire Raines increase their percentage. But I'm not sure it will be fast enough to get him in (he has two elections left).

Some news on that front.

Bill Shaikin ‏@BillShaikin

Hall of Fame decides BBWAA members more than 10 years removed from actively covering the game can no longer vote for Hall of Fame.

1:12 PM - 28 Jul 2015

More details from CBS Sports. Quoted in part:

Moving forward, potential Hall of Fame voters must hold an active BBWAA card or have held active status within the last 10 years. BBWAA members previously holding Hall of Fame voting privileges who are no longer active in the game and are more than 10 years removed from active status will have the opportunity for annual reinstatement, based on their coverage of the game in the preceding year.

Right now I imagine a bunch of old and decrepit baseball writers are jarring themselves awake and trying to figure out how to start a blog.

[gurufrisbee]

If WAR says that for a decade Tim Raines was the best player in the NL, then that's all I ever need to know to know WAR is an absolute worthless piece of dung.

16 will be Griffey and Piazza

17 will be Pudge and Bagwell - and Raines (last chance sympathy)

18 will be Chipper, Thome, and Vlad

19 is Mariano and maybe that's all, but I think it also might be where you see Bonds and Clemens make some run at it.

[JasonEvans]

If WAR says that for a decade Tim Raines was the best player in the NL, then that's all I ever need to know to know WAR is an absolute worthless piece of dung.

16 will be Griffey and Piazza

17 will be Pudge and Bagwell - and Raines (last chance sympathy)

18 will be Chipper, Thome, and Vlad

19 is Mariano and maybe that's all, but I think it also might be where you see Bonds and Clemens make some run at it.

Clements and Bonds were both in the mid-30% in the last vote. They would need to double their support to make it. I doubt either of them ever get to even 50% of the vote.

I wonder if Trevor Hoffman (eligible in 16) has a shot. Probably not in his first year but at some point. The Hall seems to really not care about relievers but he was one of the greatest closers of all time. It would have helped if he had played on more good teams. Anyone think Jim Edmonds has a shot?

Manny Ramirez becomes eligible in 2017. He would have a case, if not for the PED stain. Jorge Posada? I think Yes, eventually. Tim Wakefield? I think no.

2018 brings us two interesting defensive cases-- Andruw Jones and Omar Vizquel. Both are clearly among the top few defensive players ever at CF and SS. Jones had some years where his offensive stats were gaudy, and he appeared to be a Hall lock at one point in his career, but he fell off so rapidly and so steeply that he probably doesn't have much of a chance at this point. Vizquel is sorta a poor man's Ozzie Smith. I doubt he makes it but there is a fairly compelling case for him.

Todd Helton is also on the ballot in 2019. If you look at his offensive numbers they are silly. But, how much of that is the Coors effect? Regardless, I think he gets in, if not in is first year, then in the first few years of eligibility.

-Jason "glad to hear about the old fogies being taken off the table, good move!" Evans

[Mal]

If WAR says that for a decade Tim Raines was the best player in the NL, then that's all I ever need to know to know WAR is an absolute worthless piece of dung.

Overreact much? How about "flawed" or "not to be overly relied upon?" I think the point the author of the linked article that noted Raines' cherry-picked and somewhat mischaracterized WAR statistic was making was just "Hey, this guy was way better than he was given credit for during his career and here's one piece of evidence." He didn't actually claim Raines was the best player in the NL for a decade because of the cumulative WAR number. Based on one measure, Raines had a lot more impact than credited.

JE, for all your questionables, for now I'm predicting yes for Hoffman and Helton and no for the rest. We'll finally get to see some numbers on Coors Field really vetted by the statisticians when Helton's up. If I recall, his home and away splits for his career were rather eye-popping, and the road numbers, if extrapolated to having played his entire career in places with normal amounts of oxygen, do not produce a Hall of Fame resume. I still think the raw numbers are enough for him to get enough votes, though I probably would need a lot of convincing if I were a voter. Larry Walker's experience doesn't bode well for Helton, though, I guess.

No way for Andruw Jones, I think - career OPS+ of 111 doesn't cut it, and arguably he was the second best defensive CF in the game in his prime behind Torii Hunter. If Posada even gets serious momentum I'll be wailing about East Coast bias. We discussed him upthread, but to me he was one of the worst defensive catchers I've ever seen on a great team, and his offensive numbers were greatly inflated by the incredible talent around him his entire career. My impression of him from beginning to end was "My god, that guy's lucky he's on the Yankees." We covered Vizquel in depth above, too; I still say he doesn't survive rigorous scrutiny of just how bad a hitter he actually was, and he was bad. Jim Edmonds will probably deserve more votes than he gets, but I think he'll never clear 50%. People will think of him as "among the best, for a while, but never TRULY GREAT" despite the fact that for the first 4 or 5 years after he went to the Cardinals, he was pretty awesome. If Bagwell and McGriff can't get enough votes, I don't see how Edmonds ever does.

[gurufrisbee]

Clements and Bonds were both in the mid-30% in the last vote. They would need to double their support to make it. I doubt either of them ever get to even 50% of the vote.

I wonder if Trevor Hoffman (eligible in 16) has a shot. Probably not in his first year but at some point. The Hall seems to really not care about relievers but he was one of the greatest closers of all time. It would have helped if he had played on more good teams. Anyone think Jim Edmonds has a shot?

Manny Ramirez becomes eligible in 2017. He would have a case, if not for the PED stain. Jorge Posada? I think Yes, eventually. Tim Wakefield? I think no.

2018 brings us two interesting defensive cases-- Andruw Jones and Omar Vizquel. Both are clearly among the top few defensive players ever at CF and SS. Jones had some years where his offensive stats were gaudy, and he appeared to be a Hall lock at one point in his career, but he fell off so rapidly and so steeply that he probably doesn't have much of a chance at this point. Vizquel is sorta a poor man's Ozzie Smith. I doubt he makes it but there is a fairly compelling case for him.

Todd Helton is also on the ballot in 2019. If you look at his offensive numbers they are silly. But, how much of that is the Coors effect? Regardless, I think he gets in, if not in is first year, then in the first few years of eligibility.

Clemens and Bonds will keep increasing. That usually happens with HOF voting anyways. Plus when Piazza, Bagwell, and Pudge all get in it will loosen the ideas about the steroid users as they all were loosely tied with such rumors. I'm not sure they ever get in, but I do think they will definitely top 50%.

I can't see the defensive guys in Andruw or Vizquel getting in. In so many ways they feel like the opposite of Edgar Martinez, who isn't getting in.

I'm a Padres fan, so I'm biased about Hoffman, but I think his best chance is going to be one of those slow growth over several years kind of deals. And it will help after Rivera gets in. Helton probably does the same kind of slow growth to get in. I think Posada is an interesting one like that. I wonder if Jeter and Rivera being in can help rally some support for him.

Overreact much? How about "flawed" or "not to be overly relied upon?" I think the point the author of the linked article that noted Raines' cherry-picked and somewhat mischaracterized WAR statistic was making was just "Hey, this guy was way better than he was given credit for during his career and here's one piece of evidence." He didn't actually claim Raines was the best player in the NL for a decade because of the cumulative WAR number. Based on one measure, Raines had a lot more impact than credited.

I've long thought several other times I've seen WAR it seemed iffy at best. That point about just sort of put a spotlight on apparently how badly wrong WAR can be.

I like Raines fine. But his career is precisely what his HOF experience makes sense for. He is nowhere close to a first or second or third ballot guy. He's a slow growth HOF guy. But one that probably deserves to make it eventually.

[Blue in the Face]

Overreact much? How about "flawed" or "not to be overly relied upon?" I think the point the author of the linked article that noted Raines' cherry-picked and somewhat mischaracterized WAR statistic was making was just "Hey, this guy was way better than he was given credit for during his career and here's one piece of evidence." He didn't actually claim Raines was the best player in the NL for a decade because of the cumulative WAR number. Based on one measure, Raines had a lot more impact than credited.

Yup. Some of Raines' high WAR is simply gross value because he played a lot. He was 6th in games played over the period in question and 2nd in plate appearances. There's certainly nothing flawed in the concept that the more you play, the more opportunity you have to add value. Raines doesn't have the highest WAR per game or per plate appearance, so it's not like WAR is saying he was necessarily "better" than everyone else during this period.

Beyond that, Raines was very very good. During this period he was was 4th in obp, 1st in hits, 2nd in walks and 1st in times on base. 1st in runs scored and 15th in RBI. 1st in stolen bases, with a very good success rate, and other than Vince Coleman (who really was an astonishingly good base stealer before that accident), no one was remotely close to Raines in steals. Low strikeout rate and very low double play rate. Does that make him more valuable over this period than Sandberg, or Dawson, or Murphy, or Schmidt? Maybe not. But it's silly to suggest that the notion is garbage.

JE, for all your questionables, for now I'm predicting yes for Hoffman and Helton and no for the rest.

Agreed on Hoffman, not sure about Helton. And yeah, Posada and Edmonds aren't serious candidates.

[Olympic Fan]

I am a strong Raines advocate, but I have serious problems with WAR.

My simple example -- WAR rates Rick Reuschel as a more valuable player than Bob Feller -- compare their stats and tell me how that happens. Feller pitched more innings (3827 to 3548) with significantly more wins (266 to 214), significantly less losses (162 to 191) which leads to a huge difference in winning percentage: .621 to .518. Of course, we know wins are somewhat team dependent, but in most other areas Feller was significantly better that Reuschel. He threw more complete games (279 to 102), more shutouts (44 to 26), far more strikeouts (2581 to 2015), had more saves (21 to 5) and -- most importantly -- owned a better career ERA (3.25 to .337). If we adjust for ballpark and era, Feller’s ERA-plus of 122 is much better than Reuschel’s 114.

And that's without giving Feller credit for the four seasons he missed for WWII. He was the top pitcher in the game before he enlisted (the day after Pearl Harbor) and the best pitcher in baseball again in 1946. But, according to WAR, he's not quite as good as Rick Reuschel?

Then there is Brett Gardner. As a Yankee fan, I love Brett Gardner and think he's a terrific outfielder. But in 2011, WAR gives him a defensive value of 3.2, which was the most valuable defensive player in baseball that season. A leftfielder -- ANY leftfuelder -- is the most valuable defensive player in baseball? I don't think so. Moreover, Gardner's 3.2 in 2011 is better than Willie Mays or Joe DiMaggio ever recorded in a single season. Mays never got better than a 2.1 in any season. According to WAR, Gardner had more defensive value in left field that year than Ozzie Smith ever recorded at shortstop. Brooks Robinson had one defensive year with more value.

That's ridiculous.

Just like it was ridiculous a couple of years ago when Miguel Cabrera won the triple crown (and led the league on OPS), yet Mike Trout had a higher WAR. I could offer dozens of similar examples.

Look, I like OPS and OBP and SLUG because they clearly and correctly describe the baseball universe. If you raise your game in those categories you demonstrateably increase the number of runs your team scores.

But I don't think WAR -- as currently calculated -- describes the real universe.

Still think Raines should be a lock Hall of Famer. He's the second greatest leadoff man of all time ... he just had the misfortune to play at the same time as the greatest of all time.

PS Not sure I agree about Bonds and Clemens eventually voted in -- yes, their totals did go up in the last vote, but only by two percent each. At that rate, it would be 20 years before they topped 75 percent. Both need to more than double their totals to get in. And, keep in mind, Mark McGwire's total dropped. The veterans committee may at some point vote them in, but I'm betting against the BWAA voting them in.

[A-Tex Devil]

PS Not sure I agree about Bonds and Clemens eventually voted in -- yes, their totals did go up in the last vote, but only by two percent each. At that rate, it would be 20 years before they topped 75 percent. Both need to more than double their totals to get in. And, keep in mind, Mark McGwire's total dropped. The veterans committee may at some point vote them in, but I'm betting against the BWAA voting them in.

Not necessarily responding just to OlyFan, but if Clemens and Bonds don't get in, how does Manny (as mentioned upthread) get in? Bonds and Clemens were never actually caught by MLB.

Many of these guys like Bonds, Clemens and Manny should be no brainers, but that's been discussed ad nauseum. Put something on their plaque and let. it. go.