Here's my Hall of Fame ballot :

Blyleven
Dawson
Eckersley
Gossage
John
Molitor
Parker
Sandberg
Trammell

The thread I mentioned earlier gives some of my reasoning, but I'll copy it here...

Last year, my "ballot" was Blyleven, Carter, Dawson, Gossage, John, Kaat, Murray, Parker, Sandberg, Trammell.

I "voted" for Kaat and John with some misgivings, but knowing that in my view it's better to vote for a guy if you're unsure, than not vote for him. I usually get to 10; sometimes I only have 9, I almost had 8 last year. Carter, Kaat and Murray fell off the ballot... Kaat ran out of time, and Carter and Murray were elected.

Of the holdovers, I do think Tommy John deserves induction, I'm a little more sure this year. So my holdover list is seven, and I haven't changed my mind on any of them. Blyleven, Dawson, Gossage, John, Parker, Sandberg, and Trammell. I think Gossage is actually at the bottom of that list, but I still think he should go in.

The other holdover name who deserves more consideration from me is Jim Rice. It's hard to vote for Parker and Dawson, but not Rice. I thought it was justified last year; I need to question that again. None of the other holdover candidates (Concepcion, Garvey, Hernandez,
Mattingly, Morris, Murphy, Smith, Sutter, Valenzuela) are quite at that level, except Hernandez. Many are close. For now, Hernandez and Rice stay out, they may go in.

Out of the new guys, Molitor is a sure-thing. I don't know how Molitor is a "sure thing" when Sandberg and Trammell are not. 'Tis not for us to wonder why, I suppose.

That leaves Eckersley, Carter, Key, Fielder, and Stieb as the serious candidates. *Four* former Blue Jays, and Eck.

Eck : _two_ terrific five-year peaks. Third all-time in saves, AND 197 wins. He's right in for me.

Carter : sits behind Rice and probably Murphy. Overall, his candidacy is most similar to Garvey's, but Joe wasn't half the player Garvey was. No way.

Key : a fine pitcher whose career was too short, and without a sustained high peak. He wouldn't be the worst pitcher in the Hall, not by a *long* shot. Of the pitchers I didn't pick, I think Key and the next fellow are the best on the list.

Stieb : Jimmy Key, righthanded, but with an actual sustained high peak, 1980-85. Stieb is a marginally better candidate but his short career burns him. I can't vote for him (or Key), not yet, but I might be persuaded when the 70s pitchers drop off the list.

Fielder : A good player, nothing more. A very short career and a peak that's damn good, but not overwhelming. Stands behind Hernandez, Mattingly, and Garvey at first.

Blyleven
Eck
Molitor
Gossage
Sandberg
Trammell
Sutter
John
Parker
Stieb

Eckersley
Molitor
Gossage
Blyleven
Trammell
Sandberg

I've always been in favour of only voting for those candidates you're sure are really Hall of Famers. This isn't to say there's anything wrong for extending the benefit of the doubt, as Craig does, just that I don't usually do it.

Anyway, the guys I've voted for were the ones who in my mind were the most deserving. I tend to favour peak value over career, although, with apologies to Dave Steib, there has to be some sort of longevity before I'll vote for a candidate.

For what it's worth, my money on who actually makes it is more or less the same as everyone else's-Eckersley and Molitor.

I believe I'm paraphrasing Rob Neyer, but if I could only vote for one player it'd be Bert Blyleven. The guy was one of the unluckiest pitchers in terms of won-loss record, he had a ton of strikeouts (5th all-time) and gets some points for his longevity. A career ERA+ of 118 is very impressive, as are 242 complete games and 60 shutouts. It's a crime he's not been elected yet.

I'd also vote for
Molitor
Tramell
Sandberg
Gossage
Dawson
Eckersley

Molitor
Blyleven
Eckersley
Trammell
Sandberg
John

maybe Gossage

Blyleven
Molitor
Eckersley
Sanberg
Gossage
Trammel

Molitor
Eckersley
Trammell
Sandberg

The writers' failure to induct Lou Whitaker was bizarre. He was easily among the top 10 second baseman of all time, and actually a little better than Sandberg over his career IMO.

Blyleven
Dawson
Eck
Gossage
Mattingly
Molitor
Sandberg

Blyleven
Dawson
Molitor
Sandberg

I suppose my standards are high.

Nothing at all wrong with high standards (though I fundamentally disagree with setting them too high). Any standards are good standards (except "no one is good enough ever") but ONLY so long as they are applied rationally and consistently.

Spicol, any particular reason why you wouldn't vote for Eckersley? I'm interested in Eck, he's an odd case, I like to discuss him.

I'm another "high standards" guy. If I had a vote, there would be some guys who I'd leave off in their first year of eligibility, then include later, as -- like it or not -- "first ballot" election is an additional honour. So Craig, I'll postpone a decision on Eckersley until next year, but for me, Molitor was pretty special.

Molitor
Sandberg
Blyleven
Gossage
Trammell

The only other guys I'd consider are Mattingly and Hernandez. I'm not going to argue that they "belong," it's purely a fan thing -- I absolutely loved to watch them play.

Maybe to start the conversation, I voted for Eck because I'm a strong believer that a high peak is as important as, if not more important than, career totals.

(For instance, I'd take Koufax over Nolan Ryan, in spite of the latter's impressive career counting stats)

Eck's career totals don't cut it, either as a starter or a reliever, and it's a strange and difficult task to add them up, at least unless Tangotiger has looked into the Leveraged Index of all Eck's reliever innings, and we can weight those innings convert to a common WARP value.

But he was totally dominant during his reliever peak (including an utterly ridiculous 1990), and very good during his starter peak (cherry-picking top ERA+s as a starter: 149, 146, 138, 130). To me, that's enough.

In order:

Molitor
Trammell
Sandberg
Eckersley
Gossage

Anything above that and we're making it into the HHOF. Dave Concepcion is the Clark Gillies of baseball. Those guys don't belong.

Oops forgot Blyleven. Slot him in under Mollie.

I agree with Craig's ballot except that I'd substitute Sutter for Gossage, and write in Whitaker (not simply because he shares my last name, but for the reasons Mike G. describes above). This last would be a protest vote, as Whitaker is going to have to wait to be ignored by the VC just as much as he was shamefully slighted by the BBWA.

in order:

Molitor
Eckersley
Blyleven
Sandberg
Morris (yeah I know his numbers are a bit bad but man he DOMINATED the 80s and what a great performance in Game 7 of the '91 series)

Dave Stieb, it could be argued, dominated the 80s. But Morris? C'mon!

The idea that Stieb or Morris might have dominated the 1980s leads me to the conclusion that, in fact, no one dominated the 1980s.

Eckersley is a very tough call for me. How do you properly interpret the stages of his career?

I voted for Eck because I'm a strong believer that a high peak is as important as, if not more important than, career totals.

I agree with Andrew's statement but I stop at "as important as". I also go a bit further than that and that's why Eck won't get my vote. I look for a sustained peak. I narrow a player's career down to his top 8 consecutive years and I look for them all to be good. Why 8? That's about half of most of the careers of the good players. My thinking is that if a guy isn't HOF quality for half of a normal career, he's not a HOF player. Why does it need to be consecutive years? To me, if a guy can't consistently be called one of the best players in baseball year after year for a significant stretch, he can't be considered one of the best players in baseball history. I admit that my analysis here is pretty subjective. But if the HOF were all about numbers, we'd have a computer pick the entrants.

For Dennis, he doesn't have 8 great years in a row. His top 8 consecutive years are probably 1987 to 1994. All in all, that's an outstanding run of 6 years in a row with 2 very average years tacked on to the end. Despite the short peak and the fact that he was a reliever and earns a slight discount for that, I can say that his top 8 consecutive years are certainly HOF quality.

But then I look at his career totals and see nothing of note. Stacked against his peers, his career stats are good but not outstanding. I admit that this is entirely due to how he was used. He was a good starter for a period of time and he was a great reliever for a period of time. In isolation, neither of those things are HOF worthy. Were he a reliever his entire career, he might be a first ballot Hall of Famer but I can't give him credit for a performance he didn't provide. He wasn't one of the greatest players in baseball history. He was simply one of the greatest players for a few years and it's not good enough for my Hall of Fame.

The vote so far :

(13 total votes, 10 needed for election, 1 needed to remain on ballot)

MOLITOR 13
SANDBERG 13
BLYLEVEN 12
ECKERSLEY 11
TRAMMELL 10
Gossage 8
Dawson 5
John 4
Parker 3
Sutter 2
Stieb 1
Mattingly 1
Morris 1
Whitaker (write-in) 1

But Eck has two peaks. This is the problem with taking a single look like "top 8 consecutive years"... it misses the Eckersley who has two non-consecutive six-year runs. That's twelve years (actually just eleven) of high peak, it's just split up.

The first peak was really five years, from 1975-79. Eckersley in those five years was a dominant starting pitcher, that peak fits right in with that of the second-tier Hall of Famers. Don Sutton, Jim Bunning, these guys (legit HOFers) had similar peaks.

Then the second peak was 1987-1992... four years over 40 saves, three sub-2.00 ERAs, and so on. The greatest peak to date by a relief pitcher.

Craig, in my view you are correct that no one starting pitcher (at least in the AL) dominated the 1980s (which is a pretty artificial and arbitrary block of time, but that's another issue entirely). I didn't cast a vote for Stieb or Morris, but if I had to vote for one of them, I would for the former with absolutely no hesitation.

But isn't there a similar problem in looking for peaks as short as 5 years? You gloss over the 7 years of average performance between the peaks. I like my Hall of Famers more consistent than that.

162 of Morris' 253 career wins came in the 80s. He won 20 games twice and while he lost his fair share of games you have to remember that he was one of those pitchers that always had a high ERA. He was also the workhorse of that Tigers ballclub as he regularly worked over 200 innings in every year. (except '81 and '89) He was also a dominant K pitcher as his lowest Strikeout total in that decade was 97 in '81.

Looking at Stieb's numbers it does seem that Stieb was the better pitcher but Morris can rightfully claim the award of most dominating pitcher of the decade as well just for those numbers I posted above. It's interesting in a way tho that both Morris and Stieb seemed to have ran out of gas by the time the 90s rolled around. Stieb with his arm problems and Morris due to age and the fact that he was always hittable now became EXTREMELY hittable. Anyways that's my take on that I should've included Stieb as dominating pitcher of the decade as well and that was an oversight on my part.

I didn't include Stieb on my ballot simply cuz there were too many other good guys ahead of him tho looking at it now and the way the HOF is going to be stacked in the next few yrs I should've really added him. Oh well.

Perhaps you could explain to me, Sportsman, why Morris' win totals lead you to the conclusion that he was dominant two decades' ago? I'm not trying to be flippant, but there's a lot of room for your argument to become persuasive. It's not there yet.

Spicol:

Apologies for the horrible, horrible formatting,a nd the hyperdependence on ERA+.

Hypothetical pitcher, not all that different from Eck's career:

ERA+:

135
135
145
145
serious injury
89
102
112
130
140
traded to team with a 37-year-old-Jeter as SS
100
110
108
Jeter retires, replaced by someone decent
130
135
100
retires

This hypothetical player failed to give 8 straight years. He had no long runs. But he's clearly a great pitcher, who just had two strokes of bad luck. In my mind he's a Hall of Famer.

So would be:

200
250
301
230
275
devastating injury
88
91
retires

Completely demolishing the league for 5 straight years makes this pitcher great. Blowing out his elbow at a young age doesn't diminish that greatness.

Sandy Koufax was average until he turned 25. His numbers thereafter:

124
143
161
187
160
190
retires

Is he a Hall of Famer?

Eckersley
Molitor
Blyleven
Sandberg
Gossage

And I want to throw a vote in there for Stieb, but I really don't think he's really HOF material. And because of that, I won't vote for Morris either.

Is Clark Gilles the worst HHOF inductee? I always thought that Bernie Federko was the weakest selection. Fourteen seasons of reasonably above-average play shouldn't be enough for the Hall of Fame. He played through ALL of the 1980s and never got 40 goals, never got 75 assists, never broke 110 points, never won a Stanley Cup, never won an individual award, ended up with a -132 for his career, isn't in the top 20 in any career category...
His only claim to "fame" is that he's the first player to record 50 assists in a season for 10 straight seasons.

Andrew...it's tough to say with your admitted hyperdependence on ERA+ but with Scenario One, you're right. There isn't an outstanding 8 year peak. But that player will have a very good 8 year peak and if the player were used in the same role throughout his career, it's very likely his career stats are going to get him into the Hall. Remember that career performance is the other 50% of my decision.

Completely demolishing the league for 5 straight years makes this pitcher great. Blowing out his elbow at a young age doesn't diminish that greatness.

No, it doesn't. I suppose it depends on the criteria you set for Hall admittance. Are you trying to admit the players who performed at the highest level or are you trying to admit the players who had the greatest careers? The pitcher in Scenario Two was perhaps one of the greatest players ever but he didn't have one of the greatest careers ever and he's probably not HOF worthy. Some guys (like Kirby Puckett, like Sandy Koufax) perform at such a high level that their career is great despite being short. Their 8 year peak gets them in. I suppose that is what some have in mind when they vote for Mattingly (but it wasn't enough to garner my vote).

Some guys (like Kirby Puckett, like Sandy Koufax) perform at such a high level that their career is great despite being short. Their 8 year peak gets them in.

But Koufax just had a great five year peak, with two average years and then a good tagged on at the begining to make an eight year peak.

I understand this won't be popular, but I think the Hall of Fame is just fun. So I'm the guy who, no kidding, found 17 names on the list that I would strongly consider voting for. But if the rules say I have to limit myself to 10, I will choose these guys, in order:

Bert Blyleven
Bruce Sutter
Alan Trammell
Paul Molitor
Ryne Sandberg
Dennis Eckersley
Rich Gossage
Jack Morris
Andre Dawson
Tommy John
Dale Murphy

I think relief pitchers are sorely underrepresented, so please accept my apologies Mr. Smith. If I am allowed an ineligible write-in like Whitaker above, I would bump Murphy for Jim Kaat. Yes, I am big on pitching. Just in case anyone cares, the "other seven" I considered were (not in order) Dave Concepcion, Lee Smith, Keith Hernandez, Dave Stieb, Dave Parker, Don Mattingly and Jim Rice.

And yes, yes, I know all the arguments about the "Hall of Really Pretty Good For Awhile." But having been to Cooperstown when I lived in upstate New York, I couldn't help thinking "the more the better."

The Hall is a fun place to be. Bigger would be, uh, funner.

Dammit. I voted for 11 anyway. Does that invalidate my whole ballot? Or can I vote for Jason White AND Larry Fitzgerald?

Would it be all right if I quoted Bill James' Hall of Fame definitions that he introduced in the Historical Baseball Abstract (the mid-80's version)?

A: Any player who could reasonably be argued to be the greatest ever at the position he played. Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens.

B: Any player who is one of the greatest ever at the position he played. Such a player should be the dominant player at his position at the time that he is active. He should be the biggest star on the field at almost any time, and should be the biggest star on a pennant-winning team. Joe Morgan, Willie McCovey, Randy Johnson, Cal Ripken Jr..

C: A player who is consistently among the best in the league at his position. He would ordinarily be the biggest star on his team, unless it was a pennant-winning team, in which case he would be regarded as one of the most valuable members of the team. Billy Williams, Willie Stargell, Fred McGriff, Tom Glavine.

D: A player who rises well above the level of the average player, a player who would be capable of contributing to a pennant-winning team, and would be one of the outstanding players on an average team. Lloyd Waner, Eppa Rixey, John Olerud, David Cone.

I added modern players to the examples that I thought fit the definitions, and so I'd like to rate a few of the HOF nominees in a similar fashion. I've always liked the definitions idea, and I wish it would get more traction among fans and the media. If I had a vote in the existing structure, any player who rates as a Definition C or higher would get a vote. Anyway...

Bert Blyleven - Definition C - His career length and relative consistency pushes Bert past the D level.

Joe Carter - Definition D - Maybe if he could have sustained a higher peak, and reached a significant career milestone like 500 HR... but he didn't.

Andre Dawson - Definition C - His MVP award is a joke, and he declined very rapidly in his thirties, but he was a really good player for Montreal, and deserved better than to play half his games on turf.

Dennis Eckersley - Definition A (as a closer) - He's the most fascinating nominee, and the most dominating closer of his time.

Rich Gossage - Definition A - Why isn't he already in?

Tommy John - Definition C - Blyleven has a similar record but far more strikeouts, but John pitched very well in the post-season (2.65 ERA in 88.3 innings). He's probably as close to marginal as you want to get, though.

Paul Molitor - Definition C - You could consider Molitor a Definition B as a leadoff hitter, but the injury bug pulls him down to a C in my mind.

Jack Morris - Definition D - I can't get past that ERA+, which is far from impressive. If Tommy John is marginal, I can't see Morris being as good as John.

Jim Rice - Definition C - His first several years were electric, but he was basically done by the age of 34. Still, considering the level of league offense during his career, a .502 slugging percentage is very good.

Ryne Sandberg - Definition B - In the mid-eighties, everyone thought this guy was an automatic Hall-of-Famer, but like Jim Rice, he was essentially done by 34. Not everybody can be Eddie Collins, but Ryno was the best second baseman of the eighties, and that should count for something!

Lee Smith - Definition B - Not as consistent as Eckersley or Gossage, but still one of the best short relievers of his time.

Bruce Sutter - Definition A - Come on, let's make 2004 the Year of the Closer!

Alan Trammell - Definition C - Where's the love? For that matter, where's Sweet Lou, who is also a Definition C player?

So, based on the above, my ballot would read:

Blyleven
Dawson
Eckersley
Gossage
John
Molitor
Rice
Sandberg
Smith
Sutter
Trammell
Whitaker (as a write-in!)

If I had to lose a couple of names, Dawson and John would be the first to go.

http://economics.about.com
Where's the love for Dennis Martinez? The guy won 245 games, pitched a perfect game, and beat alcoholism. His record isn't that much different than Steib or Morris, plus he's a feel good story to boot.

Mike

Actually, Dennis Martinez is perhaps the pitcher I have most enjoyed watching pitch in my lifetime (well, maybe Pedro & Stieb beat him out, but it's close). Dennis Martinez so obviously enjoyed being out on the mound . . . I still get chills thinking about the perfect game (which I vividly remember watching on television). But he just doesn't meet HoF standards given his mid-career plateau.

Blyleven is a tough case, kind of like Don Drysdale. There are interesting studies on Primer about why he didn't win as much as one would have expected in light of his ERA and his run support. The bottom line is that he didn't make the most effective use of his run support, so his less than great won-loss record does have some meaning.

In his prime, no one thought of him in the same breath as Jim Palmer or Tom Seaver, or for that matter Luis Tiant. He was just a fine pitcher for many, many years. The line between Blyleven and Kaat is in my view very fine.

Whether he goes in or not is a question of standards. But, I don't agree that it's a "crime" if he's not allowed in. Lou Whitaker was a more valuable player than Blyleven.

I guess I suck at making arguments! I'm still in Bauxite preschool :D

I just like Morris a lot for his grittiness, you know the dreaded INTANGIBLES.

Speaking of Dennis Martinez ESPN CLASSIC CANADA reshowed that perfect game a couple or so weeks back. I remembered watching it way back when and I really enjoyed it. The only thing I really remembered was the "el perfecto" call tho. Man watching the game 12 yrs later I had to cringe at the "colour" commentating of Ken Singleton and I was left wondering what would Larry Walker's career be like if he stuck at first base.

You know, there's a good case for Martinez. Maybe I should've expanded my list to 18.

But "perfect game" is a bad argument. I wouldn't even bring it up. It's the Joe-Carter-World-Series-Homer argument.

Tom Browning, one of my top five all-time favorite players, threw a perfect game. Len Barker threw a perfect game and the most notable thing he ever did otherwise was be traded for Brett Butler and Brook Jacoby.

Browning was two outs from throwing perfect games in back-to-back seasons.

Still, I've been knocking around an idea for future Box publication about the changing standards of greatness in pitchers. It may have started with Blyleven and Kaat. Then on to Morris, Martinez, etc. Now there's guys like Mussina, Brown, Wells (Wells???) who aren't going to get near Kaat-John-Blyleven IP/W/K totals, but who are essentially the same pitchers they were in a different era.

This is not the Hockey Hall of Fame!

IN
Bert Blyleven 3700 K's and 17 season with more than 10 wins good enough for me
Goose Gossage borderline, but OK
Lee Smith if saves mean anything, no brainer!

Not IN
I love the Hawk but his offensive numbers? However he did win eight gold glove, but I know on this site defence does not mean anything! I have to say no

Molitor is not a first ballot guy!

The rest good players, but not Hall of Famers...Remember my first line!

Sorry forgot the Eck, he is a Hall of Famer

I must remember to turn up my nose about defense the next time I stick up for Orlando Hudson.

Grr. Who said defense was thrown out with the bathwater on this site? I must have missed that memo. That sneaky Gitz, he's on a rampage, first he impersonates Mick, now he's secretly abolished defense. What's next...he'll actually come visit Vancouver?!

Blyleven
Molitor
Eck
Parker
Dawson
Smith

If any middle infielder other than Molitor (He was a 2nd baseman his 1st 3 seasons) goes in this year, I'd like it to be Concepcion. Similar # oh hits and RBI as Sandberg & Trammell but he did more to help his team win. None of those 3 quite make it in my book, though.

But Koufax just had a great five year peak, with two average years and then a good tagged on at the begining to make an eight year peak.

Koufax didn't just have a great five year peak. He had one of the greatest 5 year peaks in MLB history. Aside from his amazing ERA+ performances, he had the strikeouts and K/BB ratios to indicate dominance along some seriously high innings pitched totals (the last of which isn't as impressive when compared to his generation but hugely impressive stacked against contemporary pitchers). He set records. He won awards. That kind of 5-year peak can not only carry an 8-year peak but has the weight that it can carry an entire career.

Some might argue that Eckersley from 1987 to 1992 had a peak of that magnitude, the kind that would define him as one of the greatest baseball players of all time. There's no question, it was impressive. But the reason it doesn't have the weight of a Koufax-type peak is this:

475.3 Innings Pitched.

That's what Eck pitched during his 6-year peak. It's about what a top starter today would pitch over 2 seasons, or about what Koufax pitched in his best year and a half. Admittedly, many of Eck's 475 inning were high leverage but it's clear that a reliever's contribution isn't quite the same. So, it's impressive but it's not Koufax territory. (Go ahead and present raw Save totals as a reason for induction...they're a product of opportunity. Present Save% compared to his peers or something else describing the quality of job he did and then maybe we'll talk.) Again, in summation, it's a great peak but it's short and it's not the kind that makes a career.

So, if the peak isn't enough, you look at the career. Again, saves and to a lesser degree, wins, are affected by opportunity...cover them up for a second. What are you left with? A guy with a good ERA compared to his peers, ok K-rates, good K/BB ratios and an average amount of home runs allowed. He's a lot like Fergie Jenkins actually but Jenkins put up his numbers over 1200 more innings. If that's good enough for your Hall of Fame, I guess you'll need more square footage than me.

I admit this whole "affected by opportunity" argument only goes so far. If a guy had 2000 RBI over his career, he's probably going to go in the Hall no matter what his peripherals are like. Do we feel the same way about Saves? I mean, Eck is third in career Saves with 390. The thing is, no one is in a rush to induct Lee Smith and he's in first place with 88 more than Eck. So, I guess Saves aren't the same.

So, here's what we're left with: a strange amalgamation of Wins, which we care something about, and Saves, which we care a little less about, and short peaks and a lot of average years and above average but not excellent peripherals and not much else. Part of the problem is that it's difficult to level the playing field given how Eck was used but I don't total all that up to being one of the greatest pitching careers in major league history. I have to seriously stretch in order to consider Eck a Hall of Famer and I'm not that limber. Like I said, I guess I have high standards.

By the way, now that I think about it, your Scenario B pitcher isn't even eligible for the HOF. He didn't play for 10 seasons.

MR. OCTOBER's trolling is not appreciated.

To business:

I voted for 11 anyway. Does that invalidate my whole ballot?

Gitz, your ballot is large, it contains multitudes. I'll pretend you voted for 10 and count 11.

475.3 Innings Pitched.

That's what Eck pitched during his 6-year peak.

But those 475 innings had massive leverage. Probably double the leverage index of a typical starter on a typical team, so in terms of impact on team wins, the equivalent of maybe 950 innings. 160 innings a year isn't all that amazing, but when you have a 606 ERA+, it's pretty impressive.

In his prime, no one thought of him in the same breath as Jim Palmer or Tom Seaver, or for that matter Luis Tiant.

In his prime, he pitched in Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Dallas, and Cleveland. Those other guys pitched in Boston, New York, and Baltimore... I find it hardly a stretch to say Bert was underrated for that very reason. But no one is suggesting Bert was as good a pitcher as Seaver or Palmer. You don't have to be nearly as good as Tom Seaver to be in the Hall of Fame.

Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Dallas, and Cleveland

Cue "one of these things is not like the others ..."

One of these cities is a major midcontinent hub for airline traffic, is Top 10 in U.S. size and business and is home to two of the world's largest media conglomerates.

Anyone who plays in Dallas has no excuse for lack of exposure compared to any city outside of New York, and perhaps L.A. (except L.A. doesn't care about professional sports) and that includes Chicago.

Jus' call me "Homer" ...
Mick Doherty
Internet Editor
Dallas Convention & Visitors Bureau, 1997-2000

That said, Bertie wasn't here long enough to make his mark.

But those 475 innings had massive leverage. Probably double the leverage index of a typical starter on a typical team, so in terms of impact on team wins, the equivalent of maybe 950 innings. 160 innings a year isn't all that amazing, but when you have a 606 ERA+, it's pretty impressive.

Double the leverage? Where did you come up with x2? Higher, yes, but I'm not so sure about double.

606 ERA+ is fantastic. But it was in 73 innings. It was only 5% of his team's innings. And there are probably other players, either starters or relievers, who have put together strings of 73 innings with the same ballpark ERA. Unfortunately, those other streaks happen in the middle of seasons or over two seasons. They are probably similarly impressive but since they don't sit alone on their own line on a career statistics chart, they aren't perceived as impressive as Eck's 1990.

same ballpark ERA

Read this as "ERA in the same vicinity".

I really have to start proofreading.

Craig B's last post said everything I would have said.

Spicol:

As far as 2x leverage, unfortunately, I don't think we have leverage numbers on games from Eck's peak, so we have to guess. But 2x is not completely lunatic. As Tango worked out, Bruce Sutter's LI (leveraged index, the amount you multiply IP by) was 1.90. Lee Smith's was 1.73.

One of these cities is a major midcontinent hub for airline traffic, is Top 10 in U.S. size and business and is home to two of the world's largest media conglomerates...

...and if you moved it 1,000 miles in either direction, someone who doesn't live there might actually know these things.

http://economics.about.com
...and if you moved it 1,000 miles in either direction, someone who doesn't live there might actually know these things.

You want to move Dallas to Nicaragua?

Mike

You want to move Dallas to Nicaragua?

...or Manitoba.

http://economics.about.com
...or Manitoba

No, that would be stupid.

He meant that we should move Dallas 1000 miles from the earth's surface, so we can all see it at night.

Boy, doesn't your suggestion look foolish now you know the truth!

Mike

Oh, I'm familiar with Tangotiger's work (which is excellent stuff) and I don't think what Craig said is lunatic. But 2 is a stretch and to counterpoint with hyperbole is counterproductive.

I don't want to turn this into a whole leveraged innings discussion without knowing the real number for Eck but even if you concentrate just on his reliever years, I have to think his LI is lower than a Bruce Sutter due to the way Eck was used. Sutter regularly came in in the 7th or 8th and with runners on base but aside from 1987, Eck was used primarily as a one-inning closer. Guys who start the ninth with empty bases are going to have pitched in lower leverage situations.

But 2 is a stretch and to counterpoint with hyperbole is counterproductive.

DELETE "But those 475 innings had massive leverage. Probably double the leverage index of a typical starter on a typical team, so in terms of impact on team wins, the equivalent of maybe 950 innings. 160 innings a year isn't all that amazing, but when you have a 606 ERA+, it's pretty impressive."

REPLACE WITH "But those 475 innings had massive leverage. Probably 1.8 times the leverage index of a typical starter on a typical team, so in terms of impact on team wins, the equivalent of maybe 850 innings. 140 innings a year isn't all that amazing, but when you have a 606 ERA+, it's pretty impressive."

Am I being productive now?

Incidentally, if we're looking at one-inning closers, Troy Percival's LI for a recent 4-year period was just under 2.

Eic Gagne, 2002... 1.83. John Smoltz, 2002... 1.79.

A 1.8 figure for Eck is very reasonable I think.

to counterpoint with hyperbole is counterproductive

Craig, I think Spicol was talking about my 'lunatic' line.

For "is not completely lunatic", read "is within a reasonable margin of error". Sorry, I was trying to be florid.

Contemporary closers are NOT a good point of comparison. Offense is up significantly compared to Eckersley's peak, making today's late innings worth more.

Let's stop discussing that point until we have a real LI number for Eck .

So, here's where I'm at: Eckersley's career numbers aren't good enough for admission and his peak wasn't high enough to carry him in on it's own. Your honour, I rest my case. The Defense may proceed.

Let's stop discussing that point until we have a real LI number for Eck.

I bow humbly before your debating-fu. No, let's not drop the point on which Craig's and my entire case rests.

Let's guess low. 1.7?

Let's not guess at all. Let's work with facts.

But, if somehow you can use 1.7 to build a case for admission based on his peak, I'll read it and take it with a grain of salt.

I'll make the case for the defence. From 1975 to 1979, Eckersley was a marginal HoF quality starter; he performed slightly better than Blyleven. From 1988 to 1992, he pitched as well as any pitcher ever has. I am reluctant to use ERA+ for a reliever. In 359 2/3 innings over that span, he allowed 247 hits including 28 homers, only 38 walks and 378 strikeouts. This is better performance than the best Lefty Grove or Sandy Koufax season. During that time, he, Canseco, McGwire and Dave Stewart were the core of a great team.

Rollie Fingers is in the Hall of Fame. He pitched just over 1/2 the number of innings in his career that Eckersley did, with similar ratios of IP/H, K/W and K/IP. Fingers was much more consistent over his career than Eckersley was, but at his peak was nowhere as good as Eckersley was. Overall, I'd take Eckersley.

Eckersley's peak was extremely high. He contributed enough innings over his career. His admission should be clear. The defence rests.

Mike Green's case is even stronger if you multiply those innings from 1988 to 1992 by 1.7.

Let's not guess at all. Let's work with facts.

That would be great if we had them. We don't, and we aren't likely to get them, since computing LI is, as I understand it, incredibly time-consuming.

So we've got to make an assumption. First let's be clear: 'No assumption' is itself an assumption - not using LI is the same as using an LI of 1.0.

Now, 1.7 might be a little high, or a little low, but 1.0 is definitely too low. It's like not knowing the weight of a Hummer and so just not considering its weight - that is, assuming it's weightless. I don't know the weight of a Hummer, but I'd be a lot more comfortable with '2 tons' than 'nothing, because we don't know for sure.'

We need to assume something above 1.0. I suggest 1.7.

Molitor
Eckersley
Trammel
Blyleven

Well, Andrew, it's really hard unless you have baselines for everybody, which we just don't have. In Sandy Koufax' best years, most often he had 3 runs or less support. In a couple of seasons, he won 80% (!) of games where he had 1-3 runs of support. I have no idea what the LI would have been for him in those seasons, but I'm guessing that it would have been higher than 1.

While missing the statistical information to do accurate comparisons of the significance of the innings pitched by Eckersley versus those of the other great pitchers, we do know the broad strokes. His innings pitched were in meaningful situations.

I did a quick check of the first 1/2 of Eckersley's 1988 season using Retrosheet. 60% of his 25 saves came in fairly low leverage situations (2 and 3 run leads, less than 2 innings pitched). He did have several other games where he came in and pitched a couple of innings in 1-run or tie games. My guess is that Eckersley's LI would be lower than Gagne's because the A's of his time scored more runs than Gagne's Dodgers, and so gave him more 2 and 3 run leads to work with in the ninth.

You want to move Dallas to Nicaragua?

Fort Worth would be a big fan of such a move.

I'll make the case for the defence. From 1975 to 1979, Eckersley was a marginal HoF quality starter; he performed slightly better than Blyleven.

I've seen similar comparisons a few times now and you guys are all right. Eck, in his peak as a starter, did pitch as well as Sutton or Blyleven or Gaylord Perry or Phil Niekro. The difference is that all of those pitchers earned their spots in the Hall due to a prolonged high level of performance. Career stats got them in. Stats that Eckersley doesn't have.

The guy was absolutely ordinary for 12 of his 24 years...half of the seasons in his career he put up an ERA+ between 78 and 112. How can anyone say with conviction that he's one of the greatest pitchers ever? I can see that he had amazing seasons but he didn't have an amazing career. Does anyone else in the Hall, anyone who merits inclusion anyway, have such a ying and yang to their career? Nolan Ryan, but the strikeouts got him in. Steve Carlton would be close but again, the Ks.

Too many hockey sticks in this room.

Check out the career of Red Ruffing. Very, very mediocre until age 28 when he was traded to the Yankees. Joe DiMaggio's glove seemed to have been the magic elixir and he pitched very well until age 38. But, even when he pitched well, his strikeout-to-walk ratios were just a little better than even.

Eckersley is not one of the greatest pitchers ever in terms of career value. His peak is one of the highest, and over his career, he was better than many already in the Hall. Five years of starting better than Blyleven and five years of closing much better than Fingers at his peak equals an easy H of F selection, on the basis of a combination of peak and career performance.

Eck, in his peak as a starter, did pitch as well as Sutton or Blyleven or Gaylord Perry or Phil Niekro. The difference is that all of those pitchers earned their spots in the Hall due to a prolonged high level of performance. Career stats got them in. Stats that Eckersley doesn't have.

Career pitching runs above average and above replacement level (from BP):

Pitcher           PRAA  PRAR
Don Sutton         187  1370
Bert Blyleven      324  1421
Gaylord Perry      280  1459
Phil Niekro        226  1402
Dennis Eckersley   279  1130
Pitcher X          240  1567

Dennis Eckersley had 149 PRAA in his 8-year peak (1987-1994). Don Sutton had 122 PRAA in his 8-year peak (1971-1978).

The four guys you listed aren't fringe HoFers, and Eckersley's career stats match up just fine against theirs, even without a LI adjustment.

Incidentally, Pitcher X is the combined career stats of Rollie Fingers and Catfish Hunter, both Hall of Famers elected by the BBWAA. There's a Hall of Fame starter and a Hall of Fame reliever put together, and Eckersley's career numbers hold up OK.

Good stuff, John. Where do Stieb, Morris and the rest on this year's ballot fit in?

http://economics.about.com

Stieb  177 823
Morris  20 909
ElPres  32 939

Remind me again why we keep ignoring Martinez but will drone on about Morris and Stieb?

Mike

http://economics.about.com
I meant "we" as in the standard Primer/BBox/Internet Baseball community in general, and not BBox in specific.

Thanks for your understanding :),

Mike

I think we all just assume that you'll bring him up, Mike. ;)

http://economics.about.com
I think we all just assume that you'll bring him up, Mike. ;)

Well, the evidence does support that conclusion. :)

Cheers,

Mike

I need someone smarter than I to poke a hole in the following logic:

If we have an ERA+ number and we're trying to compare a reliever's numbers with a starter's, can we not multiply both players' ERA+ score by their IP totals to come up with some sort of weighted ERA+ Score? And if we know the reliever's LI (preferably, the REAL LI), can we not use it with the IP to have a better point of comparison against a starter's season?

Example:

Dennis Eckersley 1990: 606 ERA+ * (73.3 IP * 1.7 LI) = 755.5 ERA+ Score
Dave Stewart 1990: 145 ERA+ * 267 IP = 387.15 ERA+ Score

It seems too simple to be right. ;)

Spicol,

ERA+ is defined as (League ERA)/(Pitcher's ERA). BR uses *ERA+ to denote a park-adjusted ERA+.

Lee Sinins' RSAA is defined, I believe, as (*lgERA - Pitcher's ERA)*IP/9. RSAR would be defined as (Replacement ERA - Pitcher's ERA)*IP/9. (Sinins never uses replacement value in his metrics, which is one of my few quibbles with his work.)

BP's PRAR and PRAA are supposed to represent the same quantities as Sinins' stats but are calculated through some horribly complicated method that allocates runs to both pitching and defence.

A leveraged RSAA or RSAR could be defined as

LRSAA = (*lgERA-ERA)*(IP/9)*LI
LRSAR = (*rERA-ERA)*(IP/9)*LI

These definitions are equivalent to

LRSAA = (*lgERA-[*lgERA/ERA+])*(IP/9)*LI
LRSAR = (*lgERA-[*lgERA/ERA+])*(IP/9)*LI

You can't really use ERA+ as a multiplicative factor in these calculations, for two reasons:

1. A pitcher can only save a finite number of runs, but there's no upper bound on ERA+ (e.g. Eckersley's absurd 606 ERA+ in 1990)
2. The number of runs saved depends not only on the pitcher's ERA+ but also on the league ERA. A pitcher who allows half as many runs as average will save more runs in a high-scoring league than in a low-scoring league. Mind you, the value of the runs saved will be exactly the same.

BR gives the 1990 Oakland *lgERA as 3.72. If we use rERA = 5.50 and LI = 1.7 for Eckersley and 1.0 for Stewart, we have:

             IP  ERA   RSAA  RSAR  LRSAA  LRSAR
Eckersley  73.3  0.61    25    40     43     68     
Stewart   267.0  2.56    34    87     34     87

Leveraging brings Eckersley ahead in RSAA, but Stewart still wins in the more important category of RSAR even with leveraging.

By the way, I'm surprised that you accepted my point so easily -- I don't think RSAR and RSAA tell the whole story, and Eckersley still trails the other pitchers by about 250-300 RSAR (actually PRAR). Mind you, I don't think this is an issue after leveraging is brought in.

John

Dennis Eckersley's relief stats (assuming LI = 1.7)

Year  PRAA  PRAR  LPRAA  LPRAR
1987	  24	  58	 40.8	  98.6
1988	  19	  47	 32.3	  79.9
1989	  22	  42	 37.4	  71.4
1990	  34	  63	 57.8	 107.1
1991	  16	  48	 27.2   81.6
1992	  31	  63	 52.7	 107.1
1993	   4	  29	  6.8	  49.3
1994	  -2	  19	 -3.4	  32.3
1995	  -1	  25	 -1.7	  42.5
1996	   5	  27	  8.5	  45.9
1997	   6	  29	 10.2	  49.3
1998	   1	  11	  1.7	  18.7
Total  159   461  270.3  783.7

With leverage, Eckersley picks up 111 PRAA and 323 PRAR, giving him career totals of 390 PRAA and 1453 PRAR. That's easily a match for any of the other guys.

I'll stop beating this dead horse now ;)

John

By the way, I'm surprised that you accepted my point so easily

I didn't. I just said it was "good stuff".

I stand corrected.

I also didn't not accept it. It was food for thought and I appreciate that you provided it.

I'm sure we're now boring the readership with what was a well intentioned discussion so I'll close with this (although I am interested in your LRSAR post...I'm letting it sink in): It's my vote and I have certain criteria that I use to make it. Feel free to chalk the system I use up as crap if you so wish but it can't be wrong. We simply have different requirements for election. I liked discussing the numbers as a check against how I feel and if the numbers were overwhelming in favour of Eck, I'd probably have to chuck my criteria for him. He is, after all, a pretty unique case and a tough call. But that hasn't happened. Some intriguing stuff has come up but nothing to help me ignore the 12 years, most in the middle of his career, that Eckersley was just average.

It's this kind of discussion that makes the Hall so great I suppose. It's not the Hall of Greatest Statistical Performances. It's the Hall of Fame. Fame infers renown and quite generally, how the public feels about a player. My criteria is right in line with how I feel a Hall of Fame player should perform and so it brings a little but of objectivity to what is pretty much a subjective exercise. But in the end, the Hall of Fame is for the fans, to recognize the players renowed as the greatest players ever, and this fan can't bring himself to vote for Dennis Eckersley and include him as part of that echelon.

In contrast to my 4, Mick found 17 players he wanted to vote for. How excellent is that? He's got 17 guys out of this list that affected him in such a way that he can include them in his estimation of the best players ever. They obviously didn't affect me in the same way but it speaks to how great the Hall is that entry to it is subject to interpretation and every fan can make it personal.

Either that or Mick is rolling and smoking old term papers. ;)

Either that or Mick is rolling and smoking old term papers. ;)

Spicol, after hundreds of students rolled through my introductory writing, technical and business writing and writing for the Web classes at Bowling Green and RPI, I can tell you quite confidently that I would not smoke their term papers. Most were way too low-grade.

It's my vote and I have certain criteria that I use to make it. Feel free to chalk the system I use up as crap if you so wish but it can't be wrong.

This is what I like about taking votes on things. No one is "right", and no one is "wrong", in making their Hall of Fame votes. I think playing favorites, and so forth, is a good thing in Hall voting. Provided people don't withhold votes out of spite. I don't see that here.

I think it's a shame when great players are excluded from the Hall. I don't think that would happen as much if the vote were given to the people who deserve it most (the fans).

Spicol,

I entirely agree -- it would be terribly boring if we all agreed on who should be in and who should be out. The debating is what makes it fun. And in general, I'm all for making the Hall more exclusive. I happen to think that Eckersley is worthy of election, but I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary; conversely, I don't think I'd vote for Dawson right now, but if someone made a strong case I might be convinced to change my mind.

Incidentally, as I'm sure you noticed, I made an error in post 76: the alternate definition of LRSAR should read

LRSAR = (rERA-[*lgERA/ERA+])*(IP/9)*LI

I think this thread is ready to give up the ghost.

John

http://www.baseballprimer.com/studies/archives/00000226.shtml
I posted Eck's year-by-year LI (through 1992) a few weeks ago at the above link.

Tom

I think Tango's LI analysis is a huge point in favour of Spicol's position that at least a couple of Eck's eye-popping years aren't as valuable as they look!

Thanks, Tom for letting us know. You're a godsend.

The numbers came in pretty close to what they appeared to me to be in a small sample, but it's very nice to have them confirmed.

Eck still is an easy HoFer for me.

For me too.

Re-opening the discussion...

What do people think of Dave Concepcion? I have always been lukewarm to him, but I have to admit he compaers very well to two guys I think are legit Hall of Famers, Ozzie Smith and Phil Rizzuto.

Thoughts? Concepcion doesn't have the big seasons that others do... and his best season was probably 1978, and he didn't even win the Gold Glove that year. He was great in '81 too, but that was the strike year.

He's in the gray zone, in my opinion. Shortstops with good but not great gloves, average offense and long careers. Dave Bancroft, Dick Bartell, Tony Fernandez, Bert Campaneris.

My problem with these guys is that it's hard to separate them from Mike Bordick who was a good player, but a long way from my view of a HoFer. And that there are so many of them. Personally, I go for an above average bat with good but not great D (Pee Wee Reese, Luke Appling, Alan Trammell) or average O but great D (Aparicio, Ozzie)

I wouuld definitely leave Concepcion off of my list (by a fair margin), without second thought.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/ballot?event_id=521
COMN for an ESPN poll that lets you fill out a ballot. Results are very itneresting... Blyleven barely in the top ten, Jim Eisenrich (> 500 RBI and > 55 HR) is ahead of Dave Stieb (as is Jimmy Key...Terry Pendleton and a host of others) and NOBODY getting the 75% needed for enshrinement (or even 70%).

The problem with Concepcion, though, is that he was legitimately a great, great defender - but maybe not in Ozzie Smith's class. Half a notch below.

My ballot:
Molitor
Eckersley
Trammell
Blyleven
Sandberg
Rice
Gossage
Sutter
Mattlingly
Whitacker (write in)

Here's a must-read for HOF voters courtesy of SportsLine.com's Scott Miller.
Amen, Scott!

Here's a must-read for HOF voters, courtesy of SportsLine.com's Scott Miller.
Amen, Scott!

Concepcion suffers by comparison not to other shortstops but to his own teammates. Look at who was around him ... Rose, Morgan and Perez in the same infield with MVP George Foster in the OF (along with All-Star Ken Griffey The First and Gold Glove winner Cesar Geronimo) ... oh, and some guy named Bench behind the plate.

He hit seventh or eighth his whole career, though he would have led off or hit second for most other teams in the majors at that point.

And don't forget his innovation ... Concepcion "invented" the use of the bounce throw to first on astroturf. Small things like that changed the game forever.

The fact is that when I was first becoming aware of baseball as a kid in Ohio, the Reds were torn among three "great" shortstop prospects ... Frank Duffy, who was traded to the Giants in the deal for Foster, Darrell Chaney -- who everyone thought would be the guy, but ended up dealt to Atlanta for Mike Lum, of all people -- and Concepcion.

At one point, the Jays were hyping three young shortstops -- Alex Gonzalez, Cesar Izturis and Felipe Lopez. If any one of the three had turned out like Concepcion, I think many Boxers would be screaming for Hall of Fame recognition.

And yes, I do think Toronto's Tony Shortstop (#2 on Concepcion's similarity scores) deserves a look-see, just like Davey.

My ballot:

Bert Blyleven
Rich Gossage
Keith Hernandez
Ryne Sandberg
Bruce Sutter
Alan Trammell

I want another year to think about Molitor and Eckersley. I haven't voted for Jim Rice before and I'm not starting now.