Mlb hof tracker
 

I know it is early but I thought it would be nice to start the conversation about people's opinions on this years HOF vote.

Here is a very ellaborate tracker to use.
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?...E2Lu5P1f92OW8o

With only 21 ballots in the tracker so far the front runners seem to be Ivan Rodriguez, Jeff Bagwell, and Tim Raines. They each have been listed on 18 ballots for an 86%.

Tim Raines on his last ballot needed to gain an extra 21 ballots from last year. This year he has already gained 2 votes (voted for by people that didn't vote for him last year). Jeff Bagwell needs an extra 14, but has only gained 1 so far.

Bonds and Clemens are above 80% currently, but they had to gain more than 130 votes and only have gained 1 each thus far. So I don't think they will make up the ground this year.

Now with 24 ballots made public Tim Raines has picked up another vote new vote.

It appears that there is a last year push to get Tim Raines in this year.

Currently Raines and Bagwell sit at 88%. Ivan Rodriguez is at 83%.

37 Ballots public still show Raines and Bagwell are the front runners this year both having been listed on 33 ballots (89%). Pudge Rodriquez is trailing by 3 votes (81%) and Trevor Hoffman is sitting at 29 votes (78%).

Even though Hoffman is above the threshold currently, he has not gained a vote this year (having gained 4 new votes, but losing votes on 4 other ballots).

Raines has already gained 4 votes from people that didn't vote for him last year. Making a good case that he could finally make the HOF in this his 10th year on the ballot.

If Pudge makes it in could it open the door to other alleged (but not proven) PED users?

Pudge to me is an obvious cheater. He literally shrunk by the time he got to the Yankees and had previously played on infamous Rangers teams with Canseco, Palmeiro, and Juan Gonzalez, all cheaters.

Vlad I think is a definitive HOFer but I would suspect absent milestones he'll need to wait a few years. However, he was infinitely better than Jim Rice or Andre Dawson and they're both in.

Vlad has already reached his minimum votes to stay on the ballot. He currently sits at 70% with 26 votes. I am sure he will make it in eventually.

When Piazza made it in I think it opened the door for Bagwell because the only PED suspicion was based on body mass and stats of being PED users.
Pudge has a little more going against him as being listed in Canseco's book and then the "God only knows" answer (instead of a definitive no) when asked if he would be listed in the report.

Vlad's career ended up not being as great as we thought it was going to be when he was half way through, but I still think I'd vote for him, and he'll get in before too long. Being a fun and interesting player doesn't make him a better one, but it will help him get elected.

I don't know, I think Vlad was a very special talent no matter how you look at his career. If he had hit a nice round 320 instead of 318 I don't think there would be any debate. It's hard to do that and still hit 449 homers.

With 44 ballots representing 10% of the ballots here are the interesting notes I take away.

Currently at 75% or higher:
Jeff Bagwell is the leading vote earner with 39 (89%)
Tim Raines 38 ballots (86%)
Trevor Hoffman 35 ballots (80%)
Ivan Rodriguez 35 ballots (80%)
Vlad Guerrero 33 ballots (75%)

The returning players with the most net votes gained (Votes gained from returning votes minus the lost votes from returning voters)

Edgar Martinez sits at 28 ballots (64%), but has gained 6 votes
Bonds, Clemens, and Raines have all gained 5
Walker has gained 4

The biggest drop in returning votes is Schilling who has lost 5 votes.

Whether you agree with it or not, Schilling has screwed himself with his comments over the last few months. Whether that's a reason to keep him out of the Hall or not, I'm not sure.

I will never understand why Schilling gets so much HOF talk. In 20 years he had 6 seasons I'd consider spectacular. That's including 3 years in Philly when he had great seasons with a bad team. Outside of those and his 3 20-game win seasons (none of which garnered him a Cy Young Award, he finished 2nd each time) his career was positively average at best. Being dominant in 15% of your career and only good the rest of the time doesn't scream HOFer to me. I guess the argument could be made that less deserving players are already in but I don't believe past mistakes should condone making repeated mistakes.

He's borderline at best. Great postseason pitcher though.

Schilling was no Roy Halladay and I don't know if Halladay has a certain place in the HOF either. Either way Schilling should not even sniff induction. They still haven't inducted Mussina was better too.

well, your above statement is incorrect , like by a ton. In his career, Shill had 12 seasons that could be called really really good and 6 that could be called spectacular. When you combine the length of his career, with his production, his K/BB ratio and stuff like WAR, FIP and postseason success you end up with a guy who is right there with Mussina and Smoltz in production.

But he is not as good as Mussina and Smoltz. Only Smoltz is in. So why are people talking about Schilling and not Mussina?

That's your opinion. Guess that bloody sock game meant more to you than it did for me. Mussina and Smoltz are ahead of Schilling in terms of both stats and hardware. Schilling is Kevin Brown at best.

From 1992 through the end of his career, Shilling was below all-star level only in 1994 and 2005. He was roughly average in 1994, and terrible in 2005. He's almost exactly as well-qualified for the hall as Mussina is, unless you want to give him extra credit for post-season performance. Mussina has a 2 WAR lead, which, over the course of a career, is negligible. Brown was an occasionally-great pitcher (he probably should have won the 1996 NL Cy Young award), but he's a step behind the other two.

I'm reasonably confident that Shilling and Mussina will both get elected eventually. The problem that Mussina is going to have is that the voters are not good at adjusting for context. He has a career 3.68 ERA, which doesn't look HOF-worthy, but adjusted for context it is better than Fergie Jenkins, Steve Carlton, and about the same as (actually very slightly better than) Don Drysdale. Adjusted for context, Shilling's ERA is better than all of those guys; he is 46th all-time, tied with, among others, Tom Seaver.

Let's not put too much into the WAR factor. It plays a part in consideration, but a small one.

If we're going to rely on WAR as a major consideration, then let's talk about Rick Reuschel going into the Hall.

Probably because most people think Moose will get in over the next few years. Schilling is punished more for his unfortunate Twitter habits than his play. A cursory look at his metrics shows one of the 25 best starters of all time. The talk is more about the low % of votes he's getting right now more than anything.


he has a legit argument 3.22 career FIP 68.2 fWAR (31st all time among pitchers) 9 seasons of 4 or more fWAR not a huge peak, but a long ,solid career.

:rolleyes:

Rick Reuschel is not who comes to mind when I think of the Hall. I will agree to disagree, in that he doesn't have much of an argument for HoF induction.

I give Reuschel as an example so not to rely on WAR, or give too much weight to WAR in establishing a player worth and value.

If you think that WAR is inaccurate, what you need to do is demonstrate that it's inaccurate. What part of the model is wrong, and why? And then maybe help us fix it.

In a nutshell, it takes discrete events (singles, strikeouts, etc), looks at how each of these events effected a team's run scoring/preventing over some specified stretch of time (whatever stretch of time you're interested in), and then converts a player's discrete events into expected runs. Which are then converted to expected wins (given how many runs you needed to produce/prevent in the period under discussion), and subtracts the number of wins a AAA player would have contributed. What's wrong with that?

Or if there's not a philosophical problem with it, perhaps there's a problem with how it's implemented? We've got some really smart people working on it, but checking their work never hurts. You can look up the equations and go through them yourself.*

*For the record, I think that there is a problem of this sort. I think that WAR systematically over-rates relief pitchers, because it includes "leverage" into its calculation for pitchers. Basically, it says that preventing a run in the ninth inning is more important than preventing one in the first. Maybe there are other such problems, if so, let's find them.

Nat,

WAR isn't the be all to end all for me. Just personal choice. It certainly plays a factor, but it's only part of the whole player picture for me.

If others want to rely on WAR, so be it. It's just not my only criteria.

raines, mussina, bonds, clemens, pudge r locks for me. schilling, bagwell, martinez, manny, and vlad would round out my ballot (vlad is borderline but i love the dude so he's in for me). if you don't want to vote manny in because he failed 2 official drug tests i'm not gonna argue...but imo in 5 years bonds and clemens will be locks anyway and that'd clear up a path for other ped guys like manny and arod.

these voters who write in 1-2 guys should have their voting privileges taken away with their action today could affect the potential future gridlock.

How can WAR be considered an accurate stat when it's not even calculated the same way by those who provide it? I like WAR as a quick, at a glance look at a player's worth but if that was the only stat I could muster to argue for enshrinement I don't think it's a compelling enough arguement. My biggest problem is that because it's a cumulative statistic, it gives longevity the appearance of dominance, like the Rick Reuschel for the Hall statement a few posts back. Reuschel was never what I'd consider the dominant pitcher in baseball, or even his league, or heck even his own team in many instances. But he was good over a very long time so his WAR ranks very high.

This is ridiculous. Maybe they don't want to vote for undeserving players. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of above average or Hall of cheaters. I think it is dumb to vote for 10 just because you can. The HOF should be for the best of the best. It is already too watered down.

Agree. Should be you can vote for up to 10. When I see who the 9th and 10th voters are for some of these guys is absurd.

I also agree.


Andy, thanks for sharing - keeping track as the votes become known is fun...


although, the old traditional announcements frequently occurred on my birthday - and I will miss that.


.

well the problem is that by limiting it to ten you can end up where we are now, logjammed. If they gave them a simple "yes/no" ballot and took guys off after 5 years then we could clear the jams and probably have simple 1-2 guys getting in each year .

every different variation of WAR does exactly what the creators of them desired. Fangraphs chooses to use FIP and UZR/DRS in their WAR, baseball reference choose era+ and DRS ...etc as long as you know what the underlying stats are used you can choose which one you want to use and why. (tho i think most people should pick one and stick with it so as not to get caught up trying to cherry pick)

is WAR perfect? no, not at all, (mostly because of defense being so hard to determine accurately) but it's pretty good. If you take cumulative fWAR for at team and compare it to their true record and pythagorean record it tends to match up fairly well. But, it really IS the best stat for comparing players across positions. It's a thumbnail, but a good thumbnail.


as far as the HOF and WAR goes, well of course you need to dig deeper than just their WAR number. But if a guy has a career WAR north of 60 generally they are going to be ,at worst, on the cusp. Once you cross over the 80 threshold you are talking guys that should be shoe ins. Even if it was over 20 years, a player who built up 80 WAR over 20 years was so good for so long as to be enshrined i think. If Koufax can be in for a few hyper-dominant years, other players should be in for a long body of consistently great work. Even if they were never a dominant player.

Ok,here is the thing that pisses me off about the HOF voting,if a player, lets say Ron Santo,{ME} ,no problem with him!Is not a HOFer in all the past votes, than, at the end is?why now ?{AND} what's that say about {YOU} ase a HOF voter! THINGS need to change! At the time he retired I thought Vada Pinson should have gotten in,but not even close! I think it"s time to put 25% of the votes to the fans,25% of the vote to the players, who player against them,25% of the vote to the coach"s & managers who saw them play & only 25% of the vote to the HOF voters!That is 100% of a vote combined with 75% of the combine vote to get in !This would seem much better way to handle it & there should {NEVER} be a year of no players getting in!Also,please,some one tell me ,how Ossie Smith is a 1st round HOF, but Barry Larkin & Ryne Sandberg were not?Also if Ossie is a HOF, than Omar Vizquel sure is, just ase good if not better hitter & I see nothing worst in the fielding part & better arm!THanks,ROBERT.Tinkers to Evans to Chance,please! Maybe if you put all of there careers all in to one,no way!

While I understand viewing it as a cumulative stat, it can be negative, so it's not like hits or k's or something of that nature.

I have a related issue. Intentionally leaving off a no-doubt HOF'er so they don't get elected unanimously.

I have a solution for that,as well as for the PED situation.

Let every voter score his candidates from 0 - 10. You need 75% of the available points for enshrinement so it still has a similar feel. I think you could easily make the case for almost any player "only" scoring a "9", certainly a better argument than you can make for leaving a Ryan, Griffey, Seaver, Aaron etc off your ballot completely. Therefore you don't have to worry about the unanimous problem.

As for PED's if you have a player like Bonds you can decide how much you want to penalize his obviously HOF career while still not denying him entry. Do you want to give him 8 points, or 7 or 0? Even if you give him a "0" it only takes 3 voters giving him a "10" or 5 voters giving him a "9" or 10 "8's" to counteract your "0" so its not as devastating as being left off a ballot in the current system. not to mention I think very few writers would score him a "0" so any points he accrues from the disapproving writers would help him reach the necessary total and be more easily counteracted by those who give him a high score.

A- the HOF is a private entity not affiliated with MLB and thus they can do their voting any way they see fit (and fans are generally idiots so no they shouldn't have a vote)

B- why are player's somehow magically capable of judging past player's ability? just because someone is good at something doesn't make them a good judge of it. Quentin Tarantino is a great director, but his list of the greatest movie of all time is pretty lackluster

C- the problem of when guys get in is pretty lame (some voters refuse to vote for a guy on the first ballot unless they think he deserves "first ballot" recognition) but, the solution is to give voters a "yes/no" ballot rather than a "vote for up to 10" ballot. If they had to give a yes or no to every player I think you'd see a lot better result.

D- they did get rid of a lot of older voters who no longer covered baseball recently so hopefully the voting will improve, but remember, the HOF was created by a hotel magnate in Cooperstown to generate tourism for his hotels not by MLB to celebrate the game. so take it all with a grain of salt.

As to (B) Just because someone plays a sport does not mean they follow it. I boxed amateur for 4 years and won 3 state titles. Besides Ali I couldn't name more than a couple champions from any era.

Ben- I have to disagree with that statement.

Baseball players definitely are more in touch with the past players because they are constantly being compared to them and/or they are always approaching various statistical levels which are used, either justifiably or not, to gauge their standings in comparison to those same past players.

More is written and discussed about Baseball's past than any other sport...and it's not even close. There is no net54boxing or net54golfing, etc.

Players, especially great ones, are keenly aware of their place in the Game's history and who is there with them.
.

Just wondering how a player can be inducted into the Hall on his 15th year of eligibility, but wasn't good enough in the previous 14 years? Did his stats didn't change?
A player that really belongs in the Hall should be in on his first year of eligibility.
Maybe there should be a set criteria to be eligible, and remove the popularity vote.
JMO

Thanks,Jeff!So it takes a voter 15 years to put a player in,what"s that saying about that voter!How many newer voters, know about the older players? Yes I do know MLB doe not run the HOF,but with that said,ROSE is banned from MLB ,not the HOF, thing!You guys keep on talking about Roids & other drugs in the MLB, but why do the NFL & other sports get a pass! TO me this is witch hunting & if we are going to try to keep the baseball HOF clean,just how great were Babe Ruth & TY Cobb,would you want your kids to grow up like that & they didn"t face black players by there stats! SO they were great only vrs other white players!Sorry ,but it"s still a joke!!!Robert.

dude, spaces between ideas ,please

Sorry dad,you must be perfect? Not from this world are you!By the way your not my dad, he just died 3 weeks ago!Robert!!!!!

Don't take it personally, Robert.


I also have difficulty in reading posts that aren't properly spaced.

Sorry for your loss.


.

Jeff- You are not the only one that thinks that way. They have changed the time a player can remain on the ballot to 10 years now. Who knows, 10 years may eventually be 5 years...and a good reason for that is how society approaches everything now...almost instantaneously.

There are many instances of voters who have become more appreciative of certain players after reviewing their careers as a whole, plus a player's last years are hardly ever what sets him apart from the other 99% - which is why the 5-year wait after retirement.

Perhaps, some voters need that extra 10 years...and there are always those voters with their own agenda- which, by the way, I see as a really big problem with the elections. If you have a personal beef with a certain player (not talking about 'rule-breakers'), you need to set it aside before voting or you don't deserve to have a vote.


.

.

Official Annoucement isn't until January 18th?!?!
 

All this time, I thought we would find out next Tuesday (1/10).

Are they trying to make it like the seemingly forever lasting presidential campaign?

Does anyone remember when they moved to a later date?

When was last year's announcement?

.

I thought last year, they announced the results on 1/6/16, but I'm not positive.

HOF Tracker is Now Blocked
 

Typical...just as soon as I got addicted to it.


Anyone know another route to it?





.

The link to the tracker changed

https://t.co/H609i4mQap

I do want to clarify that this is not my tracker. I just follow it and was sharing it.

The official results will be announced Jan 18. As of now with 40% of the votes made public these are the ones to watch.

Bagwell - 92% has gained 14 votes from returning voters and needed 12
Raines - 91.5% has gained 25 votes from returning voters and needed 20
I. Rodriguez - 82.4%

The next two may get a boost from unseen ballots, but more likely will be voted in years to come.
Vlad Guerrero is sitting on the line at 74.4%.
Trever Hoffman is sitting at 72.7% having gained 13 of the 38 he needed from last year.
Based off last years public vote vs total votes I would say there is a +/- 8%

Of particular note for future votes these players are above 60% and have gained more than 10 votes already:

Edgar Martinez - 68.8%, has gained the most votes at 29 of the 137 he needed
Bonds - 67.6%, gained 20
Clemens - 67%, gained 21
Mussina - 61.9%, gained 12

Sitting as the biggest loser of votes is Schilling having lost 10 votes.

Andy- I realized it was not your tracker, but I appreciate you sharing it just the same (I never would have seen it otherwise). Thanks for the updated link.

-Raymond

.

Simply put - the voters are a very fickle bunch. The ballot is crowded and there is a logjam of worthy Hall of Famers.

I also would say with more research and reading, some players had better careers than we think. I get the vibe many BBWAA writers are egotistical and think it's all about them. So they'll send in a blank ballot to draw attention to themselves.

They voted NO on Jimmie Foxx 7 times before he finally got in. He's one of the greatest right handed hitters of all time. By that criteria he doesn't deserve induction.

I found this to be a very good article regarding active pitchers and their chances for the Hall.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/activ...-shot-at-hall/

Pretty interesting stuff. Looking at the modern pitchers chart, I really only feel like Felix is a HOFer. I don't think CC or Verlander are better than he is even if they rank higher, and I don't think either of them are HOFers.