2019 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot

SDSportsFan

Here's the list of candidates for HOF induction in 2019.

HOLDOVERS
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Andruw Jones
Jeff Kent
Edgar Martínez
Fred McGriff
Mike Mussina
Manny Ramírez
Scott Rolen
Curt Schilling
Gary Sheffield
Sammy Sosa
Omar Vizquel
Billy Wagner
Larry Walker

NEW
Andy Pettitte
Mariano Rivera
Rick Ankiel
Jason Bay
Lance Berkman
Freddy Garcia
Jon Garland
Travis Hafner
Roy Halladay
Todd Helton
Ted Lilly
Derek Lowe
Darren Oliver
Roy Oswalt
Juan Pierre
Placido Polanco
Miguel Tejada
Vernon Wells
Kevin Youkilis
Michael Young

My votes would be:
Bonds
Clemens
Martinez
McGriff
Mussina
Pettitte
Rivera
Schilling
Walker

Steve

perkdog

Mariano Rivera should be a no question first ballot lock, the rest of that new list is a joke. I agree with most of your list Steve

ernie11

The new list has few probabilities other than Rivera as a lock, as perkdog said. I do think the voters should look closely at Roy Halladay, Andy Pettitte and Todd Helton.

1951WheatiesPremium

Mariano Rivera gets my vote.

Probably Roy Halliday, too.

The rest can wait.

Tabe

@ernie11 said:
The new list has few probabilities other than Rivera as a lock, as perkdog said. I do think the voters should look closely at Roy Halladay, Andy Pettitte and Todd Helton.

I don't see much of an argument for Pettite. 18 seasons in the bigs and 10 of those he had an ERA of 3.99 or higher. Had two seasons with an ERA under 3.00 and one of those was when he was taking roids as a member of the Astros.

SDSportsFan

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Mariano Rivera gets my vote.

Probably Roy Halliday, too.

The rest can wait.

What about Martinez and McGriff?

This is their 10th and final time on the writers' ballot.

Steve

orioles93

If no limit, I’d vote for

Returning:
Bonds
Clemens
Kent
Martinez
McGriff
Mussina
Schilling
Vizquel
Wagner
Walker

New:
Rivera
Halladay
Helton

DIMEMAN

No way on Barry "the drug store" Bonds...…...EVER!!!! NOT EVER!!!!

dallasactuary

I'd vote for Mussina, Schilling, Walker, Rivera, Berkman and Halladay

I wouldn't gripe if Kent, McGriff or Rolen got in.

garnettstyle

Pete Rose
Dave Parker
Dale Murphy
Steve Garvey

craig44

Rivera seems to be a slam dunk for everyone, but I really dont see a place in the hall for pitchers with such small sample sizes. he only threw 1283 innings in 19 years. He was great in the limited innings he worked, but for me, not nearly enough value. here are a few examples:
rivera averaged only 1.1 innings/relief apperance
he threw 25 pitches or less in 916 of his 1115 games
He entered 1024 of his innings with 0 outs and 0 runners on base.

Much of his career was only one inning appearances in low leverage situations.

He had really only one out pitch and as such was a failed starter. In a very limited sample size of 10 starts, in the first time through the order he held opponents to .232 BA .678 OPS 2nd time, .333 BA .837 OPS 3rd time, .409 BA 1.227 OPS the Yankees saw he didnt have the stuff to be a starter and put him in the pen.

Can you imagine if teams had put Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Sandy Koufax, Kershaw, Seaver etc. in the pen, usually to only enter the game in very low leverage situations and told them they could air it out for only 25 pitches or less? Rivera would have been a footnote. not a HOF for me.

grote15

Rivera is a lock. If there were any chance that Bonds and/or Clemens get in, this is the year.

Coinstartled

@DIMEMAN said:
No way on Barry "the drug store" Bonds...…...EVER!!!! NOT EVER!!!!

Agree. Off the list I would vote for crime dog.

dallasactuary

@craig44 said:
Rivera seems to be a slam dunk for everyone, but I really dont see a place in the hall for pitchers with such small sample sizes. he only threw 1283 innings in 19 years. He was great in the limited innings he worked, but for me, not nearly enough value.

Certainly there's a subjective element to it, but I wrote a lengthy post years ago about what defined a HOF pitcher and with a handful of exceptions - the "flukes", like Hunter and now Morris - it came down to their value. And for a pitcher, their value resides in the one thing that they are asked to do - not give up runs. And despite pitching so few innings, Rivera still managed to give up more than 300 runs fewer than an average pitcher. In that he beats not just the Hunters and Morrises befouling the bottom of the HOF, but also Juan Marichal, Steve Carlton, Sandy Koufax and a multitude of others. In fact, it places him in the top 10%-20% of all HOF pitchers. And when you look at his postseason (ERA of 0.70 over another 140+ innings) it just gets mind-boggling.

Rivera is a slam dunk, and deservedly so.

bronco2078

@Tabe said:

@ernie11 said:
The new list has few probabilities other than Rivera as a lock, as perkdog said. I do think the voters should look closely at Roy Halladay, Andy Pettitte and Todd Helton.

I don't see much of an argument for Pettite. 18 seasons in the bigs and 10 of those he had an ERA of 3.99 or higher. Had two seasons with an ERA under 3.00 and one of those was when he was taking roids as a member of the Astros.

Also too many T's in his name its ridiculous

craig44

@dallasactuary said:

@craig44 said:
Rivera seems to be a slam dunk for everyone, but I really dont see a place in the hall for pitchers with such small sample sizes. he only threw 1283 innings in 19 years. He was great in the limited innings he worked, but for me, not nearly enough value.

Certainly there's a subjective element to it, but I wrote a lengthy post years ago about what defined a HOF pitcher and with a handful of exceptions - the "flukes", like Hunter and now Morris - it came down to their value. And for a pitcher, their value resides in the one thing that they are asked to do - not give up runs. And despite pitching so few innings, Rivera still managed to give up more than 300 runs fewer than an average pitcher. In that he beats not just the Hunters and Morrises befouling the bottom of the HOF, but also Juan Marichal, Steve Carlton, Sandy Koufax and a multitude of others. In fact, it places him in the top 10%-20% of all HOF pitchers. And when you look at his postseason (ERA of 0.70 over another 140+ innings) it just gets mind-boggling.

Rivera is a slam dunk, and deservedly so.

You are not placing Riveras innings in context and you are comparing him to starters. Most of Rivera's innings were single, and the vast majority began with no runners on. He hardly ever had to go through a lineup more than once and on the very very few times he did it was not pretty. that is why the Yankees put him in the pen, He was unable to do what Marichal, Carlton, Koufax and yes even Morris and Hunter did. He was basically a failed starter with one pitch. If you allowed many other Starters to do what Rivera was allowed to do, they would probably have very similar results. Rivera did not have to leave anything in the tank and knew that most times he could just let it fly for 25 or less pitches and not have to face batters more than once. 1283 innings, Less than 5 years for most hall of fame pitchers.

garnettstyle

Most of those players on the list should be trying to get into Barry Bonds Hall of fame.

orioles93

Blows me away how many people don’t respect relief pitchers. You can’t compare them to starting pitchers. It’s basically a completely different position and they should be judged on what they did, not compared to what players at another position did. There’s a reason why relief pitchers are in such high demand nowadays. And there’s a reason why there are so few of them that are great at what they do. And there’s another reason why there are even fewer of them that do it great, for a long career. It’s a tough job whether you think it is or not and very few players succeed at it year in and year out.

MCMLVTopps

As a Red Sox fan of 50 years ++, I give a BIG THUMBS UP for Mariano Rivera! A class act, a superb pitcher, and a hero to the Red Sox Nation faithful...i.e. 2004 WS. When I saw him in Fenway, he ALWAYS got a standing O...classy, classy guy.

The rest are sketchy to me, as I don't really know their stats. Bonds, Clemens and Sosa...never. Andy P admitted to using, but got a pass as he claimed it was medicinal as I recall. Schilling is a possibility...the bloody sock, etc. ManRam...don't think so.

Halladay may get an emotional vote, but his stats may not support induction. Again, I don't know his complete record.

Tabe

@orioles93 said:
Blows me away how many people don’t respect relief pitchers. You can’t compare them to starting pitchers. It’s basically a completely different position and they should be judged on what they did, not compared to what players at another position did. There’s a reason why relief pitchers are in such high demand nowadays. And there’s a reason why there are so few of them that are great at what they do. And there’s another reason why there are even fewer of them that do it great, for a long career. It’s a tough job whether you think it is or not and very few players succeed at it year in and year out.

You are right that it's tough to be really good for a long time as a reliever. But it's not hard to be good for short periods. There were 22 relievers with 50 IP and an ERA under 2.50 last year, for example.

I think Rivera belongs in (along with Billy Wagner) but I think the bar needs to be really, really high for relievers. We're talking guys that pitch 60 innings a year. That's 4% of a typical season. If you're only involved 4% of the time, that 4% better be REALLY good. For a long time.

PatsGuy5000

Rivera, Bonds, Clemens are my picks

dallasactuary

@craig44 said:
You are not placing Riveras innings in context and you are comparing him to starters. Most of Rivera's innings were single, and the vast majority began with no runners on. He hardly ever had to go through a lineup more than once and on the very very few times he did it was not pretty. that is why the Yankees put him in the pen, He was unable to do what Marichal, Carlton, Koufax and yes even Morris and Hunter did. He was basically a failed starter with one pitch. If you allowed many other Starters to do what Rivera was allowed to do, they would probably have very similar results. Rivera did not have to leave anything in the tank and knew that most times he could just let it fly for 25 or less pitches and not have to face batters more than once. 1283 innings, Less than 5 years for most hall of fame pitchers.

1. All of a starting pitcher's innings begin with no runners on. I'm not sure where you're going with that point. The point is to not let runners on, and ultimately not to let them score, and Rivera did that with the best of them.

2. No, he was not able to do what starting pitcher's did, but neither have more than a handful of starting pitcher's been able to add as much value as Rivera did. If Rivera's numbers looked anything like a starting pitcher's, then I'd concede your point; pitching as well as a starter for a fraction of the innings is not as valuable. But if you want to find a comparison to Rivera's numbers in a starter, the closest you'll get is Sandy Koufax's last four seasons; close, but Rivera's numbers are better. Since Koufax made the HOF based on five seasons and the willingness to ignore the rest of his career, I think that's a fair comparison. Given that Koufax pitched in the deadest stadium during the deadball era, I think Rivera's HOF case is stronger than Koufax's. You may disagree, but I don't see how you can say they aren't close.

3. Postseason play rarely adds much to a HOF case, because most players play about the same, and the few that are better in the postseason generally only play about 1% of their careers there. Rivera is an exception; 10% of his career is postseason, and he was as close to perfect as any player has ever been.

4. Lots of starters have moved to the bullpen, and I'm sure all of them tried to do what Rivera did. They all failed. The few who came remotely close are already in the HOF.

I'm not a fan of closers, and 99.9% of the time I'm the one arguing that a relief pitcher is nowhere near as good as people make him out to be. But not Rivera; he was amazing.

orioles93

@Tabe said:

@orioles93 said:
Blows me away how many people don’t respect relief pitchers. You can’t compare them to starting pitchers. It’s basically a completely different position and they should be judged on what they did, not compared to what players at another position did. There’s a reason why relief pitchers are in such high demand nowadays. And there’s a reason why there are so few of them that are great at what they do. And there’s another reason why there are even fewer of them that do it great, for a long career. It’s a tough job whether you think it is or not and very few players succeed at it year in and year out.

You are right that it's tough to be really good for a long time as a reliever. But it's not hard to be good for short periods. There were 22 relievers with 50 IP and an ERA under 2.50 last year, for example.

I think Rivera belongs in (along with Billy Wagner) but I think the bar needs to be really, really high for relievers. We're talking guys that pitch 60 innings a year. That's 4% of a typical season. If you're only involved 4% of the time, that 4% better be REALLY good. For a long time.

This is kind of what I was getting at. Good relief pitchers come and go often. You’ll see random guys pop up out of nowhere and have a good year. Guys often have one or two good seasons but then fizzle out. They have some not good seasons or just get cut or sent back down. Very few of them have those great seasons year in and year out. That’s why I think guys like Rivera, Hoffman, Wagner belong in. Current guys that I think have a shot if they keep it up are Kimbrel, Chapman and Jansen. I mean we’re only talking about a few guys here in the grand scheme of hundreds of relief pitchers over the years.

Barndog

if Morris is now the low bar to admission, it's a free for all for pitchers.

dallasactuary

@Barndog said:
if Morris is now the low bar to admission, it's a free for all for pitchers.

There is more than one way to define the "bar"; in one sense Morris' admission creates the free for all, but before Morris there was Hunter, and it was his admission that lowered the bar so far that a non-entity like Morris could get in. Hunter had a handful of very good seasons, Morris had none; Morris pitched a lot of innings as an average pitcher, Hunter was finished as even an average pitcher before he was 30. The only bar needed is one we can use to pry both of them out of the HOF.

orioles93

@Barndog said:
if Morris is now the low bar to admission, it's a free for all for pitchers.

I think I am usually on the more lenient side when it comes to the hall. I think it is a shrine and museum for the best players in the game, not just the most elite. It is there to teach about the game and to showcase the best players. I don't think that includes excluding players just because they weren't as good as Babe Ruth or Willie Mays. With that said, even I don't think Jack Morris belongs in the hall. He really did lower the bar for starting pitchers. He had 5 maybe 6 really good seasons, out of 18.

Barndog

so then, the Hunter-Morris rule being what it is:

Andy Pettitte
Mariano Rivera
Roy Halladay
Curt Schilling

dallasactuary

@Barndog said:
so then, the Hunter-Morris rule being what it is:

Andy Pettitte
Mariano Rivera
Roy Halladay
Curt Schilling

Based on the Hunter-Morris rule, you left out:
Vida Blue
Kevin Brown
Dean Chance
David Cone
Chuck Finley
Bob Friend
Dwight Gooden
Ron Guidry
Orel Hershiser
Charlie Hough
Tommy John
Jim Kaat
Jerry Koosman
Dennis Martinez
Sam McDowell
Jamie Moyer
Mike Mussina
Don Newcombe
Milt Pappas
Billy Pierce
Rick Reuschel
Kenny Rogers
Bret Saberhagen
Dave Stieb
Mel Stottlemyre
Frank Tanana
Luis Tiant
David Wells
Wilbur Wood

And I'm only thinking back a few decades; I'm sure there are dozens of others.

Barndog

I love it!

Might as well give a HoF plaque to Kanye West too for his ceremonial first pitch prowess.

Barndog

oh

And Tiant was my favorite, so yeah, he gets in for sure!

dallasactuary

Tiant pitched for a crappy Indians team, and then in the stadium that convinced people Jim Rice was a great hitter. I don't know if he belongs in the HOF but I know he deserves more consideration than he got, and I am bet-the-lives-of-my-family positive that he was a much better pitcher than Hunter or Morris.

Tabe

@dallasactuary said:
Tiant pitched for a crappy Indians team, and then in the stadium that convinced people Jim Rice was a great hitter. I don't know if he belongs in the HOF but I know he deserves more consideration than he got, and I am bet-the-lives-of-my-family positive that he was a much better pitcher than Hunter or Morris.

Tiant was wildly inconsistent and got about as much consideration as he deserved.

That said, he also had one of the all-time great forgotten seasons in 1968. Gibson and McLain got all the publicity but Tiant was pretty great that year too:

21-9, 1.60 ERA (led the AL), 9 SHO (led the AL), 264 K, 186 ERA+ (led the AL)

But TIant being Tiant, he followed that with 9-20, 3.71 and leading the league in homers and walks.

Tabe

@orioles93 said:

This is kind of what I was getting at. Good relief pitchers come and go often. You’ll see random guys pop up out of nowhere and have a good year. Guys often have one or two good seasons but then fizzle out. They have some not good seasons or just get cut or sent back down. Very few of them have those great seasons year in and year out. That’s why I think guys like Rivera, Hoffman, Wagner belong in. Current guys that I think have a shot if they keep it up are Kimbrel, Chapman and Jansen. I mean we’re only talking about a few guys here in the grand scheme of hundreds of relief pitchers over the years.

Hoffman is a guy I just don't see as a HOFer. Good numbers, sometimes great, just not on the level of Rivera or Wagner.

Barndog

@Tabe said:

@dallasactuary said:
Tiant pitched for a crappy Indians team, and then in the stadium that convinced people Jim Rice was a great hitter. I don't know if he belongs in the HOF but I know he deserves more consideration than he got, and I am bet-the-lives-of-my-family positive that he was a much better pitcher than Hunter or Morris.

Tiant was wildly inconsistent and got about as much consideration as he deserved.

That said, he also had one of the all-time great forgotten seasons in 1968. Gibson and McLain got all the publicity but Tiant was pretty great that year too:

21-9, 1.60 ERA (led the AL), 9 SHO (led the AL), 264 K, 186 ERA+ (led the AL)

But TIant being Tiant, he followed that with 9-20, 3.71 and leading the league in homers and walks.

hmm, 3.71. That's better than some HoF guy's lifetime ERA. So that's it, Tiant should be in!

Coinstartled

@orioles93 said:
Blows me away how many people don’t respect relief pitchers. You can’t compare them to starting pitchers.

>

I compare them to NFL punters.

Tabe

@Barndog said:

@Tabe said:

@dallasactuary said:
Tiant pitched for a crappy Indians team, and then in the stadium that convinced people Jim Rice was a great hitter. I don't know if he belongs in the HOF but I know he deserves more consideration than he got, and I am bet-the-lives-of-my-family positive that he was a much better pitcher than Hunter or Morris.

Tiant was wildly inconsistent and got about as much consideration as he deserved.

That said, he also had one of the all-time great forgotten seasons in 1968. Gibson and McLain got all the publicity but Tiant was pretty great that year too:

21-9, 1.60 ERA (led the AL), 9 SHO (led the AL), 264 K, 186 ERA+ (led the AL)

But TIant being Tiant, he followed that with 9-20, 3.71 and leading the league in homers and walks.

hmm, 3.71. That's better than some HoF guy's lifetime ERA. So that's it, Tiant should be in!

Flawless logic. Can't argue with it.

dallasactuary

@Tabe said:
Tiant was wildly inconsistent and got about as much consideration as he deserved.

No, he wasn't. He's got two bad stretches in his career: his last three seasons when he tried to hang on but wasn't good enough anymore, and 1969-1971 when his managers tried to get him to pitch through injuries, but he couldn't.

Even then, a few thoughts on his 1969 season:

1. His ERA was slightly better than league average
2. He was second on the Indians in WAR with 3.9, which would be an above-average season for Jack Morris
3. His season was pretty comparable to the season Tom Phoebus had for the Orioles. The difference between Phoebus' 14-7 record and Tiant's 9-20 record is entirely unrelated to how well they pitched. The O's scored 5 runs per game with Phoebus on the mound while the Indians were scoring 3.5 for Tiant.

Barndog

Someone in FL needs to do a recount on the Tiant HoF ballots

1951WheatiesPremium

@SDSportsFan said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Mariano Rivera gets my vote.

Probably Roy Halliday, too.

The rest can wait.

What about Martinez and McGriff?

This is their 10th and final time on the writers' ballot.

Steve

Steve,

I have always felt that people make too much of the Hall of Fame, as if a guy who didn't make it somehow sucked. It is not an exclusive club like it should be. For me, the first class was the correct way to do it. There should be a TON of snubs. Please recall that Cy Young was second ballot. Yes, that Cy Young. Only the best of the best of the best. From fifty years of baseball, only five guys were inducted. It is also no coincidence that people will still remark about these players often nearly a century after the fact:

Ty Cobb
Walter Johnson
Christy Mathewson
Honus Wagner
Babe Ruth

No mistakes, some omissions. I much prefer the former in this case.

If you have to 'make a case', to me the guy simply doesn't belong. When an occasional oversight happens, the veterans committee should responsibly act. There are some guys who are borderline - Phil Rizzuto, Joe Torre, Al Rosen, Richie Ashburn - who should have gotten in (or got in) because of after retirement contributions to the game ALONG WITH a nearly hall of fame playing career - and I'm totally fine with that, too. But the players should have been made to wait longer (20 years?), voting should have been held less often (every 10 years?) and more exclusive (5 guys each time like the inaugural class).

I believe most people make their mistake at jump street. It is the Baseball Hall of Fame and not the Baseball Hall of Great Statistical Players. I think the voters should think to themselves, Will this guy endure? For the Joe Jackson, Barry Bonds, Pete Rose, Roger Clemens type, they'll be remembered more for not being in and to me that is a very suitable punishment for each one in their own way. So, that's their legacy and that's how it should be. The names Edgar Martinez and Fred McGriff, while meaningful to me, will have no meaning to anyone who is 18 years of age today (or younger) unless they do a deep dive into baseball history or need either player for a set. I would have included Halladay too but I think his tragic and young death may help him live on. He was so good but perhaps he, too, is wishful thinking and will be quickly forgotten.

Again, Fame is the thing. Not stats, homers, wins, awards or titles.

Fame.

Tabe

@dallasactuary said:

@Tabe said:
Tiant was wildly inconsistent and got about as much consideration as he deserved.

No, he wasn't. He's got two bad stretches in his career: his last three seasons when he tried to hang on but wasn't good enough anymore, and 1969-1971 when his managers tried to get him to pitch through injuries, but he couldn't.

Even then, a few thoughts on his 1969 season:

1. His ERA was slightly better than league average
2. He was second on the Indians in WAR with 3.9, which would be an above-average season for Jack Morris
3. His season was pretty comparable to the season Tom Phoebus had for the Orioles. The difference between Phoebus' 14-7 record and Tiant's 9-20 record is entirely unrelated to how well they pitched. The O's scored 5 runs per game with Phoebus on the mound while the Indians were scoring 3.5 for Tiant.

He went from leading the league in ERA to leading in walks and homers.

From 74-77, his ERA+: 133, 103, 129, 100

He was inconsistent.

BaltimoreYankee

The top PED guys are going to get in eventually. From the newly eligible list, I'd take Rivera and Halliday.

JoeBanzai

Walker and McGriff from the holdovers. Rivera from the new group, maybe Halliday. Helton had some good numbers, first half of his career was awesome.

Bonds and the rest of the juicers, NEVER!

bigmarty58

Could be a one and done with the great Mariano Rivera having the stage to himself. One player who I would also consider is Mike Mussina.

dallasactuary

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

He went from leading the league in ERA to leading in walks and homers.

From 74-77, his ERA+: 133, 103, 129, 100

He was inconsistent.

I'm sorry, are you saying that as Tiant got older his effectiveness as a pitcher slowly declined? Because that would be news so Earth-shattering that it would cause me to rethink my very perception of reality.

But seriously, here's a few other pitchers' ERA+ from ages 33 to 36:

122, 100, 97, 129
144, 134, 107, 115
77, N/A, N/A, N/A
N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A
123, 121, 99, 140
164, 133, 119, 139
146, 98, 169, 75

(N/A = retired)

I could go on, but the point is so blindingly obvious there should be no need. By my count 3 of the above are legitimate candidates for the GOAT pitcher, and all of them, in addition to being in the HOF, had their best seasons before he was in his mid-30's.

And please note that the four year stretch you chose to highlight Tiant's "inconsistency" is almost certainly more consistent than an average four-year stretch from any pitcher.

1951WheatiesPremium

@dallasactuary said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

He went from leading the league in ERA to leading in walks and homers.

From 74-77, his ERA+: 133, 103, 129, 100

He was inconsistent.

I'm sorry, are you saying that as Tiant got older his effectiveness as a pitcher slowly declined? Because that would be news so Earth-shattering that it would cause me to rethink my very perception of reality.

But seriously, here's a few other pitchers' ERA+ from ages 33 to 36:

122, 100, 97, 129
144, 134, 107, 115
77, N/A, N/A, N/A
N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A
123, 121, 99, 140
164, 133, 119, 139
146, 98, 169, 75

(N/A = retired)

I could go on, but the point is so blindingly obvious there should be no need. By my count 3 of the above are legitimate candidates for the GOAT pitcher, and all of them, in addition to being in the HOF, had their best seasons before he was in his mid-30's.

And please note that the four year stretch you chose to highlight Tiant's "inconsistency" is almost certainly more consistent than an average four-year stretch from any pitcher.

Please direct this to whomever said it, A-bro-ham Lincoln.

dallasactuary

My bad, Pete Brose - I was going to reply to your post and discuss the subjective nature of "fame" and decided it didn't add anything to what you said so I moved on to Tabe's post; apparently that was a little too complicated for my remedial skill set.

1951WheatiesPremium

@dallasactuary

I agree fame is subjective BUT my point was to emphasize that the Hall of Fame started out as a VERY exclusive club. That was lost - rather quickly - since there were no first ballot players from the inaugural class until Bob Feller in 1962 and then a plethora after.

Too many bums got in and I don’t mean Dodgers.

Tabe

@dallasactuary said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

He went from leading the league in ERA to leading in walks and homers.

From 74-77, his ERA+: 133, 103, 129, 100

He was inconsistent.

I'm sorry, are you saying that as Tiant got older his effectiveness as a pitcher slowly declined? Because that would be news so Earth-shattering that it would cause me to rethink my very perception of reality.

But seriously, here's a few other pitchers' ERA+ from ages 33 to 36:

122, 100, 97, 129
144, 134, 107, 115
77, N/A, N/A, N/A
N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A
123, 121, 99, 140
164, 133, 119, 139
146, 98, 169, 75

(N/A = retired)

I could go on, but the point is so blindingly obvious there should be no need. By my count 3 of the above are legitimate candidates for the GOAT pitcher, and all of them, in addition to being in the HOF, had their best seasons before he was in his mid-30's.

And please note that the four year stretch you chose to highlight Tiant's "inconsistency" is almost certainly more consistent than an average four-year stretch from any pitcher.

I also mentioned 1969. He was also terrible in 1971 after a good 1970. Injuries or whatever - he was terrible.

He was inconsistent.

dallasactuary

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
@dallasactuary

I agree fame is subjective BUT my point was to emphasize that the Hall of Fame started out as a VERY exclusive club. That was lost - rather quickly - since there were no first ballot players from the inaugural class until Bob Feller in 1962 and then a plethora after.

Too many bums got in and I don’t mean Dodgers.

I completely agree, and I wish the HOF was something other than what it became. Hypothetically - as in, I realize none of this will ever happen - I'd like to see the waiting period before a player is eligible extended significantly past five years, maybe even until after the player has died, and/or not allowing HOF voters to serve if anyone they know is on the ballot. aro13 has pointed out just how many of the very worst HOFers were admitted in the early 70's when their buddies, Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry, were on the Veteran's Committee. And I don't think even he imagined that a pitcher so much worse than those guys would be let in by the modern joke of a Veteran's Committee. Jack Morris is either godfather to a few of their babies, or he has pictures of them molesting goats. Either way, nobody who knows him should be allowed to vote for him; he will be remembered by nobody in another generation. for good reason.

With respect to "fame" the points that are swirling incoherently around in my head are (1) it is too closely correlated to having good teammates, and (2) it can change rapidly from retirement to history. My thoughts about extending the initial eligibility date address point (2), but I don't know what to do about point (1). I'm reasonably confident that had Frank Howard played in NY he'd have been elected on the first ballot, and I'm 100% positive that had Catfish Hunter pitched for the Senators throughout his career, less than 50% of the people who post here would have heard of him. Hunter is undeniably famous, he just wasn't a very good pitcher, so there needs to be something more than "fame" involved. I think what you're getting at is something like "legend" status, but again, who will become a legend takes more than five years to establish.

A possibility I like, but will never happen, that gets at your point more directly, would be for the HOF to establish a "Legend" class within the HOF, and elect one member each year for, say, 10 years and then elect one more every five years from within the members of the HOF.

1951WheatiesPremium

Not that it much matters but in my original post I outlined potential waiting times that would have solved this issue somewhat. Stick to the original plan - lots of snubs, infrequent ballots and voting.

I have always liked the idea of a Legends wing. My idea was 25 spots (like a real roster). To vote someone in you must also vote someone out. Fifteen hitters, ten pitchers.

I’m bothered by Pudge Rodriguez being first ballot and Joe DiMaggio and Cy Young being second ballot.

JoeBanzai

@dallasactuary said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

He went from leading the league in ERA to leading in walks and homers.

From 74-77, his ERA+: 133, 103, 129, 100

He was inconsistent.

I'm sorry, are you saying that as Tiant got older his effectiveness as a pitcher slowly declined? Because that would be news so Earth-shattering that it would cause me to rethink my very perception of reality.

But seriously, here's a few other pitchers' ERA+ from ages 33 to 36:

122, 100, 97, 129
144, 134, 107, 115
77, N/A, N/A, N/A
N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A
123, 121, 99, 140
164, 133, 119, 139
146, 98, 169, 75

(N/A = retired)

I could go on, but the point is so blindingly obvious there should be no need. By my count 3 of the above are legitimate candidates for the GOAT pitcher, and all of them, in addition to being in the HOF, had their best seasons before he was in his mid-30's.

And please note that the four year stretch you chose to highlight Tiant's "inconsistency" is almost certainly more consistent than an average four-year stretch from any pitcher.

How does this have any meaning if you don't identify the players? Whoever it was that was retired for the four years certainly didn't pitch well in retirement, hope he isn't in, or was that Walter Johnson?

Edited to add; Couldn't have been Johnson.....my bad.

I liked Tiant. He played for the Twins one year and did well. I think he was injured and Calvin Griffith got rid of him. Tiant's next year was bad, but I think he pitched with a sore arm if memory serves.

I am on the fence regarding his HOF chances. He was a very good and entertaining pitcher.