BB HOF Voting Over the Years
SDSportsFan
Posts: 5,136 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I just looked through the yearly voting totals on the BB HOF website and found an interesting statistic.
Only four players (in 71 years of voting) have EVER received 50% or more of the votes in any one year, and are still not in the HOF. EVERY OTHER PLAYER that has EVER received at least 50% of the votes in ANY ONE YEAR, are now in the Hall of Fame!
The four players who have received at least 50% of votes, and still are not in the Hall of Fame are:
Gil Hodges
Three times 60% or better
Eight more times at 50% or better
Goose Gossage
One time above 60%
One more time above 50%
Jim Rice
One time above 60%
Six more above 50%
Andre Dawson
One time above 60%
Three more times above 50%
Of course, Gossage, Rice and Dawson are still eligible to be voted in by the BBWAA, so it appears likely that they all will get in eventually. I just wonder if Hodges will ever get in.
Steve
Only four players (in 71 years of voting) have EVER received 50% or more of the votes in any one year, and are still not in the HOF. EVERY OTHER PLAYER that has EVER received at least 50% of the votes in ANY ONE YEAR, are now in the Hall of Fame!
The four players who have received at least 50% of votes, and still are not in the Hall of Fame are:
Gil Hodges
Three times 60% or better
Eight more times at 50% or better
Goose Gossage
One time above 60%
One more time above 50%
Jim Rice
One time above 60%
Six more above 50%
Andre Dawson
One time above 60%
Three more times above 50%
Of course, Gossage, Rice and Dawson are still eligible to be voted in by the BBWAA, so it appears likely that they all will get in eventually. I just wonder if Hodges will ever get in.
Steve
0
Comments
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>If Sutter is in, Goose deserves to be in, too. >>
You're logic is fine, but about 100 guys qualify by it. Putting Bruce Sutter in the HOF was an epic mistake, and if it can't be undone we should at least pretend it didn't happen.
<< <i>... I know that many on these boards feel that Rice & Dawson are overrated. >>
But then again, so are Hodges and Gossage. The HOF voters do get some right.
The thread mentioned Gossage specifically not the 100 other guys, so that's who I commented on. No need to dig any deeper than that in this case, dallas.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>If Sutter is in, Goose deserves to be in, too. >>
You're logic is fine, but about 100 guys qualify by it. Putting Bruce Sutter in the HOF was an epic mistake, and if it can't be undone we should at least pretend it didn't happen.
<< <i>... I know that many on these boards feel that Rice & Dawson are overrated. >>
But then again, so are Hodges and Gossage. The HOF voters do get some right. >>
In Sutter's defense, he did more or less invent the splitter (or at least that's the impression I'm under). If the HOF accounts for 'contributions made to the game' in addition to performance on the diamond then Sutter's resume looks a little better.
And he did throw what was the most important pitch of my life (ass meets chair, Gorman Thomas!), so that counts for something too
I agree with that statement. He also earned many multi-inning saves, so I too can understand why Sutter was elected to the HOF, and why it took him a while to get in, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The amazing thing is the clamoring for Rice in the Hall. Forget about the multitiude of players from his own era who were better. The man playing one outfield spot over from him is more deserving, hands down! Yet this man doesn't receive a wimper of support.
Lynn also has the 'what if' factor in his corner too. He already beats Rice offensively, but "what if" he wasn't hurt so much?
As for Dawson? I haven't talked about him much, except posting his hitting totals. The man was superior than Rice defensively, and could run the bases...and just knowing what he had to go through on a daily basis with his knees? He gets lots of pluses in my book for those things.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>We already know my thoughts on Rice...no need to add more, BUT, if you were to hold a gun to my head and say "YOu have to put that awesome Red Sox outfielder from the 1970's into the Hall of Fame, I would. Only it wouldn't be Jim Rice...it would be FRED LYNN. >>
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, skinpinch. If the gun was to my head, I'd take Dwight Evans over Rice or Lynn. While we're at it, Yaz played outfield with Rice in the 70's, too. "Jim Rice: fourth best outfielder on his team"; that'll look good on his HOF plaque.
Evans could be better than Lynn. Yes, Evans has him 300 to 250 in the BR, but when it is that close, I like the production coming from Centerfield a bit better.
I think Lynn's defensive contributions(as measured) are hampered by the monster...those would-be putouts in left center are doubles. That hurts Lynn's chances on addding to his put out totals. I look at it as somewhat of a toss up, but a good case could be made for Evans to come out ahead.
For the fans who feel that there is some sort of agenda against Jim Rice because of being influenced by his park, then they must realize that the same park factor is being applied to his teammates, and that they are coming out ahead...even with the park factor. Yaz is still a highly qualifieid Hall of Famer, and Lynn/Evans are more qualified than Rice. It seems that it is the stat of RBI that gives the impetus for Rice's Hall outcry. But heck, even his career RBI total isn't as good as one of the worst Hall of Fame sluggers...Tony Perez.
Actually Hodges is underrated IMO, did you know that during the 50's he had the most homers of anyone? Yes more the Mays, Snider, and Mantle.
he btw lost 4 or 5 years in the beginning of his career to the war.
He was an above average fielder too.
Of all the guys on the so called cusp he is the the nearest IMO.
Overrated? nah, don't think so. if he was, he'd be in the HOF.
Steve
<< <i>And he did throw what was the most important pitch of my life (a-- meets chair, Gorman Thomas!), so that counts for something too
Why was that the most important pitch? Are you a Cardinals fan? Then what about Wainright?
Shane
I'll say this, Gil Hodges was nowhere near as good as Tony Perez or Orlando Cepeda, either in peak value or in career value. If you agree with that then we're just disagreeing about how exactly Hodges is "rated"; if you disagree with that, then you are overrating Hodges.
And if you do disagree with my statement, consider a few things:
Despite walking a ton, Hodges still has a career OBP only 14 points above average. Even Jim Rice was better than that.
Hodges played only 12 seasons that could be considered "full"
Hodges baserunning and fielding add little or nothing to his value.
Hodges best season was not as good as Boog Powell's fifth best season
Hodges best season would be Frank Howard's eighth best season
In Hodges 12 "full" seasons, his average park factor was 105
Fred Lynn's numbers in Fenway relative to elsewhere are more significant than Wade Boggs. Take Fred out of Fenway and he is not even an All-Star, although I agree defensively his numbers would improve (at least statistically). Lynn (like Boggs) received the benefit of facing predominantly right-handed pitchers in a park that was ideal for him. Evans OBP for his career is almost the same road/home and he absolutely hammered left-handed pitching. In Fenway Park, while of course, he had the immense benefit of the Monster - he also faced fewer left-handed pitchers. Evans had his best years when Fenway was not nearly the hitters park that it was in the 1970's. I cannot remember the exact year they built the 600 club but the homeruns dropped after it was built.
By year together here are the Road Splits for Rice/Lynn
1975
Lynn .347 OBP .523 SLG 262 At Bats
Rice .343 OBP .464 SLG 289 At Bats
1976
Lynn .338 OBP .396 SLG 268 At Bats
Rice .291 OBP .455 SLG 290 At Bats
1977
Lynn .292 OBP .352 SLG 270 At Bats
Rice .377 OBP .509 SLG 332 At Bats
1978
Lynn .371 OBP .468 SLG 265 At Bats
Rice .325 OBP .512 SLG 342 At Bats
1979
Lynn .371 OBP .461 SLG 254 At Bats
Rice .337 OBP .472 SLG 318 At Bats
1980
Lynn .326 OBP .402 SLG 241 At Bats
Rice ..323 OBP .487 SLG 265 At Bats
Normally, I don't break it down per individual stadiums...due to small sample sizes, but here are Lynn's Fenway numbers in over 1,500 at bats(plenty of sample size)
BA .347 OB% .420 SLG% .601
Looking at those numbers at face value, you think Babe Ruth rather than Lynn.
By the way Aro, I agree with your ascertion on Boggs, and I would have to apply that to Lynn too. The difference is just too darn drastic, and too consistent among the players to be a coincidence. They benefitted immensely from Fenway, though Lynn wasn't there as long as Rice.
THough in your comparison to Rice above, they seem relatively close in the road OPS. Lynn was better in three of the seasons, and Rice in the three others. But Rice's margins were a bit higher, especially in one season. I know it would take a bit more computation, but do you have the totals of those seasons splits you did above to give a clearer picture?
Aside from that, they played similar length careers, here are their career % road totals.
Lynn .267 .343 .437 OPS .780
Rice .277 .330 .459 OPS .789
No Fenway, they are very close. I think Lynn's defesne and position status still puts him past Rice with No Fenway.
Evans .261 .361 .437 OPS .798
Adding defense and baserunning, the best to worst would read Evans, Lynn, Rice.
Lynn .341 OBP .433 SLG .774 OPS which is virtually the same as his career numbers on the road.
Rice .334 OBP .484 SLG .818 OPS which, of course, is significantly higher than his career numbers on the road
Rice had about 250 more plate appearances over the 6 seasons.
I wholeheartly disagree, first off you are comparing him to players that played after he retired. Except for possibly Cepada.
Voodoo stats notwithstanding, i prefer to judge a player against hos peers. Not guys that played 10 years after he retired in most cases.
His fielding adds nothing to his value? So who was making all those putouts at first base then?
I guess if you want to now rate him against certain players that played well after he retired your case has merit. However your original statement did not mention that. You simply claimed he was 'overrated'
I disagree then and now.
Steve
Off the top of my head, I don't know where I'd rate Hodges on the all-time first basemen list at the point he retired, but I know I'd rate him below George Sisler and I think you might know my opinion on Sisler. So I think it's still a stretch to think he might have deserved induction back then. But to deserve induction today, how he compares to Cepeda and Perez (and Powell and Cash, etc.) is defenitely relevant: his place in the HOF line has slipped dramatically since he retired.
I will grant you that he was the best first baseman for several years while he was playing, but he happened to play in a period when there were no great first basemen. His career overlaps (I'm pretty sure) those of Johnny Mize and Harmon Killebrew, and Hodges isn't even in the same ballpark as either of those two. Unless we're arguing that the HOF must induct at least one player from every position for every seven year period (and I don't think you want to go there), then we're left without any compelling reason to put him in.
Playing on a team with four HOFers in a friendly ballpark is going to give a player a lot of RBI opportunities; put Hodges in the Astrodome in the 70's, and vice versa, and I am positive that Bob Watson would then look like the better player if all we're doing is counting HRs and RBIs. I'm not sure that Watson wasn't the better player, now that I mention him.
-Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>And he did throw what was the most important pitch of my life (a-- meets chair, Gorman Thomas!), so that counts for something too
Why was that the most important pitch? Are you a Cardinals fan? Then what about Wainright? >>
I grew up in the early '80's just outside of St. Louis, so the '82 series was a very big deal to me. Then, in 1984 my family moved to Detroit, where I've lived ever since. I still have a soft spot for the Cardinals, but overall I think the 2006 WS was kind of a bummer