[Also up over at The Crawfish Boxes.]
What we discussed this morning is now official: Derek Jeter and Larry Walker are the newest members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. For the seventh year in a row, multiple players are going to Cooperstown off the BBWAA ballot, making it 22 in the last seven years. Both are far and away records.
Let’s start with Jeter: the long-time Yankees shortstop went in on his first try, falling one vote shy of unanimous support. We’ll probably never know who that one voter was, but to be honest, it doesn’t really matter. Sure, it would have been just the second unanimous induction in Hall history, but it’s not like they print the vote percentages on the plaques or anything. All it is in the end is trivia.
And for as much as it feels like Jeter is overrated to some degree, it’s hard to argue that he wasn’t a first-ballot Hall of Famer. He’s sixth all-time in hits (3465), made the All-Star team fourteen times, and posted a 119 wRC+ over 20 seasons while playing shortstop. For all of the holes in his game, none of them were big enough to overcome that strength.
Walker was also a close call, but in the other direction: he cleared the bar for induction by just six ballots, ending with 76.6% of the vote. Walker was a five-tool player, carrying a .313/.400/.565 batting line along with one of the ten or so best gloves in right field history. His induction was long-deserved, but he finally made the mark in his tenth and final year on the writers’ ballot.
That 76.7% is still shocking, in some ways. Just six years ago, Walker was stuck beneath a ton of other snubbed candidates, and pulling in just 10.2% of the vote. Even as recently as three years ago, Larry was getting just under 22% of the vote. Last year alone saw him jump 20.5%, the ninth-biggest single-year increase in modern Hall of Fame voting, and then he topped that this year by increasing another 22.0%, tying him for seventh all-time with Don Drysdale. That combined two-year gain also falls just a hair behind Luis Aparicio’s record 42.7% increase from 1982 to 1984.
Outside of those two, what happened down the rest of the ballot, and how does it bode for the 2021 election? It may seem too early to be asking that, but we already know who will be eligible, and what their final career numbers are. The only other major variables are how they finished in voting this year. And given next year’s relatively weak class of newcomers (Mark Buehrle, Tim Hudson, and Torii Hunter are the biggest newcomers), we could very well be seeing a lot of improvement in the vote totals for the returning players.
At the top of the backlog is Curt Schilling, who finished with 70.0% of the vote. 2021 will mark his ninth year on the ballot, meaning he has two tries to pick up 5%. He’s done that each of the last three years (including topping 9% each of the last two years), so it seems likely he’ll be standing on the stage in 2021.
Following him were Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, at 61.0% and 60.7%. As high as those percentages are, it’s hard to be optimistic about their chances of making it in. Like Schilling, they only have two more tries, but unlike Schilling, they’ve only been adding about 2% each of the last few seasons. Picking up nearly 15% in two seasons seems like a tall order given that, unless a large number of voters suddenly change their mind on steroids. The last time either of them saw an increase that big was 2017, but that year featured Bug Selig getting elected, likely causing some voters to question what the point of punishing steroid users was if the architect of said era was going in. Nothing of that magnitude seems to be coming down the pipeline, so Clemens and Bonds will likely need the support of the Veterans Committee if they’re to make it one day.
Omar Vizquel converted nearly 10% of voters, and finally broke 50% of the vote in his third year on the ballot. Now at 52.6%, I find it very likely he gets elected eventually, although I can’t say I’m a huge supporter of his campaign. I have no idea how long it will take for him to make it in from here, if his lack of advanced stats will slow his growth or if passing 50% causes BBWAA members to consolidate around him even quicker than they have been. But given that he has seven more tries to pick up just 22.4% of the vote, he doesn’t exactly need to be improving each year by leaps and bounds the way Walker did.
Somehow, Scott Rolen might be both the most positive and negative surprise of the day? I’m a big supporter of his candidacy, and I don’t know how exactly to feel about it. On the one hand, it’s hard to feel too upset; Rolen finished his third go-around at 35.3%, over double the 17.2% he got last year. That means he’s almost halfway to that fabled 75%, and maybe a big jump like that sets him up for a next few years similar to Walker’s past few; election in two or three years doesn’t seem at all out of the realm of possibility!
But on the other hand, Rolen entered today trending around 50%, which we all knew would be high compared to the final totals, but a 15-point drop is rough. Publicly released ballots were nearly split down the middle on him, but private ballots only went his way 20% of the time. Of course, while that might not seem like much of an improvement, it’s worth noting his public-private split last year was 21%-9%, so this is still an improvement either way. Maybe the big jump he got this year will spur another big jump in 2021?
Immediately after Rolen were Billy Wagner (31.7%, fifth election), Gary Sheffield (30.5%, sixth), and Todd Helton (29.2%, second). Like Rolen, Wagner nearly doubled his support, from 16.7% in 2019. Unlike Rolen, Wagner is two years further along in the process, meaning two fewer chances to make up the 40%+ he still has to go. Right now, I’d rate his chances as “feasible”, though; another double digit gain next year and he’s looking a lot more likely.
I’m more encouraged by Todd Helton’s performance than either Wagner’s or Sheffield’s, though. I think Sheffield has a ceiling near wherever Clemens and Bonds end up, so I don’t know that we can expect another 17-point gain next year. On top of that, he’s a year further along than even Wagner. Helton, meanwhile, just took a major step forward from his 16.5% debut last year, and he has eight more tries to go. It might take him a while, but with an even emptier ballot next year, it’s very possible he makes another double-digit jump. And Walker going in also likely helps his case by helping to remove some of the Coors Field stigma (although I’m not sure if that’s the biggest factor hurting either of them, it’s probably not helping things either). I think he’s looking at a Tony Perez-like campaign, taking several years, but not quite pushing things to the wire like Walker.
And that’s really all of the major movement downballot. Manny Ramirez still hasn’t broken 30%, and will likely lag behind even Sheffield from here on out. Jeff Kent jumped up nearly 10%, but he’s still only at 27.5% with three more tries to go; he’s technically closer than Larry Walker was at this point, but he also isn’t the player Walker was. Let’s see him at least make a 12% jump in year eight before we start using Walker as the blueprint here (although I think Kent will find a more receptive audience in the Veterans Committee, so it’s not all doom and gloom).
Andruw Jones more than doubled his prior support, but that only takes him to 19.5%. Jones is a legendary fielder, so it feels a little silly he’s trending so far behind Vizquel. Then again, it’s at least good to see voters are open to considering him, and maybe Vizquel’s candidacy will lead to greater appreciation of Jones’s glove. With seven more tries, he’s not done yet, but I don’t feel as confident about his chances as I do Rolen or Helton.
The only other players to clear 5% and secure a place on the 2021 ballot were Sammy Sosa, Andy Pettitte, and Bobby Abreu. Sosa’s eighth time (13.9%) around marked both a new personal best and the first time he broke double digits since his debut back in 2013. So yeah, he’s basically just playing out the string at this point. Pettitte’s second ballot saw him jump from 9.9% all the way to 11.3%. I feel like he’ll be on the ballot for a while, if nothing else. And really, at 5.5%, I’m just glad Abreu is sticking around; like I said earlier, he’s more deserving of an extended hearing than most people give him credit for. He’s at least gotten a second year, now.
And with that, we can close a book on this year’s Hall of Fame election. Congratulations again to Derek Jeter and Larry Walker, as well as Ted Simmons and Marvin Miller, who are your new Hall of Fame Class of 2020. To everyone else, we’ll see you again next year.
Showing posts with label Omar Vizquel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Omar Vizquel. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Out of the Park Baseball 16 and the 1996 Cleveland Indians
Once again, this year, I’ve been given the chance to play
Out of the Park Baseball’s new edition and write about it. This year’s edition
is another wonderful entry in the series-I feel like it’s definitely the
smartest entry in the series yet, at least, with computer teams acting closer
and closer to real people. It certainly made my yearly alternate-history run a
lot more interesting, at least. So what alternate baseball history did it let
me try out this time?
As you may or may not be aware, the city of Cleveland just
saw its most recent best hope for a title in five decades end. Maybe
the Indians can turn it around and take the title this year, but realistically,
it seems that the city’s chances at a title will have to wait until 2016. One
thing that fascinates me about this drought, though, is the presence of the
1990s Indians. That group has to be the closest thing a baseball team can be to
a dynasty without actually winning anything. From 1994 to 2001, they averaged a .578 winning percentage
(about 93 and a half wins over a full season), peaking with a .644 mark in
1995. They made the playoffs six out of seven times (since 1994 was a strike
year) and won two pennants. They had a core that included peak play from Jim
Thome, Manny Ramirez, Kenny Lofton, Omar Vizquel, Roberto Alomar, and Albert Belle, all of whom have varying degrees of cases for the Hall of Fame. They couldn’t even find a
spot for future inner-circle
Hall of Pretty Great player Brian Giles because they were just too deep.
But they couldn’t capture that elusive title. Which is why
I’m giving them a chance to go back and claim it. I’m taking control of the
Indians starting in 1995, and seeing if I can guide them to their first World
Series win since 1948.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Could the 2018 Hall Ballot Newcomers Match the Class of 2013?
Well, it’s been a few days since the Hall of Fame announcement that no one is going in for 2013. And, by now, you’ve surely heard about how this problem won’t be going away next year, with easy-choice Hall of Famers Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine, and Mike Mussina all joining the ballot, as well as borderline case Jeff Kent. And then the year after that, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Gary Sheffield all get added on.
The 2016 and 2017 ballots seem to relax a little from 4+ candidates per year-2016 sees Ken Griffey and Jim Edmonds join the ballot (as well as Trevor Hoffman, depending how you feel about closers), while 2017 brings Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, and Vladimir Guerrero (among others) on the ballot. But surely, this onslaught of candidates will stop, right?
Actually, it might not. Just based on how the offseason so far has been going. The 2018 Cooperstown ballot might be the deepest of any of these next five, actually. It lacks the a Maddux or Johnson at the top, but while it may not reach the peak that those ballots do, it definitely comes close at the top, and runs just as many names deep.
The 2016 and 2017 ballots seem to relax a little from 4+ candidates per year-2016 sees Ken Griffey and Jim Edmonds join the ballot (as well as Trevor Hoffman, depending how you feel about closers), while 2017 brings Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, and Vladimir Guerrero (among others) on the ballot. But surely, this onslaught of candidates will stop, right?
Actually, it might not. Just based on how the offseason so far has been going. The 2018 Cooperstown ballot might be the deepest of any of these next five, actually. It lacks the a Maddux or Johnson at the top, but while it may not reach the peak that those ballots do, it definitely comes close at the top, and runs just as many names deep.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Retired Numbers Series: Cleveland Indians
While looking for the next team to cover in the Retired Numbers Series, I noticed something interesting about the Indians. The team has six retired numbers. Among the sixteen original teams (the eight AL and eight NL teams around in 1901), only four teams have six or fewer retired numbers. And the other three (the Orioles, Twins, and Athletics) all spent significant portions of their history in other cities.
Is this low number for the Indians the result of higher standards, a lack of good candidates, or something else? And does it look like they’ll add to this total any time soon?
Notes on the Numbers
Some quick notes on the stats: the two most prominent stats I used are similarly named. Both are called WAR, or Wins Above Replacement. They both try to account for every part of a player’s game, including, but not limited to: offense, defense, position, and playing time. So, it is a counting stat, like hits or home runs (with the small difference that bad seasons can actually decrease your WAR, if you are worse than a replacement player). WAR credits a player with how many wins they have provided to their team. They aren’t perfect, but for my purposes (a single number showing roughly how good a player has been), they work perfectly.
There are two major sites that provide WAR, Baseball-Reference (henceforth called bWAR) and Fangraphs (fWAR). The two are mostly the same, with the biggest difference coming from the different fielding stats the two use. Fangraphs has a fairly good summary of what makes up WAR and how it is calculated (for those wanting a more general summary, the introduction works just fine). Pitching is slightly different: Fangraphs’ WAR for pitchers only goes back to 1974, so for my purposes, I stuck to just bWAR for them.
Is this low number for the Indians the result of higher standards, a lack of good candidates, or something else? And does it look like they’ll add to this total any time soon?
Notes on the Numbers
Some quick notes on the stats: the two most prominent stats I used are similarly named. Both are called WAR, or Wins Above Replacement. They both try to account for every part of a player’s game, including, but not limited to: offense, defense, position, and playing time. So, it is a counting stat, like hits or home runs (with the small difference that bad seasons can actually decrease your WAR, if you are worse than a replacement player). WAR credits a player with how many wins they have provided to their team. They aren’t perfect, but for my purposes (a single number showing roughly how good a player has been), they work perfectly.
There are two major sites that provide WAR, Baseball-Reference (henceforth called bWAR) and Fangraphs (fWAR). The two are mostly the same, with the biggest difference coming from the different fielding stats the two use. Fangraphs has a fairly good summary of what makes up WAR and how it is calculated (for those wanting a more general summary, the introduction works just fine). Pitching is slightly different: Fangraphs’ WAR for pitchers only goes back to 1974, so for my purposes, I stuck to just bWAR for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)