Mussina does not make my HOF ballot

[DrungoHazewood]

I think he had way, way too short of a peak to even be a fringe candidate. He was only a great player for three years, and only a good player for another three. If not for the back injury, his career might have gone differently, but those are the breaks. Just ask Charlie Keller.

By JAWS Mattingly is the 36th most qualified first baseman in history, ahead of only HOFers Highpockets Kelly and Jim Bottomley. Behind 17 other non-HOF first basemen (some of whom are still active or otherwise not yet eligible) including Fred McGriff and John Olerud. Mattingly's career value is quite similar to Mark Grace and Carlos Delgado. Inducting Mattingly with so many other better-qualified candidates would be a mistake on the level of Jim Rice.

[DrungoHazewood]

Rk Name YoB %vote HOFm HOFs Yrs WAR WAR7 JAWS Jpos G AB R H HR RBI SB BB BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ W L ERA ERA+ WHIP G GS SV IP H HR BB SO Pos Summary

1 Craig Biggio 3rd 74.8% 169 57 20 65.1 41.6 53.4 57.0 2850 10876 1844 3060 291 1175 414 1160 .281 .363 .433 .796 112 YES

2 Mike Piazza 3rd 62.2% 207 62 16 59.4 43.1 51.2 43.1 1912 6911 1048 2127 427 1335 17 759 .308 .377 .545 .922 143 MAYBE

3 Jeff Bagwell 5th 54.3% 150 59 15 79.6 48.2 63.9 54.2 2150 7797 1517 2314 449 1529 202 1401 .297 .408 .540 .948 149 NO

4 Tim Raines 8th 46.1% 90 47 23 69.1 42.2 55.6 53.3 2502 8872 1571 2605 170 980 808 1330 .294 .385 .425 .810 123 MAYBE

5 Roger Clemens 3rd 35.4% 332 73 24 140.3 66.3 103.3 61.8 709 179 5 31 0 12 0 13 .173 .236 .207 .443 17 354 184 3.12 143 1.173 709 707 0 4916.2 4185 363 1580 4672 *1 NO

6 Barry Bonds 3rd 34.7% 340 76 22 162.4 72.7 117.6 53.3 2986 9847 2227 2935 762 1996 514 2558 .298 .444 .607 1.051 182 NO

7 Lee Smith 13th 29.9% 135 13 18 29.6 21.1 25.4 34.4 1023 64 2 3 1 2 0 3 .047 .090 .094 .183 -50 71 92 3.03 132 1.256 1022 6 478 1289.1 1133 89 486 1251 *1 YES

8 Curt Schilling 3rd 29.2% 171 46 20 79.9 49.0 64.5 61.8 571 773 39 117 0 29 1 25 .151 .178 .171 .348 -9 216 146 3.46 127 1.137 569 436 22 3261.0 2998 347 711 3116 *1 NO

9 Edgar Martinez 6th 25.2% 132 50 18 68.3 43.6 56.0 55.0 2055 7213 1219 2247 309 1261 49 1283 .312 .418 .515 .933 147 MAYBE

10 Alan Trammell 14th 20.8% 118 40 20 70.4 44.6 57.5 54.7 2293 8288 1231 2365 185 1003 236 850 .285 .352 .415 .767 110 NO

11 Mike Mussina 2nd 20.3% 121 54 18 83.0 44.5 63.8 61.8 537 52 3 9 0 5 0 1 .173 .189 .192 .381 1 270 153 3.68 123 1.192 537 536 0 3562.2 3460 376 785 2813 *1 MAYBE

12 Jeff Kent 2nd 15.2% 122 51 17 55.2 35.6 45.4 57.0 2298 8498 1320 2461 377 1518 94 801 .290 .356 .500 .855 123 NO

13 Fred McGriff 6th 11.7% 100 48 19 52.4 35.8 44.1 54.2 2460 8757 1349 2490 493 1550 72 1305 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 NO

14 Mark McGwire 9th 11.0% 170 42 16 62.0 41.8 51.9 54.2 1874 6187 1167 1626 583 1414 12 1317 .263 .394 .588 .982 163 NO

15 Larry Walker 5th 10.2% 148 58 17 72.6 44.6 58.6 58.1 1988 6907 1355 2160 383 1311 230 913 .313 .400 .565 .965 141 NO

16 Don Mattingly 15th 8.2% 134 34 14 42.2 35.6 38.9 54.2 1785 7003 1007 2153 222 1099 14 588 .307 .358 .471 .830 127 NO

17 Sammy Sosa 3rd 7.2% 202 52 18 58.4 43.7 51.0 58.1 2354 8813 1475 2408 609 1667 234 929 .273 .344 .534 .878 128 NO

18 Randy Johnson 1st 331 65 22 102.1 62.0 82.0 61.8 619 625 20 78 1 40 0 19 .125 .153 .152 .305 -22 303 166 3.29 135 1.171 618 603 2 4135.1 3346 411 1497 4875 *1/7 YES

19 Pedro Martinez 1st 206 60 18 84.0 58.2 71.1 61.8 477 434 22 43 0 18 0 15 .099 .134 .122 .256 -32 219 100 2.93 154 1.054 476 409 3 2827.1 2221 239 760 3154 *1 YES

20 John Smoltz 1st 167 44 21 69.5 38.8 54.2 61.8 735 948 77 151 5 61 3 79 .159 .226 .207 .433 16 213 155 3.33 125 1.176 723 481 154 3473.0 3074 288 1010 3084 *1 YES

21 Gary Sheffield 1st 158 61 22 60.2 37.9 49.0 58.1 2576 9217 1636 2689 509 1676 253 1475 .292 .393 .514 .907 140 NO

22 Brian Giles 1st 53 41 15 50.9 37.3 44.1 58.1 1847 6527 1121 1897 287 1078 109 1183 .291 .400 .502 .902 136 NO

23 Nomar Garciaparra 1st 112 41 14 44.2 43.0 43.6 54.7 1434 5586 927 1747 229 936 95 403 .313 .361 .521 .882 124 NO

24 Carlos Delgado 1st 110 44 17 44.3 34.5 39.4 54.2 2035 7283 1241 2038 473 1512 14 1109 .280 .383 .546 .929 138 NO

25 Darin Erstad 1st 35 14 14 32.3 28.7 30.5 57.2 1654 6024 913 1697 124 699 179 475 .282 .336 .407 .743 93 NO

26 Tom Gordon 1st 47 15 21 35.3 23.4 29.3 34.4 893 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 -100 138 126 3.96 113 1.360 890 203 158 2108.0 1889 176 977 1928 *1/D NO

27 Jason Schmidt 1st 41 18 14 29.6 27.2 28.4 61.8 324 597 29 63 7 21 0 22 .106 .140 .156 .296 -23 130 96 3.96 110 1.321 323 314 0 1996.1 1846 184 792 1758 *1 NO

28 Cliff Floyd 1st 22 22 17 25.9 25.0 25.4 53.3 1621 5319 824 1479 233 865 148 601 .278 .358 .482 .840 119 NO

29 Jermaine Dye 1st 49 25 14 20.3 23.2 21.7 58.1 1763 6487 984 1779 325 1072 46 597 .274 .338 .488 .826 111 NO

30 Rich Aurilia 1st 31 20 15 18.1 16.7 17.4 54.7 1652 5721 745 1576 186 756 23 450 .275 .328 .433 .762 99 NO

31 Troy Percival 1st 96 14 14 17.5 15.1 16.3 34.4 703 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 -100 35 43 3.17 146 1.108 703 1 358 708.2 479 85 306 781 *1 NO

32 Aaron Boone 1st 4 14 12 13.5 15.2 14.3 55.0 1152 3871 519 1017 126 555 107 303 .263 .326 .425 .751 94 NO *536/4D

33 Tony Clark 1st 24 16 15 12.5 15.8 14.2 54.2 1559 4532 629 1188 251 824 6 527 .262 .339 .485 .824 112 NO *3D/7

34 Eddie Guardado 1st NO

I'm good with your top 21 going in, with the exceptions of Smith, Mattingly, and Sosa. I could go either way on Kent. Nomar will get about zero votes even though there are a half dozen HOF shortstops with a worse resume.

[Nigel Tufnel]

By JAWS Mattingly is the 36th most qualified first baseman in history, ahead of only HOFers Highpockets Kelly and Jim Bottomley. Behind 17 other non-HOF first basemen (some of whom are still active or otherwise not yet eligible) including Fred McGriff and John Olerud. Mattingly's career value is quite similar to Mark Grace and Carlos Delgado. Inducting Mattingly with so many other better-qualified candidates would be a mistake on the level of Jim Rice.

Yeah, I was going to say that I think Rice is much qualified than Mattingly, and I don't think Rice belongs. I think Dale Murphy is much more qualified than Rice, and I don't even think that Murphy belongs. I might be wrong, but off the top of my head, I would probably have put Lynn or Evans in ahead of Rice.

[wildcard]

So because Johnson is better than anyone else on the ballot, nobody else deserves any votes? That's not "simple"-- that's tortured logic. We're not comparing the people on the ballot to each other, we're comparing them to the players already in the HOF.

What is this "first ballot" stuff? You either believe the guy is worthy of the HOF or you don't. There isn't any distinction made between which ballot they're voted in on. Their plaques don't say "This guy was voted in on the first ballot, so clearly he's the best of the best."

I just find it hard to believe that on such a crowded ballot, you don't consider anybody worthy of the HOF except Randy Johnson.

The first ballot consideration has been going on for years. Its does affect the way voters vote. Choosing to ignore it will not make it go away.

On the other topic, in the this thread I have compared Pedro to Johnson, Maddux and Glavine who were his peers. Pedro comes up short in wins and innings pitched. Whether that keeps him out of the Hall on the first ballot is unknown at this point.

On only voting for one guy. Johnson meets the standard of a Hall of Famer IMO. The other candidates have some flaws that don't meet that standard IMO.

[MurphDogg]

Yes he did. Nine starts in 31 games (six complete games including three shutouts) and a relief appearance. One of his starts went 10.2 innings. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=koufasa01&t=p&year=1965

He did have one really bad outing, where he lasted only 2 innings.

Heh, sorry about that. I was teasing. He actually made 9 starts in the last 30 games not 31 (and he pitched the second to last game, so he started 9 of 29 games). His relief appearance on 9/16 was his throw day. He pitched on three days rest or more with every start except for 9/25 (presumably because it followed his two inning outing) and 10/2. The Dodgers had already clinched the pennant on 10/2, so my guess is that he started on 10/2 to line him up to start in the World Series on regular rest on 10/6. As many baseball fans know, he did not make that 10/6 start.

[PaulFolk]

The first ballot consideration has been going on for years. Its does affect the way voters vote. Choosing to ignore it will not make it go away.

This doesn't really answer the question. Why is "first ballot" important to you? Again, it seems like you're saying, "Crusty, out-of-touch HOF voters find it important, so I have to, too." Why?

[Frobby]

Heh, sorry about that. I was teasing. He actually made 9 starts in the last 30 games not 31 (and he pitched the second to last game, so he started 9 of 29 games). His relief appearance on 9/16 was his throw day. He pitched on three days rest or more with every start except for 9/25 (presumably because it followed his two inning outing) and 10/2. The Dodgers had already clinched the pennant on 10/2, so my guess is that he started on 10/2 to line him up to start in the World Series on regular rest on 10/6. As many baseball fans know, he did not make that 10/6 start.

Anyway, he was pitching in some pretty serious pain at times, and his arm would literally turn black and blue. I think he made some personal sacrifices for the good of his team that most star pitchers wouldn't make today, nor would they even be asked. So Koufax gets a little extra credit for that in my mind when thinking about his career.

[rjslomo]

I think you should read Bill James' book on the Hall, written maybe 15 years ago. Long before steroids became an issue. He outlines myriad problems that have nothing to do with PEDs.

The HOF voting is problematic because:

1) The BBWAA is not a reasonable sampling of knowledgeable voters.

2) The voting process was designed on the back of a napkin in 1935. So many things wrong with the 10/12 player limits, the yes/no voting structure, the 75% minimum on a 10+ slot ballot, no guarantee of any inductees in a given year, no run-offs, the 15-year limit... it goes on and on.

3) There are countless committees that act as back doors into the Hall, mainly because the BBWAA missed so many candidates and inducted quite a few undeserving candidates starting in the earliest years. Just a list of the sins of the various special committees could fill a book.

4) The expansion time bomb has only started and there is already a huge backlog of well-qualified candidates with a voting process wholly unprepared to deal with this.

5) The lack of standards, with many wishing for a tiny, elite Hall which directly conflicts with the fact that players on par with Brady Anderson were inducted starting 75 years ago.

5b) Partly due to guys like Tommy McCarthy getting in so long ago, we now have guys like Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell essentially ineligible despite careers three times as valuable as current HOFers like Bill Mazeroski. The only standard for a HOFer is who's gone before them, and there are probably hundreds of non-inducted players who meet the minimum standards set by the worst BBWAA inductees, and thousands who meet the Vet's Committee standards.

6) The PED mess, with a essentially 100% certainty that some current HOFers used PEDs, but writers excluding candidates for which there is no proof they used.

7) The HOF organization that is independent of MLB but totally relies on MLB for its existence, but sets rules by a board of good ol' boys, which leads to peculiar ways of running the Hall.

But yea, other than those huge, systemic problems, it's all good.

Which is the most damning evidence of an absolutely massive problem you could have. Literally there are dozens upon dozens of players from the last 30 or 40 years who are well above the established HOF floor who aren't going in, aren't getting any votes.

Maybe it's laudable to attempt to set a new higher standard. But "keeping with" a high standard? As I mentioned before the Hall inducts several players in the Nick Markakis, Brady Anderson, Torii Hunter range of player every decade, and has almost since day one in the 1940s. Recently the BBWAA has inducted Jim Rice and Kirby Puckett, neither of whom was remotely as good as 15 guys on the current ballot.

I just find it impossible to argue that someone who was twice as valuable, in some cases three times as valuable, as current HOFers can't be voted in now because we're holding the Hall to some kind of high standard. How would you defend that to some kid who says "why is Travis Jackson in the Hall and Tim Raines isn't?" When Raines was vastly superior?

I read the book a few years ago. My memory is lousy but the biggest takeaway I had from the book was that the veterans committees (starting in the 50's, I believe) took the Hall of Fame from being for the elite of the elite to getting their pals in (some of which were deserving) making it more like the Hall of Fame with the elite and the really, really good. I was hoping Bill James would have made his last chapter of the book (Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?) his list of who should be in. Of the 306 inducted in the Hall, there are 211 former MLB players and 35 Negro leaguers. I would bet you that his list of players would be more like 125 or so versus the current 246.

I also believe that you should look at the potential candidate and compare him to others that played from maybe 5 years prior to the start of his career to maybe 5 years after the end of his career. That way, you really see who stands head & shoulders above the crowd.

[stomperspc]

I find this a complex topic. Generally speaking, I agree you either think someone deserves to be in the Hall of Fame or you don't, and you vote accordingly. But (1) I do think there are some borderline cases where you might not vote for a guy initially in a year when there are a lot of better candidates on the ballot, or equal candidates who are nearing the end of their eligibility period, and (2) the fact that there is a backlog of qualified guys and a history of players who did not get in initially but got in later makes the job more difficult. I really don't want to see 12 guys going into the Hall all at the same time, even if they deserve it. I like it when it's 2-3 players a year. It's OK if it's 4-5 guys in a particularly strong class of new candidates, but more than that and the honor becomes a lot less special.

I am okay with the idea that a player is a borderline candidate and it takes a few years for the voters to mull over his case. I also get that in theory a ballot could be very crowded in a particular year so it takes a certain worthy candidate several times on the ballot before he is elected. In both those instances, the natural process of HOF voting is deciding who is a 1st ballot Hall of Famer and who is not. The 1st ballot guys are the obvious guys and the rest are the less obvious ones. That makes sense.

My issue is when a voter (or the voting pool in general) says "I have decided that this player is Hall of Fame worthy but I am going to wait a year or two to vote for him because he shouldn't go in on the 1st try." If you are undecided on a candidate, then fine, spend a year or two studying his career in order to make your decision. However, if a writer decides a player is worthy of induction then don't wait on voting for him just because of your own person criteria of who should or shouldn't get in on the first try. That's not how it should work.

[weams]

Yeah, I was going to say that I think Rice is much qualified than Mattingly, and I don't think Rice belongs. I think Dale Murphy is much more qualified than Rice, and I don't even think that Murphy belongs. I might be wrong, but off the top of my head, I would probably have put Lynn or Evans in ahead of Rice.

Mattingly is not close to belonging.

[MurphDogg]

Anyway, he was pitching in some pretty serious pain at times, and his arm would literally turn black and blue. I think he made some personal sacrifices for the good of his team that most star pitchers wouldn't make today, nor would they even be asked. So Koufax gets a little extra credit for that in my mind when thinking about his career.

Yeah, I will have to read the book. I enjoyed her Mickey Mantle book. Not sure what making 9 starts in 29 games proves though. Claude Osteen made 9 starts in 29 game during that same month for the same team and Drysdale made 9 starts in 30 games over the same period. Koufax was a hell of a pitcher.

[Frobby]

I am okay with the idea that a player is a borderline candidate and it takes a few years for the voters to mull over his case. I also get that in theory a ballot could be very crowded in a particular year so it takes a certain worthy candidate several times on the ballot before he is elected. In both those instances, the natural process of HOF voting is deciding who is a 1st ballot Hall of Famer and who is not. The 1st ballot guys are the obvious guys and the rest are the less obvious ones. That makes sense.

My issue is when a voter (or the voting pool in general) says "I have decided that this player is Hall of Fame worthy but I am going to wait a year or two to vote for him because he shouldn't go in on the 1st try." If you are undecided on a candidate, then fine, spend a year or two studying his career in order to make your decision. However, if a writer decides a player is worthy of induction then don't wait on voting for him just because of your own person criteria of who should or shouldn't get in on the first try. That's not how it should work.

I agree.

Joe DiMaggio wasn't voted in on the first ballot, among others.

[Frobby]

Yeah, I will have to read the book. I enjoyed her Mickey Mantle book. Not sure what making 9 starts in 29 games proves though. Claude Osteen made 9 starts in 29 game during that same month for the same team and Drysdale made 9 starts in 30 games over the same period. Koufax was a hell of a pitcher.

I didn't know that about Osteen and Drysdale. One thing that comes out in the book was that Walter Alston wasn't too concerned about preserving players' careers.

[DrungoHazewood]

On only voting for one guy. Johnson meets the standard of a Hall of Famer IMO. The other candidates have some flaws that don't meet that standard IMO.

What standard is that? Because it's definitely not the de facto standard of currently enshrined HOF pitchers. There are cases where you could add together the career value of two current HOF pitchers and not get to the value of Pedro Martinez.For example, Catfish Hunter and Jack Chesbro's combined careers match up pretty well to Pedro Martinez'.

[Frobby]

Mattingly is not close to belonging.

B-b-but, he's a Yankee!