BBF Progressive HoF Election: 2000

[mwiggins]

Yeah, but when 20% of all regular players from a few years in the 1930's are in the Hall compared to less than 4% of players from the 80's, it goes well beyond an expansion issue. There were not 3-4x as many players in the 80's. The influx of latin players equalizes the playing field a lot more than you are giving it credit for. I guess it all comes down to LQ beliefs - but the fact that most agree that a huge majority of us feel that the 20's-30's Vet. committe players makes up the majority of horrible HOF selections is evidence that that time period is vastly overrepresented.

And do you really believe that the lower half of today's regulars couldn't have played in the 20's? Even with all of the latin and Asian players bumping the American regulars into the lower half? Again- LQ beliefs, I guess.

Well, that goes back too many players being elected from the 1930's. Both in our project and in the real Hall. The problem is more on that end than it is too few players from the 1980's.

No, I don't believe that half of today's regulars couldn't have played in the 20's. But I don't think that there were 25% more Hall of Famers in the American League in 1961 than there were in 1960. The Hall of Fame isn't just for the top x% of the players in a league. It's more of an absolute standard than that. If you think roughtly the top 1 or 2 players at a position in an 8 team league should be Hall of Famers, then roughly the top 1 or 2 at a position in a 14 team league should also be Hall of Famers. In a smaller league, it makes since that a higher % of the players would be great players. More players in the league (i.e. expansion) doesn't add more great players.

Increases in the talent pool and league quality increases DO add more great players, but that doesn't have anything to do with what % of the league at anyone time is in the Hall of Fame. There should be more Hall of Famers from the 1960's and 1970's than there were from the 1920's because the league was stronger, but that doesn't mean the % of Hall of Famers should be at all similar in the 1960's and 1970's to what it was in the pre-war era.

[PVNICK]

I'm a little surprised at the lack of support for Whitaker - I think he's well within our standards for second base.

By WAR
Hornsby - 127.7
Collins - 126.7
Lajoie - 104.2
Morgan - 103.5
Gehringer - 80.9
Frisch - 74.7
Whitaker - 69.5
Grich - 67.6
Robinson - 63.0
Sandberg - 61.8*
McPhee - 57.8
Herman - 55.6
Gordon - 54.9
Lazzeri - 48.1
Doerr - 48.0
Doyle - 47.3
Childs - 47.1
Fox - 44.6
Richardson - 40.5
Barnes - 33.0

Robinson certainly jumps ahead of him with Negro League credit, and Gordon may, as well, depending on your stance on war credit.

by pilfering the info from the Career WAR leaders in a different thread of Brad Harris' we see that Randolph @ 60.5 would fit in at the high end of this spectrum as well.

[Matthew C.]

There should be more Hall of Famers from the 1960's and 1970's than there were from the 1920's because the league was stronger, but that doesn't mean the % of Hall of Famers should be at all similar in the 1960's and 1970's to what it was in the pre-war era.

I won't claim that they should be identical, but not overwhelmingly different either.

And if the top 1 or 2 1B in an 8 team league are HOFers, then I have no problem with 3 in a 16 team league.

[hairmetalfreek]

Bobby Bonds
Dave Concepcion
Rollie Fingers
Steve Garvey
Keith Hernandez
Tommy John
Fred Lynn
Don Mattingly
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Jeff Reardon
Jim Rice
Bruce Sutter
Dave Winfield

Also wanted to vote for, but didn't for one reason or another: Da. Evans, Dw. Evans, Kaat, Whitaker

Meant to vote for Puckett over Lynn, but in a rush clicked submit. Oh well.

[hairmetalfreek]

I'd like to see some discussion on Reardon. Currently he sits with only one vote (mine) and less than the required 5% to stay on the ballot, so I would like to see some consideration given to his candidacy by those who have not yet voted.

Jeff appeared in 4 All-Star games, had two top-ten finishes for the Cy Young and three top-twenty finishes for MVP. He was, albeit for a short time, the all-time leader in saves with 357 (he finished his career with 367). That mark was eclipsed by Lee Smith very quickly.

In the year 2000 (which is what we are supposed to consider here, if I understand correctly), only 3 players were ahead of Reardon's 367 career saves mark: Lee Smith (478), John Franco (420), Dennis Eckersley (390).

To be honest, I am on the fence about Reardon and Franco, but I give them my support because I do believe they deserve more consideration from others. If they don't make it, that's fine. But I do think they need to be looked at more closely.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[leecemark]

--I wouldn't vote for the guys at #1/2 on the year 2000 all time saves list, so #3 Reardon didn't get much consideration from me. He is maybe the 4th or 5th best relief pitcher on this ballot?

[hairmetalfreek]

--I wouldn't vote for the guys at #1/2 on the year 2000 all time saves list, so #3 Reardon didn't get much consideration from me. He is maybe the 4th or 5th best relief pitcher on this ballot?

Fair enough. For those that did vote for Fingers and Sutter, why are you passing on Reardon?

FWIW, I agree that Reardon is not as good as these other guys. As I said, I'm still kind of on the fence with him. But stats do mean *something*, don't they?

[jjpm74]

ERA+
Bruce Sutter 136
Jeff Reardon 122

Best 3 ERA+
Bruce Sutter 328, 229, 188
Jeff Reardon 177, 165, 162

Cy Young Awards
Bruce Sutter 1
Jeff Reardon 0

All-Star Selections
Bruce Sutter 6
Jeff Reardon 4

Rolaids Relief Awards
Bruce Sutter 4
Jeff Reardon 1

Jeff Reardon was a compiler who put together a nice career that is not HOF worthy. Bruce Sutter had one of the most dominant peaks of any reliever in the history of the game. The only knock on Sutter is a brief career. He is easily the best reliever currently outside our hall.

[Paul Wendt]

Only two years ago the last players from the 1960s arrived on the ballot here, Carlton Fisk and Nolan Ryan. Several from the 1960s are still on the ballot. Some will still be on the regular ballot when the project catches up with 2010. The last from the 1970s will reach the regular ballot only in 2009, Tim Raines and few from the 1970s will ever be considered by the veterans committee.

Roster size is merely the number of people eligible to play in one game. Why else is that more important than the 40-man roster or the entire player roster of a major league club? Meanwhile the number of players on a team has increased only from nine to ten and the National League continues with nine. The number used in a typical game has increased something like from 10 to 13. To some people it seems natural that should generate fewer Hall of Fame players because so many are playing incomplete games, splitting the workload defined by the rules.

[DoubleX]

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but believe it or not, that is the 100th election we've done, during which time we've elected approximately 250 players.

[hairmetalfreek]

Just a quick thanks to those that responded about Reardon. If he drops off the ballot, I'll be okay with it knowing that some at least gave some thought to his candidacy.

[Ace Venom]

This election is closed. I would have done the recount per the request of Brad Harris, but the additional votes would have been inconsequential to the election results. We elected two candidates this year: Dave Winfield in his first year of eligibility and sixth year holdover Keith Hernandez.

[Paul Wendt]

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but believe it or not, that is the 100th election we've done, during which time we've elected approximately 250 players.

100 years with 100 regular and dozens of special elections.
251 players and 46 contributors.

Congratulations to DoubleX and Ace.

[SavoyBG]

100 years with 100 regular and dozens of special elections.
251 players and 46 contributors.

Congratulations to DoubleX and Ace.

Great job guys !!!