BBF Progressive HoF Election: 2014

[DoubleX]

Ventura is a borderline candidate either way, but if kevin Brown had pitched 3200 innings with a 127 ERA+ in the days before any of us had seen him he'd be getting in easy.

It's a good point, and I think it's one that there were some concerns about when we first started this project (i.e. the obvious difference in impression we'll have between players we only have stats for and players we have actual memories of). Some of the concern at that point was also focused on how much contemporary opinion from long ago might be drowned out by over-reliance on statistical analysis (a fair point in some ways given the overly romanticized accounts that were typical of the late 19th and early 20th century coverage). I think we had a discussion on Lave Cross that best typified this. Cross' stats, particularly by modern standards weren't overly impressive, but there were contemporary accounts referenced that showed him to be in high regard while playing.

As for Kevin Brown, a few of things that may be individually holding him back: 1) PED links, 2) A relative glut of standout pitchers from his generation, and 3) A reputation (deserved or not) as unlikeable an injury prone. I'm not sure how compelling any of these are, but any taken alone could loom large enough to persuade enough voters to not vote for him. With respect to the second point in particular, we're looking at already electing 8 starting pitchers from his era (Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, Mussina), which is supposedly a hitters era, so for some, Brown may be one too many.

Then again, a fair counter point is that we elected a whopping 10 pitchers from the 1970s, a much greater pitchers era (Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Ryan, Perry, Blyleven, Jenkins, Niekro, Sutton, Tiant), so we have no aversion to electing an abundance of pitchers from one generation.

In generaly though, for whatever reason, the last 15-20 years was a time when it seemed that a greater number of players were doing great things in the game, and as a result, the accomplishments of someone like Brown, which may have stood out quite a bit in an earlier generation, were more easily drowned out, especially when you throw in the PED links and general perception.

[Ace Venom]

It's a good point, and I think it's one that there were some concerns about when we first started this project (i.e. the obvious difference in impression we'll have between players we only have stats for and players we have actual memories of). Some of the concern at that point was also focused on how much contemporary opinion from long ago might be drowned out by over-reliance on statistical analysis (a fair point in some ways given the overly romanticized accounts that were typical of the late 19th and early 20th century coverage). I think we had a discussion on Lave Cross that best typified this. Cross' stats, particularly by modern standards weren't overly impressive, but there were contemporary accounts referenced that showed him to be in high regard while playing.

Probably. This project certainly did a thorough examination of that era.

As for Kevin Brown, a few of things that may be individually holding him back: 1) PED links, 2) A relative glut of standout pitchers from his generation, and 3) A reputation (deserved or not) as unlikeable an injury prone. I'm not sure how compelling any of these are, but any taken alone could loom large enough to persuade enough voters to not vote for him. With respect to the second point in particular, we're looking at already electing 8 starting pitchers from his era (Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, Mussina), which is supposedly a hitters era, so for some, Brown may be one too many.

Or perhaps, like the BBWAA, we've formed a contemporary opinion of Kevin Brown that says he wasn't great. The numbers suggest he has a case. I'll concede a few points in this discussion.

1) No single metric is perfect. ERA can't tell you everything and neither can ERA+. Win Shares certainly doesn't put Brown over the top. Going by raw WAR numbers makes him borderline. With the different versions of WAR out there, you can't just pick one (e.g. fWAR vs. rWAR) and be done with it.
2) We've elected a number of sub-par pitchers for different reasons and I have to admit that I regret casting that deciding vote for Wilbur Cooper. I don't regret stumping for Carl Mays at all because I still think he belongs. Cooper was probably one of the biggest mistakes made by this electorate and it set quite a difficult precedent that led to the election of guys like Pierce, Walters, and Shocker. Even if you just consider those four mistakes, one is far too many and some may see electing Brown as compounding this error.
3) Touching on the previous point, there has been a glaring lack of consistency with the PED component of the argument. Bonds and Clemens were first ballot elections despite the cloud of controversy that surrounds them. McGwire, Sosa, Sheffield, Palmeiro, and Brown can't get the time of day.

Then again, a fair counter point is that we elected a whopping 10 pitchers from the 1970s, a much greater pitchers era (Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Ryan, Perry, Blyleven, Jenkins, Niekro, Sutton, Tiant), so we have no aversion to electing an abundance of pitchers from one generation.

There's certainly a great representation of that period. Tommy John and Ron Guidry are still on the outside looking in and will likely remain there. Brown still has a chance.

In generaly though, for whatever reason, the last 15-20 years was a time when it seemed that a greater number of players were doing great things in the game, and as a result, the accomplishments of someone like Brown, which may have stood out quite a bit in an earlier generation, were more easily drowned out, especially when you throw in the PED links and general perception.

It didn't stop us from electing borderline guys like Will Clark and Dale Murphy, who very well may have been anti-steroid candidates for some. I don't know. I know that Mark McGwire was one of the greatest hitters I ever saw. Sammy Sosa when he was on could put on a show all by himself. Rafael Palmeiro was a model for consistency. Gary Sheffield also showed consistency during his career. Kevin Brown certainly gets drowned out in this discussion when you consider some of the pitchers we've already elected from his era. In summary,

1) If there's room for Will Clark, there's room for Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro to be represented at that position regardless of all the controversy. We have no character clause.
2) If there's room for Dale Murphy, there's room for Sammy Sosa and Gary Sheffield.

[jjpm74]

Ace, have you thought about running the last player's VC before the 2015 poll? If you space that and the VC contributors out, it will keep the project fresh in people's minds and possibly maintain the momentum until Spring Training starts winding down. If you wait and do all of them together, you might not get a good turnout since people tend to forget which projects they belong to when they are resurrected after a hiatus.

On the topic at hand, I think that overall, we went the way of the large hall in this project which is perfectly valid.

Looking at the VC player's ballot by position, it looks like the best candidates are:

C: Thurman Munson, Lance Parrish...
1B: Gil Hodges, Don Mattingly...
2B: Bill Mazeroski, Johnny Evers...
SS: Joe Tinker, Dave Bancroft...
3B: Buddy Bell, Lave Cross...
OF: Bobby Bonds, Perucho Cepeda, Bob Johnson...
P: Ron Guidry, Chief Bender, Jim Kaat, Hippo Vaughn, Tommy John...
RP: Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter, Dan Quisenberry...

I'm sure there are many other HOVG players on the outside looking in as well, but no real snubs. Maybe we could have done a better job on relief pitchers and maybe we'll eventually do better with the PEDs players, and the Jeff Kent's of the world. Only time will tell.

[Ace Venom]

The contributors are going to get the first run before the players do. I already had that planned.

[Matthew C.]

With respect to the second point in particular, we're looking at already electing 8 starting pitchers from his era (Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, Mussina), which is supposedly a hitters era, so for some, Brown may be one too many.

Then again, a fair counter point is that we elected a whopping 10 pitchers from the 1970s, a much greater pitchers era (Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Ryan, Perry, Blyleven, Jenkins, Niekro, Sutton, Tiant), so we have no aversion to electing an abundance of pitchers from one generation.

.

Right, and we selected around that many pitchers from the 1800's-1890's when LQ was in the basement and each white-only team had only 2-3 starters.

10 starting pitchers from high LQ, 12-16 team modern era leagues is fine. Nobody has a problem with 3 of their top 7 all-time CF all playing at the same time...in the same city as each other. Or the idea that almost all of their top 10 3B come from the 50's-90's, (with three of their top 4 playing significant time with each other).

Why do we expect talent to be distributed evenly at every postion throughout every era? We shouldn't.

Look at how many guys from the 1900's-1920's are in the HOF and tell me that we will be overrperesenting pitchers with 9-10 from the mid 80's through 00's. I think I heard that there are more HOF pitchers from the 1870's-1930's than the 1940's - 1990''s.

[SavoyBG]

It's a good point, and I think it's one that there were some concerns about when we first started this project (i.e. the obvious difference in impression we'll have between players we only have stats for and players we have actual memories of). Some of the concern at that point was also focused on how much contemporary opinion from long ago might be drowned out by over-reliance on statistical analysis (a fair point in some ways given the overly romanticized accounts that were typical of the late 19th and early 20th century coverage). I think we had a discussion on Lave Cross that best typified this. Cross' stats, particularly by modern standards weren't overly impressive, but there were contemporary accounts referenced that showed him to be in high regard while playing.

As for Kevin Brown, a few of things that may be individually holding him back: 1) PED links, 2) A relative glut of standout pitchers from his generation, and 3) A reputation (deserved or not) as unlikeable an injury prone. I'm not sure how compelling any of these are, but any taken alone could loom large enough to persuade enough voters to not vote for him. With respect to the second point in particular, we're looking at already electing 8 starting pitchers from his era (Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, Mussina), which is supposedly a hitters era, so for some, Brown may be one too many.

Then again, a fair counter point is that we elected a whopping 10 pitchers from the 1970s, a much greater pitchers era (Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Ryan, Perry, Blyleven, Jenkins, Niekro, Sutton, Tiant), so we have no aversion to electing an abundance of pitchers from one generation.

In generaly though, for whatever reason, the last 15-20 years was a time when it seemed that a greater number of players were doing great things in the game, and as a result, the accomplishments of someone like Brown, which may have stood out quite a bit in an earlier generation, were more easily drowned out, especially when you throw in the PED links and general perception.

Here's Brown's comps:

1.Bob Welch (945)
2.Orel Hershiser (935)
3.Don Drysdale (928) *
4.Catfish Hunter (928) *
5.Milt Pappas (926)
6.Dazzy Vance (924) *
7.Curt Schilling (920)
8.Vida Blue (917)
9.Luis Tiant (903)
10.Freddie Fitzsimmons (899)

Drysdale is very close to Brown in several categories. Why is he a hall of famer but not Brown?

[PVNICK]

Drysdale is very close to Brown in several categories. Why is he a hall of famer but not Brown?

A lot of it is perception and perhaps how one left the game. As for Brown he goes from being the stud ace on a San Diego WS team, to having great ERAs without matchng W-L records back before that was "acceptable", signed a $100 million contract and was frequently DL'd, go to NYY have reported "anger management issues" and get shelled v. BoSox in 2004 playoffs, get linked to Mitchell Report, have Torre make some very catty comments in his book. You have to stretch back very far indeed to remember anything good, so to speak, about Kevin Brown and perhaps this colors ones opinion.

[SavoyBG]

Having great ERAs without matchng W-L records back before that was "acceptable",

It's always been acceptable among the people here.

Drysdale didn't exactly have real good W-L records a lot of the time either. Brown is 211-144, Drysdale is 209-166.

But all the stuff you said just further illustrates my point. We are perfectly willing to overlook the 3200 innings with a 127 ERA+ because we feel like we know better having observed his career, but yet with old timers it's the opposite. We are pefectly willing to overlook what contemporary observors and HOF voters thought if the numbers are there.

[jjpm74]

The contributors are going to get the first run before the players do. I already had that planned.

A was talking more along the lines of starting the VC Players (or contributors) around 3/7 and the VC Contributors (or players) around 3/21. That would prime us for the 2015 election better than doing just one ahead of time and running the other 2 simultaneously.

[DoubleX]

A lot of it is perception and perhaps how one left the game. As for Brown he goes from being the stud ace on a San Diego WS team, to having great ERAs without matchng W-L records back before that was "acceptable", signed a $100 million contract and was frequently DL'd, go to NYY have reported "anger management issues" and get shelled v. BoSox in 2004 playoffs, get linked to Mitchell Report, have Torre make some very catty comments in his book. You have to stretch back very far indeed to remember anything good, so to speak, about Kevin Brown and perhaps this colors ones opinion.

And in comparison with Drysdale, the two may be statistically very similar, but Drysdale accomplished it all by age 32. Granted, part of that is due to era and usage, but there's a thought that Drysdale burnt out kind of early, though having already accomplished quite a bit, while Brown's career was frequently interrupted by injury and with several dubious (right or wrong) perceptions, especially late in his career.

Also, with Brown being as injury prone as he was, would he have been able to hold up under the type of usage that Drysdale experienced? Conversely, would Drysdale's career have been more production and/or longer if he was used more sparingly and had more evolved surgery to help his arm stay strong? On the flipside, how much better would Brown have been in the pitcher's era of the 60s while how much more difficult would things have been for Drysdale in the offensive of the 90s? We'll obviously never know the answers to these questions, but they should illustrate why a straight comparison of Brown and Drysdale, can be misleading.

[Ace Venom]

A was talking more along the lines of starting the VC Players (or contributors) around 3/7 and the VC Contributors (or players) around 3/21. That would prime us for the 2015 election better than doing just one ahead of time and running the other 2 simultaneously.

This is what I was saying earlier in the thread. I would stagger the elections in this fashion. If you can recommend more contributors, I'd appreciate it.

Newly Eligible
Dusty Baker
Don Baylor
Bob Boone
Ken Burns
Phil Garner
Mike Hargrove
Tom Kelly
Leo Mazzone
Dan Okrent
Willie Randolph
Joe Spear
Ted Turner

[SavoyBG]

This is what I was saying earlier in the thread. I would stagger the elections in this fashion. If you can recommend more contributors, I'd appreciate it.

Newly Eligible
Willie Randolph

How is Willie Randolph on the ballot?

A one time manager for 3-4 years, and a coach. Why would he rate being added?

[Cowtipper]

Nick Altrock might merit being added to the Contributor's list.

[Ace Venom]

A one time manager for 3-4 years, and a coach. Why would he rate being added?

Just because someone gets added doesn't mean they need to get votes.

[SavoyBG]

Just because someone gets added doesn't mean they need to get votes.

Obviously, but why add Randolph? He has no significance beyond his playing days.

I'd add Dave Duncan before him. If Mazzone is on there so should Duncan be on there.

[jjpm74]

Nick Altrock might merit being added to the Contributor's list.

I don't plan on voting for him personally, but he definitely deserves nomination to the VC contributors master list.

[jjpm74]

Some scout, umpire, long career, and 19th century contributor suggestions. Some may already be in the database:

Hugh Alexander
Joe Brinkman
Charles Byrne
Octavius Catto
Bruce Froemming
Paul Krichell
Tony Lucadello
Denny McKnight
John McSherry
Paul Snyder
Joe Sugden
Don Zimmer

[Cowtipper]

Weren't we going to have a 2015 election this year?

[Ace Venom]

Weren't we going to have a 2015 election this year?

I've been busy and I've had some health problems. I'm going to be getting to this soon.

[PVNICK]

I hope you are feeling better.