Will Clark Got Shafted!

[DoubleX]

While whether you are or are-not a Hall of Famer is a very clear-cut difference, Baseball is a game of statistic. Hardcore fans keep track of HOF voting statistics, too. Most people know that Tom Seaver got the highest % of votes to be in the Hall. We separate first-ballot HOFers from the rest as a truly elite class of players. Maury Wills and Walt Weiss are both non-HOFers, but there's clearly a difference in which one is closer to being a HOFer by the number of votes they got while they were on the ballot. Weiss received one vote and was off while Wills generally got 20%-40% each time he was on the ballot.

I think that's my point.

Take for example Lou Whitaker. He received the one and done treatment, but he was a good enough player to at least merit some serious debate about his Hall of Fame candidacy, and as such deserved some recognition in the form of his voting percentage.

[hudsonharden]

I think it's a very valid point that you're either a Hall of Famer or you're not, so if you're clearly not, what difference is it if you're bounced on the first ballot?

To that I contend that even just sticking on the ballot is a a symbol of status and respect. It's for players that were not quite good enough to make Cooperstown, but deserve some recognition of being almost there. And in that way, Clark deserved more respect, instead of the one and done.

While whether you are or are-not a Hall of Famer is a very clear-cut difference, Baseball is a game of statistic. Hardcore fans keep track of HOF voting statistics, too. Most people know that Tom Seaver got the highest % of votes to be in the Hall. We separate first-ballot HOFers from the rest as a truly elite class of players. Maury Wills and Walt Weiss are both non-HOFers, but there's clearly a difference in which one is closer to being a HOFer by the number of votes they got while they were on the ballot. Weiss received one vote and was off while Wills generally got 20%-40% each time he was on the ballot.

[DoubleX]

I don't fault people for changing their minds. But wouldn't you think it would go both ways? Other than at the very bottom of the votes, were players taht get 5-10% one year fall off the next, you never see vote totals going down. For marginal candidates, for every writer than changes his opinion in the postive, wouldn't you expect one to change in the negative, too? I just don't understand how players "gain momentum". Is it the campaigning people do to change other people's minds? Is that a good thing, or too political?

I pretty much agree with everything you say (though some players do go down, McGee was dropped this year, guys like Hernandez and Guidry fell off the ballot after a number of years, and Mattingly and Murphy are lower than they once were).

As for the 15 year rule, I think it's great. Judging Hall of Fame talent is not an easy thing. It's not just for the giants of the game, and for those potential second and third tier Hall of Famers, additional scrutiny over time might be needed to determine what side of the fence they are one. Of course, that's probably not going to make much of a difference for players that never receive much support anyway, but you never know. I think if Quisenberry had come on the ballot now, he would receive some noticeable support and stick on the ballot due to the growing respect being afforded to top closers.

The thing I don't get the most is this whole, "we can't elect more than two or three people at a time thing." So what if Gwynn, Ripken, and McGwire will all be on the ballot next year? Why should that stop the holdovers from going up and possibly getting in? Why shouldn't Gossage go in next year? He's earned it, he's waited long enough, and at this point, there is no reason why he shouldn't go in. I don't get why a good freshman class should preclude the holdovers from entering, especially since voters have more than enough votes to vote for the top freshman as well as the top holdovers.

[Chadwick]

Hernandez was one and out too, and I think all around, he's the best HOF choice of the four.

Um...Keith Hernandez was on the ballot 9 years before he was dropped. He was not "one and out." In those 9 elections, Hernandez never received as much as 11 percent of the vote.

[digglahhh]

Hernandez was one and out too, and I think all around, he's the best HOF choice of the four.

[Pine Tar]

That's *ahem* pretty damning evidence in favor of Clark.

Take away Keith Hernandez's last two years (so he played just as long as Clark) and his OPS+ is pretty close to Clark's AND Hernandez has an MVP AND is generally regarded as the best fielding 1b in the modern era and you are tell ing me WIll Clark is convincingly better than him? I mean there is certainly an argument to be made there but to say Clark is easily better than Hernandez????

As for being clearly better than Mattingly, well career stats just don't fairly evaluate the career of Mattingly do they. I mean for 84-87 a lot of people viewed him as the BEST player in baseball, somthing that Will Clark could never have said about himself. It totally depends on what you look for in hall worthiness. Many would rather have the best player in baseball for a time period in the hall than a player who was very good for a long time. Again, Clark being clearly better than Mattingly????

[Brooklyn]

I agree with that, except you can't fault people for changing their mind with some re-education. For example, Jayson Stark recently wrote a nice article at ESPN.com about why he changed his mind this year and voted for Bert Blyleven for the first time. The writers are fallible, and it's nice that some can acknowledge that, and that's why these players are permitted to stick on the ballot for 15 year. The biggest problem in this respect is when players that deserve serious consideration are wiped out all too soon by the 5% rule, thus preventing re-evaluation down the line (Lou Whitaker, Keith Hernandez, Ted Simmons, Bobby Grich, and now Will Clark).

I don't fault people for changing their minds. But wouldn't you think it would go both ways? Other than at the very bottom of the votes, were players taht get 5-10% one year fall off the next, you never see vote totals going down. For marginal candidates, for every writer than changes his opinion in the postive, wouldn't you expect one to change in the negative, too? I just don't understand how players "gain momentum". Is it the campaigning people do to change other people's minds? Is that a good thing, or too political?

I like the 5% rule. There were 520 voters this year. If you can't get 26 votes, then you are clearly not thought of as a HOFer. And the purpose of the ballot is to elect people into the Hall, not see who gets close. Yes, some people below the 5% might have eventually wound up higher than people above the 5%, and some people below the 5% are better than people above, but if neither get in, does it matter?

[KCGHOST]

I have no problem with a blank ballot if that is what a writer believes based on the evidence and an understanding of the HoF membership. What I don't want to see is blank ballots based on "only the giants of the game" should be in.

[DoubleX]

I don't mind the blank ballots either. What bothers me more is the vote changing. Voters didn't deem any of these players worthy last year, and what have the players done in the past year to change the voters mind? I buy the argument that voters do more research, get more info, etc., but shouldn't they do all the research before the first ballot?

I don't understand the whole idea of players trending from up from year to year. I don't think a voter should be rigid - they shuold reservew the right to change their minds. But it happens too much for my comfort.

The one thing that would cause totals to go up is if voters have a full ballot, then once someone is elected they can vote for someone else. I don't think there are many voters out there with full ballots. But full ballots bother me more than empty ballots. There is no way there are 10+ HOfers on this ballot, I think there are closer to 0 then 10, so I respect the empty ballot more than the full one.

I agree with that, except you can't fault people for changing their mind with some re-education. For example, Jayson Stark recently wrote a nice article at ESPN.com about why he changed his mind this year and voted for Bert Blyleven for the first time. The writers are fallible, and it's nice that some can acknowledge that, and that's why these players are permitted to stick on the ballot for 15 year. The biggest problem in this respect is when players that deserve serious consideration are wiped out all too soon by the 5% rule, thus preventing re-evaluation down the line (Lou Whitaker, Keith Hernandez, Ted Simmons, Bobby Grich, and now Will Clark).

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yes, he is. Win Shares is over-rated, but i think it's clear to me Clark kills all of them.

Player	Seas	G	PA	BA	OBP	Slug	OPS+	R	RBI	RC	RC/27	Bases	Outs	Bases/Out
Clark	15	1976	8283	0.303	0.384	0.497	138	1186	1205	1369	7.03	4625	5259	0.879
Garvey	19	2332	9466	0.294	0.329	0.446	116	1143	1308	1307	5.29	4532	6627	0.684
Keith	17	2088	8553	0.296	0.384	0.436	129	1124	1071	1245	6.12	4414	5493	0.804
Donnie	14	1785	7721	0.307	0.358	0.471	127	1007	1099	1202	6.29	3924	5159	0.761

Where does either of those three beat out Clark?

That's *ahem* pretty damning evidence in favor of Clark.

[Chisox]

THose numbers look a lot like Harold Baines without the longevity. Certainly a nice career but...I mean you have to base his hall worthiness strickly on win shares, which most hall votes don't give a crap about, you are inventing his hall worthiness. There's a discussion on the history board of fever that shows how rediculous the win shares system is in evaluating the career of Will Clark. Basically according to James' Objective Win Shares Clark was better in the 1989 season than Ted Williams was in the last year he batted .400.
So ignoring win shares and Will Clark is not better than Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, or even Steve Garvey.

Yes, he is. Win Shares is over-rated, but i think it's clear to me Clark kills all of them.

Player	Seas	G	PA	BA	OBP	Slug	OPS+	R	RBI	RC	RC/27	Bases	Outs	Bases/Out
Clark	15	1976	8283	0.303	0.384	0.497	138	1186	1205	1369	7.03	4625	5259	0.879
Garvey	19	2332	9466	0.294	0.329	0.446	116	1143	1308	1307	5.29	4532	6627	0.684
Keith	17	2088	8553	0.296	0.384	0.436	129	1124	1071	1245	6.12	4414	5493	0.804
Donnie	14	1785	7721	0.307	0.358	0.471	127	1007	1099	1202	6.29	3924	5159	0.761

Where does either of those three beat out Clark?

[KCGHOST]

It is difficult to defend the BBWAA for bouncing Clark while retaining Garvey, but it is impossible to defend them for giving Garvey more votes than Clark and Mattingly combined.

[Brooklyn]

I actually don't mind the blank ballots so much because it shows that at least those writers have consistent principles. Let's face it, if we really got down to it, how many really bonafide Hall of Famers were in this election? Zero. There is not one player that stands out as clearly a Hall of Famer, everyone needs some argument in their favor. So I can't really blame those 12 writers for believing there was not one Hall of Fame worthy player this year.

I don't mind the blank ballots either. What bothers me more is the vote changing. Voters didn't deem any of these players worthy last year, and what have the players done in the past year to change the voters mind? I buy the argument that voters do more research, get more info, etc., but shouldn't they do all the research before the first ballot?

I don't understand the whole idea of players trending from up from year to year. I don't think a voter should be rigid - they shuold reservew the right to change their minds. But it happens too much for my comfort.

The one thing that would cause totals to go up is if voters have a full ballot, then once someone is elected they can vote for someone else. I don't think there are many voters out there with full ballots. But full ballots bother me more than empty ballots. There is no way there are 10+ HOfers on this ballot, I think there are closer to 0 then 10, so I respect the empty ballot more than the full one.

[Pine Tar]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clarkwi02.shtml

 Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP 
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 1986 22 SFG NL 111  408   66  117  27  2  11   41   4  7  34  76  .287  .343  .444  181   9   4  10   3   3
 1987 23 SFG NL 150  529   89  163  29  5  35   91   5 17  49  98  .308  .371  .580  307   3   2  11   5   2
 1988 24 SFG NL 162  575  102  162  31  6  29  109   9  1 100 129  .282  .386  .508  292   0  10  27   4   9
 1989 25 SFG NL 159  588  104  196  38  9  23  111   8  3  74 103  .333  .407  .546  321   0   8  14   5   6
 1990 26 SFG NL 154  600   91  177  25  5  19   95   8  2  62  97  .295  .357  .448  269   0  13   9   3   7
 1991 27 SFG NL 148  565   84  170  32  7  29  116   4  2  51  91  .301  .359  .536  303   0   4  12   2   5
 1992 28 SFG NL 144  513   69  154  40  1  16   73  12  7  73  82  .300  .384  .476  244   0  11  23   4   5
 1993 29 SFG NL 132  491   82  139  27  2  14   73   2  2  63  68  .283  .367  .432  212   1   6   6   6  10
 1994 30 TEX AL 110  389   73  128  24  2  13   80   5  1  71  59  .329  .431  .501  195   0   6  11   3   5
 1995 31 TEX AL 123  454   85  137  27  3  16   92   0  1  68  50  .302  .389  .480  218   0  11   6   4   7
 1996 32 TEX AL 117  436   69  124  25  1  13   72   2  1  64  67  .284  .377  .436  190   0   7   5   5  10
 1997 33 TEX AL 110  393   56  128  29  1  12   51   0  0  49  62  .326  .400  .496  195   0   5  11   3   4
 1998 34 TEX AL 149  554   98  169  41  1  23  102   1  0  72  97  .305  .384  .507  281   0   7   5   3  15
 1999 35 BAL AL  77  251   40   76  15  0  10   29   2  2  38  42  .303  .395  .482  121   0   3   2   2   5
 2000 36 TOT    130  427   78  136  30  2  21   70   5  2  69  69  .319  .418  .546  233   0   4   3   7   7
         BAL AL  79  256   49   77  15  1   9   28   4  2  47  45  .301  .413  .473  121   0   3   3   4   4
         STL NL  51  171   29   59  15  1  12   42   1  0  22  24  .345  .426  .655  112   0   1   0   3   3
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 15 Seasons         7173      2176     47     1205     48    1190  .303  .384  .497       13 101 155  59 100
               1976      1186      440    284       67    937                       3562
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 162 Game Avg        588   97  178  36  4  23   99   5  4  77  98  .303  .384  .497  292   1   8  13   5   8
 Career High    162  600  104  196  41  9  35  116  12 17 100 129  .333  .431  .580  321   9  13  27   7  15
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP

THose numbers look a lot like Harold Baines without the longevity. Certainly a nice career but...I mean you have to base his hall worthiness strickly on win shares, which most hall votes don't give a crap about, you are inventing his hall worthiness. There's a discussion on the history board of fever that shows how rediculous the win shares system is in evaluating the career of Will Clark. Basically according to James' Objective Win Shares Clark was better in the 1989 season than Ted Williams was in the last year he batted .400.
So ignoring win shares and Will Clark is not better than Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, or even Steve Garvey.

[Chisox]

I actually don't mind the blank ballots so much because it shows that at least those writers have consistent principles. Let's face it, if we really got down to it, how many really bonafide Hall of Famers were in this election? Zero. There is not one player that stands out as clearly a Hall of Famer, everyone needs some argument in their favor. So I can't really blame those 12 writers for believing there was not one Hall of Fame worthy player this year.

I can certainly see that. Everyone has knocks on them. I know a lot of people who think nobody on the ballot.

It's when the writers start showing inconsistency in their voting. For example, every writer that had Bruce Sutter on their ballot, should have had Goose Gossage on as well, but that wasn't the case. In another example, Ozzie Smith gets in on his first try, while his superior peer Alan Trammell struggles to get above 15%? I don't get![/QUOTE]
Sutter over Gossage: "inventor"
Smith over Trammell: "backflips" "wizard of oz"