HOF Monitor: Pitchers

[BlueBlood]

All candidates scoring over 100 that are eligible and not in the Hall:

1. Jim McCormick 194
2. Bob Caruthers 171 *
3. Tony Mullane 169 *
4. Bobby Matthews 160
5. Tommy Bond 141
6. Will White 141
7. Lee Smith 135
8. Charlie Buffinton 130
9. Jim Kaat 129
10. Gus Weyhing 126
11. Jack Morris 122
12. Larry Corcoran 122
13. Ed Morris 121
14. Silver King 120
15. Bert Blyeleven 120 *
16. Carl Mays 114 *
17. Vida Blue 114
18. Tommy John 111
19. Jim Whitney 110
20. Eddie Cicotte 110
21. Allie Reynolds 110
22. Ron Guidry 106
23. Jeff Reardon 106
24. Bucky Walters 104
25. George Mullin 104
26. Dave Foutz 104
27. David Cone 103
28. Ed Reulbach 101
29. Guy Hecker 100

*In the BBHOF

[Bothrops Atrox]

All candidates scoring over 100 that are eligible and not in the Hall:

1. Jim McCormick 194
2. Bob Caruthers 171 *
3. Tony Mullane 169 *
4. Bobby Matthews 160
5. Tommy Bond 141
6. Will White 141
7. Lee Smith 135
8. Charlie Buffinton 130
9. Jim Kaat 129
10. Gus Weyhing 126
11. Jack Morris 122
12. Larry Corcoran 122
13. Ed Morris 121
14. Silver King 120
15. Bert Blyeleven 120 *
16. Carl Mays 114 *
17. Vida Blue 114
18. Tommy John 111
19. Jim Whitney 110
20. Eddie Cicotte 110
21. Allie Reynolds 110
22. Ron Guidry 106
23. Jeff Reardon 106
24. Bucky Walters 104
25. George Mullin 104
26. Dave Foutz 104
27. David Cone 103
28. Ed Reulbach 101
29. Guy Hecker 100

*In the BBHOF

You can see from the disproportionate amount of 19th century pitchers that the HOF monitor is very flawed. I do realize that the purpose of the HOF monitor is to rank the likelihood of election, not deservedness, but the intended goal does not work either. The fact that there are 30 pitchers "likely" to get into the HOF that are not in, shows the system innefective in evaluating how likely certain pitchers actualy are. Obviously, playing in the 1900s must be a huge negative factor in election likelihood, but there is no adjustment made for this factor. The biggest problem (not with the monitor itself, as it does state its purpose), is that many who see it take it as a deservedness instead.

[brett]

You can see from the disproportionate amount of 19th century pitchers that the HOF monitor is very flawed. I do realize that the purpose of the HOF monitor is to rank the likelihood of election, not deservedness, but the intended goal does not work either. The fact that there are 30 pitchers "likely" to get into the HOF that are not in, shows the system innefective in evaluating how likely certain pitchers actualy are. Obviously, playing in the 1900s must be a huge negative factor in election likelihood, but there is no adjustment made for this factor. The biggest problem (not with the monitor itself, as it does state its purpose), is that many who see it take it as a deservedness instead.

The HOF monitor is based on raw career production, not production above some baseline, so it will always underrate shorter careers and overrate longer ones.

[KCGHOST]

The only guy I personally would vote for is Blyleven. Numerous others are worthy of serious conversation.

[jjpm74]

Pitchers not in the HOF who deserve to be there:

1. Bert Blyleven
2. Bob Caruthers
3. Tony Mullane
4. Carl Mays
5. Dan Quisenberry
6. Wilbur Cooper

I certainly wouldn't be upset if these guys end up getting in:

1. Lee Smith
2. Ron Guidry
3. Jack Morris

I can see a reasonable case for:

1. Don Newcombe
2. Cannonball Dick Redding
3. Allie Reynolds
4. Tommy John
5. Jim Kaat

[BlueBlood]

Bert's the only one I'd make a huge fuss over. The rest don't bother me too much although I would like to see the borderline Kaat, Caruthers, Mays and Mullane in there.

[Chadwick]

There are a few names not on the list who are deserving, too. Wes Ferrell, Billy Pierce and Dizzy Trout are better than half the pitchers listed.

[Paul Wendt]

maybes

I certainly wouldn't be upset if these guys end up getting in:

1. Lee Smith
2. Ron Guidry
3. Jack Morris

I can see a reasonable case for:

1. Don Newcombe
2. Cannonball Dick Redding
3. Allie Reynolds
4. Tommy John
5. Jim Kaat

There is no scope for maybe in a multiple poll so I voted for Blyleven and Caruthers, flipped a coin on every maybe.

There are different kinds of maybes or borderline cases.

- One is "Maybe. I wish I had more perspective that only ongoing baseball history can bring." Lee Smith and David Cone are examples. In 2020 will we look back on fifty years of divisional play and see that Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Martinez are the only four aces in the deck with here and there a Kevin Brown or Bret Saberhagen or Dave Stieb or David Cone? Or will see a dozen of the latter and a few more Randy Johnson? Will we see a dozen Trevor Hoffmans and Billy Wagners or will we look back and see, after Mariano Rivera his colleagues Hoffman and Wagner are the best in fifty years.

- Two is for Don Newcombe, Sal Maglie, Dolf Luque. "Maybe. I wish I had more perspective that research might bring, if only I could afford it, or it might be impossible to retrieve."

- Three?
- Four?

[KCGHOST]

I think we should not that no one, other than Blyleven, is reaching the 75% plateau. In fact the next highest is not even at 55%.

[hairmetalfreek]

I'm surprised at how little support Tommy John is getting. I didn't vote for him personally, but I thought he would bring more than 25%. I mean, the guy has a surgery named after him for Pete's sake! (I know, old joke, sue me.)

[BenHertz]

I voted for Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat, Tommy John, and Jack Morris. I probably should've voted for Lee Smith, but I didn't.

[Chadwick]

I'm surprised at how little support Tommy John is getting. I didn't vote for him personally, but I thought he would bring more than 25%. I mean, the guy has a surgery named after him for Pete's sake! (I know, old joke, sue me.)

They should have named it after Dr. Jobe.