Rockies BBF HOF second chance election

[jalbright]

This will be one of three second chance round elections this week. What we'll do for the second chance election is a Yes/No vote requiring the greater of 6 or 75% of the votes to induct. The election will be limited to the listed nominees. The elections will only be open for a week--but there will be at least three or four days for discussion and new nominations. You can abstain from an entire ballot (player or contributor), but if you vote in that portion of the ballot, only the guys you expressly vote yes for get credit for a positive vote. The others in that section of the ballot will be considered to have gotten a "no" vote. There will be no limits on how many nominees you can vote for . I will also provide the nomination discussions for the nominees. The deadline for suggesting nominees is twelve hours before the election begins.


This election will not begin until Saturday, May 5 at 7 am EDT, and will end at 7 am EDT May 12. Nominations close 12 hours before the election begins, or May 11 at 7 pm EDT. Ballots not cast within the stated election time frame will not count.

The Rockies have the following already inducted:

Inducted Players (3): Vinny Castilla, Andres Galarraga, Larry Walker

Inducted Contributors: None



The list of nominees at present is:

Players
Pedro Astacio
Dante Bichette
Ellis Burks
Jason Jennings
Eric Young

Contributors
Don Baylor
Bob Gebhard
Clint Hurdle
Jim Tracy

[Nerdlinger]

Ellis Burks
10.8 WAR/pos (8th in franchise history)
12.5 oWAR (7th)
0.306 BA (8th)
0.378 OBP (4th)
0.579 SLG (2nd)
0.957 OPS (3rd)
24 3B (6th)
115 HR (9th)
337 RBI (10th)
128 OPS+ (5th)
243 XBH (10th)
15.8 AB/HR (2nd)

Eric Young
9.5 WAR/pos (10th in franchise history)
2.6 dWAR (7th)
0.295 BA (9th)
0.378 OBP (5th)
378 R (10th)
28 3B (5th)
254 BB (8th)
180 SB (1st)
466 1B (10th)
917 TOB (10th)
72.29 SB% (6th)
13.7 AB/SO (2nd)

Pedro Astacio
9.9 pWAR (3rd in franchise history)
53 W (5th)
0.525 W-L% (5th)
1.463 WHIP (5th)
10.008 H/9 (7th)
3.155 BB/9 (6th)
8.148 SO/9 (2nd)
827.3 IP (5th)
749 SO (2nd)
129 GS (6th)
14 CG (1st)
2.583 SO/BB (1st)
3646 BF (4th)
102 ERA+ (6th)

Jason Jennings (not sure if he's eligible)
9.1 pWAR (5th in franchise history)
4.74 ERA (5th)
58 W (2nd)
0.509 W-L% (8th)
1.548 WHIP (9th)
9.870 H/9 (3rd)
4.065 BB/9 (9th)
5.949 SO/9 (6th)
941.0 IP (2nd)
622 SO (3rd)
156 GS (2nd)
1.464 SO/BB (7th)
0.985 HR/9 (5th)
4180 BF (2nd)
103 ERA+ (5th)

Clint Hurdle (for contributor)
1159 games managed (1st)
534 W (1st)
National League pennant 2007

[jalbright]

Ellis Burks
10.8 WAR/pos (8th in franchise history)
12.5 oWAR (7th)
0.306 BA (8th)
0.378 OBP (4th)
0.579 SLG (2nd)
0.957 OPS (3rd)
24 3B (6th)
115 HR (9th)
337 RBI (10th)
128 OPS+ (5th)
243 XBH (10th)
15.8 AB/HR (2nd)

Eric Young
9.5 WAR/pos (10th in franchise history)
2.6 dWAR (7th)
0.295 BA (9th)
0.378 OBP (5th)
378 R (10th)
28 3B (5th)
254 BB (8th)
180 SB (1st)
466 1B (10th)
917 TOB (10th)
72.29 SB% (6th)
13.7 AB/SO (2nd)

Pedro Astacio
9.9 pWAR (3rd in franchise history)
53 W (5th)
0.525 W-L% (5th)
1.463 WHIP (5th)
10.008 H/9 (7th)
3.155 BB/9 (6th)
8.148 SO/9 (2nd)
827.3 IP (5th)
749 SO (2nd)
129 GS (6th)
14 CG (1st)
2.583 SO/BB (1st)
3646 BF (4th)
102 ERA+ (6th)

Jason Jennings (not sure if he's eligible)
9.1 pWAR (5th in franchise history)
4.74 ERA (5th)
58 W (2nd)
0.509 W-L% (8th)
1.548 WHIP (9th)
9.870 H/9 (3rd)
4.065 BB/9 (9th)
5.949 SO/9 (6th)
941.0 IP (2nd)
622 SO (3rd)
156 GS (2nd)
1.464 SO/BB (7th)
0.985 HR/9 (5th)
4180 BF (2nd)
103 ERA+ (5th)

Clint Hurdle (for contributor)
1159 games managed (1st)
534 W (1st)
National League pennant 2007

all of them are eligible and will make the list. IMHO, only Hurdle isn't a pathetic choice, and I don't think I'll vote for him

[Nerdlinger]

all of them are eligible and will make the list. IMHO, only Hurdle isn't a pathetic choice, and I don't think I'll vote for him

Well, it's all relative.

[jalbright]

Well, it's all relative.

That's your position: the biggest and baddest guys among the (current) Lilliputians deserve to be in the Lilliputian hall. The problem I have with that is that sooner or later, the Lilliputians will have their own Gulliver(s), and the inclusion of the "big" Lilliputian will look ridiculous--or you have to include everyone on that franchise forever who's as good as the early Lilliputian, in which case the franchise Hall will have all the exclusiveness of the men's room at the stadium--and, as far as I'm concerned, about the same allure. I'd far rather have an empty Hall than either of those scenarios.

[jjpm74]

That's your position: the biggest and baddest guys among the (current) Lilliputians deserve to be in the Lilliputian hall. The problem I have with that is that sooner or later, the Lilliputians will have their own Gulliver(s), and the inclusion of the "big" Lilliputian will look ridiculous--or you have to include everyone on that franchise forever who's as good as the early Lilliputian, in which case the franchise Hall will have all the exclusiveness of the men's room at the stadium--and, as far as I'm concerned, about the same allure. I'd far rather have an empty Hall than either of those scenarios.

I don't agree with this at all. Just because an early lesser player (or contributor) endears himself to fans and they honor him early on, that does not mean that every person similar statistically will also become honored by that team or its's fans. Two cases in point: Casey Stengel's number is retired in the NY Mets organization and Wade Boggs' number is retired in Tampa Bay. That does not mean that every player who is a big name who comes to play for the Tampa Bay franchise for 2 years at the end of their career for the rest of that team's history will or must be honored in such a fashion. The Mets, similarly will not be honoring any managers with losing records any time soon who did little more than coin the phrase "Amazin' Mets" and provide some late career comic relief for an expansion team. Early lesser players and contributors tend to have a bigger impact on newer franchises and that is not something that should be ignored in the name of statistical cutoffs, IMO.

[jalbright]

I don't agree with this at all. Just because an early lesser player (or contributor) endears himself to fans and they honor him early on, that does not mean that every person similar statistically will also become honored by that team or its's fans. Two cases in point: Casey Stengel's number is retired in the NY Mets organization and Wade Boggs' number is retired in Tampa Bay. That does not mean that every player who is a big name who comes to play for the Tampa Bay franchise for 2 years at the end of their career for the rest of that team's history will or must be honored in such a fashion. The Mets, similarly will not be honoring any managers with losing records any time soon who did little more than coin the phrase "Amazin' Mets" and provide some late career comic relief for an expansion team. Early lesser players and contributors tend to have a bigger impact on newer franchises and that is not something that should be ignored in the name of statistical cutoffs, IMO.

I said that in the context of Astacio, Burks, Jennings and Young. If you think they made a big enough impact to vote for them, go ahead. I'll pass. I'll also pass on the Boggs in Tampa and Stengel for the Mets examples for the reason I already stated. OK, maybe you won't include later guys who have the same qualifications--but those kinds of picks will look like ridiculous selections someday. And they're definitely better picks than the four guys I was really talking about, for the simple reason that while they weren't great for the franchises you cite, they had been great. Stengel might get a bit of a pass for what he did in another location in NYC--heck, maybe some uninformed souls might confuse which NY team he did what for. I can bend for a Cleon Jones and maybe just a little better than a Luis Castillo type for helping win a championship. That's far enough for me, though.

[dgarza]

Dante Bichette
COL stats :
.316/.352/.540/.892
112 OPS+

All-Star Games
1994 *
1995 *
1996 (RF)
1998 *

Silver Sluggers
1995 NL (OF)

Team Career Records (500 game min.) :
3rd in Runs, Hits, Doubles, RBIs, Stolen Bases
4th in HRs, AVG

Led League in :
SLG (1995)
Hits (1995,1998)
HRs (1995)
Total Bases (1995)
RBIs (1995)
Sac. Flies (1996,1999)
Assists at LF (1998,1999)
Assists at RF (1993)

Killed it in Post-Season:

                                                                                                                 
Year   Age  Tm Lg Series Opp Rslt G PA AB R  H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO   BA  OBP  SLG   OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB
                                                                                                                 
1995    31 COL NL   NLDS ATL    L 4 18 17 6 10  3  0  1   3  0  0  1  3 [B].588 .611 .941 1.552[/B] 16   0   0  0  0   0
1 NLDS                            4 18 17 6 10  3  0  1   3  0  0  1  3 [B].588 .611 .941 1.552[/B] 16   0   0  0  0   0

[jalbright]

You neglected to mention that Bichette had a grand total of 1.8 WAR, only one season over 1 WAR (2.7). I clearly don't like Astacio, Burks, Jennings and Young, but this one makes those IMHO horrendous suggestions look good. These choices are beginning to make me regret allowing every case someone makes get a chance to be voted on.

[Nerdlinger]

You neglected to mention that Bichette had a grand total of 1.8 WAR, only one season over 1 WAR (2.7). I clearly don't like Astacio, Burks, Jennings and Young, but this one makes those IMHO horrendous suggestions look good. These choices are beginning to make me regret allowing every case someone makes get a chance to be voted on.

Someone's got to be on the ballot, though, right? Since this is the second chance election? We can only suggest the best available candidates. Bichette has the weakest case of the five, but it doesn't hurt to at least put him on the ballot. It's quite likely that, as in the Marlins second chance election, a couple blank ballots are going to sink the chances for anyone else to get into the Rockies Hall, so what does it matter who's on the ballot?

[dgarza]

You neglected to mention that Bichette had a grand total of 1.8 WAR, only one season over 1 WAR (2.7). I clearly don't like Astacio, Burks, Jennings and Young, but this one makes those IMHO horrendous suggestions look good. These choices are beginning to make me regret allowing every case someone makes get a chance to be voted on.

You forgot to mention that Bichette received 55.6% of the vote last election. A majority of the voters were not pure WAR bean-counters.
And neither were the MVP voters in 1995. (I know they weren't looking at WAR in 1995, but that's not really the point.)

All the reasons I gave above make Bichette a solid candidate regardless of what his WAR is.
Had he none of the awards, honors, or placements listed above, but a WAR 5x what it really was, I would not have made a case for him in all likelihood.

[jalbright]

Someone's got to be on the ballot, though, right? Since this is the second chance election? We can only suggest the best available candidates. Bichette has the weakest case of the five, but it doesn't hurt to at least put him on the ballot. It's quite likely that, as in the Marlins second chance election, a couple blank ballots are going to sink the chances for anyone else to get into the Rockies Hall, so what does it matter who's on the ballot?

The whole idea behind this was to provide an opportunity to elect worthy candidates who missed out. IMHO, not every franchise has worthy candidates weren't elected. Frankly, I'd say from the nominees for the Rockies, they're one of those franchises. I'd be happier not having to count the ballots for guys who 1) don't deserve it and 2) won't make it, so it matters to me--and I'm running this show.

[Nerdlinger]

The whole idea behind this was to provide an opportunity to elect worthy candidates who missed out. IMHO, not every franchise has worthy candidates weren't elected. Frankly, I'd say from the nominees for the Rockies, they're one of those franchises. I'd be happier not having to count the ballots for guys who 1) don't deserve it and 2) won't make it, so it matters to me--and I'm running this show.

So if, in your opinion as the project-runner, there are no more worthy candidates for the Rockies, why did you run this election?

[dgarza]

The whole idea behind this was to provide an opportunity to elect worthy candidates who missed out. IMHO, not every franchise has worthy candidates weren't elected. Frankly, I'd say from the nominees for the Rockies, they're one of those franchises. I'd be happier not having to count the ballots for guys who 1) don't deserve it

But since you're opening these HOFs to voting, you are asking us who is worthy. Or are you asking us to guess who you think is worthy?

2) won't make it, so it matters to me--and I'm running this show.

In the past, you have stopped running elections if you though no one was going to make it, regardless of worthiness. The fact that you haven't stopped this one makes us assume you are open to considering a second chance for the Rockies.

[jjpm74]

But since you're opening these HOFs to voting, you are asking us who is worthy. Or are you asking us to guess who you think is worthy?

In the past, you have stopped running elections if you though no one was going to make it, regardless of worthiness. The fact that you haven't stopped this one makes us assume you are open to considering a second chance for the Rockies.

jalbright is the project coordinator, but he is also a participant in the project and as such is entitled to his opinion on who is in his eyes worthy/not worthy of his vote as is everyone else who participates. I have seconded some people I have no intention of voting for because while I might not personally endorse them, others may. Being the coordinator of a given project does not mean that said person cannot interject their own opinions as a participant.