Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Future Hall of Famers #1: Players Born 1962-63

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Future Hall of Famers #1: Players Born 1962-63

    This is the first poll to survey the BBF scholars as to who among recent players we think will be in the Hall of Fame 50 years from now. From the list of players provided, vote for the five (5) players you think are most likely to be enshrined in the Hall by the year 2062. So it’s not the guys you think are most deserving; it’s who you think the voters are most likely to elect. For more background and links to all elections go here: A New Project: Future Hall of Famers.

    One thing you need to do is to predict what the voters of the next two generations will do regarding players from the “steroids era”. Will a future Veterans Committee have a more favorable view of players like McGwire, Palmeiro, et al? Or will the “known cheaters” be pariahs forever?

    A few notes on the stats below:
    --For pitchers career WAR includes their offense.
    --“4.5 Yrs” is the number of years a guy performed at an all-star level, at least 4.5 WAR. This has not been adjusted for the 1994-95 short seasons. For pitchers it does not include offense, so someone like Glavine get short-changed.
    --”WS” is career Win Shares from the annual Bill James Handbooks. For pitchers I have increased their total by 25% in an attempt to put them on the same scale as hitters. If you disagree with this, simply multiply the number shown by .80 and you will get pitchers’ “book total” of win shares.
    --”oHOFm” is the old Hall of Fame Monitor number from BB-Ref, where 70 signifies a candidate, 100 signifies a likely election and 130 signifies almost certain election.
    --”nHOFm” is the recalibration by Bill James of the Hall of Fame Monitor, where 100 signifies almost certain election. Jamie Moyer, with a meager total of 28, is the only player here whose new HOFm total has been published in the Handbooks.
    Code:
                  Player	WAR/pos	Born   PA/IP  4.5 Yrs	WS	oHOFm	nHOFm
              E Martinez	64.4	1963	 8674	10	305	132	
            Mark McGwire	58.7	1963	 7660	 8	342	170	
            Fred McGriff	48.1	1963	10174	 4	341	100	
             Devon White	44.2	1962	 8080	 4	207	 39	
             T Fernandez	42.0	1962	 8793	 2	280	 75	
             Paul ONeill	35.2	1963	 8329	 2	259	 71	
           Roger Clemens	133.9	1962	4916.2	14	546	332	
              Ra Johnson	96.3	1963	4135.1	11	408	331	
              David Cone	58.8	1963	2898.2	 7	256	103	
            Chuck Finley	53.7	1962	3197.1	 4	266	 54	
             David Wells	49.2	1963	3439.0	 3	263	 88	
             Jamie Moyer	44.8	1962	4074.0	 4	281	 56	28
    You are encouraged to go beyond the stats offered here in researching these players. BB-Ref provides sortable lists for players born in 1962 and 1963.
    149
    Roger Clemens
    18.79%
    28
    David cone
    6.04%
    9
    Tony Fernandez
    0.67%
    1
    Chuck Finley
    0.67%
    1
    Randy Johnson
    19.46%
    29
    Edgar Martinez
    18.79%
    28
    Fred McGriff
    14.77%
    22
    Mark McGwire
    16.78%
    25
    Jamie Moyer
    2.01%
    3
    Paul O'Neill
    0.67%
    1
    David Wells
    0.67%
    1
    Devon White
    0.67%
    1

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by Freakshow; 11-04-2012, 06:43 PM.
    Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

    Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

  • #2
    Darryl Strawberry should definitely be included in your poll. There might possibly be a couple of people who would vote for Eric Davis and Wally Joyner as well.

    Some reasons to include Darryl Strawberry:

    8 time all star
    39.2 WAR/pos
    20.9 WAA
    ROY
    Last edited by jjpm74; 11-04-2012, 07:04 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      My five, even if jjpm's suggestions were added, would be Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, McGwire and McGriff.
      Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
      Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
      A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

      Comment


      • #4
        --The only 2 I feel really sure will be elected are Clemens and Johnson. If Clemens doesn't make it then nobody who ever had the slightest PED stigma will ever make it. I suspect there will eventually be a softening on McGwire, although probably not til after Clemens and Bonds make it - and both will probably struggle at the outset. McGriff and Martinez are both borderliners IMO and I have my doubts either will make it, but if we have to pick 5 then I agree with Jim's list.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'd have chosen 3 or at most 4 to vote for in this election had it been me, as I'm really only sure of Clemens and Johnson, and I'd bet on at least one of the other three I voted for. There's a small amount of doubt about Clemens due to PEDs, but McGwire has that issue and a far lesser case, Martinez has to carry the baggage of being a DH, and McGriff is a borderline case whose best chance may be as a statement against the juicers.
          Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
          Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
          A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

          Comment


          • #6
            My five in order:

            Randy Johnson
            Roger Clemens
            Edgar Martinez
            Mark McGwire
            Darryl Strawberry

            I personally would only elect the first 4.

            Comment


            • #7
              Randy Johnson's the only no-brainer. E-Mart will probably get in too if he's not punished too much for not having a defensive position. I voted only for those two 'cause I really don't think anyone else has much of a chance. There's sure a lot of PED suspicion on this list.

              As for Clemens, I think it's pretty clear the voters hold grudges, and I think it's also clear he's under great suspicion. In my personal opinion, he and McGwire should be in (although I do think Clemens is a cheat and a hypocrite- my rule is never trust anyone who calls themselves a good friend of Bush II- see also Palmeiro, Rafael- but his skill PEDs or no is undeniable) but the vote on McGwire so far- and even for Bagwell, who I think has been unfairly targeted for unfounded suspicion- proves to me it's not bloody likely.
              Found in a fortune cookie On Thursday, August 18th, 2005: "Hard words break no bones, Kind words butter no parsnips."

              1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by toomanyhatz View Post
                Randy Johnson's the only no-brainer. E-Mart will probably get in too if he's not punished too much for not having a defensive position. I voted only for those two 'cause I really don't think anyone else has much of a chance. There's sure a lot of PED suspicion on this list.

                As for Clemens, I think it's pretty clear the voters hold grudges, and I think it's also clear he's under great suspicion. In my personal opinion, he and McGwire should be in (although I do think Clemens is a cheat and a hypocrite- my rule is never trust anyone who calls themselves a good friend of Bush II- see also Palmeiro, Rafael- but his skill PEDs or no is undeniable) but the vote on McGwire so far- and even for Bagwell, who I think has been unfairly targeted for unfounded suspicion- proves to me it's not bloody likely.
                There's going to be plenty of these polls where you might not support 5 guys. The point is to pick the 5 most likely. There are only 4 I support and two of them I'm, lukewarm on.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Clemens
                  Johnson
                  Martinez
                  Cone
                  Moyer

                  I know Moyer's stats aren't all that great, but I fell like he'll get more support than most of us think.
                  “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

                  "Fill in any figure you want for that boy (Mantle). Whatever the figure, it's a deal." - Branch Rickey

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Freakshow View Post
                    So it’s not the guys you think are most deserving; it’s who you think the voters will elect.
                    So it's not really who I think the voters will elect necessarily, but who will get the most votes even though they may not get 75%, right?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
                      There's going to be plenty of these polls where you might not support 5 guys. The point is to pick the 5 most likely. There are only 4 I support and two of them I'm, lukewarm on.
                      I get that, but honestly, the rest of them were pretty much tied and I'm not sure if I could have separated them.

                      Besides even my limited math skills tell me I'm not the only one to vote for less than five.
                      Found in a fortune cookie On Thursday, August 18th, 2005: "Hard words break no bones, Kind words butter no parsnips."

                      1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dgarza View Post
                        So it's not really who I think the voters will elect necessarily, but who will get the most votes even though they may not get 75%, right?
                        Yeah, right. It's choosing the five players you think are most likely to be elected, even though that election may not actually happen.
                        Originally posted by jalbright View Post
                        I'd have chosen 3 or at most 4 to vote for in this election had it been me
                        These quotes relate directly to the structure of the project. The historical standard established by the HOF is 2.6 players elected per birth year. This project is assuming that ultimately the players from this generation will be honored at that same rate. Obviously, we can't know whether this will actually occur; it could be much lower or much higher than 2.6. Comments like those quoted indicate that the scholars here are generally on the side of honoring players of this generation at a much lower rate than the historical standard. Is that really the direction we want to lean towards? With the game's development and much greater number of teams, I would think we would want to lean in the opposite direction, to ultimately see MORE players honored from the current era than the Hall's historical standard.

                        Which is to say that I think it's fair that the Hall should honor at least 2.6 players per birth year from the current era. I believe that you will eventually find that his election of 1962-63 has a typical crop of candidates; some elections have fewer quality candidates, a couple have a lot more. So if this is a typical year and you're having a tough time finding five guys, maybe the standards for the HOF aren't quite as high as you thought they were. That's one of the things I want to find out in this project: are we being too strict in our assessments? Are we heading toward under-representation of this generation in the HOF?

                        That's why I'm asking everyone to vote for five (in most elections). If we had a lot of "elect 4" (or less) elections we would be left with a whole lot of spots to fill at the end, which isn't the way I want to go. I mean, we could have one election including everyone born from 1962-1988 and ask everyone to vote for their top 70 (2.6 x 27) most likely HOFers. Obviously, that would be a mess. I would rather we walk through these years and sort out the pool of candidates gradually, leaving only a few spots to fill in the runoffs at the end. It's very possible we'll even decide to run a replacement election, and replace weaker players who slipped in through the cracks of this imperfect process with more deserving guys. Whatever it takes to get it right.
                        Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

                        Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by toomanyhatz View Post
                          I get that, but honestly, the rest of them were pretty much tied and I'm not sure if I could have separated them.

                          Besides even my limited math skills tell me I'm not the only one to vote for less than five.
                          You are the only one to vote for less than 5. I voted for 5. 1 was a write in.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
                            Darryl Strawberry should definitely be included in your poll. There might possibly be a couple of people who would vote for Eric Davis and Wally Joyner as well.

                            Some reasons to include Darryl Strawberry:

                            8 time all star
                            39.2 WAR/pos
                            20.9 WAA
                            ROY
                            Strawberry, Joyner and E. Davis have virtually no chance to make the HOF. We've discussed Strawberry before. Four years ago when we did The Ultimate Quest for Candidates project none of those three made the cut for a ballot spot among the 42 candidates from the 1980s-90s. In fact, you were among the people who argued against his inclusion on the ballot:
                            Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
                            Of that list, the players that can probably be dropped are Matt Williams, Charlie Hough, Darryl Strawberry, Cecil Cooper, Dennis Martinez, Wally Joyner, Gary Gaetti
                            .

                            The BBWAA summarily dismissed Strawberry (1.2%), E. Davis (0.6%) and Joyner (0%) in their first years eligible. Strawberry had a nice peak but he was never MVP. I see him as a poor man's Dave Parker, doing a more complete job of self-destructing what should have been a HOF career.
                            Last edited by Freakshow; 11-04-2012, 08:33 PM.
                            Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

                            Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Canseco?

                              Since there has been a question of Darryl Strawberry's exclusion from the current ballot, let me ask your opinion of Jose Canseco. The two have identical career WAR/pos of 39.2. Both drew exactly 6 votes in their only year on the BBWAA ballot. The old HOF Monitor loves Jose, scoring him at 103 (Straw is at 56).

                              Currently, I don't have Canseco among the 15 candidates for the next ballot (a stronger group than this election), because he is Patient Zero for the steroids plague. Should he be included?
                              Last edited by Freakshow; 11-04-2012, 08:52 PM.
                              Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

                              Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X