By In Stuff

Baseball links

Got a Hall of Fame wrap-up that I’ll post here in a little bit, hopefully, but in the meantime a couple of baseball links for you:

The Rule of 10.

Puerto Rico, Roberto Clemente and the Hall of Fame path of Pudge Rodriguez.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

20 Responses to Baseball links

  1. BobDD says:

    Has the rule of 10 really clogged things up? I’d say that the voters have done that themselves with such unspoken rules as not giving first timers a vote, by refusing Bonds and Clemens, and by intentionally denying sabermetric principles because . . . who knows why, but you kids better get off my lawn.

    • invitro says:

      Actually, the voting is the opposite of “clogged up”. From one of Joe’s colleagues: “In the last four years, the Baseball Writers’ Association of America has voted 12 players into the Hall, which is two more than the previous eight years combined. Twelve players in four years is the most voted in by the BBWAA since the first four Hall of Fame classes (1936-39).”

      • Brent says:

        Part of the clog is from those previous 8 years obviously. Raines, Edgar Martinez, Lee Smith, all started clogging before the last 4 years.

  2. Scott says:

    I really liked the article on the rule of 10. It seems designed to keep players out of the Hall of Fame. For example, if I was a voter, I would probably not vote for Riveria when he comes on the ballot simply because I think that there will be at least 10 more deserving players still on the ballot.
    This could also lead to some voters trying to game the system and leave off Chipper Jones next year in order to vote for an 11th deserving player. This is bad, but it would be really perverse if a voter (especially now that ballots are public) votes for a player who he does not believe is one of the ten best on the ballot (say Trevor Hoffman), but who is close to election so that next year votes will be freed up.

    • invitro says:

      “It seems designed to keep players out of the Hall of Fame.” — In a sense, it is. It’s designed to prevent bloat, to keep the number of players going in at a pretty much constant level.

      “For example, if I was a voter, I would probably not vote for Riveria when he comes on the ballot simply because I think that there will be at least 10 more deserving players still on the ballot.” — If you did this, you’d be in an extreme minority among voters, less than 1% of them, I’d say. It’s a non-issue.

  3. JB says:

    Your article on Pudge indicates he couldn’t run much. You might be recalling his late career. While with the Rangers, he ran the bases as well as a middle infielder. He was far from a base clogger. And as you stated, he stole 25 bases one year and my memory is could’ve stolen more but the club discouraged him from running.

    • JB says:

      …Oh and Pudge was a fantastic athlete who would not have embarrassed himself in CF or even SS. The quickness (and obviously the arm) worked at any position.

  4. dlf9 says:

    Joe: “Rodriguez told a funny story Thursday at the Hall of Fame press conference. He was sitting next to fellow Hall of Fame inductee Tim Raines, and Raines was saying that he played in Rodriguez’s first game, which is true. Pudge’s Rangers played Raines’ White Sox on that June day in 1991. Rodriguez was 19. “He didn’t really say anything,” Raines said. “You don’t remember, but I told you something in Spanish,” Rodriguez said. “I said, ‘I’ve got a good arm. Don’t try to steal on me.'”
    /
    Raines, for his career, was 4-4 stealing against Pudge.

  5. Rob Smith says:

    I don’t agree that the Rule of 10 should be abolished. The purpose is not to prevent certain players or types of players from being elected. The purpose is to force voters to prioritize. Otherwise, it’s too easy to just check boxes for marginal players. And, I think, especially easy when votes are made public in the next couple of years. Voters could check boxes just to avoid anger directed at them.

    The issue really isn’t who gets voted in. It’s really more around those who are dropping off the ballot prematurely. Tim Raines is the poster child for a guy who needed a few years for his case to be heard. So, I do agree that something needs to be done around that & the idea of voting “honorable mention” candidates to keep them on the ballot has some merit.

    But I think the Rule of 10 is serving it’s purpose. Plenty of candidates are getting voted in. And, I think, the offensive inflation of the steroid era has caused this logjam. It didn’t just magically happen. Without steroids, several players on the current ballot would be in by now & there would be no logjam. That’s not the fault of the system. So, with the Rule of 10, voters have to prioritize and decide who are the best of the best. That’s a good thing.

    • Rob Smith says:

      I should have said: Without steroids several players might not have been on the ballot at all…. or in the case of Bonds/Clemens…. presumably they would have already been voted in. No steroids. No logjam.

      • Richard says:

        I’d also point out that players get more than one chance at it. Players get up to ten tries on the ballot, and even then, there are still committees to take care of any oversights. If after all that, you can’t get selected, you probably really don’t belong.

  6. Bryan says:

    “The people running the Hall of Fame like to say that it is for the top 1 percent of all players.”

    There are 7134 players who debuted since 1961 and last played in 2011 or earlier. 53 of those players are in the Hall of Fame or the upcoming 3 player class. 18 players short of what Joe describes in the article as being the preference of the Hall of Fame.

  7. invitro says:

    I think the HoF voting system is probably good enough, and that the BBWAA voting system is probably more than good enough. If I could redo the whole system, I’d probably go with a Bill James idea (as I often do), which he’s explained in super-extreme detail, but which has as the key idea letting fans and sabermetricians vote. There would be four groups of voters: the BBWAA, veteran players & management, fans, and sabermetricians/historians. That’s the main point: letting fans and historians have a say. The next point is that each time a group had a vote, the top vote-getter would go in. No 75% restriction. They probably wouldn’t vote every year, as four people a year (all these votes would be for any persons, not just players) might be a tad too much… maybe three groups would vote every year. If two groups chose the same person, the second-leading vote getter from one of the groups would get in. Now I don’t think the HoF is in dire need of correction, but I know I’d really like to give both fans and historians a direct say in the HoF membership. Anyone’s thoughts…?

    • Bryan says:

      The highest vote % getting elected or having a run-off to ensure one candidate is elected would presumably change very little.

      1996 – Niekro 68.3%
      1997 – Sutton 73.2% (Niekro is in)
      1998 – Perez 67.9% (Sutton is in)
      1999 – Ryan, Brett and Yount – no change
      2000 – Fisk (Perez is in)

      At that point the exact same players are in, the main difference is presumably more people would have attended the 1996 ceremony. Biggio goes in alone in 2013 instead of a 4 person class in 2015.
      **
      Minimum 2 players would make a considerable difference, obviously people might vote differently in a different system but there is nothing besides the actual votes to base it on, after the + wasn’t elected that year originally:
      1993 – Reggie + Niekro
      1994 – Carlton + Cepeda
      1995 – Schmidt + Sutton
      1996 – + Perez & Garvey
      1997 – + Santo & Rice
      1998 – + Carter & Sutter
      1999 – Ryan, Brett & Yount
      2000 – Fisk + Gossage
      2001 – Winfield & Puckett
      2002 – Ozzie + Dawson
      2003 – Murray + Sandberg
      2004 – Molitor & Eckersley
      2005 – Boggs + Blyleven
      2006 – + Lee Smith & Morris
      2007 – Ripken & Gwynn
      2008 – + Tommy John & Raines
      2009 – Rickey + McGwire
      2010 – + Alomar & Larkin
      2011 – + Bagwell & Edgar
      2012 – + Trammell & McGriff
      2013 – + Biggio & Piazza
      2014 – Maddux, Glavine & Thomas
      2015 – Unit, Pedro & Smoltz
      2016 – Griffey + Hoffman
      2017 – Ivan + Vlad
      Santo, Cepeda, Garvey, Lee Smith, Morris, Tommy John, McGwire, Trammell and McGriff not elected or likely to be by the BBWAA by the current system. Vlad and Hoffman are quite likely to gain election by the BBWAA and between Raines, Ortiz and the 2017 vote it seems fairly likely that the BBWAA will also induct Edgar.
      Assuming the various committees behave as expected (and already did for Santo and Cepeda) it’s likely that at least Smith, Morris and Trammell will be in the HoF.

    • Rob Smith says:

      I actually think that’s a terrible idea. Opening up the voting just introduces more variables and more potential for problems. We all know how fans do in their All Star voting. There is no expectation even that they will do a good job. The expectation is that fans will vote for their favorites. Even if their favorite is 41 years old and hitting .222, and injured. I don’t like player voting either. Players have proved elsewhere that they’re not the best judges either. They hold old grudges, and also have their favorites. It’s bad enough that we have a group of writers with various agendas. We don’t need four such groups. What a mess that would be.

  8. David Horwich says:

    The article on Rodriguez states there are 8 Hall of Famers from Latin America. But there are in fact 11; Martin Dihigo, Cristobal Torriente, and Jose Mendez are just as much HoF’ers as Clemente, Marichal, Aparicio, Cepeda, Perez, Alomar, Martinez, and Rodriguez.

  9. Grover Jones says:

    Will there be a place at MLB.com where all your articles will be collected? Hate that your byline is not a hotlink to such a list.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *