He only voted for nine. That's interesting.
I just checked and we had the "same" votes accept I voted for Manny too.
I just checked and we had the "same" votes accept I voted for Manny too.
I tend to agree with Rakich's methodology, though he admits it has a notable margin of error, and only projects Hoffman and Vlad to get around 77% of the vote. So he could be "right" and both of them could still just miss out this year. But Vlad, in particular, strikes me as the kind of player traditional voters love - the kind narratives and legends are built around, and no hint of PEDs. I wouldn't be surprised if he stuck around 75% of the public vote, but shot up to 80-85% of the private vote. Heck, even fucking Dan Shaughnessy's ballot only has two players, and they are Vlad and Raines.Nathaniel Rakich (@baseballot on twitter) projects 5 at this point, but I think his methodology on this is off base. I don't see any way Vlad gets in.
I think Hoffman at 73% actually has a pretty good chance this year, while Pudge at 83% looks doubtful based on the drop off Raines saw on the tracker during January 2016. Pudge may be at 79% or so on the eve of the announcement (which is 1/18), and at that point it could go either way.
I'm going out on a limb to say Hoffman in, Pudge out -- but I'd happily be wrong.
I'd say Expo (two Expos in the same year, maybe!), but I suspect MLB will want the team that actually exists.
To the extent that I allow some subjective elements to creep into my estimation of HOF worthiness, I think they revolve around the idea of someone being (or not being) extraordinary at some aspect of the game. Something beyond a numerical threshold that you can be above or below or in a gray area near. Vlad's amazing contact ability outside the zone, Pedro's brilliant ability to mess with a hitter's mind, the supernatural ability of Gwynn or Boggs to turn balls in play into hits, Randy Johnson's terrifying stature, visage, and slider... there ought to be something you can point to for why a player was electric and won over new fans to the game. That's what always bothered me about Jack Morris's apologists, since it seemed his candidacy was built on the back of a single game - and absent that game, he would have been popular but not a cause célèbre.Instead of covering that familiar ground, let’s take a moment to remember just how good Tim Raines was at stealing bases.
Rickey Henderson stole about 500 more bases than anyone in baseball history. He was successful an excellent 81 percent of the time.
Lou Brock was successful 75 percent of the time. Maury Wills, often credited with bringing the stolen base back into the game, was successful about that same percentage.
Vince Coleman once stole 50 bases in a row; he was successful 81 percent of the time. Joe Morgan, the greatest baserunner of his generation, was successful 81 percent of the time. Willie Wilson, who I believe was the fastest man ever to play Major League Baseball, was successful an astonishing 83 percent of the time. It does not seem possible for anyone to top that percentage.
Tim Raines was successful stealing on 808 of 954 attempts. That’s 85 percent of the time. It’s untouchable.
Just curious why you think the Hall will lean toward the team that still exists. What's the perceived benefit there?The Expos still existed when Carter got in, and there was still hope they would remain there. They didn't exist when Dawson was inducted with an Expos cap, but the case for him going in with a Cubs hat was a lot weaker than Vlad with the Angels.
Look what the Red Sox do marketing-wise when they get a HOFer. Teams care about this, that's why the Red Sox and White Sox both lobbied for Fisk.Just curious why you think the Hall will lean toward the team that still exists. What's the perceived benefit there?
Here's a different take on Raines's SB%. The base-stealing break-even percentage has been generally around 65-70% (it varies slightly based on the run-scoring environment). If you are stealing bases at an 85% rate, your SB% is too high: it suggests you should be running even more often and trying to take advantage of more marginal opportunities.I just went back and read through most of the last 5 years' worth of Joe Posnanski's HOF ballot coverage, because it's a topic that really puts his writing style to its fullest potential, his knowledge of statistics and their meaning but also how to use them to tell a story.
Anyway, I had been fairly undecided on Tim Raines for a while, but it was an anecdote from this article in his coverage last year that really sold me:
To the extent that I allow some subjective elements to creep into my estimation of HOF worthiness, I think they revolve around the idea of someone being (or not being) extraordinary at some aspect of the game. Something beyond a numerical threshold that you can be above or below or in a gray area near. Vlad's amazing contact ability outside the zone, Pedro's brilliant ability to mess with a hitter's mind, the supernatural ability of Gwynn or Boggs to turn balls in play into hits, Randy Johnson's terrifying stature, visage, and slider... there ought to be something you can point to for why a player was electric and won over new fans to the game. That's what always bothered me about Jack Morris's apologists, since it seemed his candidacy was built on the back of a single game - and absent that game, he would have been popular but not a cause célèbre.
I guess I hadn't fully appreciated just how brilliant Raines was at basestealing before Pos put it that way. Sure, Raines was a very good player (near-MVP quality in his 20s) for a very long time. But having become a baseball fan more than halfway through his career, I never really had a moment where he "clicked" with me as a HOF candidate. I'd read lots of articles making the case for him, but this was the first that resonated, mostly because "there's an argument that Raines was the greatest basestealer of all time". Perhaps Rickey and even Brock have better arguments. Perhaps Utley, Werth and Beltran will end up with a better SB%. But Raines at least has an argument to something truly superlative, and it feels like that should matter.
Fisk went in before they changed the rules about who decides the cap, so it was his call ultimately. Now it's the Hall that decides, not MLB or any individual teams. While they might be lobbied, I'm not sure how much influence it would have. They'll ask the player for his preference but he won't always get his way. Ironically, both players already in with an Expos cap (Carter and Dawson) didn't want the Expos cap.Look what the Red Sox do marketing-wise when they get a HOFer. Teams care about this, that's why the Red Sox and White Sox both lobbied for Fisk.
That can cut both ways, though, because not all SB opportunities are created equal. The runner needs to feel like he has a good read on the pitcher, a good lead, a good pitch to run on, and some sort of chemistry with the batter to give him the space to run. Sometimes the batter grounds out on the first pitch. Sometimes you're on base against a Lefty who's not named Jon Lester. Sometimes a Molina-esque catcher is behind the plate. The sum total of good opportunities is way less than 100%.Here's a different take on Raines's SB%. The base-stealing break-even percentage has been generally around 65-70% (it varies slightly based on the run-scoring environment). If you are stealing bases at an 85% rate, your SB% is too high: it suggests you should be running even more often and trying to take advantage of more marginal opportunities.
I don't really disagree with any of this, although I suspect most of the leverage and matchup issues wash out over a large enough sample. But obviously we have evidence of excellent base stealers running much more often (e.g. in addition to 83 Henderson cited above, when Coleman stole 110 bases at an 81% rate in 1985, he ran on 71% of his opportunities). My point was that while the record SB% is a shiny knob for HOF voters to hang their hats on, it's actually kind of misleading about value.That can cut both ways, though, because not all SB opportunities are created equal. The runner needs to feel like he has a good read on the pitcher, a good lead, a good pitch to run on, and some sort of chemistry with the batter to give him the space to run. Sometimes the batter grounds out on the first pitch. Sometimes you're on base against a Lefty who's not named Jon Lester. Sometimes a Molina-esque catcher is behind the plate. The sum total of good opportunities is way less than 100%.
Maybe he would have had a success rate north of 90%, except for some opportunities he took because he was encouraged to "run more" when they were actually <50% chances, and he got thrown out. And of course, there's also the fact that while ~70% is an average, it averages across a wide range of leverages in the particular game contexts. There are many times where the cost of an out is so much greater, relative to the value of an extra base, that the breakeven point is higher for that context. Maybe he ran less in those times.
We have no idea what the distribution of "theoretical SB success rate" looks like across all of a player's on-base opportunities, so to say he should have run more is to say that you think there are certain, specific opportunities he didn't run on, where he would have had a success rate north of 70%. That's really unknowable, and pretty tough criticism to say you know it better than the guy who stole 800+ bases in the big leagues.
Gammons discusses his ballot (with references to eddie Vedder and a bazillion other things):
A decade ago, a player known to smoke marijuana was labeled a pothead and likely traded (after putting private investigators on the road with the Red Sox late in the 1976 season, a half-dozen players thought to be smoking dope were traded or dumped in the next two seasons).
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-the-hall-of-fame-ballot/
Of the 55% of the time Raines didn't steal, how many times did he have a runner(s) on base in front of him.Here's a different take on Raines's SB%. The base-stealing break-even percentage has been generally around 65-70% (it varies slightly based on the run-scoring environment). If you are stealing bases at an 85% rate, your SB% is too high: it suggests you should be running even more often and trying to take advantage of more marginal opportunities.
For example, in 1983 Raines led the NL league with 90 SB, being caught 14 times, so he attempted 104 steals with a SB% of 86.5. He got to 1B (H+BB+HBP-2B-3B-HR) 231 times. So he ran 104/231 = 45% of the time (I know not all his steal attempts were from 1B, but I suspect the vast majority of them were, so I'll ignore that for now). Maybe he should have been running way more often!
When Rickey Henderson set the single-season SB record of 130 in 1982, he was caught 42 times, for a SB% of 75.5 on 172 attempts. Rickey got to 1B 223 times, so he ran 172/223 = 77% of the time! To me, that's way more impressive than Raines' season despite the lower SB%.
Frankly I have no idea, and I'm too lazy to do the work to find out. My point is just that that SB/CS ratio and SB% is not the best way to think about value created by base-stealers.Of the 55% of the time Raines didn't steal, how many times did he have a runner(s) on base in front of him.
When Rickey Henderson set the single-season SB record of 130 in 1982, he was caught 42 times, for a SB% of 75.5 on 172 attempts. Rickey got to 1B 223 times, so he ran 172/223 = 77% of the time! To me, that's way more impressive than Raines' season despite the lower SB%.
So Henderson got +40 steals and +28CS on Raines. That´s a big difference than your example of +90steals and +10 CS. Having a bigger total number helps in many cases, but if you add on Raines´ season numbers (90/14) the missing numbers to Hendersons´ record season (130/42), that will result in the mentioned 40/28 numbers. 59%SB/41% CS, which is much lower than the 75% number you mentioned before.What's so counterintuitive about the principle? Isn't it obvious that a runner with 10 SB/0 CS is a less valuable base-stealer than a runner with 100 SB/10 CS, despite the former's higher SB%? That's a more extreme example of the idea, but the principle is the same.
For example, in 1983 Raines led the NL league with 90 SB, being caught 14 times, so he attempted 104 steals with a SB% of 86.5. He got to 1B (H+BB+HBP-2B-3B-HR) 231 times. So he ran 104/231 = 45% of the time (I know not all his steal attempts were from 1B, but I suspect the vast majority of them were, so I'll ignore that for now). Maybe he should have been running way more often!
When Rickey Henderson set the single-season SB record of 130 in 1982, he was caught 42 times, for a SB% of 75.5 on 172 attempts. Rickey got to 1B 223 times, so he ran 172/223 = 77% of the time! To me, that's way more impressive than Raines' season despite the lower SB%.
The percentages for how often they ran, relative to opportunity, are generally lower than they're made out to be here. B-Ref lists Stolen Base Opportunities (SBO) = plate appearances through which a runner was on 1st or 2nd with the next base open—so more or less what Soxfan was asking for.Of the 55% of the time Raines didn't steal, how many times did he have a runner(s) on base in front of him.
Interesting to see that 7 of the top 10 and 24 of the top 50 stolen base percentages of all time are held by currently active players. Is this due to better scouting? Worse pickoff moves? Slower pop times? Fewer attempts?Perhaps Utley, Werth and Beltran will end up with a better SB%. But Raines at least has an argument to something truly superlative, and it feels like that should matter.
I wonder if this is a combination of faster players early in their careers (the minimum for that list is only 80 SB attempts), and/or managers being more knowledgeable/selective on when it makes sense to steal (the latter is pure conjecture).Interesting to see that 7 of the top 10 and 24 of the top 50 stolen base percentages of all time are held by currently active players. Is this due to better scouting? Worse pickoff moves? Slowe pop times? Fewer attempts?
I would wager that it's almost entirely an effect of aging - speed in stealing bases is about as typical a "young player" skill as you'll find. As players get older they try attempts they're no longer fast enough to make, and their SB% goes down. It's why most of the career leaders in some big rate stats are all active players: they haven't yet had a decline phase to average in to their numbers.Interesting to see that 7 of the top 10 and 24 of the top 50 stolen base percentages of all time are held by currently active players. Is this due to better scouting? Worse pickoff moves? Slowe pop times? Fewer attempts?
I don't have time to break it out, but all 6 of the current guys in the top 10 (I miscounted earlier) are over 30 years old, with Utley (37), Werth (37) and Beltran (39) in the top 4 all time. Only 6 of the top 50 are under 30 years old. There's no doubt that the 80 minimum attempts is a bit low for this type of assessment, but that's the number they're using.I would wager that it's almost entirely an effect of aging - speed in stealing bases is about as typical a "young player" skill as you'll find. As players get older they try attempts they're no longer fast enough to make, and their SB% goes down. It's why most of the career leaders in some big rate stats are all active players: they haven't yet had a decline phase to average in to their numbers.
Could test that theory pretty easily by taking the top (say) 100 players by career SB, and then breaking their careers out by age-year (for SB%) and building up to an estimate of SB% by age - and seeing how the curve goes.
"By the time of my second vote, I realized that by voting for 10, I was saying I wanted to see 10 elected. What a horrible thought, to make people sit through 10 speeches in the hot July Cooperstown sun. I also realized that by having 10 players inducted on the same day lessened the honor for each. From then on I voted for only the players I considered the best of the elite."It would be difficult to overstate my disdain for Murray Chass and his ego.
Show your work? You might be right but it's not obvious from this argument.Here's a different take on Raines's SB%. The base-stealing break-even percentage has been generally around 65-70% (it varies slightly based on the run-scoring environment). If you are stealing bases at an 85% rate, your SB% is too high: it suggests you should be running even more often.
I'm not. If there wasnt a 10 vote limit, he'd easily get >5% and probably be on the ballot for the next 10 years. But (in my opinion, and the opinion of many others) there are 10 or more guys currently on the ballot who should be in the HOF, so it makes sense that Posada isnt getting votes when the voters are capped at 10.I wouldn't vote for Posada but his numbers aren't that far off from the HOF standards for a catcher and he has the types of intangibles that media types usually go nuts for. Surprised he hasn't done better in the voting.
Eh, maybe... though there's already 80 non-full ballots on that tracker (and even if you subtract a few for crazy people, that's still quite a few), and he's currently below 5% by only 0.7 votes.I'm not. If there wasnt a 10 vote limit, he'd easily get >5% and probably be on the ballot for the next 10 years. But (in my opinion, and the opinion of many others) there are 10 or more guys currently on the ballot who should be in the HOF, so it makes sense that Posada isnt getting votes when the voters are capped at 10.
I think this will largely hold true. Keep in mind that after a deep ballot next next (adding Chipper, Thome, and Rolen), the following year has Mariano (along with borderline guys like Halladay, Helton, and Pettite) and then Jeter (with Konerno being the only borderline guy).At this point it's hard to see how the usual "everyone who gets 50% eventually gets in" rule of thumb will continue to hold, since that's quite a logjam in the top 10.
Posada needs 13 more votes to stay on the ballot. It says so, right there on the spreadsheet(everyone else is under 5%, though Posada is at 9 votes out of 197 (4.6%) and only needs 4 more to stick).
2018: Chipper, Thome, Vlad, PudgeEdgar has a really good chance to go in on his 10th and final ballot along with Mariano...
The ballot may be loaded now, but by 2019 and 2020 they should be able to elect 2-3 guys a year with only 1 of them being a "first ballot" guy (Rivera in 2019 and Jeter in 2020).
ah, I was going too quickly, saw "13" and thought that was total, rather than additional. Thanks.Posada needs 13 more votes to stay on the ballot. It says so, right there on the spreadsheet
Konerko is borderline? He of the career 27.6 WAR?I think this will largely hold true. Keep in mind that after a deep ballot next next (adding Chipper, Thome, and Rolen), the following year has Mariano (along with borderline guys like Halladay, Helton, and Pettite) and then Jeter (with Konerno being the only borderline guy).
Well, he isn't borderline for the WAR Hall of FameKonerko is borderline? He of the career 27.6 WAR?