Hall of Fame 2010 Ballot: The Book Blog and Fangraph readers decided…

… the most outstanding players on the ballot are (with BaseballProjection.com WAR in parens):
16-20. Burks (48), Da Parker (38), Lankford (38), Le Smith (30), Galarraga (27)
13-15. Mattingly (40), Ja Morris (39), Baines (37)
12. Ventura (55)
11. Appier (50)
10. Da Murphy (44)
9. McGriff (51)
8. Dawson (57)
7. Trammell (67)
6. McGwire (63)
5. Edgar (67)
4. Larkin (69)
3. Raines (65)
2. Alomar (64)
1. Blyleven (90)

Interestingly, I would bet that a small minority were aware of the BProj numbers, and yet, those numbers reflect the perceptions of the fans pretty well. The eight most outstanding players according to the fans is identical to the eight players with the most WAR.

Thanks to all for participating!




Print This Post





28 Responses to “Hall of Fame 2010 Ballot: The Book Blog and Fangraph readers decided…”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
    • Blyleven Snubbed again. Blyleven was 5 votes short, sadly, and $10 says Joe Morgan mailed in the same ballot as Jay Mariotti this year (blank).

      Morgan thinks that only Morgan belongs in the Hall of Morgan.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  1. TCQ says:

    Wow, I underestimated Blyleven, even with all the talk about him here(and over on Posnanski’s site). That’s a heck of a number.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • NEPP says:

      He played on some terrible terrible teams. Not his fault but it certainly hurt his W/L numbers and that’s the first thing people tend to look at. He was also of the “very good for a very long time” variety instead of the “ridiculous peak” variety so that gets held against him as well.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • TCQ says:

        I’m assuming this is more of a general comment?

        If not, allow me to clarify: I didn’t mean that I was unaware of Blyleven’s status as a great pitcher. Just that that WAR number *still* caught me a bit off guard, even with that knowledge.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. Loved the “system” and so on, but I would suspect that more people are aware of Rally’s WAR than one might think. Nothing to base that on, of course.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. 198d says:

    I think most of us are aware of the availability of Rally’s WAR, but for the sake of argument: did you look up the WAR of each player when you voted? I didn’t. And with the exception of possible homerism regarding Alomar (for which it seems I was not alone in voting him 2nd on the ballot), I voted “by gut” each time (and the SABR community collectively skewers me, I know) rather than digging up the actual numbers. Had my vote counted in any official capacity, I may have done my due dilligence, pulled a KLaw and done some actual research, but I suspect at least some (most? many? just me?) of the voters may have instinctually voted as well. Maybe some others can chime in on how they voted? Either way, I always feel “lab-rat”ty when I partake in Tango’s “experiments.” ;)

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jimbo says:

      Funny how your meaning of “pulling a Keith Law” and mine are completely different.

      To me, pulling a Keith Law is basically pulling a Jay Mariotti — looking like a jack*** for doing something for no other reason than to further promote yourself — cept Keith tries throwing numbers around to back up his case.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Kevin S. says:

        I’ve yet to hear how Keith was promoting himself. He offered a very clear justification with his vote. Even without WAR, is it so impossible to believe that Carpenter’s quality wasn’t so far above the field that it couldn’t make up for his lack of quantity? Because that’s exactly what the vote came down to. Most other voters disagreed, but either position is reasonable.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. tangotiger says:

    I would say that the speed at which people were voting as soon as I put the post up, I expect people to do little to no research, going just by gut feel.

    I think this is another good example of Wisdom of Crowds. I’ll take the wisdom of 500 random Fangraphs readers over 500 BBWAA voters any day of the week.

    I would also suspect that if I run this next year and the year after that, that the voting for the guys still on the ballot will have the same level of voting, unlike the BBWAA voting, which has more votes for players, the longer they are on the ballot. The writers seem to treat it like studying for an exam, and if they know they have 15 days to study, then many of them will procrastinate and won’t bother voting at all until closer to the end.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • how hard is it to “study” though. Hop on here or b-r.com. done in 15. Lazy ass bbwa guys

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Joe R says:

        More like BBWAA guys locked into an opinion from their younger days and refusing to change.

        Andre Dawson was a superstar to them, Tim Raines wasn’t. Jack Morris was in the postseason more than Bert Blyleven. Jim Rice was “feared”.

        Imagine if people told you, your entire life, that the color red was yellow. Then when you’re 40, someone calls you an idiot for thinking something’s yellow when it’s clearly red. Are you going to say “Hey, he’s right, I and everyone else were wrong for years”, or are you going to stubbornly defend? We can’t even get people to use the metric system for no reason other than growing up using our own system.

        I think a lot of the “stats backlash” is that older people feel like history is being re-written, that Lou Brock really wasn’t that awesome, that Max Bishop was better than George Kell, that Darrell Evans was as good as Tony Perez (or better), that Tim Raines was better than Andre Dawson. Essentially, it’s like a bizarroworld that’s hard to process for a lot of people.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. TCQ says:

    I didn’t look up stats, but just by reading this site and others(and by doing my own little looking around, obviously), I had a pretty good feel for who fell where. I mean, I doubt very many people reading FanGraphs are gonna be underrating Tim Raines too much…

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Ken says:

      I agree with this. Anyone that reads this site regularly knows that Raines and Blyleven were generally underrated, and that players like Jack Morris are often overrated. From there, the fact that voting falls in line with WAR is not very surprising to me.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. NEPP says:

    This is Blyleven’s year. He’s gonna make it this time around…and its about damn time.

    Raines will jump a bit but I think it will be a few more years before he makes it in. His ill luck for playing in the exact same era as the greatest leadoff hitter in the history of the game.

    My brother said I was crazy when I told him last year “Tim Raines should be a 1st ballot HoF, he was an amazing player.” Raines will make it in eventually.

    I see Alomar making it in as a 1st timer and I see Larkin getting a strong showing but not quite making it this time around. Though I could be wrong and he makes it.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. JoeR43 says:

    I do think that 2009 has been monumental in the progression of advanced analysis in baseball. Just 2 years ago, for example, Lincecum would not have come close to winning the NL Cy Young, Greinke would have lost the AL Cy Young to CC Sabathia, and Mauer would’ve lost the MVP to Teixeira.

    Just the sheer fact that voters are finally starting to isolate individual performance from that of the team is a big deal. Obviously it is for Blyleven, his greatness is horribly understated due to the badness he often played for.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • CircleChange11 says:

      There have been plenty of times that the league leader in wins has not won the CY (surprisingly more than I would I have guessed).

      Lincecum is great in a few key stats voters look at: [1] Low ERA, [2] High K’s, [3] TV Highlights/attention/reputation.

      Voting can be erratic at times, but a quality season with a good reputation always helps. Now, if someone like Zobrist finishes in the top 5 or Vasquez wins or finishes 2nd, then I think one could safely say that Sabermetrics (i.e., WAR) is being looked at by a large number of people.

      I support Blyleven and his deuce was just unreal … one of those “over the mountain” type breaks. Interestingly enough the answer to the following 2 trivia questions is the same guy: [1] Who had the best Curveball in the 70s & 80s? [2] Who allowed the most HRs?

      Bert Blyleven.

      Commenting on another name here … Don Mattingly.

      I was reading the “Predicting the MVP” article in the 2010 THT book the other day, and Mattingly IMO got outright screwed in MVP voting. Donnie Baseball lost TWICE in MVP voting to pitchers (don’t get me started): Guillermo “Willie” Hernandez in 84 and Rocket in 86. Otherwise he could have had 3 consecutive MVPs … which certainly would help his Hall of Fame status. This falls in line with the “Why do we care?” article here at FG.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Kincaid says:

        Hernandez in 1984 was probably a bad choice, but Mattingly was 5th in the voting that year, so losing to a pitcher didn’t cost him the MVP. The one who did get screwed that year was Ripken. He may have deserved the award but only got one vote in the final slot on someone’s ballot. How that happened, I have no idea. Kind of like Chase Utley, but even worse and with no Albert Pujols ahead of him.

        In 1986, Mattingly finished 2nd behind Clemens, but Wade Boggs was probably the best non-pitcher that year, and I think Clemens over Mattingly is a good choice unless you think that pitchers are always flat-out ineligible to receive any votes as the Most Valuable Player, even if they are more valuable than any other player in the league.

        In 1985, Mattingly won the MVP, but I think Rickey Henderson was outright screwed that year. George Brett and Wade Boggs were also probably better choices than Mattingly. If anything, the MVP voting was generous to Mattingly to give him his 1 MVP. In my opinion, of course.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        I was only going by the “THT Projection Model” as a reference. Not actual voting or even who I would consider the “deserved award winner”.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BCK says:

        I really think Murray got shafted more than Ripken in ’84. In fact, I think Murray got shafted by Ripken in ’83, then by Hernandez in ’84. If anyone deserved to win in consecutive years, it was Ed-die.

        I agree that Brett would have been the best choice in ’85, but I think Mattingly deserved it in ’86 instead of Clemens.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. JoeR43 says:

    Hey guys, check this blog post out:
    http://sullybaseball.blogspot.com/2009/01/bert-blyleven-13-wins-short.html

    Look at some of those, I mean, holy crap.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. JoeR43 says:

    Also, bp has his translated W-L record at 313-220. Jack Morris is at 219-233.

    Morris is #139 among pitchers in baseballprojection. Know who’s 143rd, and just 0.5 wins behind? Al Leiter.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. NEPP says:

    Yes but does it adjust their respective win totals for gutsiness and big game presence?

    I mean, otherwise, its worthless.

    This is Bert’s year.

    How he’s not in yet while Don Sutton is in defies logic.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. JoeR43 says:

    And this website (or someone) should do a worst player ever poll similar to this.

    I just found Doug Flynn’s career and holy crap. How does someone that bad last 4,000 PA?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Raymond Strawn Jr. says:

    What were they thinking? Time to get some quality people as part of BBWA instead of current group. Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin and Bert Blyleven are HOFers. These amazing writers first claim steroids do not make players great to our kids and that the only reason Bonds did so well was because of steroids. Of course you don’t spit on people, but you do not single this out since it was NOT proven, just appears that way on camera. Considering all the racists and womanizers in HOF, these guys gotta be kidding me. I am a Met fan and we need writers who can appreciate what Alomar did day to day and not a couple of bad days at Shea. Larson pitched his perfect game on a hangover one writer reported and how times was Mantle playing on a hangover. Maybe we need more people of other ethnicity than WASP on the BBWA. The BBWA is the biggest problem in baseball. Thank God for greats like those on the veterans committee who get it right later on.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. CircleChange11 says:

    8. Dawson (57)

    I certainly cannot figure out how Dawson got in, unless he was just an amazing power & speed combo in the early 80s that I somehow did not see much of.

    7. Trammell (67)

    I would have guessed Trammel was more valuable than Larkin.

    3. Raines (65)

    I need to start giving Raines some more love instead of primarily looking at him as “NOT Rickey Henderson”. Maybe playing in Montreal all thos eyears really did hurt his exposure to the degree that many didn;t notice how good he was. As a kid, I remember his stolen bases and the Si article about him sniffing cocaine out of his wristband while playing LF.

    2. Alomar (64)

    I can’t figure out how Robbie is not a 1st ballot guy. Perhaps the spitting on Hirshbeck deal is going to be penalized by making him wait. I thought more of the story came out and Hirshbeck called him a ‘Mother F—er”, which means something a little stronger in the Latin world (at least at that time) than it does in our culture where Richard Pryor used it every 5th word.

    1. Blyleven (90)

    His induction speech is going to be hilarious. Let’s hear it already. Put him in.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Raf says:

      I wondered if playing in Montreal hurt Raines too, but he was a several time all star, when he played there, so it’s not like no one heard of him.

      I’m a bit disappointed he hasn’t gotten more support.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. NEPP says:

    Blyleven gets a bit wearisome whenever I hear him on XM175 Homeplate. Yeah, I get you’re annoyed about not being in the HOF…but stop whining about it. I almost wonder if he’s hurting his own cause by doing it.

    On Alomar: Lots of players didn’t get in on the first try. Its not the end of the world. Crap, DiMaggio took 4 times to get in.

    Pretty much only inner circle guys get in the 1st time around.

    ****I certainly cannot figure out how Dawson got in, unless he was just an amazing power & speed combo in the early 80s that I somehow did not see much of.****

    See Rice, Jim.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>