Poll: Hall of Fame Ballot – Survivor Island Style

It’s the final two: this means you are choosing the MORE outstanding player. MORE. Got that? MORE.

Balloting now closed.

Who was the MORE outstanding player?

Alomar, Roberto   44.8%
Blyleven, Bert    55.2%

Total votes: 563

Knocked out:
Ventura
Appier
Da Murphy
McGriff
Dawson
Trammell
McGwire
Edgar
Larkin
Raines




Print This Post





87 Responses to “Poll: Hall of Fame Ballot – Survivor Island Style”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. tangotiger says:

    Appier has now been knocked out.

    Please vote once more for the next guy to knock out.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. tangotiger says:

    I should also note that I started this on my blog to come up with the candidate list. Jack Morris, Ellis Burks, Harold Baines, etc, didn’t make the elimination round.

    Robin Ventura was the first of the 12 players on the Survivor ballot to be knocked out, followed by Appier.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. Alex says:

    I was between Murphy and Dawson, so pleasantly surprised to see those guys getting a good number of votes at the moment.

    I have to say, though, I really don’t think it’s quite fair to put McGwire on the ballot. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think he clearly played at a HOF level, and if the voters didn’t have a bug up their ass about roids, he’d have been a no doubt first ballot hall of famer. All these other guys would have been question marks, or have been, although in the case of guys like Raines and Martinez, it’s probably not fair.

    Still not sure that McGwire would be leading my ballot, as there would be a few guys on here contending for that position, but just wanted to point out the slight difference between him and the other 9. Should be interesting though.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. tangotiger says:

    Based on the responses so far (5th guy with most votes), you are likely in the minority.

    But, that’s why we do things, to see if our perceptions match those of the people around us.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Evan Kirkwood says:

    No love for the Crime Dog, eh?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. tangotiger says:

    In a virtual 4-way tie, Dawson, Murphy, McGriff, and Trammell are now knocked out.

    All ballots are RESET. You need to vote again.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. NEPP says:

    McGwire was a 1 dimensional player who roided his entire career. Without the roid power, what does he really bring to the table? The high OBP stemmed from that as well since he was basically pitched around as a result of the power.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • The A Team says:

      Who’s to say that the roids helped his career? He retired at what? Age 37? Maybe an allowed method of ‘performance enhancement’ would have put him in similar physical shape without the back issues that derailed his career. It’s not like he was barely squeaking balls out of the ballpark…

      It’s just as much speculation on your part to assume that he wouldn’t have been able to approximate the same output without it.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Tom says:

      Who’s to say that Edgar Martinez wasn’t on steroids his whole career as well? He fits the “steroid user” profile even more than McGwire.

      http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martied01.shtml

      He didn’t show any power in the minors (his high HR in the PCL at Calgary was only 10). In the majors he had decent power but “blossomed” in 1995 with 29 at age 32 and then set a career high at age 37. At least McGwire showed power before his explosion in 1998.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. RKO36 says:

    Hey, Tangotiger. I’m getting your book as a Christmas present. I’m looking forward to finally reading it.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. JMS says:

    I could be wrong, but I think there’s likely to be a pretty strong selection bias on Fangraphs in favor of players whose performance is not adequately captured by traditional statistics (mostly Raines and Blyleven). I suspect most of us have spent so much time defending their (justified) Hall of Fame cases that there may be a strong disinclination to select one of them as least deserving when compared to players whose skills were better appreciated and who we have probably spent less time defending. That said, to my mind, Alomar just has to be the last man standing.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • TCQ says:

      There’s a fine argument to be made in favor of Raines being a better player than Alomar(led by the 12 point lead in career wRC+).

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. NEPP says:

    ****That said, to my mind, Alomar just has to be the last man standing.****

    Good thing personality isn’t a measurable statistic. I agree that he was an amazing player but man, I hated him as a person.

    HoF talent though.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • philosofool says:

      Why are people so keen on Alomar? Career 116 OPS+, 80% SB%, played 2B.

      Larkin: 116 OPS+, 82% SB%, played SS.

      Larkin looks like a better player to me.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Alex says:

        I agree. Larkin is one of the top-5 SS of all time in my opinion. One of the most underrated players in my lifetime.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • mowill says:

        I agree. Larkin is the one guy on this list who would be a sure fire first ballot hall of fame player. I wish we had complete WAR statistics for the 90′s because a couple of Larkin’s seasons were every bit as good as Chase Utley the last three years.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • MattC says:

        Larkin’s sabers may have been equal or better than Alomars but Alomar scored more runs, hit more HRs, more RBIs, higher BA, higher OPS, more steals and he didn’t miss on average over a quarter of the baseball season like Larkin did.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. Joe R says:

    I came on once the ballot got hard.

    Damn guys, no love for Ventura?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Alex says:

    Alomar probably at this point. Bert also considered, but 5 seasons with an ERA+ over 140… should be in the hall of fame.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • NEPP says:

      I’d put money on Blyleven making it in this year or the next. He’s a deserving HoF. He gets knocked for not winning 300 wins as if its his fault his run support was terrible. He should be in though.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • philosofool says:

      Sean Smith’s historical WAR makes Bert the highest ever eligible not-in-the-Hall player. He’s my favorite of the whole group, and I’m a Mariners fan.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. recca says:

    Alomar: .365 wOBA, 1573.4 wRC, 125 wRC+. I know gold gloves are a bit of a joke but I believe he won like 10 of them. He was probably the best second baseman of the 90′s.

    Larkin: .366 wOBA, 1372.2 wRC, 124 wRC+. Larkin did play a harder position and was phenomenal at it.

    Larkin is probably the better player, but Roberto Alomar is a deserving hall of famer.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. recca says:

    I voted for Edgar Martinez, second would probably be Roberto Alomar.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. NEPP says:

    ****Why are people so keen on Alomar? Career 116 OPS+, 80% SB%, played 2B.****

    Great defense. Its not all about his hitting. And as a hitter, he was very good for a 2B. Very good speed, high average, even had okay power (.814 Career OPS).

    Larkin never stayed healthy, he was a very good SS but Alomar was an elite 2B for his career.

    Both are great players but you have to give Alomar the edge based on his fantastic defense for his career.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. philosofool says:

    I’m curious, and I’m asking for people’s opinions, and I don’t expect them to be perfectly rationally justified. I just want to see what people think:

    How much does the fact that Martinez was a career DH lower your estimation of him?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • BrettJMiller says:

      Not at all, though I am biased no matter what I do since I am a Mariners fan. I guess I just feel that owning a glove doesn’t make you a good fielder. Edgar never really helped his team in the field (though by all account he was decent at 3B before his injuries) but he never hurt them either. I’m sure there are plenty of crappy fielders that weren’t the hitter Edgar was that got into the hall because of a counting stat like 3,000 hits, 500 HR, whatever.

      Just having a mitt shouldn’t increase a player’s chances of getting into the hall, if said player didn’t really know how to use the mitt. Likewise, not playing the field shouldn’t be a death knell to the Hall of Fame chances of one of the best hitters we’ve seen.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Teej says:

      A decent amount, but he was still enough of a hitter to get my HOF vote. I don’t put a huge gap between a DH and a mediocre first baseman. I imagine there are a lot of guys in the Hall of Fame who probably should have been DHs but their teams didn’t have the option.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. NEPP says:

    ****How much does the fact that Martinez was a career DH lower your estimation of him?****

    A significant amount. He was a PH 4 times a game.

    ~ducks resulting firestorm of “He was an amazing hitter and he came up as a 3B!!!~

    Other guys that started off as 3B: Jim Thome, Pat Burrell (in college).

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • BrettJMiller says:

      DH is a position. Half the league has played with the DH for 30 years. Edgar could not contribute negative defensive value to his team, like plenty of Hall of Fame “1B” and “LF” likely did. Paul Molitor spent plenty of time DHing. I don’t get why people think a DH is any less worthy than a poor-fielding first baseman.

      Most of the world plays baseball with a DH now, except the NL… :o

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • NEPP says:

        Molitor also played over 60% of career in the field…its not a good comparison. He didn’t start DHing till his Age 34 season.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Bah! says:

        It’s interesting that some people still find reasons to dismiss the DH. As BrettJMiller reminded us, it’s been around for 30+ years. It’s also not going away. At some point, serious baseball fans, regardless of their views on the DH, are going to have to say something like “Hey, some of these batters are great freakin’ batters, and deserve to be in the Hall.” I’m not sure if we’ve seen one yet, though Edgar certainly deserves to be in the discussion and, better yet, deserves to be an example to those nay-sayers: it is a relevant position for half of MLB that contributes to a teams’ wins.

        Oh, and NEPP–the DH, as much as I’m sympathetic to your claim, are not PHs. If they were, they couldn’t get a 2nd AB, without playing the field. It is a position, and needs to (at least begin) to get the recognition it deserves.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  18. recca says:

    The fact that Martinez was a DH hurts his value when being compared to other hall of famers like Alomar, Larkin, Blyleven, etc. With that said I still believe he should be in the hall of fame. If closers can be in hall of fame why can’t a DH?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  19. CCW says:

    This is really a tough choice.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  20. recca says:

    How is historical TZ calculated? Is it pretty much an estimate based off range factor and other fielding metrics?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  21. recca says:

    Researched it myself. I don’t think I can put too much of my faith into TZ. I’m almost more inclined to go with the general consensus of the people of that time period.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  22. wahbjo01 says:

    Dale Murphy is definite no. Dawson is borderline, but I go no on him, too. Everyone else is in, in my opinion.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • mowill says:

      Andre Dawson was just about the best all around player for about five years in the mid to late eighties. Dominance of the era in which you play is a hall of fame criteria which is why Dawson should have been elected well before now.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  23. wahbjo01 says:

    The winner has to be either Blyleven or Larkin.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  24. philosofool says:

    First vote in the latest round! Nice!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  25. tangotiger says:

    McGwire has been knocked out.

    Votes have been RESET.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  26. JCA says:

    I got onto this when it was down to 5. I voted against Martinez, although I think he is hall worthy and would vote for him if I had a ballot. It’s just with Blyleven, Larkin, Alomar, and Raines, it might be the least criminal to leave Edgar out.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  27. tangotiger says:

    Goodbye Edgar.

    Votes have been RESET.

    Poll will be updated on Xmas, so you guys have 24 hours to vote on the final four.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  28. wahbjo01 says:

    This is fangraphs, right? Where metrics and evidence win out over perception? How in the hell is Larkin going to place 4th?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • JMS says:

      Because no one on this site is going to vote off Raines or Blyleven until they absolutely have to and, with all due respect to Whitaker and Biggio (and less due respect to Sandberg), Alomar was best the second baseman from Morgan until Utley (and I say this as a Mets fan who hated the guy).

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • NEPP says:

      19 seasons, 9 of which were significantly shortened by injuries.

      He was a bit fragile. He’s still a HoF but he loses out to a guy like Alomar for something like that.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  29. Jeff says:

    If Trammel played for the Yanks, he would have been a 1st ballot HOF’er…

    He deserves it the most… His career numbers for a SS are outstanding!!!

    Even Bill James admits that Trammel was the 9th best SS of ALL FREAKING TIME!!!!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Alex says:

      That was in 1999, before Arod/Jeter/Nomar had put up enough numbers to be considered top-10. Now Jeter and Arod are top-10 locks, and honestly, I believe Nomar would be in the discussion, even with the tail off since 03/04. Hanley may be up there some day too.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  30. NEPP says:

    Tramm’s biggest problem was longevity, not peak. Had he lasted a couple more years of even average performance, he’d have gotten in. Its all about perception and his counting stats with the voters. He was basically done as an everyday player at age 33 (due to injuries, not ability) and that kills him in the voting.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  31. NEPP says:

    Interesting Statistic:

    Hits (through Age 30):

    Alan Trammell – 1650
    Jimmy Rollins – 1629

    OPS (through Age 30):

    Alan Trammell – .780
    Jimmy Rollins – .768

    Of course its a bit misleading since Tramm had an OPS+ of 114 (through Age 30) while Rollins has a career OPS+ of 97. Though Rollins plays in a far more offensive era so that has to come into play too.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  32. noseeum says:

    I picked Larkin because of his fragility. Not including his rookie year, or the year he played 131 games, he had 10 seasons where he played less than 130 games, 6 less than 120. That’s a lot of missed PT.

    Sure, he was one of the most talented short stops ever, and played like it when he was on the field, but he has to be dinged for all the missed PT.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  33. WY says:

    It’s not as if there is just one vote to be distributed among these players. Comparing Blyleven to Raines to Larkin is apples and oranges.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • noseeum says:

      It’s survivor mode, so yes, there is just one vote. You might believe more than one of these guys should be in, but which one do you feel most strongly about? Or least strongly I guess is how the vote is setup.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  34. tangotiger says:

    Larkin out.

    Votes RESET.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  35. tangotiger says:

    “I wish we had complete WAR statistics ”

    Check http://www.baseballProjection.com

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  36. RJ says:

    Jack Morris didn’t make the final round but Kevin Appier did? That says it all about you saber-heads. Were you people watching baseball in the 80′s and 90′s???

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  37. BrettJMiller says:

    How did Larkin and ‘Gar get eliminated before Alomar and Raines?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Alex says:

      I’d probably rank them…

      1a. Raines
      1b. Larkin
      3. Martinez
      4. Alomar

      Although I think all four should get in. Raines very high on my list.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • mowill says:

        1. Larkin
        2. Alomar
        3. Dawson
        4. Blyleven
        5. Raines
        6. Martinez

        And I think they should all get in the hall at some point. Also McGriff and McGwire are borderline.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Alex says:

        I really don’t get how McGwire is borderline. He had a career .415 wOBA. For comparisons sake, Alex Rodriguez has a career wOBA of .412. Frank Robinson? .406. Henry Aaron? .405. Wasn’t a bad defender until late in his career either. Maybe it’s the steroid thing, but I just don’t get it. I’m sure when Arod and Barry are up, even with the roids, pretty much everyone will consider them no-doubters. They’re just at a level that, steroids or not, they need to be recognized. Not saying he’s at their level, but McGwire just doesn’t get enough respect.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • mowill says:

        McGwire looked like he was done in 93-94 totaling around 250 plate appearances. I just doubt that he would have been able to continue playing through all his injuries without the help he got and certainly not at the level that he played. I think the real McGwire was the 87-92 version, not a hall of fame player although very good. The 95-99 McGwire was just not a performance I can accept when taken in context of the times.

        I also don’t want to see Bonds and Arod in the Hall. I remember stories after the 95 season about Arod working out with his neighbor Canseco during the offseason. His entire career is suspect. Bonds sacrificed a HOF career for one thing, the extra money he knew he would rake in by juicing.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BrettJMiller says:

        Alex: I think Mac, Bonds, and Alex should all get in. I was one of the few in Seattle hoping Alex would get his ring. I’m with you. But I still think people forget just how good Edgar is. I’d probably rank my top 5 of this list as far has HOF eligibility like this:

        1. Blyeleven
        2. Larkin
        3. McGwire
        4. Edgar
        5. Alomar

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BrettJMiller says:

        Mowill: I’m not saying you’re wrong, but do you have a source for your information? Just asking.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • mowill says:

        Arod story was in the Seattle Times or PI before the 96 season. As far as Bonds, I’m going on the alleged conversation Bonds had with Griffey in his home after the 98 season. As reported in “The Game of Shadows.”

        Also Canseco’s house in Florida was a hotbed of alleged PED activity in the nineties as brought up in other situations like the Clemens congressional hearing.

        Do you think Dawson and Raines should get in at some point?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Alex says:

        I guess I’m in the minority with the steroid issue. I just don’t see how you can keep Bonds out. It’s clear he was a hall of fame player before the roids – his highest WARP3 was in the early 90s. I think the hall of fame should recognize baseballs history and their great players. Anyone denying Bonds as one of the 10 greatest players ever, steroids or not, clearly didn’t watch the guy play. He was Pujols with better defense and 40 steals in the early 90s, well before he started juicing.

        Cheating is as much a part of baseball as hitting and pitching. It is what it is. Denying that the last 20 years happened, and not recognizing guys like Arod, Clemens, and Bonds as hall of famers is an ignorant stance taken by people who, for some crazy reason, thought the great American pastime was immune to possibly the most American action – gaining an unfair advantage by cheating.

        As far as McGwire specifically, I find it hard to believe he was on the way out when he was in the middle of his prime. He had a bad 1991 season, and a couple of injuries, but given his age, I really don’t think he was done. It’s a fair point though.

        Anyway, don’t want to hijack this post, so sorry for that. Of the two guys up right now… Bert.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Alex says:

        Raines I think should get in. Dawson, probably not. One of those baseball card guys. HR/SB numbers are nice, but a .323 career OBP is ugly, and a .352 wOBA, while good, probably doesn’t get it done. He was never, in my opinion, among the best 5-10 players in the game, although I know some would disagree. Only one year with a .400 wOBA/.900 OPS. Defense wasn’t that great. 120 wRC+ is right up there with the likes of Mike Sweeney, Reggie Sanders, Brad Hawpe, and Milton Bradley. Very good player, not hall of fame caliber.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  38. mowill says:

    Somehow Dawson’s 87 season is only worth 15 batting runs, that just has to be a mistake.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Alex says:

      Something to do with that .328 on base percentage. Still had a .378 wOBA and 28.8 wRAA though.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • mowill says:

        Looking back at that season it probably had a lot to do with the explosion in offense as well. If my memory serves me right I think that was the year everyone said they played with the juiced ball.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  39. JoeR43 says:

    Alomar in the Final 2? Really guys?
    A 2B with a 125 wRC+ over Larkin, a SS with a 124 wRC+? Alomar belongs in the hall, but that seems backward.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  40. tangotiger says:

    “Defense wasn’t that great.”

    You base this on…. ?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  41. Mike Green says:

    It is not widely appreciated that Trammell was a better player than McGwire, without making any adjustments for PED use. It doesn’t matter whether you look at peak or career, because McGwire was a very poor defender and slow as molasses by the time he reached his offensive peak.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  42. NEPP says:

    I think Alomar gets ripped a lot simply because he’s a piece of shite as a person. Rate him as a player. I hated him too but he was a hell of a player in his prime. He was easily the best 2B in the game for a solid decade.

    Trammell is easily a better player than McGwire…no question.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  43. noseeum says:

    I thought everyone might find my recent little journey through the record books interesting.

    Looking at baseballprojection.com’s Larkin page, at first I thought there must be something wrong with his 1986 line, no? How in the heck could he have gotten 1.5 WAR with a .320 OBP and a .722 OPS, playing in only 41 games?

    And then I looked at the performance of all NL shortstops that year (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=ss&stats=bat&lg=nl&qual=n&type=1&season=1986&month=0).

    Wow. Atrocious. Different era, but sheesh.

    There are 5 NL shortstops with a positive WRAA for 1986, including Larkin. Hubie Brooks accounts for over 60% of the positive WRAA and he only played in 80 games! What a half year Hubie Brooks had though. If he didn’t get hurt, that would have been a really tremendous year. He still got the silver slugger while playing only 80 games.

    So “replacement level SS” for the NL in 1986 was so terrible that Larkin was able to play like a 6 WAR player even while having typical rookie struggles for a talented hitter.

    Perhaps every NL GM was trying to find the next Ozzie Smith at the time. Not a good idea.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Kincaid says:

      As far as BaseballProjection goes, there’s no such thing as “replacement SS”. The replacement bonus is the same throughout the league regardless of position. So if there happened to be a bunch of crappy shortstops in 1986, it wouldn’t affect Larkin’s WAR any more than any other player, shortstop or otherwise, in the league.

      Larkin got to 1.5 WAR that year even with average or slightly worse (BProj has him at -1 batting) hitting because he ran the bases and fielded particularly well at a highly premium defensive position. His legs and glove were worth a full win above average according to BProj.

      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>