I have changed my mind on several players. The more you know the better you can evaluate.

JDUB08AG said:

---

If Wagner doesn't qualify for the HOF, on the surface it seems like the ability to enter as a lifetime closer is significantly more difficult and stringent than a position player or pitcher.

---

As it should be. Relief pitchers are, objectively, less valuable than starters or position players. The vast majority are in the bullpen because they aren't good enough to start. Billy Wagner's career WAR, for example, is lower than that of Doug Drabek.

Personally, of 'pure' relievers I would only have enshrined Mariano Rivera and Goose Gossage, and also sometime starter Hoyt Wilhelm and converted starter Dennis Eckersley. No Hoffman, Wagner, Lee Smith, Rollie Fingers, and definitely no Bruce Sutter (Bruce Sutter was elected by the writers because a bunch of them thought he invented the split finger fastball, which he didn't).

The writers are going to draw the line slightly lower, under Billy Wagner. Wagner will get in next year.

Farmer1906 said:

---

I have changed my mind on several players. The more you know the better you can evaluate.

---

I don't change my mind as often as I react to changing standards. I wasn't sold on Larry Walker as a Hall of Famer, but when Vlad Guerrero was elected I couldn't justify keeping Walker out.

But there isn't more data coming out - the career is over....it's just you are coming across it later.

A voter should be able to sift through all that within 5 years.

Correct. I think it would be pretty arrogant to assume someone knows everything and can't learn or have an opinion change from 5-10-15 years.

AgRyan04 said:

---

But there isn't more data coming out - the career is over....it's just you are coming across it later.

A voter should be able to sift through all that within 5 years.

---

If you were going to have a shorter eligibility period you would need to change the election rules to allow unlimited votes (or at least a higher number of votes). Wagner's low vote totals in the 2010s likely had as much to do with there consistently being 10 players on the ballot who were better than him as with a re-evaluation of his career.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

But there isn't more data coming out - the career is over....it's just you are coming across it later.

A voter should be able to sift through all that within 5 years.

---

If you were going to have a shorter eligibility period you would need to change the election rules to allow unlimited votes (or at least a higher number of votes). Wagner's low vote totals in the 2010s likely had as much to do with there consistently being 10 players on the ballot who were better than him as with a re-evaluation of his career.

---

I personally don't buy this to me most voters like to play God and dictate when a player goes in. that part has never made sense to me if the guy is a Hall of Famer he should get your vote on the first ballot.... not wait until your 7th or 8th. majority of the leaked ballots that I have seen rarely have 10 checks on them anyway

I'd like to see it changed to a 2-strike system.

You're on the ballot 5 years after you retire. If you don't get in, but you got at least 50% of the vote, you're on more time in 5 year, and then you're done to the Vets' Committee. I'd also raise the rate to get in to 80% - at least get a B average to get the HOF. 75% is too low.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

JDUB08AG said:

---

If Wagner doesn't qualify for the HOF, on the surface it seems like the ability to enter as a lifetime closer is significantly more difficult and stringent than a position player or pitcher.

---

As it should be. Relief pitchers are, objectively, less valuable than starters or position players. The vast majority are in the bullpen because they aren't good enough to start. Billy Wagner's career WAR, for example, is lower than that of Doug Drabek.

Personally, of 'pure' relievers I would only have enshrined Mariano Rivera and Goose Gossage, and also sometime starter Hoyt Wilhelm and converted starter Dennis Eckersley. No Hoffman, Wagner, Lee Smith, Rollie Fingers, and definitely no Bruce Sutter (Bruce Sutter was elected by the writers because a bunch of them thought he invented the split finger fastball, which he didn't).

The writers are going to draw the line slightly lower, under Billy Wagner. Wagner will get in next year.

---

I don't lump closers in with relief pitchers. You can make the same argument that mid inning relief pitchers are there because they aren't good enough to be closers. I don't think it should be easier for closers to get into the HOF and I don't disagree that they should have a little more scrutiny, but to devalue to role a closer plays is unfair (in my opinion). It requires a mental capability that a lot of players do not posses and to do it at a consistently high level over the course of an entire career, that is absolutely worth strong consideration for HOF entry.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

I'd like to see it changed to a 2-strike system.

You're on the ballot 5 years after you retire. If you don't get in, but you got at least 50% of the vote, you're on more time in 5 year, and then you're done to the Vets' Committee. I'd also raise the rate to get in to 80% - at least get a B average to get the HOF. 75% is too low.

---

Okay. But do you also do anything to increase accountability and decrease general ****ery amongst the voters? Set some guidelines for them to follow? Because if not, nothing will change and fewer will get in. Maybe that's your goal, and okay. But only one player yesterday got over 80%, and that doesn't inspire confidence for many getting in.

JDUB08AG said:

---

I don't lump closers in with relief pitchers. You can make the same argument that mid inning relief pitchers are there because they aren't good enough to be closers. I don't think it should be easier for closers to get into the HOF and I don't disagree that they should have a little more scrutiny, but to devalue to role a closer plays is unfair (in my opinion). It requires a mental capability that a lot of players do not posses and to do it at a consistently high level over the course of an entire career, that is absolutely worth strong consideration for HOF entry.

---

The whole idea of a "closer" is fading away, because it is poor strategy. The best relievers are increasingly being used in the highest leverage situations, rather than in the 9th inning with a three run lead.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

You're on the ballot 5 years after you retire. If you don't get in, but you got at least 50% of the vote, you're on more time in 5 year, and then you're done to the Vets' Committee. I'd also raise the rate to get in to 80% - at least get a B average to get the HOF. 75% is too low.

---

I would make it lower, actually. Except for people who were blackballed for steroids (Bonds, Clemens) or for being a meathead (Curt Schilling), everyone who has cleared even 50% on a writers ballot has eventually gotten into the Hall one way or another. (Jack Morris and Gil Hodges were the last two exceptions, and both were elected by Veterans Committees.)

It has been clear that Wagner is going to the Hall for several years, so just put him in already. Two thirds would be a good threshold.

The Hall likes the threshold where it is so inductions are more spaced out. It is hard to get fans to show up for induction ceremonies featuring only people who died before Hitler invaded Poland (e.g., 2013).

Jackal99 said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

I'd like to see it changed to a 2-strike system.

You're on the ballot 5 years after you retire. If you don't get in, but you got at least 50% of the vote, you're on more time in 5 year, and then you're done to the Vets' Committee. I'd also raise the rate to get in to 80% - at least get a B average to get the HOF. 75% is too low.

---

Okay. But do you also do anything to increase accountability and decrease general ****ery amongst the voters? Set some guidelines for them to follow? Because if not, nothing will change and fewer will get in. Maybe that's your goal, and okay. But only one player yesterday got over 80%, and that doesn't inspire confidence for many getting in.

---

I'd force the media members with enough tenure to qualify to hold elections that picked 10 of their members to serve a 10-year term as voters. And you can't have a person one person serve more than once consecutively.

I'd do the same with existing HOFers. 10 are elected to be the voting committee, and they serve for 10 years.

Every year they go into a conclave like whe they choose a Pope, discuss each guy, do presentations, or whatever else they want to do, and then vote. Private ballot, no reveal to the public.

If you get 16-20 votes, you're in.

If you get 10-15 votes, you get your 5 year bounce-back.

If you get 0-9, you don't get in and you don't get a second chance.

I say 80% because the HoF should be super elite. I think way too many guys get in.

Sounds a lot like the NFL HOF process. I always love listening to that blowhard John McClain talk about why he's campaigning for whatever former Titan/Oiler he's currently campaigning for.

The problem with that system is you will get votes being traded.

"I want Wagner but not really Sheffield. You want Sheffield but not really Wagner. I'll make a deal. You vote with me and I'll vote with you."

Make the current system completely public. If you cant stand and defend your vote when asked grow a pair or get out of the room.

Jackal99 said:

---

Sounds a lot like the NFL HOF process. I always love listening to that blowhard John McClain talk about why he's campaigning for whatever former Titan/Oiler he's currently campaigning for.

---

The other major professional HOFs in North American pro sports (football, basketball, hockey) elect more marginal or unqualified Hall of Famers than the baseball version, not less. As do the various iterations of the baseball Veterans Committee.

Unless you want a hardline, objective standard (like the LPGA Hall), the baseball writers are about as stringent as you are going to get.

Here are the guys who will be on the ballot for the first time next year. Who needs more time than from right now until next January to make a decison?

I think both CC and King Felix are borderline. Voters may need to re-evaluate how we handle pitchers moving forward. If we keep the old standards then we'll stop adding starters.

Take CC for example
-3.74 ERA (only Jack Morris & Red Ruffing have a higher ERA)
-251 Wins (outside the top 30 of SP in HOF)
-Only 1 Cy (some multi Cy guys not in the HOF)
-Never led the league in ERA, WHIP, ERA+, SO/9, SO.
-Only 2 seasons of sub 3 ERA

Here is King Felix
-Only 15 seasons / ~2700 IP
-Didnt even sniff 200 wins (169)
-Only 1 Cy (same as above)
-Sub 50 WAR
-Doesn't meet any of the HOF Statistics on Baseball Ref

A lot of these notes scream no, but if they're not a yes then we might not have any yeses in a long time outside of Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer, & Greinke.

If you think Felix belongs you need to look at Roy O. He's got nearly identical numbers across the board in 1 less year. I mean you can throw a hat over the two of them they are so close.

Mathguy64 said:

---

If you think Felix belongs you need to look at Roy O. He's got nearly identical numbers across the board in 1 less year. I mean you can throw a hat over the two of them they are so close.

---

I hate pointing to awards because they're so subjective, but Felix has the edge with a Cy and ASs. You're right. They are close.

I think a lot of guys in the past I was not in favor of letting in (Mussina, Pettitte, Oswalt, Brown, Buehrle, Wells, Hamels), I would reconsider.

I only see two HoF on this list. I doubt CC gets in on the first try, but I don't think he will be sweating bullets after his first year or two on the ballot.

Roy was one and done. Same year Fat Elvis got dropped. Roy got 4 votes.

If Felix makes it, well, you all know my feeling on HOF voters. They are ________. Fill in the blank.

Farmer1906 said:

---

I think both CC and King Felix are borderline. Voters may need to re-evaluate how we handle pitchers moving forward. If we keep the old standards then we'll stop adding starters.

Take CC for example
-3.74 ERA (only Jack Morris & Red Ruffing have a higher ERA)
-251 Wins (outside the top 30 of SP in HOF)
-Only 1 Cy (some multi Cy guys not in the HOF)
-Never led the league in ERA, WHIP, ERA+, SO/9, SO.
-Only 2 seasons of sub 3 ERA

Here is King Felix
-Only 15 seasons / ~2700 IP
-Didnt even sniff 200 wins (169)
-Only 1 Cy (same as above)
-Sub 50 WAR
-Doesn't meet any of the HOF Statistics on Baseball Ref

A lot of these notes scream no, but if they're not a yes then we might not have any yeses in a long time outside of Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer, & Greinke.

---

They would both go in my Hall of Very Good

AgRyan04 said:

---

Here are the guys who will be on the ballot for the first time next year. Who needs more time than from right now until next January to make a decison?
'

---

We have reached the threshhold of guys I thought were still playing suddenly eligible for the HO

Mr.Bond said:

---

CC never wears pinstripes and he'd never have a chance


Just another reason why the voting is bull****

---

Agreed.

On that list I think Ichiro is the only deserving player.

Even being an Astros homer I strongly feel that if you don't believe Wagner deserves the HoF then no closers/relief pitchers should be in the HoF.

Frankly, I think being a closer might be the toughest job in professional sports. The margin of error is razor thin. If a starter gives up a couple runs in the first few innings it's no big deal but if a closer does it then you lose the game. They don't have room for mistakes and the mental focus and toughness required is at another level.

TarponChaser said:

---

Even being an Astros homer I strongly feel that if you don't believe Wagner deserves the HoF then no closers/relief pitchers should be in the HoF.

Frankly, I think being a closer might be the toughest job in professional sports. The margin of error is razor thin. If a starter gives up a couple runs in the first few innings it's no big deal but if a closer does it then you lose the game. They don't have room for mistakes and the mental focus and toughness required is at another level.

---

I'm in that mind frame. unless a closer is transcendent across the regular and postseason and destroys record books, or wins a Cy Young, I don't think he should be in. I don't really think Hoffman should be in either. Lots of stats, not good in the post-season.

I'd be OK if the only relievers in the HOF were Rivera Eckersley, and Hoyt Wilhem, and I wouldnt he even said Wilhem until recently when I got to do a lot of research about him for a book I wrote.

When I think about the saves and the scoreless innings, I also have to think how many times did the closer go 1-2-3 up 5-2 in the ninth to get the save, but the setup guy struck somebody out with the bases loaded when it was 3-2 in the 8th? Where's that guy's credit? Was that out less iportant than the 9th?

Of course, I'd also cull probably 80% of the guys to get in the last 10-15 years as being good not great, so I"m aware my opinion is biased towards the Hall needing a higher floor to get in.

I think I just put a lot less value on what a closer does than you guys. In the future if some guy has 80 holds a year is that going to be relevant to the HOF?

The real thing that needs to happen is that baseball needs to detach itself from its reliance on counting stats when judging the careers of players.

For a small sample, think back to deGrom'sback to back Cy Young years from a few years back when he only won 21 total games over that stretch out of 64 starts. He was dominant but only accumulated 21 wins. Even if he wins another Cy Young, at this point his ceiling is probably only around 150 wins if EVERYTHING goes right for him. More realistically, he's going to finish with like 120 wins and not be inducted to the hall of fame because he will lack the resume in counting stats.

Trout is another case, for me if he didn't play another game he's already a no doubt Hall of Fame player. But he needs to grind another 1000 hits and 150 HRs to get his counting stats up to where the voters will bestow the "first ballot HoF" title on him. Just ludicrous to me.

Similar to as you mentioned, closers are reliant on opportunities to rack up saves. It's a nice number to keep track of for giggles, but silly to judge a player's value based solely on that number.

It may take a while, but hopefully one day fans and the voters will argue over OPS's and WHIP's rather than hits, rbis and saves and wins. The latter are anachronistic stats that hold an outsized role currently in how the Hall of Fame judges players.

Finally, and I know most will disagree here, but Pedroia should be a no doubt Hall of Famer. His career basically ended because of injuries at 33 years old limiting his counting stats (injuries also cost him half of 2 more seasons) but he was a great 2nd baseman in baseball for a decade. Gold Glover, MVP, rookie of the year and driver of some good Red Sox teams. He put up 1800 hits in a 10 year span, essentially he's a 3600 hit player if his knees didn't let him down, and it doesn't bother me to project out that he was that great of a hitter that he should be in. The hall shouldn't punish players if their bodies just couldn't hold up.