As we prepare for the big announcement, let’s talk a bit about how the Hall of Fame really works — the committees, writers, numbers and vibes behind the magic.
How much would voting have changed over the years had their been no cap on the number of votes for the committees and writers? Why is such a cap necessary in either situation? Who is getting elected in an endless ballot that wouldn’t get elected now? All it seems it would do is prevent some borderline guys being one and done and making the ballot longer, which is only a problem because of the cap.
Good history lesson Joe. With more than 23,000 players in MLB history and only 274 players enshrined (1.2%) adding 30 players (there are more than 30 questionable cases) would raise the percentage to 1.3%. How exactly would that 'ruin' the HOF?
I'm glad to see that you voted for Dustin Pedroia. It's kind of amazing to me that everyone talks as though Buster Posey is a no-doubt Hall of Famer, while Pedroia's support is pretty soft. They have nearly identical profiles: ROY, MVP, linchpin of multiple WS teams. Posey was a slightly better hitter and played catcher, of course, but it is not so big a difference to make him a no-doubter and Pedroia a hard pass.
Has the introduction and general acceptance of WAR made the Hall of Fame voting process better or worse? At first, I thought it was a good thing because it highlighted underrated but deserving players like Scott Rolen and Larry Walker and also shined a light on overlooked stars of the past. However, to me it feels like the pendulum is starting to swing too far in the other direction, where voters (and the general public) have drawn hard-and-fast lines designed to end conversations rather than begin them.
So, Joe, you're equating the BBHOF with a really good Vienna Beef dog Chicago-style? :)
I don't want to know how the sausage was made, nor do I care about what process the relish and pepper had to undergo to have that neon green color, but the entire concoction is freaking delicious (I miss getting a Chicago-style in the northern suburbs from Mustard's Last Stand or Paradise Pup, or even at Wrigley or Sox Park). I do care about the players' stats and intangibles and how they are elected.
BTW, excellent analysis on what bloc of voters voted the players in.
Why is there a ballot and limited number of players that can be voted on each year? If a writer believes Bobby Grich or Lou Whitaker are Hall of Famers shouldn’t they be able to vote for them? This year writers were allowed to vote for Howie Kendrick and/or Rick Porcello but not Grich or Whitaker? Just make anyone that played 10 seasons eligible to be voted on.
There has already been a precedent set for giving players a 2nd chance on the writer's ballot. In 1985, they added 11 players back on the ballot who had been previously dropped. None of those players wound up being elected by the writers, but two were eventually elected by committees (Santo and Dick Allen).
I think that, based on recent voter trends, Lou Whitaker, Kenny Lofton, Dwight Evans, and Johan Santana would all have a decent shot of eventually being elected by the writers if given a 2nd chance. I believe that would be better than them having to wait for the committees and hoping to get fortunate with a favorable draw.
This sounds super tempting, but if you make everybody eligible you will only be splitting the vote more. I'd love to see a way to get Grich and Whitaker and Lofton and others back on a writers ballot, but I haven't seen an opening to make that happen.
If you make everyone eligible AND let people vote for more than 10, problem solved. Similar reasoning applies. Not that I’m suggesting this (I’m a small hall guy).
This is just an outstanding history lesson. I'd have lost a lot of money on "a bar bet" if someone told me 39% of Hall of Famers were elected by the BBWAA.
One year, everyone in the Hall of Fame voted. That included Frick winners, so Vin got to vote. And I was not alone in thinking, who better to vote on who should be in there?
Jaime Jarrín, the answer to one of my favorite trivia questions (see below) was on the veterans' committee and talked about the process, and got chewed out. That was sad.
OK. Vin set the record--67 years. Who's #2? The answer was next door to him. 64 years for Jaime. Denny Matthews is headed for #58. Now that he's married, maybe he figures he needs to keep working?
After the questionable 2001 election of Mazeroski, the HOF decided that the process was broken. Consequently, they went to the system you mentioned, which allowed all the living members of the HOF (including Frick and Spink award winners for a few cycles) to vote. In theory, it does make sense that the existing HOF members should be the best to vote on potential new members. However, in practice, it was a failure and they elected nobody from 2001 through 2010, which is when the experiment was ended. The closest to election was Ron Santo, who received 69.5% in 2007. It seems like quite a few HOF members did not want to let anyone into their club.
This resulted in no living players being elected by any committees from 2001 until 2018, when Trammell and Morris were ushered in. This also resulted in a huge logjam of candidates and in eventual electees like Santo, Minoso, and Allen not being alive to enjoy the honor. It was kind of a shame that it went down the way it did.
I also remember Reggie Jackson saying at the time that he wouldn't vote for anyone who wasn't a player. I think someone reminded him that without Marvin Miller, he wouldn't have any money. Of course, even having the players vote didn't get him into the Hall.
Well, Marvin finally got in after he passed, despite his request for them not to vote him in posthumously. I spoke to someone at HOF a few years ago, and they said Miller's family would have nothing to do with the HOF. Can't say that I blame them.
I'd like to hear more about a case for Pettitte. He wasn't recognized as great in his time. He won no major awards, made just 3 all-star teams and received cy young votes in just 5 seasons. He isn't retroactively recognized as great by advanced stats. He had only 3 seasons where his WAR was all-star quality or higher (5+). And one of his 3 best seasons was 2005 which followed his admitted use of PEDs to recover from an arm injury the prior year. He was never considered the best pitcher in baseball. I don't know if he was ever even the best pitcher on his team. Ironically (at least as to Joe's vote) the best argument for Pettitte is his 256 wins, which is only going to look better and better over time. Still, there are a dozen pitchers who belong in the Hall ahead of him.
Pettitte is sort of the Don Sutton of the 1990s and 2000s, if you will: He was a perennial workhorse who rarely led the league in anything, but was a very good to excellent pitcher for a long time. Sutton only won 20+ games once (Pettitte twice) and both got CYA votes 5 times without ever winning one, though Pettitte got closer, with a close 2nd place finish in 1996, while Sutton's best finish was a distant 3rd. Both had their wins totals padded by playing generally for good teams, and neither was ever considered the best pitcher in the league, maybe not even on their own team. Neither had an overpowering fastball or another dominant pitch, but they got outs year in and year out with enough stuff and guile to get the job done well.
And when Sutton was on the ballot, believe it or not, there were people wondering whether a workhorse with a ~20 year career and a lot of wins really belonged in the Hall. I specifically remember Rob Neyer (of all people!) breaking it down as Sutton's yearly average was 14 wins and 11 Losses. Do we really want a guy who went ~14-11 every year in the Hall of Fame?
Obviously, Sutton has ~70 more wins and ~1900 more innings, but relative to their times, they were quite similar.
In Pettitte's case, the PED allegations have held him back or he'd have been elected years ago. I'm hopeful that he will get in and it will start loosening the bars for others who were accused of the same, especially those whose amazing career accomplishments are overshadowed by those allegations. But the Hall is nothing if not sanctimonious, so I kinda doubt it.
The Sutton comparison is exactly what I've had in mind for Pettitte even though it undermines my position on his candidacy. These are the quintessential "compiler" cases that are hard for a lot of people (me) to accept as the basis for getting into the HOF. Pettitte's career numbers won't look out of place in the plaque room, but as someone who saw him pitch a ton, it is hard to believe he was doing so at a HOF level.
Your last paragraph makes an interesting point. For Pettitte, they are not allegations. After he was named in the Mitchell Report, he admitted that he used HGH in 2002 and 2004. So you have evidence, a confession, and use during the testing era when it was specifically outlawed by baseball. If he gets in, that pretty much eliminates any argument to keep out anybody on PED grounds unless they were suspended for failing a test (basically Manny, Cano and Palmeiro). Unfortunately, the guys it would help (Clemens, Bonds, Sheffield, McGwire, Sosa) are almost all off the ballot and can only be heard by the committees, which are not likely to be swayed by the BBWAA voting. At most, it seems Pettitte could open the door for A-Rod.
Agreed on all points. I used "allegations" because Pettitte was never known to have failed a test, but yes, you have both his admissions and his lying between admissions about it, so it's hard to justify letting him in and keeping others (like Sheffield, who admitted only to unknowing and temporary use) out. Pettitte has the "good guy" thing going for him, like Murphy and others, which helps his case a little more, whereas Sheffield and Bonds and Kevin Brown were jerks to the media so they don't get any extra slack. But that only helps with the writers. His peers aren't going to loosen things up for him when it may seem to cheapen their own accomplishments. I would really love for someone who is already in to step up and admit that he was a regular user and force their hand, but I don't see that happening.
As others have chimed in, Pettitte's post-season record and 5 rings play a huge part in his HOF case. Take a look at Mark Buehrle. Pettitte and Buehrle are about the same pitchers when it comes to the regular season. They have almost the same number of games pitched, innings, WAR, ERA, and WHIP. Even their ERA+ is identical at 117. Pettitte has a lot more wins, and we know that can be chalked up to the teams they were on.
But only one of them had the good fortune of playing for a dynasty. I think if you switch their teams, Buehrle is the one making a push for election (and might have already been enshrined since he isn't associated with steroids).
I wouldn't say DOZENS of pitchers. Whatever your opinion of Fangraphs WAR, Pettitte ranks 34th all time, ahead of guys like Tom Glavine, C.C. Sabathia, Roy Halladay, Dennis Eckersley and Juan Marichal. Do I think he was better than those guys? No. But it does at least suggest that he was pretty darned good, and then there the 44 postseason games he started; there were definitely some highlight moments in there.
Would Pettitte be the first eligible pitcher I would elect? No. Not even close. But does he have a compelling Hall of Fame case? Absolutely.
For Pettitte, I think his case would rest heavily on how good he was in the postseason. He made 44 starts (276 1/3 IP) and went 19-11 with a 3.81 ERA. He basically put up an additional full season - season plus, really - in the postseason. It's 275 wins if you add those in. That plus his 60 WAR career... But he pitched in the heart of the steroid era (or whatever you want to call it), so his career 3.85 ERA feels kinda meh. He's an interesting case for sure!
That's a good point on his postseason, though I'd say it was more about having a lot of postseason success rather than being so good in the post-season. He does have the most postseason wins ever. But he was basically the same guy in the postseason as in the regular season. He didn't take a great regular season and then step up in the playoffs like Smoltz (15-4, 2.67) or Schilling (11-2, 2.23) or Rivera (8-1, 42 saves, 0.70). He's more like Verlander (17-12, 3.58), who is not generally thought of as a great post-season pitcher.
Fair points, but I would also add that Smoltz, Schilling, Rivera, and Verlander are all LEGIT Hall of Famers. (Verlander will be, and Schilling would be in if not for his... behavior, let's just say.) So even if Pettitte's postseason stats are a notch down from those other guys', they still bolster his HOF case, in my view.
Another player overloooked - and someone I personally have ahead of some of the players on Joe's ballot - is David Wright.
Let's play the Dale Murphy (a Joe favorite!) vs. David Wright game:
Both had 9 really good seasons. Murphy's WAR: 45.5. Wright's WAR: 44.4
Murphy's OPS+ in those seasons? 137. Wright's in 9 seasons? 138.
Murphy was a 7-time All-Star. So was David Wright.
Murphy, of course, won the two MVP awards. Wright didn't. Murphy's third-best MVP finish was a7th place. Wright's top three MVP votes? 4th, 6th, and - you guessed it - 7th. Both of them also have a 9th-place finish as their fourth-best show in MVP voting.
Murphy had two seasons over 7 WAR, which is darn impressive. Of course, David Wright did, too. And Wright was the only one who actually had an 8-WAR season.
I'm not saying their candidacies are exactly equal; Murphy does have five Gold Gloves and four Silver Sluggers, whereas Wright has only two of each. And those two MVPs are different, of course. (That said, if Murphy had played in Wright's era, when MVP voting was starting to be done quite differently, I strongly doubt he'd have won the '82 award, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that.) But these are two remarkably similar players. I think the biggest difference from Joe's perspective is where he was in his life and as a sportswriter in the '80s as opposed to in the '00s. But I'd love to hear his thoughts on Wright and his candidacy someday.
You're conveniently leaving out that Murph has ~150 more HR, about 300 more hits, 300 more RBI in ~600 more games. So yes, two MVPs and four extra seasons' worth of work are kind of a big difference in their cases.
I did go round and round on David Wright. I think he has a fascinating Hall of Fame case. He was a truly fantastic player. The Murphy comparison is interesting; I can see it. Unfortunately, I think you can take that to its logical conclusion: Dale's Hall of Fame chances may have passed — and as beloved and admired as he was, he never got even 25% of the BBWAA vote.
Both of their careers were unfortunately too short. If Murphy ever gets in it will be because of those back to back MVPs and the recognition of him as the best player in the league for some significant stretch of time. Comparing Wright to a guy who (1) didn't get in (and has never gotten particularly close to getting in) and (2) has back-to-back MVPs and a stretch as the best player in the league, makes the case against Wright's candidacy pretty clear.
To me, the big difference between the two (as someone who thinks Murphy should be in and Wright should not) is that Murphy's short career was due, at least in part, to organizational malpractice. They didn't know what to do with him and he didn't get a real shot to play until his mid-20s. It's similar to the situation with Chase Utley and the Phillies. With Wright, his short career, as unfortunate as it is, is due to injuries, which have always been a key part of baseball and the Hall of Fame.
I don’t follow why injuries should prevent someone from the Hall, but organizational malpractice shouldn’t. This seems to me a distinction without a difference when it comes to evaluating a career.
Injuries, to me, are part luck and part skill. Getting hurt running the bases or fielding a ball is just a twist of fate.
However, I don't think players should be penalized for things outside of their control that extend beyond luck. It's not Murphy (or Utley's) fault that they got drafted by a team that wasn't interested in using them. I also think this is different than a player not hitting their stride until their late 20s or 30s.
Along these lines, I'd also support Yu Darvish as strong Hall of Fame candidate because I don't think he should be penalized for literally being banned from MLB until he was 25.
Mainly, I agree. But there is a middle ground, e.g., chosen by Jay Jaffe. Vote for--even likely--steroid guys who never failed a test once testing and formal penalties were imposed. Don't vote for guys like A Rod or Manny who failed tests after formal penalties were imposed. This reduces the purely discretionary decisions that would include Ortiz, but not include Bonds or Clemens.
Yeah. I think the steroid issue — because we know so little and suspect so much — will always feel cloudy and inconsistent. Take a look at the players elected starting around the mid-2000s and ask yourself how many you feel 100% confident never used PEDs. Or even 90% confident. Or even 75% confident. There will be some players who do inspire such confidence. And there will be some who most definitely do not.
I’m personally down a bit on the HoF voters due to the hypocrisy many have on steroids. Vote for them or don’t (and I understand in some cases it is different voters), but I think if you’re going to get on your high horse and look down on us and declare steroids are evil so you will not vote for Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, or anyone else suspected of using them (or confirmed in A-Rod’s case), then vote in David Ortiz on the first ballot, you are not being serious and are just BSing to put in guys you liked.
I personally say yes, put Ortiz in, and also put Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, and others in. But I can respect “I am not willing to vote in steroid users”. I can’t respect “I am not willing to vote for even suspected steroid users unless I think they’re cuddly and funny enough”.
I think you're treating the HOF voters as though they have a uniform position on PEDs. There are a wide range of positions from not voting for anyone even suspected of using all the way to ignoring PEDs entirely in voting. The combined result of those positions, plus the 75% threshold may produce results you find hypocritical but I doubt you'd find an individual voter who voted as you suggest above. Yes, Ortiz got elected in 2022 and Bonds/Clemens did not. But 2/3 of the voters voted for Clemens and Bonds that year. In fact, Ortiz only got 47 more votes than Bonds (who admitted using) and 50 more votes than Clemens (who was all over the Mitchell report with a named source who admitted to supplying him). Apparently there were 50 voters who were against voting for Clemens and Bonds where there was proof of PED use, but who required more than just anonymous rumors to withhold a vote from Ortiz (or Piazza, or Ivan Rodriguez or Jeff Bagwell, etc.)? Is that not a respectable position for a person to take?
First, which is it? You doubt I’d find a single voter who voted for Ortiz but not Bonds/Clemens, or 47-50 people declared they won’t vote for steroid users and then voted for someone who failed a test?
Ortiz was not anonymous rumors. He failed a test. He “promised to get to the bottom of it” and then we never heard another word. Because he failed a test. Which is more than can be said for others who had votes withheld. I understand it was the test that was supposed to be anonymous but by that logic, “we weren’t testing at all for steroids and weren’t punishing users” is essentially the same argument.
I obviously am not including any specific voters who did not vote for any steroid users including Ortiz, nor am I including anyone who has consistently voted for steroid users. Both are consistent positions I respect. I don’t respect people grasping for excuses as to why Ortiz failing a test doesn’t count but every other steroid user should be banned.
Hank Aaron said he didn't want people to forget Babe Ruth, just to remember him.
Bonds said, regarding Ruth, "Don't talk about him no more."
Bonds was Cooperstown Bound before the century ended. Had he played his last game in '99 he'd have free admission to the Hall today. But to preternaturally extend your career, while breaking records so brazenly? It presents as obnoxious. An insult to the game, even. To then say you want to effectively destroy baseball's past through those actions? That's daring someone not to vote for you.
That he is such an awful person off the field doesn't help matters.
Clemens was such a shameless mercenary it left an especially bitter aftertaste when you coupled it with the PEDs.
Ortiz is in the Hall because, like Tom Seaver and George Brett, he went to a team with a history of losing and led them out of cellar.
I often wonder what Torii Hunter's case would've been like, had he had a normal career arc. He's probably one of the strangest players on the ballot. If he'd hit like he did in his 30s (15-20 Rbat) WHILE fielding the way he did in his 20s (10-20 Rfield), he would've had an MVP-level peak argument. Instead, he had this extremely unusual career shape in which his fielding and hitting excellence had no overlap. So, per value, he was basically the same guy for almost two decades... which doesn't look quite good enough. I'm not saying I'd vote for him; but in a different world, he would've been obvious. As it is, baseball-reference has his best overall seasons at age 33 and 36 - unexpectedly good defensive numbers those years, to go along with the fact that he was finally hitting. Torii Hunter's Hall of Fame case is one I play over in my mind, because it's a fascinating "what if." In "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?" Bill James did this weird thing where he redistributed Tommy John's W-L records to make him a Hall of Fame pitcher by giving him some more 20-win seasons. I've often thought that, if you did the same thing with Torii Hunter's Rfied and Rbat, you'd make yourself a Hall of Famer with a "high peak" argument, a la Dale Murphy or Don Mattingly.
Fascinating thought ... one I've never quite considered. Bill James did this thing where he moved around some of Jim Kaat's wins and, without doing anything else, turned him into a sure Hall of Famer. If Toirii Hunder had combined some of his 4-5 offensive WAR seasons with some of his 2-3 defensive WAR seasons, he definitely woukd have done better in the MVP category and that very well might have made him a better Hall of Fame candidate.
I’ve commented elsewhere that Torii Hunter seems like the perfect type of candidate that the Veterans Committee will elect once he crosses their path. Him and Jimmy Rollins both seem of a type where the former players will have no hesitation voting them in. Which, tbh, I’m fine with in this case. I still remember his home run robbery of Bonds at the ‘02 All Star game. Great baseball moment.
How much would voting have changed over the years had their been no cap on the number of votes for the committees and writers? Why is such a cap necessary in either situation? Who is getting elected in an endless ballot that wouldn’t get elected now? All it seems it would do is prevent some borderline guys being one and done and making the ballot longer, which is only a problem because of the cap.
Good history lesson Joe. With more than 23,000 players in MLB history and only 274 players enshrined (1.2%) adding 30 players (there are more than 30 questionable cases) would raise the percentage to 1.3%. How exactly would that 'ruin' the HOF?
Can we talk about Mark Buehrle for a minute here? The actual “hold my beer while I help win the World Series” guy. That alone makes him HOF-worthy!
I'm glad to see that you voted for Dustin Pedroia. It's kind of amazing to me that everyone talks as though Buster Posey is a no-doubt Hall of Famer, while Pedroia's support is pretty soft. They have nearly identical profiles: ROY, MVP, linchpin of multiple WS teams. Posey was a slightly better hitter and played catcher, of course, but it is not so big a difference to make him a no-doubter and Pedroia a hard pass.
Has the introduction and general acceptance of WAR made the Hall of Fame voting process better or worse? At first, I thought it was a good thing because it highlighted underrated but deserving players like Scott Rolen and Larry Walker and also shined a light on overlooked stars of the past. However, to me it feels like the pendulum is starting to swing too far in the other direction, where voters (and the general public) have drawn hard-and-fast lines designed to end conversations rather than begin them.
Nice short and clever history lesson! You like movies so much, can't you convince someone to make a HOF movie??? You could star as Landis!
So, Joe, you're equating the BBHOF with a really good Vienna Beef dog Chicago-style? :)
I don't want to know how the sausage was made, nor do I care about what process the relish and pepper had to undergo to have that neon green color, but the entire concoction is freaking delicious (I miss getting a Chicago-style in the northern suburbs from Mustard's Last Stand or Paradise Pup, or even at Wrigley or Sox Park). I do care about the players' stats and intangibles and how they are elected.
BTW, excellent analysis on what bloc of voters voted the players in.
Why is there a ballot and limited number of players that can be voted on each year? If a writer believes Bobby Grich or Lou Whitaker are Hall of Famers shouldn’t they be able to vote for them? This year writers were allowed to vote for Howie Kendrick and/or Rick Porcello but not Grich or Whitaker? Just make anyone that played 10 seasons eligible to be voted on.
There has already been a precedent set for giving players a 2nd chance on the writer's ballot. In 1985, they added 11 players back on the ballot who had been previously dropped. None of those players wound up being elected by the writers, but two were eventually elected by committees (Santo and Dick Allen).
I think that, based on recent voter trends, Lou Whitaker, Kenny Lofton, Dwight Evans, and Johan Santana would all have a decent shot of eventually being elected by the writers if given a 2nd chance. I believe that would be better than them having to wait for the committees and hoping to get fortunate with a favorable draw.
This sounds super tempting, but if you make everybody eligible you will only be splitting the vote more. I'd love to see a way to get Grich and Whitaker and Lofton and others back on a writers ballot, but I haven't seen an opening to make that happen.
If you make everyone eligible AND let people vote for more than 10, problem solved. Similar reasoning applies. Not that I’m suggesting this (I’m a small hall guy).
This is just an outstanding history lesson. I'd have lost a lot of money on "a bar bet" if someone told me 39% of Hall of Famers were elected by the BBWAA.
One year, everyone in the Hall of Fame voted. That included Frick winners, so Vin got to vote. And I was not alone in thinking, who better to vote on who should be in there?
Jaime Jarrín, the answer to one of my favorite trivia questions (see below) was on the veterans' committee and talked about the process, and got chewed out. That was sad.
OK. Vin set the record--67 years. Who's #2? The answer was next door to him. 64 years for Jaime. Denny Matthews is headed for #58. Now that he's married, maybe he figures he needs to keep working?
After the questionable 2001 election of Mazeroski, the HOF decided that the process was broken. Consequently, they went to the system you mentioned, which allowed all the living members of the HOF (including Frick and Spink award winners for a few cycles) to vote. In theory, it does make sense that the existing HOF members should be the best to vote on potential new members. However, in practice, it was a failure and they elected nobody from 2001 through 2010, which is when the experiment was ended. The closest to election was Ron Santo, who received 69.5% in 2007. It seems like quite a few HOF members did not want to let anyone into their club.
This resulted in no living players being elected by any committees from 2001 until 2018, when Trammell and Morris were ushered in. This also resulted in a huge logjam of candidates and in eventual electees like Santo, Minoso, and Allen not being alive to enjoy the honor. It was kind of a shame that it went down the way it did.
I also remember Reggie Jackson saying at the time that he wouldn't vote for anyone who wasn't a player. I think someone reminded him that without Marvin Miller, he wouldn't have any money. Of course, even having the players vote didn't get him into the Hall.
Well, Marvin finally got in after he passed, despite his request for them not to vote him in posthumously. I spoke to someone at HOF a few years ago, and they said Miller's family would have nothing to do with the HOF. Can't say that I blame them.
Now that Angel Hernandez is retired, when does he become eligible for Hall of Fame consideration?
They've got to put Cowboy Joe West in first!
I'd like to hear more about a case for Pettitte. He wasn't recognized as great in his time. He won no major awards, made just 3 all-star teams and received cy young votes in just 5 seasons. He isn't retroactively recognized as great by advanced stats. He had only 3 seasons where his WAR was all-star quality or higher (5+). And one of his 3 best seasons was 2005 which followed his admitted use of PEDs to recover from an arm injury the prior year. He was never considered the best pitcher in baseball. I don't know if he was ever even the best pitcher on his team. Ironically (at least as to Joe's vote) the best argument for Pettitte is his 256 wins, which is only going to look better and better over time. Still, there are a dozen pitchers who belong in the Hall ahead of him.
Pettitte is sort of the Don Sutton of the 1990s and 2000s, if you will: He was a perennial workhorse who rarely led the league in anything, but was a very good to excellent pitcher for a long time. Sutton only won 20+ games once (Pettitte twice) and both got CYA votes 5 times without ever winning one, though Pettitte got closer, with a close 2nd place finish in 1996, while Sutton's best finish was a distant 3rd. Both had their wins totals padded by playing generally for good teams, and neither was ever considered the best pitcher in the league, maybe not even on their own team. Neither had an overpowering fastball or another dominant pitch, but they got outs year in and year out with enough stuff and guile to get the job done well.
And when Sutton was on the ballot, believe it or not, there were people wondering whether a workhorse with a ~20 year career and a lot of wins really belonged in the Hall. I specifically remember Rob Neyer (of all people!) breaking it down as Sutton's yearly average was 14 wins and 11 Losses. Do we really want a guy who went ~14-11 every year in the Hall of Fame?
Obviously, Sutton has ~70 more wins and ~1900 more innings, but relative to their times, they were quite similar.
In Pettitte's case, the PED allegations have held him back or he'd have been elected years ago. I'm hopeful that he will get in and it will start loosening the bars for others who were accused of the same, especially those whose amazing career accomplishments are overshadowed by those allegations. But the Hall is nothing if not sanctimonious, so I kinda doubt it.
The Sutton comparison is exactly what I've had in mind for Pettitte even though it undermines my position on his candidacy. These are the quintessential "compiler" cases that are hard for a lot of people (me) to accept as the basis for getting into the HOF. Pettitte's career numbers won't look out of place in the plaque room, but as someone who saw him pitch a ton, it is hard to believe he was doing so at a HOF level.
Your last paragraph makes an interesting point. For Pettitte, they are not allegations. After he was named in the Mitchell Report, he admitted that he used HGH in 2002 and 2004. So you have evidence, a confession, and use during the testing era when it was specifically outlawed by baseball. If he gets in, that pretty much eliminates any argument to keep out anybody on PED grounds unless they were suspended for failing a test (basically Manny, Cano and Palmeiro). Unfortunately, the guys it would help (Clemens, Bonds, Sheffield, McGwire, Sosa) are almost all off the ballot and can only be heard by the committees, which are not likely to be swayed by the BBWAA voting. At most, it seems Pettitte could open the door for A-Rod.
Agreed on all points. I used "allegations" because Pettitte was never known to have failed a test, but yes, you have both his admissions and his lying between admissions about it, so it's hard to justify letting him in and keeping others (like Sheffield, who admitted only to unknowing and temporary use) out. Pettitte has the "good guy" thing going for him, like Murphy and others, which helps his case a little more, whereas Sheffield and Bonds and Kevin Brown were jerks to the media so they don't get any extra slack. But that only helps with the writers. His peers aren't going to loosen things up for him when it may seem to cheapen their own accomplishments. I would really love for someone who is already in to step up and admit that he was a regular user and force their hand, but I don't see that happening.
As others have chimed in, Pettitte's post-season record and 5 rings play a huge part in his HOF case. Take a look at Mark Buehrle. Pettitte and Buehrle are about the same pitchers when it comes to the regular season. They have almost the same number of games pitched, innings, WAR, ERA, and WHIP. Even their ERA+ is identical at 117. Pettitte has a lot more wins, and we know that can be chalked up to the teams they were on.
But only one of them had the good fortune of playing for a dynasty. I think if you switch their teams, Buehrle is the one making a push for election (and might have already been enshrined since he isn't associated with steroids).
I wouldn't say DOZENS of pitchers. Whatever your opinion of Fangraphs WAR, Pettitte ranks 34th all time, ahead of guys like Tom Glavine, C.C. Sabathia, Roy Halladay, Dennis Eckersley and Juan Marichal. Do I think he was better than those guys? No. But it does at least suggest that he was pretty darned good, and then there the 44 postseason games he started; there were definitely some highlight moments in there.
Would Pettitte be the first eligible pitcher I would elect? No. Not even close. But does he have a compelling Hall of Fame case? Absolutely.
For Pettitte, I think his case would rest heavily on how good he was in the postseason. He made 44 starts (276 1/3 IP) and went 19-11 with a 3.81 ERA. He basically put up an additional full season - season plus, really - in the postseason. It's 275 wins if you add those in. That plus his 60 WAR career... But he pitched in the heart of the steroid era (or whatever you want to call it), so his career 3.85 ERA feels kinda meh. He's an interesting case for sure!
That's a good point on his postseason, though I'd say it was more about having a lot of postseason success rather than being so good in the post-season. He does have the most postseason wins ever. But he was basically the same guy in the postseason as in the regular season. He didn't take a great regular season and then step up in the playoffs like Smoltz (15-4, 2.67) or Schilling (11-2, 2.23) or Rivera (8-1, 42 saves, 0.70). He's more like Verlander (17-12, 3.58), who is not generally thought of as a great post-season pitcher.
Fair points, but I would also add that Smoltz, Schilling, Rivera, and Verlander are all LEGIT Hall of Famers. (Verlander will be, and Schilling would be in if not for his... behavior, let's just say.) So even if Pettitte's postseason stats are a notch down from those other guys', they still bolster his HOF case, in my view.
If you pitch just as well in the playoffs as you do in the regular season, you’re doing well since the level of competition is higher.
Another player overloooked - and someone I personally have ahead of some of the players on Joe's ballot - is David Wright.
Let's play the Dale Murphy (a Joe favorite!) vs. David Wright game:
Both had 9 really good seasons. Murphy's WAR: 45.5. Wright's WAR: 44.4
Murphy's OPS+ in those seasons? 137. Wright's in 9 seasons? 138.
Murphy was a 7-time All-Star. So was David Wright.
Murphy, of course, won the two MVP awards. Wright didn't. Murphy's third-best MVP finish was a7th place. Wright's top three MVP votes? 4th, 6th, and - you guessed it - 7th. Both of them also have a 9th-place finish as their fourth-best show in MVP voting.
Murphy had two seasons over 7 WAR, which is darn impressive. Of course, David Wright did, too. And Wright was the only one who actually had an 8-WAR season.
I'm not saying their candidacies are exactly equal; Murphy does have five Gold Gloves and four Silver Sluggers, whereas Wright has only two of each. And those two MVPs are different, of course. (That said, if Murphy had played in Wright's era, when MVP voting was starting to be done quite differently, I strongly doubt he'd have won the '82 award, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that.) But these are two remarkably similar players. I think the biggest difference from Joe's perspective is where he was in his life and as a sportswriter in the '80s as opposed to in the '00s. But I'd love to hear his thoughts on Wright and his candidacy someday.
You're conveniently leaving out that Murph has ~150 more HR, about 300 more hits, 300 more RBI in ~600 more games. So yes, two MVPs and four extra seasons' worth of work are kind of a big difference in their cases.
I did go round and round on David Wright. I think he has a fascinating Hall of Fame case. He was a truly fantastic player. The Murphy comparison is interesting; I can see it. Unfortunately, I think you can take that to its logical conclusion: Dale's Hall of Fame chances may have passed — and as beloved and admired as he was, he never got even 25% of the BBWAA vote.
Both of their careers were unfortunately too short. If Murphy ever gets in it will be because of those back to back MVPs and the recognition of him as the best player in the league for some significant stretch of time. Comparing Wright to a guy who (1) didn't get in (and has never gotten particularly close to getting in) and (2) has back-to-back MVPs and a stretch as the best player in the league, makes the case against Wright's candidacy pretty clear.
To me, the big difference between the two (as someone who thinks Murphy should be in and Wright should not) is that Murphy's short career was due, at least in part, to organizational malpractice. They didn't know what to do with him and he didn't get a real shot to play until his mid-20s. It's similar to the situation with Chase Utley and the Phillies. With Wright, his short career, as unfortunate as it is, is due to injuries, which have always been a key part of baseball and the Hall of Fame.
I don’t follow why injuries should prevent someone from the Hall, but organizational malpractice shouldn’t. This seems to me a distinction without a difference when it comes to evaluating a career.
Injuries, to me, are part luck and part skill. Getting hurt running the bases or fielding a ball is just a twist of fate.
However, I don't think players should be penalized for things outside of their control that extend beyond luck. It's not Murphy (or Utley's) fault that they got drafted by a team that wasn't interested in using them. I also think this is different than a player not hitting their stride until their late 20s or 30s.
Along these lines, I'd also support Yu Darvish as strong Hall of Fame candidate because I don't think he should be penalized for literally being banned from MLB until he was 25.
Mainly, I agree. But there is a middle ground, e.g., chosen by Jay Jaffe. Vote for--even likely--steroid guys who never failed a test once testing and formal penalties were imposed. Don't vote for guys like A Rod or Manny who failed tests after formal penalties were imposed. This reduces the purely discretionary decisions that would include Ortiz, but not include Bonds or Clemens.
Yeah. I think the steroid issue — because we know so little and suspect so much — will always feel cloudy and inconsistent. Take a look at the players elected starting around the mid-2000s and ask yourself how many you feel 100% confident never used PEDs. Or even 90% confident. Or even 75% confident. There will be some players who do inspire such confidence. And there will be some who most definitely do not.
I’m personally down a bit on the HoF voters due to the hypocrisy many have on steroids. Vote for them or don’t (and I understand in some cases it is different voters), but I think if you’re going to get on your high horse and look down on us and declare steroids are evil so you will not vote for Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, or anyone else suspected of using them (or confirmed in A-Rod’s case), then vote in David Ortiz on the first ballot, you are not being serious and are just BSing to put in guys you liked.
I personally say yes, put Ortiz in, and also put Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, and others in. But I can respect “I am not willing to vote in steroid users”. I can’t respect “I am not willing to vote for even suspected steroid users unless I think they’re cuddly and funny enough”.
I think you're treating the HOF voters as though they have a uniform position on PEDs. There are a wide range of positions from not voting for anyone even suspected of using all the way to ignoring PEDs entirely in voting. The combined result of those positions, plus the 75% threshold may produce results you find hypocritical but I doubt you'd find an individual voter who voted as you suggest above. Yes, Ortiz got elected in 2022 and Bonds/Clemens did not. But 2/3 of the voters voted for Clemens and Bonds that year. In fact, Ortiz only got 47 more votes than Bonds (who admitted using) and 50 more votes than Clemens (who was all over the Mitchell report with a named source who admitted to supplying him). Apparently there were 50 voters who were against voting for Clemens and Bonds where there was proof of PED use, but who required more than just anonymous rumors to withhold a vote from Ortiz (or Piazza, or Ivan Rodriguez or Jeff Bagwell, etc.)? Is that not a respectable position for a person to take?
First, which is it? You doubt I’d find a single voter who voted for Ortiz but not Bonds/Clemens, or 47-50 people declared they won’t vote for steroid users and then voted for someone who failed a test?
Ortiz was not anonymous rumors. He failed a test. He “promised to get to the bottom of it” and then we never heard another word. Because he failed a test. Which is more than can be said for others who had votes withheld. I understand it was the test that was supposed to be anonymous but by that logic, “we weren’t testing at all for steroids and weren’t punishing users” is essentially the same argument.
I obviously am not including any specific voters who did not vote for any steroid users including Ortiz, nor am I including anyone who has consistently voted for steroid users. Both are consistent positions I respect. I don’t respect people grasping for excuses as to why Ortiz failing a test doesn’t count but every other steroid user should be banned.
I think it's more complicated than that.
Hank Aaron said he didn't want people to forget Babe Ruth, just to remember him.
Bonds said, regarding Ruth, "Don't talk about him no more."
Bonds was Cooperstown Bound before the century ended. Had he played his last game in '99 he'd have free admission to the Hall today. But to preternaturally extend your career, while breaking records so brazenly? It presents as obnoxious. An insult to the game, even. To then say you want to effectively destroy baseball's past through those actions? That's daring someone not to vote for you.
That he is such an awful person off the field doesn't help matters.
Clemens was such a shameless mercenary it left an especially bitter aftertaste when you coupled it with the PEDs.
Ortiz is in the Hall because, like Tom Seaver and George Brett, he went to a team with a history of losing and led them out of cellar.
But did Bonds say that about Mays or Aaron? To ignore race and history and Bonds reaction in a vacuum is not the answer.
Why is it ignoring race and history?
I often wonder what Torii Hunter's case would've been like, had he had a normal career arc. He's probably one of the strangest players on the ballot. If he'd hit like he did in his 30s (15-20 Rbat) WHILE fielding the way he did in his 20s (10-20 Rfield), he would've had an MVP-level peak argument. Instead, he had this extremely unusual career shape in which his fielding and hitting excellence had no overlap. So, per value, he was basically the same guy for almost two decades... which doesn't look quite good enough. I'm not saying I'd vote for him; but in a different world, he would've been obvious. As it is, baseball-reference has his best overall seasons at age 33 and 36 - unexpectedly good defensive numbers those years, to go along with the fact that he was finally hitting. Torii Hunter's Hall of Fame case is one I play over in my mind, because it's a fascinating "what if." In "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?" Bill James did this weird thing where he redistributed Tommy John's W-L records to make him a Hall of Fame pitcher by giving him some more 20-win seasons. I've often thought that, if you did the same thing with Torii Hunter's Rfied and Rbat, you'd make yourself a Hall of Famer with a "high peak" argument, a la Dale Murphy or Don Mattingly.
Fascinating thought ... one I've never quite considered. Bill James did this thing where he moved around some of Jim Kaat's wins and, without doing anything else, turned him into a sure Hall of Famer. If Toirii Hunder had combined some of his 4-5 offensive WAR seasons with some of his 2-3 defensive WAR seasons, he definitely woukd have done better in the MVP category and that very well might have made him a better Hall of Fame candidate.
I’ve commented elsewhere that Torii Hunter seems like the perfect type of candidate that the Veterans Committee will elect once he crosses their path. Him and Jimmy Rollins both seem of a type where the former players will have no hesitation voting them in. Which, tbh, I’m fine with in this case. I still remember his home run robbery of Bonds at the ‘02 All Star game. Great baseball moment.