The 2011 Hall of Fame Ballot, Graphically
While Adam has been making unbelievably cool interactive graphics to take a look at the current Hall of Famers, I'm sort of a "traditionalist" and still find the "old" WAR graph to be my preferred tool. Therefore, as I did last year, I put together a series of these graphs to take a look at the current Hall of Fame Ballot. Let's start with pitchers and then work down to hitters.
As a primer/refresher, these graphs are depicting player seasons not chronologically, but sorted from best to worst according to rWAR (all data are from baseball-reference). The "Hall of Fame Zone" spans from the average Hall of Fame player down to the 20th percentile. There are hall of famers below this zone, but it serves as a good cutoff for future inductions--especially given the quality of this ballot. This is not the be all and end all when judging a player for the Hall of Fame. But it's a good place to start.
Pitchers
New Pitchers on 2011 Ballot
I was pleasantly surprised to see how well Kevin Brown's career comes out. But at the same time, I'm not surprised. The guy was amazing for a very long time. From 1996-2001, he posted a 2.53 ERA in 1325 innings--that's the heart of the "steroid era", folks, with some of the highest run environments in history. He had 15 productive seasons, almost all of which are at or above the 50% mark for hall of famers. Seems like a clear Hall of Famer to me--it's really not even close. Vote for him.
Al Leiter was also a pleasant surprise. He probably just misses the mark for me, but it was closer than I expected. He's actually very similar to another pitcher on this year's ballot, Jack Morris (see below)--might even look a bit better, especially at his peak. John Franco headlined perhaps the second generation of pure closers. I loved him as a Red, and I love the screwball. But he falls well short. And Kirk Reuter should be congratulated on a fine little career, but he's not close and won't get a vote.
Pitchers Returning on the Ballot
Surely this is Bert Blyleven's year, right?
Jack Morris continues to get a lot of print, and I won't claim people are idiots for thinking that he should be in. But he misses the mark for me. Lee Smith had a terrific career as a closer, but again it just wasn't enough.
Here are the top candidates once again (Blyleven, Brown, Morris, Leiter), all on the same graph: 
Jack Morris = Al Leiter? Yeah, you can make that case.
Position Players
New Hitters on 2011 Ballot (I)
There are more hitters than pitchers as usual, so we'll start with the most recent (arranged by Bill James' HOF monitor at B-Ref) and then work back through players on more distant ballots.
Jeff Bagwell leads the new class of hitters, and he has a very strong case--perhaps the strongest on the ballot aside from Blyleven. His career wasn't as long as some, but he still played 15 years, and was a better than an average Hall of Famer in almost every single year. Rookie of the Year, MVP, 0.408 career OBP, 0.540 career SLG while playing in the Astrodome....the list goes on and on.
Also with strong cases, at least by the numbers, are Larry Walker and Rafael Palmeiro. Walker had the better peak, but often battled injuries throughout his career and hovered somewhere near the lower-middle region of the Hall of Fame Zone throughout most of the rest of his career. The primary knock against him is that he played for many years at Coors, but these data account for that run environment. Given his magnificent peak (his MVP year was a 9 WAR season!), and the fact that he was a plus fielder at his position (Total Zone likely underrates plus fielders), I think it's appropriate to give him the nod.
Palmeiro, on the other hand, had a shallower peak, but had superior (enhanced?) longevity. His numbers probably hall of fame worthy. But it's close, especially with so many other strong candidates on the ballot. And then there's the PED issue, which might be a tiebreaker with me. I'm on the fence about him. It will be interesting to see if he gets the requisite 5% to stay on the ballot moving forward. I'd guess that he doesn't, despite the 569 homers.
Juan Gonzalez never really materialized like we thought he might, and probably was overrated because of his home run totals and relatively low OBP. Benny Santiago was a fun catcher with a fine career. He was the first guy I personally remember seeing throw guys out from his knees, and I remember being thrilled when he signed with the Reds for a year. But he's also a no.
New Hitters on the 2011 Ballot (II)
John Olerud was stronger than I remember him being: .398 career OBP, superb contact skills, nice power, great glove. And my goodness he had a couple phenomenal years. I also love that he wore a helmet in the field, as I think all infielders probably should. But he probably just misses with me, as the rest of his career is more Hall of Very Good. Also interesting is Bret Boone, who has the distinction as being the first major league ballplayer I ever personally met. Boone had a 9 WAR season, a 7 WAR season, and a 4 WAR season. But otherwise was never above 2 WAR. Total Zone also thinks he was overrated defensively, but I'd be interested to see what WOWY or nFRAA thinks about him. Probably regardless, he's a no. As are Marquis Grissom, Tino Martinez, and B.J. Surhoff. Not shown are Carlos Baerga, Charles Johnson, Bobby Higginson, Raul Mondesi, and Lenny Harris, but kudos to them for being around long enough to make the ballot.
Hitters Returning from Last Year's Class
Four players return who were new on last year's ballot. Roberto Alomar got the most votes of the group, and he has a decent case--looks very similar to Larry Walker's career line as I see it. But to my eye, the stronger cases here are from Barry Larkin and Edgar Martinez. Larkin has always been my favorite, and I've written a fair bit about his candidacy. I'm totally biased, but he deserves it. It's admittedly hard to know what to do with the DH--I've yet to see a solution that seems well-founded in the data--but I think Edgar was impressive enough to get in with his bat alone. I'd vote for all three if I had the chance.
Fred McGriff is the one returning player from last year's class who I think just misses. While they were clearly very different hitters, he's sort of similar to Olerud, with a bit better consistency but a much poorer peak. He was a splendid player for a long time, but he's not quite a hall of famer to me.
Hitters Returning from Earlier Ballots (I)
Alan Trammell is close to the same player as Barry Larkin, and both should get in. Mark McGwire was good enough for about 10 years, but fell off a little bit quickly. I'd probably vote for him, though. If it wasn't for the PED thing, I doubt I'd have any hesitation. I'm sort of moderate about that issue. I care, but I also think there's a huge pool of players who used and haven't been caught, and they probably include some supposedly clean players elsewhere in this post.
I said this last year, but Tim Raines looks a bit underwhelming by this approach. I know a lot of folks that I respect argue adamantly for him, but he's a bit borderline in my eyes compared to the rest of the competition. His line looks a lot like Rafael Palmeiro's. I think he deserves it, and I'd vote for him...but he's pretty far down my ballot.
Harold Baines is a no, despite excellent consistency in value for a long, long time.
Hitters Returning from Earlier Ballots (II)
I love that all three of the remaining guys--those on their 11th or greater ballot--had similar career trajectories. Excellent, hall-of-fame caliber peaks. But the rest of the career just wasn't in that same territory. Dale Murphy's the closest of the bunch, and last year I said I'd vote for him. But this time around, I think the answer is no from me for all of these guys. I love hall of famers with outstanding peaks...but to me the magic number is somewhere around 10 hall of fame-caliber seasons, and these guys didn't put up that many. This will be Dave Parker's final year on the ballot, regardless of whether or not he is voted in.
Finally, here's a graph showing some of the more interesting comparisons on the ballot among the borderline players:
All of these guys are pretty close, which makes the graph a jumbled mess. But if you stare at it long enough, there are essentially two groupings. On one hand, there is Fred McGriff and John Olerud. On the other, there is Palmeiro, Raines, and Walker.
My Hall of Fame Ballot
So, based on all of this, here is what my ballot would be (if I had one), in a loose order.
1. Bert Blyleven
2. Jeff Bagwell
3. Kevin Brown
4. Barry Larkin
5. Alan Trammell
6. Edgar Martinez
7. Roberto Alomar
8. Mark McGwire
9. Tim Raines
10. Larry Walker
Goodness, that's a lot of players. But every single one of them is in the Hall of Merit, so I'm not alone here. I hope we get a big class going into the Hall this year, as I'm running out of room on this thing...
29 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I love these. Was just reading last year's yesterday.
My ballot is the same, though I’m conflicted on some guys you include—Larry Walker, Kevin Brown and Mark McGwire—and one you didn’t include—Lee Smith.
Walker and Brown surprised me by their career WAR. I’m leaning towards yes because the numbers are there, but two years ago I wouldn’t imagine voting for them. So, I’m still just getting used to it.
McGwire, of course, is because of the PEDs.
Lee Smith is one I’ve gone back and forth on. If not Lee Smith, then I really don’t know what other closers are deserving. I probably rate him ahead of Fingers and Sutter. I think (obviously) Mo and Hoffman will get in. Wagner is probably light on innings. But I’m not sure we know of any HOF closers beyond them.
Perhaps that’s not a bad thing.
Honestly, I think closers have to be absolutely elite to get in. Was Smith at that level? Not quite. But honestly, the only relievers who probably are at that level are RIvera, Wilhelm, Gossage, and Hoffman (I consider Eck to be a hybrid instead). The problem is, we already have other closers inducted, which is kind of a bummer. Makes cases like Smith tough.
Great work!
On Twitter: @baseballtwit
Brown's case is stronger than Walkers
At least it is if you think there should be different standards for hitters than for pitchers (I do,if nothing else based on precedent).
On closers: I’m conflicted about them too. The thing about closers is that most of the elite guys who are discussed as hall of fame candidates probably would not have been HoF candidates if they had been starters their entire careers. I’m sure some of them would have been very good starters. But probably not Hall of Fame starters. Pitchers become relievers, very broadly speaking, when they can’t hack it as a starter. It’s an easier job. Period. You can’t just judge against other relievers, for example, because you’re judging against a lower standard.
That said, if the standards are such that a reliever can’t be elected…EVER…then I think we have a problem. So here are some of the ones you mentioned:

…I dunno.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Smith vs. Hoffman
Hoffman is generally accepted as a HoFer, right? Is he a better candidate than Smith? I’m not sure. Does that mean Smith deserves it? Or maybe just Rivera, Wilhelm, and Gossage do?
On Twitter: @baseballtwit
If Hoffman deserves it, Smith does
I dunno if either does. But my reasons for that are a general bias against relievers that I articulated above.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Fooling around in PPT:
Was just thinking about the visual connection between these graphs and Adam’s bullseye graphs and drew this. Thought I’d share.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 21, 2010 4:33 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Diggin'
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
I don't think that graph shows what you want it to show...
The bullseye graphs are great in the sense that each layer adds to the layer below it. So the biggest circle contains ALL the data. You kind of chopped them up in your example here, which makes it look like Blyleven had a little less than double WAR over zero than Morris, when in reality he had over twice as many total WAR. The reason for that is because you need to add up all the areas to get there.
But then you run into a different problem. Since you used the Y-axis as the baseline for your graph, you end up with the area tied in with the length of career in a way that it shouldn’t be, since the areas should be measured from the X-axis up.
I like the concept, but the execution doesn’t show the data properly.
My Work: Henkakyuu
Yes, you're right -- the areas are separate, not cumulative.
So the WAM shape would be rolled up into a circle, but the others gets rolled up into donuts around any existing area.
I don’t get your second point. If you’re saying that the areas shouldn’t be continuous, but instead the top parts of 18-22 columns, I agree. But maybe you’re saying something else.
My brain hurts
Maybe you’re right. I’m trying to think it through.
The graph uses lines out of convenience (less ink allows comparison between more players), but each season should actually be discrete, and better covered by a bar graph, like so:

I added transparent layers to show the 6 WAR (darkest), 3 WAR (lighter), 0 WAR (lighter still), <0 (lightest). Basically we want to be adding the height above each, one-dimensionally, since we are trying to show WAR above a certain point. The point is that there should be a vertical orientation to the cumulative WAR over a baseline, because the WAR scale is vertical.
I realize looking at what you made that it isn’t necessarily horizontal — it just looked it to me because each piece got progressively longer (the height is a bit less significant looking because, by coincidence, each piece is about the same height). That just made it a bit more confusing to decipher.
If I were going to make the same graph, I’d suggest doing it this way:

This gives 1 clear advantage over the radar graphs — you can count seasons with over 6 WAR (did he have one great season? Did he have several very good seasons that look as big as one great season?). It also lets you use the horizontal area more naturally, since the WAR is measured horizontally. You can just add up the parts over/under the line and compare area to get an idea. But I really think the strength of the radar graph is that each ring contains the better rings within it. Once you separate them, it makes the message muddy — why arbitrarily cut off seasons at 3 WAR?
This took me a lot longer to do than I thought…
My Work: Henkakyuu
by jmaciel on Dec 22, 2010 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Great work, jmaciel
I really, really, really like that second graph. Also works well to have the WAR/WAE/WAM in columns so we can just total it at the bottom. Great stuff.
On Twitter: @baseballtwit
Thank you!
I started just trying to answer Sky’s question, and it popped out in the process. What can you do?
And anyway, credit has to go to you, jinaz, and sky — this is just the combination of all three into a simple comparison. Nothing original about it really, just another way to look at the same thing.
My Work: Henkakyuu
Very effective.
See Data Differently: Beyond the Box Score | @justinbopp
Create. Coach. Conquer! Two Out Rally, Baseball MMORPG | Facebook
by Justin Bopp on Dec 22, 2010 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
I like your first one a whole lot
I think you should make the shading’s a little stronger though.
Skip Schumaker is a scapegoat
by vivaelpujols on Dec 22, 2010 8:07 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I think that's getting too washed out now
I prefer the first one. It jumps out at you. Great job with these, love the idea.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Trammell: Wow.

My dad’s favorite player as a kid was Kaline. His dad’s was Greenberg. His dad’s was Crawford. Tram was mine, so I am incapable of making a reasonable case for why he should be in the Hall of Fame that anyone would listen to. Thank you, though, for giving me something better than BR’s Gray Ink.
Getting upset over a sporting event seems kind of ridiculous, until you remember that the people who get upset over sports have a remarkable ability to not get upset over the position of the toilet seat, the state of the bed, or the current location of a pair of underwear.
The only major difference between Trammell and Larkin that I see...
…is that Larkin won an MVP, while Trammell only “should have won”an MVP.
Well, that and Trammell’s best year was probably better than Larkin’s best year.
I think both should be in. Larkin may not get in this year, but with 50% votes last year he is well on his way to get in at some point. Trammell isn’t looking good, even though he stays on the ballot year after year. Maybe he can piggyback as Larkin gains steam? I dunno.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Personally I like seeing it by age
If you look at the fangraphs WAR Graphs, you get a bunch of different views:
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?playerid2=1013157&playerid3=1008559&playerid4=1406&playerid5=1000434

I really like seeing it by age, because it gives you a better idea of the “arc” of someone’s career. The “nth best seasons” works great until you do something like compare Aaron to Bonds:
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?playerid2=1109&playerid3=1000001&playerid4=&playerid5=
If you do it by nth best season, you get this:

It doesn’t even look close. It looks like Bonds just had a much higher peak performance than Aaron, and that’s the big difference.
If you do it by age, you get this:

Now you can see that they were pretty-much dead even until the age of 35, when Aaron kept at the same pace, and suddenly Bonds becomes better than he was in his prime (higher slope).
Personal opinion, your mileage may vary, and all that jazz.
My Work: Henkakyuu
by jmaciel on Dec 22, 2010 4:18 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
These are great
These graphs are a highlight of HOF season. I agree that it is a good starting point. It immediately groups those who 1) are well above the HOF line, 2) borderline cases, and 3) those who clearly fall short.
Blyleven and Bagwell fit into the first category, and there is no reason I can see to exclude them.
Of the borderline guys, the PED factor is significant for me for McGwire, Palmeiro, and Brown (if I recall, he too was on “the list”). Yes, they’re the unlucky ones who got caught, but to me it puts their performance under serious question (and I know I may be in the minority among saber-types on this issue).
Among other borderline cases, I like the middle infielders (Larkin, Alomar, Trammell), as well as Raines. I’m less sold on Walker, Martinez, and Olerud. I know that WAR likes Walker and Martinez, but they don’t stand out enough to me and for long enough among other hitters in their era. I’d probably feel comfortable with a 6 person ballot.
I'd forgotten about Brown being named to the Mitchell report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Brown_(right-handed_pitcher)#Mitchell_Report
Still not an admission/conviction, but there’s some evidence to support the claims in his case.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Nice graphs!
My HOF’ers from this would be the 10 you mentioned.
Bert Blyleven
Jeff Bagwell
Kevin Brown
Barry Larkin
Alan Trammell
Edgar Martinez
Roberto Alomar
Mark McGwire
Tim Raines
Larry Walker
I’m surprised Morris or Lee seem to not make the cut. I would definitely not be mad if they got in. They’re border line for me.
"Don't give up, don't ever give up."
Lou Whitaker
has his 15 years run out? Is that why he’s not on the ballot? He belongs in as much as any position player who isn’t in.
I’m having trouble justifying Kevin Brown and I’m struggling with Edgar Martinez as well despite the fact that I believe Larry Walker belongs in and Martinez’s and Walker’s WAR totals are equal. I guess that means Martinez belongs in as well.
I think I remember hearing he came up with the veteran's committee this year, but I'm not positive.
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Nope... he's yet to hit the Vet's ballot.
And when he does, I’m gonna go all Simmons on his case.
On Twitter: @baseballtwit
You're too kind Justin
and I won’t claim people are idiots for thinking that he should be in.
Skip Schumaker is a scapegoat
Well...
Some of the arguments are idiotic. Doesn’t mean that everyone who think he’s a hall of famer is one. :)
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Career 105 ERA+!
Skip Schumaker is a scapegoat
by vivaelpujols on Dec 23, 2010 12:06 AM EST up reply actions








































