Maddux, Glavine, Thomas elected to HOF

Dback Jon

Doing it My Way
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
84,161
Reaction score
44,443
Location
South Scottsdale
Official Results:

3 elected:

Maddux; Glavine; Thomas.

Biggio got 74.8%.

Piazza, 62%; Morris 61.5%.

Bagwell about 54%.

Rafael Palmiero gets less than 5% and he's off the ballot.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Posts
10,652
Reaction score
7,693
Location
Chandler
Its a shame that Maddux wasn't unanimous. What were the other 16 voters thinking? 4 Cy Youngs in a row & 18 Gold Gloves. No one has ever come close to that or ever will imho.
 

Azlen

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Posts
3,724
Reaction score
943
Randy Johnson is eligible next year and he won't be unanimous either but he most definitely should be.
 

AZ Native

Living is Easy with Eyes Closed
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Posts
16,160
Reaction score
8,780
Location
Cave Creek
Yeah, it's hard to dispute his career stats. But some don't "like" him.
 

coyoteshockeyfan

Fool In The Rain
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Posts
8,942
Reaction score
405
1. Outstanding class this year with Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas. Great to see after nobody was elected last year. Of course, my favorite Maddux memory is him getting pummeled for eight runs in four innings during the 2001 NLCS hah. 2015 has absolute locks Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez plus the likes of Smoltz and Sheffield.

2. Yes, it's stupid that nobody has ever been unanimously voted into the HOF. However, this is an overblown criticism and some people (elsewhere, not here) seem to get way too worked up about it. I don't think there's any defensible logic as to why 16 guys did not vote Maddux for inclusion (bizarrely we know that there was one submitted blank ballot, and another voted only for Jack Morris), but nevertheless getting 97% support is incredible. In what other facet of our society is that even possible? You're not going to find very many films or albums that 97% are going to say are all time greats, so to me this is something about Maddux's career to be lauded.

3. It's strange to see that Curt Schilling's candidacy plummeted. He favors extremely well in both the classic and advances stats categories for HOF membership (except there appears to be those that think wins in a career is the only thing that matters for a pitcher). For instance, his Hall of Fame Monitor ranking (created by Bill James, it describes how likely - not how deserving - a player is to be voted in based on how voters have previously valued certain accomplishments) puts him as basically a lock. Nevertheless, he went from 38.8% last year in his first attempt to 29.2% this year. Presumably, some dropped him in order to make room on their ballot for his two better contemporaries that became eligible, but that would mean that quite a few members had ten players on their ballot above Schilling (ten is the max, about half of the voters select the max) which in my opinion is a mistake. We'll see what happens next year when he's listed along with his prolific teammates.

4. I guess we should have expected that the individual who gave his ballot to Deadspin would have been loudmouthed fool Dan Le Batard. Some of his criticism is warranted, but his whinefest over the mistreatment by the voters towards the poor steroid users? Give me a break.
 
Last edited:

BC867

Long time Phoenician!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
17,827
Reaction score
1,709
Location
NE Phoenix
Ditto for Schilling.
RJ was a loner. Schilling (our own Shadow Mountain HS grad) spoke his mind. Both were true to their personalities.

From both ends of the personality spectrum, 1 and 1a did not have it in their natures to reach out to people. That's life!

Johnson, of course, is a lock for the HOF, but not close to unanimous. Schilling's stats -- marginal.
 

BC867

Long time Phoenician!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
17,827
Reaction score
1,709
Location
NE Phoenix
Schilling's stats are hardly marginal.
As a starting Pitcher, he was good. But for Hall of Fame consideration (the best of the best), I think they average out to marginal.

He was a starting Pitcher for eighteen years. During that period, he won 20 games or more three times (never with Philly, twice with the D'backs and once with the Red Sox). But he finished two games over .500 or worse eight times.

His two claims-to-fame are the tons of HR's he gave up, but alot with the bases empty . . . and the bloody sock incident.

A team retiring a player's number is one thing. Selection into the Hall of Fame should be . . . selective!
 

coyoteshockeyfan

Fool In The Rain
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Posts
8,942
Reaction score
405
As a starting Pitcher, he was good. But for Hall of Fame consideration (the best of the best), I think they average out to marginal.

He was a starting Pitcher for eighteen years. During that period, he won 20 games or more three times (never with Philly, twice with the D'backs and once with the Red Sox). But he finished two games over .500 or worse eight times.

His two claims-to-fame are the tons of HR's he gave up, but alot with the bases empty . . . and the bloody sock incident.

A team retiring a player's number is one thing. Selection into the Hall of Fame should be . . . selective!
Considering how poor of a metric number of wins is for determining the value of a pitcher, it's frankly telling that your argument is solely depending on it. Guess how many times Randy Johnson hit your magic 20 Wins during his 22 year career? Hint: It's the exact same number of times as with a certain player being discussed here. But we'll continue...

Using classic stats, by most accounts Schilling would be above average even as an HoFer. As mentioned earlier, the Hall of Fame Monitor test assigns points based on simple accomplishments like ERA, strikeouts, Cy Youngs, postseason performances, etc. (yes including wins) that have traditionally mattered with voters.

Hall of Fame Monitor Test

This is another Jamesian creation. It attempts to assess how likely (not how deserving) an active player is to make the Hall of Fame. It's rough scale is 100 means a good possibility and 130 is a virtual cinch. It isn't hard and fast, but it does a pretty good job.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml

Using this method, Schilling's "classic stats" score is 171, well above the 130 that makes a player a near lock (with a ton of HoFers below him). That score places him 30th out of eligible pitchers in the entirety of baseball history. Of those 29 above him, 27 are Hall of Famers. The only oddity is a guy who had the misfortune of playing during the Rutherford Hayes administration. The other guy is Roger Clemens, and we know why he isn't in. Using any of the other metrics and you get the same story, Schilling is not a "marginal" case.

And if you want the advanced stats, well that checks out too.
http://mlb.si.com/2013/12/09/jaws-and-the-2014-hall-of-fame-ballot-curt-schilling/
 

MigratingOsprey

Thank You Paul!
Joined
Jul 20, 2003
Posts
14,053
Reaction score
7,099
Location
Goodyear
But he never had 20 wins on a Philadelphia team that averaged 72 wins a season while he was there.....................
 

BC867

Long time Phoenician!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
17,827
Reaction score
1,709
Location
NE Phoenix
OK guys. I stand corrected. Schilling is HOF material.

What about the "don't like" factor that was brought up?

RJ was larger than life and will be selected anyway.

Can Curt?
 

Matt L

formerly known as mattyboy
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
4,380
Reaction score
589
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
OK guys. I stand corrected. Schilling is HOF material.

What about the "don't like" factor that was brought up?

RJ was larger than life and will be selected anyway.

Can Curt?

I believe he will but it will take time because of how loaded the ballot has become.

Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Randy Johnson will be added next year (these guys should be first ballot). We still have Craig Biggio (who should have been voted in already) Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza who all have strong cases. Add to it Mike Mussina who does have a case (although I think Curt Schilling has a much stronger case but I am biased because I have seen Schilling pitch live a few times and I am a DBacks fan) add Larry Walker in the mix and that doesn't even touch on the two elephants in the room, Bonds and Clemens.

I predict Schilling does get into the hall but not until 2018
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
561,330
Posts
5,478,456
Members
6,337
Latest member
61_Shasta
Top