You are viewing the chat in desktop mode. Click here to switch to mobile view.
X
Jay Jaffe FanGraphs Chat - 1/7/22
powered byJotCast
Prev Page View Full Chat
Bob Caruthers
3:25
Thanks for the chat, Jay! While no two committees are the same of course, it should perhaps be noted that the same committee that overwhelmingly voted for Bud Selig for the Hall, is the one that (on the same ballot) gave nearly zero support to prominent illegal PEDer Mark McGwire. Isn't it possible that the peers of Bonds/Clemens will see them the same way that committee saw McGwire, i.e., an unethical scumbag wholly undeserving of enshrinement?
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:25
yes, especially because the Hall is likely to have some inkling of where potential voters stand when selecting them for the committee.
Farhandrew Zaidman
3:25
If Kershaw retires tomorrow, he's in the hall on the first ballot, yeah? (Side note I think that's a real possibility but it's pure conjecture at this point).
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:28
Yes, I think so. He's a better candidate than Roy Halladay, totals of wins and no-hitters aside, and I was fully in favor of Halladay's election even putting aside the grim circumstances
Farhandrew Zaidman
3:28
Hi Jay! I asked Dan the same question yesterday and I'm interested to see if you have a different response. Would you rather field a team of players who ~each~ have 60 bats and 45 gloves, or 45 bats and 60 gloves?
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:28
60 bats, and I'm going to invest in some high-strikeout pitchers.
Bob Caruthers
3:29
For Joey Votto's sake, I hope we don't look more closely at postseason stats when considering HOF candidacies. An isolated slugging of zero is a real turn-off. (Is Votto going to make it, if his career ended today, Jay?)
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:30
Votto cleared the 2,000 hit mark and the JAWS standard in close proximity last summer. As I noted around the time (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/joey-vottos-gotten-his-groove-back/), the only players outside the Hall who meet both criteria and are currently eligible for election (five years retired, in other words, and not on the ineligible list) are Bonds, Dahlen, Rafael Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, and Scott Rolen. Three PED-linked guys, an ancient guy, and a 2023 or '24 honoree.
Dan
3:30
If I read you hall of Fame articles blast year how much is new? Is the new stuff all at the end?
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:31
Mostly at the end of the intro and the article — updating the stuff about the voting outlook — but occasionally I've come across a quote or a video or something else worth adding.
DavidB
3:32
With what's happening with Aaron Rodgers, should it be a consideration for HoF voting if we find out a current player lied about being vaccinated? I personally would find that to be a big factor under the character clause. It's arguably worse than steroids or all the dumb stuff Schilling does.
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:37
Eh, it certainly wouldn't be a point in the guy's favor but I'd need more context than just knowing his status. Unvaxed COVID+ guy causes an outbreak in his clubhouse that leads to their missing the playoffs? Proselytizing about COVID being a hoax and spreading disinformation about vaccines? I think it would take something at that threshold for me to consider it a factor.
Mike
3:37
Would you have voted for Nathan if he didn't share the ballot with Wagner? Personally, I think the stats are way too similar to not vote for both him and Wagner
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:39
If Wagner's not on the ballot because he's been elected, that increases the likelihood I'd vote for Nathan because he'd be the top eligible reliever outside the Hall AND there's a greater likelihood I have space for him. But I already DID vote for him, so you're preaching to the choir.
Ben
3:39
Regarding postseason stats, I agree that players should get extra credit for that, but does anyone really think that Ted Williams' .533 postseason OPS or Gaylord Perry's .614 postseason ERA disqualifies them?
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:40
No, but those guys have milestones and JAWS and other stuff in their favor, and I think the person above who is arguing against Nathan or Wagner is suggesting that if they're a fringe candidate then lousy postseason work should rule them out
Jadon
3:40
Do you think Adrian Beltre is a lock for first ballot once he is nominated? I don't see how he isn't considering how long he played and how great he was in the field (debatably top 3 defender OAT) and at the plate.
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:41
3166 hits, 477 homers, 93.5 WAR. He's not quite at the "cut him in half and you'd have two Hall of Famers" point but he's closer to that than he is to being a borderline guy.
Bob Caruthers
3:41
Thanks for the chat, Jay. How do you feel re your JAWs system of HOF worthiness versus the Bill James Quartet of barometers? By the B-WAR yardstick (and thus also JAWS) Rick Reuschel is a pretty clear HOFer and Lou Brock isn't remotely close. But by Bill James and the voters, the exact opposite is true. Thoughts?
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:46
JAWS was created i part because I felt that that the high scoring rates  of the Wild Card era made James' Hall of Fame Monitor and other Hall-related metrics somewhat obsolete, especially given that WARP and WAR produced much better measures of defense than anyone was using before. I've never used Similarity Scores for HOF stuff since coming up with JAWS and can't make a case why anyone should outside of Eric Chalek with his Negro Leagues MLEs.

Certainly there are players that are in the Hall that don't fare well in JAWS, such as Brock, and it's worth understanding and appreciating why they're in — postseason, records and historical importance are all worth considering in a Hall of Fame argument.
Dusty
3:47
My point certainly wasn't that Nathan and Wagner's postseasons disqualify them.  My point was that relievers in particular have such low totals value wise, they really shouldn't have that dismal a performance in the admittedly low postseason innings they pitched.  I'd say Hudson, Buehrle  and Pettitte are all more deserving.
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:48
Fair enough. I disagree with you because to me that trio doesn't stand out enough among the dozens and dozens of very good starters outside the Hall but at least that's a more fleshed out and coherent argument.
Guest
3:48
Markakis comes back to MLB and plays another five seasons and gets to 3000 hits. Is he a HOFer?
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:49
if space aliens keep his head in a jar for 3,000 years and put it atop a robot that allows him to collect his 3,000th hit, no, my head-in-a-jar still won't be voting for him.
Quarantino Martinez
3:49
Do see any Hall hope for Fernando Valenzuela? I know it was a short peak and long decline, but his legacy seems important. Been thinking about him during the Ortiz debate (even though Ortiz's numbers are obviously much better) as a guy with a borderline case but outsize impact to push him over.
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:50
no, but a Buck O'Neil award based on his playing and broadcasting days seems attainable
Hugh Duffy
3:50
Like me! I don't fare well in JAWS, but I did pretty well for the 1890s. I got a lot of records, and I think that means something.
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:51
it's worth remembering that many of the 19th century guys didn't play 154-game schedules, too.
3:53
Ok folks, I should have quit at the head-in-the-jar one to leave things on an appropriately silly note, but it's time for this chat to end. thank you all so much for showing up — like the last one, this was a lot of fun to do, and it's boosted my spirits a bit. Please do what you can to keep yourself and your loved ones safe, and let's do this again real soon.
Connecting…