SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 26, 2015 18:43:39 GMT -5
Every Hall of Fame election takes on its own personality and characteristics. For us, last year's election was a celebration of the greatest P in our team's history and possibly the greatest SP in BB history for prime dominance. The drama in the 2016 race is taking place down ballot. Junior Griffey is a sure thing at the top of the ballot and Piazza is likely to be giving an induction speech too. But now that the ballot has cleared out somewhat in the last two elections, I'm eager to see the gains players like Bagwell, Raines and Mussina can make to possibly put themselves in position for election down the line. Of course, the guy I'm most interested in is Curt Schilling. A guy named Ryan Thibs is at it again, doing a great job tallying up the votes of writers who publicly disclose their HOF ballots ( 1drv.ms/1Nc8VtF) and his numbers should be encouraging for those of us who want to see Schilling get in the HOF, windbag persona and bigoted comments against Muslims notwithstanding. Schill got 39.2 percent of total vote last year and 45.3 percent of the vote on the disclosed ballots. (Players tend to fare better on the publicly disclosed ballots than on the non-disclosed ballots.) This year, he's on 63 - or 60.6 percent - of the of the 104 ballots disclosed so far, so you can see the sizable gain. Also, of the five first-time voters who have disclosed their ballots, four voted for Schill, so that's encouraging in a modest way, too. I think Schilling has to climb into the 53 to 56 percent range this year to establish himself as a likely electee in some future year and he looks like he's going to do that. I'm not fond of the guy. After his jingoistic, xenophobic and offensive comments about Muslims I no longer regard him as just an amusing eccentric and glory-hound. He's moved to full-fledged douche status in my book. But his HOF case is there. His 127 ERA-plus would place him around 26th out of the 76 HOF P's, tied with Tom Seaver, Bob Gibson and Stan Coveleski. His 80.7 career b-ref WAR would make him 24th best on the list of HOF P's, just behind Gibson and ahead of Glavine. Schilling is also the only P in history with 3,000 Ks who has been eligible for the HOF and not elected (except for Clemens, who we all know is a special case.) Take a look at the Thibs spreadsheet. It's very cool and useful.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 26, 2015 19:21:49 GMT -5
Cool stuff. Looks like Bagwell will be incredibly close, and Raines will fall 10 to 15 votes short, with a very good shot of making it in his final year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 26, 2015 20:15:11 GMT -5
I really think Mike Mussina needs more love. Looks like he's heading in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 26, 2015 20:24:48 GMT -5
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 27, 2015 17:10:02 GMT -5
Curt's loony toon comments appear to be costing him votes. He's gained a net of only four votes from repeat voters. The only others to gain that few are steroid guys. Sosa is plus-three and Sheffield and McGwire are each plus four. In the podcast, Thibs is asked about this and makes it clear that he thinks the bigoted comments are the reason. I tried to look up columns written by the six voters who dropped Schilling (10 added him, giving him the net of plus four) and found only one. The one I found, Randy Miller of NJ.com ( www.nj.com/phillies/index.ssf/2015/12/baseball_hall_of_fame_how_i_filled_out_my_2016_bal.html#28), doesn't mention the comments but says that character is an issue for him. Former teammates don't speak kindly of Schilling, he says. He also says that he "overlooked" some of Schilling's regular season stats. Apparently, he just realized that Schilling won only 216 games and didn't have a ton of dominant seasons. Can somebody please buy Mr. Miller a computer and point him to Baseball Reference? For a guy with plenty of experience dealing with the media and social media in particular, Schilling made an incredibly stupid mistake. Here's a guy who needs money and HOF votes, so what does he do? He pops off and says dopey things that cost him money (the ESPN suspension) and HOF votes. It'll be interesting to see whether he's able to gain back some of those votes in future years. He's sort of a borderline case, so once he gets closer to 75 percent a few votes could make the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 29, 2015 16:08:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 29, 2015 17:08:36 GMT -5
I was listening to MLB radio a few days ago, and they mentioned that it was more on the order of 90 voters who'd been removed. That's still substantial and it will change the demographics as you mention. After the silliness of the last few years, it might start to turn the voting around. With players of the calibre of Raines and Edgar Martinez having been largely ignored, it's been tough to take seriously.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 29, 2015 17:13:58 GMT -5
I saw Larry Brooks was added. When did he start covering baseball? He was like the Nick Cafardo of hockey in NY.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 2, 2016 14:40:38 GMT -5
Here's an incredible take on Tim Raines and his over-the-top case for the Hall that will leave you in awe of his skills. It's almost impossible to understand the voters and where they've been coming from, at this point. They have really discredited the entire process through their actions. Do they understand that? The idea that 1) he played in Montreal and that 2) Henderson played at the same time and that those two facts led to this neglect is put forward as a big reason why he's down to his last two years. If so, they should just have sent everybody home and closed up shop.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Jan 3, 2016 9:49:26 GMT -5
I see it being Griffey, Jr., and Bagwell going in possibly being joined by Raines and/or Piazza. I have always viewed Schill as a fringe candidate for the Hall. That being said I don't think a case can or should be made against him based on things he has either said or done in his private life. They put Ty Cobb in and he was far worse in that regard than Schill will ever be.
Edgar Martinez deserves to be in but with the voters repeatedly showing a bias against DHs and closers it might be a few years still for him. It would be ironic if Papi goes in before Edgar having won an award named after Martinez multiple times. Actually, despite his amazing career numbers and accomplishments I don't think David is a lock for a first ballot election. It might take 4 or 5 attempts before he is elected (again taking into account the anti-DH bias of the Hall voters).
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 3, 2016 10:15:22 GMT -5
I see it being Griffey, Jr., and Bagwell going in possibly being joined by Raines and/or Piazza. I have always viewed Schill as a fringe candidate for the Hall. That being said I don't think a case can or should be made against him based on things he has either said or done in his private life. They put Ty Cobb in and he was far worse in that regard than Schill will ever be.
Edgar Martinez deserves to be in but with the voters repeatedly showing a bias against DHs and closers it might be a few years still for him. It would be ironic if Papi goes in before Edgar having won an award named after Martinez multiple times. Actually, despite his amazing career numbers and accomplishments I don't think David is a lock for a first ballot election. It might take 4 or 5 attempts before he is elected (again taking into account the anti-DH bias of the Hall voters). The 2003 positive on a drug test will be a bigger obstacle for Papi to overcome than the DH bias. FWIW, I think Schilling has a strong case for the HOF. His K/BB ratios were amazing and his numbers pretty strong for the era he pitched in. He doesn't have the counting victory stats as he's in the low 200s but that shouldn't be a deterrent - it's not like Pedro and a number of other HOFers didn't get in because they were in the 200 - 225 win range. The other strike is that Schilling doesn't have a Cy Young on his resume. However, he does have his October performances on everybody's memories, and they were huge. I think Schilling gets in once he starts reaching the end of his 10 years of eligibility (or is he grandfathered at 15?). I also believe Edgar Martinez will get into the HOF eventually, before Big Papi. It will help when the dinosaurs stop voting and those who know what OBP means, and have never seen a game prior to the implementation of the DH rule, will see the clear picture of amazingly great Edgar Martinez was as a hitter. I do think Papi will be voted into the HOF eventually but it might not be until 2030 or so.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 3, 2016 13:14:31 GMT -5
I've done a good deal of sabermetric work on this, trying to find the objective standard of career greatness that has been defined by HOF voters.
Most of you are probably familiar with JAWS, the system which adds career WAR to the total WAR of a player's best 7 seasons ("WAR7") to determine Hall Worthiness. But of course, that has two arbitrary assumptions. Why 7 years? And why equal weights?
So I tried to find a formula as simple which did a significantly better job than JAWS for predicting which position players from modern ball, but before the expansion era, were in versus out. Players from 1900-1960 have been very thoroughly looked at. I think it's fair to say that if every single player from that era above a certain standard of career greatness is in the Hall, there's no rationale at all for excluding a post-expansion player who is above that standard (and didn't seem to need PED's to cross the line).
It turns out that WAR5 + 1/2 career WAR does a noticeably better job of predicting who's in the Hall than JAWS. (I used the average of bWAR and fWAR for this.) In other words, JAWS' peak is rather too long but greatly undervalued. Voters have not been doubling a player's seven best years in their minds; they've been tripling their five best. My metric (HW, Hall Worthiness) gets in Ralph Kiner and Hack Wilson, who in the JAWS list are surrounded by guys who aren't in.
I've done less work with pitchers, but the same formula seems best. Note that Pedro is way higher up the list in HW than JAWS. It really passes the smell test.
There are numerous adjustments you want to make to HW:
1) Adjustments for length of schedule. Pre-expansion players need to have HW multiplied by 162/154 if compared with post-expansion ones. 2) An adjustment for catchers, who have never played as many games or accumulated as much WAR relative to others. 3) Adjustments for time missed because of war service or strike seasons, including those which seem likely to have been peak seasons. 4) Adjustments for the weaker quality of play during WWII. 5a) An adjustment for the increased size of the MLB player pool with each expansion. Which is really a standard-deviation of performance adjustment. It's not just that it's arguably unfair to still limit the HOF standard to a perennial best player in his league at his position now that there are almost twice as many candidates (at both the MLB and U.S. and world population level); it's that with more candidates, there is less variance in WAR. 5b) Arguably, an adjustment for the increases in the size of the talent pool post-integration and in the Latino international era.
For the purposes of this post, though, we can skip everything but 1 and 4. That puts the recent guys on the same footing as the classic guys. Anyone good enough to meet the objective standard without 2, 3 or 5a is just in even more easily with them.
(I do have what I think are OK versions of 2 through 4 and a rough version of 5a. The thing is, though, I'm reluctant to finish the whole project because I also have a list of improvements for WAR itself, beginning with a close look at the rival methodologies for estimating defensive performance from basic PO, A, E stats, but also including better park adjustments, quality of opposition adjustments (in the old days, rotations were not nearly as strict, and managers would often match up their better pitchers against better opponents), a re-think of positional adjustments, inclusion of a good chunk of clutch performance differential, and a redefinition of replacement level.)
So, it turns out that (multiplied by 162/154 to get the modern standard), every single player from 1900 to 1960 with HW above 64 or 65 is in the Hall. Furthermore, 9 of the next 11 are in (> 58.6), and one of the exceptions is Bob Johnson, who's below that line with a WWII adjustment.
So here's the list of contemporary eligible players with HW > 58.6.
Barry Bonds 137.1 Ken Griffey 81.4 Jeff Bagwell 77.5 Larry Walker 69.0 Bobby Grich 68.8 Alan Trammell 66.5 Tim Raines 66.4 Dick Allen 66.3 Graig Nettles 65.6 Mike Piazza 65.3 + catcher, c. 12.5 Rafael Palmeiro 65.3 Edgar Martinez 65.0 Mark McGwire 64.6 [Sherry Magee 64.0] Kenny Lofton 63.8 Jim Edmonds 63.8 Lou Whitaker 63.4 Sammy Sosa 63.3 Buddy Bell 62.5 Ken Boyer 62.3 Sal Bando 61.8 Gary Sheffield 61.4 Reggie Smith 61.4 Keith Hernandez 61.2 Dwight Evans 61.0 (gains with strike adjustment; 2.5 to 3?) John Olerud 60.2 Bobby Bonds 59.5 Darrell Evans 59.3 Jim Wynn 59.2 Willie Randolph 58.8 That the old Veteran's Committee never pegged Magee seems insane. Read his SABR bio; he should obviously be in.
Now, 24 of the 32 players from 54 to 65 are in
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jan 3, 2016 21:54:22 GMT -5
Thanks for great work as always Eric. I remember Grich and Whitaker as worthy candidates, and am surprised about Nettles being that above Evans. I wonder what your opinion would be in this context about a post I made over a year ago. I'd noticed that Yaz (who was my favorite player) seemed over-rewarded by WAR by having certainly a great career, but by augmenting his WAR numbers by putting in many "extra" years which were ok to solid, but not elite. Wheras a player who is brilliant at the highest level- say a Koufax- would be penalized. WAR seems a good metric for player value, but at the elite HOF level seems to over-reward those who "show up" for extra long, but not elite service. Opinions?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 5, 2016 0:48:45 GMT -5
Thanks for great work as always Eric. I remember Grich and Whitaker as worthy candidates, and am surprised about Nettles being that above Evans. I wonder what your opinion would be in this context about a post I made over a year ago. I'd noticed that Yaz (who was my favorite player) seemed over-rewarded by WAR by having certainly a great career, but by augmenting his WAR numbers by putting in many "extra" years which were ok to solid, but not elite. Wheras a player who is brilliant at the highest level- say a Koufax- would be penalized. WAR seems a good metric for player value, but at the elite HOF level seems to over-reward those who "show up" for extra long, but not elite service. Opinions? Taking half of career WAR and adding it to the WAR of the five best seasons seems to strike a very good balance. IOW, Hall worthiness is 2/3 peak value plus 1/3 career value. You can't get into the Hall just by being a good player who aged really well. You can get in by being a great player with a short career. Yaz? Yaz is underrated, because he put up his best years when offense was at a historic low, and because he played great defense at a position where it goes relatively unnoticed. Here are the top 21 all-time best position players (based on total WAR, 5 best seasons, average of fWAR and bWAR). Not adjusted for shorter schedule pre-expansion, but the adjustments for increased talent pool would be even bigger. Rnk Name aW5 1 Babe Ruth HOF 64.9 2 Barry Bonds *55.5 3 Rogers Hornsby HOF 54.8 4 Ted Williams HOF 53.2 5 Willie Mays HOF 52.9 6 Ty Cobb HOF 52.1 7 Mickey Mantle HOF 51.6 8 Lou Gehrig HOF 51.3 9 Honus Wagner HOF 50.0 10 Stan Musial HOF 47.9 11 Joe Morgan HOF 47.5 12 Alex Rodriguez 47.1 13 Eddie Collins HOF 46.9 14 Tris Speaker HOF 45.9 15 Jimmie Foxx HOF 45.7 16 Nap Lajoie HOF 44.4 17 Albert Pujols 43.8 18 Rickey Henderson HOF 43.6 19 Mike Schmidt HOF 43.4 20 Carl Yastrzemski HOF 42.9 21 Cal Ripken HOF 42.9 I have him 18th in my fully-adjusted Hall Worthiness metric. Mike Trout, BTW, is looking to enter that list at #14 with another typical season. At ages 20 through 24. Everyone on that list had at least one peak season at age 30 or later, but 4: Mantle, 23 to 26, 29 Pujols, 23, 26 to 29 Collins, 22, 23, 26 to 28 Foxx, 21, 24 to 27 ARod has the only age 20 peak season among the above, Rickey has the other age 21. I suspect that Teddy Ballgame might have done 22 though 26 if it weren't for the war, and probably would have passed Hornsby for the second highest legitimate peak.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 5, 2016 1:12:40 GMT -5
Right now, based on last year's vote percentages in ballots announced beforehand versus afterwards or not at all, Bagwell looks to fall 6 votes short and Raines 31. But a lot of clueless folks were reportedly trimmed from the voter list, and some enlightened people added. I think that might well be enough to get Bagwell in, but Raines may have to wait until his last year of eligibility. That's pathetic. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 5, 2016 10:59:33 GMT -5
According to the Ryan Thibs spreadsheet, Mussina and Edgar Martinez are looking like the big gainers here. So voters deserve some credit for that. Raines looks like he might really get screwed by the shortened eligibility period. He's gaining a ton of votes and looks like he'll get easily into the 60% range. And since nobody is going to get in from the Veteran's Committee ever again apparently, that really stinks.
Eric, one question - was Todd Helton in your study or was his career too late for him to be considered a contemporary? I did a study a few years back that had him fifth among 1B of his era - behind Thomas, Bagwell, Thome, and Palmeiro (in that order) but ahead of McGwire, Giambi, McGriff, and Olerud. I have him as a Hall of Famer but I think it's more likely he gets bounced from the ballot.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jan 5, 2016 11:25:18 GMT -5
A good write-up on how we view Piazza's defense: fivethirtyeight.com/features/mike-piazza-was-more-than-a-big-bat/While I barely ever saw him play (NL + youth) I recall a national TV announcer mentioning that pitchers wanted Piazza to get his hits in early so that he wasn't distracted behind the plate. The more I think about it, this was probably hot air, but that one comment has long colored my view of him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 5, 2016 20:15:40 GMT -5
According to the Ryan Thibs spreadsheet, Mussina and Edgar Martinez are looking like the big gainers here. So voters deserve some credit for that. Raines looks like he might really get screwed by the shortened eligibility period. He's gaining a ton of votes and looks like he'll get easily into the 60% range. And since nobody is going to get in from the Veteran's Committee ever again apparently, that really stinks. Eric, one question - was Todd Helton in your study or was his career too late for him to be considered a contemporary? I did a study a few years back that had him fifth among 1B of his era - behind Thomas, Bagwell, Thome, and Palmeiro (in that order) but ahead of McGwire, Giambi, McGriff, and Olerud. I have him as a Hall of Famer but I think it's more likely he gets bounced from the ballot. I didn't include the players who aren't eligible yet. Here are the ones who are coming up, or who are active and have already crossed the line: Name HW Year Alex Rodriguez 105.3 Act Albert Pujols 91.5 Act Chipper Jones 77.6 2018 Adrian Beltre 75.2 Act Chase Utley 69.5 Act Scott Rolen 68.6 2018 Andruw Jones 68.4 2018 Derek Jeter 67.6 2020 Jim Thome 66.5 2018 Miguel Cabrera 66.0 Act Carlos Beltran 65.7 Act Todd Helton 65.3 2019 Ivan Rodriguez 64.9 2017 Manny Ramirez 64.0 2017 Vlad Guerrero 60.8 2017 Ichiro Suzuki 60.4 Act Bobby Abreu 60.4 2018 David Wright 59.2 Act Jason Giambi 59.1 2020
It'll be "fun" seeing how Jeter's initial vote total compares to Beltre, Utley, Rolen, and Andruw Jones. Papi is right at the line with a good 2016 and, more importantly, a big correction to the positional adjustment for DH.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 5, 2016 21:23:25 GMT -5
It appears that the voters who have made their ballots public in the last three days or so are stingier than those who reported earlier.
Piazza had been up over 90 percent and is now down to 86. Schilling was over 60 percent and is down to 58. Bagwell is hanging tough at 79.5.
It looks like Piazza is in while Bagwell and Raines (77.8 percent at the moment) are setting themselves up for next year. Schilling will need another four years or so of gains.
If I recall correctly, I believe ESPN will post the ballots of all its voters tomorrow morning. I think there are about 20 or 30 of them, so that's something to look for.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 5, 2016 22:23:24 GMT -5
It's almost always the case that those who reveal their ballots earlier are more "new school" and those who do not reveal their ballots until the last minute or not at all are more "old school".
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jan 6, 2016 1:27:34 GMT -5
It appears that the voters who have made their ballots public in the last three days or so are stingier than those who reported earlier. Piazza had been up over 90 percent and is now down to 86. Schilling was over 60 percent and is down to 58. Bagwell is hanging tough at 79.5. It looks like Piazza is in while Bagwell and Raines (77.8 percent at the moment) are setting themselves up for next year. Schilling will need another four years or so of gains. If I recall correctly, I believe ESPN will post the ballots of all its voters tomorrow morning. I think there are about 20 or 30 of them, so that's something to look for. Bagwell has gained several more new votes than Raines up to this point, which means he's likely to fall less in the final voting. Raines has a great chance next year, Bagwell could be down to the wire this year. Projections have him somewhere between 68 and 78%. Larry Walker is still the most-snubbed HOF candidate. The weird thing is that, despite being an obvious stat-friendly candidate, his vote totals go up with the non-public votes, while basically everybody else except Lee Smith goes down. He seems so obviously at least in the Edgar Martinez tier to me (almost as good as a career hitter as Edgar, much more defensive value) but never gets any love. Is it just Coors over-adjustment? Steroid suspicions?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 6, 2016 12:57:54 GMT -5
It's almost always the case that those who reveal their ballots earlier are more "new school" and those who do not reveal their ballots until the last minute or not at all are more "old school". Tibbs posted a graph that shows guys like Bagwell and Raines trending down over time, which lends credence to this.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 6, 2016 13:54:15 GMT -5
It'll be "fun" seeing how Jeter's initial vote total compares to Beltre, Utley, Rolen, and Andruw Jones. Indeed. Jones is a particularly interesting case because he's a player who peaked quite early, something else the voters seemed to be predisposed against. I don't think we should hold it against Jeter, though, that the voters have suddenly thrown a much higher standard than they previously did. He's a very clearly qualified Hall of Famer. Larry Walker is still the most-snubbed HOF candidate. The weird thing is that, despite being an obvious stat-friendly candidate, his vote totals go up with the non-public votes, while basically everybody else except Lee Smith goes down. He seems so obviously at least in the Edgar Martinez tier to me (almost as good as a career hitter as Edgar, much more defensive value) but never gets any love. Is it just Coors over-adjustment? Steroid suspicions? That is sort of odd about Walker doing better in the private votes. That may bode well for him to pick up more votes once the ballot clears out a tad. I'd guess that those willing to put their votes out there for scrutiny may be willing to give him candidacy a longer look.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 6, 2016 15:48:20 GMT -5
It'll be "fun" seeing how Jeter's initial vote total compares to Beltre, Utley, Rolen, and Andruw Jones. Indeed. Jones is a particularly interesting case because he's a player who peaked quite early, something else the voters seemed to be predisposed against. I don't think we should hold it against Jeter, though, that the voters have suddenly thrown a much higher standard than they previously did. He's a very clearly qualified Hall of Famer. Oh, I have no question about Jeter's HOF credentials. They're immaculate. I'm not committed in advance to attending his induction the way I am for Rivera (my favorite all-time opponent, in any sport), but he completely deserves the honor. But if you asked every baseball fan in America, "based just on regular-season performance, which of the following five players has the least strong case for the Hall of Fame: Adrian Beltre, Derek Jeter, Andruw Jones, Scott Rolen, or Chase Utley," I can imagine the number of people saying Jeter being in the single digits. In case folks have missed it, we're 2 hr 15 minutes from the announcement. The MLB Network has apparently already started their coverage. Edit: re the bias against peaking early, great call. I've often said that if Dwight Gooden had had his career backwards, he'd be in the Hall. And it's because it's simply not the job of sportswriters to evaluate how good baseball players are. Their job is is to help sell newspapers by being enoyable to read. And that means that their job is largely to create interesting narratives. A guy who establishes his incontrovertible HOW worthiness by age 28 but compiles less than 2 WAR past the age of 30, while playing 435 games for four different clubs in five years -- he's ceased to become an interesting story. Contrast Papi this year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 6, 2016 18:38:46 GMT -5
Sad that Jim Edmonds didn't get the 5% necessary to stay on the ballot-- call it Dwight Evans (or Kenny Lofton) syndrome. Billy Wagner got four times as many votes as he did and Nomar only got three fewer votes.
Also, the two David Eckstein votes made me laugh.
|
|
|