2016 HOF Debate: Jim Edmonds
Jan 01, 2016
Written by Committee Chairman 
Last year, we did our first ever debate on Notinhalloffame.com where we tackled the Hall of Fame merit of twenty-four men who are on the Hall of Fame ballot, in what was in our opinion the most loaded ballot in our lifetime.
Since it was so much fun last time, we thought we would do it again!
One thing that has not changed is the number. We will again debate twenty-four men who are on the ballot.
What has changed are the ones debating. Last year I had the pleasure of having DDT, the curator of DDT’s Pop Flies blog and D.K. of the Phillies Archivist blog. This year, Spheniscus, who has participated in past Rock and Roll discussions, will be joining me.
Chairman: Spheniscus, I have to tell you that this is the one I am most looking forward to talking about, but it is not because I am going into this with any strong opinion. Actually, it is the exact opposite, as here is a guy that I really want to explore his career and haven’t really done so before.
I give you Jim Edmonds, a four time All Star a World Series Champion with the St. Louis Cardinals but somebody that I have always regarded as an above average player, but not once really thought of as Cooperstown material, but am I wrong?
I know there are a lot of people who groan about sabremetrics but like it or not, this is going to be the litmus test that a lot of decision makers for the Hall will go by and with Edmonds, his case gets stronger. With a bWAR of 60.3, there are still ten on the ballot that are higher, but this remains a stacked lot so that really shouldn’t be held against him.
Here is what should, that 60.3, is lower by than the average HOF at that position (70.4) as his JAWS (51.4 to the 57.2 average) is also lower.
If you argue with traditional numbers, he doesn’t hit any real “magic numbers”. He is shy of 400 Home Runs, did not make 2,000 Hits, though I can argue that his career Slugging Percentage, which is over .500, should be one of those magic numbers and let’s say it is traditional. I remember that stat on the back of my old baseball cards!
What I think will happen is that Edmonds will fall victim of this group as cases can be made for ten players over Edmonds. My God, could we see him as a “one and done?”
Spheniscus: We definitely could. He is comparable to Duke Snider who is in the Hall. The rest are folks who are probably in the Hall of the Very Good. Guys like Dale Murphy (who I would have voted for), Fred Lynn, Ellis Burks and Shawn Green. And interestingly Larry Walker, who I’m sure we’ll get to later.
Although honestly, the hitting numbers don’t matter to me with him. My mental image of him is superman flying through the air to catch something he had no business getting to in the first place. And that is why I actually think that Edmonds has a chance of being one and done and still making the Hall on what I call the Mazeroski exception. I’m not saying it is a great chance, but it exists for him in a way that it doesn’t for say Sammy Sosa were he to fall off the ballot this year.
Chairman: I like that term. “The Mazeroski Exception”. Permission to use that in the future? Before, I go on to Edmonds, can I state that I would used mine on Joe Carter? I won’t explain that one as I think you know why as a Jays fan I say that!
I think I am more optimistic than you are about Edmonds. I too remember his athletic feats on defense, but I think his metrics are good enough and I think that run in baseball mad St. Louis where he won a World Series really helps. He is one of those guys that I could see some of the voters, who might have him placed 12th on their ballot, push him up a couple spots so that he can get past the first year.
Whether it should happen or not, the human element plays a factor for a lot of the voters. Honestly, I don’t know that I would be any different.
Spheniscus: Permission granted. And I remember my first baseball game back in 1985 when Joe Carter hit a home run for the Indians that went farther than I could ever imagine a ball going. And he may have hit a more important home run at some point in his career. So you have my vote on Carter as well.
And perception is reality. If you asked folks on the site to pick between Jim Edmonds and Larry Walker for the Hall, my guess is that Edmonds wins that vote. Even though Walker is probably the better player. So we’ll see, but my guess is that we will be seeing Edmonds on the ballot next year. And the year after. And the year after. And the year after. He’ll end up somewhere in the low teens.
Chairman: I think there a lot of people who would vote for him, and possibly want to, but I go back to what I said earlier. It is not that hard to find ten people to put ahead of him.
With my pretend ballot, I am doing just that, and I would pass him over, and feel bad about doing it, but not for very long.
Still, I think he will just squeak by with a single digit, maybe in the six to seven range, so that we can reevaluate him at least one more year.
Spheniscus: I agree with you. He may take Nomar’s spot. Let’s say 7.5 to 8 percent. That doesn’t give him much of a cushion not to be a one and done. Which is too bad because he is one of the 15 on this list I would vote for. Just not in the first 10.
Since it was so much fun last time, we thought we would do it again!
One thing that has not changed is the number. We will again debate twenty-four men who are on the ballot.
What has changed are the ones debating. Last year I had the pleasure of having DDT, the curator of DDT’s Pop Flies blog and D.K. of the Phillies Archivist blog. This year, Spheniscus, who has participated in past Rock and Roll discussions, will be joining me.
Chairman: Spheniscus, I have to tell you that this is the one I am most looking forward to talking about, but it is not because I am going into this with any strong opinion. Actually, it is the exact opposite, as here is a guy that I really want to explore his career and haven’t really done so before.
I give you Jim Edmonds, a four time All Star a World Series Champion with the St. Louis Cardinals but somebody that I have always regarded as an above average player, but not once really thought of as Cooperstown material, but am I wrong?
I know there are a lot of people who groan about sabremetrics but like it or not, this is going to be the litmus test that a lot of decision makers for the Hall will go by and with Edmonds, his case gets stronger. With a bWAR of 60.3, there are still ten on the ballot that are higher, but this remains a stacked lot so that really shouldn’t be held against him.
Here is what should, that 60.3, is lower by than the average HOF at that position (70.4) as his JAWS (51.4 to the 57.2 average) is also lower.
If you argue with traditional numbers, he doesn’t hit any real “magic numbers”. He is shy of 400 Home Runs, did not make 2,000 Hits, though I can argue that his career Slugging Percentage, which is over .500, should be one of those magic numbers and let’s say it is traditional. I remember that stat on the back of my old baseball cards!
What I think will happen is that Edmonds will fall victim of this group as cases can be made for ten players over Edmonds. My God, could we see him as a “one and done?”
Spheniscus: We definitely could. He is comparable to Duke Snider who is in the Hall. The rest are folks who are probably in the Hall of the Very Good. Guys like Dale Murphy (who I would have voted for), Fred Lynn, Ellis Burks and Shawn Green. And interestingly Larry Walker, who I’m sure we’ll get to later.
Although honestly, the hitting numbers don’t matter to me with him. My mental image of him is superman flying through the air to catch something he had no business getting to in the first place. And that is why I actually think that Edmonds has a chance of being one and done and still making the Hall on what I call the Mazeroski exception. I’m not saying it is a great chance, but it exists for him in a way that it doesn’t for say Sammy Sosa were he to fall off the ballot this year.
Chairman: I like that term. “The Mazeroski Exception”. Permission to use that in the future? Before, I go on to Edmonds, can I state that I would used mine on Joe Carter? I won’t explain that one as I think you know why as a Jays fan I say that!
I think I am more optimistic than you are about Edmonds. I too remember his athletic feats on defense, but I think his metrics are good enough and I think that run in baseball mad St. Louis where he won a World Series really helps. He is one of those guys that I could see some of the voters, who might have him placed 12th on their ballot, push him up a couple spots so that he can get past the first year.
Whether it should happen or not, the human element plays a factor for a lot of the voters. Honestly, I don’t know that I would be any different.
Spheniscus: Permission granted. And I remember my first baseball game back in 1985 when Joe Carter hit a home run for the Indians that went farther than I could ever imagine a ball going. And he may have hit a more important home run at some point in his career. So you have my vote on Carter as well.
And perception is reality. If you asked folks on the site to pick between Jim Edmonds and Larry Walker for the Hall, my guess is that Edmonds wins that vote. Even though Walker is probably the better player. So we’ll see, but my guess is that we will be seeing Edmonds on the ballot next year. And the year after. And the year after. And the year after. He’ll end up somewhere in the low teens.
Chairman: I think there a lot of people who would vote for him, and possibly want to, but I go back to what I said earlier. It is not that hard to find ten people to put ahead of him.
With my pretend ballot, I am doing just that, and I would pass him over, and feel bad about doing it, but not for very long.
Still, I think he will just squeak by with a single digit, maybe in the six to seven range, so that we can reevaluate him at least one more year.
Spheniscus: I agree with you. He may take Nomar’s spot. Let’s say 7.5 to 8 percent. That doesn’t give him much of a cushion not to be a one and done. Which is too bad because he is one of the 15 on this list I would vote for. Just not in the first 10.
The United States woman’s hockey team has been good for years and when you have a netminder like Hilary Knight, you already have a leg up on the competition. The girl next door with the cereal box smile melts the hearts of this physician and many others we are sure. The only question the good doctor has is how will be able to score into her net?
The only problem that the good doctor has with Jaqueline Carvalho is that when she plays volleyball it is predominantly indoors, and not on the beach, where her clothing choices would be more limited! Perhaps we should more attention to the play, as Carvalho is quite the champion from Brazil!
The good doctor loves his Italian women, especially when they frequent the beach. Marta Menegatti is a star on the beach volleyball circuit, or maybe she isn’t. Honestly, I really don’t pay attention to wins and losses when women like Menegatti are spiking the ball. Speaking of spiking, guess what the good doctor is looking to spike!
The good doctor has to hand it to The Netherlands, as that relatively small European country constantly produces world class athletes, and hot ones at that. Is the hottest currently Field Hockey player, Ellen Hoog? I am inclined to think that it might be true!
I can’t say that I am sure if Sophie Horn has won many (or any) tournaments, but this babe of the links sure makes the good doctor want to “tee off”. The sports critic in me says that she can’t be to serious about the game when her Twitter handle shows “Model” and “Presenter” before “Golfer”, but I never said this was list was based on skill.
The good doctor has said it before and will say it again. I totally understand the appeal of Russian mail order brides. While tennis superstar, Maria Sharapova doesn’t need the Internet to find a Western husband, her looks make a lot of lonely North Americans (and no the good doctor isn’t one of them) hope that they can find a “Sharapovaesque” lady. Russia is full of them!
The good doctor learned of this anime girl that came to life and when you look at Kazakh Volleyball player, Sabina Altynbekova you will know it is true too! Now is it possible she can become an even more famous export than Borat? Hey, at least she really is from Kazakhstan!
2016 HOF Debate: Billy Wagner
Jan 01, 2016
Written by Committee Chairman Last year, we did our first ever debate on Notinhalloffame.com where we tackled the Hall of Fame merit of twenty-four men who are on the Hall of Fame ballot, in what was in our opinion the most loaded ballot in our lifetime.
Since it was so much fun last time, we thought we would do it again!
One thing that has not changed is the number. We will again debate twenty-four men who are on the ballot.
What has changed are the ones debating. Last year I had the pleasure of having DDT, the curator of DDT’s Pop Flies blog and D.K. of the Phillies Archivist blog. This year, Spheniscus, who has participated in past Rock and Roll discussions, will be joining me.
Chairman: Like me you probably noticed that he isn’t getting a lot of press for debuting on the ballot. It makes sense I suppose, as entering with Trevor Hoffman puts him in the shadow, but is this is a shadow he should really be in?
While he is well behind in Saves (601 to 422), there are a lot of stats where Wagner comes out ahead. He has superior ERA (2.31 to 2.87), WHIP (0.998 to 1.058), SO/W (3.99 to 3.69) numbers and they have exactly the same JAWS of 24.0.
What people don’t mention about Wagner (maybe because they don’t mention him at all) is just how much he stunk in the playoffs. In 8 playoff series, Wagner pitched 11.2 Innings with a 10.03 ERA and a 1.971 WHIP. Hoffman hasn’t been a playoff stud either, but this is so atrocious to me that it counters so much of what he did in the regular season in my eyes. Honestly, I think Wagner is going to struggle just to get 2.5 percent of the vote, and I don’t think that is a wrong tally for him at all.
Spheniscus: Wagner was a better player than Hoffman. There, I said it. I also proved it in Hoffman’s section. He is a better player than Lee Smith. Also proved in Hoffman’s section. He also has the misfortune of being a bit of a jerk who couldn’t get it done in the postseason in the biggest stage of all, New York, and of never having held the saves record.
If Wagner had played in Kansas City, who was so down for most of his career, we would think of him entirely differently. A great player toiling away for terrible teams always pulls at the heartstrings a little more and changes the writer’s perception. And even though his save numbers would undoubtedly been lower due to fewer opportunities, his vote tally for this Hall would be higher. As it is, 10 years from now, he’ll be buying a ticket to see Hoffman’s plaque. I think 1% is about where he will fall.
Chairman: I think his biggest misfortune is debuting on the same ballot as Hoffman. I have no problem agreeing with you that I would rather have Wagner than Hoffman in the regular season (and hope to God I don’t need either one of them in the post-season because my team has a two digit lead going into the ninth). I am trying to think in this crowded ballot who is going to pick them both? The sad thing is I have read countless articles about Hoffman’s credentials. Hell, I got blasted via email when he debuted in the 40’s on our list and not in the top ten!
Basically, what I am saying is that I don’t see anybody picking Wagner over Hoffman (expect maybe us), and frankly, I don’t know that I would pick either.
Spheniscus: I said at the beginning I have 15 guys on this list I would vote into the Hall. None of them are closers. Wagner is first on my list of the three. Hoffman is first on the list of most people. He has no real friends in the media. There is no buzz. There is no way he is getting in. I just want it recorded somewhere in this process that he was the best at his position on that ballot. And that and $23 will get him a ticket to watch the Hall of Fame induction this summer.
Chairman: I will finish this one up short and sweet. Wagner would not get my vote this year, and I suspect not very many others either. Frankly, I think if he gets 2% it is a win for him, which is where I expect him to fall.
Spheniscus: I said he’d struggle to get 2.5%, 2% is probably closer. But I’ll take the under. He will get 1.8% of the vote. More than 25% lower than Hoffman and 15% lower than Smith. All because he never held a record that absolutely no one cares about. Which is insane, but the way of the world.
Since it was so much fun last time, we thought we would do it again!
One thing that has not changed is the number. We will again debate twenty-four men who are on the ballot.
What has changed are the ones debating. Last year I had the pleasure of having DDT, the curator of DDT’s Pop Flies blog and D.K. of the Phillies Archivist blog. This year, Spheniscus, who has participated in past Rock and Roll discussions, will be joining me.
Chairman: Like me you probably noticed that he isn’t getting a lot of press for debuting on the ballot. It makes sense I suppose, as entering with Trevor Hoffman puts him in the shadow, but is this is a shadow he should really be in?
While he is well behind in Saves (601 to 422), there are a lot of stats where Wagner comes out ahead. He has superior ERA (2.31 to 2.87), WHIP (0.998 to 1.058), SO/W (3.99 to 3.69) numbers and they have exactly the same JAWS of 24.0.
What people don’t mention about Wagner (maybe because they don’t mention him at all) is just how much he stunk in the playoffs. In 8 playoff series, Wagner pitched 11.2 Innings with a 10.03 ERA and a 1.971 WHIP. Hoffman hasn’t been a playoff stud either, but this is so atrocious to me that it counters so much of what he did in the regular season in my eyes. Honestly, I think Wagner is going to struggle just to get 2.5 percent of the vote, and I don’t think that is a wrong tally for him at all.
Spheniscus: Wagner was a better player than Hoffman. There, I said it. I also proved it in Hoffman’s section. He is a better player than Lee Smith. Also proved in Hoffman’s section. He also has the misfortune of being a bit of a jerk who couldn’t get it done in the postseason in the biggest stage of all, New York, and of never having held the saves record.
If Wagner had played in Kansas City, who was so down for most of his career, we would think of him entirely differently. A great player toiling away for terrible teams always pulls at the heartstrings a little more and changes the writer’s perception. And even though his save numbers would undoubtedly been lower due to fewer opportunities, his vote tally for this Hall would be higher. As it is, 10 years from now, he’ll be buying a ticket to see Hoffman’s plaque. I think 1% is about where he will fall.
Chairman: I think his biggest misfortune is debuting on the same ballot as Hoffman. I have no problem agreeing with you that I would rather have Wagner than Hoffman in the regular season (and hope to God I don’t need either one of them in the post-season because my team has a two digit lead going into the ninth). I am trying to think in this crowded ballot who is going to pick them both? The sad thing is I have read countless articles about Hoffman’s credentials. Hell, I got blasted via email when he debuted in the 40’s on our list and not in the top ten!
Basically, what I am saying is that I don’t see anybody picking Wagner over Hoffman (expect maybe us), and frankly, I don’t know that I would pick either.
Spheniscus: I said at the beginning I have 15 guys on this list I would vote into the Hall. None of them are closers. Wagner is first on my list of the three. Hoffman is first on the list of most people. He has no real friends in the media. There is no buzz. There is no way he is getting in. I just want it recorded somewhere in this process that he was the best at his position on that ballot. And that and $23 will get him a ticket to watch the Hall of Fame induction this summer.
Chairman: I will finish this one up short and sweet. Wagner would not get my vote this year, and I suspect not very many others either. Frankly, I think if he gets 2% it is a win for him, which is where I expect him to fall.
Spheniscus: I said he’d struggle to get 2.5%, 2% is probably closer. But I’ll take the under. He will get 1.8% of the vote. More than 25% lower than Hoffman and 15% lower than Smith. All because he never held a record that absolutely no one cares about. Which is insane, but the way of the world.
2016 HOF Debate: Lee Smith
Dec 31, 2015
Written by Committee Chairman 
Last year, we did our first ever debate on Notinhalloffame.com where we tackled the Hall of Fame merit of twenty-four men who are on the Hall of Fame ballot, in what was in our opinion the most loaded ballot in our lifetime.
Since it was so much fun last time, we thought we would do it again!
One thing that has not changed is the number. We will again debate twenty-four men who are on the ballot.
What has changed are the ones debating. Last year I had the pleasure of having DDT, the curator of DDT’s Pop Flies blog and D.K. of the Phillies Archivist blog. This year, Spheniscus, who has participated in past Rock and Roll discussions, will be joining me.
Chairman: Lee Smith retired as the all-time leading leader in Saves, and here we are entering his fourteenth year on the ballot where he came off of a 30.2 percentage, 20 points lower than what he got in 2012.
How did he plummet so bad? I think a large part of that is because the stat of the Save is not what it was and when you look at his advanced stats, he isn’t what he should be in reference to other closers. His 29.6 bWAR and 25.4 JAWS put him ahead of new ballot relievers, Trevor Hoffman and Billy Wagner but with Smith what gets me is that unlike Hoffman, I never felt that Smith was a dominant closer, and what I mean is that did I ever feel he was one of the top two or three in the game.
I think what dissuades me the most about Smith is that for a reliever, how much he didn’t matter when the light shone brightest (his playoff numbers are terrible) and for all of the Saves he accumulated, how many do people remember?
Spheniscus, this is a guy who every year I talk myself more and more out of the Hall.
Spheniscus: I saw him play for two and a half seasons during my impressionable years when I followed every pitch of every game. Never once did I realize that he might be a Hall of Famer some day. All we talked about was how Smith wasn’t as good as the Steamer, Bob Stanley. And really, Bob Stanley wasn’t that good.
When we traded him to the Cardinals for former Twins “great” Tom Brunansky, there isn’t a Sox fan I know who didn’t think we got the better of the deal. Although, it helps that Brunansky made an incredible play in the right field corner to clinch a Sox playoff berth on the last game of the 1990 (the “Morgan Magic”) season. I mean we thought so highly of Smith that we were psyched when another former Twins “great” (and my former neighbor) Jeff Reardon was signed to replace him. And neither Reardon nor Brunansky are ever sniffing the Hall.
I already did his stats in the Trevor Hoffman section and I agree with you, he just doesn’t make it on paper. But at no point does he make it in reputation either. Literally the definition of a compiler. And a compiler in a category that no one cared about until Rivera retired. If someone passes Rivera in career saves people will notice. No one noticed when Hoffman passed Smith. And no one noticed with Rivera passed Smith either. I have 22 other people on this list ahead of him in my opinion. He’s not getting in. Ever.
Chairman: B. I. N. G. O.
The Chairman cannot even remotely disagree with anything you said…however…
I can disagree with my own thoughts.
Had I a ballot twelve years ago I very well might have voted for Smith, erroneously believing that being the all-time leader in Saves should warrant him serious consideration for the Hall of Fame, and that would have been the wrong choice to make.
There is no other stat in Baseball (and yes I will include wins and losses) that you can poke more holes in than the save. You can stink and still get a save. You can throw one pitch and get a save. You have no opportunity to pick up a save if your team is never winning late in the game. You called Lee Smith a compiler, and sure enough when I looked him up in Webster’s, there he was looking like he just came off of an advertisement for Soul Glo.
There is no “lights out” feeling when Smith took the mound. His playoff stats are not good, which was only 5.1 innings with an ERA near 9. Some difference maker if he hardly got his team to the dance, and when he showed up it was the chicken dance.
You called it when you as a Boston fan didn’t care when he left. Did they at Wrigley either?
He got over 50% in 2012 but last year he barely topped 30%. He was lucky to get that.
Spheniscus: And he won’t get that 15th year on the ballot bump either. If you had to choose between Hoffman and Smith for the 10th vote on your ballot, you would take Hoffman (again, you should take Billy Wagner over either but no one is going to do that). And believe me, he is the 10th vote on a lot of people’s ballots. My guess is that he ends up in the 20s and we unfortunately have this “debate” again next year. Then he mercifully drops off the ballot. This is one case where the new 10 year limit would have actually helped.
Chairman: He will finish with his lowest total, and yes, he is now the third best reliever on the ballot.
I will go one step further in that he will never make a Veteran’s ballot in the future.
My fictional vote is a no, and my prediction echoes yours: 24%.
Spheniscus: Looking at the list, he probably finishes somewhere around 12th overall. Last year, 12th got 12.9%. That seems like a big drop, so I’ll say 20%.
Since it was so much fun last time, we thought we would do it again!
One thing that has not changed is the number. We will again debate twenty-four men who are on the ballot.
What has changed are the ones debating. Last year I had the pleasure of having DDT, the curator of DDT’s Pop Flies blog and D.K. of the Phillies Archivist blog. This year, Spheniscus, who has participated in past Rock and Roll discussions, will be joining me.
Chairman: Lee Smith retired as the all-time leading leader in Saves, and here we are entering his fourteenth year on the ballot where he came off of a 30.2 percentage, 20 points lower than what he got in 2012.
How did he plummet so bad? I think a large part of that is because the stat of the Save is not what it was and when you look at his advanced stats, he isn’t what he should be in reference to other closers. His 29.6 bWAR and 25.4 JAWS put him ahead of new ballot relievers, Trevor Hoffman and Billy Wagner but with Smith what gets me is that unlike Hoffman, I never felt that Smith was a dominant closer, and what I mean is that did I ever feel he was one of the top two or three in the game.
I think what dissuades me the most about Smith is that for a reliever, how much he didn’t matter when the light shone brightest (his playoff numbers are terrible) and for all of the Saves he accumulated, how many do people remember?
Spheniscus, this is a guy who every year I talk myself more and more out of the Hall.
Spheniscus: I saw him play for two and a half seasons during my impressionable years when I followed every pitch of every game. Never once did I realize that he might be a Hall of Famer some day. All we talked about was how Smith wasn’t as good as the Steamer, Bob Stanley. And really, Bob Stanley wasn’t that good.
When we traded him to the Cardinals for former Twins “great” Tom Brunansky, there isn’t a Sox fan I know who didn’t think we got the better of the deal. Although, it helps that Brunansky made an incredible play in the right field corner to clinch a Sox playoff berth on the last game of the 1990 (the “Morgan Magic”) season. I mean we thought so highly of Smith that we were psyched when another former Twins “great” (and my former neighbor) Jeff Reardon was signed to replace him. And neither Reardon nor Brunansky are ever sniffing the Hall.
I already did his stats in the Trevor Hoffman section and I agree with you, he just doesn’t make it on paper. But at no point does he make it in reputation either. Literally the definition of a compiler. And a compiler in a category that no one cared about until Rivera retired. If someone passes Rivera in career saves people will notice. No one noticed when Hoffman passed Smith. And no one noticed with Rivera passed Smith either. I have 22 other people on this list ahead of him in my opinion. He’s not getting in. Ever.
Chairman: B. I. N. G. O.
The Chairman cannot even remotely disagree with anything you said…however…
I can disagree with my own thoughts.
Had I a ballot twelve years ago I very well might have voted for Smith, erroneously believing that being the all-time leader in Saves should warrant him serious consideration for the Hall of Fame, and that would have been the wrong choice to make.
There is no other stat in Baseball (and yes I will include wins and losses) that you can poke more holes in than the save. You can stink and still get a save. You can throw one pitch and get a save. You have no opportunity to pick up a save if your team is never winning late in the game. You called Lee Smith a compiler, and sure enough when I looked him up in Webster’s, there he was looking like he just came off of an advertisement for Soul Glo.
There is no “lights out” feeling when Smith took the mound. His playoff stats are not good, which was only 5.1 innings with an ERA near 9. Some difference maker if he hardly got his team to the dance, and when he showed up it was the chicken dance.
You called it when you as a Boston fan didn’t care when he left. Did they at Wrigley either?
He got over 50% in 2012 but last year he barely topped 30%. He was lucky to get that.
Spheniscus: And he won’t get that 15th year on the ballot bump either. If you had to choose between Hoffman and Smith for the 10th vote on your ballot, you would take Hoffman (again, you should take Billy Wagner over either but no one is going to do that). And believe me, he is the 10th vote on a lot of people’s ballots. My guess is that he ends up in the 20s and we unfortunately have this “debate” again next year. Then he mercifully drops off the ballot. This is one case where the new 10 year limit would have actually helped.
Chairman: He will finish with his lowest total, and yes, he is now the third best reliever on the ballot.
I will go one step further in that he will never make a Veteran’s ballot in the future.
My fictional vote is a no, and my prediction echoes yours: 24%.
Spheniscus: Looking at the list, he probably finishes somewhere around 12th overall. Last year, 12th got 12.9%. That seems like a big drop, so I’ll say 20%.
