Sunday night Mariano Rivera joined Trevor Hoffman as the only members
of the 500-save club, so I thought it would be interesting to compare
their Hall of Fame careers:
G IP ERA W SV SO9 BB9 HR9 OAVG
Hoffman 953 1011 2.76 57 572 9.6 2.5 0.8 .210
Rivera 881 1054 2.30 69 500 8.3 2.1 0.5 .213
Hoffman’s strikeout rate is 15 percent higher than Rivera’s and
ranks as the fourth-best of all time among pitchers with at least 1,000
innings, which is amazing for a guy whose average fastball has clocked
in at 85.5 miles per hour since that data started being recorded in
2002. His otherworldly changeup is the reason and likely ranks as one
of the most effective pitches in the history of baseball.
Of course, Rivera’s cutter should also be on that list of
most-effective pitches and probably tops Hoffman’s changeup given that
it’s basically all he’s thrown for 15 years. Rivera hasn’t missed as
many bats as Hoffman, but then again he hasn’t needed to. He’s handed
out 15 percent fewer walks and, most importantly, served up 40 percent
To me the most interesting aspect of the 500-save club is how
incredibly different the two members are from each other. Hoffman is a
fastball-changeup artist who induces a ton of fly balls while serving
up quite a few homers despite playing in pitcher-friendly ballparks.
Rivera is a cutter machine who induces a ton of ground balls and has
the 10th-lowest homer rate of any pitcher from the last 50 years.
Two completely different approaches, yet similarly extraordinary
results. Since the mound was lowered in 1969, the two lowest ERAs in
all of baseball belong to Rivera at 2.30 and Hoffman at 2.76. And
they’re still thriving at the ages of 39 and 41, as both pitchers have
converted 18-of-19 save opportunities this season while posting
Hoffman is on track for his 14th 30-save season, while Rivera is
looking for his 12th 30-save campaign. Rivera has two 50-save seasons
compared to just one from Hoffman, but Hoffman’s nine 40-save campaigns
beat Rivera’s six. And of course Rivera has 34 career postseason saves
(and a 0.77 ERA in 117 playoff innings) compared to just four from
They each look capable of piling up saves well beyond this season,
but once they do decide to retire it’d be interesting if they both call
it quits at the same time. That way the Hall of Fame induction could
feature both “Enter Sandman” and “Hells Bells” as debates raged on
about who should get the call to close out the ceremony.
Bill Livingston of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a Hall of Fame voter. In the past he has voted for players who used PEDs, but he’s never been totally happy with it, seeing the whole PED mess as a dilemma for voters.
On the one hand he doesn’t like voting for users and doesn’t like harming those who were clean by shifting votes away from them, but on the other hand, he doesn’t want to pretend history didn’t happen and that baseball hasn’t been filled with cheaters forever. What to do?
This year he decided to abstain altogether. A fair and noble act if one is as conflicted as Livingston happens to be. Except . . . he didn’t actually abstain:
Major league baseball will confer bronzed immortality on a few players Wednesday when the results of the national baseball writers’ balloting for the Hall of Fame will be announced.
I had a 2017 ballot. I returned it signed, but blank, with an explanatory note.
A blank ballot, signed and submitted, is not an abstention. It’s counted as a vote for no one. Each “no” vote increases the denominator in the calculation of whether or not a candidate has received 75% of the vote and has gained induction. An abstention, however, would not. So, in effect, Livingston has voted against all of the players on the ballot, both PED-tainted and clean, even though it appears that that was not his intention.
This is the second time in three years a Cleveland writer has had . . . issues with his Hall of Fame ballot. In the 2014-15 voting period, Paul Hoynes simply lost his ballot. Now Livingston misunderstood how to abstain.
I worry quite often that Ohio is gonna mess up a major election. I guess I’m just worrying about the wrong election.
Last month the Baseball Writers Association of America voted to make all Hall of Fame ballots public beginning with next year’s vote for the 2018 induction class. In the past 24 hours or so, as this year’s Hall of Fame voting period comes to a close, a lot of folks have been talking about that. Most notably in Jayson Stark’s piece over at ESPN regarding next year’s brave new public world.
Stark is pro-transparency on the ballots, as are the vast majority of BBWAA members who voted on the public ballot measure (it passed 80-9). Not everyone Stark quotes in his article is on board with it, though:
“I’ve already seen a lot of people change their votes from one year to the next,” said one of the strongest dissenters to this decision, USA Today’s Bob Nightengale. “People have changed their votes based on public opinion.”
Two other sources in the story, Scott Miller of Bleacher Report and a voter who asked to remain anonymous equated their Hall of Fame vote with democracy and invoked the sanctity of the secret ballot. “The No. 1 reason I was against this rule is that in this country, it’s a democracy, and everyone has a vote on different things. And I hate to see a blanket rule that forces everyone to go in one direction,” Miller said. Here’s what the anonymous guy said:
“To me, a secret ballot is a fundamental of democracy. You should be able to vote your conscience without having to explain your vote. But once it’s public, you’re open to public pressure. And that’s not what we want in a democracy. We’re not elected representatives. We’re chosen to be part of a voting group.”
This is ridiculous of course. Voting for the Hall of Fame is not exercising democratic rights. It is making news and making history. Hall of Fame voters are making decisions which will fundamentally alter baseball history and which matter greatly to a large number of baseball fans. They are not advancing their own or society’s interests at the ballot box the way citizens do on election day. Despite the fact that the form of their action here is, technically speaking, a ballot, they are making news in the same way a GM makes a news with a trade, the commissioner makes news with a rule change or a team makes news by winning a World Series.
Would any of these voters — who are credentialed members of the media, by the way, and like to style themselves as truth-seeking members of the Fourth Estate — accept silence from the people who make the news on the beat they cover? Would they be content if the newsmakers whose acts they chronicle demanded anonymity the way they themselves do now? Of course they wouldn’t. And if they got the same silent treatment they’d prefer to give, they’d write one of those petulant little columns they love about players who “duck the press” after a game.
Suck it up, journalists. Act the way you expect the newsmakers you cover to act and own your decisions. Don’t pretend for a moment that you’re not the subject of, and not the reporter of, the story when Hall of Fame season comes around.