Blyleven made quite an increase!

Tom Verducci on MLB's XM radio channel saying that getting to the rough 60% figure is a good sign for the close but no cigar guys...

Well, he may not be the weakest selection ever of the BBWAA, but if not he's damn close.

Ugh.

I can't understand the love for Sutter but not Gossage.

Meh.

Rice (64.8%)
Gossage (64.6%)
Dawson (61%)
Blyleven (58.3%)

Not-so-bold prediction: all will make it eventually. I filled -- as in voted for 10 -- on a ballot for our mock voting, and Sutter wasn't on it. And he wasn't even the best guy left off. I'd rank him #12 at best of the eligible group. Of the other four guys, I have no real problem with all of them making the HOF, like I do with Sutter.

Gonna be a lonely Induction for Sutter...

I'm willing to bet that the percentages for the others will be a high water mark for many, tho
I am impressed by Blyleven's increase. When is the next predicted window of opportunity for
these guys?

Blyleven got 53.3%, for those of you who aren't clicking over to the article.

Gonna be a lonely Induction for Sutter...

I'm willing to bet that the percentages for the others will be a high water mark for many, tho
I am impressed by Blyleven's increase. When is the next predicted window of opportunity for
these guys?

Will Clark's one-and-done. That's not fair.

A record 520 ballots, including 12 blanks, also the most in voting history, were cast by BBWAA members with 10 or more consecutive years' service, eclipsing by four the previous mark of 2005 when Wade Boggs and Ryne Sandberg were elected.

D1ckheads.

It also grinds my gears that on the same ballot that Bruce Sutter is elected, Will Clark drops off the ballot.

Clark would be a more defensible choice.

I'm a bit surprised that Clark and Gooden just fell off the ballot, considering how weak it was.

Sutter was probably the fourth- or fifth-best player on that ballot.

Note to self:

Stay out of earshot and crowbar range of Gossage for the next few days.

BTW, the BTF servers suck and need to be replaced.

drop

7: Probably 2008. It'll be crazy next year, what with McGwire and Canseco. (Ripkena and Gwynn are locks.)

Ick. And the writers usually do a pretty good job too.

There's nothing wrong with not electing anyone. Although there is something wrong with not electing Blyleven.

D1ckheads.

What if they don't think anyone deserves to be voted for?

2005 results, for reference.

2005 results
Bruce Sutter 344 66.7
Jim Rice 307 59.5
Rich Gossage 285 55.2
Andre Dawson 270 52.3
Bert Blyleven 211 40.9

Blyleven went up 18%. That's huge. Everyone else went up about 5-10%.

Hal Morris got 5 votes. Wow.

Walt Weiss got a vote.

Blyleven got 53.3% per the HOF website.

This is the third straight year that an ex-Cub gains induction. Dawson and/or Lee Smith hope to extend the string next year. It would be a fitting way to honor the Cub dynasty of the 70s and 80s.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Blyleven's support just peaked. Next year's ballot will be a lot stronger. If he couldn't get in on this ballot, I don't know if he'll get in at all, at least until the VC gets a crack at him.

So when does the first 5th starter get inducted?

Blyleven got 53% of the vote. You're all wrong but me.

Bruce Sutter 400 76.9
Jim Rice 337 64.8
Rich Gossage 336 64.6
Andre Dawson 317 61.0
Bert Blyleven 277 53.3
Lee Smith 234 45.0
Jack Morris 214 41.2
Tommy John 154 29.6
Steve Garvey 135 26.0
Alan Trammell 92 17.7
Dave Parker 76 14.4
Dave Concepcion 65 12.5
Don Mattingly 64 12.3
Orel Hershiser 58 11.2
Dale Murphy 56 10.8
Albert Belle 40 7.7
Will Clark 23 4.4
Dwight Gooden 17 3.3
Willie McGee 12 2.3
Hal Morris 5 1.0
Ozzie Guillen 5 1.0
Gary Gaetti 4 0.8
John Wetteland 4 0.8
Rick Aguilera 3 0.6
Doug Jones 2 0.4
Greg Jefferies 2 0.4
Walt Weiss 1 0.2
Gary DiSarcina 0 0.0
Alex Fernandez 0 0.0</pre>

Clark would be a more defensible choice.

Yep. Would you trade Clark, at his peak, for Sutter, at his? I sure wouldn't. And Clark, even though he didn't have a long career, had a longer career than Sutter.

I'm not sold on Clark as a HOFer, which should then give you a sense of how I feel about the selection of Sutter.

And Garvey got more votes than Mattingly, Clark and Belle combined.

/shakes head

Does Bruce Sutter get statistical credit for Strike-Outs credited to future pitchers who used his patented split-finger fastball to whiff batters. It seems like we should give partial credit for these strikeouts, say 80% (the pitchers did, after all, have to actually throw the pitch!). Sutter retired in 1988. From 1989-2005, Pitchers have struck out approximately 442,000 batters. Let's be conservative and assume that the devastating split-finger fastball accounts for 60% of all pitcher's strikeouts. So Sutter was indirectly responsible for 80% of 48,400 strikeouts, or 38,700 strikeouts from 1989-2005. Tack on the 861 Strikeouts Sutter accomplished during the brief portion of his career where he actually had to throw pitches to accumulate statistics (1976-1986, 1988) and Sutter has totalled 39,561 Strikouts in only 1042 innings pitched. This statistic leads to several obvious conclusions.

1. Sutter is clearly Hall Worthy. Nolan Ryan is generally recognized as the greatest pitcher of all time despite racking up a paltry (in comparisson) 5700 strikeouts. Sutter, by comparisson, racked up nearly 7 times this many strikeouts. And unlike Ryan, who needed 5386 Career innings to accomplish his feat, Sutter was able to far exceed Ryan's career total while pitching in over 4000 fewer innings. Ryan is in the Hall, I think Sutter belongs as well.

2. Sutter accomplished his remarkable Strikeout feat in an era where closers were frequently asked to go 2, 3 or even 4 innings at a time. This was back in the days when Closers had lots of facial hair and great, burly nicknames (and physciques to match)like Goose, Rollie, or the Mad Hungarian. No left handed releif specialists, no 8th inning set-up men, just starters and finishers. If the game was on the line, Sutter was the go-to guy day in and day out.

3. Sutter's 39,561 Strikouts in 1024 innings comes out to over 40 strikeouts per inning. By comparison, Randy Johnson, the so-called "Big unit" because of his "mythical" dominance has averaged just over 1 strikeout per inning over his career. This leads us to a few simple conclusions. Randy "myth of dominance" is just that....a myth! Secondly, Sutter's split-finger fastball must have been absolutely devastating. He struck out nearly 40 batters per inning. The devastating pitch had so much movement, that few catchers could track it coming to the plate, resulting in lots of passed ball third strikes, and lots of embarrassed strikeout victims, made to look like whiffle-ballers by the devastating force that was the Sutter Split-finger!

McNally, you should update the opening of the thread with Blyleven's proper vote percentage.

Sutter's stellar 2005 season finally pushed him over the top!

This is the third straight year that an ex-Cub gains induction. Dawson and/or Lee Smith Santo hopes to extend the string next year. It would be a fitting way to honor the Cub dynasty of the 70s and 80s.

Fixed

Congrats, Walt Weiss. You avoided getting shut out!

Blyleven went up 18%. That's huge. Everyone else went up about 5-10%.

Actually he went up 13%. There's a typo on the HoF's article, but if you link to the chart you can see it's 53.3%, not 58.3%. Still an impressive leap up though.

Repoz's 90+ man poll vs. actual results:
Poll.................Reality
72.8%- Gossage........64.6
71.7%- Sutter.........76.9
60.8%- Dawson ........64.8
55.4%- Rice...........61.0
48.9%- Blyleven.......53.3
44.5%- Lee Smith......45.0
40.2%- Morris.........41.2
22.8%- T.John.........29.6
15.2%- Trammell.......17.7
14.1%- CMNZC..........26.0
10.8%- Belle..........7.7
8.7%- Murphy..........10.8
6.5%- Mattingly.......12.3
5.4%- Parker..........14.4
4.3%- Hershiser.......11.2
3.3%- Concepcion......12.5
1.0%- W.Clark.........4.4
1.0%- McGee...........2.3

Gonna be a lonely Induction for Sutter...

I'm willing to bet that the percentages for the others will be a high water mark for many, tho
I am impressed by Blyleven's increase. When is the next predicted window of opportunity for
these guys?

Sutter made it in by 10 votes. What's the smallest margin so far?

Full comparison results for everyone not elected, with raw numbers and percentages, this year listed first

Percentage Points gained:

Sutter +10.2
Rice +5.3
Gossage +9.4
Dawson +8.7
Blyleven +12.4
Smith +6.2
Morris +7.9

Wow, the server is really f****d. Bad news for Goose's and Bert's chances of ever making it, probably.

It's great to see how wrong the writers are.

Alan Trammell, the one of the top 7 shortstops of all-time continues to receive less than 20% of the vote. Jim Rice, one of the top 7 Red Sox leftfielders of all-time continues to be one of the top voted hitters.

Now Will Clark ranks as one of the most underrated players of all-time after having been overrated most of his career. Astounding.

Clark ranks only behind Lou Whitaker and Ted Simmmons IMO as most stupifying to fall off the ballot first year- in recent times.

When is the next predicted window of opportunity for
these guys?

I'm not sure if this is totally accurate, but I think these are some of the future additions to the ballot. 2007 will be tough, but there's a chance after that.

2007 - Gwynn, Ripken, McGwire, Harold Baines, Chuck Finley
2008 - Tim Raines, David Cone
2009 - Rickey Henderson, Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, McGriff
2010 - Edgar Martinez

Santo hopes to extend the string next year. It would be a fitting way to honor the Cub dynasty of the 70s and 80s.

Will Santo become eligible for a VC induction next year?

Fixed

Indeed. Has the VC balloting already taken place for 2006?

Next year's induction includes two locks, Gwynn and Ripken, as well as McGwire and a number of marginal candidates, which may cut into the gains made this year by players in the 50-70% bracket.

Sutter made the split-finger popular, but he isn't the one that 'patented' it, is he? My dad said someone else was throwing it first.

I thought Rice would make it this year, but he's right on target for election in '08, after Gwynn, Ripken and McGwire are dealt with (the first two will be elected, in any event.) Goose should also go in that year, IMO; with some of the people who liked them both but felt Sutter should go in first switching to him, he shouldn't have any problem.

Agree that Clark deserved to stay on the ballot, although I don't think he is really a HOF or even especially close, so it's not gonna keep me up nights.

This thread appears on BTF's front page but not within the Newsblog. What gives?

That's a really low percentage for Belle. I knew he wouldn't get in, but I expected him to do better than that.

Every player who remained on the ballot from last year went up except one, and that one is Willie McGee, and that drop is easily explainable.

9 players had an all-time high percentage of the votes: Sutter (obviously), Rice, Gossage, Dawson, Blyleven, Smith, Morris, John, and Trammell

6 holdovers did not have an all-time high percentage of the votes: Garvey, Parker, Concepcion, Mattingly, Murphy, and, of course, McGee

People have talked a lot about repecting subjective evlauations during these debates. When I was young and watching Sutter and Gossage, my subjective impression was that Gossage--who on top of his stats had a long career, threw superhard, was fun to watch, had a cool nickname and got the last out in the '78 NY/Bos playoff, was a "future Hall of Famer" and that Sutter wasn't, since his career was too short.

I do think this likely means Gossage goes in fairly soon, either in '07 or '08.

2007 - Gwynn, Ripken, McGwire, Harold Baines, Chuck Finley

Jose Canseco made steroids popular. Maybe he'll get some Sutter-like momentum.

Here's what the Hall lists for future candidates:

2007: Harold Baines, Derek Bell, Dante Bichette, Bobby Bonilla, Jeff Brantley, Jay Buhner, Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Eric Davis, Tony Fernandez, Tony Gwynn, Darryl Hamilton, Pete Harnisch, Charlie Hayes, Glenallen Hill, Ken Hill, Stan Javier, Wally Joyner, Ramon Martinez, Mark McGwire, Paul O’Neill, Gregg Olson, Cal Ripken Jr., Bret Saberhagen, Jeff Shaw, Kevin Tapani, Devon White, Bobby Witt

2008: Shawon Dunston, Travis Fryman, David Justice, Mike Morgan, Tim Raines, Randy Velarde

2009: Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Matt Williams

2010: Andres Galarraga, Edgar Martinez, Robin Ventura

The only automatic in the 2008-10 group would seem to be Rickey, and he's only automatic if he can't convince someone to give him another Major League job. Raines should be automatic, but... If McGwire makes it on the first ballot, 2008 should be clear for one or two of this year's runners-up. I'm guessing Gossage makes it in 2008, Rice in 2009. Goose just seems to have more momentum, and the comparison with Sutter will only help once they really look at it.

The ex-Cub thing could go for quite a while:

2007 - Santo
2008 - Dawson
2009 - Smith
2010 - McGriff
2011 - ???
2012 - Raffy(retires after 2005)
2013 - Sosa(retires after 2006. Could swap with Raffy)
2014 - Maddux(retires after 2007)

Wow, the servers for BB-REF and BTF are just getting killed by this HOF traffic.

I guess Rice is just going to be on the ballot until 2009 if he never gets elected?

What if they don't think anyone deserves to be voted for?

Then don't send in your ballot. I understand that it is legitimate to send in a blank ballot, but it's still a d1ck move.

Aha! Move Dawson, Smith and McGriff down one year each, and put Gossage in 2008. Now we're good through 2014.

2007 - Gwynn

Free donuts for baseball writers!

The East Coast bias strikes again with Sutter over Goose.

Wait...no. No it didn't.

2008: Shawon Dunston

I bet Dusty Baker will talk him out of retirement before then.

Isn't it true that every player (or almost every player) that's crossed 50 percent in the BBWAA voting has eventually been inducted?

Then don't send in your ballot. I understand that it is legitimate to send in a blank ballot, but it's still a d1ck move.

Why? If you don't think any of these guys should be in the HOF, what's wrong with submitting a blank ballot? Not submitting a ballot does not penalize them (I assume, otherwise I don't know why you're complaining) - and a voter doesn't think they should be in it should be recorded as such. I don't understand where you're coming from.

Man, I can't wait to start that Kevin Tapani for HOF campaign next year.

This was about the worst result possible (if they had pushed Andre Dawson in too, I would have been absolutely besides myself right now).

Gonna be a lonely Induction for Sutter...

Actually, I think it will not be lonely at all, as the Special Negro League Committee is likely to elect at least 10 more for induction this year...

Re. McGwire: I predict he will set a new standard for underperforming the predictive yardsticks in HOF voting. Not only will McGwire NOT get elected; it wouldn't shock me if his Black Ink total (36) is higher than his percentage of the votes.

Isn't it true that every player (or almost every player) that's crossed 50 percent in the BBWAA voting has eventually been inducted?

No, that's the 75% threshold.

"Then don't send in your ballot. I understand that it is legitimate to send in a blank ballot, but it's still a d1ck move."

You couldn't be more wrong.

if you don't send in your ballot, it doesn't count as a ballot, and the number of votes one needs to get elected is changed.

what if one person votes for walt weiss, and 519 people don't bother to send in their ballots? WALT WEISS!! 1st to ever get 100% of the vote! huzzah!

Gil Hodges got 50% or better 11 times and never made it in.

"Does Bruce Sutter get statistical credit for Strike-Outs credited to future pitchers who used his patented split-finger fastball to whiff batters."

He gets selected for changing the game of baseball rather than his statistics.


Weiss gets more votes than DiSarcina? Oh, the humanities!


Jefferies? Is there a minor league hall of fame?

Is it me, or are guys who are great right out of the box, like Will Clark, who was arguably the best player in the NL from 1987-91, and then 'fade' to just being very good tend to do much worse than guys that peak later. Is that because people forget how great they were and remember the time where they were just very good?

How can anyone look at Sutter and Gossage and think Sutter was better? Hell, how could anyone look at Sutter and Quisenberry and think Sutter was better?

I think Blyleven's bump over 50% means it's quite likely he'll be elected. Very few people that get to 50% don't eventually get in.

"Actually, I think it will not be lonely at all, as the Special Negro League Committee is likely to elect at least 10 more for induction this year..."

i look forward to seeing the corpses of cristobal torriente and frank grant wheeled up on the dais with Sutter.

Why? If you don't think any of these guys should be in the HOF, what's wrong with submitting a blank ballot? Not submitting a ballot does not penalize them (I assume, otherwise I don't know why you're complaining) - and a voter doesn't think they should be in it should be recorded as such. I don't understand where you're coming from.

Like I said, I'm not arguing about the legitimacy of submitting a blank ballot. I just see it as vindictive. It changes the process from being proactive (whoever has the most support) to a process where voters are actively working against candidates.

"He gets selected for changing the game of baseball rather than his statistics."

Then Herman Franks should be the one they are elected. Sutter didn't change anything.

As for close calls, Ferguson Jenkins in 1991 and Ralph Kiner in 1975 both got 1 vote more than the minimum to make it in. Al Simmons made it by one vote in 1953. Willie Keeler got in by one wee vote in 1939.

what if one person votes for walt weiss, and 519 people don't bother to send in their ballots? WALT WEISS!! 1st to ever get 100% of the vote! huzzah!

Call me when that happens.

Isn't it true that every player (or almost every player) that's crossed 50 percent in the BBWAA voting has eventually been inducted?

No, that's the 75% threshold.

Speaking of dick moves.....

51, I suggest primates start bombarding the Billy Beane's of the world so that he gives Rickey Henderson 1 AB this year, so that he doesn't crowd out Rice and Gossage (and maybe Blyleven).

"Why? If you don't think any of these guys should be in the HOF, what's wrong with submitting a blank ballot? Not submitting a ballot does not penalize them (I assume, otherwise I don't know why you're complaining) - and a voter doesn't think they should be in it should be recorded as such. I don't understand where you're coming from."

Because it's ridiculous to think that no one on ANY ballot deserves to be elected when you look at the actual population of the Hall of Fame, not some mythical "Small Hall Utopia" of in Never, Never Land. If you can't find one player to vote for, your ballot should be revoked.

There are 3 legitimately great players on this ballot, which is a weak one (Blyleven, Trammell and Gossage) and at least half a dozen other players that are well above where the line has been drawn (I'm talking about the line above the mistakes, even if you threw out 60 guys who shouldn't have been elected).

Like I said, I'm not arguing about the legitimacy of submitting a blank ballot. I just see it as vindictive. It changes the process from being proactive (whoever has the most support) to a process where voters are actively working against candidates.

See, but there's two ways to submit a blank ballot:

1) You don't feel that any of the candidates is qualified, and therefore don't vote for any of them. But you submit your blank ballot because otherwise your opinion (which is as valid as everyone else's who has a ballot) doesn't count.

2) You submit a blank ballot just to make each vote worth less and make it harder for someone to get in.

The latter is vindictive, but I don't think it ever really happens. The former is a perfectly valid vote, and I think it is what you should do if you don't think anyone should be in. Otherwise it's not a real poll of the writers.

Like I said, I'm not arguing about the legitimacy of submitting a blank ballot. I just see it as vindictive. It changes the process from being proactive (whoever has the most support) to a process where voters are actively working against candidates.

I disagree. mommy was a little hyperbolic, but essentially correct. Suppose one year, the best candidates are (the equivelant of) Mo Vaughn, Greg Vaughn, and Bob Welch. None of those players are HOFers, but all will get at least a few votes. Should they be elected simply because they are the best candidates?

It changes the process from being proactive (whoever has the most support) to a process where voters are actively working against candidates.

I guess it depends on what you think the voting process is trying to accomplish.

If the purpose of the vote is to elect people into the Hall, then yes, turning in blank ballots works counter to that.

But if the purpose of the vote is to decide Hall-worthiness of individual candidates, then turning in blank ballots is completely appropriate.

Not only will McGwire NOT get elected; it wouldn't shock me if his Black Ink total (36) is higher than his percentage of the votes.

I wouldn't be shocked, either. The steroid backlash will certainly depress his vote totals, along with the presence of Ripken and Gwynn.

I will also bet that Ripken will *not* surpass the all-time high percentage of votes (Tom Seaver).

-- MWE

Then Herman Franks should be the one they are elected. Sutter didn't change anything.

Tommy John should be in, too, or Dr. Frank Jobe.

If you can't find one player to vote for, your ballot should be revoked.

Absolutely not. A "no" vote is as legitimate as a "yes" vote.

Regarding the blank votes, all this would be made much easier if the Hall published the writers' exact ballots.

That way, someone would actually be accountable for voting for Sutter instead of Goose, or Morris instead of Bert. Heck, I'd like to know who the schmuck is who doesn't take this thing seriously and voted for Weiss (and I'd like to see who else he voted for).

Also, I know Blyleven went up 13% or whatnot, but after this big push online and by several high profile writers, I'm convinced that there are voters who just don't read anything that they haven't written themselves, and as such, have no business being part of the voting process.

Say what you will about Jayson Stark, but he at least admitted that he had changed his mind about Blyleven.

"Suppose one year, the best candidates are (the equivelant of) Mo Vaughn, Greg Vaughn, and Bob Welch."

Has there ever been a ballot like this? When there is (don't worry, there won't be, ever), submitting a blank one would be appropriate - until then it is inexcusable.

I disagree. mommy was a little hyperbolic, but essentially correct. Suppose one year, the best candidates are (the equivelant of) Mo Vaughn, Greg Vaughn, and Bob Welch. None of those players are HOFers, but all will get at least a few votes. Should they be elected simply because they are the best candidates?

If I believed this were possible, I would probably grant your point. However, I think Joe covers this pretty well. Never in the history of the game has this been the case. Even in the years that no one got elected, there are players on the ballot that eventually did.

If you think no one is deserving, you need to look a little harder.

Absolutely not. A "no" vote is as legitimate as a "yes" vote.

Unless it's a vote on the USA PATRIOT Act. Then you're a terrorist.

See, but there's two ways to submit a blank ballot:

There's a third way, which is not quite either of the two listed:

3. You feel that someone on the ballot is deserving, but he's a first-time eligible and you don't feel he deserves to be put in his first go-round (IIRC, Murray Chass submitted a blank ballot for this reason once).

-- MWE

Trammell? Make a case that he is more deserving than Dawson. I just do not see the fascination with Trammell...no doubt a good player for a long time...probably 3 great seasons...no great career stats...no MVPs...never led the league in anything.

Like I said, I'm not arguing about the legitimacy of submitting a blank ballot. I just see it as vindictive. It changes the process from being proactive (whoever has the most support) to a process where voters are actively working against candidates.

I'm with those who think it's perfectly OK to submit a blank ballot. The 75% standard is not supposed to be "75% of those who think there is at least one inductable candidate this year." It's 75% of those who vote -- which includes both those who think there is one (or more) who should be in, and those who think none should be.

This year, it would be entirely rational to think none of the candidates is deserving. Blyleven might be better than a lot of HOFers, but he's certainly not inner circle; a small-Hall voter might be taking a legitimate stand for exclusivity by saying no to him. Same with Trammell, Gossage, etc. I would vote for all three of those guys, but I certainly wouldn't say that someone who disagrees with me should have his ballot revoked.

I'm not sure how anyone could vote in Bruce Sutter (or any reliever for that matter) over Blyleven. What is a reliever except for a failed starter? The modern reliever has become a crutch for managers to excuse themselves from any tactical blame. Not only that but they are a total waste of resources. For some teams they are the most expensives pitchers while only pitching 5% of the total innings. Completely stupid. Last year the best reliever (Houston Street) was 46th in VORP. Among the luminaries that finished ahead of him were Bruce Chen, Josh Towers and Aaron Harang. Obviously the true Hall of Famer in this mess is Jerome Holtzman for coming up with a near meaningless stat that has changed the way pitchers are used.

If you think no one is deserving, you need to look a little harder.

I don't know - if I had a vote with this ballot, I'd have strongly considered handing in a blank ballot. I don't think pure relief pitchers should be in the Hall, I think Blyleven's case is borderline, and none of the hitters are hall-worthy, IMO.

Small-Hall voters deserve a vote just as much as the guy who filled his ballot to vote for Walt Weiss.

ChicagoTRS:

Trammell's case

Also, I'm a huge Dawson fan (growing Dawson/Raines/Righetti/Randolph were my favorite players), and I think he was a legitmately great player from 1980-83, and very good from 1987-91. He's got a very good combo peak/career argument, and is a clear yes vote to me. But if it's Trammell or Dawson, I don't think it's all that close, Trammell clearly had the more valuable career.

Regarding the blank votes, all this would be made much easier if the Hall published the writers' exact ballots.

Then we could also see if someone who turned in a blank ballot one year votes for someone on that ballot in a subsequent year.

If you don't think any of these guys should be in the HOF, what's wrong with submitting a blank ballot?

Submitting a blank ballot is intended to prevent anyone from getting the 75% necessary for induction this year. This clearly conflicts with the Hall of Fame's goal of having a ceremony which draws huge numbers of people to spend money in Cooperstown. Thus, anyone who submits a blank ballot is a communist who deserves to lose their vote in future elections for blocking the Hall's noble capitalist intentions.

I will also bet that Ripken will *not* surpass the all-time high percentage of votes (Tom Seaver).

Who wouldn't vote for Ripken?

"a small-Hall voter might be taking a legitimate stand for exclusivity by saying no to him"

How is it legitimate to take a small Hall stance when there is no such thing as a small Hall? Such an animal does not exist. Why should the modern player be subject to tougher inclusion standards? The whole Small HallTM thing is ridiculous.

Because it's ridiculous to think that no one on ANY ballot deserves to be elected when you look at the actual population of the Hall of Fame, not some mythical "Small Hall Utopia" of in Never, Never Land. If you can't find one player to vote for, your ballot should be revoked.

I would suggest that the vast majority of Hall of Fame voters don't look at the HOF as a whole. They use a concept for a "Hall of Famer" - a better player than probably half of the players who are actually there - and vote accordingly. The Lloyd Waners and Freddie Lindstroms of the world don't enter into this equation.

-- MWE

Who wouldn't vote for Ripken?

I wouldn't, but that's just out of blind bias. I can't frickin' stand Cal Ripken.

If you can't find one player to vote for, your ballot should be revoked.

You're certainly not lacking in pretentiousness.

Voters like simple yardsticks by which to measure candidates: .300, 500, 3000, etc. It may not be to easy to explain to some of the electorate why the closer with the ERA over 3.00 should go in before the closer with the ERA under 3.00.

I understand that 10 more years and 750 more innings is more valuable than an ERA difference of 0.18, but I think would be a fool's errand to try to explain it to some of the writers we excoriate here.