Is Michael Knisley's Henderson/Lee Smith ballot the most bizarre ballot ever?

Is Michael Knisley's Henderson/Lee Smith ballot the most bizarre ballot ever?

Probably not.

Pedro Gomez voting Jay Bell but not Tim Raines is pretty bizarre (but Knisley's ballot, overall, is more bizarre than Gomez's).

Brendan Robert's has the best ballot IMO...I've never heard of the guy though.

Henderson/Lee Smith ballot

Maybe the thinking is, "elect two," one position player and one pitcher, it's obvious who the best position player is, so who's the best pitcher on the ballot? The starters are not ultra-distinguished, so I'll try a closer.

I dunno, I'm just trying to be charitable :)

Buster Olney: Rickey, Rice, Dawson, Morris, McGwire. Solid.

Worst ballot: Knisley, Olney, or Gomez?

Buster Olney: Rickey, Rice, Dawson, Morris, McGwire. Solid.


Well, it's highly unlikely that his ballot is liquid. If by solid, you meant good, then no, it's not.

Morris and no Raines sucks, and I'm not even a SABR guy.

Nothing says Hall of Fame like Jay Bell's 195 homeruns and 101 OPS+

Why does Olney have a HOF vote?

how about a literacy test to make sure that baseball writers have a clue about their sport before voting for the Hall?

If by solid, you meant good, then no, it's not.

Indeed.

JMHO, but Gammons has the best ballot. All the right guys with the fewest wrong ones...

JMHO, but Gammons has the best ballot. All the right guys with the fewest wrong ones...

He has Rice, but no Dawson. I don't think either should be in the HoF, but certainly Dawson before Rice.

Okay, what does P. Gomez owe Jay Bell for?

Pedro Gomez voting Jay Bell but not Tim Raines is pretty bizarre

Gomez only voted for Bell. As a first-ballot Hall of Famer?? Shouldn't he have his children taken away?

Whats with all the Dawson support?
The Jay Bell vote might just be a pity vote. As a group, not exactly the best looking of ballots.

I am curious. Do people like Law/neyer get to talk to these other ESPN reporters? Does any proselytising go on?

Pedro Gomez was working in Arizona when Jay Bell was on the Diamondbacks.

i thought timmy kurkjian was the most knowledgable of the bunch. but his ballot screams "when in doubt, vote yes." so does jim caple's.

I would be very interested in how Pedro Gomez votes on Barry. Given the time he spent stalking him...

i thought timmy kurkjian was the most knowledgable of the bunch. but his ballot screams "when in doubt, vote yes." so does jim caple's.

And thats wrong how? This is the Hall of Fame. And the players who are being discussed are very good players ( probably from the voter's youth ). If in doubt, vote yes is a reasonable policy. if you can see no reason to vote No, then don't vote No.

He has Rice, but no Dawson. I don't think either should be in the HoF, but certainly Dawson before Rice.

My criteria is simple:
1) Did they get all the right names? In my mind, that's Rickey!, Blyleven, Raines, and Trammell. Only three of these ballots nailed all of those.
2) How many extraneous votes were cast beyond those 4? Gammons voted for six total (Caple eight, Kurkijan nine), so his ballot is the best by my criteria.

From Jay Bell's wikipedia's page:

He is also a Christian and gave an interview to Sports Spectrum, a christian magazine

Well, just vote him right in then!

I would be very interested in how Pedro Gomez votes on Barry. Given the time he spent stalking him...

He'll vote yes, if only because it will help with job security.

if you can see no reason to vote No, then don't vote No.

Precisely. Trophies for everyone! That way, nobody has to feel left out and feel bad about himself, like poor Mr. Rice.

Seriously though, only Rickey and Lee Smith? I'm fascinated.

1) Did they get all the right names? In my mind, that's Rickey!, Blyleven, Raines, and Trammell. Only three of these ballots nailed all of those.
2) How many extraneous votes were cast beyond those 4? Gammons voted for six total (Caple eight, Kurkijan nine), so his ballot is the best by my criteria.

I don't see why there should be demerits for Dawson, Murphy, or Smith. Certainly not Dawson and Murphy- those guys are perfectly reasonable choices by the Hall's standards. And Smith, if you think closer is a position, then he has a perfectly reasonable case. (And the Hall is a self-defining institution, which certainly seems to be defining closer as a position.)

I'd give demerits for Morris and less so for Rice. I don't like it when they vote for McGwire, but I don't want to have that discussion. As such, none of them stand out individually as particularly strong ballots. But as a group, they're reasonable.

Do people like Law/neyer get to talk to these other ESPN reporters? Does any proselytising go on?

Jerry and I have talked HoF ballots in the past. I wouldn't initiate that kind of conversation, though; he called me.

I'd still say Brendan Roberts has the best ballot. Swap Trammell for Smith and his ballot matches up exactly with who I'd vote for.

Jerry and I have talked HoF ballots in the past. I wouldn't initiate that kind of conversation, though; he called me.

You should've sent them all notes that say "Vote for Raines...OR ELSE" and included a severed toe in the envelope.

I just noticed that none of them voted for Tommy John. Huh.

My personal picks:
-Henderson
-Blyleven
-Raines
-Trammell

I scored the 11 ballots using +1 if the writer included one of these players on their ballot, -1 if the writer excluded one of these players on their ballot, and -2 for each "extra" player.

Scores were as follows:
-BO: -10
-BR: -1
-HB: -4
-JCa: -4
-JCr: -3
-JSt: -8
-MK: -4
-PGa: 0
-PGo: -9
-TK: -6
-TQ: -6

So, in my crude little system, Peter Gammons had the best ballot. He included all four of my picks, but negated the positive value with two superfluous picks (Rice and Morris). Brendan Roberts had the second best ballot.

Buster Olney had the worst. We only agreed on Henderson. He excluded Blyleven, Raines, and Trammell, while inlcuding Rice, Dawson, Morris, and McGwire.

Pedro Gomez and Jason Stark also had really bad ballots, IMHO.

A human toe?

Whose?

Jerry and I have talked HoF ballots in the past. I wouldn't initiate that kind of conversation, though; he called me.

Thanks

A human toe?
The person who is going to be promoted over you.

The person who is going to be promoted over you.

So I grab him by the collar, I take him out of the seat, I get behind the wheel, and now I'm driving the bus!

I just noticed that none of them voted for Tommy John. Huh.

He's no Jay Bell...

What's the argument for Morris over John, again?

I wouldn't initiate that kind of conversation, though;

"Hey Pedro, Keith Law here, calling about your Hall of Fame Ballot"
"Who the #### are you?"
"Keith Law, I work with you at ESPN"
"As what? a coffee boy? Don't call me"

If you don't vote for Jay Bell on the first ballot I'm certain you'll never get another chance. If you're going to put everyone as good as Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame then Jay Bell belongs. I have them pretty equally valuable (Bell was a slick glove at SS). I would support voting for Jay Bell and not Jim Rice as a protest vote to draw attention to the fact that Jim Rice doesn't belong any more than Jay Bell does.

If you're going to put everyone as good as Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame then Jay Bell belongs

you obviously have him confused with Roy White

Brendan Robert's has the best ballot IMO...I've never heard of the guy though.

He used to write for TSN Fantasy Baseball site, and it looks like he moved to ESPN a little over a year ago. Profile

I always liked his stuff. Doesn't surprise me he has a good ballot. I think considering his roto bent, it's not surprising Smith gets a nod from him.

> you obviously have him confused with Roy White

No, Roy White's significantly better than either Jim Rice or Jay Bell.

Pedro Gomez was working in Arizona when Jay Bell was on the Diamondbacks.

So he's tossing a cookie to an old friend (and perhaps a trusted source) and keeping him from being shut out. That would only be a problem if it caused him to deny a vote to someone he considered worthy. That isn't the case, so no harm.

As best as I can deduce from here and elsewhere, there are four basic variants:

The "Big Hall" Ballot:

Henderson
Raines
McGwire*
Blyleven
Trammel
Dawson
Rice
Smith
John

(essentially Robothal and Kurkjian's ballots)

The "Small Hall/Big Milestones" (3000 hits/500 HR/300 wins/etc.) ballot:

Henderson
McGwire*
Smith

(Knisley's ballot)

The "SABR-friendly" ballot:

Henderson
Raines
Blyleven
Trammel
McGwire*

(essentially Pos and Davidoff's ballots)

The "we knew one when we saw one!" (count the MVPs, Cy Youngs, All-Star Games, etc.) ballot:

Henderson
McGwire*
Dawson
Rice
Morris

(Olney's ballot)

*of course, there's the "ethical" subsection to each of these possibilities...

I might think Olney's ballot is bat-#### crazy, but at least there's some of kind of consistency to it (even if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny).

What baffles me is when people mix and match. Clearly, there's no excuse not to vote for Henderson. (And only one excuse--but to my mind it's incredibly hypocritical one if you were covering baseball in the mid-90s and didn't speak up--not to vote for McGwire.) But how does someone vote for Rice and/or Morris but not Dawson? It's the same damn argument. Except Dawson was better. (Gammons' ballot really doesn't make sense to me unless you accuse him of currying favour with Epstein and Henry.)

Buster Olney: Rickey, Rice, Dawson, Morris, McGwire. Solid.

Sometimes it really depresses me to share a surname with that guy. Bleh.

Also, zero votes for Tommy John?

Is Michael Knisley's Henderson/Lee Smith ballot the most bizarre ballot ever?

I don't think it's bizarre. I think there are several negative adjectives that would accurately describe it, but not "bizarre". I think that there are probably lots of people whose thought process on this issue is something like:

(1) Rickey? All time stolen base leader! All time runs scored leader!

(2) Smith? All time saves leader! Or at least he was!

(3) Raines? What the hell is he the all time leader in? Nothin'. Besides, I'm not even sure I remember, where did he play, Yukon or something?

(4) I am certainly not an idiot, and I am definitely well informed and knowledgeable about this subject!

The thought process is stupid, yes, but not "bizarre" - in fact, it's probably somewhat common, and easily explainable.

Or as insiders call it...PEDRO GOMEZ VOTED FOR WHO?!?!

WHOM! WHOM!

You'd be surprised what sticklers for grammar those Insiders are.

in fact, it's probably somewhat common, and easily explainable.

It can't be all that common, since this is the first "Henderson, Smith, and that's it" ballot we've seen.

My non-existent ballot would have Henderson, Blyleven, Raines, McGwire, Trammell, and Dawson on it.

I would be very interested in how Pedro Gomez votes on Barry. Given the time he spent stalking him...

He voted no on McGwire.

Personally, I like Jim Caple's ballot in a "Big Hall" sense. All the guys who should be there, and nobody who glaringly shouldn't. Now, I'm not a Big Hall guy myself, but I can respect that stance.

It can't be all that common, since this is the first "Henderson, Smith, and that's it" ballot we've seen.

Of course it can. Perhaps not that exact ballot, but that archetypicality, or something close to it.

The point is that someone can think that Smith clearly deserves to be in the Hall, merely because he was the all-time saves leader, and clearly more than someone like Tim Raines or Bert Blyleven or whoever. That such people may often also think that Raines and/or Blyleven also deserve to be in is neither here nor there, with respect to the main point.

And, of couse, it's not merely that people can think Smith clearly deserves to be in the Hall, merely because he was the all-time saves leader; lots of people do think Smith clearly deserves to be in the Hall, merely because he was the all-time saves leader. For example, uh, virtually everybody who's voting for him.

So, again, "bizarre" doesn't seem, to me, to be an appropriate description for someone who thinks that the all-time runs guy and the all-time saves guy deserve in. "Stupid", probably; "ignorant", sure; "facile", definitely. "Bizarre"? I don't think so.

Personally, I like Jim Caple's ballot in a "Big Hall" sense. All the guys who should be there, and nobody who glaringly shouldn't. Now, I'm not a Big Hall guy myself, but I can respect that stance.

Jack Morris pretty glaringly shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, though.

I get what you're saying, and if you replace Morris and Rice with Murphy (and maybe Parker), I'm totally there. But Morris, ugh.

I would agree that Morris shouldn't be in the HOF, but I wouldn't say "glaringly" so. He won 254 games, made all the opening day starts, post-season heroics, etc. Not that I'm sold on that stuff, mind you. But he's not a joke either.

Rube Marquard: 3306 IP, 103 ERA+
Jesse Haines: 3208 IP, 108 ERA+
Catfish Hunter: 3449 IP, 104 ERA+
Jack Morris: 3824 IP, 105 ERA+

So Morris actually won't be the worst pitcher in the Hall of Fame, or even the worst pitcher elected by the writers, but he's right there in the club. Certainly strengthens the arguments of about 50 different Tom, Dick and Orels.

I really don't see any problem with Knisley's ballot. As #43 said, he voted for the record-breaking players. This seems like a perfectly fine crtierion for one's personal Hall of Fame.

A pitcher better than or as good as Morris has fallen off the ballot every year (on average) for the past 13 elections.

2009 - David Cone, Tommy John (15th year)
2008 - Chuck Finley
2007 - Bret Saberhagen, Orel Hershiser
2006 - Dwight Gooden
2004 - Dave Stieb, Dennis Martinez
2003 - Jim Kaat (15th), Luis Tiant (15th)
2002 - Frank Viola, Ron Guidry
1999 - Frank Tanana, Mickey Lolich (15th)
1997 - Rick Reuschel

Any of those guys except those who ran out of years could and probably should still be eligible.

Is Michael Knisley's Henderson/Lee Smith ballot the most bizarre ballot ever?

It's odd, but I do appreciate any attempt to keep the HOF as exclusive as possible. And sure this is a stretch, but according to "HOF Monitor" over at Smith's bb-ref page was the following: HOF Monitor: Pitching - 135.0 (52) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Anyone voting for Jay Bell has got to have the most bizarre ballot ever though...

also, what #53 said.

What does this have to do with Frank Tanana?

Also, looking back over Saberhagen's record I'm reminded of two things. First, he was really a monster of a pitcher. It's really a shame he couldn't hold it together in the second half of his career. Growing up in the late 80s he just screamed HOF-track. It's also a fair warning to the stars of today (your Johans or Sabathias and what have you) how quickly a HOF-targeted career can get derailed. Despite continuing to pitch quite well, he never broke 200 innings again after age 25 and ended up nowhere close to an actual HOF career.

Second, remember that crazy odd-numbered year thing where he would be the best pitcher in baseball half the time and just mediocre in even-numbered years? It's amazing how long that held true. It took until that 1994 resurgence to break the cycle

Pedro wrote in 2006:

That's one of the many beauties of baseball -- you can actually believe your eyes. If what you think you are seeing is unbelievable, then chances are it is. It's the reality of the steroids era and something all Hall voters will have to grapple with now and in the coming years. ...

Again, the basic beauty of baseball is that you can trust your eyes. For many of us, our eyes told us something was wrong with what McGwire was accomplishing late in his career.

Which makes his Jay Bell vote even more bizarre. Jay Bell had one great year - at age 33 in 1999 (as opposed to McGwire's 1998 at age 34), which was at the height of the steroid era.

How good was his 1999?

1. His 38 home runs were 17 more than his second best career year.
2. His 112 RBI were 20 more than his second best year.
3. His SLG was 116 points higher than his second best year.

Maybe he didn't see Bell play that year...