We can say for sure that Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux, Martinez, Schilling and Johnson will be in the Hall of Fame. But it’s a virtual certainty that all six will not get in en masse in 2013.

This would come on the heels of a 2012 ballot that, as of today, would include Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Sosa, and Biggio. The writer also mentions that Frank Thomas and/or Ken Griffey could also retire this season, which would put 13 likely Hall-of-Famers on the ballot over two seasons. Basically, anybody who's already retired and doesn't make the Hall of Fame by 2011 has no chance of ever making it (via the BBWAA), because there's simply not going to be enough room at the bottom of a lot of writers' ballots for guys to maintain the 5% they need to stay on the ballot.

I've been thinking - there's a non-trivial chance that the current BBWAA Hall-of-Fame voting model could fall apart / be replaced within, say, the next decade. It seems to me that there are three basic problems with the BBWAA Hall-of-Fame voting process.

First, outside of major milestones - 3,000 hits, 500 homers, 300 wins - BBWAA voters increasingly (or maybe it's not increasing and it's just more noticeable to me) can't figure out how to distinguish between candidates. My sense is that, back in the day, the big problem with the BBWAA was one of omission: they left out Arky Vaughan and Ron Santo, but, for the most part, everybody who got elected by the BBWAA at least deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. Nowadays, it seems like the sins of commission - Puckett, Sutter, Cepeda, Perez, Rice (presumably) - are getting to be as common as the sins of omission - Trammell, Blyleven, Raines. This issue is going to only grow worse in the future, and I think is likely to come to a head with the 2010 ballot, which will include Robbie Alomar, Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff, and Edgar Martinez, all of whom have excellent Hall-of-Fame arguments (I'd put in the first three, but all of them would be fine choices; the first two should be no-brainer slam dunks), but none of whom have any "magic numbers".

Second, the BBWAA seems to be getting more exclusive over time. Maybe this is just my perception, or maybe it just looks that way because the Hall of Fame is bigger now, but in my perception they seem to have shifted from consistently electing 2-3 players every year to electing 1-2 players per year, which, over time, and particularly with the Veterans' Committee electing nobody, is a pretty big shift. I think this could couple with the first problem to create a situation where guys like Alomar and Larkin, who should be no-brainer slam dunk HOF candidates end up not making it, which could lead to a year or two of nobody being elected despite a number of obvious candidates being on the ballot - Raines, Blyleven, in addition to the 2010 guys.

Finally, BBWAA voters don't know what to do about steroids. Apparently, they've decided that steroids are a disqualifier for Mark McGwire. But does that mean that steroids themselves are a disqualifier - in which case Bonds and Clemens are out - or that steroids merely reduce one's case? If it's the latter, what to do with Sosa, for whom the key evidence of steroid use is his Hall-of-Fame caliber peak? What about Mike Piazza? Dude went from a 62nd-round draft pick to the best-hitting catcher in MLB history, but there aren't even whispers about his use (I don't mean to imply that I think he did use, either; he's just a handy example of a non-accused guy from the "steroid era").

If they're too strict, though, that's just going to play into the first two issues - if 50% or even 25.1% of the electorate stops voting for anybody from the "steroid era" then literally nobody's going to ever get elected and, with the 10-player ballot limit and the 5% rule, it won't be long before guys that are obvious Hall of Fame candidates (if not obvious Hall of Famers) - the Fred McGriffs and Tim Raines of the world - are simply going to be crowded off the ballot altogether.

If nobody from the 2010 ballot gets in by 2011, this could all come to a huge head by 2013 or 2014 as these "steroid era" guys show up. If enough people vote against Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, and Palmeiro because of the 'roids, but they all still have a core of supporters, and guys like Smoltz, Schilling, Larkin, Alomar, McGriff, Edgar, Raines, maybe even a Jeff Bagwell and a Frank Thomas, all have significant support but well below 75%: that's 13 guys that I just named - there's literally not room on the ballot for all of them. Different voters will leave off different ones, and the result is going to be that there's simply going to be too many good candidates for any candidates to hit 75%. At which point, nobody will be elected and the problem will just keep getting worse. At which point, something will have to give. I wonder what it will be.

Kiko, nice post.

Thanks, BLB

My sense is that, back in the day, the big problem with the BBWAA was one of omission: they left out Arky Vaughan and Ron Santo, but, for the most part, everybody who got elected by the BBWAA at least deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. Nowadays, it seems like the sins of commission - Puckett, Sutter, Cepeda, Perez, Rice (presumably)

Cepeda wasn't a BBWAAA selection. A very good case can be made for Puckett. He's isn't a slamdunk, but putting up those numbers in an up-the-middle defensive position was a nice achievement; even in a shortened career.

Second, the BBWAA seems to be getting more exclusive over time.

Wait a sec, earlier you said the BBWAA used to make sins of omission now they make sins of commission. Here you say the BBWAA is getting more exclusive. Huh?

I just accidently deleted my excel file on HoF voting that I spent a few weeks putting together (####!) but a few things have changed over the years:

- HoF voting by the BBWAA is a bit more organized than before. Guys are more likely to be elected first ballot. In the 1960s, only a handful of men got elected on the first ballot. It wasn't until the late 1970s that first balloting became much more common than before.

- There are fewer names per ballot than ever before. The all-time record low was 2008. Pretty much all the 20 lowest are from the last 20-25 years. I think there's a connection between this and the increase in guys elected in the first-ballot. Also, in the 1940s and 1960s, they didn't vote every year, causing that much more of a backlog. Until the early 1960s, it was much more wide-open on who you could vote for. Some elections saw over 100 men get votes back in the day. That was actually pretty common. Most of the difference in votes/ballot then and now are the diminished number of token votes & the increased number of first-balloters.

- The BBWAA approach was designed with a 16-team MLB in mind, now there's 30. If it's more exclusive, that's why.

Wait a sec, earlier you said the BBWAA used to make sins of omission now they make sins of commission. Here you say the BBWAA is getting more exclusive. Huh?

Yeah, you're right, I guess that is contradictory, huh. I get the sense that there are more sins of commission (sorry about putting Cepeda in the wrong bucket) now but also more sins of omission.

- The BBWAA approach was designed with a 16-team MLB in mind, now there's 30. If it's more exclusive, that's why.

Absolutely. If anything, the BBWAA should be electing more guys now than they used to, and my sense is that it's the opposite. My impression is just that - with some admitted hyperbole - the BBWAA is electing only half as many people as they should be, and despite that, half of the guys that they're electing don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame anyway.

As I said, you put the deserving HOFers who can't get elected - Trammell, Blyleven, Raines - together with the 2010 group with the 2012 and 2013 groups and you have just a TON of deserving Hall of Famers appearing on the ballot together. And between the 2010 guys lacking those "magic numbers" and the 2012-13 guys having steroid whispers that in some cases undermine those magic numbers, I would expect to see the BBWAA voting get much less organized at that point.

If nobody from the 2010 ballot gets in by 2011, this could all come to a huge head by 2013 or 2014 as these "steroid era" guys show up. If enough people vote against Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, and Palmeiro because of the 'roids, but they all still have a core of supporters, and guys like Smoltz, Schilling, Larkin, Alomar, McGriff, Edgar, Raines, maybe even a Jeff Bagwell and a Frank Thomas, all have significant support but well below 75%: that's 13 guys that I just named - there's literally not room on the ballot for all of them. Different voters will leave off different ones, and the result is going to be that there's simply going to be too many good candidates for any candidates to hit 75%. At which point, nobody will be elected and the problem will just keep getting worse. At which point, something will have to give. I wonder what it will be.

This could happen, but I wouldn't worry too much. I've looked at the HoF voting a lot over the last year (accursed deleted file!) and I've realized one thing - it's a conversation. It's a 15-year-long conversation. Guys with a certain % of votes almost always go up, and guys below Y% go down.

I don't have the %s anymore, but in the last half-century, only three men have debuted on the HoF ballot at 40% or higher and not been elected by the BBWAA - Andre Dawson (who is really rising now, and will likely go in by 2010), Lee Smith (also on the ballot and we'll see how Gossage's enshrinement affects him), and Steve Garvey. The guys who begin between 30-39% often go in. Below 23%, I think, is where totals usually dissipate.

If all those guys get caught in a logjam, there will be a big push for the 1-2 up at time, and others will get jammed down. My own hunches:

- 500 HR plus a strong anti-'roids rep will get Thomas in rapidly.

- Raines will slowly rise, until he's elected around 2020. He'll have the advantage of no similar players on the ballot once Rickey gets in.

- Larkin will not receive strong support. He's the new Trammell.

- In a couple years, Edgar Martinez will fall under 5%. Too much time as a DH, and no overwhelming arguments otherwise.

- As more 'roid-tainted players arise, either they furor will die down, or their defenders will write them off as lost causes adn start votign for guys with a better chance.

- Smoltz & Schilling will get in quickly.

I'm always amused by the "10 All-Star appearances" for Glavine. His ERA in those "10 All-Star appearances"? A dismal 10.13, according to BB-Ref. Doesn't totally sucking in the All-Star Game revoke at least some of that credit?

It's a 15-year-long conversation.

As long as you stay on the ballot. That's the problem I foresee, if the anti-steroid sentiment is strong enough to keep anybody who's suspected of steroid use out of the Hall - and remember, all it takes is 25.1% to never vote for Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds and they never get elected. But they also continue to receive votes from everybody else, taking up ballot space from other players.

That said, I don't know that I think it's likely to happen. Your scenario is probably more likely, but I think there's some chance that if there are enough staunch anti-steroid voters to keep even Bonds and Clemens out of the Hall of Fame, coupled with significant enough differences within the electorate in how to evaluate players - e.g., Raines v. Rice - that chaos could ensue.

If somehow Jim Rice is not elected next year (even though in terms of ballot logjam it won't matter because he's off the ballot either way), I think this could foretend this sort of dichotomy - it would suggest there are enough people who reject the Jim Rice/triple crown stat/feared HOF case that such a case can't prevail. We already know that, for now, a pure statistical case (Raines, Blyleven) can't prevail. Which leaves only the obvious guys (Rickey Henderson next year). When even the obvious guys become questionable (Bonds, Clemens), the system won't work anymore.

I'm always amused by the "10 All-Star appearances" for Glavine. His ERA in those "10 All-Star appearances"? A dismal 10.13, according to BB-Ref. Doesn't totally sucking in the All-Star Game revoke at least some of that credit?

Personally, I don't think poor performance in 8 innings of exhibition baseball takes away from the approximately 1200+ of regular season IP that garnered those honors. But thats just me, YMMV.

A dismal 10.13, according to BB-Ref. Doesn't totally sucking in the All-Star Game revoke at least some of that credit?

Yeah it's a shame he didn't do better in those completely meaningless games.

He just talking about credit for being an All-Star.

2. Glavine. No question, 300 wins get you in. But not necessarily as a first-timer, as Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, Phil Niekro and Early Wynn can attest. Glavine is, of course, much better than those guys.

He'll get in as a first-timer. The others all had knocks against them - Sutton's case entirely revolved around winning 300, people always underrate knucklers, Wynn & Perry hung around trying to win 300, looking really bad in the process.

Glavine's 8th all-time in career CYA shares with 3.15. Much better than the other guys. Perry does the best of any of them at 2.00.

Also, Glavine wasn't much better than Perry. Perry was better than Glavine.

We can say for sure that Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux, Martinez, Schilling and Johnson will be in the Hall of Fame. But it’s a virtual certainty that all six will not get in en masse in 2013.

Oh wait - I just realized something. The entire premise is wrong. You wait 5 years & are eligible in the 6th. Anyone playing in 2008 (like Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux, Martinez, Schilling, and Johnson) will not be eligible in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and . . . 2013.

They won't be elected en masse in 2013 because not a single damn one of them will be on the ballot then.

First, outside of major milestones - 3,000 hits, 500 homers, 300 wins - BBWAA voters increasingly (or maybe it's not increasing and it's just more noticeable to me) can't figure out how to distinguish between candidates. My sense is that, back in the day, the big problem with the BBWAA was one of omission: they left out Arky Vaughan and Ron Santo, but, for the most part, everybody who got elected by the BBWAA at least deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. Nowadays, it seems like the sins of commission - Puckett, Sutter, Cepeda, Perez, Rice (presumably) - are getting to be as common as the sins of omission - Trammell, Blyleven, Raines.

Well, I'm a big hall guy, and I agree wholeheartedly that Trammell, Blyleven, and Raines deserve to be in there. But I also think that Puckett, Perez, and Cepeda (and yes, I know that the writers didn't vote Cepeda in) deserve to be in there, also. I don't think those were bad choices in the least...

He just talking about credit for being an All-Star.

Well, fine. He was selected to 10 AS games. He didn't play in 4, didn't allow a run in 4, and allowed a bunch in each of the other 2. So, dock him from 10 to 8 if you must, but his 10+ ERA does not mean he was a crappy all star. In his median game, he gave up 0 runs.

Deveney today

Sean: I just want to throw another name into the Hall of Fame 2013 mix: Mike Mussina. While I would clearly separate Mussina from Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson, he merits discussion with the others. If he retires after this year, he's likely to finish with more than 260 wins and a lifetime win percentage of 63 percent, better than John Smoltz, Curt Schilling or Tom Glavine, for that matter.

Brian: I think the previous e-mailer's head would explode if you try to put Mussina in the Hall. I'd say Mussina gets HOF consideration, but he's a fringe candidate. He has never won 20 games or a Cy Young Award; he only finished as high as second in Cy voting once in his career (1999). He only had a sub-3.00 ERA once in his career, his first full year. He has been consistently very good. But I don't think you can say he has had a long stretch of being truly great.

Even with his downturn...how is Mussina not still better than Glavine?

Maybe that new Feinstein book, Living on the Black, would answer that question.

#2 is a very good comment.

If something cannot go on forever, eventually it will end.

Maybe this is just my perception, or maybe it just looks that way because the Hall of Fame is bigger now, but in my perception they seem to have shifted from consistently electing 2-3 players every year to electing 1-2 players per year, which, over time, and particularly with the Veterans' Committee electing nobody, is a pretty big shift.

Especially true since there are so many more players now.

Maybe 2.5 players a year, from 24 teams, used to be the rate. One player per team every 10 years.

And now it's 1.5 players a year, from 30 teams? One player per team every 20 years? Geez!

I suppose the average will go up in 2012 and 2013, though, as the article points out.

Even with his downturn...how is Mussina not still better than Glavine?

I'm not sure if this is facetious, but Mussina would need about 1,000 innings of 110 ERA+ to match Glavine's career numbers. Glavine's '95 to '98 peak is better than any Mussina has had.

He has never won 20 games or a Cy Young Award

ZOMG! I predicted it! Didn't I predict it? We all freakin' predicted it. Mussina has won 17 games or more seven times! He's even led the league in wins. With 19. In a strike-shortened season.

He's been in the top 10 AL pitchers in wins nine times. He's been in the top 10 AL pitchers in winning percentage six times. He's been in the top 10 in Cy Young voting eight times. If you like the "win" statistic, and you like to be convinced that someone is good by seeing what other writers thought of him in the past, Mike Mussina is a guy who looks really really good by those criteria.

What is this fascination with reaching some short-term milestone during exactly one season, which would theoretically outweigh an entire career?

Even with his downturn...how is Mussina not still better than Glavine?

Let's look at all their full seasons by ERA+

G 168/153/147/141/140/139/135/133/127/125/119/116/114/109/106/099/096/094/093/080
M 163/157/145/142/138/137/134/129/129/125/___/___/___/109/103/100/098/096/087

Actually, that 138 for Mussina is a partial season (87 IP). So if Mussina had an additional 2/3 of a 140 ERA+ season, 3 115 ERA+ seasons, and an 80 ERA+ rookie season, he'd be just not quite as good as Glavine. That's quite a bit of pretty good pitching.

Does the 80+ rookie season really help? Mussina's had a 138 ERA+ his actual rookie season, after a year and a half of totally dominating AA and AAA, Mark Prior-style. If his rookie season had been at age 21 instead of 22 he would have easily had an 80 ERA+. That's basically giving Glavine credit for having been drafted out of high school instead of college.

On the other hand, you could say that Mussina's career rate stats were helped out by not having to learn on the job in the majors.

So really, the difference is that Glavine's career has been three seasons longer. I think they're very similar myself, though career length would definitely be a tiebreaker.

On the other hand, you could say that Mussina's career rate stats were helped out by not having to learn on the job in the majors.

They were also hurt by playing in front of one of the worst defenses in the league for years (02-04 or 05).

He's been in the top 10 in Cy Young voting eight times.

Which is merely a more impressive, but no more accurate way of saying he's gotten CYA votes 8 times. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever gotten a CYA vote and not been in the top 10. And in those 8 top 10 finishes, he's gotten a total of 3 first place votes.

Is Schilling really a gimme? I'm surprised everyone seems to be taking it for granted; my impression is that he's not quite there yet. He had a couple of really good years, but he wasn't really all that great for very long.

Is Schilling really a gimme? I'm surprised everyone seems to be taking it for granted; my impression is that he's not quite there yet. He had a couple of really good years, but he wasn't really all that great for very long.

He scores very high on the fame part...

Though he was not quite on Maddux’s level, Glavine was close.

ew.

My sense is that, back in the day, the big problem with the BBWAA was one of omission: they left out Arky Vaughan and Ron Santo, but, for the most part, everybody who got elected by the BBWAA at least deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. Nowadays, it seems like the sins of commission - Puckett, Sutter, Cepeda, Perez, Rice (presumably)

I think Perez is a solid choice. He played his best five-year run at third base, remember.

He has never won 20 games or a Cy Young Award; he only finished as high as second in Cy voting once in his career

Gee, that nearly describes Nolan Ryan. Thank god for those 2 years where he pitched 300 innings and made 39 and 41 starts, otherwise Ryan would be 20-winless and the above would have described him exactly.

Pedro probably won't retire after this year either.