What an incoherent process. "I voted for Trammell last year but that was before I realized that Bonds and Biggio had ever existed. Reassessed in this new light, I've decided he's no longer worthy of the HoF. Until maybe next year unless I find out there were other great players at one time."

I can understand originally not thinking a guy was an HoFer and then, upon further reflection or as your fellow voters put in Jim Rice, changing your mind. I suppose there may even be rare cases where I can see changing your mind the other way -- maybe if a bunch of great SS had entered the game in the last few years to make Trammell look less special. But "mixed against this field" -- that only comes into play if you've filled your ballot and the guy falls off.

As to "stat-siphoning" ... so, based on raw stats, he's the greatest hitting C of all time ... so, if we siphon off stats just 'cuz he falls to the ... 3rd best hitting C of all-time? 4th best?

I read his entire article and feel considerable dumber for having done so. What a mish-mash of nonsensical rationalizations. He cites various stats on some players to support his position, but on Morris he avoids stats like the plague (okay, okay he mentioned 5 post season complete games and I suppose that is a stat). Also, he dismisses the greatest hitting catcher ever by saying he was just a mediocre defensive catcher. Sure, defense is important and I think a great defensive player should get extra consideration, but less than great defense is not enough to make a slam dunk Hall of Famer an after thought.

That Piazza excerpt...Jesus...reading these Hall of Fame articles is making me lose confidence in humanity. When did 'stupid' become the default setting for grown up, professional people?

Also, he dismisses the greatest hitting catcher ever by saying he was just a mediocre defensive catcher. Sure, defense is important and I think a great defensive player should get extra consideration, but less than great defense is not enough to make a slam dunk Hall of Famer an after thought.

If some of the stuff coming out about catcher defense is accurate, that a catcher's receiving alone can be as valuable or detrimental as his offensive production, then that's not true.

The problem is that we don't (and probably never will) be able to properly evaluate Piazza's receiving, game calling, etc. All we can really do is say that he was an embarrassingly poor throwing catcher, and, as you say, it's a demerit that mars his case without negating it.

All we can really do is say that he was an embarrassingly poor throwing catcher

Wasn't he also very good at PB/WP?

That Piazza excerpt...Jesus...reading these Hall of Fame articles is making me lose confidence in humanity. When did 'stupid' become the default setting for grown up, professional people?

It's always been the default. The internet just lets everybody share their stupid with the world.

'fraid FPH is right--people have always been this dumb. It's only that now there's so much of it on display.

But God, that guy is dumb.

When did 'stupid' become the default setting for grown up, professional people?

Well, whore and pimp are presumably the oldest professions and they're usually pretty up on things. The third profession was probably the priesthood and so it almost certainly started there. Professional stupidity took a giant leap forward with the creation of the profession of "sportswriter." It entered the stratosphere with the creation of the life coaching profession.

Please don't take this as a complaint about professional stupidity, I find it pays quite well.

I read his entire article and feel considerably dumber for having done so.

And may God have mercy on his soul.

Oh god this is the worst yet.

The article really is kind of a dog's breakfast. He shows absolutely no solid foundation on which to base his judgments; here's where an afternoon on Baseball-Reference and even some 8th-grade-level analysis would come in handy. He ends up identifying a few of the right guys, but his thoughts are completely unmoored.

Am I crazy, or is Murphy going to top 40% on this vote? It would position him for the VC.

If some of the stuff coming out about catcher defense is accurate, that a catcher's receiving alone can be as valuable or detrimental as his offensive production, then that's not true.

The problem is that we don't (and probably never will) be able to properly evaluate Piazza's receiving, game calling, etc. All we can really do is say that he was an embarrassingly poor throwing catcher, and, as you say, it's a demerit that mars his case without negating it.

What I love more about this is that available estimates of Piazza's game calling runs have him as one of the better catchers historically with regards to game calling.

Am I crazy, or is Murphy going to top 40% on this vote? It would position him for the VC.

Murphy is running about 20% right now...which looks to be a slight final whining year bump.

Murphy is running about 20% right now...which looks to be a slight final whining year bump.

Can we get an updated ballot collecting gizmo count?

Gentlemen, you have to check out Kawakami's ballot from last year, and conmpare it to this one. The changes in tone are amazing. I have my own Hall of Fame- The Leonard Koppett Bad Voter Hall Of Fame. Kawakami earned nomination for his 2011 ballot, and he is looking really good for induction this year based on this one...

Am I crazy, or is Murphy going to top 40% on this vote? It would position him for the VC.

He's a borderline candidate and if these writers are going to slap down the PED users on integrity etc...then giving Murphy a little goose in the other direction seems pretty reasonable.

Candidates in their final year on the ballot typically get a boost just for being on their final year on the ballot.

Rizzuto-- +6.1%
Reese-- +2.0%
Vernon-- +4.5%
Dark-- -7.3%
Newcombe-- +3.3%
Kluszewski-- +1.0%
Ashburn-- -5.0%
Schoendiest-- +6.5%
Hodges-- +14.0%
N.Fox-- +13.7%
Burdette-- +0.6%
Maris-- +0.5%
Larsen-- +0.0%
E.Howard-- +1.7%
Face-- +0.8%
Kuenn-- -1.5%
Bunning-- +5.8%
Mazeroksi-- +10.2%
Wills-- +11.8%
Cepeda-- +13.9%
K.Boyer-- -4.5%
Oliva-- +3.8%
Flood-- +2.3%
Torre-- +11.6%
Allen-- -2.2%
Minoso-- -1.4%
Lolich-- -3.0%
Tiant-- +5.8%
Kaat-- +3.1%
Garvey-- -4.9%
Concepcion-- +4.9%
Rice-- +4.2%
John-- +2.6%
Parker-- +0.1%

#5 AROM's research indicates that he was a positive in all aspects of catching except (and yes, this is a big deal) throwing.

Seriously, he can't have been a disaster as a receiver because he's spotting the field a fair number of runs (because of his issues against the running game) and the staff he caught were generally successful.

EDIT: Study is linked in #12. Coke.

I have my own Hall of Fame- The Leonard Koppett Bad Voter Hall Of Fame.

?????? That's kind of like having The Abraham Lincoln Hall of Bad Presidents.

Tim Kawakami is what passes for sports journalism in the Bay Area right now because he sucks up to the right teams (ie. Giants, 49er's,Sharks). I will be happy whenever this clown gets booted or leaves the SJ Mercury News.

"That's not true Kawakami!!"

"That's not true Kawakami!!"

You don't need a Grima Wormtongue anymore once the King is dead.

What I love more about this is that available estimates of Piazza's game calling runs have him as one of the better catchers historically with regards to game calling.

This is one of the things that drives me crazy about the writers and their voting process for awards, the HOF, etc. They go on and on about the mysteries and vagaries of catching in articles or on the air anecdotally (calling games, framing pitches, blocking balls, "leadership", etc.) ... but when it comes time actually voting for anything, i.e. putting their money where their mouth is, catcher defense comes down to one, and one only, simple thing: throwing.

The sheer number of entirely different ways in which ballots can be dumb is fascinating.

And yet, the various idiocies cancel one another out, somehow. Because the process works, and we must respect the consensus.