Wow. Really surprised the support for McGwire is THAT low. Even behind McGriff and Walker? I suspect he'll start fading pretty quickly unless someone raises a spirited defense campaign for him.

I thought Bagwell would get in this year, but I'm less optimistic now. May take a few years, and the deluge of sure-fire HOFers may stretch it to a decade of waiting.

I still don't get why Lee Smith has this much support. I don't think anyone during his career thought "hey, this guy is a Hall of Famer!"

Would it be possible to list which ballots you already have so I can see if I have any you don't?

I thought Bagwell would get in this year, but I'm less optimistic now.

Bagwell would have needed to nearly double his support in one year to get in. That would be unprecedented in the contemporary era. If he breaks into the 55% range, he'll be in good shape to get in so long as there's no ballot-pocalypse.

I still don't get why Lee Smith has this much support. I don't think anyone during his career thought "hey, this guy is a Hall of Famer!"

There was a period of time during which he held the career saves record. That's pretty much it.

Does this include the four Chicago Daily Herald votes?

I still don't get why Lee Smith has this much support. I don't think anyone during his career thought "hey, this guy is a Hall of Famer!"

Cuz saves are overrated. But I don't see why he still gets all this support when his record has since been shattered. It's like all the people that suddenly started pimping Maris for the HOF post 1998. If having a record wasn't enough to get someone in, then how does NOT having it make them MORE worthy? Backwards logic to me...

To me, the most interesting thing is looking ahead to next year- who even has a chance? If McGwire's ceiling is around 20%:

Bonds- Steroids- might not break 50%
Clemens- Steroids- might not break 50%
Piazza- Steroids suspect- If Bagwell can't get in, why would he?
Sosa- Steroids suspect- If Bagwell can't get in, why would he?
Schilling- Not a slam dunk based on stats, alienated some reporters by being outspoken, may also be a steroid suspect
Biggio- If Alomar and Larkin didn't make it on the first ballot, I'm doubtful Biggio does- also may be a steroid suspect.

That leaves us with... the indubitably squeaky clean Jack Morris.

Piazza- Steroids suspect- If Bagwell can't get in, why would he?
Sosa- Steroids suspect- If Bagwell can't get in, why would he?

This assumes that Bagwell's low initial vote total is due mostly to steroids rumors. I think this is incorrect - it's due to the fact that the writers don't realize how great Bagwell was in the first place. His old-time slash line is unimpressive for a Hall of Fame first baseman - .297 / 449 / 1529. Recognizing Bagwell as a Hall of Famer requires (1) recognizing the value of his OBP, (2) recognizing the impact of the Astrodome on his raw numbers, and (3) recognizing the value of his defense and baserunning. The BBWAA has historically been terrible at analysis of this sort - it takes them several years to figure it out, at best.

The steroid candidates have seen no movement in their numbers. If Bagwell picks up into the mid-50s or better this year, that will show that he's not being treated like the roiders.

Sosa is viewed as a "proven" roider who'd be nothing without roids and will settle into McGwire/Palmeiro territory. Biggio, unlike Alomar and Larkin, has the big milestone - 3000 hits. He's a first-balloter.

The interesting ones for me are Piazza (I think he gets in with one ballot, and I'd be shocked if he's below 60%, but I could be wrong), Bonds and Clemens (I really have no idea) and Schilling (maybe 30-40%? Will get "big game" points but also has unimpressive career credentials compared to most BBWAA pitching candidates.)

I don't think the McGwire vote is just steroids though. I think its the perception rightly or wrongly that McGwire ONLY hit home runs, and that skill as aided - perhaps greatly so - by steroids.

Bonds and Clemens are both well-regarded as much more well-rounded, and were great players back before they got muscle-bound. I think they'll both squeak in, although it might not be on the first ballot.

Sosa will get the McGwire treatment.

If these percentages hold:

Morris is gaining support, but too slowly to make a difference. If he goes in, it will very likely be a veteran’s committee selection. The days of Frankie Frisch are long over and getting in by the vets is hard. But Jack Morris has a certain standing in the game. A vet’s committee largely made up of player who played against Morris will probably support him.

If it weren’t for all the candidates coming up for eligibility in the near future, the progress for Bagwell and Raines would seem to put them on a sure path for election. The progress Raines has made in a few years has been especially encouraging.

I don’t see an end in sight for the crowded ballots though. I think it is mostly a product of MLB expanding to 28 and then 30 teams about the time when many of the newly retired players were starting their careers. More teams = more players with HOF quality stats. Simple as that.

Biggio will be the one. Alomar and Larkin would have gone in on first try if they had 3000 hits. The number, it is magic.

Morris is gaining support, but too slowly to make a difference. If he goes in, it will very likely be a veteran’s committee selection. The days of Frankie Frisch are long over and getting in by the vets is hard. But Jack Morris has a certain standing in the game. A vet’s committee largely made up of player who played against Morris will probably support him.

What's the closest anyone has ever gotten to election by the BBWAA without ever getting elected by the BBWAA or VC?

If Larkin goes in and I were given a ballot for 2013, I’d vote for:
Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Schilling, Biggio, Bagwell, Raines, Trammell, Edgar, McGwire.

I don’t disqualify for steroids, but if my ballot is limited to 10 spots Sosa would have to be sacrificed. So would Larry Walker and Palmeiro.

Gil Hodges 63% ?

What's the closest anyone has ever gotten to election by the BBWAA without ever getting elected by the BBWAA or VC?

I think it's Gil Hodges.

edit: coke to AROM.

If Larkin goes in and I were given a ballot for 2013, I’d vote for:
Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Schilling, Biggio, Bagwell, Raines, Trammell, Edgar, McGwire.

This is interesting. The no-brainers are Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Biggio, Bagwell. I'd take Raines, Trammell, and McGwire in the next set. That leaves Schilling, Edgar, Walker, Sosa and Palmeiro. Drop Palmeiro for lack of peak, Sosa for lack of career, and I'd probably take Schilling and Walker over Edgar. But jeez it's tough. I'll have to do actual work to figure it out for definites.

1.9 - V. Castilla
0.0 - Bernie Williams

Hanh??

This assumes that Bagwell's low initial vote total is due mostly to steroids rumors. I think this is incorrect - it's due to the fact that the writers don't realize how great Bagwell was in the first place.

Based on the articles that have been posted at BTF, the only voter I see who says he's not voting based on Bagwell's numbers is Bloom (this is the lunatic who says he's not voting for Bagwell because his numbers are similar to Steve Garvey's, even though he previously voted for Garvey, because nobody else voted for Garvey, so we have to take it for what it's worth).

Laviviere didn't vote for Bagwell but didn't offer an explanation, so it wasn't clear if it was due to inadequate numbers or steroid suspicions.

The five other no votes I found- Pozner, Gregor, Brookover, Jacobs, and Schultz- all explicitly said that Bagwell has HOF numbers but they weren't voting for him based on steroid suspicion.

Small sample size I know, but I think the evidence points to steroid rumors being what is keeping Bagwell out.

Bonds and Clemens are both well-regarded as much more well-rounded, and were great players back before they got muscle-bound. I think they'll both squeak in, although it might not be on the first ballot.

I agree that Bonds and Clemens are more qualified and will likely poll higher than McGwire. But if a guy with 583 HRs currently has a ceiling of 25%- doesn't that strongly suggest that approximately half the electorate isn't going to vote for someone with the steroid taint, regardless? Unless there is a sea change in attitudes.

Biggio will be the one. Alomar and Larkin would have gone in on first try if they had 3000 hits. The number, it is magic.

I think Biggio will get in and probably in year 2, but I'll go out on a limb and say not on the first ballot. Expect a lot of "he didn't seem like a HOFer when he was playing," "he hung around to get 3000 hits" and "a lot of his teammates used steroids... hmmm" articles next year.

Morris is gaining support, but too slowly to make a difference. If he goes in, it will very likely be a veteran’s committee selection. The days of Frankie Frisch are long over and getting in by the vets is hard. But Jack Morris has a certain standing in the game. A vet’s committee largely made up of player who played against Morris will probably support him.

I don't know...

I think last year the Repoz counter undershot him by about 5-6-7%?

If he gets into the high 60s - with, what -- 2 more tries? Even with crowded ballot, it looks to me like he just might squeak in.

If Hodges is in indeed the highest to not get in at 63% -- and let's say Morris goes to ~65%... hoo boy...

I wouldn't vote for Morris -- though, I wouldn't be as upset by his entrance as most (I just think there are a ton better candidates than him - and it bothers me more that people with ballot space exclude worthies, but include Jack than vice versa).

What will really work against Morris is that he's not going to have a Lederer/intertubes banging the drum for him - it's going to fall onto the cranky writers complaining about abacuses and they tend to get easily distracted by shiny objects, so I'm not sure they can do the consistent drumbeat thing.

Based on the articles that have been posted at BTF, the only voter I see who says he's not voting based on Bagwell's numbers is Bloom (this is the lunatic who says he's not voting for Bagwell because his numbers are similar to Steve Garvey's, even though he previously voted for Garvey, because nobody else voted for Garvey, so we have to take it for what it's worth).

That's chaos trolling at its finest -- hilarious when childish people think they're really playing Solomon.

What's the closest anyone has ever gotten to election by the BBWAA without ever getting elected by the BBWAA or VC?

Excluding guys still on the ballot:

Gil Hodges, 63.4%
Tony Oliva, 47.3%
Roger Maris, 43,1%
Steve Garvey 42.6%
Maury Wills 40.6%
Marty Marion 40.0%
Harvey Kuenn 39.3%
Hank Gowdy 35.9%
Phil Cavaretta 35.6%
Johnny Sain 34.0%

1.9 - V. Castilla
0.0 - Bernie Williams

Hanh??

Repoz has 54 ballots, so that's one guy who voted for Castilla. His column was linked here, it wasn't "I think Vinny Castilla is up there with Eddie Mathews and Mike Schmidt", it was more along the lines of "Castilla isn't a Hall of Famer, but he was a very good player, and I'm working for a CO paper . . ." which honestly, I don't have too much of a problem with, if the rest of the ballot is well thought out.

Small sample size I know, but I think the evidence points to steroid rumors being what is keeping Bagwell out.

Eh, I think it points to how calling Bagwell a roider is a cheap way to fill column inches. I don't think those are necessarily representative of the 60% of the electorate that didn't vote for Bagwell last year.

If Bagwell's support increases significantly this year (maybe a 15 point jump), that will be inexplicable in terms of steroids. What, did 15% of the electorate receive evidence that Bagwell didn't do steroids? It will, instead, be perfectly consistent with the trajectories of recent deserving but temporarily overlooked candidates like Larkin and Sandberg.

If the Repoz tally is off, and Bagwell's vote stalls or only jumps a few points, it'll be evidence for the roids rumor explanation.

I think Biggio will get in and probably in year 2

He'd get in Year 2 in normal circumstances, but not when Maddux, Thomas, and Glavine are all getting on the ballot at the same time. He should pull a Minoso and come back for a cameo appearance to delay his Hall debut. He'd probably be better than some of the scrubs playing now. XD

I think last year the Repoz counter undershot him by about 5-6-7%?


If he gets into the high 60s - with, what -- 2 more tries? Even with crowded ballot, it looks to me like he just might squeak in.

Repoz was 4.3 points off Jack's total 49.2 projected vs. 53.5 actual.

I say he's got to crack 65 percent this year, and I just don't see it happening. Then again, I've been saying for three years that he wouldn't make it through the BBWAA, so I've got a lot invested in that position.

I say he's got to crack 65 percent this year, and I just don't see it happening. Then again, I've been saying for three years that he wouldn't make it through the BBWAA, so I've got a lot invested in that position.

Bert was at 62.7% in Year 13. Morris might not be that far behind.

Bert had big momentum in his last years on the ballot. Morris doesn't.

Also, previously to last year, Morris usually underperformed the Repoz tally in his final vote total.

Bert was at 62.7% in Year 13.

I thought he was 62.7% in Year 12, and Year 13 was when he missed by five votes, not that it makes any difference. If Morris can get into the 60s, I can see enough voters give Morris a vote for doing it the "clean" way.

Bert had big momentum in his last years on the ballot. Morris doesn't.

He will if he's at 60% or so this year. That'll be a big jump.

If Repoz's tally doesn't include the Chicago Daily Herald, where Morris was 4 for 4, he's at 62%. (I thought Repoz ran something yesterday with 53 ballots and this one's only 54 which is why I'm wondering, but maybe my timeline's off.)

0.0 - Bernie Williams

People argue that the voters think postseason performance is important (I guess Jack Morris is the classic example -- but is he, really? How far is Game 7 1991 carrying Morris, as opposed to the notion that he was a Winner? I grant these two are related, but Winningest Pitcher of the 80s would be carrying Morris pretty far even without Game 7 1991.).

But in Bernie's case, he's essentially on the border, deserving of serious consideration even if one concludes that he ultimately falls short; he's got a gazillion postseason performances (and I think some records) -- and, yet, that has helped him not one bit. 0 votes out of 54 thus far.

Eh, I think it points to how calling Bagwell a roider is a cheap way to fill column inches. I don't think those are necessarily representative of the 60% of the electorate that didn't vote for Bagwell last year.

If Bagwell's support increases significantly this year (maybe a 15 point jump), that will be inexplicable in terms of steroids. What, did 15% of the electorate receive evidence that Bagwell didn't do steroids? It will, instead, be perfectly consistent with the trajectories of recent deserving but temporarily overlooked candidates like Larkin and Sandberg.

If the Repoz tally is off, and Bagwell's vote stalls or only jumps a few points, it'll be evidence for the roids rumor explanation.

Not sure I disagree with any of this, although I think Bagwell could get a 15 point jump this year and still have trouble eventually getting elected because of the steroid taint.

There is clearly some percentage of the electorate that's decided they're not voting for anyone who they SUSPECT of using steroids. The question is how close that percentage is to 25%. If it's say, one-third of voters (which I don't think is implausible) then we'll see Bagwell hit a ceiling in support, at least until attitudes change or the makeup of the electorate changes.

(I think the percentage of the electorate that's decided that they're not voting for anyone affirmatively linked to steroids is well over 50%, based on McGwire's totals, which means real trouble for Bonds and Clemens.)

But my original point was that Bagwell's lack of support in his first year of balloting indicated that Piazza and Sosa wouldn't get in next year. You agree on Sosa. With regard to Piazza, and based on what happened with Bagwell, I just don't see him getting to 75%. You accurately pointed out that voters probably weren't capable of adjusting for the Astrodome, but I'm guessing some voters aren't going to properly adjust for Piazza being a catcher (he hit no milestones in his career and never won an MVP). That and steroid suspicions will keep him down.

People argue that the voters think postseason performance is important (I guess Jack Morris is the classic example -- but is he, really? How far is Game 7 1991 carrying Morris, as opposed to the notion that he was a Winner? I grant these two are related, but Winningest Pitcher of the 80s would be carrying Morris pretty far even without Game 7 1991.).

The fundamental thing carrying Morris is that he's seen by a wide swath of people to have been better than his numbers. His win total is only one part of that perception (and of course his win total is a "number"). More important than the fact Game 7 1991 happened was that it validated -- and, apparently, hardened -- an impression people already had of Morris.

We can quibble all we want with the validity of that impression, but I'd submit that the paragraph above accurately describes reality.

Bernie should have hit a homer in game 7 2001. Pad the lead so Mo doesn't blow it. Even then, it probably wouldn't have been dramatic enough to carry his HOF case. If the Yankees had been playing at home and he hits a walk off that might have done it.

Morris has 3 more tries, including this year. I just don't think he can keep any gains he makes in 2012 with the crowded ballot. The people who vote for McGwire will also vote for Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, and others with real or imagined taint. And they won't have room for Jack Morris. No way he gets 75%.

(I think the percentage of the electorate that's decided that they're not voting for anyone affirmatively linked to steroids is well over 50%, based on McGwire's totals, which means real trouble for Bonds and Clemens.)

Not necessarily. Mac's results probably include some steroid discounters, guys who won't vote for somebody who they think wouldn't have had a HOF career without steroids, but would vote for someone like Bonds and Clemens, as they were fully qualified before using.

*I* don't understand why we arn't making a bigger stink over E.Martinez? We're just going to let those stupid DH arguments stand? While Lee Smith gets traction?

Morris is in a different mental bucket than the other serious contenders and will be through Year 15. Other than the very few tapped-out-at-10 ballots where he'd be fighting for shelf space, he isn't really "competing" with them (or anyone).

If Repoz's tally doesn't include the Chicago Daily Herald, where Morris was 4 for 4, he's at 62%. (I thought Repoz ran something yesterday with 53 ballots and this one's only 54 which is why I'm wondering, but maybe my timeline's off.)

This tally was posted after the Herald's results were posted. Last night repoz posted a tally through 46 ballots and now he's up to 54, so I assume the tally has the Herald.

Normally I'd say Morris had a shot at a surge in his final years on the ballot, but 2013-14 are far from normal circumstances. Any backlogger who doesn't get in this year won't get in for the next several years. Morris is going to the VC, and they'll vote him in.

Other than the very few tapped-out-at-10 ballots where he'd be fighting for shelf space, he isn't really "competing" with them (or anyone).

This seems like it should be true, but historically the addition of good candidates to the ballot has hurt the support of existing candidates. Voters appear to like filling out a certain number of names to their ballots, and will drop players in big years, even if they haven't hit the technical maximum. This is the trend that Morris has to fight, alongside Bagwell and Raines.

*I* don't understand why we arn't making a bigger stink over E.Martinez? We're just going to let those stupid DH arguments stand? While Lee Smith gets traction?

I don't think Smith is a Hall of Famer either, but there are few enough relievers in the Hall that the argument "If Sutter, then Smith" is pretty strong. Smith had tons of value compared to other relievers, and was a Certified Closer who picked up a ton of saves.

I mean, my god, if Sutter is a deserving Hall of Famer, then any good reliever can be. The voters would have to change their standards and admit that Sutter is a mistake for the Smiths of the world to not be deserving. Which the voters may well do; the standards for relievers are evolving.

There will be a lot more closers hitting the ballot in coming years. My guess is that the voters put the brakes on (they seem to have done this already in certain respects, e.g., with the John Francos) and set Trevor Hoffman as the HOF border such that you have to be as good or better than him to get in.

I've thought Smith was further evidence that the voters are requiring something more, but if he gets in, all bets are off.

I agree that Bonds and Clemens are more qualified and will likely poll higher than McGwire. But if a guy with 583 HRs currently has a ceiling of 25%- doesn't that strongly suggest that approximately half the electorate isn't going to vote for someone with the steroid taint, regardless? Unless there is a sea change in attitudes.

I think the perception is McGwire was Dave Kingman plus 140 home runs, and those 140 home runs were steroid-aided. Kingman didn't make it past the first ballot.

But my original point was that Bagwell's lack of support in his first year of balloting indicated that Piazza and Sosa wouldn't get in next year. You agree on Sosa. With regard to Piazza, and based on what happened with Bagwell, I just don't see him getting to 75%. You accurately pointed out that voters probably weren't capable of adjusting for the Astrodome, but I'm guessing some voters aren't going to properly adjust for Piazza being a catcher (he hit no milestones in his career and never won an MVP). That and steroid suspicions will keep him down.

Certainly, this could all be correct. I'm working from little more than impressions. My impression, though, is that "best hitting catcher ever"** is a clear enough hook to make Piazza an easy yes for most voters.

**best hitting MLB catcher ever, at least.

38.9 - Lee Smith
37.0 - E. Martinez

I don't give a #### what you think about the DH, that is absolute madness. Would any GM of any team draft Lee Smith if Edgar Martinez was on the board? Give me a break.

Anybody who votes for a one-inning-at-a-time ############ like Smith but doesn't vote for Edgar should be publicly flogged.

Would any GM of any team draft Lee Smith if Edgar Martinez was on the board?

No, but just because Ed Wade was recently relieved of his duties.

While Lee Smith gets traction?

Lee Smith is not gaining traction -- he's in a ten-year holding pattern.

How many votes are cast for the Hall every year?

Anyone know if Michael Martinez is actually a member of the BBWAA? He tweeted his ballot (Larkin, Martinez and Mattingly) but I didn't see his name on the BBWAA badge list.

Anybody who votes for a one-inning-at-a-time ############ like Smith but doesn't vote for Edgar should be publicly flogged.

Well, if you assume Edgar had, on average, 4 plate appearances a game, and got on base about 40% of the time... that's only about 1.6 innings a game he was actually contributing something.

How many votes are cast for the Hall every year?

581 last year.

*I* don't understand why we arn't making a bigger stink over E.Martinez? We're just going to let those stupid DH arguments stand?

Some of us don't think they're stupid.

Smith isn't getting in either.

Well, if you assume Edgar had, on average, 4 plate appearances a game, and got on base about 40% of the time... that's only about 1.6 innings a game he was actually contributing something.

so ~220 innings per season, then.