Everyone's talking about increasing the number of names a voter can list. But, as has been pointed out, many voters don't vote for ten now.

Yes, and those who did vote for 10, almost all of them voted for Biggio. On the BBWAA's list of ballots, only one person voted for 10 and didn't vote for Biggio. With no limit Biggio most likely still does not get in, and if he doesn't it's tough to say that someone else would. Bonds and Clemens weren't anyone's 11th choice.

They believe in a Hall of Fame that should only have Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Lou Gehrig, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, Mickey Mantle -- you know, players about whom there are "no arguments."

This is appealing, but a fantasy. The only reason no one argues about those guys is because clearly inferior players are admitted. If you tried to maintain such a high standard, then people would argue about whether Tony Gwynn or Cal Ripken belonged. No matter where you draw the line, there will be a bunch of guys clustered just above and just below it, and arguments will commence. We'd just be arguing about better players.

Do 3,000 hits fly under the radar? How many other 3,000-hits candidates failed to be elected on their first ballot? (I'm asking seriously as I don't know.) I'll spot you the Evil Palmeiro, and Rose of course never made the ballot.

As you mention, Palmeiro and Rose.

Paul Waner (6th try)

Sam Rice got in on the 14th ballot, but he had 2987 hits.

A 15-vote limit ups the average per ballot up by one or two. This year that would have elected Biggio and may have saved Lofton or Bernie from extinction.

I disagree. A 15-vote limit will up the average of the current maxed out ballots by two or three, and will have absolutely no effect on anyone who didn't already vote for ten. Overall, I'd expect it to bump the average up by more like 0.1 or 0.2 than 1 or 2. As for Biggio, how many people voted for ten and didn't vote for Biggio? My guess is zero. Bernie and Kenny needed ten and eleven more votes respectively, and I'm not sure that too many full ballot voters think of them as the eleventh or twelth best player on this year's ballot.

several years ago at the height of this nonsense i thought the ebb and flow of changing attitudes would take more time.

based on what i am seeing i am changing that assessment.

things are evolving more rapidly toward a better outcome pretty quickly

I agree with Harvey here. I think the peoples and even the writers view are changing and I think it's getting harder for them to justify their exclusions. I don't think it will change enough in 5-10 years to put Bonds in, but do think he will probably get in before his final ballot.

Everyone's talking about increasing the number of names a voter can list. But, as has been pointed out, many voters don't vote for ten now.

Ballot slots set expectations. The same person who says "I am only voting for six!" when there are ten ballot slots will say, "I am only voting for two!" when there are three ballot slots, and "I am only voting for 12!" when there are 20 ballot slots.

Lots of blank space is a political statement -- which the blank balloters all made. Everyone who did not leave a blank ballot elected not to make that political statement, and would probably vote for more people if failing to do so led to more blank space.

I disagree. A 15-vote limit will up the average of the current maxed out ballots by two or three, and will have absolutely no effect on anyone who didn't already vote for ten. Overall, I'd expect it to bump the average up by more like 0.1 or 0.2 than 1 or 2. As for Biggio, how many people voted for ten and didn't vote for Biggio? My guess is zero. Bernie and Kenny needed ten and eleven more votes respectively, and I'm not sure that too many full ballot voters think of them as the eleventh or twelth best player on this year's ballot.

Disagree. I think that as you get further down the ballot and more names, that tactical voting is going to come into play. I fully expect Lofton (not Bernie) to have remained on the ballot if there were more votes allowed.

I agree that a deeper ballot probably still wouldn't have allowed anyone into the hof this year, but I think it allows more room for players to improve, and yes I do think that a players finish in the voting enhances his chances next time around.

Ballot slots set expectations. The same person who says "I am only voting for six!" when there are ten ballot slots will say, "I am only voting for two!" when there are three ballot slots, and "I am only voting for 12!" when there are 20 ballot slots.

I also agree with this.

Mike Francesa's ongoing belief that Andy Pettitte, if allowed, was going to testify in the perjury trial that Clemens "did steroids" is really touching. (Listening to the hilarious reactions to all of this.)

It's hilarious because of course at no time did Pettitte ever hint, suggest, imply, or state that he had any information whatsoever about Clemens using steroids. The much ballyhooed 1999/2000 conversation (and the 2005 one) was about HGH, not steroids.

Secondly, what "if allowed"? He was allowed. He was questioned at length, gave a full deposition, was *obligated* to answer questions (that sounds pretty "allowed" to me), then testified at trial. Even on the subject of HGH, he never claimed to have witnessed anything. Who "didn't allow" him?

and while folks think writers like stark and olney are doofi both of those guys are taking very reasonable stances on the vote and that mindset starts to seep into their readers/listeners

credit the bulk of the espn baseball guys. most have taken an evenhanded approach. not a lot of howard bryant types

204, Mike Imrem, Joe Christensen & Jeffrey Flanagan voted for 10, but not for Biggio.

http://bbwaa.com/13-hof-ballots/

again i encourage folks to read tom haudricourt's article in the milwaukee journal sentinel brewers section

haudricourt is very representative of the typiical hall of fame voter. older. not the sharpest knife in the drawer. loves baseball

It's hilarious because of course at no time did Pettitte ever hint, suggest, imply, or state that he had any information whatsoever about Clemens using steroids. The much ballyhooed 1999/2000 conversation was about HGH, not steroids.

Technically correct but writers and talk show hosts consider "steroids" to mean all PEDs.

Secondly, what "if allowed"? He was allowed. He was questioned at length, gave a full deposition, then testified at trial. Even on the subject of HGH, he never claimed to have witnessed anything. Who "didn't allow" him?

The same high priced legal team that scuttled all that damning evidence that Jon Heyman is totally sure exits, obviously.

Technically correct but writers and talk show hosts consider "steroids" to mean all PEDs.

And the "if allowed" part? Who didn't allow Pettitte to tell his full story? Congress was _hoping_ he had more than he did.

204, Mike Imrem, Joe Christensen & Jeffrey Flanagan voted for 10, but not for Biggio.

Ah, I missed Imrem and Flanagan. Thanks. That's 3 out of 101. If that ratio holds true over the 569 ballots, Biggio is still on the outside.

Sam Rice got in on the 14th ballot, but he had 2987 hits.

Somebody should have fudged that for him.

Ballot slots set expectations.

You're forgetting who it is that you're trying to influence here. There are 600 people who are eligible to vote, and I'd put the over/under on angry "don't try to tell me to vote for more players" articles at 475.

And the "if allowed" part? Who didn't allow Pettitte to tell his full story? Congress was _hoping_ he had more than he did.

This is Mike Francesa we are talking about. We're just wasting our time dissecting what he says. He is irrelevant.

Ferguson Jenkins on MLB Network discussing rumors that players used illegal drugs - priceless!

But you know what will really set expectations? The next few years' ballot.

A couple years of Full Ballots because there are so many really qualified people will re-set expectations to fill the ballot.

I think that as you get further down the ballot and more names, that tactical voting is going to come into play.

And how does increasing tactical voting improve the process? Serious question; I'd really like to know how you see giving people a chance to keep more five percenters around longer is going to help. ISTM that we have a huge problem at the top of a lot of ballots (even without steroids). I don't see how we fix that by tinkering with the bottom of a relatively small subset of ballots.

Ballot slots set expectations.

Exactly.

This year the average voter filled up two-thirds of his ballot. Many of them are very wedded to maintaining the facade of "Guardians of the Hall Gates", so will never cast a full ballot. These voters can maintain this same facade by voting for 10 on a 15-limit ballot, and some of them would.

With a higher limit, many of the average 6-to-7-name voters would have said, "Eh, that's not even half", and they would have pitched in another name or two, like Biggio, onto their ballot.

All right people- I'm calling it. SABRPALOOZA 2013 at Cooperstown, Induction Weekend. We get as many people to go up there, crash Deacon White's induction ceremony, and protest the BBWAA's handling of the Hall of Fame voting and demand reform. It's a massive publicity opportunity because the media will have nothing else to cover.

Turns out I will be in central NY on 7/28. I might just have to do this.

Heck, if nothing else, let's challenge the BBWAA to a softball game the day/night before the induction ceremony, provided there's no drug testing beforehand.

We just saw Piazza, Biggio, and Bagwell fail to gain admittance.

Piazza and Bagwell both have people questioning whether they cheated. There's no such rumors surrounding Greg Maddux.

Babe Ruth injected extract from sheep's gonads

That's because he was lazy. Earlier in his career he would eat them

They are delicious with a little lemon.

These voters can maintain this same facade by voting for 10 on a 15-limit ballot, and some of them would.

I really think this is delusional. Those people think they are guarding the ramparts by only voting for two or three or four players because they sincerely believe that only two or three or four players are deserving. You cannot expect them to think that more players are qualified by allowing them to vote for more players without filling their ballots.

The BBWAA really needs to weed out the voters who no longer follow baseball on a regular basis; that would help somewhat.

Here's what I would do:

1. Require the voters to rank-order the players on the ballot, from 1 to n.
2. For a ballot to be counted, every player on the ballot must be rank-ordered, and no players not on the ballot (AKA Pete Rose) can be ranked. No ties allowed, either.
3. Anyone who is mentioned in a top 10 slot on at least 75% of the ballots gets in. Anyone who fails to get a top-10 mention on at least 5% of the ballots is removed from the following year's ballot.
4. Use an instant runoff system for the instances where no one qualifies under rule 3 (and I expect those instances to be rare). First remove all ballots for people who failed to get a top-10 mention on at least 5% of the ballots, and redistribute those votes to the person ranked next highest who remains on the ballot. Continue until at least one person tops 75%.

This still requires a pretty high degree of consensus among the voters (which to me is the most attractive feature of the HoF vote) while ensuring there is at least one person elected every year.

-- MWE

Just looking at Biggio and I hate to say this. I could understand leaving him off a 10 man ballot next year. Personally I would not do so, but those last six years of mediocrity aren't very appealing.

Sam Rice got in on the 14th ballot, but he had 2987 hits.

Rice actually was eligible for every election from 1936 to 1962, getting no votes in many of the early years. The VC immediately elected him.

226, IMO, the HoF will not make MANY changes this year. They would need a second ballotgeddon/nobody-goes-in election in order to do major changes.

The two things I could see happening this year are: (a) Increasing the number of candidates a voter can vote for;

(b) Not counting blank ballots.

(And yes, I could be enamoured of my own ideas here, but that's my preliminary take).

Those people think they are guarding the ramparts by only voting for two or three or four players because they sincerely believe that only two or three or four players are deserving. You cannot expect them to think that more players are qualified by allowing them to vote for more players without filling their ballots.

You're giving them too much credit. Most voters, the silent majority, actually put very little thought into who they vote for. They don't know who they voted for last year. It's all by feeling. If the feeling reaches them that the tide is saying vote for a few more, they'll go along.

again i encourage folks to read tom haudricourt's article in the milwaukee journal sentinel brewers section

haudricourt is very representative of the typiical hall of fame voter. older. not the sharpest knife in the drawer. loves baseball

I don't think he's representative, though...

Remember that the BBWAA grants these damnable "voter emeritus" qualifications... if you are active for 10 years - which, I'm assuming, means nothing more than either you or your newspaper pay your BBWAA dues for 10 years - you pretty much get a vote forever.

I've never been able to find out exactly how you get these "honorary" member benefits --- but based on the some of the guys who have come out and missed out for dumb reasons (the dude who, I think, became a golf writer and "forgot" Henderson), I highly suspect it's pretty much automatic emeritus.

Despite the arguments we have over the writers' ballots we actually SEE -- I highly suspect the bone to pick is really more worth these emeritus guys whose ballots we never even get to see... the guys who only remember they get a ballot when one arrives in the mail.

Secondly, what "if allowed"? He was allowed. He was questioned at length, gave a full deposition, was *obligated* to answer questions (that sounds pretty "allowed" to me), then testified at trial. Even on the subject of HGH, he never claimed to have witnessed anything. Who "didn't allow" him?

I think this is a reference to the judge's ruling that Pettitte couldn't name McNamee as his supplier. In Francesa's pea brain this has been transformed into Pettitte being able to say "I KNOW he did it."

You're giving them too much credit. Most voters, the silent majority, actually put very little thought into who they vote for. They don't know who they voted for last year. It's all by feeling. If the feeling reaches them that the tide is saying vote for a few more, they'll go along.

Actually, it seems that you're the one giving them too much credit. Ironically, by trying to give them too little.

zonk

you focus a lot on those voters and i believe that population is not a significant subset.

have faith. things are already changing.

The two things I could see happening this year are: (a) Increasing the number of candidates a voter can vote for;

(b) Not counting blank ballots.

And neither of those, given voting patterns, is going to significantly improve the probability of someone being elected.

Despite the arguments we have over the writers' ballots we actually SEE -- I highly suspect the bone to pick is really more worth these emeritus guys whose ballots we never even get to see... the guys who only remember they get a ballot when one arrives in the mail.

Oh, I think those guys remember that they get a ballot - and they're the ones who will yell the loudest if the BBWAA changes the criteria.

-- MWE

There's no such rumors surrounding Greg Maddux.

Not once I'm done with him! Maddux's control was all because of steroids people! He's a cheaty cheat cheat!

I really think this is delusional.

I think you're missing how much people are affected by the number of choices they're allowed to make. That doesn't mean your point isn't also correct, just that for some non-trivial number of voters it would result in more votes cast.

I don't know very many HOF voters, but I'd give the vast majority of them more benefit of the doubt than many commenters are allowing here. I just find it hard to conceive of someone in such a fog that they get a ballot, say "what the #### is this?" and proceed to check Don Mattingly, Lee Smith, and Jack Morris because they looked like HOFers back in the day, plus Bernie Williams under the mistaken impression that he is Billy Williams. While there's likely one idiot per group, most of these people, like most of any professional group, are conscientious enough; most of us just happen to disagree with them. Heck, look at any awards voting, from the Oscars to the Newbery Medal: you'll get a strong sense from certain communities that the electorate simply hasn't watched any movies or read any children's books in years. But aside from rare cases, that's not so; they just have different tastes.

I think the best way to handle the roids issue is let people in and acknowledge this was the era of juicing, just like the 60's was the era of pitching, the early 40's had a inferior talent field because of WWII and before 1920 it was the deadball era where an ERA around 3.00 was not HOF worthy.

I think that the fact steroid use created havoc with the all-time records is what distresses the up-tight writers the most. These neo-Frickists are akin to the old commisioner who worshipped Babe Ruth and put an asterisk on Roger Maris hitting 61 homers.

Dick Morris says Biggio still has a chance because the writers from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon, and Cincinnati Enquirer haven't been counted yet.

I know it's hard to believe, but on Around the Horn Paige, Cowlishaw, Blackistone, and Jones opened up a can of complete and sound and thoughtful whup-ass on the BBWAA, calling them all out. It was kind of nice.

235, you may be right, but every little bit helps (as the old lady said when she pssed into the Sea).

Dick Morris says Biggio still has a chance because the writers from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon, and Cincinnati Enquirer haven't been counted yet.

You're thinking of Karl Rove. Dick Morris said that Kenny Lofton and Bernie Williams would get in.

zonk

you focus a lot on those voters and i believe that population is not a significant subset.

have faith. things are already changing.

Ehh -- there were supposedly 569 ballots cast...

We're only privy to about 1/3 of them.

That's an awful lot of 'unknowns' out there --

At minimum, I do think that the BBWAA ought to provide names for all eligible voters... I'm not proposing stalking or anything like that -- I'm just saying we have so very, very little clue precisely WHO were actually talking about here.

It's hard to diagnose without having a better read on those 569 names (or better -- the 600 or so I assume GOT ballots).

Dare: Go to Drudge, look at the link directly above "Nobody Makes Baseball's Hall of Fame" and *not* laugh.

I think that the fact steroid use created havoc with the all-time records is what distresses the up-tight writers the most. These neo-Frickists are akin to the old commisioner who worshipped Babe Ruth and put an asterisk on Roger Maris hitting 61 homers.

And yet these are many of the same people who think Sandy Koufax was a top 2-3 all-time pitcher even though he was throwing from atop a small mountain in an era where teams didn't averaged less than four runs per game.

I know it's hard to believe, but on Around the Horn Paige, Cowlishaw, Blackistone, and Jones opened up a can of complete and sound and thoughtful whup-ass on the BBWAA, calling them all out. It was kind of nice.

Especially refreshing after hearing yet another Francesa gem, namely that Biggio didn't deserve a HOF slot because he was merely a compiler "who only batted 280."

Although to be fair, he was also doing a better job later in his show of acknowledging that guys who tok steroids when there was no rule against them were competitors who were trying to get better, and that "lots" of older players had said they would have done the same thing. Although I'm sure in his case "lots" means Mike Schmidt.

Dare: Go to Drudge

That's a pretty awful dare.

you know who is the secret ally in shaing this angst?

bud selig

selig is dying right now. he loves baseball, for all his flaws, and not having a guy voted in by the writers is killing him

i guarantee you that he won't let this happen next year.

nobody works the phone like your commish.

I can only see that if some of the writers who voted for them this year had them at the "bottom" of their ballots, and will bump them off when Maddux, Thomas and Glavine show up next year. Otherwise why would they change their minds?

OTOH I can see the possibility that they won't go up all that much, since presumably they already have the votes of the "steroid discounters" in their corner, a bloc that's about 20% bigger than McGwire's. The only remaining bloc where they might gain (and maybe gain a lot----that's what we don't know) is the one that wants to make them "suffer" for a year before finally voting for them. The "one year penalty" sub-bloc of that is where you might see the gains in 2014.

What we might have with some of those folk, Andy, is tactical voting--making sure that some candidates on the ballot either get elected (Maddux, Thomas, Glavine) and that other candidates stay on the ballot. For example, I think that Palmeiro is likely to be abandoned by his loyalists next year, and could fall off the ballot. Sosa might be in a similar position in 2016 for all we know. A few of the folks who have the scapegoated four on their ballot are going to have to downsize that commitment to deal not only with the three highest-profile newcomers but Mussina and Kent as well.

[Question for Repoz if he's "shtill lurking about!": how many voters in the your sample have three or more of the scapegoat guys (McGwire, Palmeiro, Bonds, Clemens) together on their ballots?]

I don't think it will be a huge drop for Bonds or Clemens, but they could regress a bit over the next couple of years toward the low 30s; then, as Harvey notes, some of the sting of the situation will be gone and a large subset of writers will remember that a) these guys are two of the greatest players in history and b) they were locks before anyone starting trying to sniff around their medicine cabinet.

I'm not sure how Bonds and Clemens** can realistically be compared to these much more "normal" players, given the reason for their exclusion. IMO the most certain event that would propel them over 75% would be if some current inductee either confessed or got outed as a steroid user, an event that about 90% of the BTF crowd seems to be openly rooting for as a means to an end that otherwise may be out of reach and maybe even unattainable. Barring that, I can't see any wholesale shift in the overall attitudes on steroids happening for quite a while, based on the stagnation (and actual decline) in McGwire's percentage since the first time he appeared on the ballot.

**I'm lumping their names together in deference to today's vote, not because I equate them WRT the level of the evidence against them. I'm with that 1.2% who voted for Clemens but not Bonds.

Of course they aren't the same, and I qualified the comparison. The only point there was that people can survive stagnant vote situations, whatever the reason, and that there's no actual evidence making it clear that such can't/won't happen for Bonds and Clemens.

And neither of those, given voting patterns, is going to significantly improve the probability of someone being elected.

Agreed. Extra ballot slots would do more than prohibiting blank ballots (now that we know there were so few), but it wouldn't create a magic scenario to lift players whose %s are in the 30s and 40s over the hump, particularly those who are into their second decade on the ballot.

And yet these are many of the same people who think Sandy Koufax was a top 2-3 all-time pitcher even though he was throwing from atop a small mountain in an era where teams didn't averaged less than four runs per game.

....and they fail to think about how great Tony Oliva was. I am not saying Tony was a HOFer but he was a great hitter for a 9 or 10 year stretch.