Yikes. That's some Mossi-level ugly balloting right there.

The propaganda machine seems to like Morris well enough, but has little love for Raines or Trammell.

I just can't wait for this to be over, honestly.

Larkin definitly was one of the best shortsstoppers of his day.

I just can't wait for this to be over, honestly.

It really seems to have racheted up over the last few years with Rice, Blyleven, social media and online discussions etc, but this year has a weak ballot and I can't fathom what it's going to be like next year.

T.R. Sullivan:

Bagwell should be in. It is wrong that he is being overlooked or being viewed suspiciously. Personally, I decline the honor of passing judgment on the steroids era, but there is no need to judge Bagwell on anything but his tremendous accomplishments.

For guys who use the "I watched the game" line regularly to hem and haw about Barry Larkin demonstrates that they were watching different games from the ones I saw or didn't understand what they were watching.

FTFA:

At MLB.com, we have 15 veteran writers who have earned the privilege to vote, and again they're sharing their ballots with you. ... Barry Larkin (13 of 15, 86.7 percent) looks like he's in good shape to get the bump he needs to attain the 75 percent needed for election in his third year on the ballot.

Others like Jack Morris and Lee Smith (both 8/14, 57 percent) likely will have to wait longer for their ticket to Cooperstown, although Morris in particular is running out of time in his 13th year.

For guys who use the "I watched the game" line regularly to hem and haw about Barry Larkin demonstrates that they were watching different games from the ones I saw or didn't understand what they were watching.

I feel the same about Raines. He has a strong statistical case, of course, but he was also an aesthetically pleasing player.

I feel the same about Raines. He has a strong statistical case, of course, but he was also an aesthetically pleasing player.

If any of these "I watched the games" folks don't vote for Raines, I have to conclude they didn't start watching the game until the late 80's or early 90's.

If any of these "I watched the games" folks don't vote for Raines, I have to conclude they didn't start watching the game until the late 80's or early 90's.

That's the rub, isn't it. As professional baseball scribes they are supposed to be the best equipped to serve as our collective memory, but they often do a piss-poor job of it.

What did McGriff dominate? I always thought he was a really good player, but the only thing he ever led the league in was HR twice and OPS once and he only made five All-Star games.

I like Larkin and he's a no-doubt HOFer, but I don't think he really dominated either.

He has a strong statistical case, of course, but he was also an aesthetically pleasing player.

I think this is underrated. One of the reasons I'm fine with McGwire and Palmeiro not getting into the Hall is that we'll have plenty of immobile sluggers there in any case.

If your best valuation system is telling you most of the best players in an era were hulking 1Bs, I think you need to take that with a grain of salt, and not necessarily reflect that in the HoF.

Regarding Barry's dominance his first full year was 1988 and Ozzie Smith was regarded as the best SS in the NL. Barry was better than Ozzie as an overall player.

Skip past a few years and look at 1991. Ozzie finishes 20th in the MVP voting with a good year at age 36. Barry is better. Meanwhile, teams are playing guys like Rafael Belliard and Spike Owen at shortstop.

1994? Wil Cordero hits .294 with 15 homers. Barry is better than him because of something known as defense. Jay Bell hits 35 doubles. Larkin is better than him. Out West guys like Jose Offerman hit .210 and Walt Weiss with his 58 OPS+ hold jobs. Larkin has a pedestrian year and is better than any of these guys.

I know dominance can be defined in different ways. But looking at NL shortstops of his day Larkin was consistently the best and often by a wide margin.

At least it looks that way.

Tom Singer
Ballot: Larkin, Martinez, Morris, Palmeiro, Smith, Trammell.

... Aside on Bagwell: For me, he flunks the "dominant in his era" test; at a corner position, he only led the league in a major category once (RBIs, with 116 in 1994).

This from a guy who voted for Raffy. I'm not sure what this guy would consider a major category. Presumably only the three triple crown stats since Bag's SLP title is ignored. If Bagwell, who also led the league in runs three times, SLP, doubles and walks once, led in a major category only Once, then Raffy, who led in runs, hits, and doubles once each, had none. Also, Bagwell leads Raffy in MVP's 1 to 0, ROY 1 to 0, top 5 MVP 3 to 1, though Raffy leads in GG's 3 to 1 (snort).

By the way, if I am going to be accused of cherry picking seasons folks are welcome to throw out their own but I figured showing the consistency across a decade was permissible.

What gets lost in some of these discussions is how volatile certain positions are relative to turnover. Barry was a bedrock of performance when teams were turning over the position almost every season. He had some contemporaries like Shawon Dunston and Jay Bell. But more often a team was trotting out someone else.

And think about Dunston. Dunston was a regular SS for a decade and nobody was pushing for him to be replaced. He made some All Star teams. And in a typical year he was a 2 WAR player give or take. That was either a part-time season or a horribly off year for Barry Larkin.

From Tom Singer's comments:

Aside on Bagwell: For me, he flunks the "dominant in his era" test; at a corner position, he only led the league in a major category once (RBIs, with 116 in 1994).

Things that are apparently not major categories: Runs scored, doubles, walks, slugging percentage, total bases. (Also HBP and sac flies, but that's a little more understandable.)

Edit: Coke to Misirlou. I'll throw in the fact that Bagwell's 152 runs in 2000 give him the highest single-season total of anyone in the majors since 1937.

Totals for the 15 (not 14) ballots:

Larkin 14 (apparently miscounted in the MLB-given total at the top of the article)
Morris 10 (seriously, MLB.com? Did anyone actually count the votes, or were you just guessing?)
Smith 9 (that's 0/3 on counting)
Bagwell 6
McGriff 5
Raines 5
Trammell 5
Palmeiro 4
Martinez 3
McGwire 3
Gonzalez 1
Mattingly 1
Murphy 1
Everyone else (including Larry Walker) 0

If I have the count right, that's 4.47 names per ballot, which is miniscule.

Worst ballot is probably Gurnick's "baseball is 90% pitching" Morris/Smith effort.

I find dingers aesthetically pleasing but not stolen bases.

I got the same totals as Eric in post #18.

Comparing the vote from mlb.com w/ last year (when there were only 12 voters - and I don't know who came or went in the last year. Wasn't Gammons there last year?) Anyway, comparing last year's 12 to this year's 15 (first then, and after that now):

9, 15 - Larkin
5, 10 - Morris
7, 9 - L. Smith
6, 6 - Bagwell
4, 5 - Raines
2, 3 - E. Martinez
3, 5 - Trammell
0, 0 - L. Walker
2, 3 - McGwire
1, 5 - McGriff
1, 1 - Mattingly
2, 1 - Murphy
3, 4 - Palmeiro

There was a lot more movement upwards from the ESPN gang.

I think this is underrated. One of the reasons I'm fine with McGwire and Palmeiro not getting into the Hall is that we'll have plenty of immobile sluggers there in any case.

If your best valuation system is telling you most of the best players in an era were hulking 1Bs, I think you need to take that with a grain of salt, and not necessarily reflect that in the HoF.

Snapper, McGriff and Palmeiro put up 130-135 OPS+s over long careers. One doesn't need an "evaluation system" per se to see that such performances would make the two of them among the best players of the era.

Terence Moore is an argument against universal suffrage in general, let alone being a BBWAA member voting for the HoF. But it's amusing to seem him cast a ballot for McGriff when he relentlessly ragged on the guy when he came to Atlanta, saying to "stick a fork in him" just before the press box fire and following white hot streak from Crime Dog.

If I have the count right, that's 4.47 names per ballot, which is miniscule.

Is there a place to find the annual votes per ballot?

As we approach the announcement, a last second prediction for the top of the ballot:

Larkin 78 per cent
Morris 69 per cent
Bagwell 51 per cent

Larkin 84 percent
Morris 62 percent
Bagwell 56 percent

Larkin isn't seen as dominant because he almost never hit any of the magic thresholds -- no 200 hit seasons, no 100 RBI seasons, no 100 BB seasons, only 2 20 HR seasons, and only 2 100 run seasons. He had a good number of SBs and was almost never caught, but he had only one season with 50 SBs. And he hit over .300 a bunch of times, but he was usually in the .300-.315 range. He hit .340 once, but only played 100 games that season.

I think he's a no-brainer for the HOF of course, but the sportswriters and fans love those milestone numbers.

Post 27:

I get the writers not considering Larkin a 'dominant' player. I was surprised that folks here would not regard Barry as such. Sure, he wasn't the dominant player in the NL. bonds had that covered. But on a position basis Barry was not just better but a LOT better than his peers. In that respect I believe he qualifies

It probably makes a significant difference whether Morris gets high 60s or low 60s. High 60s would make him a "near-miss" and would energize his supporters even further. It would likely mean that the VC would put him in as soon as he gets to them, and in fact I'd think he'd have a chance to get elected by the BBWAA, even though he's only got two more shots on crazily crowded ballots. Low 60s almost certainly means he has to wait for the VC, and may wait a while even then. (I still think he eventually gets elected by somebody.)

As we approach the announcement, a last second prediction for the top of the ballot:

Larkin 80
Morris 61
Smith 55
Bagwell 50

Is there a place to find the annual votes per ballot?

Dag's old HOF prediction columns have some of them. From the '08 column:

Year Avg
1988 6.61
1989 6.75
1990 6.87
1991 6.65
1992 6.07
1993 5.76
1994 6.32
1995 6.15
1996 5.72
1997 5.59
1998 5.41
1999 6.74
2000 5.64
2001 6.33
2002 5.95
2003 6.60
2004 6.55
2005 6.32
2006 5.64
2007 6.58

It probably makes a significant difference whether Morris gets high 60s or low 60s.

I think it makes all the difference. I've said he needed to hit 65 to have a chance. Above 65 and he's within reach of the Hall, enough so to possibly rise above the coming crush.

Below it, and he's not going to be top of mind enough to withstand all those better players coming on the ballot.

I get the writers not considering Larkin a 'dominant' player. I was surprised that folks here would not regard Barry as such. Sure, he wasn't the dominant player in the NL. bonds had that covered. But on a position basis Barry was not just better but a LOT better than his peers. In that respect I believe he qualifies

Absolutely. I know this is a somewhat tired term, but it comes down to positional scarcity. A guy who can play above average defense at SS AND hit well AND do it for a long period of time is really, really hard to find.

Anywhere in the 60's and Morris is a shoo-in in the next two years. As I said, the steroid crowded ballot works in his favor because people will want to vote for Morris to show their disdain for Bonds and Clemens.

Anywhere in the 60's and Morris is a shoo-in in the next two years. As I said, the steroid crowded ballot works in his favor because people will want to vote for Morris to show their disdain for Bonds and Clemens.

I'd gladly take you up on a BBref sponsorship on that prediction.

I say he if he's between 60-65 percent this election, he won't make it through the BBWAA. You want the other side?

Absolutely. I know this is a somewhat tired term, but it comes down to positional scarcity. A guy who can play above average defense at SS AND hit well AND do it for a long period of time is really, really hard to find.

Sure, I agree, I think its just more a circumstance of when he played - overlapping Ripken, Jeter, Nomar, A-Rod. He doesn't seem dominant compared to them. Had he played the bulk of his career in the 70s and early 80s, then yea, he's dominant.

Ill take it SOSH...hopefully my mind won't be so gone I can't remember this in two years...so if he's 66% or above the bet is off, and if he's 60-65 it's on, right?

Adding onto post #31:
2008 - 5.35 names per ballot
2009 - 5.38
2010 - 5.67
2011 - 5.98

Ill take it SOSH...hopefully my mind won't be so gone I can't remember this in two years...so if he's 66% or above the bet is off, and if he's 60-65 it's on, right?

That's close enough. And, obviously, anything below 60 is off as well.

What did McGriff dominate? I always thought he was a really good player, but the only thing he ever led the league in was HR twice and OPS once and he only made five All-Star games.

Well, 5 all star games is the same amount as Frank Thomas and Jim Thome, and 1 more than Bagwell and Palmeiro. It's not the best way to evaluate greatness, but if that's one of the main criteria you're using, he ranks right on par with all the other HOF caliber 1B of his era (except McGwire).

McGriff finished in the top 10 in MVP voting 6 straight years (6,10,10,6,4,8), and the top 4 in homers (2,1,4,4,1,4,4) and top 5 in OPS 7 straight (4,1,3,3,3,5,5). Also, top 5 finishes:

OBP - 4 (2,3,4,4)
SLG - 5 (2,2,3,4,4)
Runs - 2 (4,5)
TB - 3 (3,4,5)
RBI - 3 (3,4,4)
BB - 4 (2,2,3,5)
XBH - 4 (2,4,4,5)
RC - 6 (3,4,4,4,5,5)
Adj Batting runs/wins - 5 (1,3,3,4,5)


Also several 6th place finishes that barely missed making the list. His OPS+ from 1988-1994 was 157, 166, 153, 147, 166, 143, and 157, and his career OPS+ after nine seasons was 153. He also posted full seasons of 142 and 144 later in his career. For all the people that think McGriff was never really dominant, they must not have been paying attention in the late 80's and early 90's. Or they just don't know how to adjust for era in the pre-sillyball years.

AG1

Well, now you are comparing him to guys in the American League. And three of them didn't play full time until 1996 when Barry had been in the league for a decade and as for Ripken he is considered rightly or wrongly one of the three best shortstops of all time.

Barry is not Cal. Agreed.

But he was better than anyone else in either league for a good long time. And he towered over his league's peers.

Not close

He was one of the ten best SS of all time versus one of the 3 best.

I think it makes all the difference. I've said he needed to hit 65 to have a chance. Above 65 and he's within reach of the Hall, enough so to possibly rise above the coming crush.

This is exactly what I've been thinking. He breaks 65 and he's in, possibly next year and definitely by year 15. High 60s and he goes next year. Dale is right though, the coming steroid crunch is actually going to help him because sportswriters will need someone to hold up as having done it all the right way. If he goes in the low 60s it's still probably going to be too big a gap for him to overcome though.

One of the reasons I'm fine with McGwire and Palmeiro not getting into the Hall is that we'll have plenty of immobile sluggers there in any case.

If your best valuation system is telling you most of the best players in an era were hulking 1Bs, I think you need to take that with a grain of salt, and not necessarily reflect that in the HoF.

Disagree. The speed game of the 70's/80's was mostly gone by the 90's/2000's, so it wouldn't surprise me if a disproportionate amount of the best players from that era really were immobile, hulking sluggers. Maybe they wouldn't have been as valuable if they played 10 years earlier, but they didn't, so we should judge them according to the style of game they actually played in.

I say he if he's under 65 in this election, he won't make it through the BBWAA. You want the other side?

That's a safe bet. Next year he won't have the appearance of being best pitcher on ballot. He'll pale in comparison to Clemens and Schilling. Sure some will leave Clemens off due to PED concerns but most of those who will feel the need to punish Clemens are same ones already voting for Morris. Those that are able to realize that Game 7 was just one game and able to see that most wins in 80's is offset by allowing most runs and most hits in 80's are less likely to jump on the bandwagon at this point. Put it another way, assuming Larkin is only one to go in this year, does anyone think 75% of BBWAA voters will consider him among the 10 best on next years ballot? I see around 13 better candidates on the 2013 ballot. Add that to fact that most voters don't use all ten spots . . . . and I wouldn't be surprised to see him slip to below 50% next year.

AG1

By the way, not looking to nitpick over a word choice.

If that is what is being conveyed then I will stop.

The ESPN poll for current playing HOFers is interesting, and predictable. ARod comes up short for being a user, and Manny gets the double whammy.

most of those who will feel the need to punish Clemens are same ones already voting for Morris.

I'm not seeing the connection. Being dumb about one thing doesn't make one universally dumb.

47. Dale Sams Posted: January 09, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4032200)

most of those who will feel the need to punish Clemens are same ones already voting for Morris.



I'm not seeing the connection. Being dumb about one thing doesn't make one universally dumb.

Here is your connection: In order to vote for Morris a voter has to actively ignore all the statistical evidence of his career. In order to not vote for Clemens one would have to actively decide to ignore a mountain of statistical evidence in his favor.

Another shutout for Walker among the MLB voters ... inexplicable to me.

TR, if you're here, could you explain why Gonzalez over Walker? I can see reasons for not listing Walker but I'll admit I can't see any reason to vote Gonzalez over Walker.

The typical knock against Walker is durability but Gonzalez is one of the few guys with a shorter career than Walker. Even the in-season durability argument is hard to make as Gonzalez only had two seasons over 150 games.

Gonzalez does have 50 more HR and 90 more HR but he's also got nearly 300 fewer runs scored and Walker actually has the slightly higher SLG percentage (partly Coors and Gonzalez does slightly win the SLG+ comparison). And of course Walker's OBP blows Gonzalez's out of the water.

And then you get defense -- no matter what you think of fancy defensive stats, there's no way anybody can spin this as anything but another area where Walker blows Gonzalez out of the water. And then you get baserunning -- 230 steals to 26 old school or 40 runs to 6 new school.

Gonzalez does have 2 MVPs to Walker's 1 but Walker has 5 AS games to Gonzalez's 3. If you look at black/gray ink, it's 17/105 for Gonzalez and 24/116 for Walker.

And you don't have to buy into all of WAR -- maybe not even any of WAR in specific detail -- to think that maybe Walker's 67 to 33.5 WAR edge is quite significant. Even if you ignore defense, Walkers oWAR edge is 58 to 41.

I'm not really going to argue against the idea that HR and RBI are the sine qua non of hitting but Gonzalez's edges there aren't huge and I don't see how they can overcome the much larger advantages Walker has in OBP/runs, defense and baserunning.

Is there a place to find the annual votes per ballot?

Just added a new page here.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hall-of-fame-ballot-history.shtml