Part 2 from Kubatko

Update: After much deliberation, I've decided to include Piazza. Not a big fan of his work behind the plate, but how many catchers were more prolific beside it? And the PED suspicions shouldn't keep him out any more than they should force Bagwell's exclusion.

MLBRandomFandom.com

Nick Cesare Hall of fame Ballot (8):

Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Raines, Martinez and Trammell.


Repoz nick cesare is member bbwaa?

right now the odds of anyone getting 75% is low

Also, don't forget that last year, Larkin sampled at MORE than his actual total, and no one even samples at 75% yet.

I really, really hoped this would be Biggio's year. There's still a chance but it's not looking good.

Repoz nick cesare is member bbwaa?

I don't believe so...and that Jon Becker with him seems to be a different Becker from the west coast BBWAA voter as their ballots are not the same.

Can somebody help me with the Chris Jenkins HOF ballot. Thank you. (makes sharp, heel-turning u-turn to hell)

Given last year you needed 430 of 573 ballots to get in what percentage of remaining ballots (79 counted so far) is needed to get in?

75.7 Biggio
76.1 Bagwell
76.7 Raines
76.7 Piazza
77.1 J. Morris
79.4 Clemens
79.4 Bonds
81 Schilling
81.2 Trammell
81.2 L. Smith
82 E. Martinez
84.2 D. Murphy
84.2 McGwire
84.4 McGriff
84.6 Raffy
84.6 S. Sosa
84.8 L. Walker
86 Mattingly
86.4 Lofton
86.6 D. Wells
86.6 Bernie Williams
86.6 Pete Rose

So all have a shot still, but obviously some need a lot more help than others.

@Repoz: So he voted for...nobody?

@Repoz: So he voted for...nobody?

Can't tell. I assume his ballot is blank...just not sure if he handed it in or not.

2B tend to get the shaft from the writers, as they don't get the defensive allowances they seem to make for SS/CF, and their offensive numbers can't compare with corner sluggers.

Hell, only shortstops & catchers get any sort of that kind of adjustment. CFers and 3B get the shaft too.

Anyone think it may be possible to have a class of 8 in 2014?

Only if they allow more names per ballot (which if nobody is elected they very well might consider).

BBTF only elected 8 and we were filling the ballots (>9 names/ballot).

I'm interested in seeing how many more votes Clemens and Bonds get as compared with McGwire and Palmiero and Sosa- especially Bonds- there is likely a number of voters who will vote for a 'roider if they think the player would have been HOFer with or without PEDs- Bonds will get more votes than McGgwire/Raffy/Sosa and I think a chunk of those "extra" voters are going to fall into that "adjuster" category (those who try to "adjust" for Ped use rather than use it as an automatic dis-qualifier).

I'm also interested in seeing Clemens fares as compared to Bonds- Clemens was not just acquitted, and if you were paying attention, you can't blame the jury, the Government's evidence was shockingly weak...

Who's ballots are the latest additions? I have 69 complete or partial ballots logged so I am obviously paying attention to your compilation.

a chunk of those "extra" voters are going to fall into that "adjuster" category

Looks like about 30%

Just something on the Lou Whitaker thread- I watched Whitaker's whole career here in Detroit, and I think there are two things that the voters had stuck in their heads when they saw his name- 1) The game looked like it came too easy to Whitaker, so on the surface it looked like he wasn't trying all that hard (sort of the beef about Robinson Cano today), and 2) Whitaker was goofy. Not in an obnoxious way, more in a silly airhead manner (how many players do you know forget their uniform for the All-Star game and have to play in something out of the stadium gift shop?) which may have led some voters not to take him seriously.

That said, Lou Whitaker would be a fine induction into the HOF, and I have no doubt the Expansion Era VC will put him in as soon as he is nominated.

I have 69 complete or partial ballots logged so I am obviously paying attention to your compilation.

Have 82 Full Ballots...another 30 Partial Ballots that hopefully will be finalized...and about 10-20 Weak Partials (just writers going off on Bonds/Clemens) that I doubt will be filled.

And there is still the ultra-baggy International Dockers Block Vote of USA Today, Star-Trib. Chicago Trib, Milwaukee JS, ESPN, MLB and Backstreets.com, yet to come!

Whitaker's big problem was that he didn't feel like an HoFer. I'll have to admit I don't recall thinking of him as an HoFer in real time and I'm still a bit stunned at how much WAR he has. He only once even received any MVP votes. 5 AS games is a decent total but not outlandish and he was voted the starter only 3 times (i.e. he wasn't hugely popular). And, as mentioned, the lack of black ink -- even his one point of black ink is "tainted," leading the league in games in the strike-shortened 81 seasons.

Part of that is overlapping with Sandberg -- 10 AS games (9 starts), MVP with another 2 top 5 finishes, 9 GG. Even by fancy stats, Sandberg has a WARpos first, 2 seconds and a third and 3 oWAR firsts. Whitaker has only 3 top 10 WARpos finishes, none higher than 4th.

In essence Whitaker was the Palmeiro of 2B only being the Palmeiro of 2B doesn't get you to any exciting counting stats. I see now (and for some time) that he deserved the HoF but, man, unless you were from Detroit, he was one boring candidate.

Part of that is overlapping with Sandberg -- 10 AS games (9 starts), MVP with another 2 top 5 finishes, 9 GG.

How did having Sandberg in the NL impact Whitaker's chances at AS Games, MVPs and GG in the AL?

Snapper - I think he means that Sweet Lou was overshadowed by Sandberg because Sandberg was better and they were contemporaries. They didn't compete directly, but shared a position simultaneously. Plus Ryno was on WGN - so everyone knew him. Whitaker, not so much.

I'm interested in seeing how many more votes Clemens and Bonds get as compared with McGwire and Palmiero and Sosa- especially Bonds- there is likely a number of voters who will vote for a 'roider if they think the player would have been HOFer with or without PEDs- Bonds will get more votes than McGgwire/Raffy/Sosa and I think a chunk of those "extra" voters are going to fall into that "adjuster" category (those who try to "adjust" for Ped use rather than use it as an automatic dis-qualifier).

I'm also interested in seeing Clemens fares as compared to Bonds- Clemens was not just acquitted, and if you were paying attention, you can't blame the jury, the Government's evidence was shockingly weak...

You and me both, on both of those points.

You and me both, on both of those points.

Seriously? Clemens and Bonds will both get around 50% of the vote. This isn't hard. For every honest and reasonable person, there is an irrational idiot dishonest boyhood idol worshiper.

For every honest and reasonable person, there is an irrational idiot dishonest boyhood idol worshiper.

Which segment is voting for Clemens and Bonds? ;-)

If active voters like Corky "Rickey Who?" Simpson really worshiped their boyhood idols, you'd see more write-in votes for Tom Mix.

The last 15 or so ballots have been very friendly to Biggio and Bagwell. I'm starting to become more optimistic. If they can both sneak in this election, next year won't be quite so apocalyptic.

Whitaker's big problem was that he didn't feel like an HoFer. I'll have to admit I don't recall thinking of him as an HoFer in real time and I'm still a bit stunned at how much WAR he has. He only once even received any MVP votes. 5 AS games is a decent total but not outlandish and he was voted the starter only 3 times (i.e. he wasn't hugely popular).

Pretty much this - beyond being thought of as a HOFer, Whitaker wasn't really even thought of as a flat-out star (probably because his career was so flat) - a good/very good player yes, but not a STAR. He was in an era when there weren't a bunch of great 2Bs (there never are) but there was a star in Sandberg, so he suffered in comparison. (In an interesting note, missing the 1988 All Star Game snapped his string of appearances. The starter at 2B was Paul Molitor, who played a grand total of ... one, yes one game at 2B that year.)

Whitaker went one and done in 2001, when I doubt a single member of the BBWAA had ever even heard of WAR, or for that matter if it had even been invented yet. If he debuted today he would get a lot more attention.

The Morris voters are pissing me off. He's stealing valuable votes this year and if these results are accurate he's going to do the same thing next year.

The Morris voters are pissing me off. He's stealing valuable votes

Yeah but he is stealing to the win!

Honestly, if he gets in next year with the exact number of votes he needs, it would be kinda hilarious...

At 84 ballot's we've cracked the +/-10% level - 9.92% - so that means anyone below 65% is extremely unlikely to make up the ground now. Bagwell and Biggio are the only ones with realistic shots, with Piazza's odds dropping fast. Piazza needs 76.7% of the remaining voters to vote for him which is unlikely giving his current 65.5% pace. Biggio needs 75.7% which is far more likely, 76.1% for Bagwell, 77.1% for Raines (very unlikely), and 77.3% for Morris.

Fans of Bernie Williams have a slim hope - he 'just' needs 87.5% of the remaining votes (assuming last years total) to get in :)

Morris' unpublished vote has beaten his published vote by well over 10 percentage points the last two years. Sadly, he's got an entirely realisic shot still if that tendency holds.

Raines, on the other hand, has generally performed better in the published vote. Even so, he looks set to make an impressive leap against a stacked ballot.

Whitaker's big problem was that he didn't feel like an HoFer. I'll have to admit I don't recall thinking of him as an HoFer in real time and I'm still a bit stunned at how much WAR he has. He only once even received any MVP votes. 5 AS games is a decent total but not outlandish and he was voted the starter only 3 times (i.e. he wasn't hugely popular).

I'd vote for Whitaker, but he's about as poor a candidate as you can be with 70 WAR. He's a pure career candidate, with very little peak and a good not great prime. Compare him to Bobby Grich, another unfairly overlooked 2B. Grich has a legitimate Hall of Fame peak/prime. Best seasons by bWAR:

8.0, 7.0, 7.0, 5.7, 5.7, 5.6, 5.3, 4.1, 3.9, 3.4, 3.1, 2.7 - Grich (67.3 career)
6.6, 6.5, 5.2, 5.0, 4.5, 4.4, 4.3, 4.3, 4.1, 3.8, 3.6, 3.6, 3.5, 3.5, 3.4, 2.4 - Whitaker (71.4 career)

The "didn't feel like a HoFer" thing can often be re-phrased as "lacks a Hall of Fame peak". I think Whitaker has too much career to keep him out in general, and I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to players from the 1981-1992 period, during which it may have been particularly difficult to put up dominant seasons in MLB. (It may just be that there were fewer dominant players, of course, but all I'm talking about is giving a little boost at the borderline.) Whitaker deserves to go in, but there are a reasonable number of greater players ahead of him in line, and career WAR obfuscates that a little bit.

Morris' unpublished vote has beaten his published vote by well over 10 percentage points the last two years. Sadly, he's got an entirely realisic shot still if that tendency holds.

Well combined, (4.3 percentage points in 2011, a whopping 7.9 in 2012) but I don't see any reason to expect that number will continue to grow with this year's election. It might, obviously, but if Jack simply outpolls this year's numbers at last year's difference, he's well short (for the moment).

I had the opposite feeling about Whitaker. Watching him and Trammell in the mid 80's, I thought back then that they would one day be in Cooperstown together.

I don't think people realize how good they were defensively. Not flashy like Ozzie, but the team record shows they did the job. From 1981-88, Tigers usually finished first in the league in defensive efficiency, I think they were at least top 3 every year, and were generally about .020 better than league average. Don't have the exact numbers in front of me, something I looked up last week. Chet Lemon in center deserves plenty of credit too. Tigers had kind of a rotating cast in the corners during that time, it was the up the middle defenders who were the defensive anchors.

Based on last year's ballots, has anyone voted for Morris this year that passed on him last year?

For what it's worth, I expect Biggio to be elected. You get a lot of traditionalists and people who don't do much prep among the unpublished electors, and 3000 hits will go a very long way with them.

AROM - I remember Whitaker/Trammell that way too. Probably because they pummeled the Angels on the 80's.

Troy Renke:

Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Jack Morris, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling and Alan Trammell.

Source

I read Jenkins's article as that he submitted a blank ballot.

-- MWE

Statistically Morris being 7.9% was slightly out of the expected range but by less than 1%. When I say +/-10% it assumes we have a random sample, which we don't. However, last year with just Morris outside the expected final range and barely outside it I feel safe in saying he has no realistic shot this year unless the non-published voters go for him in a very big way as he needs 77.3% of them to vote for him (assuming the same final total votes as last year, fewer would mean he needs a higher percentage, more means a slightly lower one).

Just as an extra point of reference, Morris was at 58.8% via the ballot collecting after 148 full ballots. Final tally was 66.7% which means he had 87 known votes and 295 via others which works out to 295/425 = 69.4% of unknown voters voting for Morris. If he gets that again he'll be well shy of 75% of course. Now, the percentage spread between known and unknown was 10.6% so given he is at 61.9% right now that means a similar split would give him 71.9% of the unknown vote which is still well shy of the 75% to get in, let alone the 77.3% he'd need to make it with the hole he's in now.

In other words, the only way Morris is getting in is if the unknown voters go for him in a much bigger way than they did last year - 16.0% more than the known vote total so far and that seems to be too much to ask imo.

i thought the deal with rose was that he's ineligible, period. even if everybody wrote him in. so it wouldn't matter if the remaining voters out there put him on the ballot.

i thought the deal with rose was that he's ineligible, period. even if everybody wrote him in. so it wouldn't matter if the remaining voters out there put him on the ballot.

That is correct.

Rose isn't even from the same era as the players on the ballot. He retired in 1986. Writing in Rose is like writing in Joe Jackson.

I read Jenkins's article as that he submitted a blank ballot.

Mike, I haven't added that yet to my total...so unless somebody comes up with something better, I'll be adding it in. Which will crush all concerned.

deleted post under math check

20% Steroid convicters. They won't vote for McGwire, Bonds or Clemens, but will vote for guys like Piazza and Bagwell. Guys for whom there is no reasonable case to convict them as steroid users, but suspicions (however flimsy) remain.

Just out of curiosity, how did Clemens get in there?

EDIT: First time I've ever responded to a post and then discovered that the post was deleted.

Let me take a shot at the percent groupings of the electorate re: steroids.

20% Steroid ignorers. People who will vote for Mark McGwire (current Mark % held a bit lower by crowded ballot).

25% Steroid adjusters. They won't vote for McGwire, who maybe only hits 450 homers clean, with too low of a hit total, no defensive value to warrant induction. But they will vote for Bonds and Clemens, who had HOF resumes before the year they are commonly thought to have started juicing.

20% Steroid convicters. They won't vote for McGwire, Bonds or Clemens, but will vote for guys like Piazza and Bagwell. Guys for whom there is no reasonable case to convict them as steroid users, but suspicions (however flimsy) remain.

5% Steroid witch hunters. Cannot vote for Piazza or Bagwell. If it looks like a witch, burn it! Biggio OK though.

10% Scorched earth anti-steroid zealots. They won't vote for Biggio or Schilling, even if there's not even flimsy suspicion against them. They played with steroid users, dammit, and deserve to suffer for that sin. Murray's kin will only vote for Jack Morris, because it will rile up those filthy, unwashed mother's basement types.

5% confused voters. All those qualified names, only so much dexterity in my writing pen. If I vote for Bonds, Clemens, and Morris, not sure if I have the inclination left to scribble out B-I-G-G-I-O.

If all these groups voted Biggio, btw, he'd be at 85%, same as Paul Molitor the year he came on the ballot. Those two seem to have reasonably similar cases.

14% - won't vote for anyone first ballot unless they are both 100% clean and also have pure, no doubt, inner circle stats.

1% Would not vote for anyone on the first ballot. No exceptions.

OK. Now my groups add up to 100%.

Just out of curiosity, how did Clemens get in there?

According to Repoz's latest update, Clemens and Bonds are tied at 45.9%. Personally I'd vote for both. I know YOU make a distinction in their legal cases. But the voters clearly do not recognize that distinction.

EDIT: First time I've ever responded to a post and then discovered that the post was deleted.

It's back now. As I looked it over I found I missed a category.

[196] Lol. Now it looks like he responded to a future post.

AROM, one would think that your "steroid adjusters" group is really two separate groups: one group that will vote for Bonds/Clemens based on "timing" (i.e., they had established HOF credentials before alleged PED use), and one group that will vote for them based on "discount" (i.e., the voter won't support players who "wouldn't have been HOFers without steroids", but Bonds and Clemens were so great that they're still in even after a discount).¹

I guess we'll find out more about that when it comes to A-Rod, who can't make the "timing" argument but can make the "discount" argument.

Agreed that, rightly or wrongly, the writers basically view Clemens/Bonds/McGwire/Sosa/Palmeiro as the "for-sure" group and Piazza/Bagwell as the "rumor" group, and that is the big distinction. But there is still some thought being given to classifying players within the two groups, IMO. I think failing an actual test is really working against Palmeiro. It's hard to say that for sure, because Palmeiro is also the worst player of the group and could be withheld votes on that basis, but I bet it's correct -- that some voters are willing to vote for McGwire/Sosa but not for Palmeiro because Palmeiro failed a test. I suppose Manny is the guy who will provide evidence on that point.

¹ That said, I don't think I've seen all that many writers use the "timing" argument... so maybe it isn't that popular... but it does make sense to me ;-)

Also, the steroid ignorers group has 2 subgroups. The true steroid ignorers (those who vote for Palmeiro) and those who just ignore steroids up until testing began.

Fans of Bernie Williams have a slim hope - he 'just' needs 87.5% of the remaining votes (assuming last years total) to get in :)

I think Williams really needs more of a look than he's gotten... I'd have no room on my nonexistent ballot this year and more than likely, the next couple -- but I hope he can muster 5%