Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, December 28, 2009

Hall of Fame Ballot Gathering Machine

FINAL…unless I find out that Lisa Olson’s blank ballot was sent in. Then everybody drops.

% Leaderboard after 128 Full Ballots…

87.5 - Alomar
80.5 - Blyleven
79.7 - Dawson
54.7 - Larkin
47.7 - J. Morris
42.2 - Lee Smith
41.4 - T. Raines
37.5 - Edgar
33.6 - McGwire
25.0 - Trammell
20.3 - McGriff
10.9 - D. Murphy
 9.4 - Parker
 6.3 - Baines
 6.3 - Mattingly
 0.8 - Ventura

Top Partial Ballot Leaders… (146 Full/Partials)

116 - Alomar
108 - Dawson
102 - Blyleven

And mega-tnx to Rene` on the twitter feeds.

Repoz Posted: December 28, 2009 at 08:47 PM | 418 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, history, media, site news

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 4 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 
   301. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:01 PM (#3429780)
Jeff Idelson needs some camera help. Over here, Jeff!
   302. Guapo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:01 PM (#3429781)
DOUG HARVEY AND WHITEY HERZOG ELECTED!!!

oh, wait.
   303. Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad! Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:02 PM (#3429783)
and its dawson!
   304. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:02 PM (#3429784)
Just Dawson. No Bert this year. ####.
   305. Baldrick Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:02 PM (#3429788)
WTF
   306. Cooperstown Schtick Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:02 PM (#3429786)
Wow. Stunned.
   307. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:02 PM (#3429789)
Wait, just DAWSON?
JUST DAWSON?
   308. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:02 PM (#3429790)
only the Hawk--I'm stunned
   309. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:02 PM (#3429791)
What are the final percentages? Come on MLB Network!
   310. Cooperstown Schtick Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:03 PM (#3429792)
Blyleven 74.2
   311. Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad! Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:03 PM (#3429793)
im laughing i cant help it blylenven was 74.2 400 votes!
   312. Eddo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:03 PM (#3429794)
Dawson: 77.9%
Blyleven: 74.2%
Alomar: 73.7%
   313. Guapo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:03 PM (#3429795)
GOD DAMN HALL OF FAME BALLOT GATHERING MACHINE IS BROKEN!
   314. LargeBill Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:03 PM (#3429796)
Wow, just Dawson!
   315. catseyepub Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:03 PM (#3429797)
"alomar spits in Idelsons direction"
   316. a fatty cow that need two seats (cough, cough) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3429798)
Lesson we continue to learn: never underestimate the writers
   317. JPWF13 Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3429799)
So that means 10-12% get elected, (which seems too high to me)


I believe that well more than 10-12% of the regular STARTING players in the 1920s made the HOF.

For example in 1925, 103 players had 400+ PAs
*31* of those players are now in the HOF

in 1960, 99 players had more than 400+ PAs
*17* of those players are in the HOF

in 1980, 181 players had more than 400+ PAs
*17* of those are now in the Hall (Dawson will make it 18)

That's just position players
   318. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3429800)
Wow.
   319. Orange & Blue Velvet Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3429801)
I can't stand Alomar, but he's a HOFer.
   320. Eddo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3429803)
So... knee-jerk thoughts on why Alomar polled nearly 15% higher than actual?
   321. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3429805)
So ~15% of people who have played MLB meet the minimum requirements (played 10 years). Over half of those never see the ballot because the screening committee bumps them. Another half I would guess don't get 5% of the vote - you're down to <4% get 5% or greater on a Hall of Fame ballot. That's your Hall of Very Good, 3-5% of all players. I'm okay with that.
   322. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3429806)
I like the panel realizing how stupid their colleagues are.

Five blank ballots knock out Bert, right?
   323. Baldrick Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3429807)
They're really doing a great job of picking guys for the HOF, ain't they?
   324. Harmon "Thread Killer" Microbrew Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3429808)
(pours stiff drink)

Wow, wtf?
   325. Guapo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3429809)
Costas: 5 blank ballots submitted.

How many more votes did Blyleven need?
   326. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:05 PM (#3429810)
Five blank ballots. Bert's in without them.
   327. DKDC Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:05 PM (#3429811)
Andre Dawson 420 (77.9%),
Bert Blyleven 400 (74.2%),
Roberto Alomar 397 (73.7%),
Jack Morris 282 (52.3%),
Barry Larkin 278 (51.6%),
Lee Smith 255 (47.3%),
Edgar Martinez 195 (36.2%),
Tim Raines 164 (30.4%),
Mark McGwire 128 (23.7%),
Alan Trammell 121 (22.4%),
Fred McGriff 116 (21.5%),
Don Mattingly 87 (16.1%),
Dave Parker 82 (15.2%),
Dale Murphy 63 (11.7%),
Harold Baines 33 (6.1%),
Andres Galarraga 22 (4.1%),
Robin Ventura 7 (1.3%),
Ellis Burks 2 (0.4%),
Eric Karros 2 (0.4%),
Kevin Appier 1 (0.2%),
Pat Hentgen 1 (0.2%),
David Segui 1 (0.2%),
Mike Jackson 0,
Ray Lankford 0,
Shane Reynolds 0,
Todd Zeile 0.

405 needed for election. Bly missed by 5, Alomar by 8.
   328. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:05 PM (#3429813)
Guys, if Alomar got 73.7% of the vote in his first year, it means he's going in next year.
   329. Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad! Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:05 PM (#3429815)
gammo seems kinda pissed
   330. Eric P. Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:05 PM (#3429814)
5 votes short for Bert. Wow.
   331. catseyepub Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:05 PM (#3429816)
KUDOS to the voters

limiting inductees is fine

character seems to trump stats
   332. zonk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:05 PM (#3429817)
Blyleven 74.2


@!$#@#@!#@#@# Marriotti.

Jay Marriotti is a first ballot, inner circle Hall of #########.

Still... I think this all but ensures Bert goes next year (he'd better). While I think Dawson is a borderline case, I always liked him and won't gnash any teeth that he's in.

As for the morons that have this stupid "first ballot" nonsense...
   333. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:05 PM (#3429818)
GOD DAMN HALL OF FAME BALLOT GATHERING MACHINE IS BROKEN!


Wow, that's a pretty big miss on Robbie (Bert, not so much). Did all the first-year guys come in a lot lower than Repoz's tally?
   334. JMPH Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:06 PM (#3429819)
So Bert's getting in next year. I can live with Dawson getting elected, but I can't believe he's the only one. That's just shocking.
   335. Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad! Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:07 PM (#3429821)
the voters seem to get dumber and dumber every year
   336. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:07 PM (#3429820)
Five blank ballots knock out Bert, right?


Right. There would have had to have been more than 625 voters for the five blank ballots to have an effect of less than 0.8%.

-- MWE
   337. Orange & Blue Velvet Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:07 PM (#3429822)
The Dawson choice was really underwhelming.

Heyman saying stupid things, as usual.
   338. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:07 PM (#3429824)
TORCH AND PITCHFORKS! GET YOUR TORCH AND PITCHFORK HERE!
   339. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:09 PM (#3429827)
I was off by an average of 3.6% this year. Better than I would've guessed.
   340. Guapo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:09 PM (#3429829)
It's actually unfortunate for Dawson, because now the story is how close Blyleven and Alomar were, instead of focusing on his great career. Congratulations to the Hawk.
   341. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:09 PM (#3429830)
Voting from the Hall's official site;

Andre Dawson 420 (77.9%)
Bert Blyleven 400 (74.2%)
Roberto Alomar 397 (73.7%)
Jack Morris 282 (52.3%)
Barry Larkin 278 (51.6%)
Lee Smith 255 (47.3%)
Edgar Martinez 195 (36.2%)
Tim Raines 164 (30.4%)
Mark McGwire 128 (23.7%)
Alan Trammell 121 (22.4%)
Fred McGriff 116 (21.5%)
Don Mattingly 87 (16.1%)
Dave Parker 82 (15.2%)
Dale Murphy 63 (11.7%)
Harold Baines 33 (6.1%)
Everyone else is off the ballot, who the $#()*! voted for David Segui?
Andres Galarraga 22 (4.1%), Robin Ventura 7 (1.3%), Ellis Burks 2 (0.4%), Eric Karros 2 (0.4%), Kevin Appier 1 (0.2%), Pat Hentgen 1 (0.2%), David Segui 1 (0.2%), Mike Jackson 0, Ray Lankford 0, Shane Reynolds 0, Todd Zeile 0.
   342. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:10 PM (#3429835)
Five blank ballots knock out Bert, right?


Well, he would have had to have been named on all 5. MLB.com graphic says he missed by 5 votes. Removing 5 non-Bert voted doesn't put him in.
   343. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:10 PM (#3429832)
The Alomar thing is stunning, given how he was polling. Blyleven is not surprising even though he's juuuust shy. Dawson was polling well so he's to be expected.

But to just end up with Dawson.... wow.
   344. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:10 PM (#3429836)
Robin Ventura - SEVEN votes! Woohoo punching bag!
   345. a fatty cow that need two seats (cough, cough) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3429841)
This will put the theory of 'No Blyleven this year means maybe no Morris ever (besides the VC)' to the test.
   346. ajnrules Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3429842)
It's good to see Bert pass 70% of the votes, but having him get 74.2% is just torture. The worst part is that if he got in this year, I would be able to attend the ceremony, but I won't be able to go next year. :(
   347. Guapo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3429843)
Dag Nabbit, any thoughts on Larkin? I assume 51.6% is a pretty good showing for a rookie.
   348. PreservedFish Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3429844)
It's actually unfortunate for Dawson, because now the story is how close Blyleven and Alomar were, instead of focusing on his great career.


Come on. The Hawk just got the first few of about 10,000 phone calls and gets the induction day to himself.
   349. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3429846)
Roberto Alomar 397 (73.7%),
Jack Morris 282 (52.3%),
Barry Larkin 278 (51.6%),
Lee Smith 255 (47.3%),
Edgar Martinez 195 (36.2%),
Tim Raines 164 (30.4%),
Mark McGwire 128 (23.7%),


Man, Repoz's tally really seemed to miss this whole chunk, outside of maybe Lee Smith and Edgar. I'm really disappointed in Morris's and Raines's performances (in opposite directions). (and Larkin, but debuting >50% should still mean election in the next 2-3 years)
   350. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3429847)
It's actually unfortunate for Dawson, because now the story is how close Blyleven and Alomar were, instead of focusing on his great career. Congratulations to the Hawk.


Eh, no different than All-Star selection day. Come induction day, the Hawk will have his day (as it turns out, without sharing the spotlight).
   351. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3429850)
McGwire's vote does not budge: 23.6 / 21.9 / 23.7.
   352. zonk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3429851)
Voters is stupidz.
   353. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3429852)
Well, he would have had to have been named on all 5. MLB.com graphic says he missed by 5 votes. Removing 5 non-Bert voted doesn't put him in.

In fact, it puts him at 74.9%.
   354. Harmon "Thread Killer" Microbrew Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:12 PM (#3429853)
character seems to trump stats


Yes, this is the Hall of Nice Guys Who Happened to Play Baseball, right?
   355. Guapo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:12 PM (#3429856)
Come on. The Hawk just got the first few of about 10,000 phone calls and gets the induction day to himself.

I stand by my original statement. Blyleven being interviewed on MLB network right now.
   356. Eric P. Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:12 PM (#3429857)
who the $#()*! voted for David Segui?


Probably a writer who appreciated his candor about his steroid use.
   357. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:13 PM (#3429859)
I don't see why people are so shocked by the results. I'm surprised that Alomar was so far under Repoz's tally, but it happens - the tally was off by 14% on Blyleven last year.

Anyhow, the tally was off by an average of 4.7% this year. On a purely mercenary note, that means I beat it. Yeay, me.
   358. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:14 PM (#3429866)
McGwire's vote does not budge: 23.6 / 21.9 / 23.7.


It's actually more striking in raw vote totals. His 128 is the exact same number of votes as he got in both 2007 and 2008 (he got 118 last year).
   359. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:15 PM (#3429869)
Dag Nabbit, any thoughts on Larkin? I assume 51.6% is a pretty good showing for a rookie.

He's going in. He'll likely have to wade through the 2013-14 glut, so it might take a while.

5.67 votes/ballot this year.
   360. JPWF13 Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:15 PM (#3429873)
As far as I can tell, all returning players gained votes:

Bert Blyleven 11.5%
Andre Dawson 10.9%
Jack Morris 8.3%
Tim Raines 7.8%
Alan Trammell 5.0%
Don Mattingly 4.2%
Lee Smith 2.8%
Mark McGwire 1.8%
Dave Parker 0.2%
Harold Baines 0.2%
Dale Murphy 0.2%
   361. ajnrules Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:16 PM (#3429875)
Bert's being very classy here, and I respect him for that. He mentioned <u>Andre Dawson</u> more often than the guys in the studio.
   362. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:16 PM (#3429876)
Hmm. Despite my dozens of posts updating McGwire's tally -- including my official prediction that his percentage would increase -- it turns out he did no better than usual. Repoz, your machine is broken.

Now I don't get to hear Andy explain McGwire's increase.
   363. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:17 PM (#3429883)
McGwire's vote does not budge: 23.6 / 21.9 / 23.7.


Neat. Turns out my official prediction for a McGwire increase was correct after all: 23.6% to 23.7%.

Done and done.
   364. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:18 PM (#3429887)
I wouldn't be surprised to see a dramatic jump next year for Larkin. Alomar will get in certainly and I would think that a side by side with Larkin works pretty well for Barry.
   365. Baldrick Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:19 PM (#3429888)
He should demand a recount. Refuse to concede until they go through and re-examine every one of those Butterfly ballots. After all, HOF voters are not the sharpest tools in the shed - they may have been confused by the complicated ballot instructions.
   366. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:19 PM (#3429891)
You know, when that HOF guy who should never be put in front of a camera again said "One man will be joining them", I immediately thought it was Alomar, and then had to think back to the totals to correct myself.
   367. JMPH Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:27 PM (#3429893)
Bert's being very classy here, and I respect him for that. He mentioned Andre Dawson more often than the guys in the studio.

It's got to be frustrating to have to keep waiting, but I'd imagine that he realizes that he basically just received a letter of intent from the voters.
   368. catseyepub Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:34 PM (#3429906)
Did Costas just say larry Walker is getting in next year???????
   369. ajnrules Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:37 PM (#3429911)
Do you think Jon Heyman is glowing inside that he made Bert Blyleven have to wait another year?

2013 will be Dale Murphy's final year on the ballot. Could he be the first person in I don't know when to fail to reach 5% on his final year on the ballot?
   370. Guapo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:41 PM (#3429916)
Incidentally, while I was the first to throw out a "the Machine is broken" joke, I want to thank Repoz for taking the time and effort to compile all these votes. Even if the Machine isn't 100% accurate it's still fun to keep tabs on the ballots.
   371. ajnrules Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:43 PM (#3429919)
I second that, Guapo.
   372. Repoz Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:50 PM (#3429927)
your machine is broken.

The old fart vote strikes again!

The three that were really off were...

Alomar - Spitting

Raines - Cocaine

McGwire - Stroids

The decrepers who no longer have a newspaper, don't know wtf a blog or solid food are...refuse to vote for these fellows.
   373. Foghorn Leghorn Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:53 PM (#3429933)
Removing 5 non-Bert voted doesn't put him in.
No, it takes *6*.
   374. zonk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:56 PM (#3429936)
Incidentally, while I was the first to throw out a "the Machine is broken" joke, I want to thank Repoz for taking the time and effort to compile all these votes. Even if the Machine isn't 100% accurate it's still fun to keep tabs on the ballots.


Thirded, though - if I could offer up one machine enhancement, it should have the ability to put a foot up Jay Marriotti's ass.
   375. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:57 PM (#3429938)
Are all ballots made public after the fact? I'd be curious to peruse those that were NOT included in Repoz's tally
   376. Ron Johnson Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:59 PM (#3429941)
your machine is broken.


Nothing that a slope corrector won't fix.
   377. Repoz Posted: January 06, 2010 at 09:09 PM (#3429962)
Are all ballots made public after the fact?

Nope.

The gloat votes are already trickling in..
   378. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 09:11 PM (#3429963)
I want to thank Repoz for taking the time and effort to compile all these votes. Even if the Machine isn't 100% accurate it's still fun to keep tabs on the ballots.


I agree. Thanks, Repoz!
   379. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 06, 2010 at 09:29 PM (#3429984)
Well, he would have had to have been named on all 5. MLB.com graphic says he missed by 5 votes. Removing 5 non-Bert voted doesn't put him in.


Right. There were 539 voters; Blyleven got 74.9% of the non-blank ballots.

-- MWE
   380. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 06, 2010 at 09:38 PM (#3429997)
So we count Brady Anderson's fluke season, Francoeur's fluke half season et al?

Don't forget Don Larsen's one WS game in 1956!


Oh, they didn't! Larsen got 53 votes in 1979.

Despite the voting instructions specifically saying not to cast a vote for a particular feat ("No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted"), Larsen lasted the full 15 years on the ballot, getting 492 votes total.

That's 3 more ballot appearances and 300 more votes than Will Clark, David Cone, Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker, Dave Stieb, Ken Singleton, Bret Saberhagen, Willie Randolph, Darrell Evans, and Dwight Evans ever got, combined.
   381. Kirby Kyle Posted: January 06, 2010 at 09:50 PM (#3430014)
Guys who scored worse on the ballot than on the Repoz-meter: Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Raines, Martinez, McGwire, Trammell
Guys who did better in the balloting: Morris, Lee Smith, Mattingly, Parker
Dawson, McGriff, and Murphy were effectively a wash.

The first group is largely players who are lauded by the posters here, and the second group gets little support. It appears that voters who are willing to publish and discuss their ballots are somewhat more in agreement with the sabermetric community than those who keep theirs secret.
   382. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 09:54 PM (#3430023)
Despite the voting instructions specifically saying not to cast a vote for a particular feat ("No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted"), Larsen lasted the full 15 years on the ballot, getting 492 votes total.


Those writers should have had their ballots taken away from them. Seriously. Larsen in the HOF would have made Rube Marquard look like Cy Young.

I would have loved to hear their excuses for voting for him without appearing to break the rules, though.
   383. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 09:54 PM (#3430024)
Congratulations to Andre Dawson! He was on my BBTF ballot.

You can't take a historical number like that and apply it to a one-year sample. Hall of Famers have longer careers than other players, so the fraction of HOFers who are active at any given time will be higher than their historical proportion of the population.

Yeah, the real question is what percentage of games, or what percentage of seasons, have been played by HOFers. I suspect that's higher than 1%.
   384. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 09:58 PM (#3430034)
The first group is largely players who are lauded by the posters here, and the second group gets little support. It appears that voters who are willing to publish and discuss their ballots are somewhat more in agreement with the sabermetric community than those who keep theirs secret.


That's because the first group doesn't have to make up reasons to vote or not to vote for a candidate as much as the second group has to.
   385. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:10 PM (#3430050)
Could he be the first person in I don't know when to fail to reach 5% on his final year on the ballot?


No. Well yes, if you don't know when means last year

edit: And Dave Parker will do it next year.
   386. shock Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:13 PM (#3430054)


No. Well yes, if you don't know when means last year


Huh? Tommy John got well over 5%
   387. DanG Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:14 PM (#3430058)
Yeah, the real question is what percentage of games, or what percentage of seasons, have been played by HOFers. I suspect that's higher than 1%.
Here's one way to estimate the number of active hall of famers. First, look at the number of players that debut in a typical year:

2009 168
2008 238
2007 211
2006 220
2005 206
2004 208

The average is 208.5 newbies per year. Applying the percentage determined earlier (1.43%) we would expect 2.98 hall of famers to debut each year.

How long is the career of the average hall of famer? I don't know; maybe 17 years for those debuting in the last 80 years and giving credit for war service, it's something like that. So we should expect about 50 (2.98 times 17) currently active players to make the Hall.
   388. flournoy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:15 PM (#3430060)
So again, let's see who's new on next year's ballot...
Jeff Bagwell, Bret Boone, Kevin Brown, John Franco, Juan Gonzalez, Al Leiter, Tino Martinez, John Olerud, Rafael Palmeiro, Larry Walker, and others...

Without studying it too much, I would vote for Bagwell, Walker, Brown, and Palmeiro. But I couldn't do that, since I'd also vote for Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, McGriff, McGwire, Murphy, Raines, and Trammell. I don't know which two I would cut. Maybe Palmeiro for one. Not sure about the other. If the damn BBWAA would elect enough people, I wouldn't have this problem.

EDIT: In practice, if I were an actual HoF voter, the other guy I'd cut would probably be Alomar, since I'd figure that he'll get enough anyway. But I don't like to think about it like that.
   389. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:15 PM (#3430061)
Are all ballots made public after the fact?

Nope.

The gloat votes are already trickling in..


well--we can make some scratch calculations: Repoz had Alomar getting 110/125 of those who published their choice (88%)

he ended up with 397/539, which means, of those ballot NOT available to Repoz, he got 287/414 or 69.3%
   390. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:25 PM (#3430072)
Good point 389 - I won't be able to fit Palmeiro on my ballot next year either.

Alomar, Bagwell, Blyleven, Brown, Larkin, Martinez, McGwire, Raines, Trammell, Walker

Palmeiro versus Edgar for the last slot and I'll go with Edgar on a Hall of Fame ballot.

I wonder if Palmeiro will be around to vote for in 2012. He could certainly go off ballot quickly like Grich and Whitaker.
   391. zonk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:29 PM (#3430075)

Oh, they didn't! Larsen got 53 votes in 1979.


Yup.

I have a vague recollection, from way back in my youth, discussions about whether Larsen was a HoFer or not. Scoff now, but once upon a time there were actually people that thought 9 perfect innings in the WS made you a HoFer.

...which just goes to show that while the writers actually do better overall, given 15 years to pull their heads out their asses, than we generally complain -- there's still a significant number of morons that have difficulty fielding a full roster of neurons.
   392. flournoy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:29 PM (#3430077)
I think Palmeiro is one and done. Maybe 3% or so.
   393. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:31 PM (#3430079)
significant number of morons that have difficulty fielding a full roster of neurons.

even with the September call-ups?
   394. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:33 PM (#3430084)
No. Well yes, if you don't know when means last year



Huh? Tommy John got well over 5%


Whoops. Misread your question.
   395. zonk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:33 PM (#3430085)
significant number of morons that have difficulty fielding a full roster of neurons.

even with the September call-ups?


Some, like shank and poopy pants, have to ask the umpire to catch... even after the callups.
   396. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:35 PM (#3430090)
I think Palmeiro is one and done. Maybe 3% or so.


I had been thinking that this notion was silly - McGwire's not doing well, but he's over 20% after all. But #389 and #391 point out that this is surprisingly likely. In addition to not getting any votes from the anti-steroids crowd, Palmeiro could easily get squeezed off the ballots of a "sabermetric"-inclined voter who prefers peak to career. Even taking his numbers at face value, I could see him pretty easily landing 11th or 12th on my mock ballot next year. Wow.
   397. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:45 PM (#3430100)
I had been thinking that this notion was silly - McGwire's not doing well, but he's over 20% after all. But #389 and #391 point out that this is surprisingly likely. In addition to not getting any votes from the anti-steroids crowd, Palmeiro could easily get squeezed off the ballots of a "sabermetric"-inclined voter who prefers peak to career.


To me he's deserving.

That said, absent the steroids issue he'd have been an interesting test case for unstoppable projectile meets immovable object: "He didn't feel like a Hall of Famer... but I always vote for players with 3,000 hits and 500 home runs!"
   398. zonk Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:45 PM (#3430101)
I had been thinking that this notion was silly - McGwire's not doing well, but he's over 20% after all. But #389 and #391 point out that this is surprisingly likely. In addition to not getting any votes from the anti-steroids crowd, Palmeiro could easily get squeezed off the ballots of a "sabermetric"-inclined voter who prefers peak to career. Even taking his numbers at face value, I could see him pretty easily landing 11th or 12th on my mock ballot next year.


Ditto. Looking at DL's list in 391, I cannot really see anyone from that list I wouldn't slot in front of Palmeiro. I'm more dazzled by shiny career counting numbers than the average primate (and I honestly don't care much about steroids), but the only real options I personally would consider might be Walker or Brown - and I think both were clearly superior players to Palmeiro.

Right now, I don't see Palmeiro cracking my ballot, either.
   399. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:47 PM (#3430102)
McGwire is "andro" and there is a question of whether it just kept him healthy or added a boost to his performance. There's a gray area there. Palmeiro is a compiler, pure and simple, and any discount at all puts him below the line. That and he has an actual failing steroid test.

McGriff's at 20% - I'll bet Palmeiro is under that number.
   400. Foghorn Leghorn Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:47 PM (#3430103)
I like the empty ballots. That is a vote that says "None of these guys should be in teh HOF". That's much better than not submitting one.
Page 4 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFormer OF Jason Lane takes loss in first start
(28 - 2:55am, Jul 29)
Last: Walt Davis

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Discussion
(5 - 2:52am, Jul 29)
Last: DanG

NewsblogBarney + cash to Dodgers for PTBNL
(10 - 2:51am, Jul 29)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDeadspin: David Ortiz Pissed Off the Rays Again
(52 - 2:44am, Jul 29)
Last: DFA

NewsblogMark Teixeira says blame aging for extended absences
(1 - 2:35am, Jul 29)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-28
(66 - 2:25am, Jul 29)
Last: if nature called, ladodger34 would listen

NewsblogHall of Fame Announces Changes to Voting Process for Recently Retired Players, Effective Immediately
(101 - 2:07am, Jul 29)
Last: Squash

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1006 - 1:56am, Jul 29)
Last: clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(463 - 12:46am, Jul 29)
Last: puck

NewsblogDmitri Young explains his amazing weight loss
(33 - 12:40am, Jul 29)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog2014 Prospect Watch | MLB.com: UPDATED
(21 - 12:28am, Jul 29)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogESPN: Yankee Fan Returns Lost Red Sox World Series Ring
(24 - 12:27am, Jul 29)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3443 - 12:24am, Jul 29)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogGossage on Bonds, McGwire Hall hopes: ‘Are you f–king kidding?’
(129 - 11:13pm, Jul 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1956 Ballot
(8 - 10:50pm, Jul 28)
Last: Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge

Page rendered in 0.9049 seconds
52 querie(s) executed