To me he's deserving.

I agree, but using the BBWAA's 10-man limit, I had a full ballot this year. Only Dawson drops off of it, and I think I'd take Bagwell, Brown, and Walker ahead of Palmeiro from next year's ballot. So, for me, that leaves Palmeiro in a battle with Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Dale Murphy, Brown, and Walker in a battle for 3 ballot slots. I may have been optimistic above; I can actually see an argument for slotting Palmeiro 13th behind all of those guys (although I could also see him slipping on at the expense of Martinez, McGriff, Murphy, and/or maybe even Walker).

" but I always vote for players with 3,000 hits and 500 home runs!"

Just curious: How many voters have ever said that?

McGwire is "andro" and there is a question of whether it just kept him healthy or added a boost to his performance.

Andro doesn't boost performance.

You think the baseball writers know the difference between Andro and magic pixie dust?

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.

"Much like Candy Cummings with the curveball, Don Larsen invented the perfect World Series game, distinguishing himself as an innovator and someone who left an indelible mark on the game."

Just curious: How many voters have ever said that?

Three hundred eighty two and a half of them.

It seems clear that voters will elect someone with 3,000 hits.

Three hundred eighty two and a half of them.

It seems clear that voters will elect someone with 3,000 hits.

Not what I asked Ray.

Do you have any voter going on record as saying he has to vote for someone with 3,000 hits? Hell, I'd be interested in seeing just one.

It seems clear that voters will elect someone with 3,000 hits.

I don't believe anybody had ever explicitly said that the only reason he is voting for a player is because he reached 3,000 hits, but everybody who had 3,000 hits made it into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot between 1962 and now, with the obvious exceptions of Pete Rose and the special election of <u>Roberto Clemente</u>.

<u>Stan Musial</u> - 1969
<u>Willie Mays</u> - 1979
<u>Al Kaline</u> - 1980
<u>Hank Aaron</u> - 1982
<u>Lou Brock</u> - 1985
<u>Carl Yastremski</u> - 1989
<u>Rod Carew</u> - 1991
<u>George Brett</u> - 1999
<u>Robin Yount</u> - 1999
<u>Dave Winfield</u> - 2001
<u>Eddie Murray</u> - 2003
<u>Paul Molitor</u> - 2004
<u>Wade Boggs</u> - 2005
<u>Cal Ripken Jr.</u> - 2007
<u>Tony Gwynn</u> - 2007
<u>Rickey Henderson</u> - 2009

It would be interesting to see how voters as a collective whole would treat Rafael Palmeiro. Would they continue to mindlessly vote in any 3,000-hit players they see on the ballot, or would they cast him into the steroids purgatory Mark McGwire is currently in...

I don't believe anybody had ever explicitly said that the only reason he is voting for a player is because he reached 3,000 hits, but everybody who had 3,000 hits made it into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot between 1962 and now, with the obvious exceptions of Pete Rose and the special election of Roberto Clemente.

And every 3,000 hit club member deserved inclusion in the Hall of Fame (yes, including Brock).

I do believe milestones help grease the skids to enshrinement. But I'm not convinced they ensures it. Before Kingman, every guy with 400 homers was in the Hall of Fame, and the voters treated his candidacy with the indifference it deserved.

And every 3,000 hit club member deserved inclusion in the Hall of Fame (yes, including Brock).

Brock was Jack Morris.

But the question is not whether all the players with 3000 hits were deserving, but whether their election was virtually guaranteed. I would submit that a Lou Brock, or Paul Molitor, or Robin Yount, without 3000 hits, was not virtually guaranteed to go in.

It's telling that all the (eligible) players with 3,000 hits were swept in on the first ballot.

Andro doesn't boost performance.

What performance?

I do believe milestones help grease the skids to enshrinement. But I'm not convinced they ensures it. Before Kingman, every guy with 400 homers was in the Hall of Fame, and the voters treated his candidacy with the indifference it deserved.

I do recall articles back then worrying about Kingman making it to 500, however, because enough voters might think reaching that milestone would certify Kong's Cooperstown credentials.

I do recall articles back then worrying about Kingman making it to 500, however, because enough voters might think reaching that milestone would certify Kong's Cooperstown credentials.

Sure, but the same thing existed with 400. The fear is what other voters might do. No one, that I'm aware of, said, "Well, if Kingman gets to 500 homers, I've got to vote for him for the HoF." I'd really love to see a single quote like this.

Brock was Jack Morris.

Brock was the all-time and single-season stolen base leader AND a World Series hero AND a 3,000 hit guy. That's a Hall of Famer, even if it's not a Hall of Meriter.

But the question is not whether all the players with 3000 hits were deserving, but whether their election was virtually guaranteed. I would submit that a Lou Brock, or Paul Molitor, or Robin Yount, without 3000 hits, was not virtually guaranteed to go in.

Do you think that if Edgar Renteria is somehow able to hang around long enough to scrape together 3,000 hits, then he's assured of a spot in the Hall of Fame? Because that's what you'd have to be supporting with the "automatic milestone" theory. That guys who otherwise have no case for the Hall of Fame would be suddenly made Hall of Famers by virtue of attainment of a single number. There may be a tiny number of braindead voters who really think that way, but I don't think it's anywhere close to 75 percent.

Sure, but the same thing existed with 400. The fear is what other voters might do. No one, that I'm aware of, said, "Well, if Kingman gets to 500 homers, I've got to vote for him for the HoF." I'd really love to see a single quote like this.

Except "400" wasn't a magic number back then. I don't recall any articles talking about 400 as a ticket to the HOF.

I do recall some writers questioning whether or not they would vote for Kingman if he made it to 500, but I don't remember who they were.

I do recall some writers questioning whether or not they would vote for Kingman if he made it to 500, but I don't remember who they were..

I'll take your word for it, but I've never seen anything like it. And even then that's not quite the same as having to vote for a guy who hit the milestone, which is what the theory requires, as far as I'm concerned.

500 Homers, 300 Wins and 3,000 Hits are really nice benchmarks largely because reaching them almost always requires Hall of Fame talent. But I've never seen any reason to believe baseball writers are prisoners to those milestones, while Mathews' and Killebrew's delayed inductions does serve as some evidence that even when reached, more than 25 percent of the voters did not feel compelled to simply usher them into Cooperstown. And those guys were worthy.

No one, that I'm aware of, said, "Well, if Kingman gets to 500 homers, I've got to vote for him for the HoF." I'd really love to see a single quote like this.

If you're asking whether I've seen a voter say "If Player X gets to Y milestone I have to vote for him," then, no, I can't recall anyone exactly saying this. (Who knows, really, whether I've seen it before.)

Do you think that if Edgar Renteria is somehow able to hang around long enough to scrape together 3,000 hits, then he's assured of a spot in the Hall of Fame? Because that's what you'd have to be supporting with the "automatic milestone" theory. That guys who otherwise have no case for the Hall of Fame would be suddenly made Hall of Famers by virtue of attainment of a single number. There may be a tiny number of braindead voters who really think that way, but I don't think it's anywhere close to 75 percent.

Johnny Damon or Carl Crawford were used as recent examples of this. But what you objected to on the last page -- what started all of this -- was me essentially saying that some voters think like this, which you've basically admitted is plausible in your last sentence just above.

Would 75% of voters elect an Edgar Renteria with 3000 hits? I suppose I can't predict that with confidence, no. I think he'd get real close, though, at least.

Good enough?

Johnny Damon or Carl Crawford were used as recent examples of this. But what you objected to on the last page -- what started all of this -- was me essentially saying that some voters think like this, which you've basically admitted is plausible in your last sentence just above.

Actually, that's not what you said, which is why I asked the question I did. And belatedly, the question you answered. Honestly, I could have directed the question at any number of people who discuss the automatic milestones the way you did.

Would 75% of voters elect an Edgar Renteria with 3000 hits? I suppose I can't predict that with confidence, no. I think he'd get real close, though, at least.

Good enough?

Why wouldn't it be good enough for me, Ray? It's your opinion. I respect your right to have one, even if it differs from mine.

Sure, but the same thing existed with 400. The fear is what other voters might do. No one, that I'm aware of, said, "Well, if Kingman gets to 500 homers, I've got to vote for him for the HoF." I'd really love to see a single quote like this.

I can't find a direct quote, but at the time Dave Kingman was closing out his career, Bill James wrote a blurb in one of his books paraphrasing the thoughts of Hall voters. He wrote that many would feel compelled to give Kingman a HOF vote if he reached 500 homers, even though nobody really thought he was a Hall of Famer. Of course, this was James writing about others, and he didn't quote anyone specific, but he did express it as a widely held sentiment.

I wonder if Early Wynn would have been elected to the Hall if he had stopped at 295 wins.

I can't find a direct quote, but at the time Dave Kingman was closing out his career, Bill James wrote a blurb in one of his books paraphrasing the thoughts of Hall voters. He wrote that many would feel compelled to give Kingman a HOF vote if he reached 500 homers, even though nobody really thought he was a Hall of Famer. Of course, this was James writing about others, and he didn't quote anyone specific, but he did express it as a widely held sentiment.

I do remember that. But as you say, it was James' thoughts about what others would do, (and I would go as far to guess that many voters feel that way about other voters), but is really just speculation. I just haven't seen any compelling evidence that any voter has actually taken that position.

As I said earlier, I think milestones can help grease the skids for deserving players (which is helped along by the fact that people who reach those milestones are overwhelmingly deserving players). I don't see any reason to conclude anything beyond that.

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.

I'd cut Alomar and Blyleven. They're getting in anyway.

I do remember that. But as you say, it was James' thoughts about what others would do,

But, if I'm reading Kirby right, that's not what Kirby's saying. Kirby is saying that James was paraphrasing the thoughts of Hall voters -- not guessing what those thoughts were. Kirby says that James was commenting on a "widely held sentiment."

It would be odd for James to have commented on something that people weren't saying.

But Kirby is paraphrasing James's paraphrasing. If I understand Kirby correctly.

I'm still looking for the passage in the old Abstracts.

But, if I'm reading Kirby right, that's not what Kirby's saying. Kirby is saying that James was paraphrasing the thoughts of Hall voters -- not guessing what those thoughts were. Kirby says that James was commenting on a "widely held sentiment."

Honestly, I can't recall how he phrased it. However, if James' was paraphrasing actual writers' sentiments about their own actions, then that would be a data point. It would be more significant if he were quoting them, but it would certainly be in the ballpark of what I've been looking for.

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.

Hi, Ray! So what's your explanation? Should Repoz be doing his sampling for Literary Digest instead of BTF?

But don't feel too bad about your boy. You're not the first person here who's let his wishes be the daddy of his fishes.