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

Friday, December 30, 2011

2012 Hall Of Fame Ballot Collecting Gizmo

UPDATE (1:40) ~~~ 148 Full Ballots.

89.2 - B. Larkin
58.8 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
56.8 - Bagwell
52.0 - T. Raines
44.6 - Lee Smith
36.5 - Trammell
32.4 - E. Martinez
23.6 - F. McGriff
18.2 - L. Walker
17.6 - McGwire
12.2 - D. Murphy
11.5 - R. Palmiero
10.1 - Mattingly
  3.4 - Bernie Williams !
  1.4 - J. Gonzalez
  0.7 - V. Castilla
  0.7 - B. Mueller
  0.7 - T. Salmon
  0.7 - P. Rose (write-in)

As usual, if you come across any ballots…send them in!

 

Repoz Posted: December 30, 2011 at 04:20 PM | 300 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, projections

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 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   101. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:15 PM (#4026239)
Shawn Chacon got 35 saves as the "closer" for the Rockies in 2004. He had an ERA of 7.11. He had zero saves before that season. He got one more save for the rest of his career.


Wow! He just replaced 2007 Joe Borowski (45 saves, 5.07 ERA, with two relievers on the team with sub 1.80 ERA's combining for 4) as my go to guy for pointing out the ridiculousness of save totals without context.
   102. LargeBill Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:20 PM (#4026240)
Any chance some writers are lying about not voting for Mattingly? Perhaps out of a fear that a yes vote makes them look kind of dumb and can't be justified?


While some voters use incredibly poor logic and various other odd methods to decide who is worthy, I doubt any would outright lie. If they say "I'm only voting for these five guys . . . . " and Bernie isn't listed then they didn't vote for him. However, if they didn't say it was their entire ballot well all bets are off.

Beyond that, the voters most likely to vote for Williams are those least likely to hide that vote. If you are a NY area writer you're not writing for me in Cincinnati or other places out in internet land. No, they're writing for the NY audience that will applaud that vote.
   103. LargeBill Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:26 PM (#4026242)
Just noticed count is up to 63 ballots which should be well clear of the ten percent level. Unless all the outliers are among the early ballots this should be relatively close to the final percentages. Larkin likely will fall below 90% but should still get in. Others may gain or drop a few percentages but none enough to reach 75%. Anyone pay enough attention in Statistics 101 to have an idea what the real margin of error is with 10% polling of a group of this size?
   104. cminsf Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:47 PM (#4026254)
To answer LargeBill's question, if these 65 ballots are random (a big if), someone with a true voting rate of 75% would have a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 10 percentage points, i.e., between 65 and 85 percent. Morris is just outside that range, so there's only about a 2.5% chance that his true rate is 75%. It's possible, but unlikely, he would get elected this year.
   105. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:48 PM (#4026256)
Every year this turns out to be impossible to predict. McGriff ahead of McGwire? Did all the Dave Parker votes shift to McGriff for some reason? Bernie Williams with ONE VOTE?

I too would like to go look for more ballots, but need to know who's been compiled yet. The output of this gizmo is great, but where's the input?
   106. UCCF Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:49 PM (#4026258)
Gotta say, I don't think Bernie Williams belongs in the HoF, and my hatred of the Yankees is well noted, but holy crap, he's at least good enough to get enough votes to stay on the ballot a few years.

I'm kind of shocked by this. I figured the core of the 1996-2000 Yankees would all get popularity boosts that would drive them farther up the ballot than they probably deserved to be. I had pegged Williams as a guy who hangs around all 15 years, topping out around maybe 30-35% - combine postseason stuff with generally being a nice guy, and there you go. I guess this means Posada will be on the outside looking in as well (and I figured he'd get closer than Williams because of the position). And what about Pettitte? They're all in the 45-50 WAR range.

Tino Martinez got 6 votes in his only season on the ballot. Paul O'Neill got 12. Even John Wetteland got 4. It's hard to think that Williams will have fewer than them.
   107. Swedish Chef Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:51 PM (#4026260)
Anyone pay enough attention in Statistics 101 to have an idea what the real margin of error is with 10% polling of a group of this size?

The variation is pretty big for a sample of 60, think +-10% for someone polling like Morris. But what's worse is that those who write about it is a self-selected group not necessarily representative of the whole electorate (retired writers have a vote but don't have a word count to fill).
   108. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 31, 2011 at 06:14 PM (#4026269)
I'm kind of shocked by this. I figured the core of the 1996-2000 Yankees would all get popularity boosts that would drive them farther up the ballot than they probably deserved to be. I had pegged Williams as a guy who hangs around all 15 years, topping out around maybe 30-35% - combine postseason stuff with generally being a nice guy, and there you go.


Plus the fact that Bernie Williams was approximately as good a player as Kirby Puckett. You'd think that might be worth a stray vote here or there.

Paul O'Neill and Tino Martinez did not play center field. Tino was ridiculously over-rated by NYY fans and media in any case, but O'Neill would be a borderline HOFer if he'd been a CFer.
   109. Walt Davis Posted: December 31, 2011 at 09:22 PM (#4026357)
To answer LargeBill's question, if these 65 ballots are random (a big if), someone with a true voting rate of 75% would have a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 10 percentage points, i.e., between 65 and 85 percent. Morris is just outside that range, so there's only about a 2.5% chance that his true rate is 75%. It's possible, but unlikely, he would get elected this year.

Because the sample is a large proportion of the population, technically the variance will be slightly lower due to the finite population correction factor (FPC) which often isn't covered in intro stats. The FPC, applied to the variance, is 1-(n/N) and is completely ignorable almost all of the time. In this case, the CI around 75% would be about 9.5 percentage points rather than 10 (big whoop!). By the time we're done, Repoz will probably have about 20-25% of the ballots and, at that point, between the increased sample size and the decreased FPC, the CI should be about 6. IF it's a random sample which we pretty much know it's not, at least for certain players (e.g. Mattingly).

FPC sometimes presented as (N-n)/(N-1).
   110. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: December 31, 2011 at 09:58 PM (#4026379)
By the time we're done, Repoz will probably have about 20-25% of the ballots and, at that point, between the increased sample size and the decreased FPC, the CI should be about 6. IF it's a random sample which we pretty much know it's not, at least for certain players (e.g. Mattingly).

Last year repoz had 138 of 581 -- almost one-fourth. The year before that, repoz had 128 of 539, which is essentially the same thing (128/539*581 equals 137.97. Can't get much closer to 138 than that).

However, that includes a bunch of ballots only released on the very eve of the election. The Chicago Tribune should hand out theirs in the Sunday section before the Hall's announcement, and the Hall announces on Monday this year. They have 7-10 voters. (Big town, big paper, two MLB teams).

Similarly, ESPN had 18 voters last year and MLB.com had 13, and I don't thing they released until the last moment either last year. Actually, with that in mind I actually copied down how they voted. It won't be perfectly the same this year as there writers add guys on and pull guys off their ballots and new writers get hired and fired, but here's how the 31 ESPN/MLB.com writers did LAST year:

19 Larkin
16 Smith
15 Morris
14 Bagwell
12 Raines
10 Edgar
9 McGwire
7 Trammell
7 Palmeiro
3 McGriff
3 D.Murphy
2 Mattingly
1 L.Walker

I didn't record Juan Gone votes.

It won't be exactly the same this year, but that's what happened with those 31 voters last year.
   111. Something Other Posted: December 31, 2011 at 11:53 PM (#4026420)
Raines at 61%? I know it's early, but woohoo...!

One of the reasons Walker doesn't generate more excitement around here is that I don't think the definitive, go-to article has been written that accounts for his Coors numbers while making the case that he's still a clear HOFer. I'm open to persuasion, but too often there's an arrogance from Walker's proponents, as though it was so obvious they needn't actually make the case that accounts for his playing in the most hitter-friendly park of the last half century.

Even if we accept BBref's oWAR at face value, we'd have to believe dWAR is essentially correct to get Walker well over 60 wins.
   112. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: January 01, 2012 at 12:15 AM (#4026430)
I'm mostly ambivalent on Bernie's worthiness for the Hall - I wouldn't be upset one way or the other if he got in or not. But holy crap, one and done would be a travesty.
   113. Something Other Posted: January 01, 2012 at 01:23 AM (#4026450)
@111: I meant to add that while there's a strong consensus Walker was an excellent fielder (I agree), it doesn't make sense to suspend skepticism wrt fielding numbers simply when it serves us to do so, and I've seen that done wrt Walker's case for the Hall.
   114. booond Posted: January 01, 2012 at 02:19 AM (#4026476)
I'm mostly ambivalent on Bernie's worthiness for the Hall - I wouldn't be upset one way or the other if he got in or not. But holy crap, one and done would be a travesty.


While I agree that it's surprising but mostly due to the voters inability to separate the real HOFers from the HOFvg, not Bernie's qualifications. Bernie isn't a HOFer. It wouldn't be a complete travesty if he got in but it'd be close.
   115. icho1977 Posted: January 01, 2012 at 02:37 AM (#4026479)
Repoz.

The John Erardi hall of fame ballot (8): Larkin, McGriff, Bagwell,Walker, Martinez, Murphy, Trammell and Raines.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111231/COL19/312310035/Erardi-Larkin-only-no-doubter?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p
   116. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: January 01, 2012 at 02:42 AM (#4026484)
The John Erardi hall of fame ballot (8): Larkin, McGriff, Bagwell,Walker, Martinez, Murphy, Trammell and Raines.


Wow. Best ballot yet.
   117. Repoz Posted: January 01, 2012 at 02:56 AM (#4026486)
The John Erardi hall of fame ballot

Yeah, got it.

And the lethal Chicago Tribune precincts results have just come in!

Link.
   118. charityslave is thinking about baseball Posted: January 01, 2012 at 04:26 AM (#4026507)
The John Erardi hall of fame ballot (8): Larkin, McGriff, Bagwell,Walker, Martinez, Murphy, Trammell and Raines.


Wow! Perfect!

And Raines at his peak may have been the best of them all (from the totally subjective charityslave perspective). He could take over a game- destroy teams on the basepaths, hit for power, steal doubles away with his glove. As Bill James said, "Half of Ricky Henderson is still a hall of famer!"*



(* I add the exclaimation mark. He did not, in fact, exclaim it. I don't know that the man has ever exclaimed anything.)
   119. Walt Davis Posted: January 01, 2012 at 04:50 AM (#4026517)
Even if we accept BBref's oWAR at face value, we'd have to believe dWAR is essentially correct to get Walker well over 60 wins.
it doesn't make sense to suspend skepticism wrt fielding numbers simply when it serves us to do so

There is as much (or nearly as much) uncertainty around Tim Raines' defensive numbers as there is around Walker's. You're making the same assumption about defensive numbers with one player as with another. Given Walker's numbers are quite high relative to other RF there's some reason to believe his numbers are more likely to be off than Raines, but it's gonna be pretty trivial.

But it's not like Walker's defensive numbers are ridiculously high. He's +95 in Rfield but -89 in Rpos. This essentially means that Chone views him as an average CF playing RF. That's not exactly unbelievable. It's not saying he's Willie Mays or Ozzie Smith. Heck, it's not even saying he was Edmonds or Dawson. Defensively he's essentially Hank Aaron or JD Drew by these numbers, something I don't find hard to believe. Moreover 70 of those 95 runs were accumulated through the age of 30, just when you might expect them to be. The Rfield difference between these two is, for all intents and purposes, that Chone views Walker as an average CF and Raines as a -10 CF ... i.e. an average corner OF.

Viewed in that light, here are Walker's defensive rankings by age:

23 -- average CF
24 -- average CF
25 -- average CF
26 -- +5 CF
27 -- -5 CF
28 -- average CF
29 -- average CF (he played mostly CF this half-year)
30 -- average CF
31 -- average RF!
32 -- -8 RF!
33 -- average CF
34 -- +5 CF
35 -- average CF
36+ -- average RF

You'll have a hard time finding defensive numbers with more stability. The only "inconsistency" is ages 31-32 (maybe he was hurt) and that's not a high degree of variation by these standards (take a look at Steve Finley sometime).

Frankly the more curious question is why wasn't Raines' speed a better advantage in LF.

As to Coors Field, that's what park factors are for. I've got no more reason to be skeptical about the Coors park factors than I do the Olympic Stadium park factors. Isn't it incumbent on you to show that WAR is messed up in Coors? Or is your argument that Walker was particularly well-suited to Coors? I'm sorry, you don't have an argument. Anyway, could be for all I know but that also may have been true of Santo and Koufax and pretty much every Red Sox HoF candidate.

Meanwhile, WAR/650 PA:

25-27, MON: 5.8
28-30, COL: 5.9
31-35, COL: 6.2

Is that really some massive difference that needs explaining? Like many/most excellent players, as the speed/defnsive skills started to wane, the power picks up. And like many in his cohort, he did not drop off in his early 30s. Walker had one massive and one very good (for him) season in Coors, both years he was pretty healthy and he had two half-seasons where he wasn't very good (for him). Anyway, those two big years make his time in Colorado seem much more extreme and out of character than it was.

And then there's this:

Walker, career 57.7 oWAR, 8030 PA
Raines, 21-33, 56.2 oWAR, 7971 PA

And for comparison's sake, here's Raines' 23-27 peak: 5.9 WAR/650 PA ... so radically different than Walker's.

oWAR of course includes his substantial baserunning advantage (which apparently we take on faith unlike the defensive numbers). I'm not aware of anybody who seriously questions the notion that Walker was a better defender than Raines in the prime of their careers. So Raines had another 2400 PA in his career, amassing 6.1 WAR (1.7/650 PA). If Walker was +60 rather than +95 on defense, he's still Raines's equal in career WAR; if he was really +30 then he's about 3 wins behind. They appear to be equal in peak and prime.

But, it's true ... if you assume the park factors are seriously screwed up and you assume the defensive numbers are seriously screwed up and you assume both of those are heavily biased in Walker's favor while assuming that all of Raines's numbers are accurate, then you can conclude that Raines was significantly better than Walker.

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to prove your assumptions are incorrect.
   120. icho1977 Posted: January 01, 2012 at 04:59 AM (#4026519)
The new Ballot Gil Lebreton picks: Bagwell and Larkin.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/12/31/3627171/predictions-heres-exactly-what.html
   121. smileyy Posted: January 01, 2012 at 08:46 AM (#4026540)
[118] "Pass!" ?
   122. cardsfanboy Posted: January 01, 2012 at 09:16 AM (#4026543)
I think Biggio will get in and probably in year 2


I just don't get it, what is it about Biggio that makes perfectly rational people think he won't sail in on the first ballot?
   123. cardsfanboy Posted: January 01, 2012 at 09:18 AM (#4026544)
We can quibble all we want with the validity of that impression, but I'd submit that the paragraph above accurately describes reality.


agreed. We can quibble of his value, but you are right about his impression with the electorate.
   124. cardsfanboy Posted: January 01, 2012 at 09:26 AM (#4026545)
I mean, my god, if Sutter is a deserving Hall of Famer, then any good reliever can be. The voters would have to change their standards and admit that Sutter is a mistake for the Smiths of the world to not be deserving. Which the voters may well do; the standards for relievers are evolving.


and this is a pure argument from ignorance. Sutter is in for serveral reasons, and arguably along with Candy Cummings, the argument is for popularizing a type of pitch that has effectively created careers out of pitchers.

Sutter is clearly not in for specifically his career, Sutter is in for his career along with popularizing the split finger fastball. To think differently is just idiotic.
   125. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 01, 2012 at 09:32 AM (#4026547)
But it's not like Walker's defensive numbers are ridiculously high. He's +95 in Rfield but -89 in Rpos. This essentially means that Chone views him as an average CF playing RF


That's not right. Positional adjustment for CF is usually 3 per 150 games IIRC. So a average CF would come out at +40 Rfield+Rpos over the same amount of games as Walker's career.
   126. cardsfanboy Posted: January 01, 2012 at 09:32 AM (#4026548)
I* don't understand why we arn't making a bigger stink over E.Martinez? We're just going to let those stupid DH arguments stand?


seriously? it's a borderline player who has never exceeded 155 games in a season, even while not actually playing a full game. If you want to get righteous about an absolutely clearly borderline player, then use your indictnation for Kevin Brown who got kicked off the ballot last year, or a superior player to Edgar, like Larry Walker who is going to constantly fall behind Edgar in the voting. But seriously Edgar is not a locked in candidate, pretending he is makes the Dick Allen contingent appear to not be living in their mommas basement.
   127. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 01, 2012 at 09:35 AM (#4026549)
I just don't get it, what is it about Biggio that makes perfectly rational people think he won't sail in on the first ballot?


1) He isn't the best, or even second-best, player on the ballot.
2) He played a position that voters have often had difficulty properly assessing.
3) He only reached 3,000 hits by hanging on well past his sell-by date.
4) 3,000 hits isn't the automatic ticket it's made out to be anyway.
5) The upcoming ballot mess makes forecasting the results for anyone but Maddux too difficult.
6) Probably a handful of other possibilities.

Honestly, I don't know what will happen with Biggio or any of the guys on the 2013 ballot. Neither a smooth sail into Cooperstown with 85 percent of the vote nor a perplexing 3-year slog toward immortality would surprise me.
   128. cardsfanboy Posted: January 01, 2012 at 09:42 AM (#4026551)
Just noticed count is up to 63 ballots which should be well clear of the ten percent level. Unless all the outliers are among the early ballots this should be relatively close to the final percentages. Larkin likely will fall below 90% but should still get in. Others may gain or drop a few percentages but none enough to reach 75%. Anyone pay enough attention in Statistics 101 to have an idea what the real margin of error is with 10% polling of a group of this size?
   104. cminsf  Posted: Decemb


historically the repoz totals doesn't represent well with the retired voters who don't bother having a newspaper outlet to express their opinions. Bernie Williams, Mattingly and other Yankee or Red Sox players are going to see a massive surge in their vote totals relative to Repoz's totals.

Basically if a vote isn't able to be explained rationally, the player will see a moderate surge. And all the intelligent votes will see a moderate decline.
   129. cardsfanboy Posted: January 01, 2012 at 09:52 AM (#4026552)
1) He isn't the best, or even second-best, player on the ballot.
2) He played a position that voters have often had difficulty properly assessing.
3) He only reached 3,000 hits by hanging on well past his sell-by date.
4) 3,000 hits isn't the automatic ticket it's made out to be anyway.
5) The upcoming ballot mess makes forecasting the results for anyone but Maddux too difficult.
6) Probably a handful of other possibilities.


and none of those are really relavent to his vote total

He's a guy who has
1. 3000 hits
2. has played with one team for all of his career.
3. has shown the character needed to switch positions when the team asked
4. has shown the willingness to take one for the team at a near major league record.
5. has absolutely no steroid issues. (I mean the closest he has is that he played on the team with an admitted roider)
6. he's white.

He is not going to lose one single vote to anybody on the ballot. He's going to sail in his first year, he's going to unfortunately not score that much above 80%, but there is literally no way he isn't going in on the first ballot.
   130. Ron J Posted: January 01, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4026557)
#119 With Raines there's a specific reason to be positive in the skepticism of the defensive numbers. That is to say reason to think DWAR underrated him. For the years we have DA, Raines was far and away the best LF in terms of damage control on plays not made. Dale Stephenson has him saving 82 extra bases in 8 years. Next best was Luis Gonzalez, saving 51, followed by Bonds at 44.

10 bases a year isn't much, and it's something a non grid approach would have a problem with. But it's a positive surely worth noting.

Incidentally DA gets Walker as the rightfielder with the best range in this period. Was basically average in terms of the outcomes of his plays not made.
   131. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 01, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4026560)
He is not going to lose one single vote to anybody on the ballot. He's going to sail in his first year, he's going to unfortunately not score that much above 80%, but there is literally no way he isn't going in on the first ballot.

I think there's a decent shot Biggio goes in the first time but it isn't nearly a slam dunk. Basically, he wasn't viewed as an elite player in his day. He did not excel in MVP voting (best finish was fourth; just 3 top ten finishes and five years of votes overall), even though he played for a team that contended for most of his prime. His all-star appearances (7) are impressive but don't exactly scream a first-balloter. Neither does a relatively low career batting average (.281). And to the extent any voters pay too much attention to the playoffs, that doesn't help Biggio (.618 OPS in 9 series).

I think the 3,000 hits are a very big mark in his favor. But with the ballot-crowding and all of the other factors, I can see Biggio needing to wait a cycle or two before he gets in.

It might be interesting to see if there's a push to get Bagwell in the same year. In weaker ballot years I could see this getting done, perhaps. But not on the ballots we're about to see.

Happy New Year, primates!
   132. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 01, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4026575)
He did not excel in MVP voting (best finish was fourth; just 3 top ten finishes and five years of votes overall)

To expand on this a bit... MVP shares for BBWAA inductees in recent years (position players only, since pitchers and MVP voting are a different animal):

Alomar: 1.91; best finishis a 3.
Dawson: 2.36; one win, two 2s.
Rickey!: 2.46; a win, a 2, and a 3.
Rice: 3.15; a win and two 3s. (The fact that Rice has more MVP shares than Rickey says a lot about... something.)
Gwynn: 1.93; best finish is a 3.
Ripken: 2.31; two wins and a 3.
Boggs: 1.20; best finish is 4.
Sandberg: 1.98; one win.
Molitor: 1.43; best finish is a 2.
Carter: 1.93; a 2 and a 3.
Murray: 3.33; two 2s. (IIRC, Murray has the highest total of anyone who never won the award.)
Ozzie: 0.65; one 2, no other top 10s.
Puckett: 2.56; one 2, two 3s.
Winfield: 2.20; one 3.
Fisk: 1.27; one 3.
Perez: 0.93; one 3.

Biggio has 1.02, with a best finish of 4. That's a lower total than all but 2 BBWAA picks since 2000, and the only writers' selection without a top 3 finish has been Boggs (whose MVP voting performance is quite similar). Of course, Boggs had 3000 hits and went in on the first ballot despite his weak MVP performance, so it's not like there's no favorable precedent here... but Boggs was a better player than Biggio, and (likely more important to the writers) Boggs won five batting titles (Biggio none) and had 200 hits 7 times (Biggio once). And obviously Boggs was on a weaker and less explosive ballot.

All of that is a really long way of saying "it could go either way," which is not exactly groundbreaking.

Incidentally, how did Jim Rice beat Wade Boggs in the MVP voting in 1986? Not that Rice didn't have a pretty good year, but... he was a power hitter, and he outslugged his slap-hitting teammate by all of 4 points.
   133. Fridas Boss Posted: January 01, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4026582)
All of that is a really long way of saying "it could go either way," which is not exactly groundbreaking.

Agree with your analysis and the conclusion.

But the cockssure sneering of cardsfanboy, not so much. That fact it's written in C-level grade school English makes it more understandable.
   134. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 01, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4026602)
Incidentally, how did Jim Rice beat Wade Boggs in the MVP voting in 1986? Not that Rice didn't have a pretty good year, but... he was a power hitter, and he outslugged his slap-hitting teammate by all of 4 points.
Rice: 110 RBI
Boggs: 79 RBI

The mid-80s were the great bottoming out of MVP voting, when it became mostly a regurgitation of the RBI leader list. The travesties of '87 (Bell over Trammell, Dawson over Smith and a third of the league) were just around the corner.
   135. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: January 01, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4026615)
So Larkin will slide in without a throw, and deservedly so. But Trammell, who was basically the same player, continues to struggle. Am I missing something?
   136. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 01, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4026624)
He is not going to lose one single vote to anybody on the ballot. He's going to sail in his first year, he's going to unfortunately not score that much above 80%, but there is literally no way he isn't going in on the first ballot.

You GUARANTEE that he will get, what, between 75% and 82% of the vote? How do you know that?
   137. booond Posted: January 01, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4026629)
1) He isn't the best, or even second-best, player on the ballot.
2) He played a position that voters have often had difficulty properly assessing.
3) He only reached 3,000 hits by hanging on well past his sell-by date.
4) 3,000 hits isn't the automatic ticket it's made out to be anyway.
5) The upcoming ballot mess makes forecasting the results for anyone but Maddux too difficult.
6) Probably a handful of other possibilities.


#1 and #5 are the reasons he could get into a mess. Biggio could be a player who takes a few years and goes in once the forest's been cleared.
   138. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 01, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4026631)
So Larkin will slide in without a throw, and deservedly so. But Trammell, who was basically the same player, continues to struggle. Am I missing something?


Yes, it's the third baseman factor. Hall of Fame voting for third basemen is always a challenge. Look at Ron Santo. Trammell only played 43 games at 3B, but that's all it takes. Larkin played 0.

Also we have the following stats:
All-Star appearances: Trammell 6, Larkin 12 (including one at age 40, that's always good for the legacy)
MVPs: Trammell 0, Larkin 1
Gold Gloves: Trammell 4 (all before age 30), Larkin 3 (all after age 30)
Silver Sluggers: Trammell 3, Larkin 9

I say the deciding factor was the presence of Cal Ripken as a seemingly superior AL shortstop all those years. Also, sure, he hit .450/.500/.800 in his one World Series, but that was against the Padres and they would have won anyway. And surely he was not any sort of "leader" on that World Series team, not as the third-youngest guy on the team, with the legendary Sparky Anderson taking care of the whole leadership thing.

Also he was the manager of the worst team of the last 49 years.
   139. Guapo Posted: January 01, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4026634)
1) He isn't the best, or even second-best, player on the ballot.
2) He played a position that voters have often had difficulty properly assessing.
3) He only reached 3,000 hits by hanging on well past his sell-by date.
4) 3,000 hits isn't the automatic ticket it's made out to be anyway.
5) The upcoming ballot mess makes forecasting the results for anyone but Maddux too difficult.
6) Probably a handful of other possibilities.


7) Some number of voters refuse to vote for anyone on the first ballot, and another number of voters refuse to vote for anyone who isn't "inner circle" on the first ballot.
8) Some number of voters will link Biggio with steroids.

I think if you look at past voting history, everyone with 3000 hits got in on the first ballot. I just have a feeling Biggio will be the first who won't, but then will likely get in year 2.
   140. BrianBrianson Posted: January 01, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4026638)
I think if you look at past voting history, everyone with 3000 hits got in on the first ballot

Well, excluding Palmeiro. If anyone suggests Biggio might've been a steroid guy (which I assume he was, since I assume all MLB players in the late 90s early 2000s were), he could be held back.
   141. JoeC Posted: January 01, 2012 at 07:05 PM (#4026653)
Paul Waner didn't get in right away either - it's not obvious what "first ballot" meant in his day, but he'd received votes on five ballots and been retired for seven years (eight if you don't count his single PA in 1945) when he made it.
   142. Ron J Posted: January 01, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4026656)
#132 I doubt Rice would do nearly as well today. The cult of the RBI isn't precisely gone from the scene but it's far weaker.

Jonathan Bernstein's (very simple but fairly accurate) MVP predictor basically stopped working in the mid to late 90s. It's really as simple as the fact that MVP (and HOF) voters have always cared far more about RBIs than runs scored. If you get a high RBI total and hit .300 you'd always be in the mix for the MVP.

Worth noting that the AL MVP voters weren't as easy to predict as the NL voters were. Jonathan's system picked the NL winner 23.5 times in a 26 year stretch but didn't do nearly as well in the AL.
   143. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: January 01, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4026663)
I think if you look at past voting history, everyone with 3000 hits got in on the first ballot

Since the early 1960s anyway. No first balloters got in at all between the 1936 inaugural crowd & Feller/Robinson in 1962.
   144. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: January 01, 2012 at 08:19 PM (#4026679)
Since the early 1960s anyway. No first balloters got in at all between the 1936 inaugural crowd & Feller/Robinson in 1962.


Speaking of that, whatever happened to Don Malcolm's project? Had that thread bookmarked forever but there was never any activity.
   145. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 01, 2012 at 08:27 PM (#4026686)
#132 I doubt Rice would do nearly as well today. The cult of the RBI isn't precisely gone from the scene but it's far weaker.

Ryan Howard, an average or slightly above first baseman, has come in 10th in the voting each of the last 2 years. RBI don't decide the winner as much as they once did, but they still have a solid effect on down-ballot results.
   146. Don Malcolm Posted: January 01, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4026689)
Speaking of that, whatever happened to Don Malcolm's project? Had that thread bookmarked forever but there was never any activity.

It will get relaunched a little bit down the road, Misirlou...need to put together materials that will help people vote more easily as the process unfolds. We need to build some consensus and participation from as many HoM folks as possible, and it got pushed out there a bit too quickly and in the midst of their own yearly effort.
   147. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: January 01, 2012 at 08:41 PM (#4026694)
It will get relaunched a little bit down the road, Misirlou...need to put together materials that will help people vote more easily as the process unfolds. We need to build some consensus and participation from as many HoM folks as possible, and it got pushed out there a bit too quickly and in the midst of their own yearly effort.


OK, cool.
   148. Something Other Posted: January 01, 2012 at 08:44 PM (#4026696)
@119: proving my point, Walt. Try rereading what I wrote. If you'd removed the rather substantial amount of assholishness from your post, you might have provided a goodly portion of exactly the article I was inquiring about. Instead, in response to a couple of questions and suggestions, you decided to be exactly the silly, arrogant prick who turns people off to Walker's case. Instead of being as factual as possible, you decided condescension and mockery were the way to go.
   149. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 01, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4026702)
Andrew Baggarly of the San Jose Mercury News puts forth a stathead-friendly, yet steriod-unfriendly ballot: Bagwell, Raines, Larkin, Walker, Martinez. This seems to have only been reported in tweet form, as was Bob Klapisch's (Raines, Larkin, Trammell, Bagwell), so you might not have gotten it.

And some people say San Jose shouldn't have a major-league team!
   150. Walt Davis Posted: January 01, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4026736)
From Phil Rogers' writeup in the Repoz link, we know what sort of "guidance" he is looking for:

... if the Hall of Fame's Board of Directors ever eliminated "integrity'' from guidelines for voting, I also would vote for Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire.

On other stuff:

Sutter is in for serveral reasons, and arguably along with Candy Cummings, the argument is for popularizing a type of pitch that has effectively created careers out of pitchers.

CFB is right that Sutter is not in for his career, but he actually undersells his case here. In addition to the split-finger, Sutter is considered the first modern closer* -- not something you or I would necessarily see as an HoF-worthy accomplishment (or even an accomplishment) but in the eyes of those who consider closer to be a special role, it would be. Sutter also won a CYA. He led the league in saves 5 times (in 6 years) -- more than Eck, Gossage or Fingers.

He's in for his peak, certainly not his career. OK, he's in because of Eckersley's peak but once Eck was in, Sutter's candidacy picked up steam because he was kinda Eck before Eck was Eck (only not really). He's a TEH FEAR candidate and, when he first came on the scene, there was TEH FEAR -- look at that 77 season to understand why. They figured him out well enough (look at the walk rate -- duh, don't swing at the ones that start in the strike zone!) and injuries/heavy usage likely did the rest (look at the K-rate).

* This is partially myth as he averaged at least 1.5 IP per appearance throughout that peak. Herman Franks did shift to using him only in GF type situations but his GF/appearance ratio is pretty stable throughout his career.

That's not right. Positional adjustment for CF is usually 3 per 150 games IIRC. So a average CF would come out at +40 Rfield+Rpos over the same amount of games as Walker's career.

Seems to have been about 2 in those days based on the guys I checked but no matter. First, I said "essentially" which is my way of saying "give or take a bit". So Walker was, by WAR, maybe -20 to -30 runs as a CF or 2-3 wins ... over about 13 full seasons. So, on average, about 1.5 to 2.5 runs below average per full season. If that's not "essentially an average CF" ...

(using your +3 for CF, here's Walker adjusted to CF, starting at age 23 to 35 ... note, I'm not adjusting the CF adjustment for playing time unless it was closer to a half-season ... +2, -2, +1, +5, -3, +2, -3 (his mostly CF year), +1, -9, -16, +1, +4, 0

Second, most of that difference is due to those two years (31, 32) when he rated out as an average or worse RF -- he was about 25 runs worse than the average CF in those two years. Then there's the post-35 time when he was an average RF (but didn't play too much).

Third, I'll grant your point. WAR sees him as essentially a slightly below-average CF playing RF ... which is even more believable and gives us even less reason to doubt Walker's defensive numbers.

4) 3,000 hits isn't the automatic ticket it's made out to be anyway.

Based on what evidence? The only 3,000 hit guys not to go in on the first ballot were guys on the very first ballot.

3) He only reached 3,000 hits by hanging on well past his sell-by date.

Kaline didn't suck but wasn't great.

Boggs put up two 94 OPS+ seasons as a DH and attendance draw for the Rays

Palmeiro was looking terrible early, rebounded, tested positive (correlation is not causality)

Brock put up an 81 OPS+ at 38, a 46 at 39 and bounced back to a 100 at 40 -- that was 1200 PA of below-average defense in LF with an OPS+ of 79

Carew didn't suck but put up 900 PA of a near replacement-level 1B

Rickey probably didn't need 3000 and he stuck around for parts of two crappy seasons after but still limped across the line with 1000 PA of 86 OPS+

Biggio is among the worst with 1100 PA of 78 OPS+ but at least he was doing it at 2B

Everybody since Sam Rice who's been close to 3000 has come back to limp across the line. And it doesn't seem to have harmed the HoF candidacy of any of them (and certainly didn't do Sam Rice any good). Well, I guess it hurt Palmeiro -- if he hadn't played that year, he never tests positive and he probably makes the HoF ... I still can't believe how well that pointing his finger at Congress thing seemed to work for him until he tested positive.
   151. Walt Davis Posted: January 01, 2012 at 10:37 PM (#4026770)
MVP shares

Alomar: 1.91; best finishis a 3. -- <3000 hits, 2nd ballot
Dawson: 2.36; one win, two 2s. -- <3000 hits, <500 HR, many ballots
Rickey!: 2.46; a win, a 2, and a 3. -- lots of stuff including 3000 hits, 1st ballot
Rice: 3.15; a win and two 3s. -- <3000 hits, <500 HR, many ballots
Gwynn: 1.93; best finish is a 3. -- 3000 hits, batting titles, 1st ballot
Ripken: 2.31; two wins and a 3. -- lots of stuff including 3000 hits, 1st ballot
Boggs: 1.20; best finish is 4. -- 3000 hits, 1st ballot (little chance of 1st ballot without it)
Sandberg: 1.98; one win. -- <3000 hits, 4 ballots
Molitor: 1.43; best finish is a 2. -- 3000 hits and little else, 1st ballot
Carter: 1.93; a 2 and a 3. -- catcher, many ballots
Murray: 3.33; two 2s. -- 3000 hits & 500 HR, 1st ballot
Ozzie: 0.65; one 2, no other top 10s. -- Ozzie being Ozzie, 1st ballot
Puckett: 2.56; one 2, two 3s. -- forever the mystery, 1st ballot
Winfield: 2.20; one 3. -- 3000 hits, <500 HR, 1st ballot (waits without 3000 hits)
Fisk: 1.27; one 3. -- catcher
Perez: 0.93; one 3. -- <3000 hits, <500 HR, many ballots

Just right there you've got (IMHO) three candidates who don't go in on the first ballot without 3000 hits -- Boggs, Molitor and Winfield. Arguably Boggs goes in 1st ballot anyway with all the batting titles but then the HoF is not so great with 3B and OBP either. I'm not sure Molitor makes it in at all without 3000 hits although he does have the 300 BA. But a 122 OPS+ as a DH half the time and a 2B/3B the other half (from a group that couldn't elect Sandberg or Alomar on the 1st ballot)?

I have a hard time seeing why Biggio would look worse to voters than Molitor or Winfield (although they were a long time ago so lots of different voters). And don't forget that career length matters. Part of the knock on Sandberg was his "short" career (a mere 9200 PA! the silly voters look at it in years more than games/PA). Part of the knock on Alomar was spitting in an ump's face and a more embarrassing cliff dive than Biggio's (plus having the gall to cliff dive in NY).

Going back at least 40 years, the only 1st ballot position inductees* who didn't have 3000 hits and/or 500 HR are Ozzie and Brooks (defensive greats), Bench (possibly the greatest C ever), Morgan (possibly the greatest 2B since, what, Hornsby), and Puckett (weird). Now a lot of those other guys would have gone in 1st ballot anyway I suspect so I won't argue it's a hard and fast standard -- but it sure does help. And, fittingly, Biggio's career comps list is 7 HoFers plus Jeter (Damon & Whitaker round it out).

I will grant that the PEDs stuff makes it difficult to predict what's going to happen. But I think that has to help Biggio. The 2013 election without PEDs crap would be one of the most interesting from the perspective of HoF voting analysis. Bonds and Clemens easy but then the 600-HR guy, the 3000-hit guy and the best-hitting C ever guy and the "rule" that they don't elect more than 3 in a year (since the very earliest days) -- something was going to give. But if PEDs essentially "disqualifies" at least three of those other folks, how does Biggio not pick up votes? For the saber-minded folks, he's got 66 WAR (74 oWAR) with a 5-year peak of 33 (yikes, half his WAR). For the trad folks, he's got 3000 hits ... and, if they care, 400 SB, 4 GG, a one-team career, 12000 PA and "clean".

Unless the saber-folk are going to sacrifice their votes in favor of Mac and Palmeiro, they'll have room for Biggio -- those 5 plus Bagwell, Raines, Edgar, Walker/Trammell/Schilling. The anti-PED folks will have plenty of room and prsumably a good chunk of the "trad but not anti-PED" crowd aren't voting heavily for the Bagwell et al crowd now so they'll have plenty of room -- but possibly still might not vote Biggio.

In the unlikely event that Larkin doesn't make it this year, I'm making no claims until I re-think the situation.

By the way, you missed Yount (only 1.8 shares despite 2 MVP with 1989 being probably the closest ever with 4 candidates with >50% shares ... 3000 hits, 1st ballot) and didn't go back far enough for Brock (1.6 shares, #2, 3000 hits, SB record, 1st ballot). And Brett (3.3. shares, 1 MVP, 3000 hits, 1st ballot).

*Doesn't look any better on the pitching side. Hard to even be 1st ballot. Eck of course is the outlier. Seaver (<300 wins, >3000 Ks) and Palmer (neither) made it. So Palmer is kinda the Puckett.

Can anybody explain Warren Spahn's voting for me? He last played in 65 but apparently didn't appear on the ballot until 1973. Surely they weren't so mind-numbingly dense as to not consider him worthy of the ballot for a couple of years? (He also received a vote while still active in 1958. :-)
   152. ajnrules Posted: January 01, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4026798)
Can anybody explain Warren Spahn's voting for me? He last played in 65 but apparently didn't appear on the ballot until 1973. Surely they weren't so mind-numbingly dense as to not consider him worthy of the ballot for a couple of years?


I haven't looked too closely at the evolution of Hall voting guidelines, but as far as my (rather limited) understanding goes, back then they don't consider a player retired until their last professional appearance. Spahn played in the minors until 1967, and so he would have been first eligible in 1973. Sometime in the past 38 years the Hall decided that players' eligibility would be determined by last appearance in majors. Or something like that.
   153. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 01, 2012 at 11:32 PM (#4026808)
Andrew Baggarly of the San Jose Mercury News puts forth a stathead-friendly, yet steriod-unfriendly ballot: Bagwell, Raines, Larkin, Walker, Martinez. This seems to have only been reported in tweet form, as was Bob Klapisch's (Raines, Larkin, Trammell, Bagwell), so you might not have gotten it.

If Baggerly would only have added Trammell, he'd be my ideal writer of the year, although I hope he follows it up with some explanations.
   154. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 02, 2012 at 12:10 AM (#4026827)
By the way, you missed Yount (only 1.8 shares despite 2 MVP with 1989 being probably the closest ever with 4 candidates with >50% shares ... 3000 hits, 1st ballot) and didn't go back far enough for Brock (1.6 shares, #2, 3000 hits, SB record, 1st ballot). And Brett (3.3. shares, 1 MVP, 3000 hits, 1st ballot).

I didn't miss Yount, I just didn't go back far enough for him; he was put in (along with Brett) in '99.

Anyway, I don't really disagree with anything in your post; Biggio almost certainly goes in on the first ballot in a normal year, probably with a Molitor or Winfield-like percentage in the mid-80s, maybe a bit lower. Next year is not normal; we don't know what the effect of that will be.
   155. Booey Posted: January 02, 2012 at 01:09 AM (#4026854)
The cult of the RBI isn't precisely gone from the scene but it's far weaker.

Well, only in the last few years, if at all. 2006 saw two undeserving winners selected over clearly superior players for seemingly no reason other than ribbies (or ribbies on a playoff team, in Morneau's case).
   156. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: January 02, 2012 at 02:52 AM (#4026919)
All-Star appearances: Trammell 6, Larkin 12

As you point out, that's mostly because of Ripken.

MVPs: Trammell 0, Larkin 1

1987: worst MVP voting ever.

Also, sure, he hit .450/.500/.800 in his one World Series, but that was against the Padres and they would have won anyway.

The '84 Cubs would like to have a word with you.

And surely he was not any sort of "leader" on that World Series team

Say what? Trammell and Whitaker were pretty much the unquestioned faces of the Tigers franchise for two decades. (I know; I lived through it.)

Also he was the manager of the worst team of the last 49 years.

And also largely built the team that would win the pennant three years later. So?

If Larkin is in, Trammell should be, too, period. (And don't get me started on Whitaker...)
   157. Walt Davis Posted: January 02, 2012 at 04:20 AM (#4026984)
#156 ... you might want to take the sarcasm detector in for a cleaning. :-)
   158. hoyas68 Posted: January 02, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4027273)
Larkin,Morris and Trammell were hurt greatly by the vote of 2010. Dawson snuck in and Alomar and Blyleven missed by 1% of the vote. IF Alomar and Blyleven got a handfull of more votes it would have cleared the way for Larkin to be the strongest cannidate in 2011 and probably would have gotten in (or very close). Morriss would have been the the best pitcher on the ballott and would have gotten a big jump into the 65 or more % range (setting the stage for a 70% showing this year in next) and Trammell would have received a bump as well to get him in the discussion. So now their momentum was delayed by a year in Jacks case an important one considering his time is running out. For the non slam dunk cannidate timming is everything it is not about their career stats it is more about who is on the ballot with them in a given year.
   159. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 03, 2012 at 12:25 AM (#4027326)
This is Trammell's eleventh year on the ballot. He debuted at 16% and has worked his way all the way up to 24%. There is absolutely no way that electing Alomar and Blyleven a year sooner would have bumped Trammell's support up to a level where you could start thinking he had a realistic chance at being elected by the BBWAA.

Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it.
   160. The District Attorney Posted: January 03, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4027333)
I'm sure that's correct, but it's nice to see Trammell at 44% here. I dunno if he'll actually hit that number, but I have to at least think this indicates he's due for a big jump, which will be great.
   161. hoyas68 Posted: January 03, 2012 at 12:32 AM (#4027334)
You probably are right on Trammell. But his coTiger Morris was hurt badly by the 2010 vote.
   162. LargeBill Posted: January 03, 2012 at 12:33 AM (#4027336)
hoyas68,

You make good point. Funny thing is, all it would have taken is for a few of those who voted every year for Morris but not Blyleven to include Bert in 2009 or 2010 and Jack's chances would have been much better. However, by being obstinate they ended up hurting the candidacy of the pitcher they thought they were championing. Heyman was one of the worst as he made such disingenuous arguments to explain voting for the lesser qualified of the two pitchers.
   163. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 03, 2012 at 02:16 AM (#4027387)
I'm sure that's correct, but it's nice to see Trammell at 44% here. I dunno if he'll actually hit that number, but I have to at least think this indicates he's due for a big jump, which will be great.


He isn't making it in via the BBWAA, but history suggests that how one does in the writer's vote can assist his case with the Veteran's Committee (Gil Hodges notwithstanding). So there is value to any progress he makes.

And yes, Jack would have been helped considerably if Bert had gotten the call in 2010 instead of this past year. And I too think of Heyman's peculiar anger over Bert's election and laugh that he might have given his guy a better chance had he and his fellow Jack-no-Bert guys caved in on Blyleven.

   164. Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4027729)
Got the following from Paul Daugherty's Morning Line blog (Cincinnati Enquirer):

THE HALL OF FAME should enshrine B. Larkin this go-r0und, which is as it should be. But once again, Jack Morris will miss out. I guess being the best starting pitcher in the AL for the decade of the 80s isnt enough to make the Hall. Morris pitched the best game I ever saw, the 10-inning, 1-0 win over the Braves that clinched the Series for the Twins. He won at least 15 games 12 times, averaged 242 innings a year, was a five-time all star, won 254 games. Not good enough, evidently.

Morris will get my vote, again, as will Larkin and Lee Smith. Mark McGwire will not, ever. Nor will Jeff Bagwell.



No explanation on Bagwell, though, I am going to assume he will do an actual Hall-of-Fame vote article sometime this week.
   165. thetailor Posted: January 04, 2012 at 09:02 PM (#4029132)
Bernie Williams was a five time all-star. I hate these guys.
   166. gabrielthursday Posted: January 05, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4030000)
It's promising to see both Trammell and Tim Raines go up around 20% from their support last year, and Bagwell with a substantial boost as well. It'll be interesting to see how well these numbers are reflected in the actual results, but it looks like the BBWAA may be making progress this year.
   167. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 05, 2012 at 10:42 PM (#4030011)
John Shea of the SF Chronicle:

Larkin
Raines
Lee Smith

Hey, that looks familiar!

-- MWE
   168. Pete L. Posted: January 06, 2012 at 12:51 AM (#4030082)
I am beginning to see much more of a "momentum theory" of voting than I used to think really happened. Maybe that is due to the urgency of the looming ballot logjam, I don't know.

By latest count (91 ballots for Repoz), Larkin, Raines, and Trammell all have 20+% jumps from their 2011 totals to Repoz's count (yes, I am aware that of some of the inherent biases that show up year to year in publicly-published ballots versus the final count, but those are significant jumps). Larkin +30.2%, Trammell +25.2%, Raines +22.9%. For all the hand-wringing about Bagwell, he is +13.2% over last year.

On the other end of the spectrum are the guys who are at best stagnant if not losing momentum. Lee Smith is -1.3% from last year, and -3.3% from two years ago (his high point); Larry Walker is basically flat, +0.6%, as is Edgar (+4.5%, but only +1.2% over his debut two years ago). McGriff is +3.0%, but still down 0.6% from his debut two years ago. McGwire is -3.3% (and worse from his high point two years ago, -7.2%), and Palmeiro is -2.2%.

It appears that (1) "saber" rattling does have an impact (unless the guy is an admitted or caught PED user, and if he is suspected, the rattling still has an effect, though clearly more muted); and (2) unless the saber community is fine with everybody but the "jumpers" being the ones people will focus on in the face of the onslaught of worthy newcomers, it may be time to coalesce around some other deserving candidates besides Barry Larkin and Tim Raines (who look to be over the hump to me). Trammell still needs another big jump; Bagwell needs constant harping about how unfair this witch hunt sans evidence is; Edgar needs A LOT of help with getting voters over the DH thing and properly understanding the relative values of offense and defense (and how WAR already adjusts for position and still sees him as a worthy and competitive candidate), and if anything, Walker may need even more help. Bernie Williams (a guy I personally don't think is a HoF'er but is a helluva lot closer to being one than being a guy who should fall of the ballot without a fuller discussion) probably doesn't make it to next year....

Depending on how you feel about PEDs, add McGwire and Palmeiro to that group, too, though theirs may be a lost cause at this point. The voters who have been willing to vote for those guys increasingly seem to be giving up and moving on. If we don't want them to do the same with some of these other names, it may be time to step it up.

I realize that, especially with some of the smaller "moving" numbers, there may be no reason to panic and there can be some wild swings between projected and actual voting, but I do think we're beginning to see some real and meaningful patterns here, with consequences.
   169. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:30 AM (#4030095)
It's promising to see both Trammell and Tim Raines go up around 20% from their support last year, and Bagwell with a substantial boost as well. It'll be interesting to see how well these numbers are reflected in the actual results, but it looks like the BBWAA may be making progress this year.


Trammell's results are really surprising considering how long he's been on the ballot. Even if you just hold his ESPN and MLB votes from last year steady (he got 7 out of 30 total votes between the two organizations), which would push the total close to last year's final Repoz Count, he'd still be up more than 15 percent on where Repoz had him pegged (26 percent, not far off his eventual 24 percent).

   170. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:37 AM (#4030106)
I wonder if Trammels jump might be partially due to writers actually looking at Larkin and realizing that Trammell isn't significantly different overall.
   171. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:50 AM (#4030113)
The Jack seems to be inching closer.
   172. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:52 AM (#4030117)
The Jack seems to be inching closer.


Fortunately, not close enough.


   173. ajnrules Posted: January 06, 2012 at 02:12 AM (#4030127)
He may not get close enough this year, but The Jack's totals are usually higher than what is reported here. If he hits 65%, I won't be surprised if 10% of voters who hadn't voted for him throw him a courtesy vote for "doing it clean."
   174. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 06, 2012 at 02:38 AM (#4030133)
He may not get close enough this year, but The Jack's totals are usually higher than what is reported here.


They were last year, but that wasn't the case in previous years.

I think 65 percent gives him a chance because it puts him in reach and might immunize him from the onslaught.

   175. dusty.kemp Posted: January 06, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4030317)
Looks like ESPN did theirs 1PM the day before the results last year. Wonder if they will post their votes today at 1PM then? Do you have Albee's ballot (Bagwell and Larkin only)?
   176. AROM Posted: January 06, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4030359)
I think if you look at past voting history, everyone with 3000 hits got in on the first ballot


At least once the HOF process addressed the backlog of players retired before the museum opened and sorted itself out. Paul Waner was on a few ballots before going in. After that though, 3000 hits has been a lock, even for guys like Lou Brock (questionable) and Paul Molitor (deserving but not upper tier).
   177. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 06, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4030400)
At least once the HOF process addressed the backlog of players retired before the museum opened and sorted itself out. Paul Waner was on a few ballots before going in. After that though, 3000 hits has been a lock, even for guys like Lou Brock (questionable) and Paul Molitor (deserving but not upper tier).


More relevant to Biggio, Yount got in at 77.5 percent of the vote, in a ballot that included Brett, Ryan and Fisk (Pudge going in the following year). Biggio's ballot is even more loaded.

   178. Dale Sams Posted: January 06, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4030932)
If those figures are correct, Jack is a shoo-in next year. There will be enough "Im not voting for Clemnes and Bonds! I'm voting for Jack! TAKE THAT!!"
   179. ajnrules Posted: January 07, 2012 at 12:50 AM (#4030992)
TAKE THAT!!

OBJECTION!!
   180. Repoz Posted: January 07, 2012 at 01:08 AM (#4031002)
Do you have Albee's ballot (Bagwell and Larkin only)?

Yeah, I got that earlier from his Gazette disaster.
   181. Repoz Posted: January 07, 2012 at 01:22 AM (#4031010)
Looks like ESPN did theirs 1PM the day before the results last year. Wonder if they will post their votes today at 1PM then?

Hope so. I think the ballots are off this year due to a number of reasons...boring ballot, some BBWAA deaths, more newspapers/blogs folding, Conlin/Braun situations which brought out retired/bounced BBWAA writers for their once a month/year column instead of their HOF article etc....

Still waiting on MLB.com's bulk (one year they released 1-day after the HOF announcement...grrr)...

Another slagger is USA today with only 3 voting members (they used to have 7/8 votes)staggering their ballots.

And since moving to freakin' Abu Dhabi a few years ago...Paul Oberjuerge wastes all his blogging "talent" on covering tennis instead of releasing his HOF ballot.
   182. The District Attorney Posted: January 07, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4031248)
7.8% for Palmeiro... if the Repoznumber tilts towards the statheaded, could he fall off entirely??
   183. cardsfanboy Posted: January 07, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4031270)
7.8% for Palmeiro... if the Repoznumber tilts towards the statheaded, could he fall off entirely??


It's possible, but I think that with the relative poor choices, that Palmiero will probably stay on the ballot.
   184. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 07, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4031316)
Sporting News

Stan McNeal: Larkin, Bagwell, Raines
Bob Hille: Larkin, Bagwell, Martinez, Raines, Smith, Trammell
Garry D. Howard: Larkin, Smith, Morris, Mattingly

-- MWE
   185. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 07, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4031327)
Everybody since Sam Rice who's been close to 3000 has come back to limp across the line.

Jeter's put up 93 OPS+ the last two seasons (90, 97).
That's the first two seasons below 100 OPS+ for him since his cup-of-coffee first appearance.
   186. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 07, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4031329)
Tom Powers of the Pioneer Press voted for Morris; no indication of any others. Last year he voted for Morris, Blyleven, and Alomar, so it's entirely possible that Morris is in fact the only person for whom he voted.

Also, there's a female A's beat writer (presumably Susan Slusser) who didn't vote for anyone - but there's no indication as to whether she returned a blank ballot or simply didn't vote.

-- MWE
   187. Walt Davis Posted: January 07, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4031331)
I am beginning to see much more of a "momentum theory" of voting than I used to think really happened.

It's pretty typical and especially so when no important new names come on the ballot. But if the Repoz numbers hold (which I assume they won't in many cases) then I think this would be rare in terms of several candidates seeing very big changes.

Whatever momentum Walker might have had is gone. If the ESPN/MLB vote comes in similar to last year, he might not have advanced at all on last year's Repoz total.

It would be pretty strange for Palmeiro to drop off this year, again because there are no good new candidates. Over half who voted for him last year would have to drop him even with votes to burn. I find it hard to believe Palmeiro will survive next year though.

More relevant to Biggio, Yount got in at 77.5 percent of the vote, in a ballot that included Brett, Ryan and Fisk (Pudge going in the following year). Biggio's ballot is even more loaded.

Except Biggio's ballot is most likely not more "loaded." You're thinking "loaded" in terms of performance in which case of course. But you should be thinking "loaded" in terms of votes. Having 99% votes for Ryan and 98% votes for Brett and 66% for Fisk and 19% for Murphy (also new to the ballot) and a couple of major backloggers in Perez (60%) and Carter (34%) is brutal. But if Bonds and Clemens debut at 50% (and it's not clear it will be that high) and Piazza gets Bagwelled and Sosa gets McGwired then Biggio is clearly (by any traditional HoF and plenty of saber standards) the best player on the 2013 ballot. The main risk to Biggio's election is that he'll get Bagwelled.*

Pretty much everybody who votes Bonds/Clemens will also vote Biggio. The only reasons for them not to are either that they are VERY small hall (i.e. they're not voting for anybody this year but don't mind roiders) or they use up their ballot keeping guys like McGwire, Palmeiro, Walker alive.

For those who don't vote Bonds/Clemens, the only candidates that can compete with Biggio are maybe Schilling, Morris and Raines (assuming Larkin's election) ... so you'd need a smallish Hall voter who somehow thinks those guys qualify but Biggio doesn't (we have seen a few Morris/Larkin votes this time). Unless of course a substantial number of these folks decide Biggio has the whiff of a roider.

Even if by some miracle Bonds and Clemens are voted in next year, I can't imagine they'd do much more than squeak over the line. That might hurt Biggio enough to keep him out for a year but probably not.

* It's not clear how much of an effect the anti-roiders are having on Bagwell's vote totals, but there are certainly a noticeable number of writers citing that as a reason, so we have to assume it's having at least some.

   188. rawagman Posted: January 07, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4031347)
Jeff Blair of The Globe and Mail tweeted me his ballot: https://twitter.com/#!/GloBlair: "always do: raines walker mcgwire. That's it; that's all."
   189. Repoz Posted: January 07, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4031353)
Jeff Blair of The Globe and Mail tweeted me his ballot: https://twitter.com/#!/GloBlair: "always do: raines walker mcgwire. That's it; that's all."

Thanks. Had him pegged for only going with McGwire & Walker. Not sure he ever voted for Raines...gotta check that out later.
   190. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 07, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4031368)
Except Biggio's ballot is most likely not more "loaded." You're thinking "loaded" in terms of performance in which case of course. But you should be thinking "loaded" in terms of votes. Having 99% votes for Ryan and 98% votes for Brett and 66% for Fisk and 19% for Murphy (also new to the ballot) and a couple of major backloggers in Perez (60%) and Carter (34%) is brutal. But if Bonds and Clemens debut at 50% (and it's not clear it will be that high) and Piazza gets Bagwelled and Sosa gets McGwired then Biggio is clearly (by any traditional HoF and plenty of saber standards) the best player on the 2013 ballot. The main risk to Biggio's election is that he'll get Bagwelled.*

Pretty much everybody who votes Bonds/Clemens will also vote Biggio. The only reasons for them not to are either that they are VERY small hall (i.e. they're not voting for anybody this year but don't mind roiders) or they use up their ballot keeping guys like McGwire, Palmeiro, Walker alive.

For those who don't vote Bonds/Clemens, the only candidates that can compete with Biggio are maybe Schilling, Morris and Raines (assuming Larkin's election) ... so you'd need a smallish Hall voter who somehow thinks those guys qualify but Biggio doesn't (we have seen a few Morris/Larkin votes this time). Unless of course a substantial number of these folks decide Biggio has the whiff of a roider.

Even if by some miracle Bonds and Clemens are voted in next year, I can't imagine they'd do much more than squeak over the line. That might hurt Biggio enough to keep him out for a year but probably not.

* It's not clear how much of an effect the anti-roiders are having on Bagwell's vote totals, but there are certainly a noticeable number of writers citing that as a reason, so we have to assume it's having at least some.


And I'll repeat what I've said: the 2013 vote is so damn filled with talent and strangeness, the idea we can reasonably project what kind of support any of them will get is folly. Biggio could sail in easily or fail to make it for three seasons - neither would surprise me.

   191. Walt Davis Posted: January 07, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4031391)
Everybody since Sam Rice who's been close to 3000 has come back to limp across the line.

Not sure if you were accusing Jeter of limping or not. But my sentence was poorly constructed, possibly leading to confusion. Everybody who was close to 3000 but in serious decline* had come back to limp across the line. Obviously somebody like Aaron didn't need to limp across the line. 93 and 97 is still above league-average for a SS and Jeter is playing tons so not really limping. But Jeter is also already 88 hits over (my rough cutoff was <100), slated for at least another 750 PA you'd think (>600 last year and under contract through 2013 and the Yanks have made no moves to get a new SS) so he'll finish well across the line.

*Say below-average for their position and likely getting worse.
   192. Walt Davis Posted: January 07, 2012 at 09:07 PM (#4031423)
And I'll repeat what I've said: the 2013 vote is so damn filled with talent and strangeness, the idea we can reasonably project what kind of support any of them will get is folly. Biggio could sail in easily or fail to make it for three seasons - neither would surprise me.

And I'll disagree. We know several things ...

a) Biggio has 3000 hits. That's huge.
b) Bonds and Clemens won't get anything close to upper 90s in percent. Given Brown <5, Palmeiro at 12 and McGwire at 20 it is very hard to see them making it to 75.
c) Bagwell, McGwire and Palmeiro all make it clear Sosa is not going to do anything dramatic either.
d) Therefore the ballot is no more crowded than any other ballot where an obvious first-ballot guy (Biggio) enters with a group of solid candidates and a lot of good backloggers are on it.

So, barring Jesus Christ making a national TV appearance where he says he made Bonds so strong or, admittedly more likely, Biggio getting tagged as a possible steroid guy, the 2013 election is not that different from some we've seen before.

The 2005 ballot wasn't that different. Molitor and Eck had been elected in 2004 with vote totals roughly equal to Alomar and Blyleven. The backlog included Sandberg at 61, Sutter at 60, Rice at 55, Dawson at 50, Gossage at 41, Smith at 37, Blyleven at 35, Morris, Garvey and John all above 20. Coming onto the ballot was Boggs (and nobody else important) and he sailed on with 92%. Sandberg also made it with 76% and Sutter jumped to 67 and Gossage to 55 (the post-Eck effect). The difference is the lack of other decent newbies but that's balanced by seeing good jumps for the backlog.

In 1983 (similar to 2005), Brooks came on the ballot after Aaron and Robinson. The backlog was Marichal at 73.5%, 3 eventual electees in the upper 50s, 3 more eventual electees behind that, 6 eventual VC selections plus Gil Hodges entering his last ballot. Didn't slow Brooks down, Marichal joined him, and Killebrew, Aparicio, Wilhelm, Drysdale and Hodges all jumped by about 10%.

The 1981 election looks a reasonable comp to how 2013 is likely to play out -- one obvious 1st ballot candidate, several other very good ones (who seem obvious to most of us). Gibson (84), Killebrew (60), Marichal (58), and Munson (15) come onto a ballot with a 60, 2 50s, 3 40s, 3 30s, 3 20s, etc. Didn't slow Gibson down.

The 1999 ballot was similar to the situation Biggio would be in if the steroid mess didn't exist. In 98 it was Sutton when the best new guys were Carter and Blyleven. Perez was at 68, 4 guys were in the 40s, and another 4 from 25-31. The massive Ryan, Brett, Yount, Fisk, Murphy wave hit. The guys who got hammered were the guys below them -- of those 8 guys between 25 and 50 in 98, only 4 of them cleared that bar, none higher than 34.

The 1982 ballot that had Aaron and Robinson joining was the next closest I could think of for the non-steroid situation. And fellow newbie Billy Williams didn't do that well (23% but with no milestone) but the backlog (several in the 50s) held steady and Marichal even gained 15% to narrowly miss election. 10% of the electorate didn't think Robinson deserved induction so, granted, one shouldn't extrapolate from samples of lunatics.

Not that we have a lot of comps but one thing that I think people are overlooking -- even without the steroid mess, we'd probably expect Biggio to make it next year. That scenario would be a lot like 99 -- Bonds and Clemens being near-unanimous, Piazza playing the Fisk role and a whole bunch of backloggers. The only real debate would be Biggio's 3000 vs. Sosa's 600 vs. both (meaning 4 would make it which hasn't happened in a long time). But there were already some examples of the HoF waiting on 500 HR guys (Killebrew, Mathews) so the better bet would be they'd wait on Sosa.

I simply can't conceive of a reason why 2013 with steroids would be worse for Biggio than the 2013 ballot without steroids (i.e. where McGwire and Palmeiro are already in ... not "snap your fingers, nobody cares about steroids anymore"). 2013 without steroids and he would be at worst Fisk.

But with steroids, 99 and 82 are not the right comps because, due to blacklisting, you do not have two nearly unanimous HoFers joining the ballot -- in terms of vote totals, Bonds and Clemens are borderline at best, Bagwellian if we're lucky and possibly McGwire and Sosa becomes a McGriff-esque candidate (I've got doubts he'll do that well).

It's true there are still wild cards. Bagwell seems to have softened up a few guys to the "well, we have no good evidence" stance ... though that will help Biggio if anything but should also help Sosa and Piazza. Or an anti-blacklisters crowd could spring up and decide to clog up the works by not voting for anybody except Bonds and Clemens but how likely is that? There could be a surprisingly large contingent of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa and stop there voters or a surprisingly large contingent of Bagwell, Raines, Edgar but not Biggio voters.

Anyway, the key point is that if you look at it not from the vantage point of the stat line (and especially not the saber stat line) but the vantage point of likely vote totals, the 2013 ballot is not unprecedented. Remove Bonds, Clemens and Sosa from the ballot and Biggio is the best candidate on the ballot and he has 3000 hits and there's no way anybody would doubt that he'd be elected next year under those circumstances. Well, thanks to the blacklist, that's what the situation is.

   193. Repoz Posted: January 08, 2012 at 09:06 AM (#4031544)
I'm taking this as a blank ballot sent in...from Stephanie Myles (Montreal Gazette) ongoing tweetfest with a Raines fan, at a ####### live tennis ####### match...I handed back my Hall of Fame vote. One reason: how can you change your mind from one yr to the next? They are, or aren't.

She goes on to basically rip Dawson, Rice, Raines as being not good enough to be in HOF...
   194. icho1977 Posted: January 08, 2012 at 09:22 AM (#4031547)
Repoz

Do you have Renck's ballot (Six Names: Larkin, Raines, Bagwell, Smith, Morris, Trammell)

http://www.denverpost.com/rockies/ci_19698008


and Steve Kornacki twitter (Eight names: Morris, Trammell, Larkin, McGwire, Mattingly, Bagwell, Murphy and Salmon.)
   195. Repoz Posted: January 08, 2012 at 09:26 AM (#4031549)
Yeah, thanks icho. That's his first ballot, I believe.
   196. DL from MN Posted: January 08, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4031573)
St. Paul Pioneer Press is publishing their ballots tomorrow. www.twincities.com
   197. Repoz Posted: January 08, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4031575)
Thanks for the Kornacki...had a partial on that! SALMON!?!

And Pioneer Press better pub. early!

Where's MLB.com & ESPN?
   198. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 08, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4031576)
So, barring Jesus Christ making a national TV appearance where he says he made Bonds so strong or, admittedly more likely, Biggio getting tagged as a possible steroid guy, the 2013 election is not that different from some we've seen before.


And I find this ludicrous. We have two guys who are in the running for best-ever at their position who will not be voted into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. That is unprecedented, and how that (plus the fact that there are a half-dozen other Hall of Fame worthies on the same ballot) affects the entire election is unknowable. Your theories are reasonable, but there is no comp for the 2013 election, and thus just we're all just WAGGing it.


   199. DL from MN Posted: January 08, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4031582)
> Pioneer Press better pub. early!

They'll be in the morning print edition so they'll be online about 6am. Jack Morris was the focus of the Sunday sports so I'm sure they'll bump his total up.
   200. Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" Posted: January 08, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4031593)
Jayson Stark:

"Larkin, Tim Raines, Jeff Bagwell, Edgar Martinez, Larry Walker, Jack Morris, Fred McGriff, Dale Murphy and "The Steroid Guys" -- Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro."

If you swap Trammell in for Morris that's a damned good ballot. I wouldn't vote for McGriff or Murpy, but they are very defensible choices.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof12/story/_/id/7434381/jayson-stark-baseball-hall-fame-ballot
Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNewsweek: Can Baseball Get More Interesting to Watch With Big Data?
(16 - 3:18am, Sep 03)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogTrevor Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction seems inevitable
(95 - 2:56am, Sep 03)
Last: bobm

NewsblogGleeman: Twins ask fans which brand of luxury car they are
(21 - 2:32am, Sep 03)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-2-2014
(82 - 2:22am, Sep 03)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(14 - 2:21am, Sep 03)
Last: robinred

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Ballot
(12 - 2:16am, Sep 03)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogAdam Jones says he was joking about 'airport' comment at social media event
(26 - 2:06am, Sep 03)
Last: Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda.

NewsblogThe indisputable selfishness of Derek Jeter
(40 - 2:05am, Sep 03)
Last: Mom makes botox doctors furious

NewsblogExpanded Rosters Exacerbate Baseball’s Biggest Issue
(34 - 1:13am, Sep 03)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(324 - 12:45am, Sep 03)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogPassan: 10 Degrees: Cole Hamels' trade value might be Phillies' lone bright spot
(7 - 12:23am, Sep 03)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(128 - 12:21am, Sep 03)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogRule change means more players to choose from for postseason roster
(15 - 11:10pm, Sep 02)
Last: Pirate Joe

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1958 Discussion
(2 - 11:00pm, Sep 02)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(62 - 10:50pm, Sep 02)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

Page rendered in 1.0203 seconds
52 querie(s) executed