Everyone's talking about increasing the number of names a voter can list. But, as has been pointed out, many voters don't vote for ten now.

Yes, and those who did vote for 10, almost all of them voted for Biggio. On the BBWAA's list of ballots, only one person voted for 10 and didn't vote for Biggio. With no limit Biggio most likely still does not get in, and if he doesn't it's tough to say that someone else would. Bonds and Clemens weren't anyone's 11th choice.

They believe in a Hall of Fame that should only have Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Lou Gehrig, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, Mickey Mantle -- you know, players about whom there are "no arguments."

This is appealing, but a fantasy. The only reason no one argues about those guys is because clearly inferior players are admitted. If you tried to maintain such a high standard, then people would argue about whether Tony Gwynn or Cal Ripken belonged. No matter where you draw the line, there will be a bunch of guys clustered just above and just below it, and arguments will commence. We'd just be arguing about better players.

Do 3,000 hits fly under the radar? How many other 3,000-hits candidates failed to be elected on their first ballot? (I'm asking seriously as I don't know.) I'll spot you the Evil Palmeiro, and Rose of course never made the ballot.

As you mention, Palmeiro and Rose.

Paul Waner (6th try)

Sam Rice got in on the 14th ballot, but he had 2987 hits.

A 15-vote limit ups the average per ballot up by one or two. This year that would have elected Biggio and may have saved Lofton or Bernie from extinction.

I disagree. A 15-vote limit will up the average of the current maxed out ballots by two or three, and will have absolutely no effect on anyone who didn't already vote for ten. Overall, I'd expect it to bump the average up by more like 0.1 or 0.2 than 1 or 2. As for Biggio, how many people voted for ten and didn't vote for Biggio? My guess is zero. Bernie and Kenny needed ten and eleven more votes respectively, and I'm not sure that too many full ballot voters think of them as the eleventh or twelth best player on this year's ballot.

several years ago at the height of this nonsense i thought the ebb and flow of changing attitudes would take more time.

based on what i am seeing i am changing that assessment.

things are evolving more rapidly toward a better outcome pretty quickly

I agree with Harvey here. I think the peoples and even the writers view are changing and I think it's getting harder for them to justify their exclusions. I don't think it will change enough in 5-10 years to put Bonds in, but do think he will probably get in before his final ballot.

Everyone's talking about increasing the number of names a voter can list. But, as has been pointed out, many voters don't vote for ten now.

Ballot slots set expectations. The same person who says "I am only voting for six!" when there are ten ballot slots will say, "I am only voting for two!" when there are three ballot slots, and "I am only voting for 12!" when there are 20 ballot slots.

Lots of blank space is a political statement -- which the blank balloters all made. Everyone who did not leave a blank ballot elected not to make that political statement, and would probably vote for more people if failing to do so led to more blank space.

I disagree. A 15-vote limit will up the average of the current maxed out ballots by two or three, and will have absolutely no effect on anyone who didn't already vote for ten. Overall, I'd expect it to bump the average up by more like 0.1 or 0.2 than 1 or 2. As for Biggio, how many people voted for ten and didn't vote for Biggio? My guess is zero. Bernie and Kenny needed ten and eleven more votes respectively, and I'm not sure that too many full ballot voters think of them as the eleventh or twelth best player on this year's ballot.

Disagree. I think that as you get further down the ballot and more names, that tactical voting is going to come into play. I fully expect Lofton (not Bernie) to have remained on the ballot if there were more votes allowed.

I agree that a deeper ballot probably still wouldn't have allowed anyone into the hof this year, but I think it allows more room for players to improve, and yes I do think that a players finish in the voting enhances his chances next time around.

Ballot slots set expectations. The same person who says "I am only voting for six!" when there are ten ballot slots will say, "I am only voting for two!" when there are three ballot slots, and "I am only voting for 12!" when there are 20 ballot slots.

I also agree with this.

Mike Francesa's ongoing belief that Andy Pettitte, if allowed, was going to testify in the perjury trial that Clemens "did steroids" is really touching. (Listening to the hilarious reactions to all of this.)

It's hilarious because of course at no time did Pettitte ever hint, suggest, imply, or state that he had any information whatsoever about Clemens using steroids. The much ballyhooed 1999/2000 conversation (and the 2005 one) was about HGH, not steroids.

Secondly, what "if allowed"? He was allowed. He was questioned at length, gave a full deposition, was *obligated* to answer questions (that sounds pretty "allowed" to me), then testified at trial. Even on the subject of HGH, he never claimed to have witnessed anything. Who "didn't allow" him?

and while folks think writers like stark and olney are doofi both of those guys are taking very reasonable stances on the vote and that mindset starts to seep into their readers/listeners

credit the bulk of the espn baseball guys. most have taken an evenhanded approach. not a lot of howard bryant types

204, Mike Imrem, Joe Christensen & Jeffrey Flanagan voted for 10, but not for Biggio.

http://bbwaa.com/13-hof-ballots/

again i encourage folks to read tom haudricourt's article in the milwaukee journal sentinel brewers section

haudricourt is very representative of the typiical hall of fame voter. older. not the sharpest knife in the drawer. loves baseball

It's hilarious because of course at no time did Pettitte ever hint, suggest, imply, or state that he had any information whatsoever about Clemens using steroids. The much ballyhooed 1999/2000 conversation was about HGH, not steroids.

Technically correct but writers and talk show hosts consider "steroids" to mean all PEDs.

Secondly, what "if allowed"? He was allowed. He was questioned at length, gave a full deposition, then testified at trial. Even on the subject of HGH, he never claimed to have witnessed anything. Who "didn't allow" him?

The same high priced legal team that scuttled all that damning evidence that Jon Heyman is totally sure exits, obviously.

Technically correct but writers and talk show hosts consider "steroids" to mean all PEDs.

And the "if allowed" part? Who didn't allow Pettitte to tell his full story? Congress was _hoping_ he had more than he did.

204, Mike Imrem, Joe Christensen & Jeffrey Flanagan voted for 10, but not for Biggio.

Ah, I missed Imrem and Flanagan. Thanks. That's 3 out of 101. If that ratio holds true over the 569 ballots, Biggio is still on the outside.

Sam Rice got in on the 14th ballot, but he had 2987 hits.

Somebody should have fudged that for him.

Ballot slots set expectations.

You're forgetting who it is that you're trying to influence here. There are 600 people who are eligible to vote, and I'd put the over/under on angry "don't try to tell me to vote for more players" articles at 475.

And the "if allowed" part? Who didn't allow Pettitte to tell his full story? Congress was _hoping_ he had more than he did.

This is Mike Francesa we are talking about. We're just wasting our time dissecting what he says. He is irrelevant.

Ferguson Jenkins on MLB Network discussing rumors that players used illegal drugs - priceless!

But you know what will really set expectations? The next few years' ballot.

A couple years of Full Ballots because there are so many really qualified people will re-set expectations to fill the ballot.

I think that as you get further down the ballot and more names, that tactical voting is going to come into play.

And how does increasing tactical voting improve the process? Serious question; I'd really like to know how you see giving people a chance to keep more five percenters around longer is going to help. ISTM that we have a huge problem at the top of a lot of ballots (even without steroids). I don't see how we fix that by tinkering with the bottom of a relatively small subset of ballots.

Ballot slots set expectations.

Exactly.

This year the average voter filled up two-thirds of his ballot. Many of them are very wedded to maintaining the facade of "Guardians of the Hall Gates", so will never cast a full ballot. These voters can maintain this same facade by voting for 10 on a 15-limit ballot, and some of them would.

With a higher limit, many of the average 6-to-7-name voters would have said, "Eh, that's not even half", and they would have pitched in another name or two, like Biggio, onto their ballot.

All right people- I'm calling it. SABRPALOOZA 2013 at Cooperstown, Induction Weekend. We get as many people to go up there, crash Deacon White's induction ceremony, and protest the BBWAA's handling of the Hall of Fame voting and demand reform. It's a massive publicity opportunity because the media will have nothing else to cover.

Turns out I will be in central NY on 7/28. I might just have to do this.

Heck, if nothing else, let's challenge the BBWAA to a softball game the day/night before the induction ceremony, provided there's no drug testing beforehand.

We just saw Piazza, Biggio, and Bagwell fail to gain admittance.

Piazza and Bagwell both have people questioning whether they cheated. There's no such rumors surrounding Greg Maddux.

Babe Ruth injected extract from sheep's gonads

That's because he was lazy. Earlier in his career he would eat them

They are delicious with a little lemon.

These voters can maintain this same facade by voting for 10 on a 15-limit ballot, and some of them would.

I really think this is delusional. Those people think they are guarding the ramparts by only voting for two or three or four players because they sincerely believe that only two or three or four players are deserving. You cannot expect them to think that more players are qualified by allowing them to vote for more players without filling their ballots.

The BBWAA really needs to weed out the voters who no longer follow baseball on a regular basis; that would help somewhat.

Here's what I would do:

1. Require the voters to rank-order the players on the ballot, from 1 to n.
2. For a ballot to be counted, every player on the ballot must be rank-ordered, and no players not on the ballot (AKA Pete Rose) can be ranked. No ties allowed, either.
3. Anyone who is mentioned in a top 10 slot on at least 75% of the ballots gets in. Anyone who fails to get a top-10 mention on at least 5% of the ballots is removed from the following year's ballot.
4. Use an instant runoff system for the instances where no one qualifies under rule 3 (and I expect those instances to be rare). First remove all ballots for people who failed to get a top-10 mention on at least 5% of the ballots, and redistribute those votes to the person ranked next highest who remains on the ballot. Continue until at least one person tops 75%.

This still requires a pretty high degree of consensus among the voters (which to me is the most attractive feature of the HoF vote) while ensuring there is at least one person elected every year.

-- MWE

Just looking at Biggio and I hate to say this. I could understand leaving him off a 10 man ballot next year. Personally I would not do so, but those last six years of mediocrity aren't very appealing.

Sam Rice got in on the 14th ballot, but he had 2987 hits.

Rice actually was eligible for every election from 1936 to 1962, getting no votes in many of the early years. The VC immediately elected him.

226, IMO, the HoF will not make MANY changes this year. They would need a second ballotgeddon/nobody-goes-in election in order to do major changes.

The two things I could see happening this year are: (a) Increasing the number of candidates a voter can vote for;

(b) Not counting blank ballots.

(And yes, I could be enamoured of my own ideas here, but that's my preliminary take).

Those people think they are guarding the ramparts by only voting for two or three or four players because they sincerely believe that only two or three or four players are deserving. You cannot expect them to think that more players are qualified by allowing them to vote for more players without filling their ballots.

You're giving them too much credit. Most voters, the silent majority, actually put very little thought into who they vote for. They don't know who they voted for last year. It's all by feeling. If the feeling reaches them that the tide is saying vote for a few more, they'll go along.

again i encourage folks to read tom haudricourt's article in the milwaukee journal sentinel brewers section

haudricourt is very representative of the typiical hall of fame voter. older. not the sharpest knife in the drawer. loves baseball

I don't think he's representative, though...

Remember that the BBWAA grants these damnable "voter emeritus" qualifications... if you are active for 10 years - which, I'm assuming, means nothing more than either you or your newspaper pay your BBWAA dues for 10 years - you pretty much get a vote forever.

I've never been able to find out exactly how you get these "honorary" member benefits --- but based on the some of the guys who have come out and missed out for dumb reasons (the dude who, I think, became a golf writer and "forgot" Henderson), I highly suspect it's pretty much automatic emeritus.

Despite the arguments we have over the writers' ballots we actually SEE -- I highly suspect the bone to pick is really more worth these emeritus guys whose ballots we never even get to see... the guys who only remember they get a ballot when one arrives in the mail.

Secondly, what "if allowed"? He was allowed. He was questioned at length, gave a full deposition, was *obligated* to answer questions (that sounds pretty "allowed" to me), then testified at trial. Even on the subject of HGH, he never claimed to have witnessed anything. Who "didn't allow" him?

I think this is a reference to the judge's ruling that Pettitte couldn't name McNamee as his supplier. In Francesa's pea brain this has been transformed into Pettitte being able to say "I KNOW he did it."

You're giving them too much credit. Most voters, the silent majority, actually put very little thought into who they vote for. They don't know who they voted for last year. It's all by feeling. If the feeling reaches them that the tide is saying vote for a few more, they'll go along.

Actually, it seems that you're the one giving them too much credit. Ironically, by trying to give them too little.

zonk

you focus a lot on those voters and i believe that population is not a significant subset.

have faith. things are already changing.

The two things I could see happening this year are: (a) Increasing the number of candidates a voter can vote for;

(b) Not counting blank ballots.

And neither of those, given voting patterns, is going to significantly improve the probability of someone being elected.

Despite the arguments we have over the writers' ballots we actually SEE -- I highly suspect the bone to pick is really more worth these emeritus guys whose ballots we never even get to see... the guys who only remember they get a ballot when one arrives in the mail.

Oh, I think those guys remember that they get a ballot - and they're the ones who will yell the loudest if the BBWAA changes the criteria.

-- MWE

There's no such rumors surrounding Greg Maddux.

Not once I'm done with him! Maddux's control was all because of steroids people! He's a cheaty cheat cheat!

I really think this is delusional.

I think you're missing how much people are affected by the number of choices they're allowed to make. That doesn't mean your point isn't also correct, just that for some non-trivial number of voters it would result in more votes cast.

I don't know very many HOF voters, but I'd give the vast majority of them more benefit of the doubt than many commenters are allowing here. I just find it hard to conceive of someone in such a fog that they get a ballot, say "what the #### is this?" and proceed to check Don Mattingly, Lee Smith, and Jack Morris because they looked like HOFers back in the day, plus Bernie Williams under the mistaken impression that he is Billy Williams. While there's likely one idiot per group, most of these people, like most of any professional group, are conscientious enough; most of us just happen to disagree with them. Heck, look at any awards voting, from the Oscars to the Newbery Medal: you'll get a strong sense from certain communities that the electorate simply hasn't watched any movies or read any children's books in years. But aside from rare cases, that's not so; they just have different tastes.

I think the best way to handle the roids issue is let people in and acknowledge this was the era of juicing, just like the 60's was the era of pitching, the early 40's had a inferior talent field because of WWII and before 1920 it was the deadball era where an ERA around 3.00 was not HOF worthy.

I think that the fact steroid use created havoc with the all-time records is what distresses the up-tight writers the most. These neo-Frickists are akin to the old commisioner who worshipped Babe Ruth and put an asterisk on Roger Maris hitting 61 homers.

Dick Morris says Biggio still has a chance because the writers from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon, and Cincinnati Enquirer haven't been counted yet.

I know it's hard to believe, but on Around the Horn Paige, Cowlishaw, Blackistone, and Jones opened up a can of complete and sound and thoughtful whup-ass on the BBWAA, calling them all out. It was kind of nice.

235, you may be right, but every little bit helps (as the old lady said when she pssed into the Sea).

Dick Morris says Biggio still has a chance because the writers from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon, and Cincinnati Enquirer haven't been counted yet.

You're thinking of Karl Rove. Dick Morris said that Kenny Lofton and Bernie Williams would get in.

zonk

you focus a lot on those voters and i believe that population is not a significant subset.

have faith. things are already changing.

Ehh -- there were supposedly 569 ballots cast...

We're only privy to about 1/3 of them.

That's an awful lot of 'unknowns' out there --

At minimum, I do think that the BBWAA ought to provide names for all eligible voters... I'm not proposing stalking or anything like that -- I'm just saying we have so very, very little clue precisely WHO were actually talking about here.

It's hard to diagnose without having a better read on those 569 names (or better -- the 600 or so I assume GOT ballots).

Dare: Go to Drudge, look at the link directly above "Nobody Makes Baseball's Hall of Fame" and *not* laugh.

I think that the fact steroid use created havoc with the all-time records is what distresses the up-tight writers the most. These neo-Frickists are akin to the old commisioner who worshipped Babe Ruth and put an asterisk on Roger Maris hitting 61 homers.

And yet these are many of the same people who think Sandy Koufax was a top 2-3 all-time pitcher even though he was throwing from atop a small mountain in an era where teams didn't averaged less than four runs per game.

I know it's hard to believe, but on Around the Horn Paige, Cowlishaw, Blackistone, and Jones opened up a can of complete and sound and thoughtful whup-ass on the BBWAA, calling them all out. It was kind of nice.

Especially refreshing after hearing yet another Francesa gem, namely that Biggio didn't deserve a HOF slot because he was merely a compiler "who only batted 280."

Although to be fair, he was also doing a better job later in his show of acknowledging that guys who tok steroids when there was no rule against them were competitors who were trying to get better, and that "lots" of older players had said they would have done the same thing. Although I'm sure in his case "lots" means Mike Schmidt.

Dare: Go to Drudge

That's a pretty awful dare.

you know who is the secret ally in shaing this angst?

bud selig

selig is dying right now. he loves baseball, for all his flaws, and not having a guy voted in by the writers is killing him

i guarantee you that he won't let this happen next year.

nobody works the phone like your commish.

I can only see that if some of the writers who voted for them this year had them at the "bottom" of their ballots, and will bump them off when Maddux, Thomas and Glavine show up next year. Otherwise why would they change their minds?

OTOH I can see the possibility that they won't go up all that much, since presumably they already have the votes of the "steroid discounters" in their corner, a bloc that's about 20% bigger than McGwire's. The only remaining bloc where they might gain (and maybe gain a lot----that's what we don't know) is the one that wants to make them "suffer" for a year before finally voting for them. The "one year penalty" sub-bloc of that is where you might see the gains in 2014.

What we might have with some of those folk, Andy, is tactical voting--making sure that some candidates on the ballot either get elected (Maddux, Thomas, Glavine) and that other candidates stay on the ballot. For example, I think that Palmeiro is likely to be abandoned by his loyalists next year, and could fall off the ballot. Sosa might be in a similar position in 2016 for all we know. A few of the folks who have the scapegoated four on their ballot are going to have to downsize that commitment to deal not only with the three highest-profile newcomers but Mussina and Kent as well.

[Question for Repoz if he's "shtill lurking about!": how many voters in the your sample have three or more of the scapegoat guys (McGwire, Palmeiro, Bonds, Clemens) together on their ballots?]

I don't think it will be a huge drop for Bonds or Clemens, but they could regress a bit over the next couple of years toward the low 30s; then, as Harvey notes, some of the sting of the situation will be gone and a large subset of writers will remember that a) these guys are two of the greatest players in history and b) they were locks before anyone starting trying to sniff around their medicine cabinet.

I'm not sure how Bonds and Clemens** can realistically be compared to these much more "normal" players, given the reason for their exclusion. IMO the most certain event that would propel them over 75% would be if some current inductee either confessed or got outed as a steroid user, an event that about 90% of the BTF crowd seems to be openly rooting for as a means to an end that otherwise may be out of reach and maybe even unattainable. Barring that, I can't see any wholesale shift in the overall attitudes on steroids happening for quite a while, based on the stagnation (and actual decline) in McGwire's percentage since the first time he appeared on the ballot.

**I'm lumping their names together in deference to today's vote, not because I equate them WRT the level of the evidence against them. I'm with that 1.2% who voted for Clemens but not Bonds.

Of course they aren't the same, and I qualified the comparison. The only point there was that people can survive stagnant vote situations, whatever the reason, and that there's no actual evidence making it clear that such can't/won't happen for Bonds and Clemens.

And neither of those, given voting patterns, is going to significantly improve the probability of someone being elected.

Agreed. Extra ballot slots would do more than prohibiting blank ballots (now that we know there were so few), but it wouldn't create a magic scenario to lift players whose %s are in the 30s and 40s over the hump, particularly those who are into their second decade on the ballot.

And yet these are many of the same people who think Sandy Koufax was a top 2-3 all-time pitcher even though he was throwing from atop a small mountain in an era where teams didn't averaged less than four runs per game.

....and they fail to think about how great Tony Oliva was. I am not saying Tony was a HOFer but he was a great hitter for a 9 or 10 year stretch.

Do 3,000 hits fly under the radar?

As you may recall, I've long contended there are no automatic numbers. Though the big happy round ones can make it easier for a deserving candidate to slide through, most voters aren't just going to check off a name simply because he reached 300, 500 or 3,000. This outcome doesn't dissauade me of that position.

On top of that, Biggio was an odd case. He was, at best, the third-best ballplayer eligible this year. When Robin Yount, another deserving Hall of Famer, debuted as the third-best player, he only received 77 percent of the vote. Moreover, if Biggio didn't have the 3,000 hits, he would likely have languished in the 30s or 40s in terms of percentages. His greatness did fly under the radar throughout most of his career.

So the 3,000 hits were going to help his case, but only to a point. We saw, to an extent, where that point was. If you re-read the Gizmo thread and look at some of the ballots, you'll see plenty of ballots that had 5-6 names, steroid and non-steroid filled alike, that simply left Biggio off. There's no sign these were protest votes. It's hard to interpret them as anything other than Biggio's excellence going unnoticed by a sizable percentage of the electorate.

I think he gets in next year, but I could see him just falling short before making it in 2015. Which is what I thought at this time last year. (-:

I think the best way to handle the roids issue is let people in and acknowledge this was the era of juicing, just like the 60's was the era of pitching, the early 40's had a inferior talent field because of WWII and before 1920 it was the deadball era where an ERA around 3.00 was not HOF worthy.

Would you give extra credit to players who didn't use, like you would to a player who played in a tougher league or in an unfavorable park?

If there was some way of knowing who those players are, theoretically, I guess.

Increasing the allowed number of votes, logistically, has zero effect on most voters. First, they probably don't even read the instructions that come with the ballot. Second, the ballot is no different -- there is a check box in front of a series of names. All a voter does is X his choices. Upping the limit then has no logistical impact. It is possible, though not likely, that some voters would be swayed to vote for one or two more due to the "message", but I doubt it.

I think for the next 10 years the Hall could declare that the top person on the ballot gets in despite his vote total. (If there is a plurality of 75% then they all get in.) There is enough Hall worthy talent on the ballot and in the coming years to handle that ruling.

nobody works the phone like your commish.

Except in the case of assembling a "blue ribbon panel" apparently.

I think for the next 10 years the Hall could declare that the top person on the ballot gets in despite his vote total. (If there is a plurality of 75% then they all get in.) There is enough Hall worthy talent on the ballot and in the coming years to handle that ruling.

Not sure how legitimate that would be viewed. It's a more fundamental change than it is a tweak, although I suppose it is no more radical than the difference between getting in via the BBWAA and getting in via the VC.

Still, it smells rather bad.

The Hall has a real problem on its hands -- even if players get in in the coming years. The writers have pulled the Hall down into a cesspool, and the Hall to this point has shown no interest in climbing out.

Kornheiser's being idiotic. He's saying Bonds and Clemens got clobbered and have no chance.

selig is dying right now. he loves baseball, for all his flaws,

About once a year Bud sits in with the Red Sox broadcasters for an inning during a visit to Boston and this ALWAYS comes through. In that setting, just chatting about baseball and the game in front of him how much he loves the game is evident throughout.

Would you give extra credit to players who didn't use, like you would to a player who played in a tougher league or in an unfavorable park?

How do you prove that something did (or did not) happen five to twenty years ago? Prove you did or prove you didn't cannot be answered with complete certainity.

And a resounding FU to faux liberals like Costas and Burns for going along with the character assassination crowd.

Harvs,

What do you think Selig would do?

selig is dying right now.

If this was a literal statement, I would have welcomed today's events.

From a teleconference today following the election announcement. Questions posed to them are in quotes.

JI = Jeff Idelson
JO = Jack O’Connell

(JI) The Hall of Fame is the celebratory part of what we do. The baseball writers have been entrusted with the vote, they’ve done a great job, and at the end of the day we’re pleased and prepared to honor whomever they choose to elect.

"Do you have an issue with writers voting on doubts and suspicions as opposed to facts that may or may not be in evidence?"

(JO) I don’t know that people are doing that. There’s no way for me to know that. [Maybe read their columns? RD] I assume that people are using the information that they have and assessing the value of each player the way they do any other year. I can’t get into the heads of 569 voters. I didn’t think there was any pattern in this voting that was much different from what we’ve had in the last few years.

"Should the Hall offer up any guidelines for writers on how to handle the steroid era and is it time to re-examine the voting process?"

(JI) We remain very confident and very comfortable with the voting electorate as well as the procedures and guidelines that we give the electorate to consider candidates. It’s worked incredibly well. As I walk through the Hall of Fame Gallery everyday that I’m in Cooperstown, there’s not one plaque that I see in there as the result of a BBWAA election where I say that this person doesn’t belong. [Really? In any case, the issue here is not who is in that shouldn't be but who isn't in that should be. RD] At the end of the day, the voters who participate show that they do their due diligence, they take the process seriously, and they truly vote their conscience.

(JO) To what purpose would we change the voting procedure? We had a vote, you need to get 75 percent, and none of the candidates got it. I think that the writers are doing the job they’re suppose to do. They’re assessing players. We get a lot of criticism sometimes, but the criticism is based on the fact that we don’t elect a lot of people. Is that the purpose, to change things, to make sure more people get in? There’s a way to do that. Get rid of the 75 percent. That’s what makes this election so much different from any other. We had an election just a couple months ago where the president of the United States got elected with 53 percent of the population voting for him. And they were very excited, the Democrats. It was wonderful. So, with 53 percent you can get to the White House but you can’t get to Cooperstown. It’s the 75 percent that makes it difficult. The guidelines are right there and how you interpret them is up to each individual voter. And an individual voter can even ignore it if he or she wants to. It’s your ballot and you should treat it that way.

"Dark day for Cooperstown?"

(JI) Obviously nobody in Cooperstown was rooting for a shutout. But, at the same token we have a great respect for the process. As I’ve often said, when you talk about the BBWAA ballot and a snapshot in time, a snapshot in time in that exercise isn’t one year, it’s 15.

"Categorize this election?"

(JI) It’s evident that the voters took this exercise probably more serious than any other ballot that they’ve filled out. And that’s because there are so many questions in voters’ minds. It takes time for history to sort itself out. I’m not surprised that we had a shutout today. I wish we had an electee, I will say that, but I’m not surprised given how volatile this era has been in terms of assessing qualities and the quantities of the statistics and the impact on the game these players have had.

i am not speaking of ignornace as much as energy. it takes 'energy' to hold a grudge. trust me. i know.

I know and I agree, at least in general. As I wrote in one of those posts, the question is whether the zealous voters will remain zealots once their audience has dwindled.

On the # of ballot slots:

The way it should work is this. There are a number of voters already at 10 (about 19% on that list of 101) and a bunch more at 8-9 (it seemed at least as many as those at 10). With three very big names and one big name coming next year, we could see as many as 40% of ballots maxed out. Assuming those folks have enough sense to think ahead, they see they have a problem coming.

They need to raise this point with the BBWAA leadership, asking them to ask the HoF to change the rules. There's really no good reason for the BBWAA not to do so. Remember, to the writers, the important thing is BBWAA as an organization, not their HoF vote. There may be some rumbling from membership not to increase the number but the BBWAA (already in a weak spot given the current newspaper economy) certainly does not want internal fractures over something as silly as the number of slots on the HoF ballot. They will ask for an expansion to 15 (or whatever). Once requested to do so, the HoF will be perfectly fine with that.

This avoids any issues with "the HoF is sending a message there are more than 10 HoFers on the ballot" ... I'm not sure that would happen anyway.

If the affected voters don't take action now then there's a good chance there will be no ballot expansion in time for next year.

As to more slots leading to more votes even among the less than 10 crowd. There's probably some small effect in that direction but I doubt it's very big. We've been under 6 names a ballot for a long time, had a record low of about 5.2 just last year.

And if anything we likely see the opposite behavior in HoF history. Again, Perez was at 68% in 98. He fell back to 61% in 99 with the big guys joining the ballot. Then he jumped the year after. If anything we have evidence that there's a block that won't go beyond 4-5. Possibly that block is deciding that limit based on percentage of slots but I doubt it.

In general the number of votes per ballot goes up in proportion with the number of pretty obvious new candidates. The newbies this year ate up about 2.6 ballot slots and the number of slots per ballot went up about 1.4. So basically those 5 viable guys joining the ballot caused an average of 1.2 candidates to be dropped. Next year's bunch should pull at least that many slots I think but, with a 10-man limit, will probably force more names to be dropped.

I don't know if the HoF has ever had 5 slots worth of candidates in 2 years with none of the first bunch elected.

Technically correct but writers and talk show hosts consider "steroids" to mean all PEDs.

You mean bodybuilding peds.... obviously writers consider amps to be a separate ped.

And how does increasing tactical voting improve the process? Serious question; I'd really like to know how you see giving people a chance to keep more five percenters around longer is going to help. ISTM that we have a huge problem at the top of a lot of ballots (even without steroids). I don't see how we fix that by tinkering with the bottom of a relatively small subset of ballots.

Tactical voting just means keeping more names on the ballot until the backlog clears up. It's 15 years, it will clear up some eventually, and then you might see a Morris level jump from some of the guys who have been hanging around.

Don (#249),

Food for thought, as always from you. Thanks for the detailed reply.

Next year I would want to vote for:

Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Tom Glavine
Jeff Kent
Greg Maddux
Edgar Martinez
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Mike Mussina
Rafael Palmeiro
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Sammy Sosa
Frank Thomas
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker

That's 19 players. I don't know how I'd do it. Maybe this:
Bagwell
Biggio
Bonds
Clemens
Glavine
Maddux
McGriff
Piazza
Thomas
Trammell

I think it's obvious that the Hall of Fame will do nothing about the broken process, and that only Maddux and maybe Biggio (though I doubt it) will be elected next year. Then after that, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Pedro Martinez, and Gary Sheffield join the ballot. Ugly.

Is McGriff a tactical vote there?

I predict that the logjam will be cleared next year, with a large number of inductees. Specifically:

* Jack Morris
* Sandy Alomar Jr.
* Pete Rose
* Joe Jackson
* Ozzie Guillen
* Bob Uecker
* Whatever the name of that "Death to Flying Things" guy is
* Whatever the name of that second "Death to Flying Things" guy is
* Sidd Finch
* Pedro Cerrano
* Jobu

OK, so maybe that won't directly clear the jam. But indirectly, it means lots of people drop off under 5%.

Honestly, what was most surprising to me was how little support Curt Schilling got. He has good counting stats, SABR-cred, a bloody sock and minimal steroid talk. Seems like the kind of player everyone could reach a consensus on.

Does he get in during the next 15 years?

To paraphrase William F. Buckley, I would rather have the HOF voted on by the first 569 names in the Boston phone book than the BBWAA.

Well, that would have helped Schilling make it in, at least.

Honestly, what was most surprising to me was how little support Curt Schilling got. He has good counting stats, SABR-cred, a bloody sock and minimal steroid talk. Seems like the kind of player everyone could reach a consensus on.

Does he get in during the next 15 years?

Well, again, what is the evidence that voters care about postseason performance? Is it Jack Morris, a player who hasn't gotten in? Is it Bernie Williams, a player who just fell off the ballot?

For all the harping on this that fans and writers do, where is the evidence that this has made a difference for a player? I went back 30 years scanning the BBWAA selections and couldn't find any players who seemed like they might be out were it not for postseason performance.

I think it's obvious that the Hall of Fame will do nothing about the broken process, and that only Maddux and maybe Biggio (though I doubt it) will be elected next year. Then after that, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Pedro Martinez, and Gary Sheffield join the ballot. Ugly.

Well, part of the problem is that so much emphasis is being put on "first ballot" selections that some people seem to take it as kissing cousin to a blood libel if "no brainer" candidates like Biggio or Schilling** have to wait a few years. But just to use the list of catchers that were either mentioned above or in the other thread, how many people today outside the group of fairly hard core historians either know or care that all-time greats like Yogi Berra and Roy Campanella didn't make it in the first time around? The point is that eventually the great majority of the "no brainer" candidates will make it in, even if it takes a few years, and what's the Big Deal about the fact that they may have to wait until their 5th or even 10th year of eligibility?

If the real complaint is about the steroid-tainted players, that's a legitimate concern, but it's really a separate issue.

**"No brainers" to me, anyway

Honestly, what was most surprising to me was how little support Curt Schilling got. He has good counting stats, SABR-cred, a bloody sock and minimal steroid talk. Seems like the kind of player everyone could reach a consensus on.

I think it's perhaps his contemporaries. Was he better than Clemens? Johnson? Maddux? Pedro? Even if you're not voting Clemens because of PEDs you might be leery of voting in a guy who's so far from being the best pitcher of his generation. Just a guess...who knows what logic these voters apply.

All 263 says to me is that the Hall wants to distance themselves from any criticism that comes from electing (or not electing for that matter) a "user". Bonds gets in, and people are furious? The Hall can always say "we didn't vote them in". The Hall has always had an almost win-win situation. Have a big party every year that makes everyone happy, and bear no responsibility for any poor decisions along the way. Sure, the writers completely screwed it up for everyone this year, but considering how much talent becomes eligible in the next few years, not even the BBWAA can continuously screw this up. There will be another great party next year, which is all the Hall cares about.

Well, again, what is the evidence that voters care about postseason performance?

My point is that there are no "The Voters" who have a single desire.

There are some voters who want post-season heroics. There are some voters who consider Career Wins Above Replacement. There are some voters who want a gritty guy who led the league in complete games and strikeouts. There are some voters who look at career wins.

You may have your own view of who "Really Deserves" to be in the Hall of Fame, but the easiest way to actually get in is to impress as many of these sub-groups as possible. And I would have thought that Schilling was the sort of "Big Tent" candidate who could get the support from both the big business and the working class voters.

The point is that eventually the great majority of the "no brainer" candidates will make it in, even if it takes a few years, and what's the Big Deal about the fact that they may have to wait until their 5th or even 10th year of eligibility?

Jesus, Andy -- because the list of history's worst monsters include Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America.

Haven't you been paying attention all these years?

Well, again, what is the evidence that voters care about postseason performance? Is it Jack Morris, a player who hasn't gotten in? Is it Bernie Williams, a player who just fell off the ballot?

You're asking for evidence that can't be provided without a detailed questioning of every voter. But given how many writers have openly cited Morris's postseason performances as one of the reasons that they're voting for him, I think it's safe to say that if his postseasons had looked like Don Newcombe's, he wouldn't be getting 67.7% of the votes.

EDIT: coke to PhillyBooster.

My point is that there are no "The Voters" who have a single desire.

This is a flawed analysis. We can look at past voting patterns and get a good sense of what standards the voters use collectively.

It’s evident that the voters took this exercise probably more serious than any other ballot that they’ve filled out.

I think this is obviously true. Voters clearly didn't neglect to write in Bonds' and Clemens' names because they hadn't put any thought into the matter. Whether you agree with their reasoning or not I think it's pretty clear that many voters felt that they were making an important statement with their votes.

How do you prove that something did (or did not) happen five to twenty years ago? Prove you did or prove you didn't cannot be answered with complete certainity.

You can't answer with certainty how Negro Leaguers would have performed in MLB either.

Removing players who won't appear on the ballot next year, the returning candidates accounted for a total of 6.29 votes per ballot. Can someone who has the numbers available find out if that number has ever been this high before? If so, when?

Jayson Stark not happy.

If you gave each voter more than 10 votes, just image who else the Aaron Sele Voter might have voted for.

Honestly, what was most surprising to me was how little support Curt Schilling got. He has good counting stats, SABR-cred, a bloody sock and minimal steroid talk. Seems like the kind of player everyone could reach a consensus on.

I'm puzzled too. Schilling seems like a rich man's Jack Morris to me, so I'm not sure why he ended so far below Morris.

This is a flawed analysis. We can look at past voting patterns and get a good sense of what standards the voters use collectively.

In broad terms, that's what the "Hall of Fame Monitor" does. Although it is also primarily just a distillation of past voting patterns.

The Hall of Farm Monitor gave Schilling a 171, with likely Hall of Famers at 100 or above. In terms of post-season heroics, it awards "2 points for each WS start, 1 point for each relief appearance, and 2 for a win. 1 point for each LCS or LDS win." So, sensibly, post-season heroics can push you forward, but won't get you there by itself.

Curt Schilling has all of the stuff that makes Jack Morris voters vote for Jack Morris (such as postseason heroics), but also none of the problems that prevent non-Jack Morris voters from avoiding him (like 20 points less ERA+).

I have no doubt it started before that, though, especially given the history of other sports in the 70s and 80s.

The Chargers had Dianabol tablets on their training camp cafeteria tables back in the 60's so it goes back even further in the NFL.

I went back 30 years scanning the BBWAA selections and couldn't find any players who seemed like they might be out were it not for postseason performance

That's really hard to say, of course; for one thing there is no good way of controlling postseason heroes vs. non-. Doing well or just being in a lot of postseasons clearly helped Don Drysdale, Lou Brock, Catfish Hunter. More recently, Puckett, Tony Perez, Eckersley, Gary Carter and indeed Blyleven weren't hurt by playing well or simply playing in some postseasons. As several have noted, we can't read voters' minds. And the totals shift; when a candidate goes from 50 to 75%, who knows why that extra quarter of the electorate was convinced? But obviously people use postseasons to make cases for candidates.

(Among other things, of course) Kirby Puckett's plaque says: "A true team leader, Puckett led the Twins to a pair of World Series titles in 1987 and '91." Carter's says "His clutch 10th-inning single in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series sparked a dramatic Mets comeback victory, ultimately leading to a World Series title." Blyleven's says "He was a key cog in two playoffs, contributing to Fall Classic crowns for both the 1979 Pirates and the 1987 Twins." The plaque text may be unrelated to the voting, but to posit that there might be some overlap isn't crazy.

Conversely, give Don Mattingly Puckett's rings and Series heroics, and they might have switched places. Not saying that they would have, but they're often noted as a similar pair.

Curt Schilling has all of the stuff that makes Jack Morris voters vote for Jack Morris (such as postseason heroics), but also none of the problems that prevent non-Jack Morris voters from avoiding him (like 20 points less ERA+).

Sure, but how many consecutive years did he get through 8 innings in 52% of his starts?

For whatever it's worth, here's how the Hall of Stats (which uses a weighted sum of rWAR and rWAA and makes a few adjustments for relievers and catchers and so on) sees next year's ballot. Ostensibly, 100 is the HOF-worthy minimum, but I think 125 or 120 is a much better representation of the kind of players statheads actually want to see in the Hall.

1. Barry Bonds (365)
2. Roger Clemens (294)
3. Greg Maddux (221)
4. Curt Schilling (172)
5. Jeff Bagwell (164)
6. Mike Mussina (163)
7. Larry Walker (151)
8. Tom Glavine (149)
9. Mike Piazza (146)
10. Alan Trammell (142)
11. Frank Thomas (138)
12. Edgar Martinez (134)
13. Tim Raines (128)
14. Craig Biggio (127)
15. Mark McGwire (123)
16. Rafael Palmeiro (122)
17. Sammy Sosa (115)
18. Jeff Kent (106)
19. Kenny Rogers (93)
20. Fred McGriff (92)
21. Luis Gonzalez (88)
22. Don Mattingly (77)
23. Jack Morris (73)
24. Moises Alou (69)
25. Lee Smith (62)

(By the way, Kenny Lofton scores 131, David Wells 98, Bernie Williams 92, Dale Murphy 85, Steve Finley 77, Reggie Sanders 72, Julio Franco 70, Shawn Green 59, Aaron Sele 32, and Sandy Alomar 24 (why did he get so many votes, again?).)

Sandy Alomar 24 (why did he get so many votes, again?)

The same reason he got votes for Rookie of the Year, 6 All-Star Games and a couple MVP votes.

...and when someone finds out what that reason is, please let me know.

Everybody at BBTF is trying to figure out how to change the procedures to avoid similar problems in 2014 and beyond. Give the 5%ers another chance! Expand the 10-person limit! Elect the top vote getter! Have a run off!

The only way you solve the problem is if you change the voting group. There were 569 ballots cast, and fewer than 40% think a guy with seven ####ing MVP Awards (and five other top-five finishes), 14 All-Star appearances, eight Gold Gloves, 12 Silver Sluggers, the most HRs, etc., is NOT a Hall of Famer.

We don't know who was taking what substances. We don't know when said suspects were taking the, if they were. We don't even know what PEDs really do to enhance performance or injury recovery. In fact, some of the stuff keeping voters away weren't even illegal when they were allegedly taken. Manny Alexander got caught with PEDs in 2000 - the year he posted a PED-inflated OPS+ of ####ing 46.

You can expand the ballot to 50 slots, if you want. As long as you've got 60% of the voters thinking guys like Bonds and Clemens don't get their vote, we're not solving any of these problems...

and when someone finds out what that reason is, please let me know

The '97 ALDS homer off Mo?

Removing players who won't appear on the ballot next year, the returning candidates accounted for a total of 6.29 votes per ballot. Can someone who has the numbers available find out if that number has ever been this high before? If so, when?

OK, I went and ran the numbers myself (B-R is the best thing ever). The most recent year I could find that had more returning votes per ballot than this one was the 1981 election, which featured 5 non-inductees over 50% (Drysdale, Hodges, Killebrew, Wilhelm, Marichal), and 6 more between 35 and 50 (Fox, Schoendienst, Bunning, Wills, Aparicio, and Ashburn. Amazing that Wills outpolled Aparicio this year; 3 years later, Aparicio was inducted, and Wills was down to 25.8%.) Total of 6.73 names per ballot among the holdovers into the '82 election - and of course, the '82 election saw Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson's electoral debuts, so none of the holdovers got in.

Even to get as high as 6 holdovers per ballot, you have to go back to '86.

Honestly, what was most surprising to me was how little support Curt Schilling got. He has good counting stats, SABR-cred, a bloody sock and minimal steroid talk. Seems like the kind of player everyone could reach a consensus on.

Does he get in during the next 15 years?

Absolutely. Most of the non-roider guys who are deserving will get in. Schilling will have no problem eventually.

Well, again, what is the evidence that voters care about postseason performance? Is it Jack Morris, a player who hasn't gotten in? Is it Bernie Williams, a player who just fell off the ballot?

Your dogmatic insistence that the only way to show it matters is if they cross the line of in/out is ridiculous. The fact that Don Larsen stayed on the ballot for 15 years proves that it matters to some.(roughly about 5% of the voters) It's not going to singlehandedly put anyone in the hof, but it can help it out. And as pointed out, many of the voters pushing for Morris routinely point out three things. 1. Winning percentage 2. game 7 of the world series 3. 14 opening day starts. Is also enough evidence to show that it matters to a handful of voters.

Just like other peoples insistence that character doesn't matter because there are few if any players who have been kept out because of character. It's still a percentage of voters not voting for a person.

Never is a really long time and all but 14 years is also pretty long. Very very hard for a somewhat changing group of people to hold a grudge that long as we have seen in past HoF voting.

To be pretty blunt a number of the voters will probably be dead in ten years or have gone the way of Jay Mariotti if the current trend in print media continues.

what's the Big Deal about the fact that they may have to wait until their 5th or even 10th year of eligibility?

Yeah, it's not like any of them could have an accident or unexpected illness while they're held in purgatory by the BBWAA.

The only way you solve the problem is if you change the voting group. There were 569 ballots cast, and fewer than 40% think a guy with seven ####ing MVP Awards (and five other top-five finishes), 14 All-Star appearances, eight Gold Gloves, 12 Silver Sluggers, the most HRs, etc., is NOT a Hall of Famer.

Because he took steroids for several years of his career. It's not as though he has some kind of entitlement to the Hall of Fame or something. I'd have voted for him, but that's a distinctly minority view.

So the only real "problem" is that the voters didn't vote the way you would have.