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

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Ryan Thibs has his 2017 HOF Tracker Up and Running

7 Ballots in as of 11/29/16, and Schilling has already lost 2 votes from last year.

reech Posted: November 29, 2016 at 02:29 PM | 932 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, hof

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 8 of 10 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 > 
   701. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 04:16 PM (#5381904)
Yes, but what precedent is there to think that a guy with 3,000 hits, 4 batting titles, 12 all-star appearances, an MVP, and a World Series MVP would need defense to get into the Hall of Fame, even if he hadn't died while on a humanitarian trip while still an elite player?


yea whatever, the point I was making is that generally nobody talks about defense. I threw that Ichiro and Clemente comment out there to shut up the ####### who might say "but people talk about Clemente and Ichiro" it was a pre-preemptive strike against the typical people you see on this board who try to parse every f'ing comment down to find some flaw with it. Apparently I went too far in the other way.

Just pretend that the comment I had put in parentheses there didn't exist....
   702. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2017 at 07:11 PM (#5382036)
yes and no, it wasn't throw days, it was on their off days,

well it wasn't going to be the day after a start...

and looking at Grove's game log and holy crap

5/16/31: 9ip (12h, 4bb, 7k, any guesses on pitch count?)
5/17/31: came in picked up 2 outs in the 9th (evidently was brought in with bases loaded)(save under modern rules)
5/18/31: 1 2/3 ip (save)

well that was it, none of his other relief appearances were the day after a start, but hell can you imagine a team doing that today, 5/16 had to have been at least a 120+ pitch start and then he pitches the 17th and 18th (in save situations?)
   703. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 07:18 PM (#5382040)
That era was a bit different obviously and yes you are right that it generally wasn't going to be after their starts, just pointing out that the concept of throw days didn't really exist back then. I know that the Braves seem to get a lot of credit for throw days, but I think that it was just that they modified the existing concept, but their modifications have become the norm. Some people have argued that it's probable that throw days won't ever become a thing for the starter to relieve that day, because the game happens much later in the day, and you can never know if you are going to get into the game, and nobody wants to do their throw day 10pm after the game.... but I do think that as time goes on, it's going to be pretty much assumed that if the guy is a starter, that on his throw day he'll be the first non-closer/loogy out of the pen, and if he isn't brought into the game in the 7th or earlier, he can start his throw day at that point in time.
   704. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 07:22 PM (#5382044)
(just a reminder, Randy Johnson pitched game six, threw 104 pitches, then came in for game 7 and pitched 1 1/3 innings in 2001 World Series, but I don't think that many pitchers do that in May.)
   705. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 11, 2017 at 07:37 PM (#5382049)
The Tracker is at 194 votes; last year they had 211 before the HoF announcement, so not many more likely before the 18th. I-Rod now at 79.9% - looks like he could go either way. That may also be the case for Guerrero (74.2%) & Hoffman (73.2%). Hopes that the ballot glut was going to be substantially eased this year may have been premature.
   706. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 07:43 PM (#5382052)
so not many more likely before the 18th


Have we had either the ESPN dump or the MLB.com dump yet? Some of the writers for both have of course published their ballots, but isn't there usually a dump of ballots the weekend before the announcement that is good for about 20-30 ballots?
   707. Meatwad needs baseball Posted: January 11, 2017 at 07:43 PM (#5382053)
have the outlets started doing the big ballot dumps yet?
   708. Danny Posted: January 11, 2017 at 07:53 PM (#5382055)
and looking at Grove's game log and holy crap

This wasn't even that uncommon.

Check out Eddie Rommel in 1922:

6/8: 3 IP, 6 H, 1 BB (GS) (L)
6/9: 1 IP (Sv)
6/10: 9 IP, 7 H, 2 BB, 1 K (SHO) (W)
6/11: 1.2 IP, 2 H, 1 BB, 1 SO (L)

6/27: 9 IP, 6 H, 2 BB, 3 SO (W) (game 1)
6/27: 3 IP, 6 H, 1 SO (W) (game 2)

7/11: 9 IP, 5 H, 1 BB (W) (game 1)
7/11: 3.2 IP, 2 H (W) (game 2)

9/28: 1 IP, 5 H, 1 BB (L)
9/29: 1 IP, 1 H, 1 BB, 2 SO (W)
9/30: 9 IP, 17 H, 2 SO (W)
   709. ajnrules Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:20 PM (#5382067)
Walter Johnson had a very good Labor Day Weekend in 1908

9/4/1908: 9IP 6H 4K 0ER CG ShO
9/5/1908: 9IP 3H 3K 0ER CG ShO
9/7/1908: 9IP 2H 5K 0ER CG ShO
   710. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:30 PM (#5382073)
In case anyone has missed it on the last couple pages (or just needs an easy place to find it):

Link to the link of the current spot for the tracker (since the original link no longer works)
   711. Danny Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:58 PM (#5382083)
Jeff Blair ballot: Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Vlad, Posada, Raines, Ramirez

His vote for Manny and non-vote for Pudge is in direct contradiction to his column from today:

Vladimir Guerrero will be on his first ballot and it’s a weak first-year class, with Ivan (Pudge) Rodriguez and Jorge Posada having the strongest cases along with Guerrero.


Thibs notes that Blair claims his ballot was lost in the mail last year. Looks like he put in the same non-effort again this year.
   712. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 09:01 PM (#5382085)
They actually use paper mail ballots? I would think that they would use paper ballots, but also have an email ballot as a backup.

Note: half joking here... yes I know they use paper ballots, but still if I'm a voter, I might email a "receipt" ballot to whoever just to ensure my vote happens as a backup. Of course I think voting on the hof would be one of the greatest privileges a writer could get in their career and would take it very seriously
   713. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2017 at 10:31 PM (#5382107)
They actually use paper mail ballots? I would think that they would use paper ballots, but also have an email ballot as a backup.


At least one writer has noted that not only are they mailed a paper ballot, but the only way to return it is by US Mail. I'm a consultant for the USPS, so this makes me a little bit happy, but in this day and age, it's a little insane.
   714. reech Posted: January 11, 2017 at 10:53 PM (#5382111)
But what if Putin and Russia hack the vote if it goes digital?
   715. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 11:18 PM (#5382116)
But what if Putin and Russia hack the vote if it goes digital?


Considering how stupid both Putin and his puppet in chief are, they would pretty much mirror the writers votes anyway. I expect that hack to be a Chass or Verducci level of idiocy, that even a news outlet like Faux news would be able to sort the votes out.
   716. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:30 AM (#5382154)
Hopes that the ballot glut was going to be substantially eased this year may have been premature.


Yeah, it's going to be really close. But Hoffman, Rodriguez and Guerrero should all get in next year if not this year. I'm kind of looking at the ballot glut and thinking "What will we see in 2019?" Smith, Raines, Bagwell, Hoffman, I-Rod, and Guerrero all off the ballot (and maybe Edgar given his somewhat meteoric rise these past two seasons) by 2019 would be fantastic, especially if we get Chipper and Thome in first ballot.
   717. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:43 AM (#5382162)
Working in compliance, if you are responsible for sending in something important ONCE A YEAR and it gets lost because you didn't have it tracked, you should never be allowed to send that important thing in ever again.


Looking at the current count, I'll be pretty surprised if I-Rod makes it.
   718. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:22 AM (#5382188)
But what if Putin and Russia hack the vote if it goes digital?


I'd expect Vladimir and Ivan to sail in on the first ballot.
   719. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:47 AM (#5382210)
The Tracker is at 194 votes; last year they had 211 before the HoF announcement, so not many more likely before the 18th. I-Rod now at 79.9% - looks like he could go either way. That may also be the case for Guerrero (74.2%) & Hoffman (73.2%)


Raines 91.8% (he's almost certainly in unless the private ballots are hiding a bunch of people who voted for last year but not this year- really unlikely, plus he has 100% of 1st time voters so far)

Bagwell 90.7% (he's almost certainly in unless the private ballots are hiding a bunch of people who voted for last year but not this year- really unlikely, plus he has 100% of 1st time voters so far)

Hoffman 73.2% (slow start, but better than even odds at this point, last year the tracker had him at 63.5%, he ended up at 67.3%

Pudge 79.9% (fast start, but worse than even odds at this point, last year Bagwell had 77.7% with the tracker- lost 6.1%- ended up with 71.6%, Bonds dropped 6.9%, Raines dropped 5.6%, Edgar dropped 4.0%, he might hold on but I think Hoffman is a better bet at this point.)

Vlad 74.2% (Worse than even odds, see Pudge comment, has no PED taint, has traditionalist friendly stats, but he needs to gain votes, losing less support off tracker than Raines, Bagwell, etc did won't help him this year)

Edgar 66.5% (Not getting in this year, but yuuuge improvement- 43.4% last year, likely 60-63% this year, running out of time though, he really needs 3+ guys to go in this year, but the odds of that are slipping

Bonds 64.4% (started very strongly, has been sliding- but at 64.4% even if he drops 6.9% like last year he'd still get around 57.5%- a lot higher than last year or two years ago)
Clemens 63.9% (same as Bonds)

Mussina 60.8% (Not getting in this year or next, steady improvement, but he's gonna drop 5-7% going from Tracker to final vote, private voters hate SPs...)

Schilling 52.1% (Not getting in this year or next, his steady improvement has gone retrograde, got 52.3% last year, is gonna get around 45% this year- essentially the 2016 Mussina/Schilling vote reversed)

Manny 25.3% (no idea where he goes from here, he could get stuck in McGwire/Sosa vote purgatory, or he could build from here)

Nothing else really significant except it looks like Posada won't make a second ballot, and Walker seems to be getting a minor surge- one that is the very definition of far too little and far too late.
   720. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:04 AM (#5382219)
Have we had either the ESPN dump or the MLB.com dump yet? Some of the writers for both have of course published their ballots, but isn't there usually a dump of ballots the weekend before the announcement that is good for about 20-30 ballots?

Yup. Also, the Chicago Tribune has their flock of voters publish their ballots on the Sunday prior to Cooperstown's announcement. We could crack 50% of the voters releasing their ballots in advance this year.
   721. AROM Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:43 AM (#5382248)
Thumbs up to #718. I was thinking Vlad but am so used to using "Pudge" that the Ivan vote didn't immediately occur to me.
   722. oscar madisox Posted: January 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM (#5382385)
How positive are we that Bagwell and Raines are getting in?

According to the current tracker, Bagwell needs 62.5 percent of the remaining votes to get in (assuming there are the same number of voters as 2016). If I'm reading last year's tracker correctly, Bagwell got 61.5 percent from the privates in 2016, and Raines was at 59.2 percent. I'm sure the numbers are fluid, but that puts both a bit shy.

Looked at antother way, if exactly half of the votes are made public and Bagwell and Raines get 90 percent support, they'll need 60 percent support from the private half of the voters. That mean's Bagwell's OK, but Raines would be out.

Maybe I'm being pessimistic - as an Astros fan it's hard not to be - but I won't be convinced both are in, until the announcement.
   723. Fridas Boss Posted: January 12, 2017 at 01:03 PM (#5382404)
#722: The part you're missing is that Bagwell and Raines have flipped 16 and 25 voters to yes respectively while losing none. Unless you think there'll be none of that effect in this year's private vs. public ballots, it's a rosier picture than you described.
   724. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 12, 2017 at 01:09 PM (#5382407)
According to the current tracker, Bagwell needs 62.5 percent of the remaining votes to get in (assuming there are the same number of voters as 2016). If I'm reading last year's tracker correctly, Bagwell got 61.5 percent from the privates in 2016, and Raines was at 59.2 percent. I'm sure the numbers are fluid, but that puts both a bit shy.


The "privates in 2016" figure are the guys who never made their votes public. A lot of guys are "public" but not in the tracker because they don't go public until after the vote. So Bagwell needing 62.5% of the remaining vote does not mean he needs 62.5% of the "private" vote. The remaining vote is a mix of 2 types of voters, "private voters" and "not yet public voters." Some of those "not yet public" voters will end up in the tracker- but not all.
   725. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 12, 2017 at 01:12 PM (#5382410)
The "privates in 2016" figure are the guys who never made their votes public. A lot of guys are "public" but not in the tracker because they don't go public until after the vote. So Bagwell needing 62.5% of the remaining vote does not mean he needs 62.5% of the "private" vote. The remaining vote is a mix of 2 types of voters, "private voters" and "not yet public voters." Some of those "not yet public" voters will end up in the tracker- but not all.


Yes. At this point, for Raines and Bagwell to fail to gain enshrinement, they'd need to be net-negative with the currently undisclosed voters (losing votes from previous supporters, which there's absolutely no reason to believe will happen).
   726. reech Posted: January 12, 2017 at 01:14 PM (#5382413)
Is it really evil for me to kinda wish that no one gets elected, and Selig is inducted with no crowd (except for Schuerholz fans).
   727. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 12, 2017 at 01:29 PM (#5382427)
yes
   728. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 12, 2017 at 01:29 PM (#5382428)
Is it really evil for me to kinda wish that no one gets elected, and Selig is inducted with no crowd (except for Schuerholz fans).


I think Raines might find that position pretty evil, yes.
   729. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 12, 2017 at 01:37 PM (#5382436)
#726

Here's a more evil thought. Selig uses his acceptance speech to rail against electing steroid players.
   730. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 12, 2017 at 02:48 PM (#5382510)
If it were just Bud, some longstanding but previously unpublicized HOF committee would induct Ed Kranepool. Full house.
   731. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 12, 2017 at 04:31 PM (#5382577)
ESPN released their vote yesterday
but they did it anonymously:


Fifteen HOF voters from ESPN -- all of whom will remain anonymous and reserve the right to completely change their minds before submitting their official ballots later this year -- have made their preliminary picks for next year's Hall of Fame ballot.


Jeff Bagwell, 12 votes (80 percent)

Trevor Hoffman, 12 votes (80 percent)

Tim Raines, 12 votes (80 percent)

Barry Bonds, 11 votes (73.3 percent)

Roger Clemens, 11 votes (73.3 percent)

*Vladimir Guerrero, 11 votes (73.3 percent)

Curt Schilling, 11 votes (73.3 percent)

Mike Mussina, 9 votes (60 percent)

*Pudge Rodriguez, 9 votes (60 percent)

Edgar Martinez, 8 votes (53.3 percent)

Lee Smith, 4 votes (26.7 percent)

Jeff Kent, 2 votes (13.3 percent)

Fred McGriff, 2 votes (13.3 percent)

*Jorge Posada, 2 votes (13.3 percent)

*Manny Ramirez, 2 votes (13.3 percent)

Billy Wagner, 1 vote (6.7 percent)
   732. QLE Posted: January 12, 2017 at 04:47 PM (#5382596)
#731-

First, fixed the link:

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/14541368/espn-2017-baseball-hall-fame-ballot

Second, that article's from January 10th, 2016- as such, I cannot regard it as being reliable as for how the ESPN voters are thinking now.
   733. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 12, 2017 at 05:28 PM (#5382620)
First here's the link: ? I don't know why it doesn't work, if you right click on it, it's accurate

second, it's "dated" January 11, 2016 not January 10, 2016 :-)

third: You're right, it's too old, and besides no way 11 out of 15 are voting Schilling now :-)




   734. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 12, 2017 at 07:54 PM (#5382697)
Is it really evil for me to kinda wish that no one gets elected, and Selig is inducted with no crowd (except for Schuerholz fans).

That's exceptionally evil, even by BBTF standards. Why wouldn't we want a large crowd booing Selig at every opportunity? Pelting him with fruit even?
   735. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:14 PM (#5382710)
nice WSJ article about Ryan's gizmo
   736. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 14, 2017 at 05:50 PM (#5383351)
200 ballots now in. Still looks like Bagwell (91%) & Raines (91.5%) are in, but Rodriguez (80%), Guerrero (74.5%) & Hoffman (73.5%) could be a few votes either way. That, along with Bonds, Clemens, Edgar & Mussina at 60%+, and Schilling at over 50%, suggests a very crowded ballot in 2018 and going forward.
   737. cardsfanboy Posted: January 14, 2017 at 06:12 PM (#5383359)
nice WSJ article about Ryan's gizmo


I've read this post many times and for some reason I never clicked on it, although I generally like WSJ writing(that surprises me as much as the fact that I also love Christian Science Monitor----both seem like something I would be inherently turned away by)

Finally decided to click on it, and it is a good article, I don't agree fully with some of the arguments, and it does make me think that there might be a legit reason for the hof to recommend that voters do not unveil their ballots before the official last day to send it in.

Of course from that article is this bit, which is so true, and part of the reason why I think that regardless of ratings or anything else, that baseball is still this nations number one sport.

It also keeps the Hall of Fame in the news throughout the winter.

“To be dominating the sports pages in December and January speaks to the passion of Hall of Fame voting,” Idelson said. “You hope that stays as a passion and doesn’t become something else.”
   738. cardsfanboy Posted: January 14, 2017 at 06:18 PM (#5383362)
200 ballots now in. Still looks like Bagwell (91%) & Raines (91.5%) are in, but Rodriguez (80%), Guerrero (74.5%) & Hoffman (73.5%) could be a few votes either way. That, along with Bonds, Clemens, Edgar & Mussina at 60%+, and Schilling at over 50%, suggests a very crowded ballot in 2018 and going forward.


If I'm a betting man, I'm going with Raines, Bagwell and Hoffman all in, Irod over 70% and not in, and I'm utterly and totally clueless on Vlad.
I think that Irod will be hit be anonymous anti-ped without evidence crowd, and that Hoffman has the save thing going for him and will actually receive a bump from those who haven't revealed their ballots.... but Vlad is tough, traditionally those who don't reveal their ballot are guys who are relatively anti-saber and Vlad should be able to pick up votes in that group, but he also didn't have signature moments, played for a relatively unheralded team for most of his career....but then of course he was a somewhat one dimensional player that was fun to watch....

Either way he's in this year or next, it's just really hard to see a guy that is probably not even top ten on the ballot going in on the first year, that it messes with my mind a bit.
   739. DanG Posted: January 15, 2017 at 03:20 AM (#5383486)
I've read this post many times and for some reason I never clicked on it, although I generally like WSJ writing...

Finally decided to click on it, and it is a good article, I don't agree fully with some of the arguments, and it does make me think that there might be a legit reason for the hof to recommend that voters do not unveil their ballots before the official last day to send it in.
The article makes two main points to support this idea:

1. Threatening responses from the public.
2. Undue influence undermining voter integrity.

The first point has some merit. This can be fixed by the release of ballots being brought under the HOF's wing (as is planned), but also bringing the public discussion about the election and the ballots into a moderated forum conducted by the Hall. The wingnuts would still make their threats, but a "sensitive" writer would never need to see them.

The second point is garbage, and the article brings in academicians spouting "violation of principles of democratic elections" and that we should be "excluding any external influences" on the voters. No. This is not a democratic election, but a reputed expert panel tasked to come to a consensus on who is most worthy to receive an honor. The public balloting fosters the discussion necessary for this meeting of the minds; we have seen the bad results from voters deliberating in isolation. The Hall's 75% requirement makes it imperative for voters to have awareness of what the Group Mind is considering, either to attempt to counteract it, or to consider coming in better alignment with it.

In short, more discussion is good. Wise voters are welcoming these external influences. And greater transparency leads to greater integrity of the process.
   740. Chris Fluit Posted: January 15, 2017 at 08:32 AM (#5383496)
This is not a democratic election, but a reputed expert panel tasked to come to a consensus on who is most worthy to receive an honor. The public balloting fosters the discussion necessary for this meeting of the minds...In short, more discussion is good. Wise voters are welcoming these external influences. And greater transparency leads to greater integrity of the process.
Well said.
   741. bachslunch Posted: January 15, 2017 at 08:33 AM (#5383497)
It's a subscription article so can't read it. But re the first point in 139, are we really talking bodily threats or just criticism?
   742. DanG Posted: January 15, 2017 at 08:45 AM (#5383498)
@741:
You can find the entire article elsewhere online.

Threats like the sort you read in the comments section of any MSM article. Verbal abuse and hints of mayhem hiding behind internet anonymity.
   743. bachslunch Posted: January 15, 2017 at 09:37 AM (#5383501)
@742: thanks for explaining. No reason the comment section can't be monitored to get rid of threats, spam, and such. It's not worth squelching legitimate criticism out of fear.
   744. bookbook Posted: January 15, 2017 at 10:35 AM (#5383511)
Threats like the sort you read in the comments section of any MSM article. Verbal abuse and hints of mayhem hiding behind internet anonymity.


This is unacceptable in any MSM article. It's past time that any venue which provides comment sections must actively police them. I'm proud that BTF is generally civil given how extensive the debates can be.
   745. cardsfanboy Posted: January 15, 2017 at 12:50 PM (#5383551)
You can find the entire article elsewhere online.


I probably should have mentioned that I googled the article after finding out that it was behind a paywall (I was assuming I would end up at WSJ lite which is one of the few websites I have whitelisted---as I said, I generally like their writing) and ran into no problems. Here is a non subscription link.
   746. sgt23 Posted: January 15, 2017 at 02:45 PM (#5383592)
I'm not new to this site but, this is my first time posting. I think the biggest problem with the Hall Of Fame is the fans have no say. If we didn't buy tickets, merchandise and the over price food and drinks at the stadiums there would be no game, at least not at the level where everyone would be able too view them on T.V. and Radio. We fans should get too pick at least one player each year. After all isn't this game for the fans?
   747. cardsfanboy Posted: January 15, 2017 at 02:58 PM (#5383595)
I'm not new to this site but, this is my first time posting. I think the biggest problem with the Hall Of Fame is the fans have no say. If we didn't buy tickets, merchandise and the over price food and drinks at the stadiums there would be no game, at least not at the level where everyone would be able too view them on T.V. and Radio. We fans should get too pick at least one player each year. After all isn't this game for the fans?


I think the fans do have a say, many of the changes the hof has enacted in the past few years has been because of vocal fan arguments. I would never support fan rule or vote, that crap leads to third string players starting in the all star game in Hockey and basketball(the NBA smartly prevented that from happening)

mind you an all star game is frivolous fun, and naming a boat boaty mcfloat is hilarious, but for something that you want to hope to be an institution that recognizes the best of the best, having the fans instead of experts vote, just makes zero sense. The fans is why shows like Jerry Springer became famous, fans is why the Kardashians have a career, and the National Enquirer is one of the most successful newspapers in this country, and why talk radio has a purpose... allowing the riff raff to determine results would not be a good idea.
   748. bachslunch Posted: January 15, 2017 at 03:49 PM (#5383613)
@738: it's entirely likely Hoffman will benefit from a non-published ballot boost. Last year, his actual vs pre-result difference was +3.8%. Coupling that with his current 72.9%, he may indeed sneak over the line.

Am also wondering if Vlad will do better than his public numbers. He's currently at 74.4% but he's also the only player on every anonymous ballot thus far (7 for 7). Tied for second (no surprise) is Hoffman, along with Bagwell (6 for 7).

But we'll know in a few days.
   749. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 15, 2017 at 04:04 PM (#5383618)
Vlad (and IRod) will do poorly in the "I know a first ballot HOFer when I see one" precincts, which have yet to report.
   750. RJ in TO Posted: January 15, 2017 at 04:37 PM (#5383629)
Vlad (and IRod) will do poorly in the "I know a first ballot HOFer when I see one" precincts, which have yet to report.
Is there any particular reason why you would think this? For Vlad, I'd guess he do quite well among that group.
   751. sgt23 Posted: January 15, 2017 at 06:11 PM (#5383650)
@ Cardsfanboy. I wouldn't want too just pick anyone, but from a list like the writers get. Plus getting the fans involved would bring more exposure to the game and to the Hall of Fame.
   752. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 15, 2017 at 06:29 PM (#5383657)
Vlad (and IRod) will do poorly in the "I know a first ballot HOFer when I see one" precincts, which have yet to report.

Is there any particular reason why you would think this? For Vlad, I'd guess he do quite well among that group.


I actually think Vlad will do better with the undisclosed guys. That shiny BA, nearly 1500 rbis, the supposedly rocket arm and being able to hit anything within a foot of the strike zone narrative goes a long way with the old school voters.

Irod, I'm not sure but I think he'll maintain his % as I think some guys will dock him for 'roid suspicions but others will see the 13GG, the picking off guys from his knees, 14 AS appearance, nearly .300BA, 2800 hits, etc. and that'll appeal to these voters.

I think 4 guys go in this year. Bagwell, Raines, Vlad, I-rod. I have no opinion on Hoffman other then I don't support relievers and don't care.
   753. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 15, 2017 at 07:02 PM (#5383669)
Is there any particular reason why you would think this? For Vlad, I'd guess he do quite well among that group


Basically not enough big round numbers. And the old school guys I'm talking about have never figured out catchers. I'm talking about guys who would have to think twice about a player with Piazza's bat and IRod's D. Their numbers are dwindling, but I think there are still too many.
   754. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 15, 2017 at 07:11 PM (#5383672)
I'm not new to this site but, this is my first time posting. I think the biggest problem with the Hall Of Fame is the fans have no say. If we didn't buy tickets, merchandise and the over price food and drinks at the stadiums there would be no game, at least not at the level where everyone would be able too view them on T.V. and Radio. We fans should get too pick at least one player each year. After all isn't this game for the fans?
The Hall of Fame isn't "the game," though. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. To be sure, we can all have many gripes about the voting results, but there's zero reason to think that fan voting would make the results better.
   755. RJ in TO Posted: January 15, 2017 at 07:37 PM (#5383682)
I'm in agreement with David. Handing over Hall of Fame voting to the fans just seems like a great way to turn the elections into something similar to what we've seen with the All Star Game voting.
   756. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 15, 2017 at 08:13 PM (#5383705)
I'm in agreement with David. Handing over Hall of Fame voting to the fans just seems like a great way to turn the elections into something similar to what we've seen with the All Star Game voting.


Or the latest U.S. election!
Or the decision to exit the EU!

As we have seen, sometimes the democratic process for all does not yield such good results....
   757. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: January 15, 2017 at 08:38 PM (#5383712)
...so as to save this thread:

As we have seen, sometimes the democratic process for all does not yield such good results, like the 1957 all-star team.
   758. QLE Posted: January 15, 2017 at 09:14 PM (#5383722)
The issue I see with a fan vote involves a question of structure, in several ways:

1.) How will voting be conducted? Many of the most obvious approaches are ones that encourage vote manipulation, in ways that are annoying enough for the All-Star game and alarming for other means.

2.) Will the ballot be the same as for the writers, or something different? If the BBWAA ballot, there's the risk that they will just vote for someone already being supported by the BBWAA, and, if a different ballot, we'd need to consider what the ballot would be.

3.) How would the vote go for election? If there is a 75% requirement, there is a strong risk with a large electorate that no one will get that amount (see the Veterans Committees of much of the 2000s), and, after a couple of rounds of no vote, the electorate could get rather alienated. If it's any system where the most vote-getters would get in regardless of percentage, there is a risk of bloc voting, of the sort that could vote for candidates on grounds that are not the ones intended for the Hall of Fame.

Unless these questions are resolved, I cannot recommend a fan vote that has any binding powers.
   759. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 15, 2017 at 11:58 PM (#5383745)
Remember that time Dan LeBatard turned his ballot into a fan vote?
   760. bachslunch Posted: January 16, 2017 at 03:12 AM (#5383755)
Actually, the Dan LeBatard example might be an option. Instead of having the election totally controlled by the fans, have only one ballot decided by fan vote. If memory serves, they do this now for the Rock Hall election.
   761. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: January 16, 2017 at 08:38 AM (#5383767)
All due respect to the good intentions of the poster who suggested it, but allowing the general public to directly vote people into the Hall is a terrible, terrible idea. For all that some writers are out of touch and less informed than we would like, "the fans" in the aggregate would be worse.

There's a reason people care so much more about the Oscars than the People's Choice Awards.
   762. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 16, 2017 at 10:18 AM (#5383798)
The ESPN vote is up, and seems to be in the tracker now:

ESPN vote

Per Ryan on Twitter, "The ESPN ballots of Crasnick, Lauber, McDonald, O'Connor, Pietruszkiewicz, Rubin, Saxon, Smith, and Taylor were previously in the Tracker."


   763. Chris Fluit Posted: January 16, 2017 at 10:30 AM (#5383809)
All due respect to the good intentions of the poster who suggested it, but allowing the general public to directly vote people into the Hall is a terrible, terrible idea. For all that some writers are out of touch and less informed than we would like, "the fans" in the aggregate would be worse.

Agreed. I remember an online fan vote years ago in which not even Eddie Murray could get 75%.
   764. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2017 at 10:47 AM (#5383812)
All due respect to the good intentions of the poster who suggested it, but allowing the general public to directly vote people into the Hall is a terrible, terrible idea. For all that some writers are out of touch and less informed than we would like, "the fans" in the aggregate would be worse.


I think bachslunch's idea would work. The fan vote makes up one vote, and the fans would be voting off the same ballot as the BBWAA. Ultimately, it's not likely to matter, and I think the extra interest it could generate could be worth it for the Hall itself.

   765. Lassus Posted: January 16, 2017 at 11:02 AM (#5383817)
Vlad still holding on at 74.2%. I wonder if he'll miss by Chass's blank ballot.

Hoffman down to 72.8%, I think he misses. I-Rod at 78.4%.
   766. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: January 16, 2017 at 11:25 AM (#5383838)
I think bachslunch's idea would work. The fan vote makes up one vote, and the fans would be voting off the same ballot as the BBWAA. Ultimately, it's not likely to matter, and I think the extra interest it could generate could be worth it for the Hall itself.
Yeah that would be a different matter. The only issue there would be if that leads to clamoring for the fan vote to count more.

Imagine for example that for several years running none of the candidates on the the "fans ballot" make it, while others are inducted.
   767. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 16, 2017 at 11:28 AM (#5383840)
Vlad still holding on at 74.2%. I wonder if he'll miss by Chass's blank ballot.


I really tried to block that column out. Did Chass say he'd vote for Vlad had he not turned in a blank ballot?
   768. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2017 at 11:34 AM (#5383849)
Did Chass say he'd vote for Vlad had he not turned in a blank ballot?


No. The only way he might vote for him is if Calcaterra or Szymborski wrote a long piece arguing against Vlad's induction.
   769. Booey Posted: January 16, 2017 at 11:54 AM (#5383864)
It's really looking like for all the optimism about clearing the ballot, we're only going to see two inductees after all, isn't it? A bit disappointing.

That said, if Pudge, Vlad, and Hoffman all just miss, that does set us up nicely for a 4 or 5 player induction next year (depending on whether Thome goes first ballot or not).

   770. sgt23 Posted: January 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM (#5383876)
Sorry if I angered anyone on the subject I brought up. I like too read about this subject and hearing other's opinions. I personally don't really see any problems in getting the fans involved, except for those who can't control them selves and would get angry because the vote didn't go their way. Thanks for your replies anyone!
   771. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2017 at 12:09 PM (#5383878)

Sorry if I angered anyone on the subject I brought up. I like too read about this subject and hearing other's opinions. I personally don't really see any problems in getting the fans involved, except for those who can't control them selves and would get angry because the vote didn't go their way. Thanks for your replies anyone!


There was nothing in your post that would have angered anyone, and it's interesting to think about, regardless where anyone falls on the issue. By all means stick around and comment more. I think all of us would agree that BTF could benefit from new voices.

   772. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: January 16, 2017 at 12:28 PM (#5383895)
There was nothing in your post that would have angered anyone, and it's interesting to think about, regardless where anyone falls on the issue. By all means stick around and comment more. I think all of us would agree that BTF could benefit from new voices.
Cosigned 100%.
   773. cardsfanboy Posted: January 16, 2017 at 01:01 PM (#5383918)
From the ESPN Vote.

Players who didn't receive votes: Gary Sheffield, Larry Walker, *Mike Cameron, *J.D. Drew, *Magglio Ordonez, *Derrek Lee, *Tim Wakefield, *Edgar Renteria, *Melvin Mora, *Carlos Guillen, *Casey Blake, *Jason Varitek, *Orlando Cabrera, *Pat Burrell, *Freddy Sanchez, *Arthur Rhodes, *Matt Stairs.


Edgar gets 15 votes and Walker gets none, seems like a travesty to me. Heck Posada and Kent got more votes than Walker.
   774. alilisd Posted: January 16, 2017 at 01:10 PM (#5383923)
773: Yes, I found it very saddening that of 17 people paid to be baseball writers more of them voted for Hoffman than Mussina, and not a single one for Walker.
   775. Man o' Schwar Posted: January 16, 2017 at 01:27 PM (#5383931)
Looking at the ESPN link, Pedro Gomez gets the weirdest ballot award:

Hoffman, Mussina, Smith, McGriff
   776. Rob_Wood Posted: January 16, 2017 at 01:50 PM (#5383939)
I would like to believe that Walker was 11th on a lot of ballots. Either that or all their pens ran out of ink by the time they got down to the W's on the ballot.
   777. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 16, 2017 at 01:50 PM (#5383941)
Heard someone on MLB radio talking about revising standards for newer players on the ballots - nice to hear. But then he was saying there will never be another closer like Hoffman or Rivera (and there will definitely never be another 300 game winner).

18/15 years
2.87/2.73 ERA
1035/920 games
1089.1/950.2 innings
141/154 ERA+

How is Hoffman going to easily get elected with the 1st set of numbers but Francisco Rodriguez will probably not make the 2nd ballot? Saves - 601/430.
   778. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 16, 2017 at 02:03 PM (#5383945)
I think all of us would agree that BTF could benefit from new voices.

Yes, indeed. Opposing voices that are polite and interesting? I have no problem debating with people like that.
   779. sgt23 Posted: January 16, 2017 at 02:25 PM (#5383948)
Okay thanks guys.
   780. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 16, 2017 at 03:07 PM (#5383966)
While I wouldn't vote for Hoffman, I'd rather he get in and clear the ballot so guys like Mussina, Martinez and Walker have better chances in the next few years. The die was cast when he got 67% in year 1. Better he gets in than he lingers like Lee Smith

   781. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 16, 2017 at 03:10 PM (#5383967)
Does anyone else think the IRod-Vlad-Hoffman group is going to be a pileup that could just as easily induct or fail for all three? In the last couple of years, it seems like players with a lot of support (50% or over) tend to have clear differences (plus or minus) between their pre-results and final vote. Hoffman's 3.8% increase last year was one of the smaller differences. I could easily see IRod coming last out of the trio, maybe still squeaking through.
   782. Rob_Wood Posted: January 16, 2017 at 03:19 PM (#5383969)
Yes, a belated Welcome to Sgt23. My advice is to post, post, and post some more -- post as much as you want. Posters on this site run the gamut in every direction you can imagine. Some posters are very thoughtful and considerate. Others not so much. All are welcome.
   783. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 16, 2017 at 03:29 PM (#5383976)
Heard someone on MLB radio talking about revising standards for newer players on the ballots - nice to hear. But then he was saying there will never be another closer like Hoffman or Rivera (and there will definitely never be another 300 game winner).


Right around the time it was clear Hoffman was going set the all-time saves record, it seemed like there was a "If he played in NY, he'd be as highly-regarded as Rivera!" narrative that broke out. This ignores, well, lots of stuff. But it's obvious a whole lot of people have bought into it, considering Billy Wagner's on the same ballot and getting about 10% of the vote.

As for 300-game winners, it's kind of weird because that's obviously not the standard. It might be the standard for "automatic" induction in the eyes of voters, but they just elected Smoltz and Pedro, are clearly going to put in Mussina, and clearly *were* going to put in Schilling. There are a ton of non-300 reasons why they aren't voting Mussina, and some (though fewer) that explain pre-foot in mouth Schilling. Now, I've seen Schilling's win total cited as a reason, but there's a difference between "He didn't win 300" and "He only won 216"
   784. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 16, 2017 at 03:34 PM (#5383978)
Does anyone else think the IRod-Vlad-Hoffman group is going to be a pileup that could just as easily induct or fail for all three? In the last couple of years, it seems like players with a lot of support (50% or over) tend to have clear differences (plus or minus) between their pre-results and final vote. Hoffman's 3.8% increase last year was one of the smaller differences. I could easily see IRod coming last out of the trio, maybe still squeaking through.


I mean, I-Rod's been steadily dropping since the 140 ballot mark. I think it's unlikely he holds on. Vlad is kind of holding steady, but it's too close to call. Hoffman did get a boost last year, but he's right on the line with that boost
   785. Lars6788 Posted: January 16, 2017 at 03:50 PM (#5383989)
How is Hoffman going to easily get elected with the 1st set of numbers but Francisco Rodriguez will probably not make the 2nd ballot? Saves - 601/430.


K-Rod is going to suffer from bouncing around too much - Hoffman has spent time with other organizations but he's still essentially viewed as a San Diego guy, much like actual one team guy Tony Gwynn was.

Maybe that is the Lee Smith's problem - he was a competent closer for too many teams but wasn't viewed as the guy for a prolonged period of time.

K-Rod also has had domestic problems that people will casually bring up like it defines what he did off the field.
   786. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 16, 2017 at 04:16 PM (#5384009)
Does anyone else think the IRod-Vlad-Hoffman group is going to be a pileup that could just as easily induct or fail for all three?

Yes, it looks that way. They would almost certainly all get in eventually, but there would be considerable collateral damage to other candidates if the ballot glut continues. I realize that there are arguments both ways on most of the non-first ballot guys, but it's unfortunate that these players are evaluated in such a different environment than those that went before them. Even more unfair that it happens at the same time that the Veterans Committee process seems incapable of providing a remedy.
   787. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 16, 2017 at 04:37 PM (#5384027)
but there would be considerable collateral damage to other candidates if the ballot glut continues


Other than Walker, who's really in danger here that's deserving? I mean, of not getting elected at all, not just being forced to wait a year or two longer than they should?

I know Edmonds was a guy people were disappointed to see drop off, but 60 WAR and just okay traditional stats...I mean, I don't think he gets elected anyway
   788. Fred Flintstone, Premier NL Save Leader Posted: January 16, 2017 at 05:00 PM (#5384039)
Rob Gillies ballot:

Vlad Guerrero
Larry Walker

That's it...
His vote wasn't made public last year.
According to the tracker his ballot doesn't have any gains or losses for returning candidates.

I'm sure he is an objective non-provincial journalist/voter and that nothing can be gleaned from his twitter profile:
"Chief of Bureau for The Associated Press in Canada. Baseball Hall of Fame voter. Canadian."

He left out "Hoser".
   789. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 16, 2017 at 05:00 PM (#5384040)
Other than Walker, who's really in danger here that's deserving? I mean, of not getting elected at all, not just being forced to wait a year or two longer than they should?

Walker, Kent & Sheffield are all candidates who would benefit from the more detailed consideration of a less-crowded ballot. Same for Trammell, who completed his eligibility last year. Maybe they don't make it, but we shouldn't ignore that they are being considered in a much different environment than those who went before the ballot glut.
   790. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 16, 2017 at 05:25 PM (#5384054)
They would almost certainly all get in eventually, but there would be considerable collateral damage to other candidates if the ballot glut continues.


They will all almost certainly get in next year. Most obvious collateral damage will be Edgar having to wait until 2019 and Thome getting Killebrewed. Thome might well have gotten Killebrewed anyway.

Could slow Moose and Schilling as well.
   791. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 16, 2017 at 05:28 PM (#5384056)
He left out "Hoser".

And also Tim Raines.
   792. QLE Posted: January 16, 2017 at 05:42 PM (#5384063)

Same for Trammell, who completed his eligibility last year.


Trammell had a decade on the ballot before the glut hit, including some years when there were five or fewer people on the ballot who merited induction- the fact that he didn't have any traction is due to issues much deeper than merely lack of space.
   793. TJ Posted: January 16, 2017 at 07:55 PM (#5384114)
Yeah, that Gillies ballot might be the worst yet.
   794. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 16, 2017 at 07:57 PM (#5384115)
749: a 60 WAR corner outfielder with PED ties who was considered a malcontent is unlikely to get elected regardless of glut. Qle is right on Trammell who had a decade pre glut and did nothing. He's deserving, but ballot glut was not his issue. Kent will have his shot with voters in a few years.
   795. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 16, 2017 at 07:59 PM (#5384117)
Yeah, that Gillies ballot might be the worst yet.

I would lean toward Pedro Gomez being worse, thanks to the inclusion of the two closers (but no Wagner). Plus, McGriff is probably a worse choice than either Walker or Guerrero.
   796. JPWF1313 Posted: January 16, 2017 at 09:45 PM (#5384159)
I think the Murray Chass FU ballot is the worst.
   797. JPWF1313 Posted: January 16, 2017 at 09:47 PM (#5384162)
Given how much guys like Bagwell, Raines, Bonds and even Edgar dropped off from the tracker voter to the final vote it looks like Pudge is in a lot of trouble.

Hoffman actually gained 3.8 percent so he may actually be in better shape, but it's going to be close.
   798. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 16, 2017 at 10:08 PM (#5384167)
The list at #731 forecast 11 of 15 ESPN votes for Schilling. He actually pulled 7 of 17.
   799. QLE Posted: January 16, 2017 at 10:18 PM (#5384170)
The list at #731 forecast 11 of 15 ESPN votes for Schilling. He actually pulled 7 of 17.


For that matter, comparing predicted votes to actual ones:

Martinez +7
Guerrero +4
Raines +4
Mussina +3
Ramirez +3
Rodriguez +3
Sosa +3
Bagwell +2
Bonds +2
Clemens +2
Smith +2
Hoffman +1
Kent +1
McGriff +1
Wagner +1
Posada -1
Schilling -4

Even beyond the fact that it was a larger electorate than polled (17 voters, as opposed to 15), it seems a lot of minds changed in a year's time- wonder if we know anything concerning why....
   800. TJ Posted: January 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM (#5384186)
The Gillies, Gomez and Chase ballots are good examples of why I wish the BBWAA had some sort of peer review process.
Page 8 of 10 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 24 April 2017: Talking politics (and baseball) with the mayor
(637 - 2:33pm, Apr 27)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogI'll have a venti iced OMNICHATTER, please, April 27, 2017
(18 - 2:32pm, Apr 27)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogOT - March 2017 NBA thread
(2479 - 2:29pm, Apr 27)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogESPN will cut 100 on-air personalities today
(244 - 2:29pm, Apr 27)
Last: Renegade (((JE)))

NewsblogNoah Syndergaard scratched from start | MLB.com
(5 - 2:25pm, Apr 27)
Last: Renegade (((JE)))

NewsblogIs baseball too slow? The battle lines are drawn -- and MLB is taking a side
(23 - 2:25pm, Apr 27)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogInside Baseball | Where Potential Sellers Stand Right Now
(1 - 2:13pm, Apr 27)
Last: Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan

NewsblogOT: March-April 2017 Soccer Thread
(323 - 2:06pm, Apr 27)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogESPN layoffs: A running list of reporters, anchors fired by the network - The Washington Post
(56 - 1:57pm, Apr 27)
Last: Bote Man

NewsblogProdigious talent not Aaron Judge’s only strength | New York Post
(11 - 1:49pm, Apr 27)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogMarlins expecting to finalize $1.3B deal to sell team to Jeb Bush, Derek Jeter group
(120 - 1:41pm, Apr 27)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-27-2017
(17 - 1:36pm, Apr 27)
Last: TDF, situational idiot

Sox TherapyChris Sale Is A Terrible Person
(19 - 1:34pm, Apr 27)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogRed Sox have no clubhouse issues with Dustin Pedroia, Matt Barnes
(4 - 1:15pm, Apr 27)
Last: DKDC

Sox TherapyWitty Minor League Thread Title Here
(4 - 1:13pm, Apr 27)
Last: Jose is El Absurd Pollo

Page rendered in 0.8797 seconds
47 querie(s) executed