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

Thursday, December 27, 2012

The 2013 Hall Of Fame Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

The 2013 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

Updated 1:55 ~ 194 Full Ballots ~ (33.9% of vote ~ based on last year)

70.1 - Biggio
60.3 - Piazza
59.8 - Raines
59.3 - Bagwell
59.3 - J. Morris
45.4 - Bonds
44.3 - Clemens
39.2 - Schilling
38.1 - L. Smith
37.6 - Trammell
35.6 - E. Martinez
20.1 - McGriff
18.6 - D. Murphy
16.5 - L. Walker
14.4 - McGwire
13.4 - S. Sosa
12.9 - Raffy
  8.8 - Mattingly
———————————
  3.1 - Lofton
  2.1 - Bernie Williams
  1.7 - P. Rose (goofy write-in’s)
  0.5 - D. Wells
  0.5 - J. Franco
  0.5 - S. Alomar Jr.
  0.5 - S. Green

Repoz Posted: December 27, 2012 at 01:08 PM | 832 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 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 2 of 9 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   101. Rob_Wood Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:21 AM (#4335038)
Bravo Chaz.
   102. vivaelpujols Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:30 AM (#4335046)
Beltran's at 62.3 WAR. His last three season were 3.6, 4.5 and .6 (in less than a half season). He'll be 36, So I think 3 WAR next year, 2.5 than 1.5 seems like a good bet. 70 WAR for his career. What's the highest WAR of a player not elected?
   103. SoSH U at work Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:41 AM (#4335053)
What's the highest WAR of a player not elected?


Of those players who have been truly rejected, Lou Whitaker at 71.4. Bonds is obviously on top, and Bagwell is also ahead, but the former hasn't been rejected at all yet and Bagwell is likely to get in sometime in the next few years. Neither seems like the answer to your question.

   104. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:45 AM (#4335057)
Of those players who have been truly rejected, Lou Whitaker at 71.4 (Bonds is obviously on top, and Bagwell is also ahead, but the former hasn't been rejected once and Bagwell is likely to get in sometime in the next few years).

Well for those not on the ballot, it's Pete Rose, 76.7.
   105. SoSH U at work Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:48 AM (#4335060)

Well for those not on the ballot, it's Pete Rose, 76.7.


And I think of him as similar to Bagwell and Bonds in that he's not the answer to the question viva's asking.
   106. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: December 31, 2012 at 02:34 AM (#4335084)
And I think of him as similar to Bagwell and Bonds in that he's not the answer to the question viva's asking.


So Lou Whitaker is the best player (by using WAR) not in the HOF among those who were eligible but no longer are? And he dropped off after 1 ballot? That's....something.

Edit: I know I'm late to the Whitaker party, but wow, that's really off. Whitaker is only getting about 8 wins from defense and 5 from baserunning, so his value shouldn't be that hard to see. Positional adjustments was likely part of it, but his raw numbers also don't look that great. How much of his value on offense came from park adjustments?
   107. Baldrick Posted: December 31, 2012 at 02:53 AM (#4335098)
Edit: I know I'm late to the Whitaker party, but wow, that's really off. Whitaker is only getting about 8 wins from defense and 5 from baserunning, so his value shouldn't be that hard to see. Positional adjustments was likely part of it, but his raw numbers also don't look that great. How much of his value on offense came from park adjustments?

He was a great-hitting second baseman, who had a long career, and who drew a ton of walks. And he basically played his whole career immediately prior to the sillyball era.

He was an All-Star for five straight seasons from 83-87, and then basically played just as well for six or seven straight years after that - except that he stopped playing everyday. His WAR/per162 actually went UP after he stopped being an All-Star.
   108. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: December 31, 2012 at 03:06 AM (#4335105)
He was a great-hitting second baseman, who had a long career, and who drew a ton of walks. And he basically played his whole career immediately prior to the sillyball era.


I think the last three points are probably a large part of it. He doesn't look like a great hitter, though, with a raw career line of .276/.363/.426. That's why I was asking about the park, which is probably part of it as well.
   109. vivaelpujols Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:25 AM (#4335142)
Wow, Whitaker had 18 full seasons and at least a 100 OPS+ in 16 of them. That's amazing from someone who only had a 117 OPS+ for his career. I guess his problem was that he was too consistent and never had a MVP quality year. Kind of like Palmiero.
   110. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:29 AM (#4335143)
I think the last three points are probably a large part of it. He doesn't look like a great hitter, though, with a raw career line of .276/.363/.426. That's why I was asking about the park, which is probably part of it as well.

Just eyeballing PF's for the years of his career, doesn't look like it hurt him much. Detroit was right around average most of the time. Slightly under occasionally, but not really enough to make much difference.
.789 OPs doesn't lok hugely impressive, but when the average 2B can't sniff a .700, it is really damn good. It really depends what you are expecting though. 2B tend to get the shaft from the writers, as they don't get the defensive allowances they seem to make for SS/CF, and their offensive numbers can't compare with corner sluggers.

Also Whitaker really has no peak whatsoever. It's mostly just a really long string of 4 win seasons:

Black Ink Batting - 1 (743), Average HOFer ? 27
Gray Ink Batting - 31 (770), Average HOFer ? 144
   111. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 31, 2012 at 06:39 AM (#4335151)
.

Gainers?
16.9% : Tim Raines 48.7% to 65.6%
I'm impressed with the BBWAA in spite of myself. I really thought they might screw the pooch when it came to Raines.

Beltran's at 62.3 WAR. His last three season were 3.6, 4.5 and .6 (in less than a half season). He'll be 36, So I think 3 WAR next year, 2.5 than 1.5 seems like a good bet. 70 WAR for his career. What's the highest WAR of a player not elected?


That's been answered, but one note about his performance in the last couple of years that's encouraging wrt Beltran's longevity is, despite the surgery, that he's held his own in RF. His arm plays there, and by my eye and by the numbers he's a perfectly cromulent fielder. Meaning that he's still got the corners and 1B to play in, which bodes well for his longevity.

I think he'd be stretched in CF, and with his injury history it's exactly the kind of move that could end his career. I understand why the Cards sent him out there for the equivalent of five games in 2012, but they should resist it if they can.

So Lou Whitaker is the best player (by using WAR) not in the HOF among those who were eligible but no longer are? And he dropped off after 1 ballot? That's....something.


That it is. Guess it doesn't bode well for Beltran. Having made the case for him on the previous page, I suppose I should note the obverse here. He made only 7 All-Star games, not terrible but not all that impressive for a HOFer. The 3 GGs are consistent with my impression of him as a fine but not superb fielder, and while that may not hurt his case, it sure doesn't help him any.

Literally one point of black ink may not be a death knell, but is there a HOFer with less (I think there is, but can't recall whom)? Like Whitaker, Beltran gets his value all over the place. He picks up pieces here and there, without any signature accomplishment, AND he plays a position that historically been tougher to get in through.

It's heartening, how quickly Raines is moving towards 75%. You can play around with Beltran's case and see how he's comparable to Raines. Beltran being a fine CFer is presumably a plus for the voters over Raines being a better fielder at a less important position, but they don't distinguish as much as they should between CF and the corners. Raines has the higher number of SBs, but less power. Raines had the runs scored, but Beltran was as much an RBI guy as he was a run scorer...

Maybe it's silly to compare Beltran to Raines, but I'm having trouble finding a good comp in CF for Beltran. Maybe Edmonds? Jimmy was a comparative monster as a hitter, and by reputation a better fielder. As of the end of 2012 Beltran still had 100 games to go before catching Edmonds (but 400 more PAs). If Edmonds isn't considered a HOFer by the bulk of the MSM, I don't see how Beltran will be.

Another cause for concern for Beltran's case (unless he has another 500-600 productive PAs in him) is how far Larry Walker is from election. Take Walker completely out of Coors, throw away all his Coors numbers, and his OPS is still a hair better than Beltran's, with an overall career that's about as long. Granted, Walker's a RFer, but he has 7 GGs there and iirc was considered a better fielder than Beltran, for their positions. Walker also has the MVP, but isn't pulling as much as 15% of the vote this year.

Oof. I've been underestimating Walker for a long time, and found the arguments in his favor a little too contemptuous of concerns over how much Coors inflated his stats, but the comparison with Beltran really does put Walker in a good light.

I do think Beltran will go in (and go in pretty easily) if he gets his numbers up to 400 HRs and 1500 RBIs and runs scored (is that too obvious to bother noting? With the BBWAA conceivably voting in only Jack Morris this year I'm not sure what is and isn't obvious), but if he's much short of that, maybe even 70 WAR won't get him all that close. It's not difficult to imagine Beltran getting to, say 360 home runs, and 1375 RBIs and runs scored and never really getting the momentum in the voting that other worthy guys never got; guys like D. Evans, Walker, Edmonds, Jimmy Wynn, Whitaker...

edit: "Also Whitaker really has no peak whatsoever. It's mostly just a really long string of 4 win seasons:"

Beltran does have his 8 win season (which only got him to 4th in the MVP voting), but otherwise he's comparable to Lou, with four seasons of 5 or 6 wins, and those spread out, at that.
.
   112. John Northey Posted: December 31, 2012 at 07:28 AM (#4335158)
Raines I feared would get the Whittaker treatment due to his not being an obvious candidate by traditional measures (no 3000 hits, didn't win an MVP, viewed as a 'Rickey Light" by many). Luckily enough voters remembered the signature moments (amazing first game after being screwed over by the owners collusion, amazing All-Star game that same year, being one of the most feared players in the NL for years due to his ability to win a game in many ways) instead of the years as a backup (after 1992 played 9 years with a max of 133 games, 5 years sub 100). Luckily some people starting pushing for him early, pointing out how Raines got on base as often as Tony Gwynn but just did it differently (walks more often instead of singles) and that as a leadoff hitter it didn't matter as much how he got on. Luckily an argument that seems to be selling.
   113. John Northey Posted: December 31, 2012 at 07:44 AM (#4335163)
FYI: to stick for the next ballot (5%) you need roughly 30 votes, thus anyone over 43% is safe for next year even if every last voter left ignores them. Given roughly 125-150 ballots will probably be found (given historical trends) that means 20%-24% will lock it in. Statistically anyone over 17% is a safe bet now, by the end it'll be around 12-13% to be a lock.
   114. T.J. Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:13 AM (#4335192)
being one of the most feared players in the NL for years

He's the Jim Rice of the National League! :)
   115. dlf Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:48 AM (#4335212)
He was an All-Star for five straight seasons from 83-87, and then basically played just as well for six or seven straight years after that - except that he stopped playing everyday. His WAR/per162 actually went UP after he stopped being an All-Star.


The last few years of his career, Whitaker became a platoon player. That would artificially inflate his rate stats.
   116. John Northey Posted: December 31, 2012 at 11:43 AM (#4335255)
T.J. - so true! However, unlike Rice, Raines was worthy of the HOF yet is still out. Interesting to compare the two in voting...
Rice: 29.8-35.3-37.6-42.9-29.4-51.5-57.9-55.1-52.2-54.5-59.5-64.8-63.5-72.2-76.4
Raines: 24.3-22.6-30.4-37.5-48.7-64.8 (as of 71 ballots)

Rice had a big drop in year 5, and a minor drop in each of 8/9 before his climb to the top. The big drop was the Ryan/Brett/Yount/Fisk ballot with Dale Murphy also (and for Jay fans, George Bell who got 6 votes). I was certain Raines would see the same this year as Rice in year 5 but it doesn't appear to be the case, in fact if early numbers hold he'll have a big jump this year instead.

FYI: Rice's other two drops were due to Ozzie Smith, Andre Dawson, and Alan Trammell (to a small degree) then the following year Eddie Murray, Ryan Sandberg & Lee Smith. Strong classes but nothing compared to this year. I wonder if Raines is a big winner of the PED ballot due to a (bizarre) view that fast players didn't use (despite the proven benefits in track and field) thus writers are voting for him as a 'screw PED users' vote.
   117. Rennie's Tenet Posted: December 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4335260)
I'm impressed with the BBWAA in spite of myself. I really thought they might screw the pooch when it came to Raines.


Who took the biggest cocaine penalty (in terms of production) with respect to the Hall of Fame? It doesn't seem like Raines or Hernandez lost much career production. I'm guessing it would be one of Parker, Gooden, Strawberry or Blue -- is there someone else who would be a likely Hall of Famer but got badly disrupted by cocaine and hasn't made it?
   118. SoSH U at work Posted: December 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4335262)
Rice had a big drop in year 5, and a minor drop in each of 8/9 before his climb to the top. The big drop was the Ryan/Brett/Yount/Fisk ballot with Dale Murphy also (and for Jay fans, George Bell who got 6 votes). I was certain Raines would see the same this year as Rice in year 5 but it doesn't appear to be the case, in fact if early numbers hold he'll have a big jump this year instead.


Raines' Repoz count figures (particularly earlier in the count) outpoll his final numbers more than just about anyone else. He has been making progress (and last year's numbers were particularly encouraging), but he's not likely to hold all of the gains he shows here. Still, considering this year's ballot, if he makes any gains at all this year, or even just holds steady, that's a really good sign for his eventual induction.

   119. Hello Rusty Kuntz, Goodbye Rusty Cars Posted: December 31, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4335297)
Hold on, shouldn't this be the 2013 ballot collecting gizmo. I know it's still 2012 to us but it is the 2013 ballot.


There is a .05% margin of error in the name.
   120. Don Malcolm Posted: December 31, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4335314)
Votes/ballot still seems to be holding steady at ~6.8 per.

Any way to determine the Biggio-Bagwell distribution? Is it just three guys who didn't put Bags on with Biggio or is it a more complicated situation than that??
   121. TomH Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4335330)
re: black ink and the Hall....

Mike Piazza: Zero. Led league in GIDP once. And never won an MVP award. A bazillion grey ink tho :)

Lou = Bpobby Grich, and at least Grich had more of a peak plus he was in the playoffs 5 times. Sweet Lou suffered like all other well-rounded players suffer; the agony of not having one Single Skill by which they become famous.
   122. Adam S Posted: December 31, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4335392)
Same question as Don M in relation to Clemens/Bonds. Is it 1 voter with Clemens but not Bonds, or are there Bonds but not Clemens voters out there? If the former, who is the voter?
   123. thetailor Posted: December 31, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4335435)
Based upon last year's hits and misses, no entries into the Hall at this time.

70.2 - Biggio n/a
67.6 - Bagwell n/a
63.5 - Raines - 4% = 59.5%
63.5 - Piazza n/a
62.2 - J. Morris + 8% = 70.2%
48.6 - Clemens n/a
47.3 - Bonds n/a
36.5 - Trammell n/a
35.1 - L. Smith + 6% = 41.1%
35.1 - Schilling n/a
31.1 - E. Martinez + 4% = 35.1%
18.9 - D. Murphy n/a
17.6 - McGriff n/a
17.6 - McGwire n/a
16.2 - Raffy n/a
13.5 - L. Walker + 5% = 18.5%
13.5 - S. Sosa n/a
6.8 - Mattingly + 7% = 13.8%
———————————
2.7 - D. Wells n/a
2.7 - Bernie Williams + 6% = 8.7%
2.7 - Lofton n/a
2.7 - P. Rose (goofy write-in)
   124. John Northey Posted: December 31, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4335436)
TomH: Wow, I didn't notice that Piazza never won a HR title or any other title that counts for black ink. Twice led in OPS+ (1995/1997), twice was 2nd in MVP, 4th is the best for HR total surprisingly enough and the same for RBI's. 3rd for hits one year, and something I laughed at - 6th in defensive rWAR (1993).
   125. CrosbyBird Posted: December 31, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4335437)
HOF ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Trammell, Walker.

I'd sub McGwire for Martinez but otherwise, this would be my ballot. If there were room for 11 names, I would add Palmeiro, but I would keep Martinez on the "just out" list.
   126. SoSH U at work Posted: December 31, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4335451)
67.6 - Bagwell n/a


Bagwell was almost flat from the final Repoz to the actual count.

As noted, these +/- figures have considerable variance from year to year. Jack was 8 percent better in the actual than the final Repoz figure, but that wasn't consistent with previous years.
   127. brutus Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4335499)
Repoz,

Not sure if you got this, but Henry Schulman confirmed with me that he did end up voting for Biggio.
   128. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4335502)
The sporting news released some ballots today. I'd link them,but I'm posting from my phone right now.
   129. Rennie's Tenet Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4335512)
Three Sporting News ballots break: 2 each for Bagwell, Biggio, Morris, Paizza, Schilling, 1 each for Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, Trammell, Mattingly, Smith, Raines.
   130. DL from MN Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4335526)
no entries into the Hall at this time


There's a guaranteed entry already - Deacon White. I'm not sure his grandkids are still alive but he's a good choice.
   131. Adam B. Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4335539)
It would be a damn shame if Wells and Lofton fell off the ballot. Not sure that either belongs in, but both deserve serious consideration in a non-flooded year.
   132. ajnrules Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4335570)
Bob Hille, deputy editor: Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris, Rafael Palmeiro, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa, Alan Trammell
Garry D. Howard, editor-in-chief: Don Mattingly, Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Lee Smith
Stan McNeal, national baseball writer:Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Curt Schillng


How astonishingly bad is that Howard vote? Schilling is pretty much the only good thing about it. I'm predicting the attendance at this year's ceremony will be a record breaking low thanks to guys like Howard.
   133. John Northey Posted: December 31, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4335607)
How could someone who seems to not know much about the guys on the HOF ballot be the editor-in-chief of The Sporting News? I mean, come on, 3 guys who are not in the top dozen of this ballot while ignoring pre-PED era greats Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, and even someone better than the 3 he picked in Dale Murphy? He literally picked the 3 lowest in WAR guys who returned to the ballot, 3 of the 4 worst by WAR7 (McGriff is below Mattingly), the 3 worst by JAWS, 3 of the 4 worst by Bill James HOF Career Standards (Murphy is worse than Morris). If he was trying to put together as poor a ballot as possible without voting for new guys he sure did it (not factoring in Schilling).
   134. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 31, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4335616)
People, people, again I must remind you that despite one or two problematic ballots here or there, we can still respect the consensus.
   135. Rob_Wood Posted: December 31, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4335621)
nfw
   136. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 31, 2012 at 08:47 PM (#4335655)
TomH: Wow, I didn't notice that Piazza never won a HR title or any other title that counts for black ink. Twice led in OPS+ (1995/1997), twice was 2nd in MVP, 4th is the best for HR total surprisingly enough and the same for RBI's. 3rd for hits one year, and something I laughed at - 6th in defensive rWAR (1993).


You know what's wacky, though? Piazza for his career, as a hitter, is Mark Teixiera in Teixiera's prime; the prime that resulted in Teix getting his 8/175 deal from the Yankees.

That's how freaking good Piazza was.
   137. Peter Farted Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:10 PM (#4335663)
Something's not right with Trammell's percent. When there's only 75 votes, there can't be two candidates within 0.6 points of each other. Unless someone gave Trammell half a vote?
   138. Chris Fluit Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4335668)
I'm sure it's already been stated on this thread but it would be a real shame if Lofton becomes a one-and-done.
   139. E., Hinske Posted: January 01, 2013 at 03:37 AM (#4335776)
Second the question on Bonds/Clemens. How they aren't identical - obviously in on career and then x% won't vote for them because of steriods - I'd like to know.
   140. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 01, 2013 at 04:00 AM (#4335777)
He's the Jim Rice of the National League! :)

Now that Dave Parker is off the ballot I guess he can take over that title.
   141. MelOtt4 Posted: January 01, 2013 at 04:35 AM (#4335780)
Listen and you can hear Cooperstown praying Biggio, Morris, Bagwell anyone gets over 75%.
   142. sharkbites Posted: January 01, 2013 at 12:34 PM (#4335857)
Looking at the projections, it looks like there could be 5 players who end up in the 65-75% range. Anyone think it may be possible to have a class of 8 in 2014? Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Biggio & Piazza (gain from writers withholding them from first year induction), Bagwell & Raines (ballot momentum), and Morris (15th year bump). That would probably be the greatest class since the very first one. I'm trying to put a more positive spin on no one getting 75% this year.
   143. Bob Meta-Meusel Posted: January 01, 2013 at 01:07 PM (#4335877)
Second the question on Bonds/Clemens. How they aren't identical - obviously in on career and then x% won't vote for them because of steriods - I'd like to know.


Well, if I were a person who cared about steroids and not in a "keep all the bums out" kind of way, I could almost fathom voting for Clemens and not Bonds based on the idea that Bonds has at least sort of admitted that he took something but didn't know what it was and was convicted on the one count of obstructing justice while Clemens wasn't convicted of anything and has denied everything.

On the other hand, going the other way, the only thing I can think of is that someone might ding Clemens for throwing the bat at Piazza or getting himself thrown out of a playoff game, or some personal grudge.
   144. bigglou115 Posted: January 01, 2013 at 01:21 PM (#4335888)
Well, if I were a person who cared about steroids and not in a "keep all the bums out" kind of way, I could almost fathom voting for Clemens and not Bonds based on the idea that Bonds has at least sort of admitted that he took something but didn't know what it was and was convicted on the one count of obstructing justice while Clemens wasn't convicted of anything and has denied everything.


Conversely, I could envision a writer giving Bonds credit for sort of confessing while Clemens gets dinged for lying in the face of "obvious proof."
   145. Booey Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:00 PM (#4335918)
I wonder if Raines is a big winner of the PED ballot due to a (bizarre) view that fast players didn't use (despite the proven benefits in track and field) thus writers are voting for him as a 'screw PED users' vote.


I was kinda thinking the same thing. The steroid hysteria may actually help someone like Raines; for the hardliners who don't want to vote for any of the bulky 90's sluggers who even might have used PED's, a little guy who peaked in the 80's rather than the 90's and who accrued most of his value through speed rather than power seems like the perfect alternative.

I though Trammell might get a similar bump - especially since a very similar player in Larkin was elected just last year - but it hasn't happened. Ah, well. Still glad to see Rock getting some recognition.
   146.     Hey Gurl Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4335928)
Egads.

If the voters look at this ballot and decide only jack morris belongs, it is officially time to dump them. Cooperstown should be embarrassed.
   147. LargeBill Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:24 PM (#4335940)
142. sharkbites Posted: January 01, 2013 at 12:34 PM (#4335857)
Looking at the projections, it looks like there could be 5 players who end up in the 65-75% range. Anyone think it may be possible to have a class of 8 in 2014? Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Biggio & Piazza (gain from writers withholding them from first year induction), Bagwell & Raines (ballot momentum), and Morris (15th year bump). That would probably be the greatest class since the very first one. I'm trying to put a more positive spin on no one getting 75% this year.


No chance that with all the overwhelmingly qualified candidates that anywhere near 8 could get 75%. If none get in this year then next year just gets tougher to get agreement.
   148. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:31 PM (#4335944)
I don't think anyone has posted Jose de Jesus Ortiz' ballot yet:
Bonds, Roger Clemens, Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Lee Smith and Sammy Sosa.


Source
   149. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4335950)
I think Maddux will be the only one that gets elected in 2014. Sportswriters really do seem to be that stupid.

Glavine: Can't let him in, he wasn't even the best pitcher on his own team.
Thomas: Built like he used steroids.
Bagwell: See Thomas.
Biggio: Played with Bagwell. Guilt by association.
Piazza: Lousy WAR. And bacne is icky.
Raines: He wasn't Rickey Henderson.
Morris: Ok, you got me. Maddux and Morris.
   150. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:53 PM (#4335972)
Roch Kubatko:

I'm including Bagwell, who attracts suspicion but has never failed a test, never been on trial. My ballot, which must be mailed by Monday, also includes Biggio, Martinez (yes, despite the fact that he was primarily a designated hitter), McGriff, Morris, Murphy, Raines, Smith and Trammel.


Source
   151. ajnrules Posted: January 01, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4336005)
Part 2 from Kubatko
Update: After much deliberation, I've decided to include Piazza. Not a big fan of his work behind the plate, but how many catchers were more prolific beside it? And the PED suspicions shouldn't keep him out any more than they should force Bagwell's exclusion.
   152. icho1977 Posted: January 01, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4336009)

MLBRandomFandom.com

Nick Cesare Hall of fame Ballot (8):

Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Raines, Martinez and Trammell.


Repoz nick cesare is member bbwaa?

   153. Peter Farted Posted: January 01, 2013 at 03:38 PM (#4336027)
right now the odds of anyone getting 75% is low

Also, don't forget that last year, Larkin sampled at MORE than his actual total, and no one even samples at 75% yet.

I really, really hoped this would be Biggio's year. There's still a chance but it's not looking good.
   154. Repoz Posted: January 01, 2013 at 03:53 PM (#4336044)
Repoz nick cesare is member bbwaa?

I don't believe so...and that Jon Becker with him seems to be a different Becker from the west coast BBWAA voter as their ballots are not the same.



   155. Repoz Posted: January 01, 2013 at 04:18 PM (#4336078)
Can somebody help me with the Chris Jenkins HOF ballot. Thank you. (makes sharp, heel-turning u-turn to hell)
   156. John Northey Posted: January 01, 2013 at 04:25 PM (#4336086)
Given last year you needed 430 of 573 ballots to get in what percentage of remaining ballots (79 counted so far) is needed to get in?

75.7 Biggio
76.1 Bagwell
76.7 Raines
76.7 Piazza
77.1 J. Morris
79.4 Clemens
79.4 Bonds
81 Schilling
81.2 Trammell
81.2 L. Smith
82 E. Martinez
84.2 D. Murphy
84.2 McGwire
84.4 McGriff
84.6 Raffy
84.6 S. Sosa
84.8 L. Walker
86 Mattingly
86.4 Lofton
86.6 D. Wells
86.6 Bernie Williams
86.6 Pete Rose

So all have a shot still, but obviously some need a lot more help than others.
   157. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: January 01, 2013 at 04:48 PM (#4336111)
@Repoz: So he voted for...nobody?
   158. Repoz Posted: January 01, 2013 at 04:54 PM (#4336114)
@Repoz: So he voted for...nobody?

Can't tell. I assume his ballot is blank...just not sure if he handed it in or not.





   159. John DiFool2 Posted: January 01, 2013 at 06:16 PM (#4336228)
2B tend to get the shaft from the writers, as they don't get the defensive allowances they seem to make for SS/CF, and their offensive numbers can't compare with corner sluggers.


Hell, only shortstops & catchers get any sort of that kind of adjustment. CFers and 3B get the shaft too.

Anyone think it may be possible to have a class of 8 in 2014?


Only if they allow more names per ballot (which if nobody is elected they very well might consider).
   160. DL from MN Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:51 PM (#4336351)
BBTF only elected 8 and we were filling the ballots (>9 names/ballot).
   161. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4336899)
I'm interested in seeing how many more votes Clemens and Bonds get as compared with McGwire and Palmiero and Sosa- especially Bonds- there is likely a number of voters who will vote for a 'roider if they think the player would have been HOFer with or without PEDs- Bonds will get more votes than McGgwire/Raffy/Sosa and I think a chunk of those "extra" voters are going to fall into that "adjuster" category (those who try to "adjust" for Ped use rather than use it as an automatic dis-qualifier).

I'm also interested in seeing Clemens fares as compared to Bonds- Clemens was not just acquitted, and if you were paying attention, you can't blame the jury, the Government's evidence was shockingly weak...



   162. Kruger23 Posted: January 02, 2013 at 06:37 PM (#4337308)
Who's ballots are the latest additions? I have 69 complete or partial ballots logged so I am obviously paying attention to your compilation.
   163. DL from MN Posted: January 02, 2013 at 07:09 PM (#4337340)
a chunk of those "extra" voters are going to fall into that "adjuster" category


Looks like about 30%
   164. TJ Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:55 PM (#4337428)
Just something on the Lou Whitaker thread- I watched Whitaker's whole career here in Detroit, and I think there are two things that the voters had stuck in their heads when they saw his name- 1) The game looked like it came too easy to Whitaker, so on the surface it looked like he wasn't trying all that hard (sort of the beef about Robinson Cano today), and 2) Whitaker was goofy. Not in an obnoxious way, more in a silly airhead manner (how many players do you know forget their uniform for the All-Star game and have to play in something out of the stadium gift shop?) which may have led some voters not to take him seriously.

That said, Lou Whitaker would be a fine induction into the HOF, and I have no doubt the Expansion Era VC will put him in as soon as he is nominated.
   165. Repoz Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:13 PM (#4337445)
I have 69 complete or partial ballots logged so I am obviously paying attention to your compilation.

Have 82 Full Ballots...another 30 Partial Ballots that hopefully will be finalized...and about 10-20 Weak Partials (just writers going off on Bonds/Clemens) that I doubt will be filled.

And there is still the ultra-baggy International Dockers Block Vote of USA Today, Star-Trib. Chicago Trib, Milwaukee JS, ESPN, MLB and Backstreets.com, yet to come!
   166. Walt Davis Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:30 PM (#4337460)
Whitaker's big problem was that he didn't feel like an HoFer. I'll have to admit I don't recall thinking of him as an HoFer in real time and I'm still a bit stunned at how much WAR he has. He only once even received any MVP votes. 5 AS games is a decent total but not outlandish and he was voted the starter only 3 times (i.e. he wasn't hugely popular). And, as mentioned, the lack of black ink -- even his one point of black ink is "tainted," leading the league in games in the strike-shortened 81 seasons.

Part of that is overlapping with Sandberg -- 10 AS games (9 starts), MVP with another 2 top 5 finishes, 9 GG. Even by fancy stats, Sandberg has a WARpos first, 2 seconds and a third and 3 oWAR firsts. Whitaker has only 3 top 10 WARpos finishes, none higher than 4th.

In essence Whitaker was the Palmeiro of 2B only being the Palmeiro of 2B doesn't get you to any exciting counting stats. I see now (and for some time) that he deserved the HoF but, man, unless you were from Detroit, he was one boring candidate.
   167. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:52 PM (#4337487)
Part of that is overlapping with Sandberg -- 10 AS games (9 starts), MVP with another 2 top 5 finishes, 9 GG.

How did having Sandberg in the NL impact Whitaker's chances at AS Games, MVPs and GG in the AL?
   168. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 11:07 PM (#4337506)
Snapper - I think he means that Sweet Lou was overshadowed by Sandberg because Sandberg was better and they were contemporaries. They didn't compete directly, but shared a position simultaneously. Plus Ryno was on WGN - so everyone knew him. Whitaker, not so much.
   169. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 02, 2013 at 11:57 PM (#4337584)
I'm interested in seeing how many more votes Clemens and Bonds get as compared with McGwire and Palmiero and Sosa- especially Bonds- there is likely a number of voters who will vote for a 'roider if they think the player would have been HOFer with or without PEDs- Bonds will get more votes than McGgwire/Raffy/Sosa and I think a chunk of those "extra" voters are going to fall into that "adjuster" category (those who try to "adjust" for Ped use rather than use it as an automatic dis-qualifier).

I'm also interested in seeing Clemens fares as compared to Bonds- Clemens was not just acquitted, and if you were paying attention, you can't blame the jury, the Government's evidence was shockingly weak...


You and me both, on both of those points.
   170. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 03, 2013 at 12:13 AM (#4337610)
You and me both, on both of those points.


Seriously? Clemens and Bonds will both get around 50% of the vote. This isn't hard. For every honest and reasonable person, there is an irrational idiot dishonest boyhood idol worshiper.
   171. bobm Posted: January 03, 2013 at 01:03 AM (#4337696)
For every honest and reasonable person, there is an irrational idiot dishonest boyhood idol worshiper.

Which segment is voting for Clemens and Bonds? ;-)
   172. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 03, 2013 at 02:05 AM (#4337725)
If active voters like Corky "Rickey Who?" Simpson really worshiped their boyhood idols, you'd see more write-in votes for Tom Mix.
   173. thetailor Posted: January 03, 2013 at 02:14 AM (#4337728)
The last 15 or so ballots have been very friendly to Biggio and Bagwell. I'm starting to become more optimistic. If they can both sneak in this election, next year won't be quite so apocalyptic.
   174. Squash Posted: January 03, 2013 at 03:24 AM (#4337737)
Whitaker's big problem was that he didn't feel like an HoFer. I'll have to admit I don't recall thinking of him as an HoFer in real time and I'm still a bit stunned at how much WAR he has. He only once even received any MVP votes. 5 AS games is a decent total but not outlandish and he was voted the starter only 3 times (i.e. he wasn't hugely popular).

Pretty much this - beyond being thought of as a HOFer, Whitaker wasn't really even thought of as a flat-out star (probably because his career was so flat) - a good/very good player yes, but not a STAR. He was in an era when there weren't a bunch of great 2Bs (there never are) but there was a star in Sandberg, so he suffered in comparison. (In an interesting note, missing the 1988 All Star Game snapped his string of appearances. The starter at 2B was Paul Molitor, who played a grand total of ... one, yes one game at 2B that year.)

Whitaker went one and done in 2001, when I doubt a single member of the BBWAA had ever even heard of WAR, or for that matter if it had even been invented yet. If he debuted today he would get a lot more attention.
   175. MelOtt4 Posted: January 03, 2013 at 04:22 AM (#4337740)
The Morris voters are pissing me off. He's stealing valuable votes this year and if these results are accurate he's going to do the same thing next year.
   176. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 03, 2013 at 04:59 AM (#4337741)
The Morris voters are pissing me off. He's stealing valuable votes

Yeah but he is stealing to the win!

Honestly, if he gets in next year with the exact number of votes he needs, it would be kinda hilarious...
   177. John Northey Posted: January 03, 2013 at 07:34 AM (#4337748)
At 84 ballot's we've cracked the +/-10% level - 9.92% - so that means anyone below 65% is extremely unlikely to make up the ground now. Bagwell and Biggio are the only ones with realistic shots, with Piazza's odds dropping fast. Piazza needs 76.7% of the remaining voters to vote for him which is unlikely giving his current 65.5% pace. Biggio needs 75.7% which is far more likely, 76.1% for Bagwell, 77.1% for Raines (very unlikely), and 77.3% for Morris.

Fans of Bernie Williams have a slim hope - he 'just' needs 87.5% of the remaining votes (assuming last years total) to get in :)
   178. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 03, 2013 at 08:38 AM (#4337761)
Morris' unpublished vote has beaten his published vote by well over 10 percentage points the last two years. Sadly, he's got an entirely realisic shot still if that tendency holds.

Raines, on the other hand, has generally performed better in the published vote. Even so, he looks set to make an impressive leap against a stacked ballot.
   179. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 03, 2013 at 08:47 AM (#4337766)
Whitaker's big problem was that he didn't feel like an HoFer. I'll have to admit I don't recall thinking of him as an HoFer in real time and I'm still a bit stunned at how much WAR he has. He only once even received any MVP votes. 5 AS games is a decent total but not outlandish and he was voted the starter only 3 times (i.e. he wasn't hugely popular).
I'd vote for Whitaker, but he's about as poor a candidate as you can be with 70 WAR. He's a pure career candidate, with very little peak and a good not great prime. Compare him to Bobby Grich, another unfairly overlooked 2B. Grich has a legitimate Hall of Fame peak/prime. Best seasons by bWAR:

8.0, 7.0, 7.0, 5.7, 5.7, 5.6, 5.3, 4.1, 3.9, 3.4, 3.1, 2.7 - Grich (67.3 career)
6.6, 6.5, 5.2, 5.0, 4.5, 4.4, 4.3, 4.3, 4.1, 3.8, 3.6, 3.6, 3.5, 3.5, 3.4, 2.4 - Whitaker (71.4 career)

The "didn't feel like a HoFer" thing can often be re-phrased as "lacks a Hall of Fame peak". I think Whitaker has too much career to keep him out in general, and I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to players from the 1981-1992 period, during which it may have been particularly difficult to put up dominant seasons in MLB. (It may just be that there were fewer dominant players, of course, but all I'm talking about is giving a little boost at the borderline.) Whitaker deserves to go in, but there are a reasonable number of greater players ahead of him in line, and career WAR obfuscates that a little bit.
   180. SoSH U at work Posted: January 03, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4337848)
Morris' unpublished vote has beaten his published vote by well over 10 percentage points the last two years. Sadly, he's got an entirely realisic shot still if that tendency holds.


Well combined, (4.3 percentage points in 2011, a whopping 7.9 in 2012) but I don't see any reason to expect that number will continue to grow with this year's election. It might, obviously, but if Jack simply outpolls this year's numbers at last year's difference, he's well short (for the moment).
   181. AROM Posted: January 03, 2013 at 11:45 AM (#4337880)
I had the opposite feeling about Whitaker. Watching him and Trammell in the mid 80's, I thought back then that they would one day be in Cooperstown together.

I don't think people realize how good they were defensively. Not flashy like Ozzie, but the team record shows they did the job. From 1981-88, Tigers usually finished first in the league in defensive efficiency, I think they were at least top 3 every year, and were generally about .020 better than league average. Don't have the exact numbers in front of me, something I looked up last week. Chet Lemon in center deserves plenty of credit too. Tigers had kind of a rotating cast in the corners during that time, it was the up the middle defenders who were the defensive anchors.
   182. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: January 03, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4337912)
Based on last year's ballots, has anyone voted for Morris this year that passed on him last year?
   183. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 03, 2013 at 12:30 PM (#4337918)
For what it's worth, I expect Biggio to be elected. You get a lot of traditionalists and people who don't do much prep among the unpublished electors, and 3000 hits will go a very long way with them.
   184. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: January 03, 2013 at 12:35 PM (#4337922)
AROM - I remember Whitaker/Trammell that way too. Probably because they pummeled the Angels on the 80's.
   185. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 03, 2013 at 01:13 PM (#4337965)
Troy Renke:

Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Jack Morris, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling and Alan Trammell.


Source
   186. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 03, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4337972)
I read Jenkins's article as that he submitted a blank ballot.

-- MWE
   187. John Northey Posted: January 03, 2013 at 02:01 PM (#4338004)
Statistically Morris being 7.9% was slightly out of the expected range but by less than 1%. When I say +/-10% it assumes we have a random sample, which we don't. However, last year with just Morris outside the expected final range and barely outside it I feel safe in saying he has no realistic shot this year unless the non-published voters go for him in a very big way as he needs 77.3% of them to vote for him (assuming the same final total votes as last year, fewer would mean he needs a higher percentage, more means a slightly lower one).

Just as an extra point of reference, Morris was at 58.8% via the ballot collecting after 148 full ballots. Final tally was 66.7% which means he had 87 known votes and 295 via others which works out to 295/425 = 69.4% of unknown voters voting for Morris. If he gets that again he'll be well shy of 75% of course. Now, the percentage spread between known and unknown was 10.6% so given he is at 61.9% right now that means a similar split would give him 71.9% of the unknown vote which is still well shy of the 75% to get in, let alone the 77.3% he'd need to make it with the hole he's in now.

In other words, the only way Morris is getting in is if the unknown voters go for him in a much bigger way than they did last year - 16.0% more than the known vote total so far and that seems to be too much to ask imo.
   188. phredbird Posted: January 03, 2013 at 02:12 PM (#4338022)
i thought the deal with rose was that he's ineligible, period. even if everybody wrote him in. so it wouldn't matter if the remaining voters out there put him on the ballot.
   189. SoSH U at work Posted: January 03, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4338034)
i thought the deal with rose was that he's ineligible, period. even if everybody wrote him in. so it wouldn't matter if the remaining voters out there put him on the ballot.


That is correct.
   190. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2013 at 02:24 PM (#4338044)
Rose isn't even from the same era as the players on the ballot. He retired in 1986. Writing in Rose is like writing in Joe Jackson.
   191. Repoz Posted: January 03, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4338054)
I read Jenkins's article as that he submitted a blank ballot.

Mike, I haven't added that yet to my total...so unless somebody comes up with something better, I'll be adding it in. Which will crush all concerned.
   192. AROM Posted: January 03, 2013 at 03:14 PM (#4338099)
deleted post under math check
   193. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 03, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4338106)
20% Steroid convicters. They won't vote for McGwire, Bonds or Clemens, but will vote for guys like Piazza and Bagwell. Guys for whom there is no reasonable case to convict them as steroid users, but suspicions (however flimsy) remain.

Just out of curiosity, how did Clemens get in there?

EDIT: First time I've ever responded to a post and then discovered that the post was deleted.
   194. AROM Posted: January 03, 2013 at 03:19 PM (#4338107)
Let me take a shot at the percent groupings of the electorate re: steroids.

20% Steroid ignorers. People who will vote for Mark McGwire (current Mark % held a bit lower by crowded ballot).

25% Steroid adjusters. They won't vote for McGwire, who maybe only hits 450 homers clean, with too low of a hit total, no defensive value to warrant induction. But they will vote for Bonds and Clemens, who had HOF resumes before the year they are commonly thought to have started juicing.

20% Steroid convicters. They won't vote for McGwire, Bonds or Clemens, but will vote for guys like Piazza and Bagwell. Guys for whom there is no reasonable case to convict them as steroid users, but suspicions (however flimsy) remain.

5% Steroid witch hunters. Cannot vote for Piazza or Bagwell. If it looks like a witch, burn it! Biggio OK though.

10% Scorched earth anti-steroid zealots. They won't vote for Biggio or Schilling, even if there's not even flimsy suspicion against them. They played with steroid users, dammit, and deserve to suffer for that sin. Murray's kin will only vote for Jack Morris, because it will rile up those filthy, unwashed mother's basement types.

5% confused voters. All those qualified names, only so much dexterity in my writing pen. If I vote for Bonds, Clemens, and Morris, not sure if I have the inclination left to scribble out B-I-G-G-I-O.

If all these groups voted Biggio, btw, he'd be at 85%, same as Paul Molitor the year he came on the ballot. Those two seem to have reasonably similar cases.

14% - won't vote for anyone first ballot unless they are both 100% clean and also have pure, no doubt, inner circle stats.

1% Would not vote for anyone on the first ballot. No exceptions.

OK. Now my groups add up to 100%.


   195. AROM Posted: January 03, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4338109)
Just out of curiosity, how did Clemens get in there?


According to Repoz's latest update, Clemens and Bonds are tied at 45.9%. Personally I'd vote for both. I know YOU make a distinction in their legal cases. But the voters clearly do not recognize that distinction.
   196. AROM Posted: January 03, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4338115)
EDIT: First time I've ever responded to a post and then discovered that the post was deleted.


It's back now. As I looked it over I found I missed a category.
   197. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 03, 2013 at 04:37 PM (#4338208)
[196] Lol. Now it looks like he responded to a future post.
   198. The District Attorney Posted: January 03, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4338217)
AROM, one would think that your "steroid adjusters" group is really two separate groups: one group that will vote for Bonds/Clemens based on "timing" (i.e., they had established HOF credentials before alleged PED use), and one group that will vote for them based on "discount" (i.e., the voter won't support players who "wouldn't have been HOFers without steroids", but Bonds and Clemens were so great that they're still in even after a discount).¹

I guess we'll find out more about that when it comes to A-Rod, who can't make the "timing" argument but can make the "discount" argument.

Agreed that, rightly or wrongly, the writers basically view Clemens/Bonds/McGwire/Sosa/Palmeiro as the "for-sure" group and Piazza/Bagwell as the "rumor" group, and that is the big distinction. But there is still some thought being given to classifying players within the two groups, IMO. I think failing an actual test is really working against Palmeiro. It's hard to say that for sure, because Palmeiro is also the worst player of the group and could be withheld votes on that basis, but I bet it's correct -- that some voters are willing to vote for McGwire/Sosa but not for Palmeiro because Palmeiro failed a test. I suppose Manny is the guy who will provide evidence on that point.

¹ That said, I don't think I've seen all that many writers use the "timing" argument... so maybe it isn't that popular... but it does make sense to me ;-)
   199. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 03, 2013 at 04:50 PM (#4338229)
Also, the steroid ignorers group has 2 subgroups. The true steroid ignorers (those who vote for Palmeiro) and those who just ignore steroids up until testing began.
   200. zonk Posted: January 03, 2013 at 04:51 PM (#4338230)

Fans of Bernie Williams have a slim hope - he 'just' needs 87.5% of the remaining votes (assuming last years total) to get in :)


I think Williams really needs more of a look than he's gotten... I'd have no room on my nonexistent ballot this year and more than likely, the next couple -- but I hope he can muster 5%
Page 2 of 9 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3404 - 6:19am, Oct 24)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogWhat's Buster Posey's best trait as a catcher? Here's what his pitchers had to say - Giants Extra
(5 - 5:47am, Oct 24)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogAJC: Hart says ‘yes’ to Braves, will head baseball operations
(15 - 5:31am, Oct 24)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogGleeman: Royals may bench Norichika Aoki for Game 3
(21 - 3:00am, Oct 24)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(8 - 2:52am, Oct 24)
Last: mex4173

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(368 - 2:12am, Oct 24)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogKey question GMs have to weigh with top World Series free agents | New York Post
(28 - 12:50am, Oct 24)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(867 - 12:47am, Oct 24)
Last: Poster Nutbag

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(13 - 11:36pm, Oct 23)
Last: EddieA

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(44 - 11:31pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(39 - 11:25pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8370 - 11:22pm, Oct 23)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogI hope this doesn't get me fired. | FOX Sports
(23 - 11:17pm, Oct 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGold Glove Awards finalists revealed | MLB.com
(53 - 11:07pm, Oct 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(904 - 10:56pm, Oct 23)
Last: frannyzoo

Page rendered in 1.0659 seconds
52 querie(s) executed