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 4 of 9 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > 
   301. Repoz Posted: January 05, 2013 at 10:29 PM (#4339852)
icho... I don't have access to Newsday but I do have David Lennon's ballot. "Clemens, Bonds, Bagwell, Biggio, Raines, Schilling, J. Morris, Piazza."

Must find someone with keys...

hmmm...old bselig thingee.
   302. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 05, 2013 at 11:15 PM (#4339863)
Edit: Kruger is correct in post 303. I have removed my post and link to avoid confusing people.
   303. Kruger23 Posted: January 05, 2013 at 11:22 PM (#4339865)
Fred Owens is not a BBWAA member. Anyone break the Newsday code yet? Lennon's is on Twitter.
   304. icho1977 Posted: January 05, 2013 at 11:24 PM (#4339866)
I have problem luck the Newsday ballot.
   305. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 05, 2013 at 11:26 PM (#4339867)
Edit: Oops. I should have read more carefully
   306. The District Attorney Posted: January 05, 2013 at 11:33 PM (#4339869)
Mark Herrmann: Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza

Eventually, I probably will admit that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens did enough in their pre-PED careers to merit induction. But not this year, not on a first ballot.


Bob Herzog: Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Sammy Sosa

I value the historical integrity of the game, so I always vote yes on steroid-tainted players with Hall of Fame credentials because all of their statistics, and the won-loss records of their teams, are official.


Steven Marcus: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio, Jack Morris

the voters cannot appoint themselves justices on matters already litigated beyond the baseball field. Bonds and Clemens were not found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs, nor did either player admit to such use. And Major League Baseball did not put them on the disqualified list.
   307. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 06, 2013 at 12:08 AM (#4339873)
Go Bob Herzog!
   308. Repoz Posted: January 06, 2013 at 12:08 AM (#4339874)
Thanks, DA!
   309. brutus Posted: January 06, 2013 at 12:14 AM (#4339876)
Not a single vote there for Bagwell??
   310. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: January 06, 2013 at 12:18 AM (#4339877)
This has probably been answered repeatedly, but what if any stats are included with the ballot itself?
   311. The District Attorney Posted: January 06, 2013 at 12:31 AM (#4339878)
None.
   312. Fanshawe Posted: January 06, 2013 at 12:49 AM (#4339880)
Assuming same number of ballots cast as last year, here are the percentages of outstanding ballots necessary for induction:

Biggio-76.5
Bagwell-77.7
Morris-78.0
Raines-78.0
Piazza-78.0
Clemens-81.9
Bonds-81.9
Martinez-82.9
Schilling-83.2
Smith-83.4
Trammell-83.6

The rest all need more than 87.5%

(Through 104 counted ballots)
   313. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:19 AM (#4339882)
A few days late, but I couldn't find any reference to Tomase's ballot on this site:

Bagwell, Martinez, McGwire, Morris, Piazza, Schilling, Trammel

Source
   314. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:02 AM (#4339896)
Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds may eventually earn my vote, but I’m not ready to go there, not after the two of them hubristically kept steroids on the front page for about a decade by themselves,

Yeah, I too hate all those articles that Clemens and Bonds wrote about how steroids are awesome...oh wait, that was the sportswriters.
   315. vivaelpujols Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:15 AM (#4339897)
Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds may eventually earn my vote, but I’m not ready to go there, not after the two of them hubristically kept steroids on the front page for about a decade by themselves,


#### #######
   316. MelOtt4 Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:42 AM (#4339902)
Go Bob Herzog!


Not when he doesn't have Jeff Bagwell but does have Fred McGriff.
   317. bobm Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:24 AM (#4339911)
@310:

From mlb.com

As for newcomers on the 2009 ballot, that is the call of the BBWAA's six-person screening committee that helps shape the ballot. The process begins in April when the committee is presented the list of players who fit the first criterion, that they played in at least 10 Major League seasons and have been retired for five years. Any player approved by two or more screening committee members is placed on the ballot.

By mid-July, the ballot is set, but it is not announced until late November while the Hall, with assistance from the Elias Sports Bureau of statisticians, put together biographical sketches of the candidates that accompany the ballot in the Hall of Fame packet to voters.


http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080109&content_id=2342653&vkey=news_mlb&fext;=.jsp&c_id=mlb&partnered=rss_mlb
   318. bobm Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:28 AM (#4339912)
@310

http://baseballhall.org/2013-BBWAA-Candidate-Bios

The following supplementary material reflects career record, awards, records held, league leadership, 20-victory and .300-BA seasons, no-hitters, home run/RBI achievements and championship series/World Series accomplishments. Cy Young Award and Rookie of the Year Award notes include any year a vote was received. MVP Award rankings include any time the individual finished in the top 10 in a given season. All-Star Game information includes if named to team. LCS and WS (Babe Ruth & Sport Magazine) MVP awards are also noted. Statistics and rankings provided by Baseball-reference.com. Candidates may remain on the ballot for a maximum of 15 years.

REMEMBER, FOR A CANDIDATE TO REMAIN ON THE BALLOT, HE MUST OBTAIN VOTES ON AT LEAST 5% OF ALL BALLOTS CAST. 
   319. bobm Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:38 AM (#4339915)
JACK MORRIS

14th year on the ballot… Pitched 18 seasons, 14 with Detroit and four others with Twins, Blue Jays and Indians…Three 20-win seasons (1983, 1986, 1992), 11 seasons with 200-plus innings (1980, 1982-88, 1990-92) and three 200-strikeout campaigns (1983, 1986-87)…Received Cy Young Award votes seven times: 1981 (3rd), ’83 (3rd), ’84 (T7th), ’86 (5th), ’87 (9th), ’91 (4th) and ’92 (5th)…Made 14 Opening Day starts, tied with Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young for second-most ever, two behind Tom Seaver…Named AL Pitcher of the Year by the Sporting News (1981)…Named to five All-Star teams (1981, ’84, ’85, ’87, ’91); started games in 1981, ’85 and ’91; owns a 2.53 ERA with eight strikeouts in 10 2/3 ASG innings…Named WS MVP in 1991 with Twins with a 2-0 record, 1.17 ERA, and a 10-inning, 1-0 victory in Game Seven…Ranks 32nd all-time in strikeouts (2,478) and tied for 42nd in wins (254)…Tossed a 4-0 no-hitter vs. the Chicago White Sox on April 7, 1984…Led all ML pitchers in the 1980s with 162 wins, 133 complete games, 332 starts and 2,443.2 innings…Held AL record for most consecutive starting assignments (515) before broken by Roger Clemens in 2001…Topped AL in strikeouts (232) and innings (293 2/3) in 1983, and shutouts (6) in 1986…Tied for the AL lead in wins twice (1981, ’92), starts twice (1990, ’91) and complete games once (1990)…Holds AL career record for most putouts by a pitcher (387)…Four AL Championship Series (1984, ’87, ’91, ’92); owns a 3-2 record with a 4.87 ERA and 24 strikeouts in 40 2/3 ALCS innings…Three World Series (1984, ’91, ’92); owns a record of 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA and 40 strikeouts in 51 2/3 WS innings…Pitched in postseason for three WS champion teams (1984, ’91, ’92) and was member of 1993 Blue Jays team that won the World Series.

    YRS.    W-L. ERA.  G. GS. CG.  SHO. SV.  IP.   H.  BB.  SO
1977-94 254-186 3.90 549 527 175.   28.  0 3824 3567 1390 2478


   320. bobm Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:53 AM (#4339923)
TIM RAINES

6th year on the ballot…Played 23 seasons with Expos, White Sox, Yankees, A’s, Orioles and Marlins…Named 1981 NL Rookie Player of the Year by the Sporting News…Seven-time All-Star, consecutively (1981-87)…Named 1987 All-Star Game MVP…Finished in the top 10 in NL MVP voting three times 1983 (5th), 1986 (6th), 1987 (7th)…Received NL Silver Slugger Award in 1986…Led NL in stolen bases four times (1981-84), runs twice (1983, 1987)…Won 1986 NL batting title (.334)…Led league in on-base percentage once (1986) and doubles once (1984)…Six 100-runs seasons…Seven full seasons of hitting .300 or better, four times finishing in the top 10 in average…Sixteen seasons of 10 or more stolen bases, 11 times finishing in the top 10… Ranks second all-time for highest stolen-base percentage (300 or more attempts) with 84.7…Led NL outfielders with 21 assists in 1983…Hit for the cycle on Aug. 16, 1987…Twice collected switch-hit home runs in one game…Hit three home runs in one game (April 18, 1994)…Ranks 5th all-time in stolen bases (808) and 53rd all-time in runs (1,571)…Member of two World Championship teams with the Yankees (1996, 1998)…Hit .270 (34-126) in 34 career postseason games.

          YRS. AVG.   G.  AB.   R.   H. 2B. 3B. HR RBI.  BB. SO. SB. OBP. SLG
1979-99 [sic] .294 2502 8872 1571 2605 430 113 170 980 1330 966 808 .385 .425
   321. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:56 AM (#4339925)
Morris have no saves? There's your bright line, right there!

the voters cannot appoint themselves justices on matters already litigated beyond the baseball field. Bonds and Clemens were not found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs, nor did either player admit to such use. And Major League Baseball did not put them on the disqualified list.


Sure the voters can. In fact, the wording of what they are to consider when voting is clear, and has nothing to do with whether or not something was 'already litigated'.
   322. Squash Posted: January 06, 2013 at 12:43 PM (#4340012)
Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio, Jack Morris

I have to say I find this to be a very weird ballot.
   323. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 06, 2013 at 12:45 PM (#4340013)
   324. The District Attorney Posted: January 06, 2013 at 12:49 PM (#4340017)
@317-320: Good info, thanks.
   325. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:06 PM (#4340024)
I don't think Willie Davis was even on the ballot when he was first eligible in 1985. His name never appeared in any of the voting results. I have no idea how he slipped through the cracks when even Jesus Alou and his -1.0 WAR made it onto the ballot (where he picked up one vote.) As far as I know he's the only 20th century player with 2,500 hits that never made it onto the ballot. (According to Baseball Reference, Jimmy Ryan, Lave Cross, George Davis, and Jim O'Rourke never made it onto the ballot either, but they were primarily 19th century players.)

Can anybody elucidate why Willie Davis wasn't on the ballot?


Just a wild guess: Davis played in Japan 1977-78, and then came back as a bench player with the Angels in 1979. The nominating committee may have stopped his HOF clock when he came back, and then forgot to restart it after he finally retired.
   326. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4340031)
Here are some of the proposals I've heard/read about for reforming the HOF vote. Is there a consensus about which might be most effective...and most likely to be put through?
• Change in the composition of the electorate
• BBWAA members must request a ballot to vote (currently mailed to all tenured voters)
• Revocation of voting privileges for inappropriate ballots (however defined and policed)
• Scrap or change the 5% rule
• Scrap the ballot-size limit or expand it past 10
• Change to a point system like awards ballots
• Leading vote getter is elected regardless of percentage (if none over 75%)
• Disclosure of all ballots
• Clarification or scrapping of character clause

   327. Squash Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4340032)
JACK MORRIS

Man if you actually get in and read those stats/accomplishments, they're really not that amazing (relatively). This guy is so not a HOFer it's crazy. He's a good pitcher who played for a long time and for a lot of good teams. That's not Hall of Fame.
   328. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:31 PM (#4340034)
Wow, Willie Davis was a pretty good ballplayer for a long while. How did I have no idea he existed?
   329. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4340036)
Here are some of the proposals I've heard/read about for reforming the HOF vote. Is there a consensus about which might be most effective...and most likely to be put through?


The best changes are ones that should have been done even if no crisis was brewing, so I'd certainly expand the electorate to other media. I wouldn't induct the top vote getter automatically. I think that people in baseball and the HOF should talk about the character clause, but I wouldn't change it in response to the steroid issue. No one's getting elected because no one trusts the players of the era being voted on, and rightfully so.

   330. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4340037)
Not when he doesn't have Jeff Bagwell but does have Fred McGriff.

He filled his ballot with 10 guys I'd vote for, I'll cut him some slack.
   331. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4340041)
Wow, Willie Davis was a pretty good ballplayer for a long while. How did I have no idea he existed?


He's old... You're young... I'm sad.
   332. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4340049)
The best changes are ones that should have been done even if no crisis was brewing, so I'd certainly expand the electorate to other media.


I think this is easier said than done, and won't necessarily result in the kind of positive changes sought. Yes, it seems crazy that Vin Scully doesn't get a vote. But does anyone want Hawk Harrelson or John Sterling also voting, because I don't know how you grant the former without suffering the latter.

If you're going to a more expert-based electorate (folks like a younger Bill James, before he became the occasional crackpot he is now), how do you identify the qualified? A test? Published works? SABR-membership (which might be fine at first, but could become a problem if folks started joining SABR simply for the purpose of voting for the Hall of Fame)?

The only change I wholeheartedly support is the ballot expansion, though I see merit in a points system as well.

   333. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4340057)
• Revocation of voting privileges for inappropriate ballots (however defined and policed)


Worst idea ever. We might as well not even have a vote if certain votes (or certain omissions) are required.
   334. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:00 PM (#4340059)
Hersch presumably refuses to vote for roiders because they would demean the Hall. But somehow his (presumably) smoochie vote for Franco isn't demeaning to the process of electing members to that very institution. Because I really cannot believe that he couldn't find a better candidate among Bernie, Lofton, McGriff, and Murphy. Nucking futs.


This is one of the groupthink on here that I just do not get. A vote for Franco isn't a vote for a deserved hofer, it's a nod to a guy that the writer appreciated that he knows isn't going to go in. It's a perfectly legitimate way to honor/acknowledge a player if you have an open spot on your ballot. There is nothing wrong with a vote or two for the McGee's, Franco's etc of the world.


I don't think I follow. When all is said and done, less than 20% of the voters will have revealed their ballots and the sample is most definitely not random. They could fudge Trammel and Smith in if they really wanted to.


Agreed, the group of people who haven't revealed their ballots is quite possibly the same group that is most likely to get sanctimonious over roids, and have an illicit love affair for Morris. It's your old, stubborn and stupid who no longer collect a paycheck from any publishing source related to baseball.

I value the historical integrity of the game, so I always vote yes on steroid-tainted players with Hall of Fame credentials because all of their statistics, and the won-loss records of their teams, are official.


Awesome quote.
   335. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4340061)
• Change in the composition of the electorate
• BBWAA members must request a ballot to vote (currently mailed to all tenured voters)
• Revocation of voting privileges for inappropriate ballots (however defined and policed)
• Scrap or change the 5% rule
• Scrap the ballot-size limit or expand it past 10
• Change to a point system like awards ballots
• Leading vote getter is elected regardless of percentage (if none over 75%)
• Disclosure of all ballots
• Clarification or scrapping of character clause


I support Scrap the 5% rule, Scrap the ballot-size limit.

As far as clarification of the character clause.... I do not know how I feel about that. Personally I feel that roids is a part of the integrity clause, and that the character clause is something that is more about Albert Belle, Dick Allen versus Dale Murphy than it has to do with roids. And I feel that the integrity clause could be clarified, but feel fine with leaving the character clause murky.

I can be convinced on leading vote getter is elected, but am not there yet.
   336. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:23 PM (#4340064)
Revocation of voting privileges for inappropriate ballots (however defined and policed)

Worst idea ever. We might as well not even have a vote if certain votes (or certain omissions) are required.


Some omissions are already required: write-in votes. And yet, every year, a non-zero number of voters flout the only rule on the ballot and write in Pete Rose.
   337. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:45 PM (#4340083)
. . . every year, a non-zero number of voters flout the only rule on the ballot and write in Pete Rose.

And the Hall of Fame doesn't count them. Voting for Pete Rose is like farting in the wind.

Calls for revoking privileges aren't about Pete Rose anyway. We've all seen them: "Anyone who didn't vote for Hank Aaron (or whomever) should have their vote taken away." "Anyone who voted for Jim Deshaies (or whomever) should have their vote taken away." It's always that kind of thing, suggesting that the critic's opinion represents some sort of absolute truth that must not be questioned.
   338. Baldrick Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4340091)
Don't take away their votes - take away their children!
   339. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:04 PM (#4340094)
Scrap the 5% rule


Yeah, but it should be pretty hard to get past the ballot committee screeners if you don't pull 2%. Otherwise the ballot is going to be several pages long.

The one thing I think would gain support is removing the 10 player limit or simply changing it to 15 or 20. It won't affect most voters and would help combat the 5% guys on a crowded ballot.
   340. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4340095)
49% to 62% is a HUGE jump up for Raines on a crowded ballot. I understand the Jack Morris backlash but here's a guy the sabr-oriented folks might be able to push through next year. He's absolutely worthy and he's perceived to be clean. The Andre Dawson voters should be falling all over themselves to vote for Raines.
   341. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4340097)
Yeah, but it should be pretty hard to get past the ballot committee screeners if you don't pull 2%. Otherwise the ballot is going to be several pages long.


Remove them at 1% then, but 5% is just too high of a standard sometimes. Especially when you have moralist not believing in voting for a person first time on the ballot.
   342. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4340104)
It's been noted elsewhere, but I'm behind a plan* where the candidates need to reach certain levels as they spend more time on the ballot. 2 percent after 1 year, 5 percent after 2, 10 percent after 4, etc. That should remove the clutter as necessary, while also giving some guys a better look.

* Personally, I don't think the 5 percent rule is an issue at all, at least in terms of inductions. Guys who receive fewer than 5 percent of the vote are never going to get to 75 percent, so I don't see how leaving Lou or Grich around longer is going to do much good, regardless how deserving they actually are. But since it's possible that a few extra years on the ballot could raise their profile with the Vets Committee down the road, some kind of compromise is worthwhile. But a strict removal of the 5 percent, without some way to keep the ballot size managable, is counterproductive.

   343. LargeBill Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:44 PM (#4340112)
* Personally, I don't think the 5 percent rule is an issue at all, at least in terms of inductions. Guys who receive fewer than 5 percent of the vote are never going to get to 75 percent, so I don't see how leaving Lou or Grich around longer is going to do much good, regardless how deserving they actually are.


Normally I'd agree with that sentiment. However, with the guys who will be on the 2014 ballot it is not inconceivable that a couple guys with 600 homers could fall off the ballot for the following year. Raffy and Sosa are polling in the teens, have 14 ahead of them right now with no one looking to come off ballot (except Murphy) and more greats hitting the 2014 ballot. Without reviewing all the ballots, my guess is those two are mostly named on full ballots. So, as most voters will likely add Maddux, Glavine & Sean Casey some guys will see big drops in their vote totals.
   344. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:50 PM (#4340116)
Raffy and Sosa are polling in the teens


Which means that, deserving or not, Raffy and Sosa are not going to be elected by the BBWAA, which brings us right back to SoSH's point. Sosa isn't going to be elected for a different reason than why Grich wasn't going to be elected, but the effect is the exact same: a guy who's just going to hang around the bottom of the ballot, cluttering it up, with no real chance of being elected.
   345. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:06 PM (#4340128)
* Personally, I don't think the 5 percent rule is an issue at all, at least in terms of inductions. Guys who receive fewer than 5 percent of the vote are never going to get to 75 percent, so I don't see how leaving Lou or Grich around longer is going to do much good, regardless how deserving they actually are. But since it's possible that a few extra years on the ballot could raise their profile with the Vets Committee down the road, some kind of compromise is worthwhile. But a strict removal of the 5 percent, without some way to keep the ballot size managable, is counterproductive.


I disagree, it's probable that they will never make it through the writers selection process, but it's very possible that they will get to the 50% threshold and that will enhance their reputations come vets committee time. On top of that, I really do think that if Ted Simmons would have stayed on the ballot, that he would have eventually made it in. I also think that Whitaker would have gotten a bump after the inclusion of Alomar and Sandberg.
   346. brutus Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:13 PM (#4340132)
Check out this link for an interesting discussion with Joe Posnanski for a change in the voting from Yes/No to Yes/No/Needs Further Consideration.
   347. Baldrick Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4340133)
Which means that, deserving or not, Raffy and Sosa are not going to be elected by the BBWAA, which brings us right back to SoSH's point. Sosa isn't going to be elected for a different reason than why Grich wasn't going to be elected, but the effect is the exact same: a guy who's just going to hang around the bottom of the ballot, cluttering it up, with no real chance of being elected.

Blyleven was at 14%. While he is sui generis to some extent, it is a useful reminder.

Heck, Jack Morris was in the teens and low 20s for a few years. And he somehow has climbed up to the 60s.
   348. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:22 PM (#4340143)

I disagree, it's probable that they will never make it through the writers selection process, but it's very possible that they will get to the 50% threshold and that will enhance their reputations come vets committee time. On top of that, I really do think that if Ted Simmons would have stayed on the ballot, that he would have eventually made it in. I also think that Whitaker would have gotten a bump after the inclusion of Alomar and Sandberg.


No, I don't think so at all. With the possible exception of this year, with its crowded ballot situation where voters are specifically stating they're leaving off guys they'd consider voting for, players with less than 5 percent at any point aren't going to build anything close to that kind of support.* I just don't buy it. There wasn't going to be some kind of epiphany on Simmons or Whitaker or Grich.

Neither Alomar or Sandberg were on the ballot when Whitaker debuted, but he got no support. The problem wasn't the ballot or the rules, but the voters' failure to appreciate Lou's career. More looks wasn't going to meaningfully change that. It's easy to point to Blyleven, but he had about 6X as much first-year support as Lou, got an unprecedented and dedicated campaign backing him and it still took him almost the entire run to climb all the way up to 75 percent.

* The solution to which is expanding the number of players you can vote for. Like I said, I think there's room for a compromise that would get rid of the hard 5 percent, but I doubt it will have much actual effect on voting anyway.
   349. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:36 PM (#4340154)
This is one of the groupthink on here that I just do not get. A vote for Franco isn't a vote for a deserved hofer, it's a nod to a guy that the writer appreciated that he knows isn't going to go in. It's a perfectly legitimate way to honor/acknowledge a player if you have an open spot on your ballot. There is nothing wrong with a vote or two for the McGee's, Franco's etc of the world.


Yes, there is. If one doesn't think Franco is a deserving HOFer, then a vote for him is wrong, pretty much by definition.

It may be harmless, but it is most certainly *not* legitimate.
   350. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:40 PM (#4340156)
Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds may eventually earn my vote, but I’m not ready to go there, not after the two of them hubristically kept steroids on the front page for about a decade by themselves,


Yes, try to defend your reputation, and you have "hubris."

Because everyone knows that as soon as you are accused of something, the only right thing to do is to confess to it. What could be unfair about that?

Clemens was spinning a wheel that could only come up "wrong."
   351. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4340158)
49% to 62% is a HUGE jump up for Raines on a crowded ballot.


What you're missing is that, sadly, most of the voters don't view the ballot as crowded at all.
   352. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:52 PM (#4340165)

Yes, there is. If one doesn't think Franco is a deserving HOFer, then a vote for him is wrong, pretty much by definition.

It may be harmless, but it is most certainly *not* legitimate.


Absolutely disagree. Sorry but there is nothing wrong with a nod to a guy who isn't going to get into the hof. On this type of ballot, it's a disgrace as there is easily 10 deserving candidates, even if you are an Andy type of anti-roider. But in a normal year, I don't remotely see the problem with this. Yes I know you would have a problem with this, but you live in a weird world that is black and white and enjoying the game and telling great stories about players is not a product of the past time. But for normal people with actual emotions and feelings, these type of things are a nice tribute.
   353. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:00 PM (#4340168)
Absolutely disagree.


I know you absolutely disagree, but you're absolutely wrong. And demonstrably so.

Sorry but there is nothing wrong with a nod to a guy who isn't going to get into the hof. On this type of ballot, it's a disgrace as there is easily 10 deserving candidates, even if you are an Andy type of anti-roider. But in a normal year, I don't remotely see the problem with this.


I told you what the problem with it is; a voter is supposed to vote for candidates he finds worthy. That's the entire point of what he is doing. Here:

B. Electors may vote for as few as zero (0) and as many as ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election. Write-in votes are not permitted.

Your position is untenable and completely without meri. In other words, it's wrong.

Yes I know you would have a problem with this, but you live in a weird world that is black and white and enjoying the game and telling great stories about players is not a product of the past time.


?

But for normal people with actual emotions and feelings, these type of things are a nice tribute.


Uh-huh. So the problem is not that what you advocate goes against the rules; the problem is that I am not "normal." Okay.

The voter's job is not to use his vote to honor people as an end in itself; the voter's job is, as specifically laid out in the rules, to use his vote to vote for players "deemed worthy of election."

   354. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:02 PM (#4340170)
You're forgetting you're talking to Ray, who is the arbiter of all that is moral and right. He is, by definition, always correct.
   355. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:11 PM (#4340172)
Guys who receive fewer than 5 percent of the vote are never going to get to 75 percent

Lou Boudreau and Ralph Kiner say hello.
   356. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:16 PM (#4340175)
You're forgetting you're talking to Ray, who is the arbiter of all that is moral and right. He is, by definition, always correct.


I know, it's hilarious, how a guy who is supposedly an adult, has a worldview of a 16 year old. He cannot see any other point of view other than his own.

So the problem is not that what you advocate goes against the rules; the problem is that I am not "normal." Okay.


The problem is that you can't comprehend someone putting out a meaningless vote to honor a player that they enjoyed. EVERYONE knows it's a meaningless vote, EVERYONE knows it's not going to make a difference, including the voter. What is the harm in putting a vote out there for a guy who isn't going to go in?

I would have a problem with it, if it's going to cause some type of problems with deserving candidates, but the fact is, a meaningless vote is, exactly that, meaningless to the hof, but has some sentimental value to the voter and maybe even the votee.

   357. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4340177)
Lou Boudreau and Ralph Kiner say hello.


By all means, tell them I said "hi." It's exciting to get personal greetings from genuwine Hall of Famers, even dead ones. But neither's path to Coop is an indicator of modern voting patterns, which is all that's relevant now.
   358.   Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4340181)
I knew the BBWAA was going to flub this vote, but I never imagined Biggio and Piazza polling in the 60's. Good ####### Christ. Mike Piazza? Seriously, Mike Piazza isn't going in on the first ballot? What the bleeding Christ.
   359. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4340182)
We're not talking about the typical path to Cooperstown. We're talking about whether or not player who get under 5% can progress up the ballot to 75%. They can, and they have.
   360. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:26 PM (#4340184)
You're forgetting you're talking to Ray, who is the arbiter of all that is moral and right. He is, by definition, always correct.


Please tell me how I am wrong here. I quoted the rule.
   361. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4340186)
The problem is that you can't comprehend someone putting out a meaningless vote to honor a player that they enjoyed. EVERYONE knows it's a meaningless vote, EVERYONE knows it's not going to make a difference, including the voter. What is the harm in putting a vote out there for a guy who isn't going to go in?


I told you what the harm is. The harm is that it goes against the rules. And anything that goes against the rules demeans the process.
   362. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:29 PM (#4340188)
We're not talking about the typical path to Cooperstown. We're talking about whether or not player who get under 5% can progress up the ballot to 75%. They can, and they have.


No, and I'm not talking about what's typical either. Voting in the days when Kiner and Boudreau first came on the ballot was much different than it is now. Boudreau got 1.0 percent his first year, then 24.1 percent his next time, which was two years later. What happened then isn't relevant to how the process unfolds today.

I should have (and thought I had) noted earlier that I was talking about modern candidates. But I'll stand by what I said about the effect: If you're starting under 5 percent today, you're not getting close to election.
   363. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4340190)
I told you what the harm is. The harm is that it goes against the rules. And anything that goes against the rules demeans the process.


Sorry, don't agree. There are degrees of rules vs harm, and this causes absolutely zero harm(in a normal ballot, I will concede that on a crowded ballot like this, it can cause harm) Harm is a word that means, actually harming something. What is the harm? Your mystical demeaning of the ballot? C'mon that is even more silly than the idiots that refuse to vote for someone on the first ballot.


There is literally zero harm caused to the ballot by putting out a courtesy vote to a player who isn't going to win or even make 5%.
   364. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:34 PM (#4340191)
No, and I'm not talking about what's typical either. Voting in the days when Kiner and Boudreau first came on the ballot was much different than it is now. Boudreau got 1.0 percent his first year, then 24.1 percent his next time, which was two years later. What happened then isn't relevant to how the process unfolds today.


The 5-year waiting period was unofficial but observed by most people. In 1956, Lou Boudreau had been retired for 3 seasons but nevertheless received two votes for the Hall of Fame. The 1958 election was Boudreau's first election under the "5-year waiting period" standard. In that election, Boudreau got the aforementioned 24.1% of the vote, a somewhat low but not implausible debut level for a player eventually elected 12 years later.
   365. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4340192)
I should have (and thought I had) noted earlier that I was talking about modern candidates. But I'll stand by what I said about the effect: If you're starting under 5 percent today, you're not getting close to election.


That is obviously impossible to argue against, as if you aren't getting 5 percent you can't stay on the ballot, but Jack Morris started out at 20%, Blyleven 17.5%(14% in year 2), Cepeda(vets selection) 12%, There is evidence that players can improve dramatically over the course of their stay on the ballot.
   366. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4340194)
Kiner retired in 1955; in 1962 he was still at only 3.1%. But even he isn't necessary to make cardsfanboy's point about players who stay on the ballot picking up support that helps them later with the VC.
   367. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4340195)
Harm is a word that means, actually harming something. What is the harm? Your mystical demeaning of the ballot?


Yes. Every silly thing like this -- not voting for deserving HOFers on the first ballot, writing in votes which is specifically forbidden by the rules -- chips away at the integrity of the process. (*)

But if you're looking for harm that is more tangible, you have a situation where Franco got a vote he didn't deserve. How is that fair or not a mockery of the process?

(*) While this is not related to your vote for Franco, a voter who plans to penalize Clemens by not voting for him in the first year is demeaning the process. Because the voter believes that Clemens is deserving -- the voter fully plans to vote for Clemens next year -- but is nevertheless not voting for Clemens. But the rules tell you to vote for a player if you deem him worthy; they don't support a "first year ballot" penalty.

   368. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:48 PM (#4340198)
Electors may vote for as few as zero (0) and as many as ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election.


Sorry, Ray, but this does not say that electors must vote for every candidate that they deem worthy. If a voter thinks Clemens is worthy but wants to leave him off anyway, this does not go against the voting instructions.
   369. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4340201)
Sorry, Ray, but this does not say that electors must vote for every candidate that they deem worthy. If a voter thinks Clemens is worthy but wants to leave him off anyway, this does not go against the voting instructions.


And people get on lawyers for parsing language.

The whole *point* of what the voter is charged with doing is to identify and vote for the candidates he deems worthy. Otherwise, what the #### is he there to do?

"I think Player X is worthy but I am going to leave him off my ballot, nyah nyah!" That doesn't make a mockery of the process? That is what the voter is there to do? The HOF wanted the voters to identify candidates they deem worthy -- and leave them off?

The _only_ permissible way to leave a worthy candidate off your ballot is if you have more than 10 names.
   370. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4340202)
There are degrees of rules vs harm, and this causes absolutely zero harm(in a normal ballot, I will concede that on a crowded ballot like this, it can cause harm) Harm is a word that means, actually harming something. What is the harm?


Might be more accurate if the phrase "de minimis" is used instead of "absolutely zero."
   371. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:55 PM (#4340206)
While this is not related to your vote for Franco, a voter who plans to penalize Clemens by not voting for him in the first year is demeaning the process. Because the voter believes that Clemens is deserving -- the voter fully plans to vote for Clemens next year -- but is nevertheless not voting for Clemens. But the rules tell you to vote for a player if you deem him worthy; they don't support a "first year ballot" penalty.


The first vote penalty is actively harming the process, I have no problem with having a problem with people like that.

But if you're looking for harm that is more tangible, you have a situation where Franco got a vote he didn't deserve. How is that fair or not a mockery of the process?


What is the harm in that? If this was a one vote system, I could see a problem there, but for a system that allows ten votes on a ballot and that in most years doesn't have 10 worthy candidates, a courtesy vote harms nothing. It has no tangible effect on the integrity of the process, because EVERYONE knows why the vote was there. There is no harm in voting for a Willie McGee(if you are a Cardinal writer) or a Franco or a Jim Deshaies. The only possible harm is if it takes a vote away from a deserving candidate or they get enough to stay on the ballot the next year. Any other result or situation and it doesn't matter.

And people get on lawyers for parsing language.
and for being the lowest forms of human beings on the planet.
   372. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:57 PM (#4340208)
And people get on lawyers for parsing language.

You only say that because your position is untenable and completely without merit. In other words, it's wrong.
   373. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:58 PM (#4340209)
Might be more accurate if the phrase "de minimis" is used instead of "absolutely zero."


Never heard the term. Point was no harm in the slightest is caused when someone wastes a courtesy vote.
   374. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4340211)
For the record, I believe it is stupid and illogical to withhold a first-ballot vote for a candidate who deserves election--but it's not against the rules.
   375. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4340212)
Might be more accurate if the phrase "de minimis" is used instead of "absolutely zero."


I have no problem with classifying this as de minimus. I agree that the harm is minimal, and that this is not a big deal. But it _is_ harm, and it shouldn't be done.
   376. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4340213)
and for being the lowest forms of human beings on the planet.


Hey! #### you too, buddy.

eta: de minimis is legal speak for negligible.
   377. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:05 PM (#4340217)
That is obviously impossible to argue against, as if you aren't getting 5 percent you can't stay on the ballot, but Jack Morris started out at 20%, Blyleven 17.5%(14% in year 2), Cepeda(vets selection) 12%, There is evidence that players can improve dramatically over the course of their stay on the ballot.


I don't need it to argue against it. Bert's the modern floor for first-ballot support to election, and he debuted with the aforementioned 17 percent. Guys who started with 5-15 percent haven't gone on to election.* I doubt most have hung around 15 years. And none have gotten to that magic 50 percent you mentioned earlier. Thinking guys with even less support at the outset would defy that trend is wishful thinking.

Kiner retired in 1955; in 1962 he was still at only 3.1%. But even he isn't necessary to make cardsfanboy's point about players who stay on the ballot picking up support that helps them later with the VC.


Actually, I said that, and it's the only reason I can see to change things, preferably to a staggered system of support, which would allow guys to stay on the ballot if they're making reasonable progress toward enshrinement (which would include dropping the threshold on the first ballot below 5 percent, but also eventually jettisoning the Mattinglys and Murphys who have a decent base of support but go nowhere).

Now, I doubt dropping the 5 percent to 1 or 2 for second-ballot appearance would actually do anything for these existing first-ballot casualties, but it's a reasonable solution to give guys a second look (particularly in a case like this year, where a Lofton might have gotten the requisite 5 percent if so many voters didn't have to exhaust their 10-person limit).

But simply getting rid of the 5 percent threshold would be foolish if the intent is to elect more players, as that sub-5 percent flotsam's only effect would be to siphon votes away from candidates that could indeed be elected.

* Again, referring to the history that emerged when the process and voting habits crystalized into what we have now.
   378. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:08 PM (#4340220)
Hey! #### you too, buddy.


Don't choose the profession then. Mind you there are decent lawyers who still retain their humanity, but like baseball writers, the profession as a whole is a drain on humanity.

For the record, I believe it is stupid and illogical to withhold a first-ballot vote for a candidate who deserves election--but it's not against the rules.


Agree. Between being within the rules(and not voting for someone based upon first-ballot) and for going against the rules(voting for someone you feel isn't worthy, but want to vote as a kind of nod to the player in appreciation)... I don't think it's really that tough of a choice, I would support violating the rule.

   379. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:11 PM (#4340222)
Guys who started with 5-15 percent haven't gone on to election.*


The problem is how many debatable worthy guys have debuted with 5-15 percent? Keith Hernandez is the only one I could find. One example isn't really enough to say it couldn't happen. And as I mentioned, it's not just about making it during the writers vote, but it's about the press generated every year that the player is on the ballot for the veteran's vote.

   380. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:13 PM (#4340225)
Don't choose the profession then. Mind you there are decent lawyers who still retain their humanity, but like baseball writers, the profession as a whole is a drain on humanity.


Are you serious? I don't come here and #### all over your job for a cheap shot, and that joke was old when Shakespeare made it. Gandhi was a lawyer, you twerp. So was Thurgood Marshall. As was Abe Lincoln. You can #### right off.

eta: Ok, you're not being serious, just a dick. And I'm being oversensitive.
   381. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:24 PM (#4340228)
Are you serious? I don't come here and #### all over your job for a cheap shot, and that joke was old when Shakespeare made it. Gandhi was a lawyer, you twerp. So was Thurgood Marshall. As was Abe Lincoln. You can #### right off.


I wouldn't sweat it. People who say these kinds of things have no concept of what the legal profession is or of the different types of law one can practice, or of the ethical rules involved and the discipline for breaking them, or of the different roles different participants have in the system. Or, really, of what the system is or its purpose.

Somewhat humorously, the cardsfanboy types are the first ones to seek out the assistance of a lawyer when they or someone close to them gets into trouble.

But yeah, go through life angry at lawyers based on your ignorance, cardsfanboy, content in your belief that you are a better person than them. Yay, whatever.
   382. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:30 PM (#4340233)

The problem is how many debatable worthy guys have debuted with 5-15 percent? Keith Hernandez is the only one I could find. One example isn't really enough to say it couldn't happen. And as I mentioned, it's not just about making it during the writers vote, but it's about the press generated every year that the player is on the ballot for the veteran's vote.


Why would you limit your pool to the arguably worthy candidates? Jack Morris is not a worthy candidate, but his support has increased. So did Jim Rice's. Guys can move up from the high teens and 20s to enshrinement. We know that.

But they haven't done so from a starting spot below 15 percent. None of the modern guys that low have gone on a Morris-like run to even eclipse 50 percent.* That's a pretty good indication that things won't be different for the guys who couldn't even muster up to 1/4 of their initial support.

Also, I already acknowledged, twice now, the value of staying on the ballot for how it might affect things for the Vet's Committee, which is why some kind of compromise is reasonable to handle the first-ballot casualties. But that single consideration can't be enough to allow vote-suckers to hang around forever.

* I'm not saying a guy debuting at 12-14 percent couldn't pull a Bert*, just using their failures to show why I don't think players that are substantially lower can expect to make such gains.

** And yes, I know Bert did dip to the 14 percent range in Year 2, but I think the 17 percent initial showing demonstrated a baseline level of support he had to build on, plus his second ballot was the 1999 monster where all backloggers fell.



   383. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:34 PM (#4340235)
Why would you limit your pool to the arguably worthy candidates? Jack Morris is not a worthy candidate, but his support has increased. So did Jim Rice's. Guys can move up from the high teens and 20s to enshrinement. We know that.


Because I thought the argument was about keeping under 5% guys on the ballot so that they can get proper evaluation in the future. Your Kevin Browns, Lou Whitaker, Ted Simmons's. No one cares that John Kruk was one and done.

Also, I already acknowledged, twice now, the value of staying on the ballot for how it might affect things for the Vet's Committee, which is why some kind of compromise is reasonable to handle the first-ballot casualties. But that single consideration can't be enough to allow vote-suckers to hang around forever.


And I support a system that slowly removes people from the ballot, as proposed before(escalating percentages based upon years on ballot). I just don't support the 5% in first year rule.
   384. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:44 PM (#4340241)
The problem is how many debatable worthy guys have debuted with 5-15 percent? Keith Hernandez is the only one I could find.

I'll let you define "debatable worthy guys" on your own. But here are guys that debuted with 5-15% in the last half-century or so:

Oliva, Tony 15.20%
Lyle, Sparky 13.10%
Cepeda, Orlando 12.50%
Lemon, Bob 11.90%
Hershiser, Orel 11.20%
Palmeiro, Rafael11.00%
Fox, Nellie 10.80%
Williams, Bernie9.60%
Rose, Sr., Pete 9.50%
Reynolds, Allie 8.90%
Nettles, Graig 8.30%
Munson, Thurman 8.10%
Bauer, Hank 7.90%
Boone, Bob 7.70%
Belle, Albert 7.70%
Stewart, Dave 7.40%
Concepcion, Dave6.80%
Vernon, Mickey 6.60%
Maglie, Sal 6.50%
Staub, Rusty 6.30%
Valenzuela, Fernando 6.30%
Mazeroski, Bill 6.10%
Evans, Dwight 5.90%
Bonds, Bobby 5.80%
Dark, Alvin 5.60%
Foster, George 5.60%
Lynn, Fred 5.50%
Torre, Joe 5.30%
Blue, Vida 5.30%
Guidry, Ron 5.30%
Baines, Harold 5.30%
Howard, Elston 5.20%
Gonzalez, Juan 5.20%
Hernandez, Keith5.10%
McGee, Willie 5%


Alan Trammell had 15.7%.
   385. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:45 PM (#4340242)
Because I thought the argument was about keeping under 5% guys on the ballot so that they can get proper evaluation in the future. Your Kevin Browns, Lou Whitaker, Ted Simmons's. No one cares that John Kruk was one and done.


Why would you think the guys who almost unanimously rejected the Kevin Browns, Lou Whitakers and Ted Simmons six years after their last game played will suddenly get smarter given one or two or three more years? There's no earthly reason to think it will happen, and I don't care what some enterprising young Lederer wants to do about it. These guys simply don't have the baseline level of support to make substantial headway, particularly as more electable guys keep joining the ballot every year. These are lost causes. Sad, but true.

Now, if you want to give Sweet Lou a second bite at the apple to see if he can improve on his 2.9 percent, I'm all for it. It's a pretty fruitless endeavor, but I think it's reasonable compromise, as long as it comes with some other ballot-cleansing mechanism. Because you've got to be able to cut these guys loose if you want to make things easier for the realistic candidates, the Biggios and Bagwells and Piazzas, to get elected. Dale Murphy may be a two-time MVP, a super nice guy and a very fertile individual, but the only thing he's doing on this ballot is diverting votes away from men who could get the required 75 percent.

   386. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:50 PM (#4340243)
Whitaker almost certainly would have done better given a second year on the ballot, because there probably would have been a significant number of WhitakerandTrammell voters.
   387. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:50 PM (#4340244)
Now, if you want to give Sweet Lou a second bite at the apple to see if he can improve on his 2.9 percent, I'm all for it. It's a pretty fruitless endeavor, but I think it's reasonable compromise, as long as it comes with some other ballot-cleansing mechanism


I'm fine with a ballot clensing mechanism. I'm fine with more than 10 names on the ballot, I'm not fine with those guys mentioned being one and done. I've would be fine with a system that removes you from the ballot if you don't get 1% first year, 2% second and going up various ways after that.

   388. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:51 PM (#4340245)
There's definitely some debate worthy guys in the list in #384. Certainly not many, but some.
   389. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:57 PM (#4340248)
I'm fine with a ballot clensing mechanism. I'm fine with more than 10 names on the ballot, I'm not fine with those guys mentioned being one and done. I've would be fine with a system that removes you from the ballot if you don't get 1% first year, 2% second and going up various ways after that.


OK, just as long as you're fine with most of these guys being two and done and three and done, we're pretty much in agreement. I simply think its delusional to believe that these guys are ever going to make substantial gains from an initial starting point that paltry.

And keep in mind, Jimmy Wynn would still be one-and-done in your compromise system.
   390. GregD Posted: January 06, 2013 at 07:01 PM (#4340249)
I'm not in the HOM discussion but I think the following from that list on 384 are HOM elected:

Lemon, Bob 11.90%
Hershiser, Orel 11.20%
Palmeiro, Rafael11.00%
Fox, Nellie 10.80%
Rose, Sr., Pete 9.50%
Nettles, Graig 8.30%
Evans, Dwight 5.90%
Torre, Joe 5.30%
Hernandez, Keith5.10%
   391. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 07:11 PM (#4340254)
OK, just as long as you're fine with most of these guys being two and done and three and done, we're pretty much in agreement. I simply think its delusional to believe that these guys are ever going to make substantial gains from an initial starting point that paltry.


I disagree, I think that we would have seen some five percenters making it into serious discussions over time. Whether they go in or not is not really the point, it's whether they muster enough consideration to be part of the discussion. I honestly think if Whitaker would have stayed on the ballot, he would be doing pretty well, and same with Simmons. I think that after he missed out a lot of articles were written about him that could have changed peoples mind or reminded them of how good he was.
   392. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 07:27 PM (#4340264)
I honestly think if Whitaker would have stayed on the ballot, he would be doing pretty well, and same with Simmons. I think that after he missed out a lot of articles were written about him that could have changed peoples mind or reminded them of how good he was.


The performance of the 5-15 percent gang before that same electorate suggests otherwise.

One other thing: While it's true that strong performance with the BBWAA helps with the Vets, that's not a good thing. I'd rather see the Vets become untethered completely from the BBWAA, so that guys like Whitaker and Grich and Simmons can get that fresh look that the Vets Committee is supposed to offer.

And that's probably where the Hall can more easily change the process. Take the media guys off the nominating and voting panels. They had a shot, they don't need another one. Get some expert panel to pick the 10 best candidates, so that Grich is being considered instead of Vida Blue.

   393. MelOtt4 Posted: January 06, 2013 at 07:29 PM (#4340266)
I was thinking about this earlier today. One thing that bothers me about the Morris candidacy is the almost 'why not' vote for him. Whereas Blyleven legit seemed to pick up voters who realized he was a deserving HOF player.
   394. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 07:41 PM (#4340270)
I was thinking about this earlier today. One thing that bothers me about the Morris candidacy is the almost 'why not' vote for him. Whereas Blyleven legit seemed to pick up voters who realized he was a deserving HOF player.


The thing that bothers me about Morris's eventual election, is the same thing that bothers me about Rice's... Neither are remotely close to deserving, but they are getting the anti-stat voters, who are trying to find reasons to vote for a guy that they didn't vote for the first 12+ times on the ballot. I seriously think the Morris vote is as much against Blyleven and Lederer and stats as it is a vote for Morris.

One other thing: While it's true that strong performance with the BBWAA helps with the Vets, that's not a good thing. I'd rather see the Vets become untethered completely from the BBWAA, so that guys like Whitaker and Grich and Simmons can get that fresh look that the Vets Committee is supposed to offer.


I would rather see no type of veteran's committee that includes former players or anyone from inside the game. Go with a purely fresh start.
   395. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 06, 2013 at 07:57 PM (#4340275)
I was thinking about this earlier today. One thing that bothers me about the Morris candidacy is the almost 'why not' vote for him. Whereas Blyleven legit seemed to pick up voters who realized he was a deserving HOF player.


People really have to try to understand the mindset of others. Deserved or not, Morris gained a mystique through the 1980s. I remember very distinctly that the morning after Game 7 in 1991, someone asked me what happened, and I said "Jack Morris pitched himself into the Hall of Fame."

I don't know of any similar watershed for Blyleven. He pitched really well for Pittsburgh in the 1979 Series, but as a Pittsburgh fan what was unique about Blyleven was that he jumped the team in mid-season. I did come to appreciate the Blyleven HOF cause, largely because 60 shutouts was a big elephant in the room, but was there a time when Blyleven seemed destined for the Hall?

   396. Baldrick Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:07 PM (#4340286)
Why would you think the guys who almost unanimously rejected the Kevin Browns, Lou Whitakers and Ted Simmons six years after their last game played will suddenly get smarter given one or two or three more years?

Because it happened with Blyleven. I mean, that's a pretty obvious example, right?

I get that 14% is different than 4%. But we're talking about 300+ people who changed their mind on Bert. It wouldn't take all that many more to rescue a 4 percenter.
   397. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:12 PM (#4340296)
I remember very distinctly that the morning after Game 7 in 1991, someone asked me what happened, and I said "Jack Morris pitched himself into the Hall of Fame."

I don't know of any similar watershed for Blyleven.


The problem is that HOF induction is specifically not about "watersheds":

6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.

Morris's Game 7 performance is not supposed to be more than a blip on the radar. It should absolutely not be the lynchpin of his case.
   398. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:15 PM (#4340303)
People really have to try to understand the mindset of others. Deserved or not, Morris gained a mystique through the 1980s. I remember very distinctly that the morning after Game 7 in 1991, someone asked me what happened, and I said "Jack Morris pitched himself into the Hall of Fame."


But why did it take 14 years for people to realize that he was a hofer? He was in the 20% range for several years, then all the sudden the voters realized that he was hof worthy?
   399. John Northey Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:42 PM (#4340334)
On December 31st a comment has the vote totals at that point. How has it changed as the next batch of votes came in?
70.2 down to 68.2 - Biggio
67.6 down to 63.6 - Bagwell
63.5 down to 62.6 - Raines
63.5 down to 62.6 - Piazza
62.2 down to 61.3 - J. Morris
48.6 down to 43.0 - Clemens
47.3 down to 43.0 - Bonds
36.5 up to 37.4 - Trammell
35.1 up to 37.4 - L. Smith
35.1 up to 39.3 - Schilling
31.1 up to 40.2 - E. Martinez
18.9 up to 20.6 - D. Murphy
17.6 down to 15.9 - McGriff
17.6 down to 16.8 - McGwire
16.2 down to 15.0 - Raffy
13.5 up to 14.0 - L. Walker
13.5 up to 14.0 - S. Sosa
6.8 up to 7.5 - Mattingly
———————————
2.7 down to 1.9 - D. Wells
2.7 down to 1.9 - Bernie Williams
2.7 up to 2.8 - Lofton
2.7 up to 2.8 - P. Rose (goofy write-in)
0.0 up to 0.9 - J. Franco

So the up's maximum so far was 9 for Martinez (interesting) and the drops maxed out at 5.6 for Clemens. Top 7 candidates all have dropped off since mid-December 31st and not one guy has shifted from above or below 5% to the opposite.

A very sad state of affairs as it pretty much is a lock we won't have anyone inducted. Biggio is the only one with a statistical shot (using the old assumption of unbiased results which we don't have but historically it has done well) with the range at 107 ballots being +/-8.6% meaning Biggio's maximum potential is 76.8% while his floor is 59.6% (equal odds of both). Bagwell's max now is 72.2% with only Raines and Piazza still having a shot at 70%+ (Morris max is now 69.9% so he needs an extremely strongly pro-Morris crowd in the 'we dont write anymore but still vote' crowd). Now, the stats do have the 19 times out of 20 disclaimer which means one case should be outside the range. We can only hope it is Biggio, Bagwell or Raines on the positive side.
   400. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:59 PM (#4340345)
A very sad state of affairs as it pretty much is a lock we won't have anyone inducted.


Candidates for living "special inductees":

Sadaharu Oh
Dr. Jobe

Anyone else?
Page 4 of 9 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Ballot
(10 - 1:12am, Sep 02)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogTrevor Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction seems inevitable
(1 - 1:07am, Sep 02)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogHBT: Jorge Soler with an extra-base hit in each of his first five games
(2 - 1:02am, Sep 02)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(28 - 1:00am, Sep 02)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogRobothal: Changed [Manny] Ramirez enjoyed helping Cubs prospects grow
(12 - 12:48am, Sep 02)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(102 - 12:27am, Sep 02)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogNitkowski: Wanted: Major League manager...sort of.
(7 - 12:23am, Sep 02)
Last: steagles

NewsblogRon Roenicke rips into home-plate umpire
(17 - 12:18am, Sep 02)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(54 - 12:16am, Sep 02)
Last: Zach

NewsblogBlue Jays Acquire Mayberry Jr.
(7 - 12:10am, Sep 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogAthletics Acquire Adam Dunn
(43 - 11:46pm, Sep 01)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(986 - 11:25pm, Sep 01)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(101 - 11:17pm, Sep 01)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogNo-hitter! Four Phillies pitchers combine to blank the Braves
(10 - 11:12pm, Sep 01)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(5 - 11:07pm, Sep 01)
Last: DanO

Page rendered in 1.0478 seconds
52 querie(s) executed