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

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

The 2013 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

The 2014 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

Final: Jan.9 - 11:30 ~ 209* Full Ballots ~ (36.7%* of vote ~ based on last year) (*new ballot/pct. record!)

99.5 - Maddux
95.7 - Glavine
89.0 - F. Thomas
79.4 - Biggio
———————————
67.9 - Piazza
61.7 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
56.5 - Bagwell
54.5 - Raines
42.1 - Bonds
40.7 - Clemens
36.8 - Schilling
26.8 - Mussina
25.4 - E. Martinez
24.4 - L. Smith
22.0 - Trammell
15.8 - Kent
12.0 - McGriff
10.5 - McGwire
  8.1 - L. Walker
  7.2 - S. Sosa
  5.7 - R. Palmeiro
———————————
4.8 - Mattingly
0.5 - P. Rose (Write-In)

Thanks to Butch, Ilychs Morales, leokitty & Barnald for their help.

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

Repoz Posted: December 25, 2013 at 03:56 PM | 2002 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history, 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 19 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > 
   1801. SouthSideRyan Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4633602)
Yeah, I'd say Biggio coming that close is good for Bagwell's chances next year
   1802. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4633605)
No Palmeiro is now officially the first 3,000 hit player to not make the Hall of Fame?


Vet committee? Is he now exempt from ever being considered in the future?
   1803. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4633606)
No Palmeiro is now officially the first 3,000 hit player to not make the Hall of Fame?


There's that guy who calls himself the "Hit King" who's never appeared on a HOF ballot.
   1804. arrabin56 Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4633610)
Biggio and Piazza only players to increase in voting from 2013
   1805. gabrielthursday Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4633613)
The final votes per ballot: a disappointing 8.39
   1806. A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4633621)
absolutely no way bagwell goes in next year
   1807. Guts Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4633622)
Dan Le Batard is the Deadspin voter. Pretty good ballot, too.
   1808. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4633625)
With "only" three elected, and Bagwell & Raines getting fewer votes this year, the ballot glut will be around for years. Those that said the BBWAA would be able to get beyond "witch hunt" justice were also overly optimistic.


It's slightly better next year, since Morris is also gone. The floor for expected Hall inductees next year has got to be three (Johnson, Pedro and Biggio), with the possibility of a fourth. It will be a little better in 2016, as Jr. is the only first-balloter debuting.

Of course, it's going to require the same level of votes per ballot to really make a dent. A lift on the ballot cap would help. A few deaths probably wouldn't hurt either.
   1809. DL from MN Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4633627)
On a ballot where Jack Morris polls 60% a vote for Kenny Rogers can't be considered a "joke" vote.
   1810. DanG Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4633632)
No Palmeiro is now officially the first 3,000 hit player to not make the Hall of Fame?


Vet committee? Is he now exempt from ever being considered in the future?
Players must be retired for 21 years before the VC can consider them. Meanwhile, the BBWAA can reinstate players axed by the 5% rule if their retirement falls within their 15 year window. Next election that window is players retiring 1995-2009. Nobody has gotten reinstated since the 1980's.
   1811. Repoz Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4633633)
Could Costas be any happier about Bonds/Clemens totals going down?

And stop talking about historic in-game situations you boring ######.

On a brighter note...Heyman was near tears about Jack (The Jack) Morris not getting in.
   1812. AROM Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4633638)
Vet committee? Is he now exempt from ever being considered in the future?


I think he has to wait till 2024 or something, which is when his 15 years would have ended had he gotten 5%. Morris has done his 15, so he can go straight to the vets committee.

Unless rules change. Maybe the HOF can compromise, induct all the steroid guys, but instead of the typical plaque room each player gets his own bathroom stall, complete with vials, syringes, the cream and the clear.
   1813. John Northey Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4633640)
I wonder if someone did a PED only vote as protest (thinking about Gagne). Still, when a guy comes as close as Biggio did I'm sure a few voters are wondering if they should've factored in electability this year. Hopefully next year many will automatically put Piazza and Biggio on their ballot first then work through the rookies (Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Smoltz) and then others.

Glad to see Bagwell and Raines up high enough that eventually getting in seems likely. I suspect Raines will make a move next year with 5 guys coming off this year (Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Morris and Palmeiro) and not a ton of room to grow for Biggio while Johnson/Martinez/Smoltz won't eat as many votes as Maddux/Glavine/Thomas did I suspect. I also wouldn't be shocked to see Sosa & Sheffield miss 5% next year now that the fall-off-the-ballot has occurred for a PED user with 3000 hits & 500 HR. Might see McGwire drop further too. Don't agree with it, but can easily see it happening.
   1814. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4633641)
[1807] Link?
   1815. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4633644)
Biggio will absolutely go in next year. I think the drop of other players like Raines and Bagwell is a direct result of the crowded ballot. 4 names being removed with 2 "locks" going in next year leaves a little more room on the ballot, and also the rather high average number of votes could help signal a trend for larger ballots. The issue of ballot size will be discussed next season and I can see it pushing some voters who held back this year up(not many..but you don't need many more to change their thought process)
   1816. Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey) Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4633646)
On a ballot where Jack Morris polls 60% a vote for Kenny Rogers can't be considered a "joke" vote.


Exactly. Kenny may have been better than Jack.
   1817. kwarren Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4633647)
This is the rationale for Shi Davidi's Morris vote:

eed of some explanation.

I strongly considered Morris on my 2013 ballot but decided to leave him off for several reasons, one of them being that his 3.90 ERA would be the highest for a pitcher in the Hall, surpassing Red Ruffing’s 3.80. It was a decision I was uneasy with because I admired Morris’s durability, and the fact that he finished 175 of the 527 starts he made is remarkable, particularly given the era he pitched in.

Consider that there were 124 complete games in big-leagues in 2013, a total that is 51 fewer than Morris had in his entire career. The Tampa Bay Rays led the way with nine last season, and in only five of his 18 seasons did Morris have fewer than nine complete games, two of them at the start of his career before he was fully established, two at the end when he struggled through arm troubles.

Three points made by Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci further illustrated just how rare Morris’s durability was:

- Among starters who debuted between 1971-83, he won and completed the most games.

- He pitched eight or more innings in AL games 248 times, more than any other pitcher since the designated hitter’s introduction.

- Between 1979-92, he pitched eight or more innings in 52 per cent of his 464 starts.

Worth noting is that Morris wasn’t stuck in the back of the rotation – he was logging ace duties while carrying that load.

Telling too is that he started Game 1 in six of the seven post-season series he appeared in, the only exception coming in 1987, when he had to sit until Game 2 of the ALCS because the Tigers needed him to pitch the previous weekend to hold off the Blue Jays. When the stakes were highest, three different managers (he pitched in the playoffs for Detroit, Minnesota and Toronto) trusted him to set the tone.

While I would never support Morris's induction this is probably the best reasoning that I have seen for supporting Morris. He does bring something to the table that other pitchers of his era did not. Assuming of course that his quoted stats are accurate.
   1818. Guts Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4633649)
[1807] Link?

I just submitted it, should be on Newstand soon.
   1819. asinwreck Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4633651)
Three men who played for the Chicago White Sox were elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. They are Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, and Frank Thomas. Thomas is the only one who played for the Sox before age 40. Of the other two, the only happy memory I have of their Sox careers is Seaver's 300th win in 1985.
   1820. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4633655)
1798:
I can see some reason for voting for all of those players except Jacque Jones and Armando Benitez. Even J.T. Snow saved a 2-year-old from dying in a home plate collision once.

Well, Jacque Jones was once traded for Omar Infante, and Omar Infante was once traded for Dan Uggla, and Dan Uggla has more career home runs than Bobby Doerr, and Bobby Doerr is in the Hall of Fame. So what's that tell you?
   1821. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4633659)
Frank Thomas was watching that gizmo thing....
   1822. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4633660)
Frank Thomas just mentioned "that Gizmo thing"!
   1823. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4633663)
Frank Thomas on Baseball Network: "I've been watching that Gizmo thing, and it was trending down and making me very nervous."
   1824. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4633664)
Frank Thomas on MLB Network: "I was watching that Gizmo thing because people said it was pretty accurate".

Edit: But did he register?
   1825. MelOtt4 Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4633665)
Can we please do away with having every eligible player on the final HOF ballot? It really shouldn't be necessary, but there's always going to be a handful of voters who like a certain guy or have some other dumb reason to but him on the ballot.
   1826. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4633672)
Frank Thomas just mentioned "that Gizmo thing"!


That's fantastic.

Of course, I'm already fearing how some larger news site next year puts some intern in charge of Repozing all the public votes, creating their own Gizmo. Probably the ########### at ESPN.

Can we please do away with having every eligible player on the final HOF ballot?


Not every eligible player is put on the ballot. A committee chooses the candidates from the eligibles.
   1827. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4633675)
Biggio should waltz in next year with over 80%. If I had to guess, I'd say 85%. Nobody will want to be responsible for being THAT guy again.
   1828. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4633678)
Can we please do away with having every eligible player on the final HOF ballot? It really shouldn't be necessary, but there's always going to be a handful of voters who like a certain guy or have some other dumb reason to but him on the ballot.


They already do. There is a committee that wheedles the ballot down, and players say "just being on the ballot is an honor."
   1829. Rusty Priske Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4633679)
Rather than being mad about who they missed, shouldn't we be happy that they are inducting three qualified candidates?

That certainly beats their recent track record...
   1830. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4633693)
When the stakes were highest, three different managers (he pitched in the playoffs for Detroit, Minnesota and Toronto) trusted him to set the tone.


Game 1, 1984 ALCS - 7-inning win (1ER)
Game 1, 1984 WS - CG win (2ER)
Game 1, 1991 ALCS - 5.1-inning win (4ER)
Game 1, 1991 WS - 7-inning win (2ER)
Game 1, 1992 ALCS - CG loss (4ER)
Game 1, 1992 WS - 6-inning loss (3ER)

Summary: 6 games started, 43.1 IP, 3.32 ERA 4-2 record

I was planning on providing a snarky answer, but I can't. That's not a bad result.
   1831. DL from MN Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4633694)
Johnson, Pedro, Biggio and Piazza would be a pretty good group next year. I doubt the Golden Era VC elects anyone. Unless I forgot someone the biggest misses from that era are Billy Pierce, Bill Freehan and Minnie Minoso.
   1832. Bad Doctor Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4633698)
It is speculated that the odd votes, for people like Benitez and Jones, are by writers wanting to make sure their votes get counted - a way of marking their ballots.

I've never heard that one before. Somewhere Jayson Stark is starting his next column -- "What does Armando Benitez have to do with Van Halen's brown M&Ms;?"
   1833. A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4633699)
still love that it's referred to as 'the gizmo'
   1834. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4633700)
I'd guess the "joke" votes were more of a "Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Jones" variety than "I want to vote for 14 guys, but I'll stick Nomo in instead".
   1835. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4633702)
Rather than being mad about who they missed, shouldn't we be happy that they are inducting three qualified candidates?

That certainly beats their recent track record...


Yep, I wasn't sure that Glavine or Thomas would have a real chance when the ballots were first released. Biggio missing by as much as he did the previous year made me a little hesitant at thinking the writers will screw this up again.

   1836. arrabin56 Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4633705)
1825. MelOtt4 Posted: January 08, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4633665)

Can we please do away with having every eligible player on the final HOF ballot? It really shouldn't be necessary, but there's always going to be a handful of voters who like a certain guy or have some other dumb reason to but him on the ballot.


Edgardo Alfonzo questions your accuracy.

But seriously, Mike Timlin could make a ballot but not Edgardo Alfonzo?
   1837. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4633706)
Frank Thomas was watching that gizmo thing....


Just so you know, Mr. Big Hurt, all of the nice things people say about you around here aren't just because we now know you're watching and you're enormous.
   1838. How Flounder got here, he hasn't a clue. Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4633710)
That's fantastic.

Of course, I'm already fearing how some larger news site next year puts some intern in charge of Repozing all the public votes, creating their own Gizmo. Probably the cocksuckers at ESPN.


Is it just me or is that something right in Nate Silver's wheelhouse?
   1839. ajnrules Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4633716)
[1814] Source

As Guts said, not a bad ballot. Switch Edgar for Mussina and it'll match my hypothetical ballot.
   1840. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4633718)
re: #1826, I'd say this year is the beginning of the end of our gizmo exclusivity. Perhaps the end of the end.
   1841. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4633722)
re: #1862, I'd say this year is the beginning of the end of our gizmo exclusivity. Perhaps the end of the end.

Observation of an object changes the nature of the object. The Gizmo is dead, long live The Gizmo.
   1842. Astroenteritis Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4633724)
As disappointed as I am that Biggio didn't make it, he's got a great shot next year, in spite of the ballot glut. Sad to see Raines and Bagwell lose ground, and can't believe anyone would not vote for Piazza, though that group has their own agenda. Probably good that Piazza got as high as 62%, I suppose.

Anyway, the three who were elected were very deserving and congrats to them!
   1843. Rusty Priske Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4633733)
Not only will bigger outlets start ballot counting (why did it take the Gizmo to start that, anyway?) but they will start trying to get exclusive results, so they can count more ballots than anyone else...
   1844. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4633736)
After last year, I was worried we'd have another year where everyone got shut out again. I'm glad that's not the case. (I'm thrilled Frank Thomas is in--I hope he's the catalyst for the end of this steroid hysteria <ie, 'Well, now that we've elected ONE homerun hitter from the Sillyball era, we might as well elect them all!'>--but even if not, that's a wonderful selection. I loved that I had the chance to watch him hit!)
   1845. kwarren Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:46 PM (#4633737)
Pedro put up Koufax numbers when offenses were twice as powerful.


Pedro had a 154 ERA+ in 2,827 IP, while Koufax had a 131 ERA+ in 2,324 IP.

JAWS - Pedro 71.1 to 47.5
PEAK - Pedro 58.2 to 46.1
Career WAR - Pedro 84.0 to 49.0

As great as Koufax was, his career was not close to Pedro's.

What many people forget, don't realize, ignore is that Dodger Stadium was a very very pitcher friendly park when Koufax pitched.
   1846. Ray K Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4633738)
I'm thrilled Frank Thomas is in--I hope he's the catalyst for the end of this steroid hysteria


Thomas was an outspoken opponent to PED usage throughout his career. His first-ballot induction can be alternatively interpreted as a win for the anti-PED masses.
   1847. MelOtt4 Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4633743)
Thanks for all of you who corrected me on there being an actual committee. My point does stand that some voters can't be trusted with making throwaway votes.



   1848. Repoz Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4633744)
Is it just me or is that something right in Nate Silver's wheelhouse?

First time I met Nate Silver...he rushed up to me and called me his hero.

Guess I'm in.

Ha!

   1849. DanG Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4633749)
Can we please do away with having every eligible player on the final HOF ballot? It really shouldn't be necessary, but there's always going to be a handful of voters who like a certain guy or have some other dumb reason to but him on the ballot.
The ballot screeners placed 19 players on the ballot from the 56 ten-year players who last played in 2008.
   1850. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4633765)
Pedro had a 154 ERA+ in 2,827 IP, while Koufax had a 131 ERA+ in 2,324 IP.


Era+ overstates the difference, (66 era- for Pedro, 75 era- for Koufax) but agree that Pedro has a better case.

   1851. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:55 PM (#4633769)
What many people forget, don't realize, ignore is that Dodger Stadium was a very very pitcher friendly park when Koufax pitched.


Wrong, wrong, right.
   1852. Mark Armour Posted: January 08, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4633780)
Nate Silver's wheelhouse is analyzing and drawing conclusions from data. He still needs pollsters to collect and publish their data for him. (This is not a criticism in any way.)
   1853. maven of all things baseball Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4633784)
Not sure why the BBWAA is saying McGriff's been on the ballot for eight years...it's been five. So there might be other mistakes on there, too.


I think it's a typo since McGwire (8) is right next to him in the voting totals...
   1854. kwarren Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:01 PM (#4633789)
Because his career is basically Schillings with an extra thousand innings of average starter performance.


I don't think many would agree with this assessment. In those "extra 1100 innings" his ERA+ was 88.

3,300 IP at 128 ERA+. His career is 4,413 at 118 ERA+. In order to reach this career ERA+ he needs to post an ERA+ of 88
in the remaining 1100 IP.

So, the argument that you continue to espouse to illustrate Glavine's superiority over Schilling (and to contradict JAWS)
doesn't hold water.
   1855. kwarren Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4633801)
At the end of the day, Tom Glavine is a no doubt, lock-down, not-quite-demi-god but definitely inner circle HOF pitcher. To argue otherwise on JAWS or whatever is to miss the forest for the trees.


You couldn't be more wrong, unless you are also saying that Mussina and Schilling are also in the same category which makes it a pretty big inner circle.

There is no statistical evidence to support your viewpoint and there is loads of evidence to suggest that Schilling, Mussina, and Glavine are very equal in the success of their careers.
   1856. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4633806)
I don't think many would agree with this assessment. In those "extra 1100 innings" his ERA+ was 88.


and that is pretty much right around average for a starting pitcher. Well above replacement level no matter how you look at it.

So, the argument that you continue to espouse to illustrate Glavine's superiority over Schilling (and to contradict JAWS)
doesn't hold water.


Contradict a movie about a shark? I don't even look at Jaws EVER. It's a joke of a joke(not a wpa level of a joke, but it's still a ridiculous tool.)

Why 7 year peak and not 10 or 5 or 3 or 1 or 20? Most people are smart enough to throw Jaws in the garbage where it belongs and discuss the actual individual case. Again I can see why Schilling has the love he does around here, but realistically speaking Schillings career is not noticeably different than Glavine's career, when you look at the results on the field. It's basically 60 unearned runs difference over 3300 ip.

   1857. Morty Causa Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4633809)
Nate Silver's wheelhouse is analyzing and drawing conclusions from data. He still needs pollsters to collect and publish their data for him. (This is not a criticism in any way.)

Smokin' Joe Scarborough said it was too close to call for anyone.
   1858. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4633813)
t the end of the day, Tom Glavine is a no doubt, lock-down, not-quite-demi-god but definitely inner circle HOF pitcher. To argue otherwise on JAWS or whatever is to miss the forest for the trees.


I missed this earlier...Glavine is not an inner circle hofer, you are nuts if you think so, You are nuts if you think there is anything separating him from Mussina or Schilling that makes him inner circle and those guys not. You are nuts if you think that there is an argument to be made for Glavine as even noticeably better than Schilling or Mussina... the only argument for Glavine is that he's equal to those two, not one argument for he's clearly better.
   1859. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4633816)
3,300 IP at 128 ERA+. His career is 4,413 at 118 ERA+. In order to reach this career ERA+ he needs to post an ERA+ of 88
in the remaining 1100 IP.


Glavine = Schilling + one of the following:

Roberto (Fausto Carmona) Hernandez
Jason Bere
Nate Robertson
Josh Fogg
Adam Eaton
Scott Elarton
Mike Pelfry
   1860. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4633824)

I don't think many would agree with this assessment. In those "extra 1100 innings" his ERA+ was 88.

3,300 IP at 128 ERA+. His career is 4,413 at 118 ERA+. In order to reach this career ERA+ he needs to post an ERA+ of 88
in the remaining 1100 IP.


That doesn't seem right. I'm in the Schilling camp but Glavine between 1991-2005 had a 128 ERA+ in 3305 IP, in the outlier yrs. 87-90 he was 89 in 646 IP and 06-09 100 in 462 IP. Without breaking down the raw ERA vs. the league ERA in those years, if you just take the avg. of those two numbers 89 & 100 you get 94.5 but since the 89 is in more IP it brings it to ~93.5. Am I wrong?



Edit: Oops, I shouldn't be treating all those outlier yrs. as equal considering the IP difference in the individual years.
   1861. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4633825)
So, this Glavine talk has me wondering: Who's the worst player to make the Hall of Fame on his first ballot?

(Obviously, not a shot at Glavine at all; it's just...Somebody has to be the worst!)

UPDATE: I found a list of first-ballot Hall of Famers, and, without even checking everyone's numbers, can see the answer is clearly Lou Brock.
   1862. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4633828)
Costas thinks Rivera has a chance at 100%? Wow... if Rivera breaks 95% I would be shocked, there are absolutely voters who will not vote for a reliever. If Maddux can't make it, nobody in the next 10 years has a chance of making it. Jeter and Griffey are the only position players with a possibility and I agree with Bob, in that old fogeyism voters will find a reason to not vote for those guys.
   1863. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4633829)
So, this Glavine talk has me wondering: Who's the worst player to make the Hall of Fame on his first ballot?


Lou Brock or Eckersley?
   1864. Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4633830)
Davo - maybe Puckett.
   1865. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4633833)
Lloyd Waner?
   1866. Rusty Priske Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4633836)
Brock was better than Eck.

I think the next shot at 100% is Griffey.

I also don't think he will get it.
   1867. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4633838)
Oh, whoops, skipped right over Eck's name. Yeah, there's your answer.
   1868. Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4633842)
Lloyd Waner wasn't a first-year inductee. In fact, the BBWAA didn't put him in at all. The VC put him in.
   1869. The District Attorney Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4633848)
Bill James on Clubhouse Confidential. Perhaps he'll tell us about how Tris Speaker paid him to throw games.

I'd go for Puckett as worst 1st balloter, I think he's a joke selection really.

I dunno how you could predict anyone to get 100% at this point. If Maddux had broken the record, maybe you could figure that trend would continue. But with him not coming all that close, why would you expect it?
   1870. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:36 PM (#4633856)
Do blank ballots count at all? I mean...do they increase the "denominator"?
   1871. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4633857)
Lloyd Waner wasn't a first-year inductee. In fact, the BBWAA didn't put him in at all. The VC put him in.


Reading is fundamental. Somehow missed the 1st ballot qualifier. In that case I'd probably go with Brock, although he deserves to be in for historical significance.
   1872. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4633858)
Do blank ballots count at all? I mean...do they increase the "denominator"?


Yes. Blank ballots mailed to the hof count.
   1873. MelOtt4 Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:45 PM (#4633869)
Are we finally going to get a four man class next year or do we have an odd man out? I know it was close this year, but I'm going to remain skeptical until it does happen.
   1874. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4633881)
Bill James is going to be on MLB TV in a few minutes...wonder if it's going to be old cranky Bill or analytical Bill?

Are we finally going to get a four man class next year or do we have an odd man out? I know it was close this year, but I'm going to remain skeptical until it does happen.


Randy, Pedro and Biggio all go in next year. Piazza is the odd man out, and Smoltz will probably undeservedly do better than Schilling and Mussina did this year(although I fully expect that Schilling and Mussina will do better than Smoltz)
   1875. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:51 PM (#4633885)
The funny part about the 100% thing is the guy with the best shot actually isn't in the Hall at all. I think that particular ship sailed with Rose. I think if he had made the ballot without the gambling thing he had a legitimate shot. The media loved him, fans loved him, he had an important record, World Series titles, all kinds of narrative...he had a shot.

I think Jeter has a shot but there will be a couple of "no PED era" voters out there.
   1876. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:54 PM (#4633888)
Are we finally going to get a four man class next year or do we have an odd man out? I know it was close this year, but I'm going to remain skeptical until it does happen.


I say no. I think Piazza puts himself in good position to make it in 2016, and Smoltz may as well, but my guess is just Randy, Pedro and Biggio.

   1877. kwarren Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4633892)



and that is pretty much right around average for a starting pitcher. Well above replacement level no matter how you look at it.


Well there is a big difference in claiming an additional 1,000 IP of league average pitching, and now we are at "replacement level pitching". I don't think that 1,000 extra innings at replacement level effectiveness helps his case at all, except for getting him to 305 wins (which is were his real popularity is coming from).


I don't even look at Jaws EVER. It's a joke of a joke


Too bad, it is helpful for informing insightful, meaningful, and accurate comparisons of player careers.








   1878. The District Attorney Posted: January 08, 2014 at 04:57 PM (#4633894)
I actually predict Unit, Biggio and Piazza, not Pedro (and quite possibly not Piazza). I think there are enough schmucks who think "219 wins = borderline" (this is also working against Schilling, IMO). They'll change their mind after enough people yell at them, but until then...
   1879. djrelays Posted: January 08, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4633925)
Re 1871 & 1872:

Jack McCaffery wrote in Pete Rose, and also voted for Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, McGwire, Morris, Piazza and Thomas.

That Baseball Hall of Fame website gives this among its voting criteria:

4. Method of Election:
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.

Does anyone know if the write-in for Rose was merely not counted, or did the write-in force a nullification of the entire ballot, thus costing Biggio--and the other--a vote?
   1880. HGM Posted: January 08, 2014 at 05:13 PM (#4633941)
Apparently writer Ron Blum voted for 9 players, but not Biggio.... despite the fact that he voted for Biggio last year.
   1881. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 05:16 PM (#4633943)
Too bad, it is helpful for informing insightful, meaningful, and accurate comparisons of player careers.


Not really, it's an arbitrary range total, that if you are seriously comparing two players, (and not a large group of players) that is doing a disservice instead of looking at individual seasons and arguments for each.

Well there is a big difference in claiming an additional 1,000 IP of league average pitching, and now we are at "replacement level pitching". I don't think that 1,000 extra innings at replacement level effectiveness helps his case at all, except for getting him to 305 wins (which is were his real popularity is coming from).


I said well above replacement level. Roughly speaking average pitching is going to be around 92-94 era+ and you are talking about an 88. (or you could break it down more. it's Schilling plus three years of average pitching ---his era+ of 98 in '89, 94 in 90, and 97 in 2007.) And I absolutely think that a player who is putting up 180 innings at 94 or better era+ is adding to his resume.

I agree with you that his popularity is helped by the 300+ wins, but I think that Schilling's popularity is being helped by people who worship at the altar of fip and other "tools" arguments, and don't look at results. I see Schilling/Glavine/Mussina as roughly equal players and don't think there is a real clear winner there. If I ranked them, most of the time I rank it Mussina/Schilling/Glavine but I have literally ranked them in every possible order depending on my thought process at the time.
   1882. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4633946)
Does anyone know if the write-in for Rose was merely not counted, or did the write-in force a nullification of the entire ballot, thus costing Biggio--and the other--a vote?


In an article last year, the guy from the hof said that they usually just ignore the write in votes.
   1883. kwarren Posted: January 08, 2014 at 05:24 PM (#4633957)
I see Schilling/Glavine/Mussina as roughly equal players and don't think there is a real clear winner there. If I ranked them, most of the time I rank it Mussina/Schilling/Glavine but I have literally ranked them in every possible order depending on my thought process at the time.


This contradicts your earlier posts, but I think this comment is bang on. I guess the disappointing aspect of this years results is all the love for Glavine, with Mussina & Schilling being an afterthought actually getting less support than Lee Smith.
   1884. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4633971)
This contradicts your earlier posts, but I think this comment is bang on. I guess the disappointing aspect of this years results is all the love for Glavine, with Mussina being an afterthought.


I think the combo of Cy Youngs and 300 was what separated him from a cursory examination of the numbers from Schilling and Mussina. Mussina will make it in, I think that is pretty much a foregone conclusion, he just has to wait it out. Glavine has a peak(contrary to what people seem to think) and has a career, while Mussina is views as just a good career guy, and Schilling as just a peak guy (no matter how untrue both of those thoughts are.)

Every casual fan I've talked to on Schilling has said roughly the same thing "he was very good when he played, he just didn't do enough." (being from St Louis, I've seen a lot of comparisons to Chris Carpenter, which of course miss the 1000+ extra innings Schilling has)

And Mussina people usually say "he just never put up that Cy Young type of year." and as a "career" candidate did't make it to 300. (which as MLB TV brought up, was well within his reach, he was young enough when he retired)

Both Mussina and Schilling are going to go in. Along with Smoltz, but they have to Blyleven their way up the ballot, but I don't think they'll have as much resistance as Blyleven or Morris did.
   1885. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 08, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4633977)


This contradicts your earlier posts, but I think this comment is bang on. I guess the disappointing aspect of this years results is all the love for Glavine, with Mussina & Schilling being an afterthought actually getting less support than Lee Smith.


Ditto that; I was under the impression that you (cardsfan) generally considered Glavine the best of the bunch? Was your stand just a devils advocate thing?



edit: guess I should have hit send sooner.
   1886. gabrielthursday Posted: January 08, 2014 at 05:46 PM (#4633990)
I think Jeter has a shot but there will be a couple of "no PED era" voters out there.

Can I militate against Jeter for the simple reason that he's the worst everyday defensive shortstop in baseball history?
   1887. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 08, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4634002)

I don't even look at Jaws EVER. It's a joke of a joke


I find JAWS to be a nice compilation stat that balances the peak and career candidates.
   1888. Swedish Chef Posted: January 08, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4634007)
I think Jeter has a shot but there will be a couple of "no PED era" voters out there.

Well, it's not likely that Jeter have stolen girls from any HoF-voters, but what is the probability that he has broken the hearts of one or more voter's daughter?
   1889. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4634011)
Ditto that; I was under the impression that you (cardsfan) generally considered Glavine the best of the bunch? Was your stand just a devils advocate thing?


More the latter than the former. I was more upset with peoples reliance on war for the argument instead of looking at the actual careers. Schilling is getting a lift from his team defense in war, but if you want to remove defense out of the equation, there isn't really a noticeable difference between Schilling's career and Glavine's peak. If you start to peel away years but keep the innings pitched they are still close. I just do not see any reason to look at war and go with that as the only argument for a pitcher, even if you are using bWar and not that waste fWar.
   1890. dlf Posted: January 08, 2014 at 06:06 PM (#4634023)
For what little its worth, the Magnolia chapter of SABR (I'm not sure if it is Atlanta metro area or all of Georgia) had the following results from an email poll:

Maddux     100%
Glavine    89.5
Biggio     76.3
Thomas     68.4
Piazza     57.9
Bagwell    34.2
Bonds      31.6
Mussina    31.6
Clemens    28.9
Morris     26.3
Martinez   23.7
Schilling  18.4
McGriff    15.8
Trammell   15.8
Walker     15.8
Smith      13.2
Mattingly  10.5
Kent       7.9
McGwire    7.9
Palmiero   5.3
Sosa       5.3
Alou       2.6
Gagne      2.6
Gonzalez   2.6
Nomo       2.6
Benetiz
CaseyDurhamT.JonesJ.JonesLoDucaRodgersSexsonSnowTimlin all 0
   1891. Baldrick Posted: January 08, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4634028)
Just confirming what we already knew, but if Maddux can't be unanimous, I don't see how anybody can ever be unanimous without a fundamental change in the voting system. There is no argument against Maddux...none. Not even irrational arguments about personality or him playing the game the wrong way or something.

If you like baseball, I don't see how you could not love Maddux.
   1892. GregD Posted: January 08, 2014 at 06:18 PM (#4634035)
Just confirming what we already knew, but if Maddux can't be unanimous, I don't see how anybody can ever be unanimous without a fundamental change in the voting system. There is no argument against Maddux...none. Not even irrational arguments about personality or him playing the game the wrong way or something.
I wonder if there's polisci research on how large a sample you can have before you get an absolute nut, even if you're going from a pool limited by profession or education. How big a voting pool can you have and get unanimity on any question, no matter how broad?

Ed to add: I mean Saddam only got 99.96% of the vote in his 1995 referendum!
   1893. Swedish Chef Posted: January 08, 2014 at 06:27 PM (#4634043)
Ed to add: I mean Saddam only got 99.96% of the vote in his 1995 referendum!

When Norway in 1905 voted to disband the union with Sweden 368208 voted yes and 184 no.
   1894. tfbg9 Posted: January 08, 2014 at 06:49 PM (#4634060)
his ERA+ was 88.


and that is pretty much right around average for a starting pitcher. Well above replacement level no matter how you look at it.


IIRC, an average starter will have an ERA+ around 95.

Congrats to the CWS and ATL fans on the site.
   1895. gabrielthursday Posted: January 08, 2014 at 07:03 PM (#4634074)
Here's the final variance between the Gizmo and the results.

99.5 - Maddux 97.2 (-2.3)
95.7 - Glavine 91.9 (-3.8)
89.4 - F. Thomas 83.7 (-5.7)
79.3 - Biggio 74.8 (-4.5)
67.8 - Piazza 62.2 (-5.6)
61.5 - Jack (The Jack) Morris 61.5 (0)
56.3 - Bagwell 54.3 (-2.0)
54.3 - Raines 46.1 (-8.2)
42.3 - Bonds 34.7 (-7.6)
40.9 - Clemens 35.4 (-5.5)
36.5 - Schilling 29.2 (-7.3)
26.4 - Mussina 20.3 (-6.1)
25.5 - E. Martinez 25.2 (-0.3)
24.0 - L. Smith 29.9 (+5.9)
22.1 - Trammell 20.8 (-1.3)
15.9 - Kent 15.2 (-0.7)
12.0 - McGriff 11.7 (-0.3)
10.6 - McGwire 11.0 (+0.4)
8.2 - L. Walker 10.2 (+2.0)
7.2 - S. Sosa 7.2 (0)
5.8 - R. Palmeiro 4.4 (-1.4)
4.8 - Mattingly 8.2 (+3.4)

A brief observation or two: The non-reporting voters included significantly fewer candidates per ballot, which disproportionately affected candidates on the top half of the ballot. I'd have to run some numbers, but I think once you adjust for the lower overall votes per ballot, I think the Gizmo might be more accurate this year than past years; that's a big caveat, but interesting if the numbers bear it out.
   1896. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2014 at 07:04 PM (#4634075)
Congrats to the CWS and ATL fans on the site.


What about the Mets, Cubs, A's, Padres, Blue Jays, and Dodgers fans?

   1897. SandlotBB Posted: January 08, 2014 at 07:29 PM (#4634088)
Just a thought:

What if Biggio's support declines next year thanks to the logjam? How many players have ever been elected by the BBWAA when their support declined over a particular two-year span? (Jim Rice comes to mind, but with the exception of the Ryan/Brett/Yount effect in 1999, his general trajectory, at least early in his candidacy, was positive) The ballot becomes even more loaded next year because without a single Jack Morris to steal support in the middle of the ballot, there are numerous holdover players whose fanbases will be vying for attention. We've already seen some voters who supported Biggio in the past drop their support this year. Will that happen next year?

At the very least, I find it hard to believe that Bagwell and Biggio will go in together. It's one thing for two first-time candidates to garner joint support, such as Maddux and Glavine. It's another for candidates who have been rejected several times, to accomplish the same. Bagwell seems stuck in a rut and might not crack the 60% mark.

FWIW, I think the two guys who had a legitimate shot at eventual election by the BBWAA (i.e., no PED issues) who really hit the skids were Edgar and Raines. I don't see how Edgar is going to increase nearly 50 points with the coming logjam.
   1898. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 08, 2014 at 07:33 PM (#4634091)
There is no argument against Maddux...none.


He had a losing postseason record. Which doesn't really contradict your point so much as point out that you can find a reason to vote against anybody if you go looking for one. Setting aside "nobody from the steroid era" blank ballots, Griffey will lose votes because he wasted his talent and was injury-prone for the last half of his career. Jeter will lose votes because of his defense (and possibly a smattering of anti-Yankee bias).

And Maddux's total today suggests that, if anything, unanimity is getting more difficult over time. In 2007, Tony Gwynn, who is (a) a well-deserving Hall-of-Famer, (b) clearly nowhere near as deserving as Greg Maddux, and (c) wasn't even the best player on his debut ballot, was only left off of 13 ballots and beat Maddux's percentage by 0.4%.

Although I would be curious if any of the Maddux omissions were strategic omissions on full ballots (there were no such ballots published).
   1899. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 08, 2014 at 07:38 PM (#4634093)
What if Biggio's support declines next year thanks to the logjam?

It could also decline if a big steroid story involving him or someone close to him breaks in the next 12 months. Which isn't to say there is such a story to break, but if Biggio knows he (or even Bagwell) roided, there could be a frayed nerve or two between now and December.
   1900. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 08, 2014 at 07:38 PM (#4634094)
The ballot becomes even more loaded next year


Not really. Combining Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Morris, and Palmeiro, voters will have an extra 3.4 ballot slots next season. Even if you give Randy Johnson all of Maddux's support and Pedro all of Glavine's support (and I'd expect Unit and Pedro to be somewhat lower than Maddux and Glavine), that's still an extra 1.5 ballot slots to spread among Smoltz (who I'd expect to debut in the Schilling-Mussina range), Sheffield (who will get way fewer votes than he deserves purely on the statistic merits), et al. If the number of votes per ballot holds steady next season - and that's the big concern, I think, that with 3 guys having just been elected there will be far less pressure to max out ballots - then I think there's plenty of room for the high backlog to make some progress and get at least Biggio and possibly even Piazza elected.
Page 19 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRolling Stone: The 15 Worst Owners in Sports
(42 - 10:01am, Nov 26)
Last: simon bedford

NewsblogYankees won't get into bidding war for Chase Headley: source - NY Daily News
(3 - 9:58am, Nov 26)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(6 - 9:50am, Nov 26)
Last: Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond

NewsblogStanton Losing About $141 Million of Record Deal to Taxes - Bloomberg
(80 - 9:49am, Nov 26)
Last: Jim Kaat on a hot Gene Roof

NewsblogBig Unit, Pedro, Smoltz headline Hall of Fame ballot
(82 - 9:47am, Nov 26)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogOz: Mike Trout Q&A: His workouts, goals & what he’s thankful for
(13 - 9:47am, Nov 26)
Last: Darren

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8670 - 9:45am, Nov 26)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4853 - 9:25am, Nov 26)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-26-2014
(2 - 9:24am, Nov 26)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogAdam Rubin: My Hall of Fame ballot
(55 - 9:05am, Nov 26)
Last: LargeBill

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1135 - 2:05am, Nov 26)
Last: Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot

NewsblogWendy Thurm on Twitter: "What the hell kinda panda is that?"
(7 - 9:59pm, Nov 25)
Last: Omineca Greg

NewsblogSchool of Roch: Melky Cabrera a "fallback option" for the Orioles
(29 - 9:41pm, Nov 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogJazayerli: The Legacy Of The 2014 Royals, Part 1.
(42 - 9:08pm, Nov 25)
Last: 'Spos stares out the window, waits for spring

Newsblogred sox - So … is there any money left for pitching? Red Sox roster building reconsidered - WEEI | Alex Speier
(120 - 9:02pm, Nov 25)
Last: Zach

Page rendered in 0.6678 seconds
52 querie(s) executed