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 4 of 21 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
   301. Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey) Posted: December 30, 2013 at 09:41 PM (#4626857)
flip
   302. Peter Farted Posted: December 30, 2013 at 09:55 PM (#4626862)
fart
   303. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: December 30, 2013 at 09:59 PM (#4626865)
Through 77 ballots, the HoF voting is averaging 9.22 names/ballot. I am stunned it is this high.
   304. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 30, 2013 at 10:03 PM (#4626869)
Through 77 ballots, the HoF voting is averaging 9.22 names/ballot. I am stunned it is this high.


I think that's the biggest surprise. It's impossible to tell, but I wonder if the voters themselves were embarrassed at the empty podium (with a stacked ballot) and realized they needed to change their voting habits. In the past, they wouldn't simply add Maddux, Glavine and Thomas, but remove players to make room for them. That hasn't been the case with the published guys thus far.

   305. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 30, 2013 at 10:05 PM (#4626870)
I think that's the biggest surprise. It's impossible to tell, but I wonder if the voters themselves were embarrassed at the empty podium (with a stacked ballot) and realized they needed to change their voting habits. In the past, they wouldn't simply add Maddux, Glavine and Thomas, but remove players to make room for them. That hasn't been the case with the published guys thus far.


Yup, looks like the BBWAA is self-correcting big-time for last year shut-out. And good for them.

If they can manage to elect 3-4 guys for each of the next few years, the backlog will clear naturally.
   306. salajander Posted: December 30, 2013 at 10:19 PM (#4626877)
FYI, spent 16 years covering teams in AL and have no problem with DH. Actually feel it adds a subtle strategy, particularly in lineup structure. But also had more than 10 I felt were legit candidates and had to figure a cutdown. Have voted in past for several left off this year to fit Glavine and Maddux.

Just in case everyone missed Tracy Ringolsby's post at the end of the last page.
   307. Pete L. Posted: December 30, 2013 at 11:05 PM (#4626899)
That was nice of him to do. I remember him as a Mariners beat writer in the early 1980s. If it had been the 1990s, maybe he'd be an Edgar voter.... :-)

Not that there's anything really wrong with his ballot. I wouldn't vote for Morris, but understand his position and everybody else is somebody I support as well.
   308. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM (#4626909)
@303

Average names/ballot was like 6.5 last year, IIRC. 6.5 + Maddux + Glavine + Thomas (the "clean" candidates) gets you to 9+ without a major shift in voter attitudes. Increased support for Biggio may or may not reflect a shift, but if Piazza is elected (a nearly 20 point jump), it'll feel like a sea change. Feels like 9 or 9.5 should be the floor of our expectations.
   309. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 30, 2013 at 11:49 PM (#4626916)
Average names/ballot was like 6.5 last year, IIRC. 6.5 + Maddux + Glavine + Thomas (the "clean" candidates) gets you to 9+ without a major shift in voter attitudes. Increased support for Biggio may or may not reflect a shift, but if Piazza is elected (a nearly 20 point jump), it'll feel like a sea change. Feels like 9 or 9.5 should be the floor of our expectations.

It hasn't exactly worked that way in the past, though, because usually a strong debut class means the backlog loses support.

For the sake of comparison: 1998 had an average of 5.41 names per ballot (from B-R's totals). Included in that was Don Sutton getting elected (81.6%) and Ron Santo's 15th appearance (43.1%), plus a few guys who got less than 5% (they added up to about 6% between them). That leaves you with around 4.1 names per ballot among the holdovers.

1999 had the ridiculous Ryan/Brett/Yount/Fisk class debuting, plus Dale Murphy and a couple other guys who got token votes. The first-timers got about 3.6 names per ballot among them that year, and the total ballot average was 6.74. That means the holdovers picked up about 3.14 votes per ballot, a drop of roughly 1 name per ballot between years, despite having considerably more space to work with on the ballot than this year's group (last year's election had 6.6 names per ballot with nobody getting in).

Maddux/Glavine/Thomas doing this well AND the guys from last year largely keeping their votes would be a significant (and positive) shift in the process.
   310. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM (#4626920)
Average names/ballot was like 6.5 last year, IIRC. 6.5 + Maddux + Glavine + Thomas (the "clean" candidates) gets you to 9+ without a major shift in voter attitudes.


But that's not how voter have historically behaved. They don't typically just add the new worthies to their previous vote-getters, as demonstrated by the typical decline by backloggers when a good group of newcomers joins the ballot. That they're not doing that this year (thus far) does indeed reflect a change in voter behavior, if it continues.

Edit: Coke to Eric J, who was both faster and more detailed.

   311. jdennis Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:08 AM (#4626926)
Remember in all this talk about 9.2 names per ballot that the truly embarrassing ballots are not going to be trumpeted out there. Note how Stiffarm Trophy numbers are off on Heisman predictions when players have huge or terrible championship week games, and the ones with the huge game get their names on public ballots, while the guys who voted for the player with the terrible game do not make their vote public. We are going to see a selection bias of full ballots in the Repoz count because the people who want to say something about the process will make their vote public. The average will likely be lower among the unknown ballots.
   312. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:30 AM (#4626929)
The average will likely be lower among the unknown ballots.

FWIW, last year's final Gizmo had an average of 6.61 names per ballot, almost exactly equal to the overall average listed on B-R. But I suspect that the overall average this year will be well below 9 (whether the Gizmo total drops below 9 as well or the unreleased ballots are lower).
   313. thetailor Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:06 AM (#4626952)
Some tidbits of information for you guys for an article that I will be writing some time that I am not lazy.

Overrepresented by the Gizmo (numbers must be added/subtracted to Gizmo for actual total)
Craig Biggio: -1.9 in 2013
Barry Bonds: -9.2 in 2013
Roger Clemens: -6.7
Rafael Palmiero: -4.1, +1.1
Mike Piazza: -2.5
Tim Raines: -7.6, -1.4
Alan Trammell: -4, 0.3

Underrepresented by the Gizmo
Edgar Martinez: +0.3 in 2013, +4.1 in 2012
Don Mattingly: +4.4 in 2013, +7.7 in 2012
Mark McGwire: +2.5, +1.9
Jack Morris: +8.4, +7.9
Lee Smith: 9.7, 4.1
Larry Walker: 5.1, 4.7
Bernie Williams: 3.3, 9.6

Negligible Effect (this is +/- 1.5% average)
Jeff Bagwell: +0.3 in 2013, -0.8 in 2012
Fred McGriff: +0.6, +0.3
Dale Murphy: 0, +2.3
Curt Schilling: -0.4
Sammy Sosa: -0.9
David Wells: 0.4

With those percentage adjustments in mind, the Actual doesn't change from the Gizmo. I am sorry in advance because I know this won't be readable:

2014 2014 Diff
Gizmo Projected
Maddux 100 100
Glavine 98.7 98.7
Thomas 87.3 87.3
Biggio 82.3 80.4 -1.9
---------------
Piazza 73.4 70.9 -2.5
Bagwell 63.3 63.3 0
Morris 62 70 8
Raines 54.4 49.9 -4.5
Bonds 48.1 39.1 -9
Clemens 46.8 39.8 -7
Schilling 40.5 40 -0.5
Mussina 32.9 32.9
Smith 24 31 7
Trammell 22.8 20.8 -2
McGriff 17.7 18.2 0.5
Martinez 16.5 19 2.5
Kent 11.4 11.4
Walker 11.4 16.4 5
McGwire 11.4 13.4 2
Palmiero 7.6 5.6 -2
Sosa 7.6 6.6 -1
--------------
Mattingly 3.8 9.3 5.5
Rose 1.3 1.3


   314. bobm Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:43 AM (#4626956)
We are going to see a selection bias of full ballots in the Repoz count because the people who want to say something about the process will make their vote public. The average will likely be lower among the unknown ballots.

Bias aside, one would hope that the example of so many voters publicly using 9 or 10 slots would have some positive effect on the other voters.
   315. Gonfalon B. Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:43 AM (#4626957)
Something for the probability estimators and soothsayers to consider: Rickey Henderson was cruising along at 100.0% of the published ballots for a good while until the infamous Corky announced his vote, thus "ruining" Rickey's shot at unanimous election.

Then, the final results showed that 27 other writers had also declined to vote for Rickey Henderson. The invisible Corkies' ballots remain unpublished.
   316. Pete L. Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:51 AM (#4626969)
Gonfalon's observation (and Ringolsby's visit) prompt me to ask again: what are the chances that this tabulation of public ballots effects later ballots?
   317. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: December 31, 2013 at 04:04 AM (#4626974)
Gonfalon's observation (and Ringolsby's visit) prompt me to ask again: what are the chances that this tabulation of public ballots effects later ballots?


Pretty good, but only among writers who are already aware of BBTF's existence. And I think the ballots were all due yesterday, so any updates after that are safe.
   318. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: December 31, 2013 at 08:59 AM (#4626987)
I can understand the urge to not vote for Maddux just to upset people. I voted for Ross Perot.

[16] The even bigger question to my mind is -- do any of the players know. There literally is no other source of reliable information about "how it's going." Has some friend of, say, Tom Glavine's seen this?
   319. Blackadder Posted: December 31, 2013 at 09:12 AM (#4626989)
[16] The even bigger question to my mind is -- do any of the players know. There literally is no other source of reliable information about "how it's going." Has some friend of, say, Tom Glavine's seen this?


I wouldn't be shocked if there were someone on BBTF who knew Glavine. If I were Biggio or Piazza, I probably wouldn't want to see these data; it would just make me more anxious...
   320. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: December 31, 2013 at 09:23 AM (#4626990)
Remember in all this talk about 9.2 names per ballot that the truly embarrassing ballots are not going to be trumpeted out there.

Last year, the Repoz Tally had 194 ballots, with 6.59 names/ballot. The overall BBWAA vote was 6.54 names/ballot (which meant that non-Repoz voters had 6.52 names/ballot).

To be fair, the early returns were high last year. Through 51 voters lat year, it was 6.77 names/ballot, and after 94 it was 6.73.

Still, that means we should be looking at around 9 names/ballot from the BBWAA this year.
   321. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 31, 2013 at 09:31 AM (#4626993)
I can understand the urge to not vote for Maddux just to upset people. I voted for Ross Perot.


You are truly history's greatest monster.

I'm hoping #320 is correct.
   322. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 31, 2013 at 10:12 AM (#4627013)
It's heartening to see Raines doing so well even with the current glut. I think he's going to make it in the next few years.
   323. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 31, 2013 at 10:19 AM (#4627022)
don't know if others have heard this feedback but I have told by several old timers that they are getting muscled to fill their ballots

   324. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 31, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4627024)
don't know if others have heard this feedback but I have told by several old timers that they are getting muscled to fill their ballots


I wondered if the Hall/BBWAA brass had leaned on the electorate, but it seems like a panel filled with writers would have freed that cat from the sack by now (maybe the Deadspin guy).

   325. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: December 31, 2013 at 10:27 AM (#4627030)
don't know if others have heard this feedback but I have told by several old timers that they are getting muscled to fill their ballots

If this is the HOF's plan to deal with the backlog, it's not the worst plan in the world. It would be better to have lifted the limit, but we've been excoriating them about doing nothing, which would be the worst plan.
   326. Morty Causa Posted: December 31, 2013 at 10:28 AM (#4627033)
   327. McCoy Posted: December 31, 2013 at 10:29 AM (#4627034)
The point of having the writers vote is to elect people into the hall so that tourists will come to Cooperstown. If they don't elect people then they risk losing the honor/glamour of getting to vote. If they can't or won't do the job to the satisfaction of the Hall then the Hall will find a group of people who can. Plain and simple.
   328. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 31, 2013 at 10:29 AM (#4627035)
I'm pretty sure Cooperstown lost money with last year's empty podium, and the Hall itself is taking a PR beating over the BBWAA's refusal to vote in obviously qualified candidates who are eligible by every standard of voting (i.e. not on the permanently ineligible list.) It's not shocking that the powers that be are leaning on folks to get out of their asses and vote for obviously qualified candidates.
   329. AROM Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4627062)
If this is the HOF's plan to deal with the backlog, it's not the worst plan in the world. It would be better to have lifted the limit, but we've been excoriating them about doing nothing, which would be the worst plan.


Seems to me adjusting the ballot would be a bit easier, but whatever gets the job done.
   330. AROM Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:14 AM (#4627063)
Most recent update has Morris at 62% of 79 ballots. To get 75% of 568, he'll need 77% of the remaining ballots.
   331. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4627064)
Harvey's, did your contacts imply who was leaning on them? Did they think the pressure came from The Ccop via the BBWAA? Or is the BBWAA leadership itself reacting to poor publicity and afraid the Hall will take reform action that reduces the writers' influence?
   332. bunyon Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4627067)

Seems to me adjusting the ballot would be a bit easier, but whatever gets the job done.


They could lift the limit to 20 slots but if a writer doesn't want to vote for more than 3 or 4, he/she won't. Muscling them is the ONLY solution short of lowering the bar to election which would be widely viewed as illegitimate (that is, saying Jack Morris is a HOFer elected with 68% of the vote would end up with him being viewed by the public as not a HOFer).

I don't even think it takes that much force. As Sam says, any hint that the HOF is considering, even a little, changing the electorate would probably provide the motivation. The voters like the attention and ability to make moral pronouncements. If they aren't voters, that goes away.
   333. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4627069)
Seems to me adjusting the ballot would be a bit easier, but whatever gets the job done.


Easier, perhaps. But that would shift the blame for the problem from the voters who refuse to vote for qualified candidates to the Hall itself and its ballot construction. Now, you and me, we probably agree that the ballot construction is itself an anachronism that could use some updating. The fact that people get mailed a paper sheet with check boxes next to names, and then FAX that back to the Hall... Man, welcome to 1993, Hall of Fame! But the Hall doesn't want to shift the blame for the backlog to their ballot when it's just as easily left on the shoulders of the voters. (This is also why the voters are so keen to write those 'the Hall needs to give us some direction!' bits, because it would be too much for them to take responsibility for their own voting practices...)

If the Hall elects four this year, The Jack drops off the ballot due to the 15 year limit and Don Mattingly drops due to being Don Mattingly, that clears six spots (five from the top of the list.) Those five top slots will be replaced by two clear first ballot induction candidates - Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez - and a third likely high vote getter in John Smoltz. Then second tier newbies Gary Sheffield (I would, most won't), Nomah (no), Carlos Delgado (nope), Brian Giles and Darin Erstad. If Giles and Erstad drop from the ballot after only one year of eligibility no one will cry a single tear for them. They're clearly not HOFers.

A couple of 3-4 inductee years in a row, coupled with natural selection of the 80's era holdouts (Morris, Mattingly, Lee Smith, Allen Trammell) will clear the ballot up pretty quickly.
   334. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4627071)
If it's true that writers are being leaned on to fatten up their ballots (*), that bodes very well for Morris. He's not really getting crowded out of more than a tiny handful of blabber ballots and the "edict" might very well make some silent majority voters include him, who otherwise wouldn't.

(*) Apparently adopted as gospel around here based on a single anecdote, albeit from a good source, but whatever.
   335. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4627074)
Harvey's, did your contacts imply who was leaning on them?

multiple fronts

this all likely traces back to bud. he's like don Corleone with all the 'buffers'. no direct calls by the man himself.

I know he was personally distressed by the last hof ceremony.

he really does like baseball ya'know. everything about the game delights him. he is pained when something doesn't 'show' well.
   336. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4627076)
So now if Morris does get in, his naysayers have a ready-made excuse for treating him as illegitimate.

A win-win for everyone and another Festivus Miracle!!!!
   337. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:31 AM (#4627077)
If it's true that writers are being leaned on to fatten up their ballots (*), that bodes very well for Morris.


In the sense that his vote total won't drop this year, like it would have had the voters been acting as they historically did.

It won't get him in, but I guess it lets a boy dream.
   338. TJ Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4627081)
HOF voter John Tomasi has tweeted a pic of his ballot. His accompanying quote was, "Actual Hall ballot, apparently composed by tween in Word95. "If you like me, plz check yes and return to my locker."

Had to laugh a bit at that one...
   339. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4627083)
(*) Apparently adopted as gospel around here based on a single anecdote, albeit from a good source, but whatever.

Uh…an anecdote posted for the first time one hour ago. What's wrong with you?
   340. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4627084)
Candidates with apparently good chances of exiting the ballot glut this year: Maddux, Glavine, F. Thomas, Biggio, J. Morris (one way or the other), Mattingly

New candidates for 2015 who merit consideration: RJ, Petey, Smoltz, Sheffield

New candidates in 2016 who merit consideration: Ken Griffey, Jr; Jim Edmonds
   341. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4627085)
I'm fine with Morris getting in or Morris not getting in. I'm just glad he won't be part of the glut next year which I think will help Raines and, hopefully, trigger a last push for Trammell. I can see if Morris doesn't make it that there will be a real push to vote in Trammell so those great Tigers teams of the 80's are represented. Hey, whatever works!
   342. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4627092)
and the Hall itself is taking a PR beating over the BBWAA's refusal to vote in obviously qualified candidates who are eligible by every standard of voting (i.e. not on the permanently ineligible list.)


Since Bonds, Clemens, et al. have considerably more support among the writers than they do among the public in general, I doubt this is true.
   343. John Northey Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4627095)
One wonders if there is a push on the voters who are doing a poor job (blank ballots, few names, skip obvious candidates) if we might see that first 100% guy in Maddux. He is an obvious HOF'er by any standard, from having a WS ring to Cy Young awards to his 355 wins (most since Warren Spahn, with Clemens & Spahn being the only other guys to get 350 entirely in the live ball era). Twice had 20 wins which clears that standard. Only negatives would be hanging on a bit longer than ideal (sub 500 record, 92 ERA+ his final season), only 11-14 in post-season (3.27 ERA though in 198 innings so not really his fault as much as Atlanta having issues scoring for him).

I guess his only negative would be playing during 1994 thus being a guy who was on strike which a few voters still hold against all players. So I suspect the only way he avoids 100% is either a blank ballot or another Corky situation (oh, you mean _that_ Greg Maddux?).
   344. John Northey Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4627099)
To the public at large I suspect Biggio (3000 hits), Piazza (best hitting catcher), Raines (#2 leadoff hitter ever), Morris (most wins in 80's) all seem like HOF'ers and it seemed odd to not put any in last time. The PED crew Joe Average probably is aware of but not 'oh my god we must hang them all'. If Clemens & Bonds were voted in I doubt we'd have had protests.
   345. Swedish Chef Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4627100)
So I suspect the only way he avoids 100% is either a blank ballot or another Corky situation (oh, you mean _that_ Greg Maddux?).

Which is something like 99.99% probable.
   346. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4627102)
I'd love for Maddux to be 100%. He's the most obvious HOF'er with absolutely zero demerits since, well, Rickey. But the voting bloc is not the kind of thing you expect 100% from. Someone will mail back a blank ballot.
   347. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:24 PM (#4627109)
It's heartening to see Raines doing so well even with the current glut. I think he's going to make it in the next few years.

Two things about Raines: 1) he always does better in the Gizmo than the overall BBWAA, and 2) he always does better in the early Gizmo returns than the final Gizmo.

For instance, here is Raines last year:

With 51 votes in, he was at 64.7%
With 94 votes in, he was at 60.6%
With 194 votes in, he was at 59.8% (that's the full tally).

His overall vote was 52.2% (which means that 48.3% of non-tally voters included him).

As I write this, he's at 55.0% with 80 votes in.

He is doing well in the current glut, but he'll have to wait out the glut. (The good news: he has about 10 years left or so).
   348. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4627115)
Don't look now, but Piazza is making a late move.
   349. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4627123)
Jim Henneman: Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Jack Morris, Mike Mussina, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Frank Thomas and Alan Trammell

http://www.pressboxonline.com/2013/12/31/full-ballot-of-votes-for-baseball-hall-of-fame
   350. Tracy Ringolsby Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4627125)
Clear up one misconception. As far as I know there has been absolutely no effort by the Hall of Fame to learn on voters to make sure there are inductees. The Hall of Fame, actually, has never tried to direct the voting patterns of voters.
   351. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4627128)
Wallace Matthews: Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Thomas, Walker

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/yankees/post/_/id/68165/my-hall-ballot-moose-yes-morris-no

He also has my personal favorite article title.
   352. alilisd Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4627129)
To the public at large I suspect Biggio (3000 hits), Piazza (best hitting catcher), Raines (#2 leadoff hitter ever), Morris (most wins in 80's) all seem like HOF'ers and it seemed odd to not put any in last time.


This is my experience (small sample and no science behind it, granted). The more casual, traditional fans I interact with are baffled and/or upset Biggio did not go in. They cannot understand why Piazza wasn't elected. They are not concerned about Raines, but he is fairly easy to show as a HOF, if they are interested in the discussion. They have, generally, bought into the Morris narrative created post hoc by writers who never thought he was all that great when he played (as evidenced by his poor CY showings); this is harder to overcome, I still try though.
   353. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:52 PM (#4627137)
Raines (#2 leadoff hitter ever),


I don't think the public sees this. I think that is Lou Brock to them. I would bet the public is pretty split as to whether Raines is a HOFer, and for many he doesn't pass the "feel" test, and doesn't have the milestones you typically need.

I also don't think the general public is as much behind Morris in the HOF as sportswriters are. Old school sporswriters seems to irrationally love the guy. I guess he's an old school throwback and was good for a quote back in the day.
   354. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:01 PM (#4627143)
Raines (#2 leadoff hitter ever),

I don't think the public sees this. I think that is Lou Brock to them.
Please. "The public" didn't vote any of those 3 onto the "All Century Team", even though both Henderson and Raines were at the end of their careers (fresh in their minds).

I'd put any amount of money that "the public" would have Rose #1 by quite a margin.
   355. Lassus Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4627145)
This Piazza race is going to be fascinating.
   356. bunyon Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:04 PM (#4627147)
It may be personal bias but it really seems like the bar for players in the 80s and 90s has really risen. I know they're still on the ballot (in some cases) and haven't had vet committee treatment yet but put a plaque up for Raines and ask a casual fan (who hasn't ever done such a thing) to rank players in quartiles and he would easily be second or third. Same for Trammel. Sportswriters seem to have learned that tearing players down is better press than artificially building them up.
   357. TJ Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:04 PM (#4627148)
Tracy Ringolsby
Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4627125)




Clear up one misconception. As far as I know there has been absolutely no effort by the Hall of Fame to learn on voters to make sure there are inductees. The Hall of Fame, actually, has never tried to direct the voting patterns of voters.


Tracy, while I've never been a fan, I am warming to you as you are participating in forums such as these. I can even learn to live with the cowboy hat. A question- do you feel that there is internal pressure on BBWAA voters to raise the bar of voting performance such as challenging preconceived notions like not voting for first ballot guys, voting for more than a personal maximum of 3 or 4 candidates, avoiding the Aaron Sele type of vote, not sending in blank ballots, etc? If so, do you feel this is based on last year's not inducting anyone?
   358. EddieA Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4627149)
I'd put any amount of money that "the public" would have Rose #1 by quite a margin.


I know people who think Rose is the greatest player of all time.
   359. John Northey Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:07 PM (#4627151)
Guess it depends where you live. Up here in Canada Raines is viewed very well by baseball fans and most would be confused about him not getting in. Brock was a generation ago (retired in 1979) - I was born in '69 and don't remember him playing. Bit surprising he stole 118 at age 35 though in 1974 and that was the only time he cracked 75. I more remember him as the guy Rickey passed.
   360. LargeBill Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4627152)
350. Tracy Ringolsby Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4627125)
Clear up one misconception. As far as I know there has been absolutely no effort by the Hall of Fame to learn on voters to make sure there are inductees. The Hall of Fame, actually, has never tried to direct the voting patterns of voters.


Thanks for addressing that. I highly doubted there was any explicit attempt to influence the voters. I also think people over state the concern by the Hall of Fame over a year without living inductees. I've been to the HoF a couple times and neither time was for the induction weekend and the most recent ceremony had nothing to do with my visit.
   361. John Northey Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:15 PM (#4627158)
When Rose set the hit record he was hyped up to the skies that is for sure. I remember how exciting it was to follow and how he almost did it in Chicago as the game was going into extra innings but the sun set and they had to stop the game (I miss that...thought it was cool when I was a kid that there was still a ML stadium without lights).

To a casual fan most of the PED and stuff is irrelevant I suspect. They remember the 70 HR chase, Bonds being the scariest hitter ever, and other legends both real and sportswriter induced (Morris' legend). When a guy goes to the HOF his legend jumps into the media and people go 'oh yeah, I remember him'. I suspect most casual fans have no clue who was a better player beyond what they read and see, sadly much like some sportswriters at times. I know I'm just a casual fan of hockey now and if I was asked who was best now I'd probably name guys who are hurt or no longer at the top.

Ah well, that is what this site (and others) are for. The big fans who love to debate if Trammell or Walker should get that 10th slot on a ballot and blast those writers who put just 5 names on a ballot.
   362. Peter Farted Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4627161)
I also don't think the general public is as much behind Morris in the HOF as sportswriters are.

The public, at least from what I've seen on the Internet, is a MUCH harsher judge than the BBWAA. I remember seeing a poll of "Is Greg Maddux first ballot" and only about 80% voted yes. That's nothing short of ludicrous. Then again, there's a bias there too, because polls = trolls...
   363. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:18 PM (#4627163)
By the way, failing to gain 5% of the vote is not necessarily a death knell for appearing on the ballot in future elections.

Bowa, Madlock, Oliver, Simmons, KBoyer, Flood, and Santo were all restored to the ballot after failing to gain 5%. It was done via special petition by the BBWAA to the board, which was granted.

Of course, none of them were ultimately elected, as if you don't get the 5% you have no prayer with the BBWAA anyway.



   364. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4627165)
It may be personal bias but it really seems like the bar for players in the 80s and 90s has really risen.

Of course it's risen. It rose when the Steroid Era (*) conditions were such that the best players could look as if they were outperforming their peers more decisively than the best players from roughly 1970-1993.

(*) Whether because of steroids or otherwise. An obvious non-roid feature of the Steroid Era was the significantly better sports medicine.
   365. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:25 PM (#4627170)
Clear up one misconception. As far as I know there has been absolutely no effort by the Hall of Fame to learn on voters to make sure there are inductees. The Hall of Fame, actually, has never tried to direct the voting patterns of voters.

Yeah, I don't think the HoF itself would try to influence the vote.

But, I could definitely see writers talking to their buddies saying, "If we don't start electing people we're going to lose our vote, or they'll take the vote away from the retired writers".
   366. Pete L. Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:26 PM (#4627172)
"An obvious non-roid feature of the Steroid Era was the significantly better sports medicine."

And smaller ballparks, including one built at mile-high altitude (though that one is 't exactly small...).
   367. flournoy Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4627173)
If Clemens & Bonds were voted in I doubt we'd have had protests.


To a casual fan most of the PED and stuff is irrelevant I suspect. They remember the 70 HR chase, Bonds being the scariest hitter ever, and other legends both real and sportswriter induced


I don't think these things are remotely true. My experience is that the casual fan tends to think anyone remotely associated with steroids should be banned for life, their statistics stricken from the record, and probably be held up for public mockery and shaming in the town square. Certainly they owe "us" an apology. (Why fans are owed anything is left as an exercise to the reader.)
   368. bblackwell Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:29 PM (#4627175)
Clear up one misconception. As far as I know there has been absolutely no effort by the Hall of Fame to learn on voters to make sure there are inductees. The Hall of Fame, actually, has never tried to direct the voting patterns of voters.


I suppose that's technically true. However, after Marvin Miller came closer than expected to gaining entry, didn't they just change the makeup of the electorate to make it more difficult for him?
   369. spike Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:43 PM (#4627191)
I am quite surprised by the near universal Glavine support, not that I don't concur. Must just be the halo effect of being paired with Maddux (along with being an outstanding pitcher in his own right of course, but still)
   370. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4627193)
The public, at least from what I've seen on the Internet, is a MUCH harsher judge than the BBWAA. I remember seeing a poll of "Is Greg Maddux first ballot" and only about 80% voted yes. That's nothing short of ludicrous.

I wouldn't conclude that from the "first-ballot" question. All the time you see people trying to figure out how to divide the Hall of Fame into "Tiers" or a "Pyramid" or give "Elite" status for Hall of Famers who are, like, REALLY Hall of Famers, which would consist of basically Babe Ruth, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron plus whoever else you happen to like. So people use "First Ballot Hall of Famer" to mean some sort of legendary super-figure, and deny that status to a player without ever doubting that the player does in fact belong in the Hall of Fame.
   371. AROM Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4627202)
Of course, none of them were ultimately elected, as if you don't get the 5% you have no prayer with the BBWAA anyway.


True. Santo got up to the 30-40% level of support, but nowhere close to what he needed. A similar petition to put back Lou Whitaker, Kevin Brown, and Kenny Lofton, for example, would be the worst thing that could be done now. They aren't getting in, but they could draw a few votes away from players that might have a shot.
   372. Morty Causa Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4627203)
Raines (#2 leadoff hitter ever)

This is kind of like bragging about being the tallest building in Midland, Tx. There aren't any claims for someone being the best #3 or #4 hitter. A lot of players would have been better than Raines as leadoff hitter. Some, maybe, who haven't been elected to the HOF yet. You just don't place them in the leadoff position because they are more valuable somewhere else.
   373. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4627204)
True. Santo got up to the 30-40% level of support, but nowhere close to what he needed. A similar petition to put back Lou Whitaker, Kevin Brown, and Kenny Lofton, for example, would be the worst thing that could be done now. They aren't getting in, but they could draw a few votes away from players that might have a shot.


Amen. I understand the desire to keep guys on the ballot who should be legitimate candidates, but it's ultimately unproductive to the aim of getting in the deserving Hall of Famers with a chance.
   374. alilisd Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4627205)
I don't think these things are remotely true. My experience is that the casual fan tends to think anyone remotely associated with steroids should be banned for life, their statistics stricken from the record, and probably be held up for public mockery and shaming in the town square. Certainly they owe "us" an apology.


This has been my experience as well. They are offended at the affront to themselves and to the game.
   375. Tracy Ringolsby Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4627223)
357. TJ
Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4627148)




Tracy Ringolsby
Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4627125)




Clear up one misconception. As far as I know there has been absolutely no effort by the Hall of Fame to learn on voters to make sure there are inductees. The Hall of Fame, actually, has never tried to direct the voting patterns of voters.

Tracy, while I've never been a fan, I am warming to you as you are participating in forums such as these. I can even learn to live with the cowboy hat. A question- do you feel that there is internal pressure on BBWAA voters to raise the bar of voting performance such as challenging preconceived notions like not voting for first ballot guys, voting for more than a personal maximum of 3 or 4 candidates, avoiding the Aaron Sele type of vote, not sending in blank ballots, etc? If so, do you feel this is based on last year's not inducting anyone?


I can't speak for everyone but I have never heard any discussion or concern about how voters fill out thier ballots, other than personal questions on why. There has never been any pressure that I know of on voters to either boycott or vote for certain players. I can't speak for what might happen in small groups, but think about it. You are talking about close to 700 voters, and more that have the chance to vote but chose not to. Writers have a hard time agreeing on where to go for lunch. I think it would be a bit wild to think they could orchestrate any type of organized vote for or again any players.

I do think right now we have an overloaded slate of candidates and so you will see more players receiving votes than since the early days. I can personally say I took the original list of 36 players, and had a working list of 18 when I began to whittle down who I would vote for. I'm not saying all 18 are players I will or would eventually vote for but they were all ones I felt at least deserved serious consideration.

There are some small groups of writers who will gather and discuss pros and cons of players. That, however, isn't a campaign platform but rather an exchange of thoughts. I have not been involved in one of those but that is the way I understand them.
   376. TJ Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4627227)
Tracy Ringolsby
Posted: December 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4627125)


Clear up one misconception. As far as I know there has been absolutely no effort by the Hall of Fame to learn on voters to make sure there are inductees. The Hall of Fame, actually, has never tried to direct the voting patterns of voters.


Thanks for the reply- I appreciate it.
   377. Tracy Ringolsby Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4627229)
368. bblackwell
Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4627175)




Clear up one misconception. As far as I know there has been absolutely no effort by the Hall of Fame to learn on voters to make sure there are inductees. The Hall of Fame, actually, has never tried to direct the voting patterns of voters.

I suppose that's technically true. However, after Marvin Miller came closer than expected to gaining entry, didn't they just change the makeup of the electorate to make it more difficult for him?


There is a major flaw with that theory. Marvin Miller was never a player so Marvin Miller was never voted on by the BBWAA membership. Marvin is on the Veterans Committee ballott. He has been up for election seven times and has never come close. There have been several adjustments made to try and have a more solid voting base on the veterans and not avoid a popularity contest. At one point only living members of the Hall of Fame voted on the Veterans Committee. The feeling was that would get Marvin inducted because the voters were former players. He did not receive 50 percent of the vote in either of those elections.

   378. Random Transaction Generator Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4627232)
My experience is that the casual fan tends to think anyone remotely associated with steroids on another team should be banned for life, their statistics stricken from the record, and probably be held up for public mockery and shaming in the town square.


FTFY
   379. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4627237)
I don't think these things are remotely true. My experience is that the casual fan tends to think anyone remotely associated with steroids should be banned for life, their statistics stricken from the record, and probably be held up for public mockery and shaming in the town square. Certainly they owe "us" an apology.


I disagree, there are "casual fans" who think that way, there are also "casual fans" who couldn't give a rat's ass what Bonds injected in his ass.
   380. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4627240)
There is a major flaw with that theory. Marvin Miller was never a player so Marvin Miller was never voted on by the BBWAA membership. Marvin is on the Veterans Committee ballott. He has been up for election seven times and has never come close. There have been several adjustments made to try and have a more solid voting base on the veterans and not avoid a popularity contest. At one point only living members of the Hall of Fame voted on the Veterans Committee. The feeling was that would get Marvin inducted because the voters were former players. He did not receive 50 percent of the vote in either of those elections.


Tracy,

Marvin came close the first time the Expansion Era election was held, in 2010-11, when he came up one vote short (remember Marv and Murray's embarrassing attempts to finger the guilty party, leading to the Hall allowing Verducci to step forward and say "weren't me"). I doubt they really changed the voting panel to ensure he wouldn't get elected - I think this year's vote simply had three guys who everyone agreed upon, thereby limiting the amount of votes available for the other candidates to share. Steinbrenner also came up just short the last time, and was nowhere near election this go around.

   381. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:36 PM (#4627242)
The public, at least from what I've seen on the Internet, is a MUCH harsher judge than the BBWAA.


Much of the baseball fan public believes in a mythical small/inner circle all time great hall that has almost no relationship to de facto HOF standards. You see/hear it all the time, "The Hall is for all time greats like Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson and Willie Mays..."
   382. Tracy Ringolsby Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:38 PM (#4627243)
Yes the process was adjusted creating three eras so that players and executives could be better judged against their contemporaries and in reality to open the door for more non players. Marvin's strongest support has some since that revision. The former for 2010-11 and 2013-14 was not changed.
   383. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4627246)
Yes the process was adjusted creating three eras so that players and executives could be better judged against their contemporaries and in reality to open the door for more non players. Marvin's strongest support has some since that revision. The former for 2010-11 and 2013-14 was not changed.


I think he's speculating the voting panel was changed between 2011-14 to keep Marvin out. The problem with that theory is, Steinbrenner suffered just as much of a drop in support. This year's ballot was just stacked at the top, which kept down the support for everyone else.

   384. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4627250)
Through 77 ballots, the HoF voting is averaging 9.22 names/ballot. I am stunned it is this high.

85 ballots and it's gone up a tick - 9.245 names/ballot.
   385. Tracy Ringolsby Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4627251)
The membership panel changes each year. It has nothing to do with Marvin.
The only pressure ever exerted regarding Marvin was the request from Murray and Marvin's family that he not be put on the ballot again. If there was some type of conspriacy against Marvin that would have been the perfect way out of putting him on the ballot.
As for Murray and Marvin's family accusing anyone of voting against Marvibn, that is naive. Nobody on the committee even knows the vote of anyone else.
   386. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:53 PM (#4627256)
I suppose that's technically true. However, after Marvin Miller came closer than expected to gaining entry, didn't they just change the makeup of the electorate to make it more difficult for him?

No. They changed the VC because the early 21st century VC wasn't electing ANYONE.
   387. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4627257)
Wallace Matthews: Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Thomas, Walker

This has probably been pointed out already, but WallMath specifies that he voted for Jack Morris last year but had to remove him this year. So there's one!
   388. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4627262)

This has probably been pointed out already, but WallMath specifies that he voted for Jack Morris last year but had to remove him this year. So there's one!


No, he voted for him in the past, but last year wasn't one of them. He only had three on his ballot last year (Biggio, Piazza, Schilling).
   389. base ball chick Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4627266)
dear tracy

thank you for coming by and using your own name. i don't always agree with everything you say, but i think that you are a really good baseball man, a genuine fan of the game and i appreciate your viewpoint.

sincerely,
lisa gray (ex astros blogger)
   390. TJ Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:42 PM (#4627284)
MLB and the Hall of Fame are missing the boat here. They should be getting with Repoz to host a "HOF Ballot Count" show on MLB-TV, much like presidential election coverage. Tell the BBWAA to send in all of their ballots on the same day. There would be dozens of fax machines smoking and whirring in the background. Interns looking for work in the baseball industry would be running around with fistfuls of fax-sheeted ballots, looking to get them counted. A running poll could be up for who has the worst ballot- Chass, CHB, Rob Parker, or that guy from Pittsburgh...

Look at the possibilities for drama! Will Maddux be unanimous? Will Piazza get to 75%? What about Jack Morris? Can Don Mattingly stay on the ballot? They could have a big honkin' "RepozMaster 7000" board that shows which BBWAA chapter still have ballots that need to be submitted, and we can all chip in and buy Repoz a little erasable white board like Tim Russert used to explain the voting breakdown...

But we would need some in-studio analysts- I nominate Ray, SBB, Rickey!, TDF, Pete L, and John Northey...
   391. brutus Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4627288)
I am somewhat surprised by the extreme support for Glavine this year. I compare him in general to a Craig Biggio type of player, both guys that I think are definitely hall of famers, but also guys that had a couple good peak seasons surrounded by a career as compilers that just barely reached the magical Cooperstown numbers (300 wins and 3000 hits). Other than 300 wins, Glavine doesn't strike me as drastically better than Mussina or Schilling.

It makes me wonder then why Glavine is getting such great support, whereas Biggio missed his first year and is still only hovering precariously above the 75% mark (so far) this year. The main differences I can see are:

1) Biggio has more steroid suspicions surrounding him by some voters (7 degrees of Caminiti maybe?), even though Murray Chass seems to have been the only one hearing solid rumors. It still strikes me as interesting that so many people are willing to associated hitters with steroids but not pitchers, even though the suspensions and Mitchell Report have shown otherwise. I'm not implying that Glavine was ever a steroid guy, but all of these players on a team shared the same clubhouse, locker room, gym, etc. for up to 9 months a year with the same goal of getting better to beat every other team. Even though the writers have access to some of these areas, they still don't seem to understand the competitive team atmosphere.

2) Glavine is riding on the coattails of Maddux as he breezes into the Hall, either by association of the Braves trifecta likely being inducted this year, or voters that typically hold back first time votes for candidates that realized they couldn't hold back a vote for Maddux and therefore applied the same thinking to Glavine.

Either way, I've very happy to see Glavine and Biggio get enough support to get in this year. Anyone have thoughts into something I'm missing though?
   392. brutus Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:49 PM (#4627291)
390: Love it!
   393. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4627294)
Either way, I've very happy to see Glavine and Biggio get enough support to get in this year. Anyone have thoughts into something I'm missing though?


I think you're ignoring the obvious - Glavine had two Cys, which negates a lot of the perceived compiler feel that dogs Biggio. Throw in his own Jack Morris moment (complete with WS MVP honors) his role as a fixture on the most dynastic team (regular season division) of the last 25 years, and his easy sail is a little more understandable. Though, to be honest, while I thought he'd get in this year, I didn't think we'd see this level of support through 15 percent of the votes.

   394. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4627296)
Other than 300 wins, Glavine doesn't strike me as drastically better than Mussina or Schilling.


Glavine won 2 Cy Young awards and finished top 3 in Cy voting 4 other times. He led the NL in wins 5 times. He won a World Series MVP.
   395. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 31, 2013 at 04:07 PM (#4627302)
MLB and the Hall of Fame are missing the boat here. They should be getting with Repoz to host a "HOF Ballot Count" show on MLB-TV, much like presidential election coverage. Tell the BBWAA to send in all of their ballots on the same day. There would be dozens of fax machines smoking and whirring in the background. Interns looking for work in the baseball industry would be running around with fistfuls of fax-sheeted ballots, looking to get them counted. A running poll could be up for who has the worst ballot- Chass, CHB, Rob Parker, or that guy from Pittsburgh...


That sounds as appealing as Peeling Onions in the Cellar.

My first Repoz moment.
   396. MelOtt4 Posted: December 31, 2013 at 04:08 PM (#4627303)
I'm starting to worry a little that only Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas get in this year.
   397. Srul Itza Posted: December 31, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4627306)
Other than 300 wins, Glavine doesn't strike me as drastically better than Mussina or Schilling.


I am a big Glavine supporter, but I agree -- He does not strike me as drastically better. Better, yes, but not drastically so. When you look at all of the advanced metrics, it is clear that it is a lot closer than just the awards and win totals indicate.

But the vast majority of the voters are NOT looking at advanced metrics. From their perspective, Glavine has the 300 wins, the 5 20-win seasons, the 2 CYAs, the 4 other top 3s, the WS MVP, the 10 ASG appearances, and the glow of being part of the Braves run of Division titles. That makes him such an obvious choice that of course he is going to get their votes -- as well as most of the stathead votes, who will still find a place for him on a 10 person ballot.

For the MSM voters, Schilling with his 216 wins, and Mussina with his lack of CYAs or other "narrative", takes some thought, and on a ballot with a lot of other choices, they don't always make the cut. Biggio also has similar "lack of feel" issues, but the 3,000 hits is overcoming most of those.
   398. GregD Posted: December 31, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4627307)
The other thing that may help glavine is no reason for backlash. No one pegs him too high and he doesn't need to be taken down a notch. He can't be the best pitcher ever--look at maddux---so there's no windmills to tilt against him.
   399. Tracy Ringolsby Posted: December 31, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4627308)
389. base ball chick
Posted: December 31, 2013 at 02:08 PM (#4627266)




dear tracy

thank you for coming by and using your own name. i don't always agree with everything you say, but i think that you are a really good baseball man, a genuine fan of the game and i appreciate your viewpoint.

sincerely,
lisa gray (ex astros blogger)


Lisa, I appreciate that. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I don't agree with some thoughts of others. It's the manner of disagreement. Peiole suggest there is lobbying for Hall of Fame voting. I'd have to say there is not involving the Hall of Fame but there is plenty by disgruntled fans who are upset that their favorite player isn't getting support. The problem with their lobbying, in most cases, is they tend to degrade others rather than build up their favorite, and they get peronsal in their attacks on voters. Guess they think that will change someone's mind.
The most impactful job of lobbying I have seen was by Dick Bresciani, long time media relations director of the Boston Red Sox. He spent several years building the case for Jim Rice, and it was Bresciani'sefforts, more than anything, that led to Rice's induction. Also give a tip of the hat to Mr. Lederer for his work in educating folks about Bert Blyleven.
   400. TJ Posted: December 31, 2013 at 04:26 PM (#4627313)
To Tracy Ringolsby...

Tracy, I think I may have not been clear in my question. I was wondering if you personally- or a feeling among BBWAA voters in general- are putting a degree of pressure on yourselves based on last year's vote. If so is this a factor in the increased numbers of votes cast on individual ballots, or in your opinion the increased number is just a by-product of the backlog of qualified candidates?

Just clarifying so that it is clear I am not rocking a tinfoil hat at the moment...

Page 4 of 21 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMLB takes a swing at the video game business
(19 - 5:28pm, Apr 23)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(160 - 5:27pm, Apr 23)
Last: Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2307 - 5:27pm, Apr 23)
Last: 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people

NewsblogDoyel: How was Gerrit Cole not suspended? He basically started the brawl
(8 - 5:27pm, Apr 23)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort

NewsblogThe Five “Acts” of Ike Davis’s Career, and Why Trading Ike Was a Mistake
(42 - 5:14pm, Apr 23)
Last: SoCalDemon

Newsblog4 balls, you’re out!
(43 - 5:06pm, Apr 23)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

NewsblogMike Trout And Bryce Harper Are Baseball’s Best Young Position-Player Duo Ever
(16 - 5:03pm, Apr 23)
Last: Steve Treder

NewsblogThe rise and fall of Ike Davis' New York Mets | Capital New York
(25 - 5:03pm, Apr 23)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4/23/2014
(70 - 4:48pm, Apr 23)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(492 - 4:44pm, Apr 23)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogTwo Brewers, two Pirates suspended for fracas | MLB.com: News
(17 - 4:33pm, Apr 23)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-23-2014
(7 - 4:29pm, Apr 23)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(196 - 4:15pm, Apr 23)
Last: Fear is Moses Taylor's Bacon Bits

NewsblogMatt Harvey of New York Mets deletes Twitter account after controversial tweet
(17 - 4:09pm, Apr 23)
Last: dr. scott

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(1063 - 3:12pm, Apr 23)
Last: Darkness and the howling fantods

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.3127 seconds
52 querie(s) executed