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

Monday, December 17, 2012

The Big Six and Leftovers: How the 2013 Hall of Fame ballot results will look

Bonds has never been convicted of using steroids, either inside baseball or by the government, but he did fail a drug test in 2007 for the use of amphetamines, and was convicted of obstruction of justice. The latter conviction was in regards to the government’s investigation of BALCO, the lab that supplied many pro athletes with supplements, both legal and illegal.

Wahoo Sam Posted: December 17, 2012 at 04:57 PM | 38 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: barry bonds, hall of fame, roger clemens

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.

   1. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: December 17, 2012 at 10:20 PM (#4327330)
Probably should be pointed out that the intro is a quote from the article and not Wahoo Sam's commentary on it.

EDIT: Though of course now I see that it is at wahoosam.com so, yeah.
   2. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 17, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4327339)
This is definitely the one steroids column to bookmark, if you're only saving one, since it steers away from personal opinions about Hallworthiness and concentrates on probabilities. And I'd say that nearly all of his projections have the ring of truth to them. At least I sure hope Biggio's do.
   3. Srul Itza Posted: December 17, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4327354)
This is definitely the one steroids column to avoid, unless we want to have everyone with a blog assume it is okay to use BBTF to steer traffic to themselves.

Not that it's a bad column or anything.
   4. Walt Davis Posted: December 17, 2012 at 10:52 PM (#4327356)
His expected percentages look reasonable (a little low on Schilling, a little high on Sosa) but it's not a statistical model (or if it is, he provides no evidence of it) and I give no credence to his election probabilities.

To wit: if the expected outcome for Biggio were 78% but for Biggio to have a 90% chance of election, that would mean the margin of error on his predicted percentage is no more than +/- 4% (i.e. a SD of 2%). There's no way he's that precise. Similarly, Jack Morris is projected to 70% but given a 25% chance of election. For Morris to have that high a chance of election, the margin of error would have to be about +/- 8% or higher.

Not that I think anybody could give you good guesstimates of the chance of election without a model so I'm not saying the guy should have done a better job, I'm saying he probably should have just punted on that ... or gone with high/medium/low or something.

Biggio though has been doing rather poorly in early voting. I suspect he'll do better among the non-Repoz ballots (3000 hits should go a long way) but I think he was done around 30% on the Repoz ballots so that would be a lot of ground to make up.

   5. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 17, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4327370)
Many would take issue with the summaries of the PED evidence concerning the various candidates. Less than objective, IMHO. Not sure why anyone thinks TFA is in any way better than numerous others "analyzing" the HoF vote.
   6. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM (#4327403)
Not that I think anybody could give you good guesstimates of the chance of election without a model


I wonder if Nate Silver could create a good model for HoF voting.
   7. Repoz Posted: December 18, 2012 at 12:36 AM (#4327412)
Biggio though has been doing rather poorly in early voting. I suspect he'll do better among the non-Repoz ballots (3000 hits should go a long way) but I think he was done around 30% on the Repoz ballots so that would be a lot of ground to make up.

Biggio is now at 62.1% with a bit over 5% of the vote in.

Morris in lead with 72.4%
   8. Walt Davis Posted: December 18, 2012 at 01:53 AM (#4327447)
Biggio is now at 62.1% with a bit over 5% of the vote in.

Bad brain! Bad!
   9. bobm Posted: December 18, 2012 at 02:24 AM (#4327461)
Morris in lead with 72.4%

Morris likely gets 75%+ of the vote then, right? I would think voters who are willing to reveal their ballots or are still active writers with a place to publish their ballots would be less likely to vote for Morris than the average voter.
   10. SoSH U at work Posted: December 18, 2012 at 02:33 AM (#4327462)

Morris likely gets 75%+ of the vote then, right? I would think voters who are willing to reveal their ballots or are still active writers with a place to publish their ballots would be less likely to vote for Morris than the average voter.


At only 5 percent of the vote, I'd say it's way too early to make any determination. If I'm not mistaken, Jack does tend to perform better than his Repoz number, but the small sample nature of the early results can often be way off the mark, in either direction (see Biggio's swing from just 40 percent five days ago).

   11. Sean Forman Posted: December 18, 2012 at 10:24 AM (#4327538)
6.33 votes per ballot. Last year we were at 5.1.
   12. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4327543)
I thought this thread would be about Christy Mathewson's Thanksgiving.
   13. AROM Posted: December 18, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4327635)
Where is Repoz keeping this tally?

The predictions seem reasonable, but my guess is that neither Palmeiro (9%) or Julio Franco (5%) will have enough to stay on the ballot.

Franco is a guy who pretty much nobody views as a HOFer, and guys like that are more likely to get 0-5 votes than 5% of votes.

On Palmeiro, I think he falls off the ballot for these reasons:

1) Those who refuse to vote for roiders will not vote for him
2) Those who are willing to consider a roider will find many better candidates than him.
   14. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4327677)
6.33 votes per ballot. Last year we were at 5.1.

But last year was the lowest rate ever, and the top new candidate was Bernie Williams, who ended up with 9.6%.

In 1999, voters averaged 6.7 votes per ballot (top new candidates: Ryan, Brett, Yount, Fisk, Murphy). In 2001, voters averaged 6.3 votes per ballot (Winfield, Puckett, Mattingly). In 2003, voters averaged 6.36 votes per ballot (Murray, Sandberg, L.Smith). In 2004, voters averaged 6.6 votes per ballot (Molitor, Eckersley). In 2005, voters averaged 6.3 votes per ballot (just Boggs). In 2007, voters averaged 6.6 votes per ballot (Ripken, Gwynn, McGwire).

There are a LOT of ballots yet to be recorded, so it's hardly a fixed rate, but 6.33 names isn't going to fix the gridlock. That's like voting for "Craig Biggio" and "Roge."
   15. alilisd Posted: December 18, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4327678)
@ 11: I hope the trend of more names per ballot continues. It has been trending downward for a few years and is far too low, IMO, but this is encouraging.
   16. Random Transaction Generator Posted: December 18, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4327696)
If we assume that votergeddon happens and NO ONE gets elected, who ends up with the most votes?

Morris, Bonds, Clemens, or Biggio?
   17. Walt Davis Posted: December 18, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4327952)
Morris, Biggio and Bagwell are the only ones I think have a realistic chance of being elected this year. I had Biggio at the #1 spot until voting started but the early support has seemed lackluster. Hard to see Bagwell making that big of a leap in one year.

The poop doesn't really hit the fan until next year's ballot although we should see a sizeable jump in names per ballot next year.

In 1999, voters averaged 6.7 votes per ballot (top new candidates: Ryan, Brett, Yount, Fisk, Murphy).

Possibly the biggest wave to ever hit a backlog, it's a good lesson in how big names cause growing candidacies to stall.

6.7 votes per ballot in 1999. But almost 99% voted for Ryan and 98% voted for Brett so, in a sense, it was just 4.7 names per ballot and they still had to deal with Yount, Fisk and Murpny. Those guys ate up another 1.6 votes per ballot (on average). Sutton (elected) and Santo (15th year) freed up 1.2 votes per ballot from 1998 but that's still a net loss of another .4 votes. So only 4.3 backlog names per ballot.

Perez lost 7%, Carter lost 9%, Garvey lost 11, Rice lost 14, Sutter lost 7, Kaat 7, John 8, Parker 8. Candidates usually see a bump in their last year on the ballot but both Minoso and Lolich went down a bit. Obviously Perez, Carter, Rice, Sutter and Blyleven (3%) recovered. Perez gained 17% and was elected in 2000; Rice gained 22% and topped 50. HoF voting is a funny business.
   18. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: December 18, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4327966)
Morris in lead with 72.4%

Of course he is. At what point does the BBWAA get their car keys taken from them?
   19. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 18, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4327980)

Morris, Bonds, Clemens, or Biggio?


Morris. I think he's the only one who goes in.

edit - I realize your question was what if no one gets in but my answer is the same, he'll be the leader.
   20. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 18, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4327989)
Of course he is. At what point does the BBWAA get their car keys taken from them?


When they stop electing people. The one thing Cooperstown simply cannot have is a summer without an induction. If they screw this up and the backlog creates a scenario where people aren't getting in something will be done. As much as most here don't think Morris is the right choice he'll probably bring a decent contingent from Detroit and Minnesota.
   21. AROM Posted: December 18, 2012 at 06:04 PM (#4328004)
The one thing Cooperstown simply cannot have is a summer without an induction.


No worries then. The skeleton of Deacon White will be there to give his speech.
   22. Srul Itza Posted: December 18, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4328009)
After Morris gets in, and with Jim Rice safely ensconced, who will be the next candidate to draw the saber-ire on his way to an inevitable induction?

Omar Vizquel won't hit the ballot for a few years, so I think we will have to make do with Lee Smith

   23. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: December 18, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4328021)
Morris, Biggio and Bagwell are the only ones I think have a realistic chance of being elected this year. I had Biggio at the #1 spot until voting started but the early support has seemed lackluster.

There are far, far too few votes accounted for so far to make changes to your initial thoughts. Well, unless your initial thought was 95% of the vote for Biggio.
   24. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: December 18, 2012 at 06:24 PM (#4328025)
Biggio should go in this year, and that's it. If he doesn't go in, no one will this year. My rationale, at length.

After Morris gets in, and with Jim Rice safely ensconced, who will be the next candidate to draw the saber-ire on his way to an inevitable induction?

Omar Vizquel won't hit the ballot for a few years, so I think we will have to make do with Lee Smith


Given how overloaded the ballot will be for the foreseeable future, Smith is all you'll have until Vizquel hits the ballot.
   25. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: December 18, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4328032)
If they've crawled so far up their own ass that they can't elect Bonds and Clemens, who cares who they elect?
   26. Walt Davis Posted: December 18, 2012 at 11:59 PM (#4328227)
There are far, far too few votes accounted for so far to make changes to your initial thoughts. Well, unless your initial thought was 95% of the vote for Biggio.

Yes and no. It's not just the lack of early votes but the write-ups haven't been as glowing as I expected. I was expecting more "OMG 3000 hits!" "clean", "best leadoff hitter since Henderson!" and "one team!" Seems even the folks who've voted for him didn't seem that excited about voting for him.

Which is to say that the BBWAA might be acting perfectly sensibly in Biggio's case. You can understand my consternation.
   27. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:13 AM (#4328235)
After Morris gets in, and with Jim Rice safely ensconced, who will be the next candidate to draw the saber-ire on his way to an inevitable induction?

Nobody? I don't think Vizquel is going to come particularly close to making it. He'll draw some ire because I can see him running in the 30s-40s for a while and outpolling far superior candidates. Probably the closest we'll come is when Jeter sets the record for highest percentage or if Pudge makes it in before Piazza.* If you look at the potential 2017 ballot (which assumes nobody's elected between now and then), you've got 27 guys with 50+ WAR. Bernie Williams with 46 WAR, Yankee cred, lots of rings barely made a ripple. But there aren't any serious but "bad" candidates coming anytime soon that I can see.

OK, Trevor Hoffman is the answer. But I'm not sure he'll make it either.

*Along these lines we should probably save up our ire for very good candidates who are quickly dumped. I can imagine that 10 years from now the HoF will take a look back and consider reinstating some people.

When they stop electing people.

They might not this year but they've got a long list of "clean" candidates over the next 7-10 years. It's not really an issue.

The one thing Cooperstown simply cannot have is a summer without an induction.

They've made it through a set of pretty weak years* and they have some big ones coming, they'll be fine.

*The last 3 elections have all been backlog candidates. 2008 Gossage was the only BBWAA inductee. 2006 it was Sutter. Going further back, 98 was Sutton, 97 was Niekro, 96 was nobody.

   28. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:30 AM (#4328244)
They'll be fine in the sense of having a live human at the podium and people wearing his hat in the crowd every year. They won't be so okay in the long run if they stick to their new policy of "Behold! We give unto you the seventh-best player available!" And it'll be tougher than they hope to maintain an unadulterated, on-message celebration without distraction for, say, Greg HA HA FUCK YOU ROCKET Maddux.
   29. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:32 AM (#4328245)
I should just stop talking about this but it annoys me more as time goes on....

the anti-roiders are not causing a problem for the HoF nor are they causing any sort of clog that is going to stop "clean" big-name HoFers from getting through. NOT VOTING FOR BONDS, CLEMENS, ETC FREES UP VOTING SPACE.

The only way this becomes a problem for the HoF is if the PRO-BONDS, ETC VOTERS INTENTIONALLY CLOG THE BALLOT. If you can get 25% who vote ONLY for Bonds and Clemens (or Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa and other doomed candidates) then you create a problem for the HoF.

Part of the confusion is the continuing myth that there's some large block of voters who "won't vote for any steroid era candidate." It's already pretty clear that if this block of voters exists at all, they're small. Larkin's in, Alomar's in, Bagwell's gaining ground, Biggio is going to do at least reasonably well. And next year do you really think this mythical block of voters isn't going to vote for Maddux?

If 50-60% of the voters refuse to vote for Bonds and Clemens do you know what that does to the ballot? Pretty much nothing. They'll clog the ballot no more than Lee Smith does. Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro -- no more clogging than Mattingly or Murphy or Bernie Williams.

The "clogging" we know we'll see is clogging at the bottom. It's Walker and McGriff and maybe Edgar and Raines and maybe Kent who are going to get screwed by this. I'm not sure Walker and McGriff will still be on the ballot in 2017, it's hard to see how the others can make any progress.

Clogging only happens at the top if there's a large set of candidates all stuck at 60-70% with nobody willing to give in. That's possible in that it's possible to see that Bonds, Clemens, maybe Bagwell and Piazza and a few others are at the mercy of a 25%+ group of "any hint of steroids disqualifies."

Now, whether the HoF without Bonds and Clemens loses credibility is a different topic. But as I've said before, I'm not sure there won't be more people pissed off they aren't there than would be pissed off if they are there. But in the end, it won't really be your decision, it will be your kids' decision. Do you really imagine the following conversation:

"Dad, can we go to the Hall of Fame this year?"
"No Katie, we can't."
"Why not?"
"They haven't enshrined Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens."
"You mean the guys who used drugs?"
"Well, it's really kinda complicated. But we can go to the Hall of Merit!"
"But dad, Mr. Repoz's basement smells funny."

That conversation doesn't go much better from the anti-roiders perspective but at least they're thinking of the children!
   30. Rob_Wood Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4328249)

Just thought I would insert this here. On today's MLB network, when discussing Curt Schilling's case for the HOF, Dan Plesac stated that Schilling was second only to one other pitcher for who he would want to start a post-season game, right behind Jack Morris.
   31. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:02 AM (#4328254)
Considering that Schilling's postseason ERA was 2.23 to Morris's 3.80, I can see why all the extra work that Plesac would get in Morris's starts might appeal to him.
   32. dze27 Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:20 AM (#4328258)
How is it even possible that there are like 20 more qualified players on this ballot than Jack Morris and he's likely to get the first or second most votes? What a joke.
   33. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:39 AM (#4328262)
Re: #29--
Do you think Pete Rose's blackballing, which was wholly merited, detracted in any way from what the Hall of Fame hoped would be the focus of its efforts? How's it going to go now that there's 4 to 6 Pete Roses?

Do you think that a few days of attention for Maddux and Griffey and Randy is going to fully counterbalance years and years of hundreds and hundreds of "who's not getting in, and how happy it makes me" columns? (See the capitalized words from my previous post.)

Here's an interview we'll apparently never stop seeing: "Hello, Hall of Famer. I could ask you about your playoff thrills or your expert playing tips or which current stars you're most impressed with, but instead I must ask you whether you think steroid users should ever be allowed in Cooperstown? My editor promises you more column inches if you say no."

And how in the world does consigning a thousand annual ballot slots to Bonds and Co. free up voting space? Is there any indication that writers are taking their Roger Clemens vote away from Roger, and crucially, awarding it to a different player? If not, no space is being freed up. If they're voting for their usual number of names, only they're skipping Mike Piazza, the math spreads out and breaks down. Do you think the voting body is suddenly going to start averaging 9.5 names per ballot? Which year do the writers elect five players to clear enough room? Is Bonds' support likely to go from 40% to 40% to 2%, after his voters decide en masse to make life happier and easier for Bill Madden?

When decent candidates start falling off the bottom of the ballot like autumn leaves, do we think that taking Lou Whitaker and multiplying him by 6 will be a positive for the Hall's reputation among attentive fans, who are also the most likely fans to actually pay a visit? (No offense, litle Katie.)

What do the old school voters do in 2021 when they can't create another Rice or Morris or Dawson, because the similar mid-range guys have all absorbed multi-year damage that ruined their incremental ascents?

As I've said elsewhere, the BBWAA has decided that they had to destroy the ballot in order to save it. And I embrace this new golden age of mathematical vindictiveness. However, electing Greg Maddux won't make the problems go away. Like Chris Rock said about good fathers, "You're SUPPOSED to do that, you dumb motherf***er! What do you want, a cookie?"
   34. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2012 at 03:12 AM (#4328293)
Do you think Pete Rose's blackballing, which was wholly merited, detracted in any way from what the Hall of Fame hoped would be the focus of its efforts? How's it going to go now that there's 4 to 6 Pete Roses?

Are you suggesting that blackballing Rose hurt the HoF? Sounds nuts to me.

Do you think that a few days of attention for Maddux and Griffey and Randy is going to fully counterbalance years and years of hundreds and hundreds of "who's not getting in, and how happy it makes me" columns?

I'm not sure why you expect to continue to see hundreds and hundreds ... McGwire and Palmeiro are already afterthoughts. If Bonds and Clemens are still stuck at 40% 4-5 years from now, there will be very little print wasted on them.

And, yes, a substantial chunk of HoF and Cooperstown revenue comes from induction weekend. Greg Maddux and Pedro Martinez and Ken Griffey and Chipper Jones and Derek Jeter and ... will draw huge crowds.

Are we confident there wouldn't be protesters there? Do you think the HoF wants that?

And the argument here is about how the HoF is dependent on induction weekends. Assume that's true. Am I to believe that a single Bonds/Clemens induction weekend would cure all ills?

And how in the world does consigning a thousand annual ballot slots to Bonds and Co. free up voting space?

As noted several times, big name candidates hitting the ballot takes votes away from backloggers -- they always fall back. Bonds and Clemens are not "big names" hitting the ballot if they only hit 40% which means that all those not voting for Bonds/Clemens will continue to vote for the 3 to 7 guys they've been voting for all along instead of Bonds and Clemens getting those votes. Now, why did Jim Rice lose 14% when Ryan et al hit the ballot only to gain it back the next year? You got me. But the current backloggers will be facing several years of slam dunk candidates hitting the ballot, it was gonna be tough for them to advance under any circumstances. Bonds and Clemens receiving less than half the votes they deserve will leave more votes for the backloggers this year and they will be no more troublesome than other 40% candidates in the future.

The math doesn't come close to breaking down: Clemens 40%, Bonds 40%, Sosa 20%, McGwire 15%, Palmeiro off the ballot ... you're talking a little over 1 ballot slot. Do you really not expect average votes per ballot to increase at all?

Again, look at any past HoF ballots. You've always got Jim Rices and Lee Smiths and Jim Bunnings and ... eating up votes. It doesn't come anywhere close to grinding the process to a halt.

When decent candidates start falling off the bottom of the ballot like autumn leaves, do we think that taking Lou Whitaker and multiplying him by 6 will be a positive for the Hall's reputation among attentive fans, who are also the most likely fans to actually pay a visit? (No offense, litle Katie.)

I consider it extremely unlikely that it's the "attentive" fans who go to the HoF. HoF attendance is not exactly off the charts among BBTF types. What percentage of people around here claiming the lack of Bonds/Clemeens will delegitimize the HoF have ever actually been? The omission of Lou Whitaker doesn't mean a damn thing in terms of the HoF's viability. Neither will the omission of Larry Walker. Hell, anybody who here who has been to the HoF seems to be of the opinion that the plaque room is the most boring bit anyway.

But, yes, it's the low-level candidates dropping off that will pay the price here. That's what I said. But Walker's debut at 20% meant he wasn't likely to get there anyway. If there was some public outcry over Tim Raines' low debut I missed it. And Tim Raines probably has a better shot at making progress this year than he would have if Bonds and Clemens were getting the unanimous votes they deserve. Which means he probably has a better shot at surviving the coming onslaught.

What do the old school voters do in 2021 when they can't create another Rice or Morris or Dawson, because the similar mid-range guys have all absorbed multi-year damage that ruined their incremental ascents?

Who knows ... you're talking 9 ballots from now. It may be a fallow period ... followed by Pujols, Braun, Cabrera, Tulo, Votto, CC, etc.

Who might they get behind? Who's still on the ballot? Under these nightmare scenarios -- how about one or two of Schilling and Thomas and Mussina and Smoltz and Vlad and Kent (he once had an argument with Bonds! It must have been about steroids!) and Tejada and Vizquel and Hoffman?

And if the problem is "old school" voters, won't a lot of them be dead in 9 years?

Again, the only potential problems here are Bonds, Clemens and maybe Piazza (who I don't expect to have a big problem). Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Unit, Pedro, Biggio, Griffey, Smoltz will all get through cleanly. There are no "steroid" candidates coming up except maybe Pudge. If this year's ballot can put a couple through or a couple on the threshold then clearly future ballots are not going to have a major problem with it.

And this was going to happen anyway. Bonds and Clemens and maybe one of Biggio/Sosa/Piazza/Morris (not guaranteed) getting elected was still going to leave a crowded ballot for Maddux, Glavine, Thomas and Kent to jump onto. Then Pedro, Unit, etc. If you weren't elected by 2012, you probably weren't going anywhere until 2017 ... and then you were probably going to get stuck again for another couple of years. Having Bonds and Clemens sitting there at 40-50% just means you'll be stuck at a lower level than you'd have been stuck anyway.

Let's look at Edgar Martinez. He's 10th in WAR on this ballot -- yikes, not good. Let's pretend that Bonds, Clemens and Bagwell (#s 1-3) all got elected. Sounds good for Edgar right. Oops, even with those 3 gone, he'd be 11th in WAR on the 2014 ballot. Let's assume 3 more players ahead of him on WAR get elected ... he's still 11th on the 2015 ballot. Note, we're so far ignoring that Biggio, Sosa and Piazza are behind him in WAR (with Lofton, a non-starter, and Palmeiro, a lost cause, ahead) -- he's probably no better than the 12th most likely candidate on the "best case" 2015 ballot. If you assume another 3 are elected in 2015, he's back in the top 10 for 2016. Then 2017 is interesting -- Vlad and Pudge (and Manny) and Tejada and Posada hit the ballot. Who knows how that will all shake out? Then you start to get Chipper, Thome, Jeter, Mo, etc. and you have backloggers lucky to hold on.

To make that clear ... even assuming 3 elections a year, even assuming nobody with less WAR than Edgar is elected (or is balanced by guys ahead of him receiving fewer votes), I still don't see how Edgar makes any progress from where he was on the 2012 ballot until something like your 2021 ballot which would be his 12th year of eligibility. Edgar was dead in the water even if Bonds and Clemens were elected. The only solution there was ever going to be was an explosion in names per ballot (unlikely) -- possibly leading to some years where 4+ guys were elected.

And, of course, the question nobody around here has a viable answer to ... what else is the HoF going to do? Beg and plead with the BBWAA to "do the right thing"? Drop the character clause and hope the BBWAA doesn't impose it anyway? Drop the BBWAA and appoint an expert panel of saber-friendly, steroid-accepting people who (a) have no legitimacy with the public and (b) don't have access to publicity channels for the HoF? Public internet voting? It seems that you folks want the HoF to come up with a voting solution that will guarantee the election of Bonds and Clemens ... do you think that lends more legitimacy to the HoF?

At best they'd throw up their hands, say they're turning Bonds, Clemens and a few others over to a special committee to decide on once and for all and take them off the regular BBWAA ballot.

Rose didn't damage the legitimacy of the HoF (if anything, the way they handled it enhanced the HoF's rep). The exclusion of Whitaker and Grich and even Santo didn't damage the HoF. The inclusion of ridiculous VC selections and Jim Rice and Tony Perez and Bruce Sutter and Catfish Hunter and eventually Jack Morris didn't damage the HoF. The discovery of the real Kirby Puckett, the coke-using Jenkins and Molitor, and all the racists and scoundrels didn't damage the HoF. But not inducting a couple of players who are widely accepted as "cheats" is what's finally gonna do the trick?

And in this case they can either piss off some Bonds and Clemens supporters or they can piss off a bunch of people who think roids are a gross act of cheating ... or they can stick with their long-serving election rules and let the BBWAA take the heat. Methinks I know which of those three options any organization in the world would take.

As I said, there is a stalemate scenario where, say, 70% of the voters support Bonds and Clemens and 30% refuse to vote for them under any circumstances. I see no evidence we are in that world. We appear to be in the world where 50% refuse to vote for them -- which stinks but does cause fewer problems for the ballot than 30% refusing.
   35. John DiFool2 Posted: December 19, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4329081)
How is it even possible that there are like 20 more qualified players on this ballot than Jack Morris and he's likely to get the first or second most votes? What a joke.


I've already drifted away from the game significantly over the past year or so (this is my first post here in like 2 months); if that were to happen (20th-best player on the ballot is the only one elected), I am totally the f gone, for good. It would be the most preposterous election result in any sport, ever.
   36. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 20, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4329125)
I've already drifted away from the game significantly over the past year or so (this is my first post here in like 2 months); if that were to happen (20th-best player on the ballot is the only one elected), I am totally the f gone, for good. It would be the most preposterous election result in any sport, ever.

Well John, have a nice life, because that's exactly what's going to happen. Morris is going in. Excluding the obvious steroid taint guys, one would also think Piazza and Biggio would get in, but I don't think they'll make it, nor will Bagwell. Guys like Trammell and Raines are going to get royally screwed. I wouldn't be surprised if their numbers declined.
   37. SoSH U at work Posted: December 20, 2012 at 12:43 AM (#4329132)


I've already drifted away from the game significantly over the past year or so (this is my first post here in like 2 months); if that were to happen (20th-best player on the ballot is the only one elected), I am totally the f gone, for good. It would be the most preposterous election result in any sport, ever.


Gone from what? Primer? The Hall? The sport? It seems like you're saying the latter, but giving up baseball because Jack Morris was elected to the Hall of Fame (still no guarantee by the BBWAA, though a lock to get in through some future Vet's committee) would be, in my opinion, far dumber than putting him in.

   38. DanG Posted: December 20, 2012 at 01:29 AM (#4329153)
Rose didn't damage the legitimacy of the HoF
The exclusion of Whitaker and Grich and even Santo didn't damage the HoF
The inclusion of ridiculous VC selections and Jim Rice and Tony Perez and Bruce Sutter and Catfish Hunter and eventually Jack Morris didn't damage the HoF
The discovery of the real Kirby Puckett, the coke-using Jenkins and Molitor, and all the racists and scoundrels didn't damage the HoF.
they can stick with their long-serving election rules and let the BBWAA take the heat
All of these things did damage to the HOF. Every time nonsense like these examples occurs, it lessens the light of the Hall. It's death by a thousand cuts.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1026 - 9:33pm, Jul 30)
Last: clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right

NewsblogSOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(150 - 9:33pm, Jul 30)
Last: 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people

NewsblogPosnanski: Hey, Rube: Phillies pay dearly for Amaro’s misguided loyalty
(14 - 9:28pm, Jul 30)
Last: Squash

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3784 - 9:25pm, Jul 30)
Last: 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-30-2014
(24 - 9:22pm, Jul 30)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogCameron: Why a July 31 trade deadline just doesn’t make sense anymore
(10 - 9:18pm, Jul 30)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh Rises

NewsblogRed Sox trade rumors: 'Very good chance' John Lackey and Jon Lester are traded - Over the Monster
(50 - 9:08pm, Jul 30)
Last: Petunia inquires about ponies

NewsblogCubs Acquire Felix Doubront
(38 - 8:58pm, Jul 30)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogVICE: Baseball Erotica #1: John Smoltz and Tom Glavine
(8 - 8:58pm, Jul 30)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogESPN: Twins Sign "Out Of Nowhere" Prospect
(80 - 8:44pm, Jul 30)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogDetroit Tigers’ Evan Reed charged with sexual assault
(1 - 8:35pm, Jul 30)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogPosnanski: Four theories about Hall of Fame voting changes
(26 - 8:27pm, Jul 30)
Last: JE (Jason Epstein)

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(676 - 8:27pm, Jul 30)
Last: Langer Monk

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-30-2014
(22 - 8:22pm, Jul 30)
Last: Lindor Truffles

NewsblogEric Chavez Retires
(26 - 8:14pm, Jul 30)
Last: Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde

Page rendered in 0.3958 seconds
52 querie(s) executed