For all of your Hall of Fame vote-following needs.

This is still just in Hot Topics, not the Newsblog. Needs to be pinned to the top, too, and Thibs awarded the Medal of Freedom for his outstanding service to the country.

I hope that did the trick.

I'm glad to see that Edgar is already +3 on only 6 ballots.

Ballots must be postmarked by December 31. Results will be announced January 22.

Edit: failed in linking to last year's thread on my balky phone.

It's obviously insanely early, but even so I think we're already close to being able to project Edgar. +3 through 6 votes is a pretty good rate of improvement.

Steven Marcus's ballot BTW was Edgar + Rivera and no one else. Which...those certainly are two names.

Steven Marcus's ballot BTW was Edgar + Rivera and no one else. Which...those certainly are two names.

Looks like he wants to keep voting for only people that get elected?

At this time last year little known Omar vizquel was something like 8 for 8 prompting a group coronary.

How many people think Rick Ankiel gets a couple votes?

Like the first snow of the season, the decorating of the Christmas Tree, the first purchase of a 10-pack of Peppermint-flavored Keurigs, and the Peanuts Christmas Special, Thibs' HOF Tracker is one of the markers of the holiday season. Many, many thanks to Ryan for doing the thing that we all wish somebody would do...but that nobody else would do.

Edgar's going to have a shot to break Vlad's record for highest vote % by a non first-timer, IMO. Between his 10th season, and my personal belief that a bunch of people really, really, want to vote for Ortiz and are just recently realizing it's going to be really hard to vote for him and not Edgar, I think we're going to see a lot of people switching this year.

Edgar's going to have a shot to break Vlad's record for highest vote % by a non first-timer, IMO. Between his 10th season, and my personal belief that a bunch of people really, really, want to vote for Ortiz and are just recently realizing it's going to be really hard to vote for him and not Edgar, I think we're going to see a lot of people switching this year.

I hope you're right. In one of the other threads I expressed some skepticism in that he may be running up against a wall of diehard anti-DHers. The fact that he's already gained 3 votes suggests my fear was overstated, but it's early.

At the very least Edgar should break Red Ruffing's record for highest percentage by a player on his last year on the ballot? Ruffing got 86.9% in a run-off election. If we're going by non-runoffs it would be Tim Raines with 86.0%.

Did he create a bot or is he doing this by watching the known sources? Just curious. Very cool and thanks for sharing

Did he create a bot or is he doing this by watching the known sources? Just curious. Very cool and thanks for sharing

I think he just reads the article where reporters reveal their HoF choices, and the mass releases that outlets like ESPN do.

Edgar got 52.4% support on private ballots, Thibs tracker won't likely reveal movement among that group. If it "only" goes up to 2/3 support as part of a final ballot push along with 90% up from 75-ish% public (77.3% pre-results reveal, 72.9% post-results reveal) you have something like 325*0.9 + 100*0.67 = ~85%. 325*.98 (Chipper public support) + 100*0.75 = ~92.6% which is just short of Vlad 92.9%. Getting Chipper level of public support and induction level private support doesn't seem likely, especially when 98% public support means the private ballots can leave him off without likely affecting the outcome and then bang out on their typewriter some "thoughts" on the DH.

14--thanks. Lot of work. I know I would not willingly go to the ESPN site which is trash.

Did he create a bot or is he doing this by watching the known sources? Just curious. Very cool and thanks for sharing

I think at this point a lot of the writers will let him know when they post their votes (as they did with Repoz when he ran the Gizmo), and he'll also get visitors who notify him when a writer announces his vote publicly if it's not yet in the tracker. He's become the go-to guy for Hall following.

Edgar’s private support should rise. It was much lower than 52% in 2017, for example. If the private support rises to around 65% and the public gains continue on smaller ballots, he won’t break Vlad’s non-first-ballot record but could approach Raines’ non-first-two-Ballots record.

14--thanks. Lot of work. I know I would not willingly go to the ESPN site which is trash.

Well, a bunch of the organizations that employee multiple BBWA members do a group reveal. So, you may get 10+ ballots in one article.

17: interesting.
19--ok

I think at this point a lot of the writers will let him know when they post their votes (as they did with Repoz when he ran the Gizmo), and he'll also get visitors who notify him when a writer announces his vote publicly if it's not yet in the tracker. He's become the go-to guy for Hall following.

The Henning ballot released today, for example, was tweeted by the newspaper and explicitly @ed Tibbs in the tweet.

People also post about or link to ballots in these threads, and Ryan usually checks in periodically.

There have been writers that email their ballots to Ryan privately. He usually lists those on the tracker. In fact, he lists a source for every ballot.

The new 2-name ballot is interesting. Edgar and Rivera. That is all.

How many people think Rick Ankiel gets a couple votes?

Miguel Tejada already has one vote, so anything's possible.

How many people think Rick Ankiel gets a couple votes?

Miguel Tejada already has one vote, so anything's possible.

Tejada isn't a HOFer, but a vote for him isn't a ridiculous "WTF?" vote either. I think he's a better candidate than Vizquel, personally. Miggy T at least had a peak where he was a legitimate star; in a 7 season span from 2000-2006, Tejada hit .297 and averaged 29 HR, 116 RBI, 102 R, 190 H, 37 2B, a 121 OPS+, and 5.2 WAR, with all 7 seasons reaching at least 4.2 WAR (a total that Omar reached just once in his career). Miggy made 6 all star teams (3 for Vizquel) and won 2 silver sluggers. He also won an (undeserved) MVP in 2002 (.308-34-131), and put up an even better year in 2004 (.311 with 34 HR and an eye catching and league leading 150 RBI). He received MVP votes in 8 seasons total (1 for Vizquel). He was also an iron man who played at least 156 games in 11 of 12 seasons from 1999-2010, including the full 162 six years in a row.

So yeah, even though he wouldn't get my vote, he's the type of player that I'd be totally fine with hanging around on the ballot for the duration (well, on a less crowded ballot, anyway). He joins a long list of guys with HOF caliber peaks who just didn't keep it going long enough.

Indeed, Miguel Tejada is 10X the player Rick Ankiel is (in the sense that Tejada had 52 WAR, and Ankiel had 5.2 WAR)

Tejada isn't a HOFer, but a vote for him isn't a ridiculous "WTF?" vote either. I think he's a better candidate than Vizquel,

Agreed. Similar career value, but Tejada did it in almost 3000 fewer PAs. Much higher peak. Top 5 years: 28 WAR, 16 WAA, vs 19 and 8 for Vizquel.

Tejada came up as a 21 year old and had a 30 HR, 115 RBI as a 24 year old shortstop. Or not. We later found out he was 23 and 26 for those years. Add 2 more prime seasons (~10 WAR) and he's at 57. Certainly not a slam dunk but a reasonable candidate, except for the roid issue.

As it is, he's the Vern Stephens of our generation. The only 2 shortstops to ever have a 150 RBI season. 45+ WAR, but short of 50. HOVG.

a bunch of people really, really, want to vote for Ortiz and are just recently realizing it's going to be really hard to vote for him and not Edgar,

Are Hall of Fame voters really that self-aware? Do they care that much about consistency? I don't see it.

If people are now voting for Edgar, it is because of (a) all the people beating the drum for Edgar in the media and on the internet; (b) momentum; (c) last year on the ballot syndrome; and (d) new voters who actually understand the metrics.

I doubt if there are many, if any, who say, "Omigosh, I want to vote for Big Papi, but if I don't also vote for Edgar, they'll say I'm inconsistent."

Edgar last year ended up right where Raines was in his 9th ballot. Seems to me he's got support from the same corners that Raines had, and Tim went in with plenty of room to spare.

I'm with you, Srul. I also doubt that many of these voters believe that Edgar was better than Ortiz in the first place.

I doubt if there are many, if any, who say, "Omigosh, I want to vote for Big Papi, but if I don't also vote for Edgar, they'll say I'm inconsistent."

They may not think about it in quite those terms, but there's probably more than zero who have assumed without thinking about it that Ortiz is an HOFer, and are putting that assumption to the test now that it is coming up on being actually relevant in the vote. During which process they may very well reassess Edgar along the way.

I doubt if there are many, if any, who say, "Omigosh, I want to vote for Big Papi, but if I don't also vote for Edgar, they'll say I'm inconsistent."

I don't think its a preemptive CYA effort by the voters. I think it's more that when Ortiz retired a lot of voters thought clear Hall-Of-Famer, and when people pointed out Edgar's not far from Ortiz the voters actually tried to understand Edgar's case better.

I'd rather they reached the same point more directly, but I'm not going to complain that they're doing their homework, and I'm certainly not going to complain that they're leaning toward electing a deserving candidate as a result.

I doubt if there are many, if any, who say, "Omigosh, I want to vote for Big Papi, but if I don't also vote for Edgar, they'll say I'm inconsistent."

It's hard to separate the Ortiz-effect from the normal increased scrutiny players get in their waning years of eligibility, or even the effect of the recent easing of the ballot glut, but Edgar's vote jumped significantly after Ortiz announced that 2016 would be his last season. Edgar had never done better than 36%, and had actually declined to 27%, but increased to 43%, then 59%, and 70%. I think a lot of voters who considered Ortiz a Hall of Famer never looked at Edgar carefully, and when prompted to do so saw the difficulty of drawing a line that would keep Edgar out but put Ortiz in.

Living in Baltimore in the 00's, Miguel Tejada was one of the few players I didn't mind seeing come to the plate.

Living in Baltimore in 2018, I wouldn't mind seeing Miguel Tejada come to the plate.

I don't think its a preemptive CYA effort by the voters. I think it's more that when Ortiz retired a lot of voters thought clear Hall-Of-Famer, and when people pointed out Edgar's not far from Ortiz the voters actually tried to understand Edgar's case better.

I agree with that is what I think might be happening....but I I will argue....

Edgar's not far from Ortiz

Should be worded as "Edgar's a much better candidate than Ortiz."

I don’t understand why people think Ortiz gets treated any better than any other PED tainted candidate. Why would you put Ortiz in the hall before bonds ? I think it’s happy talk by Red Sox fans. Having said that I think enough members could get cold feet on bonds and the rest that this becomes a moot point.

It's hard to separate the Ortiz-effect from the normal increased scrutiny players get in their waning years of eligibility, or even the effect of the recent easing of the ballot glut, but Edgar's vote jumped significantly after Ortiz announced that 2016 would be his last season. Edgar had never done better than 36%, and had actually declined to 27%, but increased to 43%, then 59%, and 70%.

Voting changes from 2015-2016, among holdovers who had at least 15% of the vote in 2015 and weren't Bonds or Clemens:

Edgar: 27.0 to 43.4 (+16.4)
Mussina: 24.6 to 43.0 (+18.4)
Bagwell: 55.7 to 71.6 (+15.9)
Piazza: 69.9 to 83.0 (+13.1)
Raines: 55.0 to 69.8 (+14.8)
Schilling: 39.2 to 52.3 (+14.1)
Smith: 30.2 to 34.1 (+3.9)
Trammell: 25.1 to 40.9 (+15.8)

Edgar's increase is the second-largest in the group, but outside of Smith, they're all between 13 and 19. (If you leave out Piazza, who was starting from a higher baseline, they're all between 14-19.) I don't see much of an Ortiz effect there.

(Of course, any number of effects were present on all of these guys; Mussina and Schilling were no longer directly competing with the five starting pitchers who'd been inducted on the previous two ballots, for instance. But I would still read this as primarily the easing of the ballot glut.)

In terms of the improvement of Martinez's vote, I find the claims that it relates directly to Ortiz's retirement overblown, based on an analysis of the public ballots that have switched to Martinez in the last two cycles:

In 2017, 53 public voters switched to Martinez. Of these:

1) 33 voters were ones that had backed more of the combination of Griffey, Piazza, Trammell, McGwire, and Edmonds in 2016 than had backed the combination of Rodriguez, Guerrero, Ramirez, and Posada in 2017.

2) 9 others had their ballots expand by at least two slots between 2016 and 2017.

3) 3 more found room, independent of 1) and 2), by dumping Schilling.

In these cases, it seems to be more a case of being able to find room to back Martinez, rather than switching. Notably, this leaves us with a maximum of eight public votes which could theoretically be explained by the Ortiz theorem- and, even in those cases, I suspect that an actual examination of these ballots in further detail would question these.

Similar, in 2018, 40 public voters switched to Martinez. Of these:

1) 24 voted for more of the combination of Bagwell, Raines, Rodriguez, Smith, and Posada in 2017 than voted for the combination of Chipper, Thome, Vizquel, Rolen, Andruw, Santana, and the field in 2018.

2) 5 more had their ballots expand by at least two slots between 2016 and 2017.

This leaves just ten who clearly (and a possible eleventh- I can't find the 2017 ballot of one of the voters listed in the Tracker as moving to Martinez) cannot be explained by this issue.

At most, this leaves nineteen out of 93 ballots where the explanation could be connected to Ortiz- that's barely 20%, and it is likely to fall when examining these ballots more closely (at least some of the 2018 ballots could be the general bandwagon effect at work, for instance).

Based on this evidence, the claims made about why Edgar Martinez is ultimately improving in the vote essentially are the sort of thing we'd call "narrative!" and scream bloody murder at sportswriters if they were to claim it. Instead, Occam's Razor suggests that it is a case of people who were sympathetic to his case as a HOF member finding room for him, in one form or another.

The reasoning between why they prioritize some of these folk either ahead of or behind Martinez? That is actually an interesting thing to ponder- but ultimately for another post....

I don’t understand why people think Ortiz gets treated any better than any other PED tainted candidate. Why would you put Ortiz in the hall before bonds ? I think it’s happy talk by Red Sox fans. Having said that I think enough members could get cold feet on bonds and the rest that this becomes a moot point.

Ortiz got a syrupy farewell tour on his way out of the league. Bonds got booed in every park other than his own. Ortiz already has been treated better than pretty much every PED-tainted candidate.

I think it's more that when Ortiz retired a lot of voters thought clear Hall-Of-Famer, and when people pointed out Edgar's not far from Ortiz the voters actually tried to understand Edgar's case better.

I think the kind of voters who think Ortiz is a "clear Hall of Famer" are not likely to understand why Edgar would be deemed as good as, or better than, a guy with 230 more home runs, 500 more RBI, and 3 more Ringzz. I think that, to the extent Edgar's case is being re-examined, it is because that often happens naturally, which is why Edgar climbed from 36% to 70%, just as Tim Raines climbed from 24% to 86%. I think the turnover in voters has also helped.

I think the narrative that has been created on these pages, whereby Big Papi is causing Edgar to be re-examined, is the BBTF version of people seeking a narrative explanation for a natural occurrence.

EDIT: Or what QLE said. If he ever makes it out here, the first Mai Tai is on me.

Living in Baltimore in 2018, I wouldn't mind seeing Miguel Tejada come to the plate

If he gets back on the 'roids he'd be a better option at 1B that's for sure.

I think the kind of voters who think Ortiz is a "clear Hall of Famer" are not likely to understand why Edgar

Edgar has a great SABR case for the HOF, but he also has that very, very shiny 300/400/500 slash line that very few players have. The only thing that has been hurting his HOF chances have been the perception that he was "only" a DH, when in fact that's not true.

People are beginning to realise that the man could just flat out rake better then most players who ever donned a uniform and the value that brought alone is hall worthy.

The Ortiz case is different. Sure they were both DH, but very much in a different mold. Papi did the things a DH was supposed to do, hit homers and drive in sh*tloads of runs(plus a few signature moments in the playoffs)

I think voters have just realised the Martinez's batting alone created enormous value and that's hall worthy. You thrown in the fact that he did actually play 3B for a bit and he's clearly over the line for me.

Now if only they can see the light on Walker and his overall value, then I'll be happy.

Ortiz got a syrupy farewell tour on his way out of the league.

Even before then, there was a lot of good will toward him. He was lauded not just as a good hitter, but as a clutch hitter, with some pivotal home runs to show the way. He was viewed as a larger than life ambassador for the game, and even got away with an F Bomb for his "This is our F-in' City" line following the Boston Marathon Bombing.

It is also the fact that, long after testing was initiated, he continued to mash. Hell, in his last season, he led the league in slugging and OPS, and had his highest WAR (5.2) since 2007.

The steroids stink may affect a very few voters, but Papi's going in pretty easily.

I don’t understand why people think Ortiz gets treated any better than any other PED tainted candidate. Why would you put Ortiz in the hall before bonds ? I think it’s happy talk by Red Sox fans. Having said that I think enough members could get cold feet on bonds and the rest that this becomes a moot point.

Because PED taint is random, moronic bullshit untethered in fact.

It is also the fact that, long after testing was initiated, he continued to mash. Hell, in his last season, he led the league in slugging and OPS, and had his highest WAR (5.2) since 2007.

One significant difference for the early proved or presumed PED guys (McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa) is they left the game with their last impression as being guilty of PED and nothing could change that. On the other hand, Papi (and, to a lesser extent, Pettitte) built an entire career after he reportedly failed a test, repeatedly creating new impressions far removed from his reported usage.

Arod might have done the same thing, had he not gone ahead and got busted again.

When Mike Piazza was elected, a good portion of the narrative reflected upon his post 9/11 home run, in the Mets first game back.

The narrative for Big Papi for his post Boston Bombings statements, and then with the Red Sox winning the Series that year, and his iconic Grand Slam homer vs the Tigers, will be an even more compelling story line.

When Mike Piazza was elected, a good portion of the narrative reflected upon his post 9/11 home run, in the Mets first game back.

The narrative for Big Papi for his post Boston Bombings statements, and then with the Red Sox winning the Series that year, and his iconic Grand Slam homer vs the Tigers, will be an even more compelling story line.

I'm generally sympathetic to most HoF perspectives. Big Hall vs small Hall. Peak vs Career. I can see the merit in any of those arguments.

"Narrative" is the one place I draw the line. It makes no sense. Lots of guys have great narratives that shouldn't sniff the HoF.

I think that so far the writers have done pretty well in identifying and electing candidates for whom there's almost no evidence of PED use beyond finger pointing. Piazza, Bagwell, IRod. I think Otiz could be in that category.

"Narrative" is the one place I draw the line. It makes no sense. Lots of guys have great narratives that shouldn't sniff the HoF.

Focusing on "narrative" is silly if that's your only criteria. But for guys on the borderline who wouldn't be embarrassments based strictly on value (say, 55-65 WAR), narrative - or "relevance", "star power", "felt like a HOFer", whatever you want to call it - seems like as good a tie breaker as any. Ortiz, Rivera, Ichiro, McGwire, Sosa, and Vlad are much more important to the story of baseball than Johnny Damon, John Olerud, and Bobby Abreu, even if they're all pretty similar in WAR. My PHOF would include all of the former group and none of the latter.

#50 ... there is slightly more evidence of PED use by Ortiz than there is by Sosa. The only evidence for either is that the NYT published stories citing anon lawyers that those two were on the list. The only difference in the evidence is that Ortiz got very huffy and lobbied MLB and MLBPA to make statements that there were some false positives on the list ... which is slightly more evidence in that it seems to be Ortiz acknowledging he was on the list while Sosa never said one way or the other (that I recall). Arguably that MLB and MLBPA made those statements following Ortiz's reveal (after not doing so for ARod and Sosa) might be evidence he was a "false" positive. ("False" positives may have arisen because certain legal substances can trigger a positive in a basic test so they're not necessarily "false" as much as "inconclusive.")

On Edgar's rise relative to Ortiz's retirement ... 2016 was the first post-purge ballot. Lots of folks went up as #39 notes. Bagwell went up 15%, Piazza 13% and even B/C up 9% so we could as easily build a storyline that knowing they wanted to vote for the PED-tainted Ortiz they though they'd better start voting for those guys too. Edgar did however gain the most votes among returning voters (+51) so I suppose it can't be ruled out though I'd still wager most of that was room on the ballot. There were still a lot of good players on the ballot but it was nowhere near as crowded as it had been in those years when all the first-ballot guys were coming onto an already crowded ballot.

Finally, if there's anybody new to Ryan's sreadsheet and hasn't figured it out by now ... the bit you really want to pay attention to is the gray-shaded bit about gains/losses among returning voters. There's no order to how votes come in so it's oftne the case that some candidate is running way ahead of previous totals even after 100 ballots ... which seems great until you look at that gain/loss rows and see he's actually only gained like 3 votes and it just so happens that his past supporters turned out early.

So yes, that Edgar is +3 already is an outstanding sign for him but after 70% last year, there wasn't much doubt he'd get over this year. I think the key questions are whether Halladay makes it (he should at least come close) and whether Mussina can make it (probably not quite is my gusss) ... after that it's progress by Schilling, Walker (+1) and Rolen (+1). Oh yeah, Vizquel who I suspect prettty much stays where he is.

Focusing on "narrative" is silly if that's your only criteria. But for guys on the borderline who wouldn't be embarrassments based strictly on value (say, 55-65 WAR), narrative - or "relevance", "star power", "felt like a HOFer", whatever you want to call it - seems like as good a tie breaker as any. Ortiz, Rivera, Ichiro, McGwire, Sosa, and Vlad are much more important to the story of baseball than Johnny Damon, John Olerud, and Bobby Abreu, even if they're all pretty similar in WAR. My PHOF would include all of the former group and none of the latter.

Agreed.

I'm generally sympathetic to most HoF perspectives. Big Hall vs small Hall. Peak vs Career. I can see the merit in any of those arguments.

"Narrative" is the one place I draw the line. It makes no sense. Lots of guys have great narratives that shouldn't sniff the HoF.

Hall of FAME. FAME. Famous. Guys who are famous for playing baseball. Narrative matters. Less than other things, maybe, but absolutely should be part of the criteria.

Ortiz, Rivera, Ichiro, McGwire, Sosa, and Vlad are much more important to the story of baseball than Johnny Damon, John Olerud, and Bobby Abreu, even if they're all pretty similar in WAR. My PHOF would include all of the former group and none of the latter.

Well put, Booey.

It's easy to imagine Ortiz gets voters to reconsider Edgar, consider:

Jim Bunning: 38.1, 47.8, 34, 46, 40.9, 33.3, 36.9% support, the final year of that sequence is the 2nd last without Catfish Hunter.

Jim Bunning: 224-184, 3.27 ERA, 3760.1 IP, 2855 K, 20, 19, 19, 19, 19, 17, 17, 17 win seasons, 6 full seasons with 2.29 to 2.79 ERA
Catfish Hunter: 224-166, 3.26 ERA, 3449.1 IP, 2012 K, 25, 23, 21, 21, 21, 18, 17 win seasons, 5 full seasons with 2.04 to 2.96 ERA

Catfish has the narrative elements, pioneer of free agency, five 20 win seasons, Cy 1-2-3-4 and 5 Rings.
Bunning does not, at his first ballot appearance he's 8th in K/9 with 2000+ IP (Koufax, McDowell, Seaver, Gibson, Lolich, Waddell, Carlton) but a HoF caliber pitcher would have been able to pick up the 20th win and had better teammates. 17-11, 3.19 for the 101 win 1961 Tigers but the Yankees win 109, the Tigers win at most 85 games in his other seasons. 19-8, 2.63 for the 92 win 1964 Phillies and the Cardinals win 93, why 20 wins is a Hall of Fame standard. Dean Chance in the AL gets 17 of the 20 Cy Votes in 1964, Larry Jackson gets 2 and Koufax 1 in the NL, 1967 is the first year 2 Cy are awarded and Bunning gets his only ever vote, Mike McCormick gets 18 of 20 votes. 1970 is the first season of filling out a Cy ballot as opposed to picking a winner, Bunning is in his Age 38 season and doesn't benefit, Catfish is in his Age 24 season and has never finished above .500 up until that point so wouldn't have been listed on any previous ballots. Lack of Cy support meaning you weren't quite as good as Koufax or Gibson is a lot different than when 18 different pitchers get a Cy vote in 2018.

But if you're planning on voting for the guy with 224 wins and a 3.26 ERA, maybe reconsider the guy with 224 wins and a 3.27 ERA?

Jim Bunning: 49.9, 54.2, 65.6, 70, 74.2 (missed by 4 votes, 1st ballot for Stargell), 63.3 (1st ballot for Yaz, Bench, Perry and Jenkins), 57.9 (1st ballot for Palmer, Morgan), 63.7 (1st ballot for Carew, Fingers)
Catfish Hunter: --, 53.7, 68, 76.3% elected with Billy Williams

Another re-writing of the Hall criteria.

YES it is called the Hall of Fame.

NO it should not be filled by who was the most famous.

It should be base on results. (And neither Sosa or McGuire deserve enshrinement.)

Bill James somewhere writes something to the effect that the HOF is not capable of honoring the truly great; it can only insult them. To a certain extent at least, this I think is true. Moreover, it's rather presumptuous of any such self-deified organization that is replete with nincompoops to think it can obligate the great by honoring them. The great should look at things like that with a jaundiced eye, like Bob Dylan did with the Nobel Prize (and the Pulitzer Prize, the Grammys, etc.) Yeah, its nice you like me and my stuff, but I ain't genuflecting.

WORLD Series. WORLD. Teams who beat the best teams in the World. Geography matters. Less than other things, maybe, but absolutely should be part of the criteria.

Congratulations to Honolulu, Hawaii the 2018 World Series champions. For the 4th time in the 21st century the Red Sox refused to validate their title and again remain the MLB Champion. For the 3rd time in the 21st century Oregon State refused to validate their title and remain the American College Champion.

Focusing on "narrative" is silly if that's your only criteria. But for guys on the borderline who wouldn't be embarrassments based strictly on value (say, 55-65 WAR), narrative - or "relevance", "star power", "felt like a HOFer", whatever you want to call it - seems like as good a tie breaker as any. Ortiz, Rivera, Ichiro, McGwire, Sosa, and Vlad are much more important to the story of baseball than Johnny Damon, John Olerud, and Bobby Abreu, even if they're all pretty similar in WAR. My PHOF would include all of the former group and none of the latter.

That's why there's a museum that occupies way more square footage than the plaque room. The story element is amply covered in the museum, the plaque room should reflect playing ability.

Also, a ton of McGwire and Sosa's narrative is negative. Some of their actions are viewed by many people to have significantly hurt the sport.

#57 - Morty, I think that's a pretty weak take.

First, we're talking about the borderline guys, not the inner circle Bob Dylan equivalents. If you're some random Polish poet, the Nobel Prize would change your life permanently - increase your fame exponentially, improve your earning potential permanently, and even the award itself is a huge windfall. You think random Polish poet should just say "whatever, I'm too good for this"?

To a Sosa or Vlad or Olerud or Abreu, the Hall would have a very real effect on the size of their legacies. Think about Sosa in particular, who is nearly a persona non grata in baseball. If he got to stand up there and give his speech it could change everything about how he's appreciated in the baseball community.

Different awards have different values. Rock stars never care about the Grammys, which they shouldn't, because it's a farce that has no meaning for them. But actors care, a lot, about the Oscars. The Hall of Fame is more like the Oscars. Everyone within the community cares. The professionals themselves care.

#57 - Morty, I think that's a pretty weak take.

This is far more gracious than I would have been.

Snapper: That's why there's a museum that occupies way more square footage than the plaque room. The story element is amply covered in the museum

This seems intentionally naive. It's like you're pretending that the Hall doesn't have an influence that reaches far beyond the physical space.

What does it do for Vlad Guerrero if he gets a bat and glove and a photo or two in one of a thousand cabinets? Do you think that promotes the preservation of his memory among fans in a significant way?

The HoF is capable of honoring anyone, being tagged as being among the best doesn't honor the truly great.

When Willie Mays gets inducted to honor him you then need to reveal the results of additional balloting and announce his status as one of the 5 greatest living players (Musial, Ted, Mantle, Koufax) or 10 (Aaron, Bench, Feller, Seaver, Paige) and to avoid snubs let F-Rob, B-Rob, Spahn, Gibson, Carlton, Kaline, Morgan, Reggie and whoever else assume they are among the other 4/9. It's a heck of a lot more impressive if you assemble the 10 greatest living players on stage for Mays' induction but then of course you can't avoid snubs.

Crowd size to a certain extent allows the public to confer honor, although proximity, popularity and weather play large roles.

60:

Point taken. Although it's mostly irrelevant or beside the point to what I maintain.

That players or poets feel honored doesn't mean they should. That institutions presume to have the capacity to honor the great doesn't mean it does. Moreover, the assumption created, for the player and by the institution, is that greatness is conferred or affirmed by the honor. And, of course, there aggrandizing reasons for both parties to promote this attitude, much of it practical (money, more books selling, reputation). Plus, everyone likes to be stroked, even by those one doesn't have much respect for.

This seems intentionally naive. It's like you're pretending that the Hall doesn't have an influence that reaches far beyond the physical space.

What does it do for Vlad Guerrero if he gets a bat and glove and a photo or two in one of a thousand cabinets? Do you think that promotes the preservation of his memory among fans in a significant way?

If he has such a significant role in the story of baseball (I don't think Guerrero in particular does), then fans will remember him. If they don't remember the narrative isn't that big of a deal.

Ortiz will be remembered for generations by Red Sox fans for his post-season heroics, and forgotten by pretty much everyone else. That's probably how it should be. A few clutch hits don't matter that much except to the fans with a direct interest.

If you're legitimately an all time great, no one needs to focus on a few hits or series to preserve your memory.

You think random Polish poet should just say

Makes me nostalgic for the years with fake character accounts. Random Polish Poet could be a great one.

YES it is called the Hall of Fame.

NO it should not be filled by who was the most famous.

It should be base on results. (And neither Sosa or McGuire deserve enshrinement.)

I mean, how famous can McGwire really be if no one even knows how to spell his name right?

It should be base on results. (And neither Sosa or McGuire deserve enshrinement.)

Mac and Sammy produced comparable results to many HOFers who aren't viewed as mistakes. Are Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Harmon Killebrew mistakes? These are the types of players they're most comparable to, IMO.

Also, a ton of McGwire and Sosa's narrative is negative. Some of their actions are viewed by many people to have significantly hurt the sport.

I mentioned McGwire and Sosa based strictly on performance/merits. Obviously the PED taint is a whole different animal for some, but that's not what I was arguing.

No matter where you draw your in/out line, there's going to be virtually equal players on either side of it. How do YOU determine which ones get in and which ones don't if things like breaking records, big postseason performances, and "star perception" (MVP votes, all star appearances) don't hold any extra sway?

That's why there's a museum that occupies way more square footage than the plaque room. The story element is amply covered in the museum, the plaque room should reflect playing ability.

That's why I said that the plaque room should be based MOSTLY on playing ability. It wasn't an accident that I only listed guys with 60-ish WAR and left out the Roger Maris and Don Larsen types (and if it were up to me I would've left out Jack Morris and Bill Mazeroski, too). The museum is indeed where the achievements of the "story only" players like Maris and Larsen belong. All the players I mentioned are "story, PLUS enough career" types.

First, we're talking about the borderline guys

That's the part I always make sure to stress when I post anything about narrative...and the part that people always seem to ignore when they dispute it.

I mean, how famous can McGwire really be if no one even knows how to spell his name right?

I'm glad someone said it. I mean, G*****n. It's bad enough when I see "McGuire," "Ripkin," "Maddox," and the like on Facebook and among non-diehard fans. But here? Really?

It's bad enough when I see "McGuire," "Ripkin," "Maddox," and the like on Facebook and among non-diehard fans. But here? Really?

What do you have against Elliott Maddox?

So what's worse: Dylan's Nobel or Palmeiro's gold glove? After Dylan's name was announced I'm sure that Salman Rushdie was somewhere between India and England, fuming in frustration.

To be fair, like Andrew McCutchen after him, McGwire does spell his name wrong. And don't get me started on Shawn Marcum.

What do you have against Elliott Maddox?

Nowhere near as good a fielder as Garry.

So what's worse: Dylan's Nobel or Palmeiro's gold glove?

The latter because he didn't actually take the field much if at all and still won the award. Dylan did write a whole bunch of song lyrics at least, even if they're hardly deserving of a literature Nobel Prize.

Nowhere near as good a fielder as Garry.

You're obviously referring to Phillies great Gary Maddux.

Plus Dylan wasn't writing on steroids.

Although, in fairness, Dylan was linked to other drugs believed at the time to be performance-enhancing.

Plus Dylan wasn't writing on steroids.

I thought it was Dillon.

Ortiz will be remembered for generations by Red Sox fans for his post-season heroics, and forgotten by pretty much everyone else. That's probably how it should be. A few clutch hits don't matter that much except to the fans with a direct interest.

This is hilarious to read, as someone who has made similarly terrible arguments about former Yankees. Ortiz was a massive star who is still used by MLB and the networks. He's obviously going to enjoy popularity deep into retirement and will be brought out in future All Star games and such. Obviously.

This is hilarious to read, as someone who has made similarly terrible arguments about former Yankees. Ortiz was a massive star who is still used by MLB and the networks. He's obviously going to enjoy popularity deep into retirement and will be brought out in future All Star games and such. Obviously.

Reggie Jackson was a much better player, with more impressive post-season heroics. How often do you hear about him?

Ortiz is not a inner circle great that people are going to talk about 100 years from now, like we do with Ruth, Cobb, Hornsby, Wagner, Walter Johnson, etc.

He'll be a Home Run Baker, or a Paul Waner in terms of general fan knowledge.

Reggie Jackson was a much better player, with more impressive post-season heroics. How often do you hear about him?

It's like we switched accounts and you're making my argument for me. Nobody liked Reggie! He was famous for being an #######!

Reggie Jackson was a much better player, with more impressive post-season heroics. How often do you hear about him?

Who?

Good lord Snapper, that's quite the edit. 100 ####### years, my god.

Can't agree here, snapper. People love Ortiz. Hell, I like him (and particularly enjoy him and A-rod messing around together).

Yeah, Reggie was better. By 2050, no, Ortiz is unlikely to be referenced constantly (once all the other droughts are broken, though theirs was still first of the super-long droughts).

But people love that guy.

Good lord Snapper, that's quite the edit. 100 ####### years, my god.

No edit. My original post said:

Ortiz will be remembered for generations by Red Sox fans for his post-season heroics, and forgotten by pretty much everyone else.

I started talking about generations of fame. That's at least 60 years.

And Reggie is only 30-50 years ago.

It's like we switched accounts and you're making my argument for me. Nobody liked Reggie! He was famous for being an #######!

Doesn't prevent us from remembering Cobb.

Reggie Jackson was a much better player, with more impressive post-season heroics. How often do you hear about him?

In fairness, David Ortiz never tried to kill the Queen of England.

But people love that guy.

And those people will be mostly gone in 50 years.

I'm sure Paul Waner was very popular in 1945 Pittsburgh.

snapper this is a deeply stupid argument. Obviously only inner circle players are remembered for 100 years. Obviously. No one has ever pretended he will be considered as such. Who are you arguing with?

(And it was an edit, what are you doing? Your post was one sentence initially, I immediately quoted it and responded.)

In fairness, David Ortiz never tried to kill the Queen of England.

That we know of.

https://xkcd.com/2078/

Reggie Jackson was a much better player, with more impressive post-season heroics. How often do you hear about him?

Reggie's postseason stats aren't that impressive. 12.4 PPG on 47% shooting, .325 from 3.

Snapper makes a statement that is not at all unreasonable and a bunch of people have to jump on it. Why?

Is it really that hard to believe that Ortiz wont be a household name in say 50 years? Really? You find that hard to believe?

Can't agree here, snapper. People love Ortiz...By 2050, no, Ortiz is unlikely to be referenced constantly...

what exactly are you not agreeing with? You just agreed with him..

Follow the thread, that's not exactly how it unfolded.

Um, Reggie Jackson is still pretty darn famous. Far far more famous than guys like Paul Molitor or Robin Yount (relatively equivalent value from roughly the same timeframe), for example.

I think that so far the writers have done pretty well in identifying and electing candidates for whom there's almost no evidence of PED use beyond finger pointing. Piazza, Bagwell, IRod. I think Otiz could be in that category.

Canseco says he personally injected IRod with steroids, and was basically otherwise proven to be right across the board with what he wrote. The evidence against Sosa was that an anonymous newspaper source's sister's dogwalker's cousin read on a ouiji board that he used, and he hit more than 60 HRs in a season.

I just want to have a conversation with the writer who voted for Clemens but not Bonds. When we talk about tough lines to draw....

Snapper makes a statement that is not at all unreasonable and a bunch of people have to jump on it. Why?

Never a bad time for a discussion of the "human definition" of "generation"

The evidence against Sosa was that an anonymous newspaper source's sister's dogwalker's cousin read on a ouiji board that he used, and he hit more than 60 HRs in a season.

Yeah. The "evidence" against Sosa really is just "an anonymous source claimed his name was on a list that's never been revealed to the public." IOW, "someone said so." That's really no more damning than the whispers about Piazza or Bagwell. Sammy really does seem to be a victim of guilt by association. Once evidence came out against McGwire and Bonds, the other guy who passed Maris just HAD to be guilty too.

Honestly, the case against Clemens isn't really any stronger, either. Isn't it basically that Pettitte and McNamee said that he used? McNamee was discredited in court as being an unreliable witness and Pettitte later backtracked and admitted that he might have misunderstood their conversation. That doesn't even rise above the level of gossip, but it's enough to keep arguably the best pitcher of all time out of the HOF, apparently.

Hall of FAME. FAME. Famous. Guys who are famous for playing baseball.

The Hall is intended to confer fame, not recognize. The pointlessness of an honor that intends to recognize fame should be obvious on its face. (That the voters would often use it to recognize fame is equally obvious.)

I'm sure that Salman Rushdie was somewhere between India and England, fuming in frustration.

Actually Rushdie praised the choice. He's a big fan of pop culture, loves hanging out with rock stars, etc. Don DeLillo or Philip Roth might have been less gruntled.