2007 HoF ballot.

In order of preference:

1. Cal Ripken
2. Mark McGwire
3. Bert Blyleven
4. Alan Trammell
5. Tony Gwynn
6. Tommy John
7. Albert Belle
8. Jose Canseco
9. Tony Fernandez
10. Harold Baines

Explanation: my AL league factors in the mid 1990s are very high relative to the NL. In combination with what I consider appropriate "timelining", Baines comes out like a 350 WS-ish no-peak candidate and Canseco like a 300 WS-ish, MVP-level peak candidate. Tommy John has enormous career value even considering the era in which he pitched. I agree that Clemente is an excellent comp for Gwynn, though I have Sam Crawford as a better comp. I have discussed my reasons for not voting for Gossage in previous HoM discussions.

"Write-ins": Concepcion, Dawson, Parker, Rice, Murphy, Morris, Hershisher, Saberhagen, Mattingly, O'Neill, Gossage, Davis, Bonilla. (I would submit a 23-name ballot if I could).

Explanation: if a 75 percent supermajority is required for election, then, roughly speaking, one should vote for 1.5 N players, where N is the number of players that are above one's HoF in/out line, in order that the consensus in/out line of players elected with 75 percent of the votes most closely matches the individual in/out lines. As a demonstration, my write-ins include ten players that would be below my personal HoF in/out line.

"Actual HOF results will be announced on Tuesday the 9th. Anybody know what time?"

off mlb.com site:
"For the third year in a row, the announcement will happen right here during the MLB.com Hall of Fame Election Show, beginning on Tuesday at 1 p.m. ET. At 2 p.m., Hall president Dale Petroskey will be in Manhattan at the MLB.com studio to make the live announcement of the voting results by the Baseball Writers' Association of America."

A little confusing, but "early afternoon" seems like a safe description.

There is no such consensus. Writers submit full ballots and sparse ones.

The consensus I'm referring to is the general agreement as to how good a player should be to be enshrined, built up over seven decades of elections. IOW, the players elected to the hall of fame are evidence of a certain standard of performance necessary in order to merit election.

You look at the aggregate of decades of voting and assume that to be some sort of indication of what an individual ballot looks like. That's simply not the case.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that voters need to study the results from these decades of voting, because that's the only genuine way to answer the question: What is a hall of famer? Based on the Hall's established practices, who has attained a level of value where most of the other players at that level are in the HOF?

This takes the question away from a subjective realm of prejudices and feelings and towards an objective assessment of players based upon real worth. Obviously, we are unlikely to ever achieve a 100% objective evaluation, but that is the direction where truth lies, which is what we strive for.

My ballot:

Blyleven
Gossage
Gwynn
McGwire
Ripken
Trammell

You seem to be saying that voters should guess at what the consensus will be and then vote that

I have no idea where this strange idea came from. I must be doing a really poor job of explaining myself.

I thought I made this point clearly: In order to determine who should be in the HOF, you need to study the players who are already in the HOF. By analyzing the players in the Hall, voters should be able to fairly discern what the level of performance is that makes a player worthy of election.

The hall of fame is a self-defining institution that has failed to define itself. IOW, because the HOF has never stated how good a hall of fame player should be, voters need to figure it out for themselves. There are now nearly 200 MLB players in the HOF; this is enough to enable voters to determine, pretty accurately, what level of performance indicates a player deserves to be in the HOF.

I've read more than one BBWAAA voter express the idea, "If I have to think about whether he belongs in the HOF or not, then he doesn't." From what I see, the work of thinking and analyzing where candidates rank among those in the Hall is not being done by very many voters.

You seem to be saying that voters should guess at what the consensus will be and then vote that, rather than the more traditional method, in which people vote for the players they think should be in the Hall of Fame.

It rather overdignifies the results of the HoF's elections over the years to describe them as representing a consensus. Players have been selected for the Hall of Fame by a variety of elecctoral processes by many different bodies of voters, but to suggest that because players have been elected to the Hall of Fame a consensus has been arrived at about who should be there? Hardly.

I would say that Dan G. is arguing that voting for the Hall of Fame _should_ entail two distinct acts of analysis. First, one should ascertain the standards that a player should meet in order to be honored by induction into the Hall of Fame, and then one should evaluate the eligible players to determine if they meet those standards.

I would say that the BBTF voters are considerably more sophisticated than the BBWAA voters in evaluating eligible players, and so our results will be better than theirs, because we are less likely to vote in ways that are in fact out of keeping with our own standards or that are radically at variance with the _value_ of the players' performances. We wouldn't elect Sutter before Gossage, and we wouldn't overlook the Bobby Griches and Alan Trammells of the baseball world.

However, BBTF voters, as a group, seem no more inclined than the BBWAA voters or the VC voters to examine the standards according to which they vote, or to submit those standards to the scrutiny of others. Much (though by no means all) of the inconsistency in the results of the Hall of Fame's elections has arisen from the failure of its electorates to scrutinize the standards they are applying and to compare those standards to those applied by other bodies of voters during the history of the Hall. They have voted for the players they think should be in the Hall of Fame, and if the group they elect does not much resemble the groups elected by other voting bodies, they have not found that a cause for concern. Many knowledgeable observers, however, find the results of this lack of care for standards to be highly unsatisfactory. If you are content with the Hall of Fame as we have it, then you are right to defend the processes by which it has been constituted. If you are not, then you should consider carefully the role that a lack of care for consistent standards has played in the diminishment of the Hall of Fame's capacity to honor baseball excellence.

Insofar as the BBTF voters also resist any scrutiny of their standards, then there is a danger that our elections would perpetuate the problem of inconsistency, if the results of this election were meaningful, which of course they are not.

Now, to submit one's standards to scrutiny does not mean simply to accept another's standards. There ought to be debate about standards, and that debate will never be exhausted, and standards will never be uniform. The Hall of Merit has been debating standards more or less continuously throughout the history of the project, and those debates show no signs of ending. What debate can accomplish is the establishment of broad and well-founded agreement among a body of voters about what standards should be and a confidence among the voters and observers that, even where the broadly-agreed-upon standards do not match their own standards, the elections result in selections that are based on careful, rational judgments, such that one might even on occasion trust the electorate's judgment above one's own when the electorate's conclusions disagree with one's own.

Dan G has advanced the position that the standard we ought to apply in making out choices is the standard that matches, more less, the de facto standard that has resulted from 70 years of HoF elections. I agree with Dan G that this is a good standard to apply, because application of it will gradually move the Hall towards greater consistency in its membership and towards greater fairness. If we, as voters, bear in mind what is good for the Hall of Fame as an institution that serves professional baseball by honoring excellence (and thereby both identifying it and encouraging it), then we should vote in a way that reinforces the Hall of Fame's ability to carry out properly its institutional function. The "small hall" voters, for example, by departing from the Hall's established standard, are not helping the Hall of Fame in this way. It is possible that they are applying a better standard, and it might be argued that the "small hall" approach will increase the significance of induction to the Hall of Fame over time, despite its reinforcement of the Hall's inconsistencies. The "small hall" voters have not been advancing such an argument, generally, however. They are voting for the Hall they want, but that is not a Hall that can be created on the basis of the existing Hall, because induction into the Hall is never rescinded.

Our BBTF HoF vote doesn't really count for anything, of course. It's pleasant to vote in a way that satisfies one's own feelings and opinions, and it can be a source of interest to see how closely our results match those of the BBWAA. Our vote may be meaningful, however, insofar as it serves as an example that might lead the real HoF voters -- BBWAA and whoever happens to be the VC -- to improve their work. In focusing on the importance of standards and on the past selections as the source of a reasonable standard, Dan G is attempting to improve our election process, to make it a better example for others.

I haven't invested much energy in this discussion, because I see it as mostly a holiday diversion from the more meaningful work of the Hall of Merit in setting up a sound alternative to the Hall of Fame. But I guess it is worth discussing here--for those participants in this vote who are approaching it with some seriousness--why standards ought to be debated, why careful reflection on voting practices ought to be debated (e.g if elect three per year is the standard, how many ought one to vote for to conduce to that result) and why a standard that is as consistent as possible with what can be discerned as the existing standard of the Hall of Fame is good.

Thank you for that cogent summation, Chris.

Tony Gwynn
Cal Ripken Jr.
Alan Trammell
Bert Blyleven
Goose Gossage

Chris, well done, as always.

The underlying issue is simply one of fairness. Should contemporary players be subjected to a different (higher, obviously) standard than most of the HoFers now enshrined were subjected to? To me it is quite self-evident that this is intrinsically unfair.

If intrinsic fairness (from the perspective of textbook logic and ethics) is just too abstract to really care about, then there is this practical matter to consider. A new generation of baseball fans growing up might logically infer from HoF membership that Alan Trammell was not as good as Travis Jackson, and Bobby Grich was not as good as Red Schoendienst, and Bert Blyleven was not as good as Waite Hoyt, and Mark McGwire was not as good as George Kelly.

If anyone makes such an inference, it does no one--not the fans, not the HoF, not MLB, not anyone--any good, and arguably does harm to all.

The only legitimate (which is to say, logical) counter-argument I can see is, it's only baseball. It's only the HoF, a hopelessly dysfunctional organization if there ever was one. Why should I care? That is the one argument that cannot be countered, but who that has taken the time to post here really wants to make that argument?

if you don’t feel he really is a HOFer, then please refrain from posting that player’s name

I really don’t think John worded that very well.

I worded it right, Dan, but I should have gave some examples of whom I was referring to (which are now there above).

Chris, well stated as ever.

It is interesting to note that the Hall voters do have SOME standards. 3000 hits is an automatic standard for induction. 500 homers is (currently) an automatic standard for induction. 300 wins is an automatic standard for induction. And in fact, the most recent BBWAA elections (Sutter excepted) have shown a tightening up to conform with these standards.

Are they good standards? Generally they support excellence, but there are several key issues:

1) They represent just one flavor of possible HOF career shapes: long and strong (exception Lou Brock who is mostly just long). What kind of standard should different career shapes be compared to? Will Clark, Ralph Kiner, or Cupid Childs want to know. For that matter, is there a standard that can defend the Puckett selection?

2) Mostly the long/strong guys are no-brainers to begin with. Aside from Sutton, Brock, and Smilin' Mickey Welch, what guys with 3K, 500, or 300 weren't already fairly obvious HOFers? They tend to exceed standards, they don't set them.

3a) For hitters they do not make a complete picture of offensive production (no walks, doubles, triples for instance), thus I imagine a lot of voters were a little thankful that Kong Kingman was colluded out of the game before he reached 500.

3b) For pitchers they rely soley on outcomes and durability (wins) and not on effectiveness, with no accounting of defensive or offensive support.

4) They give no quarter to fielding: what standards do Brooks, Bid, and Concepcion compare to?

5) They cannot be fairly applied to players before the turn of the 20th century due to schedule differences. This is not the BBWAA's problem, but it is the Vet's problem, and they've generally done a lousy job on the 19th c. as a result.

I guess the BBWAA's recent tightening up viz the 3K, 500, 300 standards really hearkens back to what Chris has said above in this paragraph:

The "small hall" voters, for example, by departing from the Hall's established standard, are not helping the Hall of Fame in this way. It is possible that they are applying a better standard, and it might be argued that the "small hall" approach will increase the significance of induction to the Hall of Fame over time, despite its reinforcement of the Hall's inconsistencies.

That BBWAA electorate may bedoing exactly what Chris has said.

300 wins is an automatic standard for induction.

Niekro & Sutton each went in on the fifth ballot, so they have been known to hesitate on a few of these standards. That's a bit of a nitpick, because they did go in eventually.

Oh, yeah, and I should vote, too.

In rank order:

1) Ripken. One of the top 5 shortstops all time is good for #1 in this group.
2) Blyleven. Severely underrated.
3) Gwynn. Overrated because of the hits and batting average, but still a shoo-in.
4) Trammell. In the shadow of Ripken, but easily deserving of election.
5) McGwire. No steroid discount. Overrated before the scandal, underrated after.
6) Gossage. #2 relief pitcher all-time, pending Rivera's eligibility.
7) Concepcion. If Ozzie, why not Davey? He was brilliant defensive shortstop and a decent hitter in his prime.
8) Belle. The Kiner/Keller argument holds for Belle also. His great peak is underrated because it came during the strike years.
9) Lee Smith. Doesn't have quite the peak of Gossage, but he was an excellent relief pitcher for a dozen years, and good for longer than that.
10) Tony Fernandez. As I said on my prelim, I was considering him, Dawson, and Saberhagen for this spot. All three had careers somewhat diminished by injury, but overall Fernandez brought the most to his teams, I think. He was a career 101 OPS+ hitter, mostly achieved in strong leagues with the DH. He was a great defensive shortstop in his prime and a sound defensive player.

I'm sure the top 3 are very worthy of election. They would be on my ballot even if all the great ineligible players (Deacon White, Bill Dahlen, Ron Santo, Bobby Grich, etc.) were eligible.
I'm sure 4-6 are worthy of election this year. They exceed the Hall's standards, they are clearly better than the rest of the players eligible.
I won't be sure about 7-10 being the right four to fill the ballot until I've done more study of them for the HoM, but all readily meet the HoF's standard, and I think they are the best of the rest.

I would have been happy to be able to vote for Andre Dawson, Brett Saberhagen, and Tommy John among this year's eligibles.

ballot

1) Ripken
2) Gwynn
2) Blyleven
4) Trammell
5) McGwire There's this pious part of me that wants to make him squirm and squeal by not getting in the first year. But in the end, he deserves to be honored.
6) Gossage
7) Dawson

I have tallied 80 ballots (28 HoM voters included in that total) so far.

If someone could e-mail their tally so I can see if my tally is accurate or not up to this point, that would be great and appreciated.

Yes, but you have to look past his statistics. I think he got points for "Well-liked and smiled a lot", "playing career cut tragically short", and "played his whole career with one team". Together with "was an All-Star every season he played", he's going to go in.

Don't forget the "rings" and the "postseason heroics"

By the HOF Standards measure, he'd be a below average Hall of Famer (but not the worst), but by HOF Monitor, he's well above the line of "Likely". The spread between "160th highest HOF Standards" and "68th highest HOF Monitor" seems awfully high.

HOF Standards is almost strictly career stats (traditional stats). HOF Monitor has some stats in it, but there are large postseason, All-Star bonuses as well as bonuses for single season numbers and awards (MVP, CY). Its not surprising that Pucket does well in the Monitor but not the Standards.

82 ballots following monty's vote. Haven't been keeping track of HoMers.

Thanks, Ryan. I missed PH....'s ballot.

A new generation of baseball fans growing up might logically infer from HoF membership that Alan Trammell was not as good as Travis Jackson, and Bobby Grich was not as good as Red Schoendienst, and Bert Blyleven was not as good as Waite Hoyt, and Mark McGwire was not as good as George Kelly.

You mean the way they might think that Barry Larkin wasn't better than Johnny Evers? And Larkin is an interesting discussion himself when he's eligible.

At every line, no matter who is drawing it, there's going to be someone sitting on the outside looking in. And barring a flawless execution of voting within that agreed upon line, there will be a weaker playing on the inside looking out. It takes little common sense to recognize that the HOF is far from a perfect entity and that mistakes have been (and continue to be) made. I don't worry that future fans can't make the same distinction many of us have between HOF membership and greatness.

I freely admit that I am exceptionally critical, perhaps precisely because "in is forever." I would rather the initial inductions be short and corrected over time. After all, if so-and-so is great enough that by consensus, he really deserves induction, he'll get in despite my non-vote. But if I vote for a guy because I feel pressured to extend my ballot or mirror the current hall including what I view as erroneous candidates, then I'm exacerbating the problem.

What makes the HOF interesting to me is how exclusive a club it is. If Jack Morris is in, that makes him look a lot closer to Greg Maddux or Roger Clemens than I'm comfortable with.

>"in is forever."

Well, that's my point. Jack Chesbro is in forever, George Kelly is in forever. And Bobby Grich has to buy a ticket?

Sunny, with Chesbro and Kelly, you've got to look beyond the stats.... ; )

My ballot, with offhand comments. Alphabetically:

Albert Belle - lack of cooperation with writers costs him votes
Bert Blyleven - needs to continue momentum with the electorate
Andre Dawson - strike in '81 killed his peak
Rich Gossage - unless you don't think RP should be in the Hall, he's a no-brainer
Tony Gwynn - speaking of no-brainer
Tommy John - "fame" resume puts him over the top for the Coop HOF
Mark McGwire - as long as he remains unsanctioned by The Game I won't dock him
Dale Murphy - end his career after 1989 and you got Kirby Puckett
Cal Ripken - near inner circle
Alan Trammell - fully qualified

My ballot:

Blyleven - If it weren't for us dorks, he may be entirely off the ballot by now.
Gossage - How did Sutter get in first?
Gwynn - Easy choice.
McGwire - He's been punished enough in my book. Sometimes, being a pariah suffices.
Ripken - I want to see which writer leaves him off just to keep him from being unanimous.
Trammell - Barry Larkin should carefully watch Trammell's fate.

The debate about large hall versus small hall is interesting, because it's exactly a point several writers argue amongst themselves. The fact is, however, that the BBWAA has always been a small hall group. They've elected only 101 of the HoF inductees. The rest were put in by the VC under its various guises.

The BBWAA never had a chance to vote on managers, pioneers, executives, Negro Leaguers, or anyone who career ended before 1900. But they've had a chance to vote (and pass) on all the 20th century white-ball players. And I think many writers would say that the VC additions among the 20th century white-ball players were wrong-headed, or a corruption of the BBWAA's authority to elect the deserving and discard the rest.

Whether a single writer should take it upon himself to revamp the "established" size of the BBWAA wing of the hall to conform to a bottom line created by the VC is the debate, both here and amongst the writers.

Everyone is talking like Ripken should be unanimous (and I agree) but I can see someone liking Gwynn's high batting average and 3000 hits and only voting for him. Can anyone justify not voting for Tony Gwynn? He's got Puckett's pluses and then some.

Can anyone justify not voting for Tony Gwynn? He's got Puckett's pluses and then some.

His two biggest HR seasons were at ages 37 and 38!!!!! Look at the size of his head!!!!!

(I hit submit too quickly)

Ripken saved baseball, and Gwynn didn't!!!!!

Gwynn doesn't have all of Puckett's plusses. Not the D, not the rings.

My ballot: Bert Blyleven, Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken Jr.

Ballot:

Cal Ripken Jr.
Tony Gwynn
Bert Blyleven
Alan Trammell
Rich Gossage

And I think many writers would say that the VC additions among the 20th century white-ball players were wrong-headed, or a corruption of the BBWAA's authority to elect the deserving and discard the rest.

Whether a single writer should take it upon himself to revamp the "established" size of the BBWAA wing of the hall to conform to a bottom line created by the VC is the debate, both here and amongst the writers.

Here is how I usually address this debate.

If you go to Cooperstown and look around the NBHOFAM, do you see any distinctions, any mention, even, that some hall of fame players were BBWAA electees and others were not? I don’t think so. All the plaques look alike. If you go to the HOF’s website, is it anywhere on there separate lists of players who went in the front door and those who went in the doggie door? I must have missed it.

So, the HOF does not make divisions between players elected by different methods. And it’s probably just as well when you think about some of the leftovers rescued by the VC (Vaughan, Mize, Crawford, Goslin, et al) versus some of the lesser lights elected by the BWWAA (Pennock, Hunter, Maranville, Sutter, et al). It is incumbent upon the writers to accede to the level to which the Hall’s standards have deteriorated. Few of them do.

So, the HOF does not make divisions between players elected by different methods. And it’s probably just as well when you think about some of the leftovers rescued by the VC (Vaughan, Mize, Crawford, Goslin, et al) versus some of the lesser lights elected by the BWWAA (Pennock, Hunter, Maranville, Sutter, et al). It is incumbent upon the writers to accede to the level to which the Hall’s standards have deteriorated. Few of them do.


I would ask why did the voters elect some of these guys? Did they elect them because of the watered down standards created by the VC? Did they elect some of them because they held some sort of extra cache beyond the stats. I think Sutter got in for few other things besides his performance on the field. Were they elected because of things that happened during the vote? Is it a coincedence that Maranville gets elected the same year he dies?

I'm not saying the voters are perfect, but I do think that just because they make a mistake that future voters should be forced to continue making that mistake or worse make the mistake even bigger.

I agree it's important to study why players were elected.

Just remember: the voters never make "mistakes". They can't, since they are constrained by very little. What they do is establish precedents. If players are sometimes elected for spurious reasons we want to account for that, but we can't ignore it.

It always comes back to the same thing: if most of the players at a certain level of performance are in the Hall, then other players at that level have a valid case and would normally deserve election, as well.

Of course they can make mistakes. If a voter votes for a player based on false facts, false assumptions, or false emotions then it is quite clearly a mistake.

For instance if we did some sort of exit poll on the writers after the Puckett election and we found that of the voters who voted for him that 62% of them did so because they thought he was a great human being, or I should say it was a major factor. That tells us two things; one, that Pucketts stats cannot really be used as any kind of precedent for future players since to a large degree he didn't get elected because of his stats. The other thing that it tells us is that they voted Puckett in on a false emotion or assumption. So yes his election was a mistake that leads to two more things we discover. One it creates a precedent that future players that perform similarly to Puckett and are viewed as great humans should be enshrined and two players that have similar numbers but are not viewed as great guys should not be elected. But having said that one could very clearly say that Puckett himself being elected was a mistake.

>'m not saying the voters are perfect, but I do think that just because they make a mistake that future voters should be forced to continue making that mistake or worse make the mistake even bigger.

This is a red herring. I mean, no, of course, you don't elect everybody that's as good as George Kelly. But even after you segregate all the mistakes, there is no way to infer a line that is anywhere above Trammell, Whitaker, Grich et al. It's good that they're trying to raise the standard above the mistaken levels of the past, but that's no reason to go crazy.

Of course they can make mistakes. If a voter votes for a player based on false facts, false assumptions, or false emotions then it is quite clearly a mistake.

For instance if we did some sort of exit poll on the writers after the Puckett election and we found that of the voters who voted for him that 62% of them did so because they thought he was a great human being, or I should say it was a major factor. That tells us two things; one, that Pucketts stats cannot really be used as any kind of precedent for future players since to a large degree he didn't get elected because of his stats. The other thing that it tells us is that they voted Puckett in on a false emotion or assumption. So yes his election was a mistake that leads to two more things we discover. One it creates a precedent that future players that perform similarly to Puckett and are viewed as great humans should be enshrined and two players that have similar numbers but are not viewed as great guys should not be elected. But having said that one could very clearly say that Puckett himself being elected was a mistake.

The only problem with all this is that it rests on the assumption that the only "correct" HOF standards are statistical, which has obviously not always been the case in HOF voting. And after 71 years of "mistakes" grounded for the most part in subjective judgments, isn't it pretty obvious that the Hall of Fame is not, and will never be, synonomous with the BTF Hall of Merit---a fact that seems to be a source of neverending (but IMO misguided) frustration here on BTF. But isn't this why the HOM was established in the first place---to provide an alternative to the HOF's excessive subjectivity?

To bring it back to Puckett: While Puckett would indeed be a marginal HOM candidate, I don't see how you can call his HOF election an egregious "mistake," given all the similar "mistakes" made over the years. And it's the same thing in reverse for the steroid candidates: No matter how statworthy they might have been, there's a very good chance that none of them---with Bonds the one exception---are ever going to make it into the HOF. Not because they're not statworthy, but because they fall short in those dreaded "subjective" or "character" ways that seem irrelevant to so many of you.

But since you're never going to eliminate all that subjectivity (or all those "mistakes") from the HOF, my repeated suggestion has been that you try to promote the HOM in the public's eye as a sort of parallel institution, more or less like the AFL in 1960 or the WFL in 1974. Of course whether you wind up like the AFL in 1970 or the WFL in 1976 depends in great part on your promotional talents and the underlying appeal of a more or less purely statistical Hall. My sense is that with a good PR man you might be able to raise the HOM's public standing a lot higher than it is today.

And if you think that it's not worth the effort because you don't care if the public at large appreciates your efforts, then I'd respectfully wonder what all the bellyaching about the HOF voting standards is all about. Just retreat into your own little world of perfect statistical models and let the rest of the fans enjoy Cooperstown---with Kirby Puckett, and without Mark McGwire.

But if you're sincere about your mission of objectivity, and if you want to prove to Nieporent that you really care about your cause, then set up your own shrine somewhere, maybe in Chris Dial's hometown, and let Mark McGwire be your first inductee. And I'd say that if you want to establish yourself as a serious philosophical alternative to the HOF---and get plenty of free publicity in the bargain---you couldn't in fact choose a more appropriate first guest of honor.

But having said that one could very clearly say that Puckett himself being elected was a mistake.

Yes, of course. I, myself, have often termed many of the Hall's selections "mistakes."

I think we're in substantial agreement. But I think that applying the term "mistake" is actually not objective. It depends on your perspective, born of hindsight and subjective standards.

As I said before, the Hall of Fame is a self-defining institution that has failed to define itself. Under their patchwork system of rules, all of their selections are perfectly allowable. You can certainly question some of the precedents they have set, but again, that's hindsight.

All of the players elected fall within their sparse guidelines; truly, any mistakes of the HOF lie there, in their system of elections.

>I'd respectfully wonder what all the bellyaching about the HOF voting standards is all about. Just retreat into your own little world of perfect statistical models and let the rest of the fans enjoy Cooperstown---with Kirby Puckett, and without Mark McGwire.

Well, the discussion has been about "HoF" voting here on BTF.

But as it relates to the outside world, one positive impact of the vote here is that "we" could provide an example that says, concerning the elephant in the room, that there are a bunch of recent players who are clearly well above the "non-mistake" line, who are in fact probably above average, among HoFers, and that keeping them (Trammell, Grich, e.g.) out of the HoF is just as much of a "mistake" as putting George Kelly in.

I'd respectfully wonder what all the bellyaching about the HOF voting standards is all about. Just retreat into your own little world of perfect statistical models and let the rest of the fans enjoy Cooperstown---with Kirby Puckett, and without Mark McGwire.

Well, the discussion has been about "HoF" voting here on BTF.

I realize this, and trust me, I have terrific respect for the work that John's put into the whole HOM concept, and I read pretty much all of the HOM threads. I only wish that someone would see just how good an idea this is and try to reach a much broader audience with it. I think that if you're trying to influence the HOF voting standards, the bigger the audience you can reach, the better. And that's why I was perfectly serious in my suggestion about making McGwire the first formal inductee into a brick and mortar HOM. You couldn't find a better way of grabbing the public's attention than that.

Andy - Joe and I are working are creating a more presentable space to honour those already, and so-to-be elected - I believe that this may be the first step in creating a space where our work or our collective beleif system, as applies to baseball, can be spread to the masses.

Andy,
I'm not saying Puckett was a mistake due to stats. I'm saying that if voters voted him in based on believes and views that turned out to be false then his election was a mistake. What I was also saying is that if voters vote players for things other then stats (which they do) then using those players and their stats as some sort of baseline for future players is going to skew the results.

Secondly Andy I have no idea why I would set up a shrine to Mark McGwire. I didn't vote for him.

But if you're sincere about your mission of objectivity, and if you want to prove to Nieporent that you really care about your cause, then set up your own shrine somewhere, maybe in Chris Dial's hometown, and let Mark McGwire be your first inductee. And I'd say that if you want to establish yourself as a serious philosophical alternative to the HOF---and get plenty of free publicity in the bargain---you couldn't in fact choose a more appropriate first guest of honor.

I think we should do this. In fact, if someone would put a cost proposal together I could pitch it to some pretty large companies with whom I have connections for sponsorship. I think Aurora, Ontario might be a good site for it.

Andy - Joe and I are working are creating a more presentable space to honour those already, and so-to-be elected - I believe that this may be the first step in creating a space where our work or our collective beleif system, as applies to baseball, can be spread to the masses.

Glad to hear it. I happen to like the HOF's halfway objective, halfway subjective set of standards, since it allows charismatic and valuable players like Rizzuto, Puckett and Dizzy Dean a way of getting around their not necessarily sterling statistical credentials. I've always been comfortable with that, even acknowledging some of its "mistakes." It's why they call it the Hall of Fame, and not the Hall of something else.

And yet since I can also see the appeal of an alternative set of standards---more objective, less quirky, more strictly limited to measurable accomplishment---I'm glad to find a forum, and an institution, that honors players for meeting that set of criteria as well. And to raise the public consciousness of that "collective belief system," as you call it, what better way can there be than establishing a concrete location to be the focus point of such a belief system?

Andy,
I'm not saying Puckett was a mistake due to stats. I'm saying that if voters voted him in based on believes and views that turned out to be false then his election was a mistake. What I was also saying is that if voters vote players for things other then stats (which they do) then using those players and their stats as some sort of baseline for future players is going to skew the results.

True enough. Upon re-reading your first post I can see that this was what you meant. I'd still defend Puckett's HOF selection, though, even though I'm not sure what sort of a precedent it would set, considering the near-uniqueness of his set of qualifications.

Secondly Andy I have no idea why I would set up a shrine to Mark McGwire. I didn't vote for him.

Well, by the time I got to the end of my post I wasn't really replying to you in particular. But my apologies for inadvertently implying that you were a McGwireite. Though ironically, I very likely would vote McGwire into the HOM, though never into the HOF. And if my hypothetical brick and mortar HOM ever did come into being, and if McGwire were chosen as its (symbolic) first inductee, I might even make the trip to Dial's home town just to hear Big Mac's acceptance speech.

I might even make the trip to Dial's home town just to hear Big Mac's acceptance speech.

Hell, I might even drive up to Aurora, Ontario to hear it.

I have terrific respect for the work that John's put into the whole HOM concept

Just so everybody is clear, Joe Dimino is the guy who is the brainchild for this project. I'm just the guy who stepped in so as to allow it to roll along smoothly (somewhat :-) when Joe didn't have the time anymore after Year One.

I have terrific respect for the work that John's put into the whole HOM concept

Just so everybody is clear, Joe Dimino is the guy who is the brainchild for this project. I'm just the guy who stepped in so as to allow it to roll along smoothly (somewhat :-) when Joe didn't have the time anymore after Year One.

Sorry, everyone whose name begins with a "J" runs together in my mind. But is Joe the one who used to post here under the nom de guerre of "scruff?" I think he even came into my bookstore once. Or was that someone else? It was several years ago in any event.

In any case, the HOM is a great concept, and it deserves a home beyond BTF.

Joe = Scruff

Happy New Year One and All!

Ballot:

Rich Gossage - if you are having some kinda internal debate, stop it. Now. You are stronger than this anti-reliever bs and should rise above to recognize what a true monster this man was . . .

Cal Ripken, Jr - he really deserves it and he causes all the excitement in my mind of, say, tapioca. Bland, one of the top five SS ever and the best PR since Jesus.

Tony Gwynn - all hail The Snack Bar! Finally, a little respect for batting titles. Bill Madlock must sleep a little better now . . .

Tommy Freakin' John - dear Lord, people . . . they rebuilt the man's arm with what was then experimental surgery. He returned to action, won 288 games total and had everyone in the baseball poseur community look down their collective noses at him when he became eligible for the HOF. Don't guts enough to say "Hey, what the Hell? Take a shot." to becoming the Bionic Man count for something?

Dale Murphy - for those of you too young to remember or not in the greater Atlanta media market in the '70s/'80s, this man could play. He kinda was ignored/slagged on because he actually was nice and the LDS version of Jack Armstrong, All-American boy. He played on a terrible team for most of his years in Atlanta (and the year or two they won/were competitive, they weren't any good . . . really. I watched them. Ugh . . . ) in terrible uniforms (powder blue pullover/softball jerseys, anyone?) and STILLwon two MVPs. One of the best center fielders I have ever seen play live . . .

Jack Morris - "You are so money. You're money and you don't even know it; that's how money you are." Swingers says it perfectly.

and, of course, the Flying Dutchman - if Bert Blyleven isn't good enough for the HOF, they are wasting their f'ing time. Mine and yours, as well.

Big Hall, Small Hall - whatever. If these guys aren't worthy of admittance, then sell a ticket to someone else; I'm all bought up here.

Joe = Scruff

I always forget that he used that handle for quite a long time.

BTW, I've been here at BBTF now for five years this month. Seems like yesterday I was one of the new kids on the block.

This entire HoM project has been a wonderful experience for voters and lurkers alike.

IOW; even if a huge endowment was magically gifted to Joe and John and an actual HoM was built, where ever, would anyone really care; would anyone pay to get in or even visit for free?

BBWAA has clout because the network of newspapers that employ its members has clout.
Community-based newspapers are viewed by everyday citizens as the "4th estate", with that approbrium earned over the years. As go the great news organizations so go their employees. All concerned have gained credence (some would say way too much credence) based upon past accomplishments.

The HoM, while a truly worthy exercise and a meaningful endeavor (especially to those 50+ regular voters/posters) is just a collection of bright, energetic guys who want to see a merit-based system elect the "best-ever" 250 or so ballplayers of all-time.

There is no acknowledged acclaim for the accomplishments of the HoM or its quasi-august body of voters (I'll bet nobody posting here ever considered themselves as "quasi-august").
Heck, outside a community of several thousand people who love baseball and happen to look to the internet for like minds, no one has even heard of the HoM.
If the HoM is to ever penetrate the consciousness of the general public........frankly, I can't imagine the size, cost or duration of such a PR campaign as to be successful in such an endeavor.

But who really cares about that?
I cant believe that was ever a goal of the HoM founders. If it was......

To paraphrase Confucious, "don't focus on the destination of your jourey as the goal; the beauty is in the journey itself".
The exercise that is the HoM is the real beauty much more than the list of ballplayers that comprise the HoM.

Keep up the fine work.

ps....I'd contribute a few $$$ if you ever decide to build an actual HoM; just don't build it in New Jersey, or at least not near exit 12 of the Jersey Pike.

I know I've done less talking here than anyone that's been voting as long as I have (I've been here since the first vote), and I realize it's an incredible long shot, but for what it's worth, I'd give unspeakable body parts to have an actual HOM built. It would really be a fitting tribute for the players elected, their families, the guys like Joe and John who created/kept the project running so well, and the other voters much smarter than myself (too many to list, but you know who you are) with their debates and incredible analysis on the players. So many voters disagree with other voters (it even gets a bit heated at times) but that's what truly makes this great. What fun would this be if we all viewed players, measured merit, or voted in the same fashion?

Well, of course, there IS an "actual HoM," here, on the Internet.

And the other thing that it is not unrealistic to think about is a HoM book. It would take a tremendous effort to get the thing organized and published, but the cost compared to a bricks and mortar thing is not out of the question.

I'm not sure of the legalities of publishing research and quotes that have been posted here. Is all of that in the public domain, or is it "owned" by BTF or by Joe, etc. etc. Permission might be needed. Working up a format wouldn't be too hard, getting rights to photos would be a lot of work. Finding a publisher would take some effort, no doubt.

But I think it could be a great book. I think the HoM has developed the whole concept of MLEs and of normalizing for season length, etc., better than anybody. The work on NeLers is stellar.

But the first question is who has the time and energy and desire to author or edit such a thing, and whether "we" would authorize using all the work that has been posted here.

I have thought about that idea before sunny. I would happily contribute to a book, however it was designed.

Jingoist,

What does quasi-August mean?

Wow . . . where to begin . . .

As far as an actual brick and mortar Hall of Merit - I appreciate the sentiment, but I think that's a little out of our league, right? While we might have better honorees, the Hall of Fame has us by a little in terms of memorabilia and the like, in terms of having something for people to actually visit; their library isn't half bad either :-) I'm of course all ears if I'm underestimating something here.

As far as a book goes, it's been discussed a little here and there, it's something I've definitely thought of since the beginning; but I still wonder if I have the time to pull it off.

I mean, I really do think it would be a great book. But I'd want to do it right - we've covered an amazing amount of ground over the last 4 (5?) years, honestly I don't think one book could contain it, and I don't even know where to start in terms of organizing something that big.

Quasi-August = late July? Early September?

As for a book, it would have to be 1 book, I think, just in terms of the market. People are not going to buy 2 or more books. I don't know exactly how it would be organized. By era? By position? By inner circle, etc? No, I think it would have to be by era, because that would allow you to talk about the voting. I agree it would be a very difficult book to do especially in terms of figuring out what to leave out.

Oh, I know Marc, I wasn't saying write two books.

I was just saying there's enough material for two, so it'll be tough to figure out what gets in and what doesn't . . .

I think you organize it by decade, so you'd have 11 chapters covering 1898-2007. Then within each chapter you'd try to capture the flow of the more interesting discussions, including original research and the more interesting digressions. The voting tables would be put into an appendix, hopefully of 55 pages not 110, and the HOM plaques for the players elected during the decade would be at the end of each chapter (2-3 pages per chapter.) It's a fair amount of work, but would probably sell well IF one had the right publisher (I have bitter experience of trying to market books with the wrong publisher; doesn't work, you never get critical mass, even if reviews are good.) Anyone know a good publisher? Dr. Chaleeko?

the only order is alpahbetical
1. Bert Blyleven
2. Steve Garvey
3. Rich Gossage
4. Tony Gwynn
5. Tommy John
6. Don Mattingly
7. Jack Morris
8. Dave Parker
9. Jim Rice
10. Cal Ripken, Jr.

No write in for Rose, yest?

No write in for Rose, yest?

Heh.

yest will give The Hustler a write-in right about the time that I do. :-)

Ballot

Concepcion
Gossage
Gwynn
Mattingly
Morris
Rice
Ripken
Trammell

From Aparacio to Ozzie only one shortstop is in the Hall. That's Yount, and he moved from SS halfway through his career. I can't believe only one full-time shortstop between 1972 and 1992 was hall worthy. The best of those Concepcion, Trammell, eventually Larkin, belong. Is this a case of that era having real weak shortstops or hall of fame voters looking lightly at players like Davey and Tram because their stats pale when compared to the top shortstops of today? It's probably a little of both, but likely more of the latter. Too many voters probably think Rich Aurilia (OPS 775) was a better player than Trammell (OPS 767). I know one voter personally who says he won't vote for Trammell or Concepcion because they're not as good as all the shortstop's of this era. I presume he doesn't mean Aurilia.

I haven't gone through all 266 posts, no time. Is there a tally of votes anywhere?

My ballot:

Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Rich Gossage
Tony Gwynn
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Alan Trammell

Consider me in favor of there being a book, and willing to help with it.

What does quasi-August mean?

quasi - Having a likeness to something; resembling
august - 1. inspiring reverence or admiration; of supreme dignity or grandeur; majestic 2. venerable; eminent

Although this may well be applicable to the collective voting members of the Hall Of Merit, I sincerely doubt it would apply to any of the heathens that rage in other sections on this site. Jim Furtado excepted of course... ;) ...

--------
trevise

BTW
My 2¢ Ballot:
(No particular order)

Ripken
Gwynn
Blylevin
Gossage
John
Trammell

--------
trevise

Quasi-modo, you mean.

My 2007 Hall of Fame ballot, in no particular order...

Cal Ripken Jr.
Tony Gwynn
Bert Blyleven
Goose Gossage
Mark McGwire
Alan Trammell
Andre Dawson

For me, Ripken and Gwynn are locks. Blyleven's statistics, while lacking punch, merit his induction. Honestly, I like Gossage but his numbers somewhat underwhelmed me in that I expected to find something better. Still, he's one of those prototype closers, kept a generally high standard for some time, and if Sutter's in, Goose should be.

McGwire's statistics surprised me. His OBP was really quite good, and his OPS+ is terrific. Sure, he has the taint of the steroid era and his own particular shortcomings. I somewhat reluctantly picked Big Mac with the idea that we may never really know who cheated and who didn't, and thus I went with his numbers.

I've always liked Alan Trammell. What got me to vote for him was his consistency and well-roundedness as a player, and his MVP consideration. In my mind he was a very active part of some winning Tigers teams. I can see the argument either way for him, as far as getting in or not. His was a tough one for me to decide.

I cross-referenced numbers on Dale Murphy, Jim Rice, Dawson and Albert Belle. Murphy's peak was just too short for me. I waffled on Belle, Rice and Dawson. I'm still waffling. I have room on my ballot to list all of them, and I think that's what I would like to do. I'd like to keep them on the ballot. But that won't change their statistics or their legacies when 2008 rolls around.I'm open to being convinced on Murphy, but right now I don't see it. Rice and Belle to me looked similar, although obviously each played in different eras.

I'd like to see Dawson get in for personal reasons; I was always a fan of his. Those eight Gold Gloves on balky knees are a big part of it. Half were while playing center field and the other half while playing right field. His OPS+ and offensive statistics had a kind of peak-and-drop, and I gave serious thought to dropping him. His defense meant enough to me to overlook that, and he was still a damn fine hitter. Good baserunner, too. And yeah, he should go in as an Expo. I'll always remember him as a Cub, though.

Apologies if you fellows were looking for short, sweet and to the point. I felt it necessary to mention how tough some of the decisions were.

OK - here is the correct answer.

Ripken
Belle
McGwire
Gwynn
Blyleven
Rose
Santo
Grich

Rose
Santo
Grich

They'll be considered write-ins and not part of the official talley, kwarren.

I haven't gone through all 266 posts, no time. Is there a tally of votes anywhere?

Yes, but you'll have to tune in after 8 PM tomorrow for the finall tally (please don't post any partial tallies, guys!).

In alphabetical order:

Blyleven
Gossage
Gwynn
McGwire
Ripkin
Trammell

Voting for 10, alphabetical order, no Rose write-in from me, either :-)

Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Goose Gossage
Tony Gwynn
Tommy John
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Cal Ripken
Lee Smith

What timezone are you in, Grandma John? *:^}

EDT, fracas. :-)

Given the time of year, EST, yes?

My vote, little time for explanation . . . though it's in there somewhere (probably last year) for most . . .

Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Goose Gossage
Tony Gwynn
Cal Ripken
Alan Trammell
Mark McGwire
Lee Smith
Tommy John
Albert Belle

Would write in these guys from the last 40 years too:

Bobby Grich
Ron Santo
Lou Whitaker
Darrell Evans
Dwight Evans
Joe Torre
Bill Freehan
Thurman Munson

Could be missing a write-in or two . . .

Joe posted in #261:

we've covered an amazing amount of ground over the last 4 (5?) years

Tomorrow, January 8, is the fifth anniversary of the Hall of Merit blog.

As for publicizing the HoM, I think someone should compile an email address list of every known HOF voter, both BBWAA and VC. Or something like that. Start sending out little blurbs after each election.

The idea is, they have to know we exist before they take an interest. If even 1% showed interest, it could snowball from there.

96 ballots tallied so far.

My ballot, in order:

Ripken
Gwynn
Trammell
Gossage
McGwire
Blyleven

I have been away. If it is not too late my votes would be for:

Harold Baines
Bret Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Tony Gwynn
Tommy John
Mark McGwire
Dave Parker
Jim Rice
Cal Ripken
Alan Trammell

Here's my ballot in order. Tommy John had 164 wins after the surgery...that deserves something. Ripken and Gwynn are no-brainers. Methods like JAWS on BB Propectus help highlight the worth of Blyleven, Gossage and Trammel. The volume of McGwire's numbers put him on the ballot...there is no way around that.

Cal Ripken
Tony Gwynn
Bert Blyleven
Rick Gossage
Mark McGwire
Alan Trammel
Tommy John
Jim Rice
Jack Morris
Andre Dawson

Honorable Mention: Dale Murphy & Harold Baines

If it's not too late:

Ripken
Gwynn
Goose
Trammell

Ripken
Gwynn
McGwire
Dale Murphy

The lack of support for Dale Murphy for the Hall of Fame never ceases to baffle me. Ah well.

For HOM electors and lurkers, I wanted to respond to the book comments, but I thought maybe this wasn't the best spot. So I put it onto the Once We Catch Up Thread to try to keep this thread a little tidy.

Bert Blyleven, Dave Concepcion, Rich Gossage, Tony Gwynn*, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Mark McGwire*, Cal Ripken, Jr.*, Alan Trammell

An inclusive ballot, I guess I'm still in the Holiday spirit.

Bret Blyleven

You know write-ins aren't being tallied, right?

If you really want publicity when you open up a brick-and-mortar facility you'd invite Pete Rose, not Mark McGwire. Of course associating with that sleazeball would forever doom the museum and you'd shut down within a year. Plus, you wouldn't have any memorabilia to look at, although I could offer up my previous laptop.

These guys should definitely go in:

Bert Blyleven
Rich Gossage
Tony Gwynn*
Mark McGwire*
Cal Ripken, Jr.*
Alan Trammell

DL - I have a Tommy John replica glove from when I was 8 years old that looks more like a Ty Cobb glove due to it's size. It's also signed by Bobby Ramos, which makes it a really eye-catcher. So we are all set for memorabilia . . .

I can chip in the following vital HOM memorabilia

-about 22 1988 Gary Carter Topps cards

-a Total Baseball VI (no dust jacket, binding almost obliterated, first ten or so pages all balled up and folded over themselves, the pages with the stats all dirty from skin oils, various pen marks where I was holding a pen in my hand while flipping pages)

-about 75 scraps of paper (often food or drink stained) with little numbers representing WS, Mexican League averages, permutations of formulas, and lists of players I meant to look something up about

-my flash drive

-an absolutely tattered copy of Win Shares with the cover's laminant blistered and peeling, the binding almost gone, and the pages listing the WS for players in the years 1999-2001 falling out.

I have a baseball signed by Curt Wardle and Donn Pall, my only autographs at the ballpark. I also have a double print of a picture of my son and myself with Harmon Killebrew.

I believe Quincy Trouppe memorabilia is pretty cheap right now. We could probably load up on obscure players' stuff and then induct them. A great way to make your investments soar in value.

Anyone else see "Baseball as America" on it's tour? Highly recommended if it shows up in your neighborhood. My highlight was the Edd Roush Reds hat with built in flip-down sunglasses. I hadn't heard of Edd Roush before this project.

Funny guy. Bret was a typo.

1. Cal Ripken, Jr.
2. Mark McGwire
3. Bert Blyleven
4. Tony Gwynn
5. Alan Trammell
6. Goose Gossage

Ripken
Gwynn
McGwire
Gossage
Blyleven
Trammell

Gwynn
Ripken
McGwire
Gossage
Blyleven
Trammell
L. Smith
Belle

DL - I have a Tommy John replica glove from when I was 8 years old that looks more like a Ty Cobb glove due to it's size. It's also signed by Bobby Ramos, which makes it a really eye-catcher. So we are all set for memorabilia . . .

I could donate my Tom O'Malley, Mackey Sasser, Bob Ojeda, and Wally Whitehurst autographed ball. That's right all four of those superstars on one ball!

How did I miss this? I know its too late, but my ballot is:

Tony Gwynn
Cal Ripken
Bert Blyleven
Alan Trammell
Mark McGwire

I could add my Kim Batiste autopraphed ball. It's him and the rest of the 1991 Reading Phillies.

I could add my Kim Batiste autopraphed ball. It's him and the rest of the 1991 Reading Phillies.

Sweet.

But the bbcube says he was there in 1990, and SWB in 1991. If 1990 is the year, then your ball also includes Phils Phenoms like Steve Scarsone, Jeff Grotewold, Bob Aryault, and Cliff "For Use with 10-run Leads Only" Brantley. That's one heck of an autographed ball!

Ah, but a 1991 Scranton Ball, now that's a keeper. Most of those guys plus Darrin Fletcher, Dave Hollins, Wes Chamberlain, Mickey Morandini, and rehabbing Von Hayes. Plus Ruffin and Combs too! Woooo!!!!!

It's too bad I threw away my 1986 Yankee and 1988 Pirate facsimile autograph baseballs when I moved last, they would definitely be a fantastic, and authentic, addition to the HOM Vaults....

There are only two names on my ballot:

Cal Ripken Jr - Best AL SS during his prime, plus the streak.
Tony Gwynn - Quite a few batting titles there, and arguably the best RF during his prime.

I'm not voting for Mark McGwire because of the steroids scandal. It's possible that I would vote for him on a subsequent ballot, depending on the information available in the future.

I discussed my views about Blyleven last year at length. I don't think his case is strong enough. The same would apply to Alan Trammell, who was better than Ripken at times, but I find Trammell, like Blyleven, the personfication of the borderline candidate.

I'm more enthusiastic about the case for Rich Gossage than I was last year, but not enough to vote for him yet.

There are only two names on my ballot:

DanG is gonna be pi$$ed.