Seven blank ballots made all the difference in the election. That would be like two committee members submitting blank ballots.

Boooo!

Seven blank ballots made all the difference in the election. That would be like two committee members submitting blank ballots.

Right, which I'm guessing doesn't happen in real life. There are many social pressures on the actual voters not to do that. You're an old man who made the trip there, so you might as well feel like you accomplished something. You're aware that the HOF would like to see someone elected. You probably actually know these people (and their supporters on the committee).

But, that doesn't mean the blank ballots are "wrong." You can make a strong argument that the voting is purer when it's dissociated from all that stuff.

I think with Minoso, a ton depends on just how old you think he is (and thus how many years he potentially lost to the color line.) IIRC, Rob Neyer jumped off the Minoso train due to this.

WAR loves Tiant, and I'm guessing that was a big help for him; I don't think Tiant was considered a HOFer by pre-WAR sabermetricians. I'd like to know more about whether his contemporaries "thought he was a Hall of Famer." It does seem like he was at least famous, pitching in big cities, and being a "character." He got 31% of the HOF vote on his first ballot, which is quite high. But it's real hard to tell whether that's because the ballot just didn't have much starting pitching on it -- Bunning, Lolich, and then even lesser lights. (Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, and Jim Kaat hit the ballot next year, and Tiant's support tanked and never recovered.) IMO, we saw with Jack Morris that the strength of the ballot at your actual position played is a factor.

Pierce is in the HOM, so that's a pretty low showing under the circumstances.

Without the seven blank ballots:

Miñoso moves up from 71 to 81%
Allen goes from 61 to 69%
Tiant jumps from 58 to 65%


Right, which I'm guessing doesn't happen in real life. There are many social pressures on the actual voters not to do that. You're an old man who made the trip there, so you might as well feel like you accomplished something. You're aware that the HOF would like to see someone elected. You probably actually know these people (and their supporters on the committee).


I 100% agree with these comments and doubt a potential voter would accept the honor being part of the 16-member panel knowing that they didnt at least have someone potential candidate in mind that they planned to vote for

I think with Minoso, a ton depends on just how old you think he is (and thus how many years he potentially lost to the color line.) IIRC, Rob Neyer jumped off the Minoso train due to this.

Obviously, I'm a Miñoso supporter and I actually acknowledge the 1925 rather than the 1922 birth year. What puts me over the top with Miñoso isnt necessarily just his lost time since I place more value in his pioneer role as the MLB's first black Latino and as one of the first black superstars. Also, he played in the AL which was slower to integrate than the NL

Pierce is in the HOM, so that's a pretty low showing under the circumstances.

Only 4 ballot slots

I think with Minoso, a ton depends on just how old you think he is (and thus how many years he potentially lost to the color line.) IIRC, Rob Neyer jumped off the Minoso train due to this.

Not to engraft the neverending Inchiro debate to this thread, but should Minoso's other league accomplishments help? What if we knew more about his time in the Mexican League, etc.?

Right, which I'm guessing doesn't happen in real life. There are many social pressures on the actual voters not to do that. You're an old man who made the trip there, so you might as well feel like you accomplished something. You're aware that the HOF would like to see someone elected. You probably actually know these people (and their supporters on the committee).

Does this version of the Vets Committee physically meet? I think that was part of the process with the Frisch years that lead to some pretty bad selections and actually believe it was one of the few good decisions about the penultimate version of the VC. Regardless of outcome or how anyone here feels about Allen, Tiant, et al, I dislike the logrolling effect of having the voters caucusing during the voting process.

I wouldn't say Miñoso's Mexican League totals play a big part with me but that along with his time in the Negro Leagues, MLB, Minor and Cuban Leagues put him as one of the few players to reach 4,000 professional hits

Does this version of the Vets Committee physically meet? I think that was part of the process with the Frisch years that lead to some pretty bad selections and actually believe it was one of the few good decisions about the penultimate version of the VC. Regardless of outcome or how anyone here feels about Allen, Tiant, et al, I dislike the logrolling effect of having the voters caucusing during the voting process.

They do meet as 16-member panel. During most of the early 2000's they did not meet and all HOFers had a vote and since support was widely divided, no one was getting elected

Here is my tally (does not agree with above-posted results):

44 Minoso
37 Allen
35 Tiant
29 Boyer
13 Howsam
8 Kaat
7 Pierce
3 Hodges
3 Oliva
1 Wills
---------
61 TOTAL BALLOTS

Let me know if you'd like me to provide more information.

Rob

Went through one more time and found a couple errors, including a revised ballot I didn't catch

43 Minoso
37 Allen
34 Tiant
29 Boyer
12 Howsam
8 Kaat
7 Pierce
3 Hodges
3 Oliva
1 Wills

60 voters. Looks like I'm missing a Minoso, Tiant, Howsam ballot.

Missed Vortex ballot - now I agree with Rob. I'll update the top.

Should be correct now

I missed this, sorry guys. I would have voted for Minoso, Allen, Howsam and Pierce.

I don't know if this is any help, but I was a serious fan during Luis Tiant's career, despite living in a NL city. When he was playing, I thought he had a serious chance at the Hall. He was famous for throwing every pitch there was, from any arm angle he chose, and so being VERY hard to read. - Brock Hanke

I have to agree that if I was the Hall of Fame and I was inviting people for a committee I think "blank ballot" types would not get an invitation.

I agree DL ... going forward, for these we shouldn't allow blank ballots. I don't think it's realistic in this scenario (10 nominees and a small election committee).

Sorry I missed this. I would have voted Allen, Boyer, Minoso, and Tiant, fwiw. The players with career wRC+ better than Allen not in the HOF: Barry Bonds, Mike Trout, Joe Jackson, Albert Pujols, and Mark McGwire. Regardless of Minoso's age, as a pioneer for Hispanic players, it would seem he did enough to warrant induction to the HOF. Boyer and Tiant I agree it depends on how big you believe the HOF should be, as they're right around the borderline I think for most people. I wouldn't be upset by Kaat or Pierce but I do think they are a tier below Tiant and Boyer.

Why wouldn't a blank ballot count? It's the equivalent of a no vote. Most years the VC elects players. Occasionally they haven't. C'est la Vie.
I don't take part in the normal HOM votes but I do take part in the MMP's. I looked at the players listed, many of whom I remember well, did some analysis, decided that none of them passed the bar for me.
It was an honest vote, reached after considerable thought, and obviously, since six others also came to the conclusion, I wasn't alone in my results.
Why should these be given less weight than those who did find some players surpassing the standard?

Not allowing blanks would just get protest votes for Maury Wills. Don't think that accomplishes anything either.

Minoso would have needed 7 more ballots in a row to get over 75% and he was only getting 8/10 on the ones that weren't blank.

Not allowing blanks would just get protest votes for Maury Wills. Don't think that accomplishes anything either.

I can't speak for any of the other blanks but I wouldn't do that. I would abstain completely before compromising the vote.
Doing so is being consistent. I can't argue that my blank should be taken seriously if I'm frivolous re the vote when I don't get my way.

Ruling out blanks would skew the vote. A % of voters took a long hard look at the candidates and decided that none were worthy.* These votes deserve as much consideration as any other.


*I don't have the time to get into the individual details, nor do I think a blank need be justified any more than any other vote here, but suffice to say that I tend towards being a small hall, peak voter, which hurt almost all the candidates with the exception of Allen, who I've made my case against in many other threads.

Not allowing blanks would just get protest votes for Maury Wills. Don't think that accomplishes anything either.

Minoso would have needed 7 more ballots in a row to get over 75% and he was only getting 8/10 on the ones that weren't blank.


8/10 is impressive-- good job for Miñoso on the non-blank ballots

I was not happy to see the blank ballots but I defend the right of those who voted, it gives us an idea of what the readers here think

However, I do agree the HOF would avoid inviting someone on the 16-member panel who they suspected may turn in a blank ballot

I was not happy to see the blank ballots but I defend the right of those who voted, it gives us an idea of what the readers here think

Thanks. I tend to think that the readers here are among the sharper fans anywhere (Hence, my handle. Every post is a quasi kamikaze mission that threatens to wake a sleeping giant)and I think one of the points of the forums is to present an analytical approach to viewing/measuring baseball and have discussions re this perspective. A HoF vote thread offers an opportunity to present a variety of opinions, systems, conclusions, measuring metrics, benchmarks etc...that demonstrate a number of different approaches to weighing the question as to whether a player is gauged "worthy" seen through analytical eyes. I think it's important to capture the full sample size to garner a true reflection of the macro opinion and an honest blank is an important part of the process. Failure to give them and/or include them skews the results as it nullifies negative votes.

It should also be mentioned that BBTF doesn't operate in a vacuum. Members of the press, some of whom have real HoF votes, participate, drop in, lurk and/or read our threads-we know this because there are occasional nods from the media, usually around HoF or awards time. Some of these use data gained from these discussions to help frame their own conclusions (I'm not saying they make decisions based on what is read here-that's absurd-but they do gather information that weighs into their decision making process). As such, I think it's important to present the fullest possible range of data points. Omitting blanks would impugn the integrity of the final vote as it doesn't demonstrate the true consensus on the data range.

However, I do agree the HOF would avoid inviting someone on the 16-member panel who they suspected may turn in a blank ballot

Quite possibly true.
I suspect that the next round of candidates will have a few that I find worthy. This era has been pretty mined out, IMHO, which had more than a bit to do with my ballot. Toss an Alan Trammell or Grich on there and my ballot won't be blank next time, I assure you.

Interesting comments, toratoratora. I enjoyed reading them. I certainly agree with you about Trammell and Grich.

"Why wouldn't a blank ballot count? It's the equivalent of a no vote."

I have voted in all 117 or so HOM elections since "1898,*" and I have no quarrel with a "none of the above."

It's the opposite of HOM voting, where we have to pick our best 15 even if we run out of players we really want elected. I am fine with that as well, even as a guy who not so many years back ran out of sacred cows....

* - and by dumb luck, first voter in first election.

"Members of the press, some of whom have real HoF votes, participate, drop in, lurk and/or read our threads-we know this because there are occasional nods from the media, usually around HoF or awards time."

no doubt

I'm sure I am in the minority on this, but I guess I do have a problem with the blank ballot. To me, the ballot is intended to recognize players who should be inducted. You vote for those you feel qualify. If you vote for three guys, the others percentages are negatively affected, but that is a result of your vote, not the intent. By sending in a blank ballot, your intent is to negatively affect everyone's percentage- in short, you are voting against everyone, which is not the intent of the election.

I think that's exactly the intent - is anyone worthy, and if so, vote for as many as four if you believe that many are worthy.

27:

If you have a vote, and you think no one on ballot is hall-worthy, what should you do?

Blank ballots are against the spirit of the selection committee.

In real life, people entering in such a process do so with the understanding that people have been overlooked, that a segment of players are under represented.

People's personal views on what the size of the Hall should be are frankly irrelevant. If you're a small Hall guy and you think it should be Ruth, Seaver, Mays and a couple other guys, that's nice but the Hall has clearly ruled against you.

If you have a vote, and you think no one on ballot is hall-worthy, what should you do?

IRL, you graciously decline to serve on the committee.

you are voting against everyone, which is not the intent of the election.

I think this is the heart of the disagreement. The blank ballot side sees the intent of the election as determining which, if any, of the nominees are deserving of election.* Does anyone know what the rules for the real VC are? Given how vague and open to interpretation their rules for the regular ballot are I'd be surprised if they had any strongly-worded language that disallowed one intent or the other.

*Disclaimer: I voted Boyer, Howsam and Tiant, but I agree with the blank ballot point of view.

I agree with baudib in #30 that the small hall/big hall debate was settled decades ago in favor of a big hall. That's one of the eye-opening aspects of participating in the Hall of Merit. You get a better idea of the actual boundaries of the Hall and then decide which players fit best within those boundaries. Several of this year's veterans committee candidates clearly fit within the boundaries of the Hall of Fame as it's been established and I could have voted for 6 or 7 of them. So it's a little annoying when others submit a blank ballot based on a theoretical Hall that doesn't exist, especially as it takes 3 positive votes to offset every negative one. Also, while I appreciate the candidness of this thread, some of the blank ballot voters aren't open to persuasion. There were excellent threads in the past few weeks touting the accomplishments of Allen, Howsam and Minoso but at least one voter flatly declared they made up their mind long ago. That kind of close-mindedness doesn't make for a good process- whether it's the BBWAA, various Veterans committees or a BBTF mock vote.

Yet, after all of that, I still would not be favor of outlawing blank ballots.

I still would not be favor of outlawing blank ballots

I agree. Especially in this case where you're relying on a HoF screening committee to give you the names. A blank ballot says "you gave us the wrong names".

I still would not be favor of outlawing blank ballots

I agree. Especially in this case where you're relying on a HoF screening committee to give you the names. A blank ballot says "you gave us the wrong names".

I guess that could be the case but I'm more inclined to believe that those who cast blank ballots in this instance wouldn't have changed that opinion with a different set of candidates. They are measuring players to a standard that doesn't exist anywhere except in their heads.

Just out of curiosity - for those who didn't vote for Allen this time - is the main beef the "short" playing career (i.e., do you think a candidate should have played at least 2000 games to be considered viable) or the personality issues or both? Or is it something else? Just curious.

Just out of curiosity - for those who didn't vote for Allen this time - is the main beef the "short" playing career (i.e., do you think a candidate should have played at least 2000 games to be considered viable) or the personality issues or both? Or is it something else? Just curious.

For me it's a number of things: short career (if you have <7500 PAs, you'd better hit like Gehrig, play a key defensive position, or have war credit like Greenberg), very bad fielding numbers combining with mostly playing at the far left of the defensive spectrum giving him an awful dWAR, and being a small-hall voter who favors career over peak.

In real life, people entering in such a process do so with the understanding that people have been overlooked, that a segment of players are under represented.

No, they don't. Or they certainly shuoldn't enter it with that understanding. The understanding is, or should be, to determine if people have been unfairly overlooked.

IRL, you graciously decline to serve on the committee.

That makes me chuckle. It presumes someone knows already what the committee is supposedly set up to determine, and that the person who sends in the blank ballot didn't make his decision until after studying the issue. Jurors are specifically lectured about not entering the process with a predetermination.

Thinking it over, "hit like Gehrig" is an overstatement. An Allen with everything else the same but league-average defense would definitely get my vote.

I submitted a blank ballot. I agree that blank ballots in "regular" HOF elections, mock or real, are inane, because there has really never been a ballot full of underservers. Even small halls are too big for that.

But these are "picked-over" players. Darn fine ones, but already relegated to the HOVG by the BBWAA. If the vote assumes some of them belong, then just omit us seven blanks. If the question is whether 3/4 of us think these are HOFers, then no.

Well, I am firmly in the camp that blank ballots (not voting for any of the people on the ballot) are 100% legitimate. The baseball hall of fame voting process is, and always has been, different from the football hall of fame in which a certain number get elected each year. The football hall of fame voters essentially rank-order the candidates given to them from the screening committee and then the aggregate top N are elected.

The baseball hall of fame voting process has always maintained a 75% threshold, even on their auxiliary committees. To me this means that No votes are allowed for any candidate. And if there are no candidates that a specific voter thinks merit enshrinement in the hall of fame, he should vote No on them all. If I was asked and agreed to be a Golden Era hall of fame voter, and the screening committee presented me with a list of Maury Wills, Ron Fairly, Jim Davenport, Tommy Heinrich, Al Rosen, Joe Adcock, Carl Furillo, Tony Oliva, Bert Campaneris, and Alvin Dark, I'd vote No on each one of them. I would expect each voter to be cognizant of the de-facto standards for the hall of fame, but still use their own best judgment in voting Yes/No for each candidate.

P.S. Does anyone know if the Golden Era committee voters use a paper-and-pen ballot or is it a "show of hands" type vote? I believe the modern framework is that the committee meets in person during the winter meetings, and that there is a fair amount of discussion of the candidates before the vote is taken. I suppose that there is an actual paper ballot or enforcing the maximum number of Yes votes a committee member can cast would be problematic.