Wow. Really surprised the support for McGwire is THAT low. Even behind McGriff and Walker? I suspect he'll start fading pretty quickly unless someone raises a spirited defense campaign for him.

I thought Bagwell would get in this year, but I'm less optimistic now. May take a few years, and the deluge of sure-fire HOFers may stretch it to a decade of waiting.

I still don't get why Lee Smith has this much support. I don't think anyone during his career thought "hey, this guy is a Hall of Famer!"

Would it be possible to list which ballots you already have so I can see if I have any you don't?

I thought Bagwell would get in this year, but I'm less optimistic now.

Bagwell would have needed to nearly double his support in one year to get in. That would be unprecedented in the contemporary era. If he breaks into the 55% range, he'll be in good shape to get in so long as there's no ballot-pocalypse.

I still don't get why Lee Smith has this much support. I don't think anyone during his career thought "hey, this guy is a Hall of Famer!"

There was a period of time during which he held the career saves record. That's pretty much it.

Does this include the four Chicago Daily Herald votes?

I still don't get why Lee Smith has this much support. I don't think anyone during his career thought "hey, this guy is a Hall of Famer!"

Cuz saves are overrated. But I don't see why he still gets all this support when his record has since been shattered. It's like all the people that suddenly started pimping Maris for the HOF post 1998. If having a record wasn't enough to get someone in, then how does NOT having it make them MORE worthy? Backwards logic to me...

To me, the most interesting thing is looking ahead to next year- who even has a chance? If McGwire's ceiling is around 20%:

Bonds- Steroids- might not break 50%
Clemens- Steroids- might not break 50%
Piazza- Steroids suspect- If Bagwell can't get in, why would he?
Sosa- Steroids suspect- If Bagwell can't get in, why would he?
Schilling- Not a slam dunk based on stats, alienated some reporters by being outspoken, may also be a steroid suspect
Biggio- If Alomar and Larkin didn't make it on the first ballot, I'm doubtful Biggio does- also may be a steroid suspect.

That leaves us with... the indubitably squeaky clean Jack Morris.

Piazza- Steroids suspect- If Bagwell can't get in, why would he?
Sosa- Steroids suspect- If Bagwell can't get in, why would he?

This assumes that Bagwell's low initial vote total is due mostly to steroids rumors. I think this is incorrect - it's due to the fact that the writers don't realize how great Bagwell was in the first place. His old-time slash line is unimpressive for a Hall of Fame first baseman - .297 / 449 / 1529. Recognizing Bagwell as a Hall of Famer requires (1) recognizing the value of his OBP, (2) recognizing the impact of the Astrodome on his raw numbers, and (3) recognizing the value of his defense and baserunning. The BBWAA has historically been terrible at analysis of this sort - it takes them several years to figure it out, at best.

The steroid candidates have seen no movement in their numbers. If Bagwell picks up into the mid-50s or better this year, that will show that he's not being treated like the roiders.

Sosa is viewed as a "proven" roider who'd be nothing without roids and will settle into McGwire/Palmeiro territory. Biggio, unlike Alomar and Larkin, has the big milestone - 3000 hits. He's a first-balloter.

The interesting ones for me are Piazza (I think he gets in with one ballot, and I'd be shocked if he's below 60%, but I could be wrong), Bonds and Clemens (I really have no idea) and Schilling (maybe 30-40%? Will get "big game" points but also has unimpressive career credentials compared to most BBWAA pitching candidates.)

I don't think the McGwire vote is just steroids though. I think its the perception rightly or wrongly that McGwire ONLY hit home runs, and that skill as aided - perhaps greatly so - by steroids.

Bonds and Clemens are both well-regarded as much more well-rounded, and were great players back before they got muscle-bound. I think they'll both squeak in, although it might not be on the first ballot.

Sosa will get the McGwire treatment.

If these percentages hold:

Morris is gaining support, but too slowly to make a difference. If he goes in, it will very likely be a veteran’s committee selection. The days of Frankie Frisch are long over and getting in by the vets is hard. But Jack Morris has a certain standing in the game. A vet’s committee largely made up of player who played against Morris will probably support him.

If it weren’t for all the candidates coming up for eligibility in the near future, the progress for Bagwell and Raines would seem to put them on a sure path for election. The progress Raines has made in a few years has been especially encouraging.

I don’t see an end in sight for the crowded ballots though. I think it is mostly a product of MLB expanding to 28 and then 30 teams about the time when many of the newly retired players were starting their careers. More teams = more players with HOF quality stats. Simple as that.

Biggio will be the one. Alomar and Larkin would have gone in on first try if they had 3000 hits. The number, it is magic.

Morris is gaining support, but too slowly to make a difference. If he goes in, it will very likely be a veteran’s committee selection. The days of Frankie Frisch are long over and getting in by the vets is hard. But Jack Morris has a certain standing in the game. A vet’s committee largely made up of player who played against Morris will probably support him.

What's the closest anyone has ever gotten to election by the BBWAA without ever getting elected by the BBWAA or VC?

If Larkin goes in and I were given a ballot for 2013, I’d vote for:
Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Schilling, Biggio, Bagwell, Raines, Trammell, Edgar, McGwire.

I don’t disqualify for steroids, but if my ballot is limited to 10 spots Sosa would have to be sacrificed. So would Larry Walker and Palmeiro.

Gil Hodges 63% ?

What's the closest anyone has ever gotten to election by the BBWAA without ever getting elected by the BBWAA or VC?

I think it's Gil Hodges.

edit: coke to AROM.

If Larkin goes in and I were given a ballot for 2013, I’d vote for:
Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Schilling, Biggio, Bagwell, Raines, Trammell, Edgar, McGwire.

This is interesting. The no-brainers are Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Biggio, Bagwell. I'd take Raines, Trammell, and McGwire in the next set. That leaves Schilling, Edgar, Walker, Sosa and Palmeiro. Drop Palmeiro for lack of peak, Sosa for lack of career, and I'd probably take Schilling and Walker over Edgar. But jeez it's tough. I'll have to do actual work to figure it out for definites.

1.9 - V. Castilla
0.0 - Bernie Williams

Hanh??

This assumes that Bagwell's low initial vote total is due mostly to steroids rumors. I think this is incorrect - it's due to the fact that the writers don't realize how great Bagwell was in the first place.

Based on the articles that have been posted at BTF, the only voter I see who says he's not voting based on Bagwell's numbers is Bloom (this is the lunatic who says he's not voting for Bagwell because his numbers are similar to Steve Garvey's, even though he previously voted for Garvey, because nobody else voted for Garvey, so we have to take it for what it's worth).

Laviviere didn't vote for Bagwell but didn't offer an explanation, so it wasn't clear if it was due to inadequate numbers or steroid suspicions.

The five other no votes I found- Pozner, Gregor, Brookover, Jacobs, and Schultz- all explicitly said that Bagwell has HOF numbers but they weren't voting for him based on steroid suspicion.

Small sample size I know, but I think the evidence points to steroid rumors being what is keeping Bagwell out.

Bonds and Clemens are both well-regarded as much more well-rounded, and were great players back before they got muscle-bound. I think they'll both squeak in, although it might not be on the first ballot.

I agree that Bonds and Clemens are more qualified and will likely poll higher than McGwire. But if a guy with 583 HRs currently has a ceiling of 25%- doesn't that strongly suggest that approximately half the electorate isn't going to vote for someone with the steroid taint, regardless? Unless there is a sea change in attitudes.

Biggio will be the one. Alomar and Larkin would have gone in on first try if they had 3000 hits. The number, it is magic.

I think Biggio will get in and probably in year 2, but I'll go out on a limb and say not on the first ballot. Expect a lot of "he didn't seem like a HOFer when he was playing," "he hung around to get 3000 hits" and "a lot of his teammates used steroids... hmmm" articles next year.

Morris is gaining support, but too slowly to make a difference. If he goes in, it will very likely be a veteran’s committee selection. The days of Frankie Frisch are long over and getting in by the vets is hard. But Jack Morris has a certain standing in the game. A vet’s committee largely made up of player who played against Morris will probably support him.

I don't know...

I think last year the Repoz counter undershot him by about 5-6-7%?

If he gets into the high 60s - with, what -- 2 more tries? Even with crowded ballot, it looks to me like he just might squeak in.

If Hodges is in indeed the highest to not get in at 63% -- and let's say Morris goes to ~65%... hoo boy...

I wouldn't vote for Morris -- though, I wouldn't be as upset by his entrance as most (I just think there are a ton better candidates than him - and it bothers me more that people with ballot space exclude worthies, but include Jack than vice versa).

What will really work against Morris is that he's not going to have a Lederer/intertubes banging the drum for him - it's going to fall onto the cranky writers complaining about abacuses and they tend to get easily distracted by shiny objects, so I'm not sure they can do the consistent drumbeat thing.

Based on the articles that have been posted at BTF, the only voter I see who says he's not voting based on Bagwell's numbers is Bloom (this is the lunatic who says he's not voting for Bagwell because his numbers are similar to Steve Garvey's, even though he previously voted for Garvey, because nobody else voted for Garvey, so we have to take it for what it's worth).

That's chaos trolling at its finest -- hilarious when childish people think they're really playing Solomon.

What's the closest anyone has ever gotten to election by the BBWAA without ever getting elected by the BBWAA or VC?

Excluding guys still on the ballot:

Gil Hodges, 63.4%
Tony Oliva, 47.3%
Roger Maris, 43,1%
Steve Garvey 42.6%
Maury Wills 40.6%
Marty Marion 40.0%
Harvey Kuenn 39.3%
Hank Gowdy 35.9%
Phil Cavaretta 35.6%
Johnny Sain 34.0%

1.9 - V. Castilla
0.0 - Bernie Williams

Hanh??

Repoz has 54 ballots, so that's one guy who voted for Castilla. His column was linked here, it wasn't "I think Vinny Castilla is up there with Eddie Mathews and Mike Schmidt", it was more along the lines of "Castilla isn't a Hall of Famer, but he was a very good player, and I'm working for a CO paper . . ." which honestly, I don't have too much of a problem with, if the rest of the ballot is well thought out.

Small sample size I know, but I think the evidence points to steroid rumors being what is keeping Bagwell out.

Eh, I think it points to how calling Bagwell a roider is a cheap way to fill column inches. I don't think those are necessarily representative of the 60% of the electorate that didn't vote for Bagwell last year.

If Bagwell's support increases significantly this year (maybe a 15 point jump), that will be inexplicable in terms of steroids. What, did 15% of the electorate receive evidence that Bagwell didn't do steroids? It will, instead, be perfectly consistent with the trajectories of recent deserving but temporarily overlooked candidates like Larkin and Sandberg.

If the Repoz tally is off, and Bagwell's vote stalls or only jumps a few points, it'll be evidence for the roids rumor explanation.

I think Biggio will get in and probably in year 2

He'd get in Year 2 in normal circumstances, but not when Maddux, Thomas, and Glavine are all getting on the ballot at the same time. He should pull a Minoso and come back for a cameo appearance to delay his Hall debut. He'd probably be better than some of the scrubs playing now. XD

I think last year the Repoz counter undershot him by about 5-6-7%?


If he gets into the high 60s - with, what -- 2 more tries? Even with crowded ballot, it looks to me like he just might squeak in.

Repoz was 4.3 points off Jack's total 49.2 projected vs. 53.5 actual.

I say he's got to crack 65 percent this year, and I just don't see it happening. Then again, I've been saying for three years that he wouldn't make it through the BBWAA, so I've got a lot invested in that position.

I say he's got to crack 65 percent this year, and I just don't see it happening. Then again, I've been saying for three years that he wouldn't make it through the BBWAA, so I've got a lot invested in that position.

Bert was at 62.7% in Year 13. Morris might not be that far behind.

Bert had big momentum in his last years on the ballot. Morris doesn't.

Also, previously to last year, Morris usually underperformed the Repoz tally in his final vote total.

Bert was at 62.7% in Year 13.

I thought he was 62.7% in Year 12, and Year 13 was when he missed by five votes, not that it makes any difference. If Morris can get into the 60s, I can see enough voters give Morris a vote for doing it the "clean" way.

Bert had big momentum in his last years on the ballot. Morris doesn't.

He will if he's at 60% or so this year. That'll be a big jump.

If Repoz's tally doesn't include the Chicago Daily Herald, where Morris was 4 for 4, he's at 62%. (I thought Repoz ran something yesterday with 53 ballots and this one's only 54 which is why I'm wondering, but maybe my timeline's off.)

0.0 - Bernie Williams

People argue that the voters think postseason performance is important (I guess Jack Morris is the classic example -- but is he, really? How far is Game 7 1991 carrying Morris, as opposed to the notion that he was a Winner? I grant these two are related, but Winningest Pitcher of the 80s would be carrying Morris pretty far even without Game 7 1991.).

But in Bernie's case, he's essentially on the border, deserving of serious consideration even if one concludes that he ultimately falls short; he's got a gazillion postseason performances (and I think some records) -- and, yet, that has helped him not one bit. 0 votes out of 54 thus far.

Eh, I think it points to how calling Bagwell a roider is a cheap way to fill column inches. I don't think those are necessarily representative of the 60% of the electorate that didn't vote for Bagwell last year.

If Bagwell's support increases significantly this year (maybe a 15 point jump), that will be inexplicable in terms of steroids. What, did 15% of the electorate receive evidence that Bagwell didn't do steroids? It will, instead, be perfectly consistent with the trajectories of recent deserving but temporarily overlooked candidates like Larkin and Sandberg.

If the Repoz tally is off, and Bagwell's vote stalls or only jumps a few points, it'll be evidence for the roids rumor explanation.

Not sure I disagree with any of this, although I think Bagwell could get a 15 point jump this year and still have trouble eventually getting elected because of the steroid taint.

There is clearly some percentage of the electorate that's decided they're not voting for anyone who they SUSPECT of using steroids. The question is how close that percentage is to 25%. If it's say, one-third of voters (which I don't think is implausible) then we'll see Bagwell hit a ceiling in support, at least until attitudes change or the makeup of the electorate changes.

(I think the percentage of the electorate that's decided that they're not voting for anyone affirmatively linked to steroids is well over 50%, based on McGwire's totals, which means real trouble for Bonds and Clemens.)

But my original point was that Bagwell's lack of support in his first year of balloting indicated that Piazza and Sosa wouldn't get in next year. You agree on Sosa. With regard to Piazza, and based on what happened with Bagwell, I just don't see him getting to 75%. You accurately pointed out that voters probably weren't capable of adjusting for the Astrodome, but I'm guessing some voters aren't going to properly adjust for Piazza being a catcher (he hit no milestones in his career and never won an MVP). That and steroid suspicions will keep him down.

People argue that the voters think postseason performance is important (I guess Jack Morris is the classic example -- but is he, really? How far is Game 7 1991 carrying Morris, as opposed to the notion that he was a Winner? I grant these two are related, but Winningest Pitcher of the 80s would be carrying Morris pretty far even without Game 7 1991.).

The fundamental thing carrying Morris is that he's seen by a wide swath of people to have been better than his numbers. His win total is only one part of that perception (and of course his win total is a "number"). More important than the fact Game 7 1991 happened was that it validated -- and, apparently, hardened -- an impression people already had of Morris.

We can quibble all we want with the validity of that impression, but I'd submit that the paragraph above accurately describes reality.

Bernie should have hit a homer in game 7 2001. Pad the lead so Mo doesn't blow it. Even then, it probably wouldn't have been dramatic enough to carry his HOF case. If the Yankees had been playing at home and he hits a walk off that might have done it.

Morris has 3 more tries, including this year. I just don't think he can keep any gains he makes in 2012 with the crowded ballot. The people who vote for McGwire will also vote for Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, and others with real or imagined taint. And they won't have room for Jack Morris. No way he gets 75%.

(I think the percentage of the electorate that's decided that they're not voting for anyone affirmatively linked to steroids is well over 50%, based on McGwire's totals, which means real trouble for Bonds and Clemens.)

Not necessarily. Mac's results probably include some steroid discounters, guys who won't vote for somebody who they think wouldn't have had a HOF career without steroids, but would vote for someone like Bonds and Clemens, as they were fully qualified before using.

*I* don't understand why we arn't making a bigger stink over E.Martinez? We're just going to let those stupid DH arguments stand? While Lee Smith gets traction?

Morris is in a different mental bucket than the other serious contenders and will be through Year 15. Other than the very few tapped-out-at-10 ballots where he'd be fighting for shelf space, he isn't really "competing" with them (or anyone).

If Repoz's tally doesn't include the Chicago Daily Herald, where Morris was 4 for 4, he's at 62%. (I thought Repoz ran something yesterday with 53 ballots and this one's only 54 which is why I'm wondering, but maybe my timeline's off.)

This tally was posted after the Herald's results were posted. Last night repoz posted a tally through 46 ballots and now he's up to 54, so I assume the tally has the Herald.

Normally I'd say Morris had a shot at a surge in his final years on the ballot, but 2013-14 are far from normal circumstances. Any backlogger who doesn't get in this year won't get in for the next several years. Morris is going to the VC, and they'll vote him in.

Other than the very few tapped-out-at-10 ballots where he'd be fighting for shelf space, he isn't really "competing" with them (or anyone).

This seems like it should be true, but historically the addition of good candidates to the ballot has hurt the support of existing candidates. Voters appear to like filling out a certain number of names to their ballots, and will drop players in big years, even if they haven't hit the technical maximum. This is the trend that Morris has to fight, alongside Bagwell and Raines.

*I* don't understand why we arn't making a bigger stink over E.Martinez? We're just going to let those stupid DH arguments stand? While Lee Smith gets traction?

I don't think Smith is a Hall of Famer either, but there are few enough relievers in the Hall that the argument "If Sutter, then Smith" is pretty strong. Smith had tons of value compared to other relievers, and was a Certified Closer who picked up a ton of saves.

I mean, my god, if Sutter is a deserving Hall of Famer, then any good reliever can be. The voters would have to change their standards and admit that Sutter is a mistake for the Smiths of the world to not be deserving. Which the voters may well do; the standards for relievers are evolving.

There will be a lot more closers hitting the ballot in coming years. My guess is that the voters put the brakes on (they seem to have done this already in certain respects, e.g., with the John Francos) and set Trevor Hoffman as the HOF border such that you have to be as good or better than him to get in.

I've thought Smith was further evidence that the voters are requiring something more, but if he gets in, all bets are off.

I agree that Bonds and Clemens are more qualified and will likely poll higher than McGwire. But if a guy with 583 HRs currently has a ceiling of 25%- doesn't that strongly suggest that approximately half the electorate isn't going to vote for someone with the steroid taint, regardless? Unless there is a sea change in attitudes.

I think the perception is McGwire was Dave Kingman plus 140 home runs, and those 140 home runs were steroid-aided. Kingman didn't make it past the first ballot.

But my original point was that Bagwell's lack of support in his first year of balloting indicated that Piazza and Sosa wouldn't get in next year. You agree on Sosa. With regard to Piazza, and based on what happened with Bagwell, I just don't see him getting to 75%. You accurately pointed out that voters probably weren't capable of adjusting for the Astrodome, but I'm guessing some voters aren't going to properly adjust for Piazza being a catcher (he hit no milestones in his career and never won an MVP). That and steroid suspicions will keep him down.

Certainly, this could all be correct. I'm working from little more than impressions. My impression, though, is that "best hitting catcher ever"** is a clear enough hook to make Piazza an easy yes for most voters.

**best hitting MLB catcher ever, at least.

38.9 - Lee Smith
37.0 - E. Martinez

I don't give a #### what you think about the DH, that is absolute madness. Would any GM of any team draft Lee Smith if Edgar Martinez was on the board? Give me a break.

Anybody who votes for a one-inning-at-a-time ############ like Smith but doesn't vote for Edgar should be publicly flogged.

Would any GM of any team draft Lee Smith if Edgar Martinez was on the board?

No, but just because Ed Wade was recently relieved of his duties.

While Lee Smith gets traction?

Lee Smith is not gaining traction -- he's in a ten-year holding pattern.

How many votes are cast for the Hall every year?

Anyone know if Michael Martinez is actually a member of the BBWAA? He tweeted his ballot (Larkin, Martinez and Mattingly) but I didn't see his name on the BBWAA badge list.

Anybody who votes for a one-inning-at-a-time ############ like Smith but doesn't vote for Edgar should be publicly flogged.

Well, if you assume Edgar had, on average, 4 plate appearances a game, and got on base about 40% of the time... that's only about 1.6 innings a game he was actually contributing something.

How many votes are cast for the Hall every year?

581 last year.

*I* don't understand why we arn't making a bigger stink over E.Martinez? We're just going to let those stupid DH arguments stand?

Some of us don't think they're stupid.

Smith isn't getting in either.

Well, if you assume Edgar had, on average, 4 plate appearances a game, and got on base about 40% of the time... that's only about 1.6 innings a game he was actually contributing something.

so ~220 innings per season, then.

Well, if you assume Edgar had, on average, 4 plate appearances a game, and got on base about 40% of the time... that's only about 1.6 innings a game he was actually contributing something.

As opposed to the SS, who was contributing 7.6 innings a game?

1.6 is a lot. It's of course not as much as a position player, but we adjust for that.

so ~220 innings per season, then.

Right. And Smith was averaging 85 innings per season.

Bernie should have hit a homer in game 7 2001.

Bernie should have hit a homer every time up. That probably would have clinched it for him, but only with around 98.5% of the votes.

Ta-da! Evan Grant with the first mo-fo Bernie vote!

"The HOF ballot just went in the mail: Larkin, Morris, Raines, L. Smith, Trammell and Bernie Williams."

Guess somebody should check the splits and see if Bernie really killed the Rangers or something.

EDIT: yep; 307/395/509 in 597 PA.

I agree that Bonds and Clemens are more qualified and will likely poll higher than McGwire.

I think it's because they were so good that they shoulder more of the blame for bringing the game into disrepute.

Hooray! Finally, good old-fashioned New York voting bias to the rescue... by way of Dallas.

I'm hoping Bernie can stay on the ballot. He deserves a solid look...maybe when the shitstorm is cleared up. One-and-done would be a shame. He needs to get on, what 30 ballots or so?

"I think it's because they were so good that they shoulder more of the blame for bringing the game into disrepute."

Probably true. Andy Pettitte will get a higher first ballot % than Clemens will.

Probably true. Andy Pettitte will get a higher first ballot % than Clemens will.

Pettitte is a much better Jack Morris who, in the warped minds of the steroids crusaders, actually gets credit for using HGH, because he was "honest" about it (maybe, after first lying through his teeth a number of times).

I actually expect Pettitte to do very well in the voting.

42. Shock Posted: December 30, 2011 at 12:51 PM (#4025845)
38.9 - Lee Smith
37.0 - E. Martinez

I don't give a #### what you think about the DH, that is absolute madness. Would any GM of any team draft Lee Smith if Edgar Martinez was on the board? Give me a break.

Anybody who votes for a one-inning-at-a-time ############ like Smith but doesn't vote for Edgar should be publicly flogged.

Their totals are very close - within 2 %. Voters are not selecting Smith over Martinez. They are looking at Martinez compared to other hitters while Smith is being compared to HoF relievers and other pitchers on the ballot. We can all pound the table and say saves are over rated or rail against any reliever getting in, but it is silly to get upset about Smith taking votes from Edgar. If Smith had fallen off the ballot five years ago it would not mean one more vote for Edgar or Bagwell, etc.

but it is silly to get upset about Smith taking votes from Edgar

The argument against Gar is that he didn't play enough to get into the Hall. I don't agree, but if that's your position it is fine...but then don't turn around and vote for a ####### relief pitcher for ##### sake. I don't care who gets into the hall; it's the illogic that bugs me.

All I ask from voters is consistency. If you vote for Smith, vote for Gar. If you vote for Mattingly, vote for Bagwell. If you vote for Raffy, vote for McGwire. Etc.

Gotta say, I don't think Bernie Williams belongs in the HoF, and my hatred of the Yankees is well noted, but holy crap, he's at least good enough to get enough votes to stay on the ballot a few years.

Pettitte is a much better Jack Morris who, in the warped minds of the steroids crusaders, actually gets credit for using HGH, because he was "honest" about it (maybe, after first lying through his teeth a number of times).

Pettitte certainly is a better Jack Morris, but the second part remains to be seen -- at least for the steroids crusaders who actually have HOF voting privileges.

Repoz, are you keeping track of who is voting as you tabulate? I assume so, and if you can, give us a sense of how many NY-based ballots are in the mix here.

All I ask from voters is consistency.

I think you are going to be disappointed.

Don,

Not repoz (obviously) but I'm pretty sure he does track which individuals vote for who. That's been my thoughts based on his previous comments over the years.

As for Bernie and NY votes, one thing I've noticed: repoz's tally is usually off the most on Don Mattingly. Repoz ususally begs him around 5%, but he gets around 13-15%. It's one thing to be off by 8% on a guy around 60%, but around 15% - that's impressive. My theory: a disproportionate percentage of non-published votes come from NYC guys. Repoz's votes come from all over the place. There are some New Yorkers but not 20-25%.

I figure that's why Mattingly is always low. And why I figure Williams will also be well over where repoz puts him.

As for Bernie and NY votes, one thing I've noticed: repoz's tally is usually off the most on Don Mattingly. Repoz ususally begs him around 5%, but he gets around 13-15%. It's one thing to be off by 8% on a guy around 60%, but around 15% - that's impressive. My theory: a disproportionate percentage of non-published votes come from NYC guys. Repoz's votes come from all over the place. There are some New Yorkers but not 20-25%.

Any chance some writers are lying about not voting for Mattingly? Perhaps out of a fear that a yes vote makes them look kind of dumb and can't be justified?

Then again, that's never stopped them before.

*I* don't understand why we arn't making a bigger stink over E.Martinez?

And I don't understand why we aren't making a bigger stink over Walker who was better than Edgar and Raines. Walker was as valuable as Raines offensively (value of slugging vs. value of baserunning basically) and MUCH better defensively which Raines mostly makes up for via career length. If you lean heavily toward "peak" (vs "prime" or "career"), I can see favoring Raines, otherwise you have to ignore defense. And Walker was not quite as good a hitter as Edgar but was a much better baserunner and astonomically better defensively, something Edgar makes up a bit for with a slightly longer career.

The three are so close that it's a bit of a coin flip if you had to choose one of three but you don't. It's obviously reasonable that some would consider R and M over the line and W not but that should be balanced by those who think R and W are over the line but M isnt, etc. Why the saber community has adopted Raines (especially) and Edgar (less so) as causes celebre while letting the better Walker languish is a mystery to me. From a sabermetric perspective he's an outstanding player -- strong BA, excellent on-base skills (just a hair below Raines in OBP+), strong power, excellent baserunner, excellent defender.

Guess somebody should check the splits and see if Bernie really killed the Rangers or something.

EDIT: yep; 307/395/509 in 597 PA.

That's not substantially better than Bernie's career line of 297/381/477 so I doubt that's the reason. He had a higher OPS against the Rays, Ms, Royals, White Sox and, in 163 PA, Mets (and a bunch of other NL teams in tiny PA amounts) but none are particularly extreme.

EDIT: yep; 307/395/509 in 597 PA.

That's not substantially better than Bernie's career line of 297/381/477 so I doubt that's the reason.

Yeah. I'd like to meet the person who could perceive that difference at all, let alone over a 15 year period.

My point re: Gar is, voters can't claim 'positional scarcity' in voting for the 8th (or whatever) best reliever, and then turn around and try and pretend DH isn't a real position.

I think the perception is McGwire was Dave Kingman plus 140 home runs, and those 140 home runs were steroid-aided. Kingman didn't make it past the first ballot.

Geez, really? I hope that's not true because it would speak awfully poorly to the ability of this electorate to understand concepts that don't even require a taste for advanced metrics...

I mean - Kingman had 7429 career PAs, reaching base in 2183 of them (.302 OBP). McGwire had 7660 career PAs, reaching base in 2943 of them (.394 OBP)... and that's a number readily accessible, available, and understood that really doesn't need to get into the whole steroid thing and how much credit of those 140 HRs and massive SLG gap (.478 vs. .588) you think Mac owes to the juice.

That requires no OPS+ undestanding, WAR calculations, VORP, et al -- it's a statistic everyone knows, and even the raw numbers are such that the gap is pretty massive.

I know it's preaching to the choir and all, but jeebus... if any writer is really thinking that -- then frankly, I don't think such a person has any business voting for the HoF. It doesn't require any steroid discussions and shouldn't require any advanced analytics to understand that McGwire was a far superior player to Kingman.

On Smith ... again, he's being compared to Eck, Sutter, Gossage and (to a lesser extent) Fingers. Those are really the only players he's being comped to. By that standard, he's at least close to deserving to be in.

Smith is similar to Gossage in that they both lasted a long time in the "closer" role -- Smith longer than Gossage in terms of seasons. Smith doesn't have Gossage's innings but he had 5 heavy-usage seasons early in his career then he was transitioned to the new-fangled 1-inning closer. So he does have more innings than Sutter and more innings (as a reliever) than Eck. He of course has more saves than any HoF reliever and held the record at the time he retired. He led the league in saves 4 times which doesn't seem dominant but Sutter only did it 5 times, Gossage and Fingers only 3 times and Eck (surprisingly) only twice. His raw ERA is worse than Sutter and Fingers but basically the same as Gossage (3.01 vs 3.03 for Smith) and by ERA+ he only trails Sutter (136 to 132 ... of course IP differences among these guys likely explain most of the ERA+ differences). Even Eck's ERA and ERA+ as a reliever aren't that much better than Smith's (2.96 and 137 in 500 fewer relief innings). In WAR terms: Sutter 25, Gossage 40, Fingers 24.4, Eck 16.6/58/7, Smith 30.3.

So ... compared to HoF "closers" Smith is #1 in saves, #2 in league-leading seasons, #3 in IP (as a reliever), #3 in ERA+, #5 in ERA, #2 in WAR, #2 in AS appearances, #4 in CYA shares (top finish #2; Fingers, Sutter and Eck all won one, he did slightly better than Gossage).

The differences among these guys appear to be mainly era-specific usage patterns. Those are always hard to adjust for with pitchers maybe especially when a candidate crosses eras as Smith did. Still, his usage is similar to Sutter and, as a reliever, heavier than Eck. One thing he is missing, and it's probably why he's not in, is any period (even a season) of "dominance". If he had a CYA, he'd probably be in.

I never would have put any of these guys in the HoF and if I had to choose one it would be Gossage. But look at those rankings compared to the HoFers and he's right there amongst them.

So it's not hard to see what Smith supporters are thinking. And as long as most of his support comes from Eck, Sutter, Gossage voters they're being consistent.

Now, to save you the bother, I already assume that you could do something similar with Franco or Reardon and certainly Hoffman and Rivera and maybe Henke and ... Like I said I never would have put any of them in and part of that is because they are a pretty inseparable mess because "closer" isn't that hard of a job (although it is pretty hard to do well for a long time).

As to Smith vs. Edgar -- as somebody notes above, they aren't being compared to the same players. I don't imagine there are many voters who even consider a comparison of pitcher value to hitter value in deciding who to vote for. Smith is being comped to a new set of mostly borderline HoFers (Eck sailed in first ballot) for whom there are no historical standards. Edgar is being comped to Aaron, Mays, Robinson, Stargell, McCovey, Rickey, Gwynn, Boggs, Molitor, Brett, Yount, Schmidt, Reggie, Carew, Morgan, Bench. He lacks previously firm (and, if anything, rising) milestones of 3,000 hits and 500 HR.

Of course, in comparison to more borderline candidates like Puckett, Billy Williams or (sorta) Winfield (3000 hits) or (sorta) Brock ... but then his candidacy is not unlike those.

I believe this is the complete list of hitters inducted on the 1st ballot in the last 40 years without 3,000 hits or 500 HR:

Ozzie Smith
Kirby Puckett
Joe Morgan
Johnny Bench
Brooks

So the two greatest defenders of all-time, two 2-MVP winners (one arguably the greatest-ever at his position the other arguably the greatest of the last 70 years) ... and Kirby Puckett. Remember, you're talking about a group of voters who needed two elections to get Yogi Berra in (OK, most of those voters are no longer alive but you know what I mean).

My point re: Gar is, voters can't claim 'positional scarcity' in voting for the 8th (or whatever) best reliever, and then turn around and try and pretend DH isn't a real position.

Not sure I see why not. Any position player can play DH. "Closer" (rightly or wrongly) is seen as a uniquely important role. DH is therefore a "reduced" position relative to other positions while closer is an "enhanced" position at least relative to other relievers. Given the way much of the media writes about them and how much teams pay elite closers (although this may be changing)*, they're viewed as being second in pitching importance only to "aces."

*Papelbon really isn't getting that much (given salary inflation) given what Rivera or even K-Rod got a few years ago so closer salaries have probably stabilized or may even be declining. Meanwhile, with the jump in "true ace" salary to $20-$23 M a year, the "secondary ace who might actually be more a #2" market has gone up too with Lackey and Burnett getting nice paydays. Top closers are probably paid more like good "#3 starters" these days.

Of course, in comparison to more borderline candidates like Puckett, Billy Williams or (sorta) Winfield (3000 hits) or (sorta) Brock ... but then his candidacy is not unlike those.

Whoops, that was supposed to be a longer list -- Sandberg, Carter, Dawson, etc. who took a few years to get through.

Is there a master list somewhere with the ballots already counted. I'm willing to go digging this weekend, but would hate to repeat work already done.

If Bagwell's support increases significantly this year (maybe a 15 point jump), that will be inexplicable in terms of steroids. What, did 15% of the electorate receive evidence that Bagwell didn't do steroids? It will, instead, be perfectly consistent with the trajectories of recent deserving but temporarily overlooked candidates like Larkin and Sandberg.

If the Repoz tally is off, and Bagwell's vote stalls or only jumps a few points, it'll be evidence for the roids rumor explanation.

Maybe. But it could be a mix of things, e.g. nonvoters due to X% steroids, Y% first ballot/not first ballot thing, Z% just undervalue him. In this case, Bagwell could get a bump this year and then stall out at 41 + Y%.

And I don't understand why we aren't making a bigger stink over Walker who was better than Edgar and Raines. Walker was as valuable as Raines offensively (value of slugging vs. value of baserunning basically) and MUCH better defensively which Raines mostly makes up for via career length. If you lean heavily toward "peak" (vs "prime" or "career"), I can see favoring Raines, otherwise you have to ignore defense. And Walker was not quite as good a hitter as Edgar but was a much better baserunner and astonomically better defensively, something Edgar makes up a bit for with a slightly longer career.

I agree that Walker is better than either of Raines or Martinez. The three players occupy very close but distinct tiers in my mind: Walker is just good enough to be an easy HOFer, Raines would get my vote but I think he's borderline-in, Martinez would not get my vote but I think he's borderline-out. Walker is the only one of the three that will bother me; the other two are close enough to the line that I wouldn't complain either way.

I'm surprised that we don't see more complaints about Walker, although I suppose we've resigned ourselves to the fact that he's the sort of player that HOF voters are going to be really bad at evaluating. A great deal of his value comes from defense, but he didn't play a traditionally important defensive position. A significant portion of his value comes from baserunning but he doesn't have any seasons with any sort of remarkable SB performance. Walker is also a prime candidate for what I call "stupid park adjustment," which is worse than no park adjustment at all: ignore park unless it's Colorado, in which case, take off an arbitrarily large portion of his offensive value.

I can also understand ranking these three players in pretty much any order. There's enough flexibility here based on how much you value peak vs. career, how much stock you place in defense and baserunning, and some in-season durability consideration.

REPOZ,

Here is one from Twitter for ya:

@JackCurryYES
My Hall of Fame ballot: Larkin, Morris, Bagwell, Raines, E. Martinez. I didn't vote 4 Bagwell last year, but added him this year.

Here is one from Twitter for ya:

Yeah, got it. Thanks. Thought Bernie would have picked up his 2nd vote there.

I'd like to meet the person who could perceive that difference at all, let alone over a 15 year period.

It has nothing to do with perceiving a difference and everything to do with how Williams performed when Grant actually saw him play.

that's a number readily accessible, available, and understood that really doesn't need to get into the whole steroid thing and how much credit of those 140 HRs and massive SLG gap (.478 vs. .588) you think Mac owes to the juice.

Hitting the ball over the wall instead of to the warning track increases OBP. I have no doubt that's how voters who think of McGwire as a pure steroid creation would respond. Never mind that turning 140 HRs into outs would still leave him about 75 points of OBP ahead of Kingman.

Anyone know if Michael Martinez is actually a member of the BBWAA? He tweeted his ballot (Larkin, Martinez and Mattingly) but I didn't see his name on the BBWAA badge list.

No responses to this? For a ballot that includes two people I'd vote for and not Jack Morris, that's impressively weird.

Count me in the group that doesn't understand the lack of love for Walker around here.

It seems like WAR gets used for HOF discussions an awful lot (too much in my opinion, but that's a separate issue) and in both B-Ref and Fangraphs, Walker has both Martinez and Raines beat.

Anyone know if Michael Martinez is actually a member of the BBWAA? He tweeted his ballot (Larkin, Martinez and Mattingly) but I didn't see his name on the BBWAA badge list.

I don't have him on any former HOF lists, so I doubt it.

It seems like WAR gets used for HOF discussions an awful lot (too much in my opinion, but that's a separate issue)

I'm at least partly guilty of this but it's a situation where I think the somewhat glib "WAR isn't the endpoint, it's a good starting point for the discussion" holds true.

In the old days I could say "Walker was a better hitter and defender than Raines and Raines' advantage in career length and baserunning doesn't quite make up for it" again and again and again but it would be extremely difficult for me to show it. Somebody else would counter-argue "there's no way Walker's defensive edge is enough to make up for the baserunning and career length edge of Raines, he was no Clemente you know. Besides Raines might have been the best player in the league for 5-6 years." "Raines the best player in the league? Ha!" And so on.

I use WAR mainly as a clear indicator that not only is it not crazy to think Walker's defensive edge was big enough -- even that some folks who have put a lot of effort in coming up with the best defensive estimates we can have come to that conclusion. Similarly the big peak advocate has some easily comparable numbers to back up that opinion.

In my advocacy for Walker, I'm hoping to get folks to recognize that he's at least very close to Raines and Edgar, to ask themselves if their easy acceptance of non-Walker ballots is justified and go do some digging.

To put phony numbers around it, I guess I was expecting that if you took 100 random BBTFers you'd see a breakdown something like this:

10% -- none of them
20% -- Edgar & Walker
20% -- Edgar & Raines
20% -- Raines & Walker
30% -- all three

Instead those numbers seem more like:

10% -- none of them
0% -- Edgar & Walker
30% -- Edgar & Raines
10% -- Raines & Walker
30% -- all three
20% -- Raines only

OK, Raines' support around here probably isn't quite 90% but the ordering certainly seems to go Raines, Edgar, Walker with Walker a pretty distant third.

FWIW, Walker did pretty well on the 2011 HoM ballot. But that's 38 wackos with too much time on their hands. :-) Perhaps more importantly, not being stark raving mad, their 2011 ballot didn't include Raines, Edgar, Larkin, McGwire, etc. so it wasn't exactly a struggle to identify Walker as one of the best candidates. Still, 2 people didn't even list him and 2 more didn't have him in their top 10. If they'd had to vote on the real 2011 ballot, he probably gets pushed down 4 spots on most ballots, pushing him outside the top 10 on probably about 10 ballots (many more eligible of course) and receiving no more than a handful of top 5 votes.

But they just put Reuschel in so they can do no wrong now.

Walker's big weakness is durability; never played more than 143 games in a 17-year career. Six seasons of fewer than 110 games.

Six seasons of fewer than 110 games.

One of those was his cup of coffee at age 22. Two more were the last two of his career when he was not a full-time player. And one other was 103 games in a season when his team only played 114.

Regulars probably shouldn't play so often, anyway. Especially SS and 2B (catchers of course always have played less. Outfielders, too. 150 games max for outfielders.

I never vaguely considered Larry Walker as a Hall of Fame candidate. Now that I hear he's more qualified than Tim Raines, the natural thing to do is rethink the Tim Raines idea.

Jon Heyman released his Bagwell-less HOF ballot on Clubhouse Confidential tonight...Brian Kenny, not happy.

Heyman's ballot as I was scribbling...

Larkin
J. Morris (Kenny ragged him on this)
Raines
D. Murphy
Mattingly

Well, at this moment repoz had 59 ballots. Let's compare where guy are through 59 to where they were through 60 ballots last year.

Name, then 2011 through 60 ballots, then 2012 through 59 ballots:

Larkin: 70.0%, 93.2%
Morris: 51.7%, 62.7%
Bagwell: 45.0%, 59.3%
Raines: 53.3%, 59.3%
Trammell: 30.0%, 45.8%
Edgar: 26.7%, 40.7%
L.Smith: 31.7%, 39.0%
L.Walker: 15.0%, 25.4%
McGriff: 13.3%, 22.0%
McGwire, 23.3%, 20.3%
Murphy: 10.0%, 15.3%
Palmeiro: 11.7%, 10.2%
Mattingly: 5.0%, 8.5%

In all, the above guys averaged 3.87 names per ballot last year. This year, they're at 5.02 names per ballot. Only two guys have gone down at all: the steroid boys, McGwire & Palmeiro.

That'll happen when Alomar, Blyleven, and Parker all leave the ballot and the newbie crop looks bleak.

NOTE: this is far from perfect as just because the number of ballots is about the same doesn't mean it's the same ballots revealed early.

I was working on a small page for tracking voters last year. Not exhaustive, but here are some of the people who we know voted for Mattingly the past two years.

I was working on a small page for tracking voters last year. Not exhaustive, but here are some of the people who we know voted for Mattingly the past two years.

How does Heyman vote for Donald Mattingly but not Jeff Bagwell?

Even going just by peak I don't see it.

And Heyman has Morris, but, IIRC, didn't see Blyleven as Hall worthy.

At least he has Raines and Larkin. I can't get on him for Dale Murphy, though I disasgree. But Murphy did have an outstanding peak.

I was working on a small page for tracking voters last year. Not exhaustive, but here are some of the people who we know voted for Mattingly the past two years.

How does Heyman vote for Donald Mattingly but not Jeff Bagwell?

Even going just by peak I don't see it.

And Heyman has Morris, but, IIRC, didn't see Blyleven as Hall worthy.

At least he has Raines and Larkin. I can't get on him for Dale Murphy, though I disasgree. But Murphy did have an outstanding peak.

How does Heyman vote for Donald Mattingly but not Jeff Bagwell?

Don Mattingly: .307
Jeff Bagwell: .297

All that matters!

Jeff Bagwell might have maybe tried steroids.

Don Mattingly played before Jose Canseco invented them in 1996.

*I* don't understand why we arn't making a bigger stink over E.Martinez? We're just going to let those stupid DH arguments stand?

Edgar comps:

Not sure I see why not. Any position player can play DH. "Closer" (rightly or wrongly) is seen as a uniquely important role.

Really? I'm pretty sure that any pitcher can play the part of the "closer" role.

There have been failed starters (Rivera).
There have been excellent starters (Smoltz).
There have been young pitchers who never got a chance to start (Hoffman).
There have been old pitchers who only started but had to "close" a game (O.Hernandez).

Shawn Chacon got 35 saves as the "closer" for the Rockies in 2004. He had an ERA of 7.11. He had zero saves before that season. He got one more save for the rest of his career.

This does not sound like a role that is any more important than any other role on the roster.

Walker's big weakness is durability; never played more than 143 games in a 17-year career. Six seasons of fewer than 110 games.

Well he did, once. And I suppose we have to do this for every player from the mid 90's:

1994 - 103 of 114 games
1995 - 131 of 144 games

It's funny and ironic that a bunch of HOF candidates who get dinged for non durability had among their most durable seasons in those two, thus making them look even worse. No, Walker and Larkin did have durability issues, but that wasn't the case for either of them in 1994 and 1995. But you can't see that in a cursory glance at their records. I wonder how the Walker narrative would have played out if he had 83 and 87 games (his actual games played in 1996 and 2000) in 1994 and 1995, and then 146 and 147 games (his extrapolated playing time from the strike years) in 1996 and 2000?

Games played from 1990-2003:

133
137
143
138
83
87
146
153
130
127
147
142
136
143

Still no Cal Ripken for sure, but not that much different at a glance from say Rickey Henderson or George Brett (after age 26)