Does this work for a tracker post? It should be sticky.

Ballot #10 in Ryan Thibodaux's invaluable tracker is from Paul White. White voted for four candidates:

Ortiz (first year on the ballot)
Helton, Sheffield, Wagner (voted for all three last year, as well)
He dropped Schilling from his ballot last year.

Two things:

1) Through 10 ballots on the Thibs Tracker, Schilling has already lost two votes he had last year. I know it is a small sample size, and the non-public ballots are often different from the public ones, etc...but who on Earth is going to be like, "I know I haven't voted for Schilling in the past, but this seems like the year to add him to my ballot!" No way. And Schilling is already losing votes. He's cooked.

2) Ballots like this one are part of why I now follow the voting more for sports and entertainment than because of any specific rooting interest for/against candidates. There is zero pattern to this ballot: If you vote for Sheffield, but not Bonds or Clemens; if you voted for Helton, but not Rolen. THe list of candidates who are going to get 20%-60% of the vote will be a who's who of the greatest players and biggest names of my adult lifetime: Clemens, Bonds, ARod, Ortiz, Schilling, Ramirez, Sosa. But, hey, at least we can all applaud for Gil Hodges' grandchildren at the ceremony this summer!

A BTF member DMed with White’s recent voting history this morning. You might not like his reasoning, but he is consistent. Shamelessly pasted from this other member’s DM:
2019: Halladay Helton Edgar Mo Schilling Sheffield Wagner Walker

2020: Helton Jeter Schilling Sheffield Wagner Walker

2021: Helton Schilling Sheffield Wagner

2022, has enough of Schill: Helton Ortiz Sheffield Wagner

Some might not see much ‘consistency’ in voting for Sheffield & Ortiz, while failing to support even better players who had similar, or even less, PED connections. At most, White appears consistently inconsistent.

A BTF member DMed with White’s recent voting history this morning. You might not like his reasoning, but he is consistent.

I don't see what's consistent about Sheffield over Bonds or Clemens, or Ortiz but not Sosa.

He just means consistency year-to-year. Of course internally it doesn't make any sense.

He just means consistency year-to-year.

Oh, that's what he meant? I don't give bonus points for consistently applied inconsistency of thought.

Shouldn't voters be applauded for being consistent in how they apply their obvious personal biases? Since that's all fully half of them are doing anyway, and often being perfectly open about it...

I don't know about "applauded", but I'm down with accepting that they didn't completely clown-shoe the vote in every aspect.

Shouldn't voters be applauded for being consistent in how they apply their obvious personal biases?

That would be like applauding Eric Gregg for calling pitches that bounce in the opposite batter's box strikes for both teams.

I don't see what's consistent about Sheffield over Bonds or Clemens, or Ortiz but not Sosa.

All suspected 'roid users are equal but some suspected 'roid users are more equal than others? I really have no idea on the logic of this stuff.

I get not voting for Manny or A-rod, they actually got caught, but the rest, I figure you take a blanket approach either way. You either think they all cheated or none at all.

And what is the deal with not voting for Rolen? If you're anti-roid guys and think Schilling, etc are horrible turds, surely...SURELY you're lone vote is going for Rolen; dude is more than qualified for this honor.

I suspect we simply over-rate the amount of knowledge that most voters retain/use. "Roids" = "ARod, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Manny, Palmeiro." Sheffield was never a big deal (and a voter can "blame" Bonds if you want). Ortiz wasn't a star yet when all of this went down. Being "anti-roid" doesn't require being fully knowledgable about all the ins and outs of the various investigations -- heck, all that knowledge might well lead you to deciding that the actual evidence is mostly pretty thin (espially for anything prior to 2000), the word of crooks, that use was widespread, etc. which might call into question one's staunch anti-roid stance.

Then if you challenge an Sheff-voting anti-roider with evidence against Sheffield, they'll just reach for an excuse they've never needed before: "he walked out on Bonds and Anderson", "he tested clean for 7 seasons", "they clearly didn't help him" ... who knows what? Why would you expect more consistency and thoroughness from a HoF voter than any other person on the street?

Why would you expect more consistency and thoroughness from a HoF voter than any other person on the street?

Because most voters spend a lot time thinking about baseball in their career as a sports writer? Most people are trying to keep their kids from going off the rails and how to pay their mortgage, so I expect the average Joe to be a little ignorant where these matters are concerned.

Also because they are enfranchised at all. I would imagine that if I had the privilege of voting for the game’s highest honor, folks would expect me to be serious about it. To do due diligence and enter a well-reasoned, internally consistent ballot. Others have made this point, but it beats repeating, being elected to the Hall does change an honoree’s life (or their loved one’s) in significant ways, and it affects the institution itself. So there’s a thinking-of-others aspect as well that also merits seriousness of purpose in preparing a ballot.

But that’s just me, and no one since Dan LeBetard has asked for my HOF vote.

14. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 08, 2021 at 06:48 PM (#6056736)
Also because they are enfranchised at all. I would imagine that if I had the privilege of voting for the game’s highest honor, folks would expect me to be serious about it. To do due diligence and enter a well-reasoned, internally consistent ballot. Others have made this point, but it beats repeating, being elected to the Hall does change an honoree’s life (or their loved one’s) in significant ways, and it affects the institution itself. So there’s a thinking-of-others aspect as well that also merits seriousness of purpose in preparing a ballot.

But that’s just me, and no one since Dan LeBetard has asked for my HOF vote.

That probably echoes most of our thoughts. If entrusted with this responsibility give it the seriousness of doing more than merely consulting your memory. All of our memories are flawed and none of us see more than a thin slice of the career's of players on teams outside our hometown. I don't think it is asking too much to ask each voter to review the baseball-reference.com page for every player on the ballot. For some, a quick review will just confirm your existing impression of the player's career. However, for many the review should reveal something about the player that is either long forgotten or misremembered. With 24 players on this ballot, that review could be done in an hour. I know it would take me several hours, just because I fall down bb-ref rabbit holes and one search leads to another and then I'm checking out youngest blah, blah, blah and then similarity scores and suddenly it is mid-afternoon and I've gotten nothing done. I don't expect voters to submit a ballot exactly as I would, but please put serious effort into it and leave any personal or petty grievances out of the process.

1) Through 10 ballots on the Thibs Tracker, Schilling has already lost two votes he had last year. I know it is a small sample size, and the non-public ballots are often different from the public ones, etc...but who on Earth is going to be like, "I know I haven't voted for Schilling in the past, but this seems like the year to add him to my ballot!" No way. And Schilling is already losing votes. He's cooked.

You're probably right, but someone might say, "I don't like the guy so I've been eschewing voting for him, but it's his last time on the ballot and he belongs in."

. the actual evidence is mostly pretty thin (espially for anything prior to 2000), the word of crooks, that use was widespread, etc. which might call into question one's staunch anti-roid stance.

And the whole looking like wrestlers and hitting 60-70 HR per season while defying normal aging patterns, the cream and the clear, Canseco’s surprisingly reliable allegations, the comical Congressional testimony. This is by no means intended to be a complete picture, but come on.

Yes, you couldn’t convict Bonds or Clemens with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But to say the evidence is thin is silly. It’s easy to pick at these things one by one, but the whole picture? That’s a lot of BBTF Kool Aid to choke down.

Ken Caminiti

"It's no secret what's going on in baseball. At least half the guys are using steroids. They talk about it. They joke about it with each other.

Link

I know he later tried to walk back the "half" part, but I believed him the first time

I think it's pretty clear that some folks think 'steroids' is basically captured by "hit more than 60 home runs in a season, and also Clemens."

And the whole looking like wrestlers and hitting 60-70 HR per season while defying normal aging patterns, the cream and the clear, Canseco’s surprisingly reliable allegations, the comical Congressional testimony.

yeah it seems super-obvious to me that steroids were all over baseball. And I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that the superstars were using them while the 2-WAR and replacement levels players (not to mention guys in the minors who were trying to get to the majors) were saying stuff like "gosh, those guys are really good, how DO They do it?" and/or "no way am I touching that stuff!"

That being said, because people are diverse, I'm sure there were a substantial number of players - at all talent levels - who refused to do steroids either because of health or moral concerns - but I don't think I could be convinced it wasn't widespread, at all skill levels.

Steroids were all over baseball and management knew about it. Right now the HoF has decided to induct management and punish the players.

You say the HOF decided to do this, but the BBWAA I don’t believe would have inducted Selig, either. And I’m unsure they would have inducted La Russa because of this. Torre and Cox, probably. But a lot of them rail against Selig being in. It’s two different voting bodies. Once the VC turns away Bonds and Clemens, like they did McGwire, this point would be more valid.

I find the whole steroids issue silly. Any voters who supported La Russa going into the HOF who also refuse to vote for his creations (McGwire the prime one which led to Bonds, Clemens, and many others) are basically saying that the athletes have to maintain a higher standard than those who tell them what to do (managers). Mix in voting in I-Rod (accused in one of Canseco's books) and the silliness is beyond belief. I could get refusing to vote in anyone who was caught post penalties being put in place, but then you damn well better have not supported Gaylord Perry for the HOF (a spitball makes a ball move funny, which jumps the risk of injury to a hitter and has actually killed a hitter thus why it is banned) or anyone else who was known to scuff the ball (many, many pitchers).

Kirby Puckett was the first HOF'er who was painfully obviously using. He went from 0 HR in a full season (sub 20 extra base hits) to 31 HR and superstar status after bragging about his big offseason workouts. Code in the 80's for 'I took everything I could find'. Mix in his wife beating and early death and one has no real choice but to see that he was easily as guilty of PED use as anyone this side of Canseco.

.but who on Earth is going to be like, "I know I haven't voted for Schilling in the past, but this seems like the year to add him to my ballot!" No way.

Agreed. But there was an earlier thread here where people were saying they thought Schilling would get a last year on ballot boost. I didn't buy it since Schilling outright said he didn't want the writers voting him in this year. I could see many responding with a "well #### you too then."

24. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 09, 2021 at 02:37 PM (#6056808)

.but who on Earth is going to be like, "I know I haven't voted for Schilling in the past, but this seems like the year to add him to my ballot!" No way.



Agreed. But there was an earlier thread here where people were saying they thought Schilling would get a last year on ballot boost. I didn't buy it since Schilling outright said he didn't want the writers voting him in this year. I could see many responding with a "well #### you too then."

You quite likely are right, but that reflects poorly on those who use that "logic." Voters should ignore all the extraneous BS and stick to evaluating the quality of their performance on the field. If you thought he was a HOFer eight years after he retired, it is hard to rationalize thinking he isn't nine or ten years after he retired.

Today we get Jeff Blair's ballot and the screaming illogical statement of the day- he said he dropped Manny Ramirez from his ballot because he was a small ballot guy and wanted to make room for A-Rod. It was a 4 person ballot.

I really dislike voters who decide they will only cast some arbitrary number of votes...

We're 12 ballots in this year and already have four or five just jaw-droppingly absurd explanations. Really hope it's just a small-sample thing and not an actual trend.

Yeah, Paul White's ballot is painfully illogical.

Can someone explain Sadiel Lebron's decision to to drop Bonds, add Abreu, and retain Manny, Clemens, and Sosa? I really don't understand ...

29. Moldorf Posted: December 09, 2021 at 04:01 PM (#6056826)
Can someone explain Sadiel Lebron's decision to to drop Bonds, add Abreu, and retain Manny, Clemens, and Sosa? I really don't understand ...

No, no one can apply logic to the illogical.

I really dislike voters who decide they will only cast some arbitrary number of votes...

It's outside of the rules, and the Hall/BBWAA should address it: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Oh come on. It's dumb, but it's not outside the rules.

Being from near Toronto, Blair's vote has always been one I've paid attention to. He's small hall, but has Canadian biases (not surprising).

I went back to see if he has been consistent or if the results are wishy-washy.

2013 (5) - Bonds Clemens Piazza Raines Walker. 3 All timers, and 2 guys clearly over the line with Canadian ties (Walker, Expos + From Canada, Raines peaked as an Expo in the 80's). Absence of Bagwell (who is way up there is noticeable) as well as Biggio and Schilling.

2014 (9) Bonds Clemens Glavine Maddux McGwire Morris Piazza Raines Thomas. 4 All timers. Glavine who is way over the line and has traditional stuff that Mussina and Schilling have less of. Has Raines again but drops Walker even though there's room, but then adds Morris and McGwire? Also has Thomas which is obvious, but who know else was as good (and was born on the same day). Jeff Bagwell.

2015 (10) Bagwell Biggio Bonds Clemens Delgado Johnson P. Martinez Piazza Raines Smoltz. Morris fell off, drops McGwire, adds Bagwell and Biggio. Thomas, Maddux and Glavine all got in. Pedro and RJ are super obvious, Smoltz less so but clearly deserving (although maybe not against this field). Delgado I get because his prime was in Toronto (and Blair likely knew this was his only chance to vote for Carlos given the stacked ballot)

2016 (not known) - He shared a partial but doesn't appear to have been counted which included Bonds Clemens Griffey Piazza and Raines. I'd not be shocked if he voted for Bagwell, McGwire or Walker either as he has voted for them in the past.

2017 (7) Bagwell Bonds Clemens Guerrero Posada Raines Ramirez. Posada's a weird one, otherwise pretty consistent (Guerrero was an Expos player). No I-Rod is strange to me, given much of the detractors were not suspected PED voters and I-Rod was enough of a slam-dunk to get in first ballot. As the worst of ballotgeddon clears, would've thought Walker would be back on, but alas not in 17.

2018 (6) Bonds Clemens Guerrero C. Jones Ramirez Walker. Bagwell finally gets in. Finally adds Walker back, no vote to Thome and he has still never voted for Mussina or Schilling who are superior candidates to most of the field.

2019 (5) Bonds Clemens Halladay Rivera Walker. Drops Ramirez. Martinez gets in without Blair's help. Never votes McGriff who also had prime years in Toronto. Halladay gets in due to Toronto connection. Rivera, well not much needs to be said, he was unanimous.

2020 (5) Bonds Clemens Jeter Ramirez Walker. Adds Ramirez, helps Walker get over the line. Jeter was one off unanimous (although is not in Bonds or Clemens class)

2021 (3) Bonds Clemens Ramirez - consistent with prior year as both Walker and Jeter were elected and 2021 was around the time the ballot had settled and we were clear of ballot-geddon.

2022 (4) Bonds Clemens Ortiz Rodriguez - Drops Ramirez who he seems to go back and forth on. It's only in recent years that he's really gone gung-ho with the small ballot, part of it is the depth of candidates isn't what it was in say 2014 /2015, but there aren't stray votes for Morris or Delgado anymore. Although not sure Ortiz fits in and what his difference is with say Sheffield even to name another 500Homer guy with PED suspicions.

All in all - it's sort of consistent - the inner circle level guys all get voted for as do the guys a half step below (Bonds Clemens Maddux Pedro, RJ, Chipper, Piazza, Griffey, Rivera) as to some others scraping that tier (Bagwell, Thomas) but it's not consistent below that. PED's have no impact on how he votes and he's not infatuated with relievers. Canadian connections are a plus (Guerrero, Walker, Raines, Delgado). The mid-level guys who would be solid HOFers (Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina, Scott Rolen) and those more borderline (Andruw, Helton, Kent) get no love unless you are Big Papi.

Edit- oops double post deleted now.

Can someone explain Sadiel Lebron's decision to to drop Bonds, add Abreu, and retain Manny, Clemens, and Sosa? I really don't understand ...

It's a 10-person ballot, and the rules don't say you have to vote for the 10 best players, just up to 10 players you think should make it. If you think both Abreu and Bonds are worthy, are confident that Bonds isn't getting in and are concerned that Abreu might drop below 5% without your vote, it's not an insane choice. And given that the rest of the ballot is one of the better ones out there so far, I think there are more deserving targets of criticism.

I was a frequent lurker and occasional poster in these forums from 2014-2017ish.
This is my first post here in almost 5 years.
Good to see BTF discussion still thriving.
Question: there was a monthly (weekly?) OTP Politics thread. Does that still exist here, or is it no more?
As I know discussing politics outside the OTP thread was a big no-no, I'm fine (if nec.) deleting this post once my question is answered.

[36] The Covid thread is the default OTP thread, though it looks to have fallen off of hot topics.

I wonder whether Helton or Rolen will really make the next big move. It felt to me that a lot of people’s votes were suppressed by the 10 vote rule until last year but it’s really not a huge factor anymore - I don’t remember there being many, if any, articles saying “ if only I could vote for 11 I’d vote for Rolen/Helton.

A ton of high vote getters falloff next year and I think we’ll be back to 3-6 vote ballots. In that environment, I actually think it’s harder for the marginal guys to pick up speed. I can see someone saying “there’s no one I like very much here, I’m certainly not going to just vote for these guys - they weren’t that good. When can I vote for the real deal ?”

I wonder whether Helton or Rolen will really make the next big move.

It would be very surprising (potentially historic in Rolen's case*) if either guy stalled. I think Rolen goes in next year, Helton the year after.

* I don't know if anyone has crossed 50 percent within four years on the ballot and failed to make it. Now, it could very well happen to Vizquel, but his would be for a very different reason.

If you think both Abreu and Bonds are worthy, are confident that Bonds isn't getting in and are concerned that Abreu might drop below 5% without your vote, it's not an insane choice. And given that the rest of the ballot is one of the better ones out there so far, I think there are more deserving targets of criticism.

That’s a fairly weak defense of bad ballot. Lebron dropped Bonds, while retaining Clemens, Manny, Sheffield & Sosa, and casting a 1st ballot vote for Ortiz. Neither Manny nor Sheffield were in their final year, so they would seem the far more logical choices to be sacrificed to ensure that Abreu made the 5 percent club. Bad ballots are allowable, but they deserve to be noted as such.

Question: there was a monthly (weekly?) OTP Politics thread. Does that still exist here, or is it no more?

[36] The Covid thread is the default OTP thread, though it looks to have fallen off of hot topics.

OTP moved off-site to a Discord server; this is the current COVID thread.

That’s a fairly weak defense of bad ballot. Lebron dropped Bonds, while retaining Clemens, Manny, Sheffield & Sosa, and casting a 1st ballot vote for Ortiz. Neither Manny nor Sheffield were in their final year, so they would seem the far more logical choices to be sacrificed to ensure that Abreu made the 5 percent club. Bad ballots are allowable, but they deserve to be noted as such.

Anyone who votes for 10 people with no obviously bad choices is probably above the median BBWAA voter. I mean, you can criticize who you want, obviously, but I'll let a few things slide for someone who's picked Rolen and Helton and NOT Vizquel or Wagner. (Also, to be mildly pedantic, Sheffield was not on LeBron's ballot.)

To be clear, this is not the ballot I would cast, but there are far worse ballots already, and there will assuredly be more to come.

One concerning general trend so far - changes to voting from prior years on the first 12 ballots are +4, -11. Last year, gained votes outnumbered lost votes by nearly 4 to 1 (+339, -86), and by even more in 2020 (+498, -46). Hopefully this is just a small sample thing.

It’s not a blip. Last year was the first time people could get all their choices on the ballot. This year won’t have the same adds and there will be a lot of Schilling and Vizquel deducts.

This year won’t have the same adds and there will be a lot of Schilling and Vizquel deducts.

Duke got this right as far as José de Jesus Ortiz is concerned- ten person ballot, dropped Schilling (in response to Schilling's request to be removed from the ballot) and Vizquel (over the domestic abuse and sexual abuse claims) to make room for Ortiz and Rolen, who picks up a vote.

You can read Ortiz's article here... https://ouresquina.com/2021/roger-clemens-barry-bonds-get-ortizs-hall-of-fame-vote/

Adds/drops -- mainly a function of the vote totals of the previous year's inductees (and last year candidates) plus the quality of this year's debut candidates. In the vast majority of cases, if the voter ticked a box last year, they'll tick that box this year. In 2019, there were 4 inductees totalling an average of nearly 3.5 votes per ballot. The voters don't have those guys to vote for in 2020 so those votes had to go somewhere. Many went into the trash of course but many got doled out to different people in 2020.

In 2020, Jeter was there to soak up 1 of those 3.5 votes. Most of the rest went in the trash though -- Walker up 20%, Rolen 18, Vizquel and Schilling about 10 but no other big debut candidates (Abreu 5.5%). So everybody had lots of space on their 2020 ballot but nobody new to use those votes on. Those jumps by Walker, Rolen, etc. were quite big jumps historically so they benefited ... but still, most voters probably only doled out 1-2 of the 3.5 votes they had free after their 2019 ballot.

In 2021, there's only about 1.77 votes from 2020 (or maybe closer to 2 once all the <5 candidates are added in) to dole out. But again no significant debuts -- Buehrle and Hunter eat up only about 0.2 votes combined and the next highest total is just 1% (4 votes for Aramis Ramirez of all people ... maybe they thought they were ticking Manny). Schilling opened his big mouth so got 0 instead of the 15% bump we might have expected. Rolen, Helton, Wagner and Andruw each picked up 0.15 votes. Everything else was pretty stagnant.

So in 2021, there were only 5.9 names per ballot. Nobody was elected, nobody was in their final year so the only votes "freed up" are the 7 votes for the <5% crowd. There are two debut candidates who will grab a noticeable chunk of votes -- most voters can easily add Ortiz and Arod without taking votes from anybody else if they want to but they might still take a vote away. Schilling has shot himself in the foot again although he probably won't drop too much; Vizquel is in for a rude drop. But with most writers having plenty of room already, there's no reason the votes that went to Schilling/Vizquel in 2021 will be given away to anybody else.

In short, this year we should mainly see noticeable drops for Schilling and especially Vizquel but there's no particular reason to vote for any backlog candidate if you weren't already voting for them. The votes with 9-10 votes last year are in a particular pickle -- if they want to add Ortiz and ARod, somebody's gotta go. (And voters with full ballots from 2021 are mainly those voting for the PED candidates or are big hall voters so they likely will want to add at least Ortiz and most ARod too.) It's kinda all "collective psychology" this year -- we can't go two years without electing somebody, but I can't add a vote for Bonds/Clemens/Schilling, I'd better toss Rolen and Helton a vote.

As to other bits: some of you have confused "this is how seriously I think HoF voters should act" and "this is how seriously I should expect HoF voters to act."

If you think both Abreu and Bonds are worthy, are confident that Bonds isn't getting in and are concerned that Abreu might drop below 5% without your vote, it's not an insane choice. And given that the rest of the ballot is one of the better ones out there so far, I think there are more deserving targets of criticism.

Any ballot that casts a vote for Sosa and not Bonds is ipso facto a bad ballot and can't be redeemed by any Game Theory for Dummies justification.

Any ballot that casts a vote for Sosa and not Bonds is ipso facto a bad ballot and can't be redeemed by any Game Theory for Dummies justification.

Not really, not talking about this particular ballot, but if the voter puts 10 names on the ballot, then by absolute definition, it cannot be a bad ballot, it could have names you might not agree with or whatever, but with a ballot limit of 10, any voter that votes 10 names, is listing at least 10 people that they think are hof worthy, it doesn't mean they are a ranking of hof worthy people to consider for the vote. There is no rule you have to vote for the best candidates, it's just that you have to vote for people you think are worthy. So if you think 16 people are worthy and you vote for 10, then it doesn't matter which ten you vote for, you are fulfilling the rules.

It's literally impossible to have a "bad ballot" if you vote the maximum number (again, not talking about this particular ballot, but just arguments in general... if a voter puts 10 names on a ballot, by definition, it cannot be a bad ballot... it can be a ballot you disagree with, but it cannot be a bad ballot)

Edit: You can argue the worth of individual players etc on the vote, but ultimately if the guy thinks Jeff Reardon is hof worthy, and consistently after the ballot votes for people better than Jeff Reardon for the hall, then there is no issue other than his ability to discern worth. Which is an entirely different discussion.

It's literally impossible to have a "bad ballot" if you vote the maximum number …

That’s a rather low standard. Voting for the 10 worst players on the ballot would be a ‘bad ballot’, not redeemed by including the maximum allowed.

On this ballot, I can see various viewpoints that would vote for
1. Bonds
2. Schilling
3. Clemens
4. Arod
5. Rolen
6. Manny
7. Andruw
8. Helton
9. Sheffield
10. Pettitte
11. Abreu
12. Buehrle
13. Sosa
14. Hudson
15. Kent
16. Ortiz (literally the 16th best candidate on the ballot)
17. Vizquel
18. Wagner
19. Nathan

and a few others. A voter who votes for ten isn't obligated to vote for the best of the best, he just needs to vote for 10 worth candidates in his mind. You can never fault a guy who maximizes his ballot.

That’s a rather low standard. Voting for the 10 worst players on the ballot would be a ‘bad ballot’, not redeemed by including the maximum allowed.

it's not a low standard, it's within the rules. The issue is with the voting rules. If you have a ballot with ten names on it, it is impossible to fault that ballot provided the voter continues to show that level of support for those "lesser" guys in subsequent ballots or previous ballots.

The hof vote really should be a yes/no/maybe type of thing. With no limits on the yes votes. Writers are given a ballot, they check, yes, no or maybe... a yes is a yes, a no is a no, a maybe counts as a yes for keeping the player on the ballot for next year, but not as a yes for induction. Until something like that happens, a voter who puts ten names on the ballot cannot be criticized for the names he puts on the ballot simply because there is no rule saying he has to vote for the ten best candidates, just those he thinks are worthy.

It is literally impossible to lose a game, so long as you play all nine innings and try your hardest.

It is literally impossible to lose a game, so long as you play all nine innings and try your hardest.

That is not really the same thing. Not even remotely.

Hof voters are asked to vote for candidates they feel are worthy, but then they are forced to have a limit, and at no point in the rules are they required to vote for the ten best candidates, therefore, by definition, if they vote for 10 people, it's impossible for them to have a bad ballot. Mind you, they can have a controversial ballot if they don't maintain consistency of standards in previous elections or future elections, but for one single election, it is literally impossible for them to have a bad ballot if they vote for ten players. You may not agree with their standards that Tim Lincecum deserved a vote, but if they voted for 10, then you can't judge them because they didn't vote for the ten best, because there is no requirement that they need to vote for the ten best.

It's literally impossible to have a "bad ballot" if you vote the maximum number

a bridge too far.

if you vote for CCrawford, PFielder, Lincecum, Morneau, Peavy, Peirzynski, Teixiera, and your other 3 are the likes of Nathan, Papelbon, and Wagner - c'mon, that's a bad ballot.


"literally" is a high bar. maybe pitching that any 10 of your top 19... at least a discussion is possible.

a bridge too far.

if you vote for ARamirez, Hawkins, Victorino, Burnett, Zito, Swisher, Haren, and Cuddyer plus 2 others - especially if it's, say, Hunter and Nathan... that's not a bad ballot?

"literally" is a high bar. maybe pitching that any 10 of your top 19... at least a discussion is possible.

There is a reason I pointed out that in previous and subsequent elections, it's arguable that it's a bad ballot, but in a one year ballot with no previous or past to compare it to, then it's just a voter with low standards... Willie McGee hits the ballot, a Cardinal writer votes for him and 9 others, guess what, it's a justified ballot even if he passes on McGriff for McGee. As far as Nathan... I actually do consider him a serious hof candidate, Papelbon probably not, but Nathan most definitely. (my standard is he above half of the players at his already shrined position type of argument, and Nathan is pretty close to that, so is Wagner and if one goes in, it expands it for the other)

It's only a bad ballot if you consider other ballots the voter made, if he honestly believes they are worthy, and consistently votes for those people, you might question his analysis, but ultimately he has shown a low standard and sticks with it.

But from a strictly neutral position, based upon a single year of data, it's impossible to have a bad ballot when you vote for ten players. By Rules, by anything, every player on the ballot has already surpassed two hurdles just to reach the ballot, 1. playing the minimum of ten years, and 2. surviving an election committee that says you are worthy of being on the ballot. Therefore, by definition, every player on the ballot is worthy of a vote in someone eyes.

Edit: and that hypothetical ballot of the worse players on it, is a better ballot than a blank ballot. If you want to protest, instead of a blank ballot, fill out a full ballot of the ten worse players on the ballot, you would be at least for one year, justified in the ballot.

my offhand prediction of a shutout
--* new guy

Curt Schilling 69
Roger Clemens 63
Barry Bonds 62
David Ortiz 56*
Scott Rolen 55
Alex Rodriguez 54*
Omar Vizquel 49
Billy Wagner 46
Todd Helton 44
Gary Sheffield 38
Andruw Jones 34
Jeff Kent 32
Manny Ramirez 27
Mark Teixeira 19*
Sammy Sosa 18
Jimmy Rollins 11*

my offhand prediction of a shutout

I think Rodriguez is too high and Rolen's too low, but a shutout seems certain.

At this point I'd be surprised if anyone is voted in. If anyone gets in it'll be Rolen, or Ortiz as I can't imagine under 25% of voters are willing to turn the other cheek on PEDs for Bonds and Clemens. Schilling should've been a lock this year but his actions this past year cost him.

Therefore, by definition, every player on the ballot is worthy of a vote in someone eyes.

Therefore, by definition, I clearly wasted my time.
#sigh
#circularreasoning

There’s actually good reasons not to vote for anyone. You have the PED guys which many cross off. Schilling and Vizquel have other issues. That leaves Ortiz which if you dont penalize him for PEDs, gets singed for DH, and that leaves Rolen and Helton who are big ball guys so if you are a small hall guy they don’t get in.

Rolen doesn't feel like a "big hall" guy to me. He's at 70 WAR, 7 ASG, 8 GG, .

Rolen doesn't feel like a "big hall" guy to me. He's at 70 WAR, 7 ASG, 8 GG, .

Yeah, but did he "feel" like a hall of famer? Zero Black Ink. Only one year with noticeable MVP support (4th). Didn't age well so he didn't reach any major milestones. Only 99 on the HOF Monitor, he didn't do a ton of things that hall of famers do.

Re 63:

Rolen being “only” 99th on the HOF monitor is a point in his favor, not against him. I don’t the number in front of me, but there are 170-180 position players in the Hall out of 269 player honorees. That suggests he’s a better player than almost half the Hall! And since many players ahead on that list are not in the Hall (active, not yet eligible, on the ballot, with the VC), it might mean he’s at or around the top half of HOFers.

Alas, DL is right. He fails the eye test….

Rolen being “only” 99th on the HOF monitor is a point in his favor, not against him. I don’t the number in front of me, but there are 170-180 position players in the Hall out of 269 player honorees. That suggests he’s a better player than almost half the Hall! And since many players ahead on that list are not in the Hall (active, not yet eligible, on the ballot, with the VC), it might mean he’s at or around the top half of HOFers.

Not 99th ordinally; he has a Monitor score of 99. which (if I'm reading it correctly) is 180th ordinally. Which would be right on the borderline. (The Monitor, it must be pointed out, was never intended to assess worthiness for the Hall, just to predict whether a player would actually get in.)

Rolen falls into the category of guys who got hurt and couldn’t realize their potential. If he doesn’t run into Choi’s elbow his career trajectory is probably a no-brainer HOF career. Alas, this is a common story. Good health is the biggest factor that helps you get into the Hall. Jim Kaat is a good example.

63. DanG Posted: December 11, 2021 at 04:01 PM (#6057019)

Rolen doesn't feel like a "big hall" guy to me. He's at 70 WAR, 7 ASG, 8 GG, .

Yeah, but did he "feel" like a hall of famer? Zero Black Ink. Only one year with noticeable MVP support (4th). Didn't age well so he didn't reach any major milestones. Only 99 on the HOF Monitor, he didn't do a ton of things that hall of famers do.

Good points. I'm agnostic on Rolen. I thought he was fantastic WHEN he played. Problem is you'd go to a ballgame with no idea if he'd be playing. Age 28 season was the last year he played close to a full season. 6 of his last 9 seasons, he was basically a part time player. Ability is great, but without durability and availability it doesn't get a chance to shine. Among his 10 most similar players, only Ron Santo has made it to HOF. He is a classic case where it seems WAR way overvalues the player. That's the only stat that screams HOF everything else says "Meh, HOVG."

I think you misunderstood me. Rolen feels like a slam dunk to me. You shouldn't have to be Mike Schmidt or Chipper Jones to get in as a third baseman. Rolen is Ron Santo caliber. I know it took them way too long to elect Santo but you would think they had learned something from that.

Rolen is a guy who will need a champion to chase down voters ala what happened with Bert Blyleven.

His core stats that voters check: 2077 hits - crossed one minimum but didn't reach the magic 3000 or even get remotely close
316 HR - again, a level that is seen as a minimum to get considered (if you are a power hitter) but not at the magic 500
1287 RBI - same thing, cracked 1000 but 1500 is seen as near automatic (I remember a LOT of writers saying that about Tony Perez as an excuse to vote for him)
Rookie of the Year - probably the weakest of the big awards to win. But a point in his favor
8 Gold Gloves - big plus that voters care about, but again, an impressive number but not a "WOW"
7 All-Star Games - see Gold Gloves but less impressive.
4 times getting MVP votes - ugh. Once 4th, others very far down ballot. George Bell was named on MVP's 6 times with a win and 3 top 4 finishes for just one example of a guy who had no HOF support.
7 years in Philly, 6 in St Louis - not long enough in either (or Cincinnati or Toronto) to build a strong fan base who would fight for him.

He is worthy, but doesn't have anything that jumps out at you to make one go 'yes, that is a HOF'er' ala Ortiz with 500+ HR. No big playoffs (1 WS title, and hit well during it but does anyone remember?). I figure he is either going to get a push thanks to a weak ballot this year or will wait for a vets committee someday.

it's impossible to have a bad ballot when you vote for ten players

Remarkably, this sounds dumber each time you repeat it.

. . I know it took them way too long to elect Santo but you would think they had learned something from that.

They are going to elect him In much less time than it took to get Santo in.

Given his traditional stats, it’s very encouraging that Rolen is doing this well. I have to think that if Whitaker or Grich or even Lofton came on the BBWAA ballot today, this is a strong indication that they would do well.

Rolen is a guy who will need a champion to chase down voters ala what happened with Bert Blyleven.

Scott Rolen has gone from 10.2% of the vote in his first year on the ballot to 52.9% of the vote in his fourth year. All he needs to do to get (eventually) elected before his 10 years are up is to not turn into a raging shitheel, or get himself arrested for a notably unseemly act.

Ballot #14, from Aurelio Moreno: Abreu, Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Rolen, Sosa & Wagner(+).

fwiw, per the 'Most Similar Age' toy on BB-Ref, Rolen is most similar to, by first year to last:

Brett Lawrie
Hank Blalock
Evan Longoria
Nolan Arenado
Arenado
Eric Chavez
David Wright
Wright
Aramis Ramirez
Ramirez
Wright
Wright
Bobby Bonilla
Ramirez
Ramirez
Luis Gonzalez
Gonzalez

all of them are over 900, and many are well over.

Scott Rolen has gone from 10.2% of the vote in his first year on the ballot to 52.9% of the vote in his fourth year. All he needs to do to get (eventually) elected before his 10 years are up is to not turn into a raging shitheel, or get himself arrested for a notably unseemly act.

I was just coming to post the same thing. Rolen will go in next year. He doesn't need anything other than to avoid Omarring himself in the next 12 months.

Given his traditional stats, it’s very encouraging that Rolen is doing this well. I have to think that if Whitaker or Grich or even Lofton came on the BBWAA ballot today, this is a strong indication that they would do well.

I don't think Lofton would have been one-and-doned had he not debuted with Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Piazza, Schilling and Sosa.

I don't think Lofton would have been one-and-doned had he not debuted with Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Piazza, Schilling and Sosa.

I do. His traditional numbers were basically those of Brett Butler, who got 0.4% of the vote on his one turn on the ballot. Now, he was a better player than Butler, mostly due to defense, but his defense wasn't so good as to make that distinction obvious to the average voter.

On the offensive side, the advanced stats have them remarkably close in total value - Lofton had 9235 PA at a 107 OPS+, and an oWAR of 58.0, while Butler had 9545 PA at a 110 OPS+, and an oWAR of 57.9.

I do. His traditional numbers were basically those of Brett Butler, who got 0.4% of the vote on his one turn on the ballot. Now, he was a better player than Butler, mostly due to defense, but his defense wasn't so good as to make that distinction obvious to the average voter.

Maybe if he arrived on the ballot at the same time as Brett Butler, but the voting body was already starting to change (as seen by Scott Rolen's impending election). I don't think he necessarily goes anywhere, and might fall off after a few years, unlike Rolen, but I really don't think he (or later on, Edmonds) is a first-ballot casualty if they weren't so loaded.

from his career start in 1996 thru 2001, Scott Rolen has an OPS of .884. And had won three gold gloves. And had ZERO all star games. Yes, Chipper Jones was the best third baseman during this period, but Rolen's D made him more valuable some years.

Looks like he was a victim of the "every team has to have at least one representative" rule. He was being beaten out by the likes of Jeff Cirillo, Phil Nevin, & Ed Sprague.

79. John DiFool2 Posted: December 12, 2021 at 07:18 AM (#6057066)
Looks like he was a victim of the "every team has to have at least one representative" rule. He was being beaten out by the likes of Jeff Cirillo, Phil Nevin, & Ed Sprague.

Yep, that rule makes AS selections as meaningless as Gold Glove awards.

Era-adjusted, Lofton and Butler’s offense is pretty similar, but Lofton was also a much better basestealer, stealing an additional 64 bases while getting caught almost 100 fewer times. He had more power, scored almost 200 more runs, and made six All Star teams - in a row! - to Butler’s one. His defense showed up in four Gold Gloves. He has nearly 200 extra base hits on Butler if I did that math correctly. On traditional merits, they really aren’t that close. Lofton did better more often in MVP voting, too, with a higher best finish. Lofton also had a reputation, fair or not, as a winner, making the playoffs at basically every stop during his stretch as a team-hopper, and of course during the 90s in Cleveland. If he debuted today, I think his comparison would be Tim Raines, not Butler, and he would do well, though perhaps still need a VC for election.

I don't think that Lofton should give up on hall membership. He's got a hook (great base-stealing! winning teams!), and he is, in fact, qualified. Many other BBTF favorites who got passed over don't have hooks (Grich, Dewey). In fact, Lofton seems like a perfect VC pick, it just might take a while.

Looks like he was a victim of the "every team has to have at least one representative" rule. He was being beaten out by the likes of Jeff Cirillo, Phil Nevin, & Ed Sprague.

Cirillo wasn't his team's only All-Star representative, and Nevin made the All-Star team in a season when he hit .306/41/126 (Rolen hit .289/25/107 that year).

Sprague, you could make a case for.

from his career start in 1996 thru 2001, Scott Rolen has an OPS of .884. And had won three gold gloves. And had ZERO all star games.

1996 - 146 PA of 91 OPS+. not relevant

1999 - missed 50 games
2000 - missed 34 games

then he made the next 5 ASGs, including in 2005 when he played in only 56 games

ASG again in 2011, when he played in only 65 games

surely you don't want anyone to let him "keep" his actual ASG selections, and then add in some more from his early career - because that would be deceiving.

1999 - missed 50 games

Only four of those missed games came in the first half of the season, so this would not have been relevant to his AS candidacy that year.

The overall point (which is that Rolen's 7 career ASG are a reasonable total for a player of his caliber) is fair.

Ballot 15 is in - Bill Ballou votes Bonds/Clemens/Ortiz/Manny/A-Rod and that's it. If nothing else, this is at least entertaining from a PED perspective.

Ortiz was a terrific post-season performer and once the Today’s Game Era Committee put in Harold Baines in 2019, the whole DH thing became a non-starter.

This is from the Jeff Blair article, and a sentiment I find very frustrating. The Today's Game Era fiasco has nothing to do with your vote! Don't use someone else's error to justify your vote. Vote for Ortiz because you think he's worthy, don't make the same mistake someone else made (not saying voting for Ortiz is a mistake, but voting for him because Baines is in IS a mistake).

If you had to choose who was more Hall-worthy, would you choose Sheffield or Ortiz. They both have similar PED baggage, and were great hit-non field guys.

This is from the Jeff Blair article, and a sentiment I find very frustrating.

A phrase which could be used to describe pretty much any HOF article written by Jeff Blair…

Ballot #16, from Karen Guregian: Bonds, Clemens, Ortiz, Ramirez, Rodrigues & Schilling. Hating on Sosa a bit, apparently.

CFB:

Hof voters are asked to vote for candidates they feel are worthy, but then they are forced to have a limit, and at no point in the rules are they required to vote for the ten best candidates, therefore, by definition, if they vote for 10 people, it's impossible for them to have a bad ballot.

Given the poor design of the HOF election process, I have some sympathy for this position. The 10-vote limit and the 5% rule sometimes make it necessary to forgo voting for the best candidates.

Having said that, most of us agree that it is possible to have a bad ballot that fills all ten slots. This is because the election system allows many non-legitimate HOF candidates onto the ballot: Ryan Howard, AJ Pierzynski, Jonathan Papelbon, Tim Lincecum, Prince Fielder, Justin Morneau, Jake Peavy, and Carl Crawford. Any ballot that includes one or more of these candidates is, by definition, a bad ballot.

It’s true that the election rules don’t require voting for the best candidates. However, I believe this is just another example of carelessness in the composing of the rules. I tend to think this was so obvious that the people writing the rules figured it goes without saying. That they didn’t need to say “vote for the best candidates”, because that’s what this is all about, electing the best players to the hall of fame.

So the HOF should make these changes to the BBWAA election process:

• Eliminate the 5% rule – create a system that considers all the candidates for inclusion on the ballot.
• Eliminate the 10-player voting limit – create a system that trusts the voters to have their say on every candidate nominated.
• Limit the ballot to 20 players – create a system that focuses only on the best candidates.

Restricting the ballot to legitimate HOF candidates creates the image and sets the tone that a genuine honor stems from. It conveys the message that great care was taken in the preparation. That our aim is to promote the best players as candidates, so as to get the best players as honorees. That there is no favoritism being given to players with insider connections. That we’re not being distracted by things unrelated to the goal of identifying and honoring the game’s greatest players. The present system falls far short of these ideals.

#86 - Throw in Sosa, Sheffield, and Pettitte and that ballot is perfect! Cuz guys who didn't use PED's weren't trying their hardest to win and thus fail the character clause. ;-)

Another issue with CFB's odd stance -- the same logic applies to every HoF ballot. If we disallow "these choices/non-choices are absurd" as an argument for a "bad" ballot when someone votes for 10, it's not a legit argument for a ballot of 4 either. The guy who voted 4 decided there were only 4 HoF-worthy guys to vote for and followed the rules just like the 10-name ballot guy and the 16-worthy, 10-name guy.

HoF-monitor, etc. ... one thing to keep in mind is that the "average HoFer" includes all those questionable VC inductees. (Although I notice that HoF Monitor doesn't report relative to average but rather that 100 makes you "likely.") For example, by HoF Standards, Baines is just below average for a HoFer (44 vs 50). FWIW, Rolen is lower than Baines.

Voting so far (only 16 so far) -- Schilling is toast, he's lost 3 of 12 voters already; Omar even more hopeless having lost 3 of 7 already. ARod is off to a terrible start with just 8 of 12 B/C voters ticking his name. Given almost nobody has ever changed their minds on B/C I don't expect ARod to fare much better. I'm not sure he'll ever top 50% at this point. (He does have 2 more votes than Manny and twice Sosa/Sheffield.) Not a great start for Rolen, converting just 2 of 9 non-voters when he needs to convert about half of them to make it this year (so it's a "good" start pointing towards eventual election but not a "great" start suggesting induction this year). And those two adds are on 10-person ballots so from voters who are pretty big hall. Still he would seem to be the obvious guy to benefit from Schilling/Vizquel drops (both adds dropped Omar, one dropped Shcilling).

Calm down, we're all aware it's just 16 self-selected voters, everything is speculation at this point.

The ARod vs B/C thing is interesting. Gives us some idea of the size of the group applying some form of "they were great for a long time before they used" or "it wasn't against the rules when they did it and they tested clean later" criteria.

The A-Rod/BBRC thing isn’t nearly as instructive as A-Rod Vs Manny. He’s only found himself on a net of two over Manny, and a pair of those voters dropped Manny to make room. There’s a very large difference between Manny and BB/RC over the last five years, including 33-34% in 2021. This is a pretty Manny-favorable slate so far, so I don’t know if it’s great news at all for A-Rod. Only one voter so far has voted A-Rod and never voted for Manny at any point in the past - Lynn Henning. Manny got just 28% last year and has barely budged over time, sitting in the 20s all five years.

ARod is off to a terrible start with just 8 of 12 B/C voters ticking his name. Given almost nobody has ever changed their minds on B/C I don't expect ARod to fare much better. I'm not sure he'll ever top 50% at this point.

It’s a bit early to write off A-Rod. Let’s see if he does better than Bonds & Clemens in his 1st year of eligibility. Bonds & Clemens debuted at only 36.2% & 37.2%, respectively, and both received fewer votes in their 2nd year. Despite the poor starts, they both received ~ 62% of the vote last year, so some voters changed their mind, and there was some turnover among the voters, too. A-Rod is at 50% with just 16 ballots tabulated, too few to be confident of much, but if he tops Bonds & Clemens first year results, he may have a better chance in the following years.

On Rolen and durability ... for ages 22-35, Rolen averaged 132 g and 555 PA per year. That's reasonably standard for a HoFer actually. (The first age is determined by their first season as a full-timer and the last age is their 14th season including that first one)

Brett 22-35: 133 g, 582 PA. The biggest chunk of missing time was the 81 strike but still, over 14 seasons, that only cost him about 3.5 games a year max. He missed significant time in 78, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87. He was much more valuable than Rolen of course.

Molitor 21-34: 121 g, 553 PA. He became amazingly durable in his late 30s (definitely not roids) but through those first 800ish PAs, it was Rolen 68 WAR vs Molitor 55 WAR, Molitor needed all those extra PAs to catch up to and eventually pass Rolen. For career WAA fans, it's 44 to 37 in Rolen's favor.

Thomas 23-36: 133 g, 588 PA. This is mostly missing nearly his entire age 33 season, half of age 36 and the 94 strike ... but even with 500 more PA than Rolen, he is 3 WAR behind.

Larkin 23-36: 126 g, 535 PA. The 94 strike again (he was healthy for all the games they did play) but even he is only even with Rolen in WAR. The career PA difference is Larkin hanging on for about 1400 more PA while Rolen hang on for fewer than 600 but they produced equal WAR give or take.

Carew 21-35: 135 g, 578 PA. He's 2 WAR ahead of Rolen with 300 exta PA.

There are of course plenty of guys who were durable in their prime (Alomar, Dawson, Raines, Vlad), some of whom also hung on more durably, but still needed the extra playing time to catch up to Rolen in WAR.

Rolen is Larkin or Walker or even Carew (very different hitter) except at 3B.

I don't understand the notion that in-season durability is a big thing. Nice to have? Maybe. But it doesn't really matter how you got to your 8000 or 9000 or 10000 PA. Maybe one guy packs his peak 8000 PA into 13 seasons where Walker or Rolen or Larkin do it over 17 seasons. So you get some small advantage over those 13 years because you don't need to cover 100 PAs of Rolen (although that's 20/20 hindsight) but then you get some PAs from Rolen in seasons 14-17. And in Rolen's particular case, he gave you 68 WAR in those same 13 seasons so (a) our mythical player has to be a 5-WAR player just to keep up and (b) why would you prefer the guy who gives you 5 WAR in 625 PA to the one who gives you 5 WAR in 550 PA? Any advantage there is minuscule.

Now, when you're comparing some guy with 10,000 PA to somebody with 8,000 PA, you have to pay attention to the durability differences. But then either you see a big difference in WAR -- and obviously you prefer the durable, elite player to the less-durable, equally elite player -- or they are similar in WAR meaning the more durable guy used the extra PT to catch up to the better peak guy or they had similar peaks and the more durable guy hung around contributing next to nothing.

Sure, you'd rather have Brett ... but you'd rather have Brett because he was a 6-WAR player in those 13 years. Maybe there's a justification to have a slight preference for Santo because of in-season durability (but slightly worse quality) but that's very thin. Now Santo is an historical BBWAA borderline for 3B but most of us considered that position to be absurd. And other reasonable comps like Larkin, Walker, Dawson, Sandberg, Alomar, Raines, Biggio took multiple ballots to get in so nobody expected Rolen to have an easy time of it. But there's no good reason not to consider that his comp group

There’s a hierarchy of HOF status isn’t there:

1. Good enough to even make the ballot. Many don’t
2. Token votes - maybe a home team writer or buddy throwing a bone
3. Handful of token votes - meaning it goes beyond bone-throwing. There’s a few people who actually think you are a hall of famer
4. Less than 5% but more than a token handful - legit candidates for a minority
5. Above 5% - hall of the very good
6. Above 75% - HOF

I find the candidacies of people like Lofton, Abreu, Kent interesting and I always am interested in guys who get more than a token vote - what does a writer see that no one else does. How will Lincecum do? Winning two Cys should buy him a few votes.

I’m fascinated to see where Adam wainwright lands in here. I suspect right now he is either a camp 3 or camp 4 guy

How will Lincecum do? Winning two Cys should buy him a few votes.

He’s already got one unofficial vote from Bruce Jenkins, who said he was voting for Lincecum. Ryan hasn’t put Jenkins ballot in the Tracker because it is still unofficial…

I’m not a fan of tools that use “average HOFer” as mentioned above. Not only because that average includes the least of the HOFers, but be cause it also includes the best. No one should be inducted simply because they were better than Lloyd Waner, everyone should be inducted if they were anywhere near as good as Babe Ruth. The middle tier is the range I look at as a yardstick.

The hof vote really should be a yes/no/maybe type of thing. With no limits on the yes votes.

I think it should be two rounds of voting. First one can be done internal, probably electronic. A straight yes/no vote, with a 5% yes minimum to make the following year's ballot. Then the top ten candidates from that vote go on the ballot to be voted on, with a minimum of one vote for a ballot to be counted. It removes fringe votes for when it counts, and gets rid of the numbers game on the actual vote.

flip