Flip

#299 - There's more PED evidence against Sheffield than there is against Clemens or Sosa.

Not that I'm opposed to Sheff getting elected; I've been voting for him on our mock ballots ever since he debuted. It would just be weird if he of all people was the one who finally broke the PED taint election barrier (Ortiz doesn't count). The case against Sheff is literally identical to the one against Bonds (BALCO).

Sheffield must be benefiting from Ortiz opening the gates to the PED-connected. That's the only explanation for his huge jump. And as I've always said, he hit on on the one PED strategy that would seem to be a hit with the writers - Blame Barry.

I've never voted for him in our mock elections. He's close enough to the borderline on the merits that his 20-year-career as a giant pain in the ass who once claimed he made errors* on purpose that I can withhold my theoretical vote.

*Yes, I know the exact details have been debunked, but a) many times the players don't get the details right, so that doesn't completely rule it out and b) just claiming it shows a level of disregard for the game such that I don't care if he ever gets in.

Sheff obviously is reaping the most benefit - since his numbers are less borderline than Pettitte's for non SABR voters, and ARod/Manny are as PED connected as you can possibly be - but as of now we're seeing moderate increases for all the PED tainted players on the ballot (worth mentioning of course that their totals always drop when the non public ballots are tabulated):

Sheffield - 41% to 68%
ARod - 34% to 47%
Manny - 29% to 45%
Pettitte - 11% to 19%

If there really are a significant number of former anti-PED voters who threw their hands up and said "Screw it!" once Ortiz got elected, that begs the question....Would Bonds and Clemens have been elected if they'd had just one more year (this year) on the writers ballot?

Beltre will get a pass

A pass for what?

On Pettitte, I may be entirely off base of course, but I feel like it's more the writer's blindness to how difficult it is in the modern (post 1990, roughly) game to throw 3,000 innings at an above average level, and to make 30+ starts and 200+ innings per season year after year at an above average level. Pettitte is a compiler akin to Sutton, but without 300 W's, "only" 256. Plus, while I'm not a huge fan of giving post season credit, Pettitte certainly has it in spades if you're willing to consider it. But instead the writers throw support to one inning closers instead. Maybe he's not quite a HOF pitcher, but if you're voting for Wagner and not Pettitte or Buehrle, I think you're wildly off base.

fwiw, Pettitte was a Hall of Merit inductee 12 months ago

after A-Rod's unanimous selection, Abreu, Sosa, and Pettitte all qualified for election to the "ok, not clearly a HOFer at all - but someone has to fill the dozens of slots open to replace the Hafey, McCarthy, Morris, Sutter etc. HOF blunders."

many players like Stieb, Saberhagen, WRandolph etc have been elected with similarly tepid support (fewer than half of the voters had Abreu Sosa or Pettitte in their own top 7 on this weak, very divided ballot).

the next 10 leading vote-getters (keep in mind that some holdovers on this year's HOF ballot already are in the HOM, so not a factor) were:

Berkman
BBell
Munson
Bando
BobBonds
DOrtiz (yes, really)
BenTaylor (NeL)
VWillis
BobJohnson (the 1940s one)
TommyJohn

other modern guys with at least a modest smattering of support included TimHudson, Appier, JasGiambi, Posada....

Wagner and Lee Smith each got a single, down-ballot vote (must list 15 players). looks like Hoffman and Sutter didn't get any.

but as of now we're seeing moderate increases for all the PED tainted players on the ballot (worth mentioning of course that their totals always drop when the non public ballots are tabulated):

But are any of those pickups from writers who didn’t vote for Bonds and Clemens? If not then there’s likely still an impenetrable wall in the mid-60s for Sheffield and lower forthose who tested positive.

Beltre will get a pass


A pass for what?

The weird thing about his head.

The HoM indeed has that glaring flaw where it MUST elect X players per year, regardless of whether any actually are worthy. I am sure the reasoning there is lost in a 15+ year old thread somewhere, but they really needed to keep the size of their Hall in the hands of the voters somehow, even if it means modifying or junking their ranked choice format.

@310 I'm ok with the current format. But I wouldn't be opposed to a runoff, where only people who cast votes then recast a vote ranking those who were in the top 10-15. I think that would lead to more clear outcomes.

#310 - Yeah, IMO the HoM had a fatal flaw right from the get-go when they decided to match the size of the current Hall. I think they figured the errors of inclusion would be cancelled out by the errors of omission, but it became clear early on - and was glaringly obvious as more time passed - that there are way more bad selections in the actual HOF than there are worthy snubs on the outside. So basically they just replaced the bad and borderline picks with new borderline picks. I guess there's no TERRIBLE selections in the HoM, so that's something, but there's still a lot of "meh" that it would probably look better without.

By far the biggest pro of the HoM system is that it elimintates the need to discuss the right size at all. Big Hall vs Small Hall is a debate about as interesting as debating your favorite color. Instead it focuses the discussion on the players, which is the reason anyone is interested in the topic anyway.

But you only talk about the players in terms of worthiness to get in. Without a barrier there's no pull talk about them.

Another blank ballot, this one by the inimitable Jean Vene. I couldn't figure out why Rolen was now showing a net 3 gain with a -1, but looking at Vene last year he voted for Rolen although this year he doesn't show a red box for the drop. He also dropped Pettitte and Wagner. Apparently he has an issue with idiotas voting for the full 10 and so his solution is to withhold votes from players he's previously voted for. That ought to show 'em! Get off of my lawn Juan!!

IMO the HoM had a fatal flaw right from the get-go when they decided to match the size of the current Hall.

I understand and appreciate the criticism.

that said, I kind of like seeing which players - given the current size of the Hall - should be in, rather than the stupid mistakes.

if I could wish for one tweak, it might be clarifying which choices received very little enthusiastic support - such as players who got elected while not appearing on at least, now let's pick out a number - 75 percent of the ballots.

:)

but I guess a list of the HOM roster pretty well reveals to a discerning eye which were the "hey, we hadda elect somebody!" players.

When you see the approach of a Juan Vene, you wonder how anyone gets over 75%

Another blank ballot, this one by the inimitable Jean Vene. I couldn't figure out why Rolen was now showing a net 3 gain with a -1, but looking at Vene last year he voted for Rolen although this year he doesn't show a red box for the drop. He also dropped Pettitte and Wagner. Apparently he has an issue with idiotas voting for the full 10 and so his solution is to withhold votes from players he's previously voted for. That ought to show 'em! Get off of my lawn Juan!!

Vene's ballot is pretty much always bad, but it's at least usually bad in an interesting way.

Another blank ballot, this one by the inimitable Jean Vene. I couldn't figure out why Rolen was now showing a net 3 gain with a -1, but looking at Vene last year he voted for Rolen although this year he doesn't show a red box for the drop. He also dropped Pettitte and Wagner. Apparently he has an issue with idiotas voting for the full 10 and so his solution is to withhold votes from players he's previously voted for. That ought to show 'em! Get off of my lawn Juan!!

Thanks alilisd! Fixed.

Thanks alilisd! Fixed.

Oh, you're very welcome! But it is I who should be thanking you and your staff. And so thank you!!

Vene's ballot is pretty much always bad, but it's at least usually bad in an interesting way.

Ha! Yes, it was somewhat interesting reading the article, as least as best as I could with my high school spanish

Great work as always Thibs.

Indeed - awesome work yet again

Anecdotally scanning the submissions it does like a sizeable minority of new votes are coming from people who did not have a full ballot last year. There's plenty of new votes coming from maxed out ballots but I'm surprised how many people have simply decided to start adding people that they didn't vote for in the past when they had room. I wonder if there is some underlying logic that possessed everyone all at once.

Cooperstown Suicide Squad, attack!

That ought to show 'em!

>gasp< >rattle<

The HoM indeed has that glaring flaw where it MUST elect X players per year, regardless of whether any actually are worthy.

I see that as more of a feature than a flaw. There are always worthy players.

The Hall of Merit is designed to induct the best x% of players. I think it is somewhere between the top 1% and 2%. Originally this was to match the size of the Hall of Fame around the year 2000 but we decided to keep inducting players at that rate even if the Hall of Fame changed rates. If someone is in the top 1.5% of their profession they are worthy to honor.

after A-Rod's unanimous selection, Abreu, Sosa, and Pettitte all qualified for election to the "ok, not clearly a HOFer at all - but someone has to fill the dozens of slots open to replace the Hafey, McCarthy, Morris, Sutter etc. HOF blunders."

I disagree with this assessment. None of Abreu, Sosa or Pettitte waited long at all to be inducted and would all be considered "frontlog" candidates. Their support was pretty strong but there were other modern players in line ahead of them (Lofton, Kent, Santana, Jeter, Andruw, Helton). The backlog candidacies are getting more fragmented which is due to a 15 player ballot and 150 years of baseball history to consider. If we only considered players in the past 30 years it would be pretty clear that we supported Abreu, Sosa and Pettitte strongly. In the last 10 elections the only players to get inducted who waited more than 10 elections are Dick Redding and Luis Tiant. You have to go back to Rick Reuschel in 2012, then John McGraw and Reggie Smith in 2009 to get to some players with tepid support.

Through exactly 100 ballots, 5 players have gained significantly more support than anyone else:

Sheffield +16
Andruw +15
Kent +15
Wagner +14
Helton +14

Kent (definitely) and Sheffield (probably) are too late for BBWAA induction, but may be better-positioned for future VC iterations. Wagner is on ballot 8, and has a respectable chance at BBWAA selection over the next couple years at this point. Helton is currently running second behind Rolen and is only on his 5th ballot; his odds are quite good IMO.

Andruw, like Rolen, is on ballot 6 and currently trails only Rolen/Helton/Wagner (with the caveat being that he typically does better on public ballots than private). Moving forward, he might have a better chance than I had previously appreciated.

It's a bonanza of votes going to guys I didn't think would ever get close. I've always felt Rolen and Helton would get in but i didn't think Wagner, Jones and Sheffield would ever get close. My guess is they are all going in now if not this year then over the next couple. I bet there are less private ballots as those guys retire and the new guys are voting for them all.

The HoM indeed has that glaring flaw where it MUST elect X players per year, regardless of whether any actually are worthy.

I see that as more of a feature than a flaw. There are always worthy players.

I agree that guaranteed inductees aren't a bad thing (see the conversation in the other thread), but switching off between 3-4 guaranteed inductees (right?) per year is too many, IMO. That's about 35 HoMers per decade. If you want to induct a set number, I think switching between 2-3 elections each season would be more reasonable. 25 HoMers/HOFers per decade seems like a fair balance (and it's pretty consistent with a 55-60 WAR cutoff).

Since the leagues became fully integrated in the 1960's (and we stopped losing peak seasons to war service), here's the number of 55 WAR players by debut decade:

1960's - 29
1970's - 24
1980's - 29
1990's - 27
2000's - 15

25 inductees per decade seems about right. It's also been pointed out before that the 2000's were a historically weak era for HOF/HoM caliber careers. You're going to have to start hitting your backlog pretty hard (and it's already pretty well picked through, IMO) if you want to elect 35 HoMers from that group.

Just my 2 cents (which is probably only worth 1 cent, but still ;-)

Through exactly 100 ballots, 5 players have gained significantly more support than anyone else:

Sheffield +16
Andruw +15
Kent +15
Wagner +14
Helton +14

It's a bonanza of votes going to guys I didn't think would ever get close. I've always felt Rolen and Helton would get in but i didn't think Wagner, Jones and Sheffield would ever get close. My guess is they are all going in now if not this year then over the next couple. I bet there are less private ballots as those guys retire and the new guys are voting for them all.

Yeah, there's been some big surprises for sure. We've talked before about Rolen's climb (debuted at 10.2%) being unprecedented, but we're now seeing similarly improbable climbs by Helton (16.5% debut), Wagner (10.5%), and Andruw (7.3%!).

That said, even with 9 players on this ballot currently pulling in over 40% of the vote, it still looks like only 4-5 of them will get elected by the writers (and all likely in the next couple of elections), so we're still going to see some lean elections in the coming years. Kent is timing out this year, so he's gone. Sheffield has 1 more year left after his impressive jump, but he's still a PED guy and thus likely has a hard ceiling of support that's somewhere less than 75%. ARod and Manny and bursting at the seams with PED taint, so they're not going anywhere. And it remains to be seen whether Beltran's impressive debut is just a normal trajectory for a non 1st ballot HOF type, or if the "No cheaters, ever!" voters keep his ceiling at less than 75% as well.

So that leaves Rolen and Helton likely getting in this year, and Wagner and Andruw joining Beltre next season. Then who? Basically newcomers and maaaaybe Beltran, unless Abreu, Buehrle, Rollins, or KRod become the next Rolen/Helton/Wagner/Andruw and make historic climbs.

2023 - Rolen and Helton likely elected
2024 - Beltre 1st ballot lock, Wagner and Jones likely elected, Mauer and Utley debut
2025 - Ichiro 1st ballot lock, Sabathia debuts
2026 - no worthy newcomers
2027 - Buster Posey debuts
2028 - Pujols 1st ballot lock, Molina debuts (and Cano, but...yeah)

Looking a bit thin for a few years after the 2024 election, no? Utley probably hangs around on the ballot for the duration but I don't see him getting elected. I think Mauer, Sabathia, Posey, and Molina get elected, but may take a few years.

I guess I would have thought Sabathia a lock. Maybe not

I bet Sabbathia gets in pretty easily, if not first ballot. He had personality and overcame alcoholism, in addition to a worthy career.

I think Sabathia is a lock to get in fairly quickly, just maybe not 1st ballot. I'd guess he gets in sometime between ballots 1-3. The 3 catchers I'd peg at ballots 1-5. It's a bit harder to get a read on them, but I'm confident they'll all get elected.

I guess Ryan Braun gets the less than 5% treatment? Weird how he and yelich both kinda collapsed after a great start

I agree that guaranteed inductees aren't a bad thing (see the conversation in the other thread), but switching off between 3-4 guaranteed inductees (right?) per year is too many, IMO. That's about 35 HoMers per decade. If you want to induct a set number, I think switching between 2-3 elections each season would be more reasonable. 25 HoMers/HOFers per decade seems like a fair balance (and it's pretty consistent with a 55-60 WAR cutoff).

I agree with you, there are currently too many weak candidates being elected because of the fixed inductee number. I've never been a HOM voter, mainly because I could never define a rating system that wasn't basically a WAR compendium, so my opinion isn't worth anything. I've lurked the threads almost from the start however, so I am very familiar with the historic arguments.

If I ever do vote, one thing I will include is a line about where my personnel HOF in/out line resides within the 15 (soon 20?) ballot spots. Based on the voting thread, in the current election, that line falls between ballot spot one (assumed to be Beltran) and ballot spot two.

The Hall of Merit is designed to induct the best x% of players. I think it is somewhere between the top 1% and 2%. Originally this was to match the size of the Hall of Fame around the year 2000 but we decided to keep inducting players at that rate even if the Hall of Fame changed rates. If someone is in the top 1.5% of their profession they are worthy to honor.

The problem with deciding apriori that 1.5% of the players should be honored is that the value/talent spread between player ranked from maybe 1%-3% is negligible. You are trying to define how many angles can dance on the head of a pin so each individual voter is throwing a dart and voting for whatever name it lands on. It is easy to see why there is so little consensus after the first couple of names on each ballot. Again, my opinion doesn't matter, but I would like to see the number of people elected be determine on how many deserve to be elected (maybe based on a percentage of the possible score), instead of electing random people because of a preselected number.

Based on the voting thread, in the current election, that line falls between ballot spot one (assumed to be Beltran) and ballot spot two.

That's impossible in an elect-3 situation. We took size as a given and picked better players. If you want to make your own Hall of Fame with a different size, go ahead. Many people have done it.

I think the Hall of Merit is still quite valuable as a compare / contrast with the Hall of Fame. I look at the players inducted by both institutions lately and the Hall of Merit is clearly electing stronger candidates than the Hall of Fame. I'd rather induct Kenny Lofton, Bobby Abreu and Johan Santana than Harold Baines, Jack Morris and Trevor Hoffman. We didn't elect Jim Rice, Fred McGriff, Bruce Sutter, Gil Hodges, Jim Kaat, Tony Oliva or Lee Smith and we aren't even close to electing any of them. Hell, the only player we both agree since 2020 is Minnie Minoso and we inducted him in 1987. David Ortiz has tepid support - is that the mistake you're concerned the Hall of Merit might make? You're worried we might induct weak candidates like David Ortiz?

The problem with deciding apriori that 1.5% of the players should be honored is that the value/talent spread between player ranked from maybe 1%-3% is negligible. You are trying to define how many angles can dance on the head of a pin so each individual voter is throwing a dart and voting for whatever name it lands on. It is easy to see why there is so little consensus after the first couple of names on each ballot. Again, my opinion doesn't matter, but I would like to see the number of people elected be determine on how many deserve to be elected (maybe based on a percentage of the possible score), instead of electing random people because of a preselected number.

If you have a definition of 'deserve to be elected' that doesn't end up with a murky borderline, more power to you. But that doesn't exist unless your Hall just Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds. The value/talent spread will always be negligible, no matter where you draw the line.

The Hall of Merit does expand downwards, albeit very slowly. This is a good thing. The alternative is slowly raising the bar, which means you eventually end up like the BBWAA, rejecting Jim Edmonds when he was better than half the players in the institution.

@330
I wish I had your optimism about this year and future years. With Rolen's lower conversion rate this year and it may just be a small sample size, I'm thinking he ends up around 72-73% this year and gets in next year. Helton's not jumping from like 52% to in. Not this year. It's not his last year and I don't get the impression that the support behind him is as strong as say Walker's. He's fine and deserves to be in, but say even take away his fielding advantages (all the credit to him) and he becomes very very borderline for SABR inspired writers. He has great conversion rate this year but think he maybe ends up at 63-65%. 2024 or 2025 is when he gets in.
2024 - Yeah Beltre should get in with 95%+ of the vote, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a bit lower in the 90's though. Wagner's got a shot but think he gets in on the 10 ballot push in 2025. He should be in the low 60's this year and set up nicely for election. I think he follows Rolen's path a year behind him. Low 60%, then low 70"s to an ultimate inclusion around 77-80% in 2025. Andruw will continue to climb, would love to see a 50%+ showing in 2023 as that will set him up nicely for the next 4 years. Sheffield's cooked by the way, he could get 50% by 2024, but he's not getting in until Bonds and Clemens are. Manny and A-Rod are deserving but in a different category. There are a lot of bright line voters that will vote Sheffield (and voted Bonds and Clemens) but won't vote A-Rod and Manny. Maybe Beltran gets in year 2, I haven't seen a lot of discourse (if any) about why Beltran's not being voted for. It remains to be see how the 2017 Astros incident affects this. We will know more in a year as to weather he will be inducted via the writers or will have a real battle for eventual election.
Mauer could be first ballot guy, could also see him taking 2-3 tries.
Utley comes on in 2024 - The ballot is much more clear than it was 5-7 years ago, he should debut in the 20-30% range and climb from there.
2025 - Ichiro is a lock, Sabathia, like his contemporary Halladay, has just enough peak, career, playoff success and narrative to be a first ballot guy. He won't be 90%+ but he's got all the earmarkings to be a quick entry. Helton gets in if he hasn't already. Wagner also gets in if he hasn't already. Honestly one probably goes in each of 2024 and 2025.
2026 - With few new viable candidates, Jones and Sabathia and Mauer if he didn't go first ballot look inviting. Utley's a mainstay probably around 40% by now. If Abreu or any others (Rollins, K-Rod, Buehrle etc.)
2027 - Posey doesn't have the longevity, but dammit, I'd be tempted to vote for him. I could see him going in right away, and could see it taking a few years. He short statistically but has accolades and narrative that make up the gap.
2028 - Pujols is inner circle, Yadi will get in eventually, just look at Omar Vizquel's path before the off the field stuff came into play. Yadi is a considerably superior candidate to Vizquel. He might not be year 1, but I have few doubts that he will get in eventually. Cano has PED issues

Veterans and Beyond- Kent seems like a VC choice as does Schilling (eventually) Wagner will be in if he doesn't make it through the writers.
2030ish - Verlander, Kershaw, Greinke, Scherzer, Cabrera, Votto, Longoria? (He will be interesting)
2035ish - Trout, Harper, Betts, Judge?, Machado, Altuve, Arenado (likely), J. Ramirez?, C. Correa (might be a bit later), Lindor?
Somewhere in Between - Goldschmidt?, Freeman? deGrom? Stanton & Sale? (less likely every year)
Beyond - Vlad Jr., Soto, Acuna Jr., Tatis Jr. et al, (J-Rodriguez, Franco and Manoah and Alcantara?)

I'm sure I'm missing a few, but looks evenly distributed outside of a bumper crop of starters around 2030.

That's impossible in an elect-3 situation. We took size as a given and picked better players. If you want to make your own Hall of Fame with a different size, go ahead. Many people have done it.

I understand the way the HOM works since I've lurked since about the 1899/1900 election. My only point was that if the current ballot was a straight HOF ballot, I would only vote for one person on it. I don't think that I am a particularly small hall person either since in the latest mock HOF ballot, I voted for 7 people.

I'd rather induct Kenny Lofton, Bobby Abreu and Johan Santana than Harold Baines, Jack Morris and Trevor Hoffman.

FTR, I am a Guardians fan and loved Kenny Lofton, but I think that he is on the wrong side of the borderline (while still being the best of the three players you mentioned). However, the first three players are better than some of the bad mistakes in the real HOF. The original comment that I agreed with was that the HOM is past replacing the mistakes at this point and is now electing more players than the HOF. By definition, any backlog candidate at this point is below past standards (or they would have been elected 25/50/100 years ago), so what is point of electing more than necessary to match the real HOF?

David Ortiz has tepid support - is that the mistake you're concerned the Hall of Merit might make? You're worried we might induct weak candidates like David Ortiz

I didn't vote for David Ortiz in the mock HOF ballot last year, but it isn't obvious that he is a worse choice than Thurman Munson, Dustin Pedroia, or Wally Schang (the players in position 3 [I think this is an elect 3 year] of the first three mock ballots in the discussion thread)

If you have a definition of 'deserve to be elected' that doesn't end up with a murky borderline

As a non-voter, I don't have a say. If you asked me though, I would set a minimum point limit that the player has to exceed. Something like his point total has to be higher than 50% of the 5th place votes. So if there were 20 voters and a fifth place vote is worth 15 points, a player needs to have at least 150 points to be elected. I would make an exception that if no players got 150 points, the person with the most points gets elected.

I understand the counter argument that with so many eligible players, there will be no consensus and thus a minimal number of players will be elected. My feeling is that if there isn't a base level of consensus, that is saying that the player might not deserve to be honored.

The value/talent spread will always be negligible, no matter where you draw the line.

So you are electing just random guys because you need to elect someone. If there is no difference between a bunch of players, are you sure you elected the right players? Elect them all or none of them since you admit they are essentially the same player in value/talent.

I find the ballots funny sometimes - Jeff Kent gained 16 new votes this year but lost 1 in his final season on the ballot (did he kick Randy Miller's dog or something? He has just 5 guys on his ballot, Jones, Helton, Rolen, Rollins, and Wagner so he clearly had space). Regardless of if a guy deserves to get in I find it odd when someone drops them year to year, especially on the final year when guys often get a 'might as well vote for him now, I'll never have another chance' bump. All gains, no losses for Abreu, Buehrle, Helton (glad to see him jump), Jones, Rollins (3), while others lost 1 but gained a fair # like Pettitte (+8-1), Rolen (+5-1), Sheffield (+18-1). ManRam & Visquel are funny with their +4-4 (win some, lose some) votes, but no net negatives thus far this year. A-Rod a net +2, so the PED gang isn't doing well outside of Sheffield overall. Weird given the hate he always saw from writers over the years (never seen as a real leader, often seen as an example of a guy who wasted his talents - but 4 of 5 new voters picked him so his odds going forward have to be seen as growing).

Wonder if writers now know they are the only ones who will put in PED guys as the Vets made it clear they won't anytime soon (even if they love PED enabling managers like LaRussa).

I wish I had your optimism about this year and future years.

Hey, I wish I had your optimism about Utley! ;-) I'm not nearly as confident that he's the type who's going to make a steady climb.

2030ish - Verlander, Kershaw, Greinke, Scherzer, Cabrera, Votto, Longoria? (He will be interesting)
2035ish - Trout, Harper, Betts, Judge?, Machado, Altuve, Arenado (likely), J. Ramirez?, C. Correa (might be a bit later), Lindor?
Somewhere in Between - Goldschmidt?, Freeman? deGrom? Stanton & Sale? (less likely every year)
Beyond - Vlad Jr., Soto, Acuna Jr., Tatis Jr. et al, (J-Rodriguez, Franco and Manoah and Alcantara?)

I'm sure I'm missing a few, but looks evenly distributed outside of a bumper crop of starters around 2030.

It's the middle part that I'm worried about, and why I don't entirely agree with your "evenly distributed" description in the last quoted line. Amongst potential HOF candidates active in 2022, there's good crops in their early and late 30's but noticeably less in between. There's going to be some thin ballots in there. For example...

Active potential HOF candidates in 2022, by age as of 1/1/23 (30+ only):

42 - Pujols
41 -
40 - Cano (DOA), Molina
39 - Verlander, Greinke, Cabrera, Votto
38 - Scherzer
37 - Longoria
36 -
35 - Goldschmidt
34 - Kershaw, deGrom
33 - Freeman, Sale, Stanton
32 - Altuve, Cole, Perez (dark horse candidate)
31 - Trout, Arenado
30 - Betts, Machado, Harper, Ramirez, Judge, Bogaerts

How many players age 33-37 look likely to get in? I don't see Longoria doing it; after a great start, he's had a pretty non-descript career for a 58 WAR guy (which is only borderline to begin with). Kershaw will, but he's hinted he may retire early, so he won't still be around to fill in the gap when the rest of these guys are trying to will themselves over the line. Even if the voters have to lower their standards for starters, Sale and deGrom will need to stay healthy (which they haven't proved capable of) until they're around 40 to put up HOF numbers. Stanton MIGHT do it cuz he could reach 500 homers, but he'll need to do better than last year if he's going to actually deserve it. That leaves Freeman and Goldschmidt with a good chance amongst that group (plus the aforementioned Kershaw).

Most likely they'll just draw a few closers names out of a hat to fill in the lean years (Jansen is 35 and Kimbrel is 34).

I think freeman, Arenado and Goldy have had their tickets punched. Goldy especially after the MVP win. Arenado and freeman simply need decent years to get there and both are performing at MVP levels

The herd of starting pitchers is thinning quickly. The fate of Buerhle will help determine where they land. Colon and sabathia will be up soon. Lester who has a great narrative. Wainwright will crack 200 wins this year which at least gets him a look. Verlander, Scherzer, kershaw and Greinke have already picked their ticket. Guys like Cole, Degrom and Sale are interesting - if not them from their era, who?

I'm surprised Pettite isn't starting to surge - he has a very similar case as Sheffield

With Rolen's lower conversion rate this year and it may just be a small sample size, I'm thinking he ends up around 72-73% this year and gets in next year. Helton's not jumping from like 52% to in. Not this year. It's not his last year and I don't get the impression that the support behind him is as strong as say Walker's. He's fine and deserves to be in, but say even take away his fielding advantages (all the credit to him) and he becomes very very borderline for SABR inspired writers. He has great conversion rate this year but think he maybe ends up at 63-65%. 2024 or 2025 is when he gets in.
2024 - Yeah Beltre should get in with 95%+ of the vote, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a bit lower in the 90's though. Wagner's got a shot but think he gets in on the 10 ballot push in 2025. He should be in the low 60's this year and set up nicely for election. I think he follows Rolen's path a year behind him. Low 60%, then low 70"s to an ultimate inclusion around 77-80% in

Here's the "scary" thing. Rolen lost about 8% from pre to actual results. He does really poorly on private ballots, -35.8%, versus public last year, so as he's doing so poorly on picking up votes this far he may end up around 72 or 73%, while Wagner essentially loses nothing on private ballots. Wagner will likely be right behind Rolen on returning players next year. I don't see Rolen making it across the line this year sadly, while Wagner may pass Helton. Your take that Wagner should end up in the low 60's seems overly optimistic given that he's at 70 now and shouldn't drop anything significant on private ballots.

I think freeman, Arenado and Goldy have had their tickets punched. Goldy especially after the MVP win. Arenado and freeman simply need decent years to get there and both are performing at MVP levels

Yes, but needing to continue to perform well into your mid 30's is different than having your ticket punched. I do think Goldschmidt is solid, but Freeman needs some big years still. He doesn't have the peak although the narrative of his time helping the Braves win the WS and likely having a part in some big moments with the dodgers should help with the writers. But on a pure performance basis, to me, he needs a couple more seasons like last year to really be solid. To be fair he's definitely looking like that will be the case as his first five years were nowhere near as high a level as his last five years. Arenado has the peak, but he only has 5800 PA's and he, presumably, will have the anti Coors sentiment going against him without more accomplishments in St. Louis. Again, he looks like this won't be a problem for him, but he needs some more solid years before his ticket is truly punched. A big of a quibble, I suppose.

I understand the counter argument that with so many eligible players, there will be no consensus and thus a minimal number of players will be elected. My feeling is that if there isn't a base level of consensus, that is saying that the player might not deserve to be honored.

I don't know how a 'base level of consensus' could ever exist at the borderline, regardless how many players you are inducting. If you made a Hall of Supermerit with only 50 players, sure we'd elect Willie Mays and Randy Johnson without much trouble, but once you get out of maybe the top 30 guys, you'd be in the same spot - 70 plausible candidates for 20 spots. No matter how you design it you will have edge cases. There will always be a 'worst Hall of Meriter'

So you are electing just random guys because you need to elect someone. If there is no difference between a bunch of players, are you sure you elected the right players? Elect them all or none of them since you admit they are essentially the same player in value/talent.

What are you even talking about? We are elected the players deemed to be the best of the remainder, we aren't just picking names out of a hat. Will some of those age poorly? Perhaps. But we aren't diving down and inducting Harold Baines at random - we are electing the best choices remaining.

Andruw, like Rolen, is on ballot 6 and currently trails only Rolen/Helton/Wagner (with the caveat being that he typically does better on public ballots than private). Moving forward, he might have a better chance than I had previously appreciated.

Andruw is the biggest surprise for me. He doesn't have a subtle case - great defense, very good power - unlike someone like Abreu, who might sneak up on some voters as to how good they were.

He's in year 6 and looks to make a big jump from his 45% last year. Which could put him in around his year 8 or 9.

How many players age 33-37 look likely to get in?

Not many at all look likely to me. Goldschmidt and Kershaw, but no one else. At 33 Stanton and Sale both look like busts, unfortunately, due to injury. Both clearly HOF level talents, but couldn't maintain it for long enough. Freeman has a good shot as he seems to be healthy enough to maintain a level of performance to get the career numbers up still, but as I said to Duke, he is not a lock yet. Longoria has an Utley like case with peak driven by WAR/defense, but he now has five straight seasons of sub par performance. That is the wrong way to go out as it allows the peak to slip from the minds of the voters. He's a bit Andruw Jones like in that respect, though not as extreme. He didn't fall off a cliff, but he dropped significantly and has never rebounded. Plus, he never had the reputation Jones did, few have.

I guess I should just say, I agree with your three. :-)

Freeman needs some big years still.

Agreed.

Arenado has the peak, but he only has 5800 PA's . . . but he needs some more solid years before his ticket is truly punched. A big of a quibble, I suppose.

I think the 10 Gold Gloves give him a hook that others don't have. Having a few gold gloves in general can burnish a good reputation; once you get to double digits for the non bat-heavy positions (First Base, Left Field) it puts you in rarefied air. The only one it really hasn't helped is Vizquel, and if he hadn't turned out to be a douche, he had a very good shot on that credential alone. Arenado of course carries a lot more bat than Omar, even taking Coors into account.

At 33 Stanton and Sale both look like busts, unfortunately, due to injury.

It’s a little early to write off Stanton, IMHO. He’s only 122 HRs from 500 with 5 remaining guaranteed years on his contract. Using him exclusively at DH may reduce the likelihood of injury, too. I’d give him a couple more years to get back on the HoF path. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a pitcher who has overcome Sale’s extensive injuries to return to HoF form, so it may be safer ground to rule him out.

42 - Pujols
41 -
40 - Cano (DOA), Molina
39 - Verlander, Greinke, Cabrera, Votto
38 - Scherzer
37 - Longoria
36 - DONALDSON, ABREU
35 - Goldschmidt
34 - Kershaw, deGrom
33 - Freeman, Sale, Stanton, MARTE
32 - Altuve, Cole, Perez (dark horse candidate), RIZZO, BUMGARNER
31 - Trout, Arenado, REALMUTO
30 - Betts, Machado, Harper, Ramirez, Judge, Bogaerts, BRYANT,

I threw in a few more names that will be interesting if they can age well.

Abreu is interesting. Counting Cuban league he has 420 HR and 2300 hits. He also has an astoundingly high HBP counting stat. I'm guessing if he continued to put up big numbers for 3-5 more years he'd get a lot of consideration but he needs to get his MLB stats up to spitting distance.

Bumgarner - I want it to be so but I don't see it. Same with Bryant

Realmuto - I'm thinking he has an excellent chance if he can stick with it a few more years

Rizzo/Josh D? Hmmm

He also has an astoundingly high HBP counting stat.

Yet he's only third among DL's ALL-CAPS additions.

#350 - Yeah, Realmuto should've been on that list for sure. I didn't think he was 30 yet so I didn't bother looking him up.

None of the others are on my HOF radar anymore. I'm pretty confident in predicting they won't get in.

McCutchen is probably worth a mention - not going to make it, but I could see him sucking up 20% of voters a la Dale Murphy.

I didn't realize it, but Rizzo could make a run at the HBP career record. He trails Hughie by 86, but he's not slowing down at all (23 the last two seasons). It would be funny if he came up one short, given he had one taken away in 2022 (justifiably, IMO. It looked like he stuck his knee forward to get clipped by a big sweeping breaking ball from a lefty).

Freeman is steady Eddie. He reminds me of Murray. He'll easily put up another 10-15 WAR, maybe more like 25. If gets to 60 WAR, he's in. If he gets to 70, slam dunk.

If he got hit by a truck today, I think he'd still do pretty well.

McCutchen is probably worth a mention - not going to make it, but I could see him sucking up 20% of voters a la Dale Murphy.

Cutch and Dale Murphy are very similar players.

Yeah, Freeman and Goldschmidt both remind me of Murray (and of each other). Goldschmidt's peak seasons are better (although it's worth mentioning that Freeman's best year was COVID shortened), but Freddie debuted a year earlier despite being 2 years younger, so he'll likely end up with better counting stats. Neither will reach 500 homers like Steady Eddie, but both should top 400 (with a .290-ish BA), and Freeman is one of the few active players with any shot at 3000 hits. Both won MVP's and had several other top 10 finishes. Barring a cliff dive, I think they're both solid bets for future election.

A pretty deep dive by Ryan Fagan on his ballot. His discussion of Andruw Jones shows why he won't get in. Such an intriguing case

Bumgarner got to MLB early, pitched durably for years, and has the iconic World Series, but unfortunately looks like he's toast going into his age-33 season. Maybe he can re-invent himself as a Moyer-ish compiler, but it's not looking good.

I also didn't see Nelson Cruz mentioned. He's got big power numbers, but was mostly a DH and has a PEDs suspension. Even if he can rebound and crawl closer to 500 HR, he's still a longshot.

A pretty deep dive by Ryan Fagan on his ballot. His discussion of Andruw Jones shows why he won't get in. Such an intriguing case

Curious as to this conclusion.

Jones has already netted himself +20 among returning voters and is 5-for-5 among first time voters. He's going to make another huge jump this year, and with four years to go after this, I think he's a really good bet to get in.

I think the 10 Gold Gloves give him a hook that others don't have.

very good point! Might not make him hit by a bus lock, but pretty darn close.

It’s a little early to write off Stanton, IMHO. He’s only 122 HRs from 500 with 5 remaining guaranteed years on his contract. Using him exclusively at DH may reduce the likelihood of injury, too. I’d give him a couple more years to get back on the HoF path.

A guy with his injury history is unlikely to get back on a HOF path at 33+. Look at his past five seasons, only two healthy, overall 129 OPS+, well off the 151 in the five prior years. Those were 28 to 32 YOA, should still be some peak in there and still prime for sure, but instead you're seeing decline and injuries. Yes, he still hits HR, but his overall offense is declining and he struggles to stay on the field. I could see him as a DH with diminishing performance as he plays out the string, 500+ HR, but 50-ish career WAR. Not a very compelling case.

500+ HR, but 50-ish career WAR.

That's kind of what I see. I like his chances of reaching 500, but I'm skeptical he'll really have enough beside that to warrant election.

I threw in a few more names that will be interesting if they can age well.

Well, if you're 36, you're already aged. Donaldson and Abreu: A list of MLB HOF from the modern era who are HOF with fewer than 1000 PA's through age 27: Campenella, special case, Bill Terry, Earl Averill, Sam Rice, and Edgar Martinez.
Marte, no peak, never going to have a peak.
Rizzo, great guy, maybe if they start voting like Pos posits.
Bumgarner, HOF snot rocket guy.
Realmuto, late start and covid really hurt him, but yeah if he ages well, and some WS success for the Phillies while he's there could also help.
Bryant, man I feel bad for him. That HBP to the face was brutal and took a lot out of him, IMO. Then the way his teams have moved him around the field has to be tough. It's hard enough to be an MLB player, hit consistently and play good D when you're only at one spot, but he's moving between 3B and corner OF a lot through most of his career. Definitely will be rooting for him!

#364/365, re: Stanton -

Agreed. That's why I mentioned in #341 that he'll need to improve his overall performance if he was actually going to warrant induction, 500 homers or not. He's still got great power - 31 homers in 110 games last season - but that .211 avg, .297 OBP, and 0.7 WAR isn't going to move the needle for the SABR savvy voters. Finishing with 500 homers, a 130-ish OPS+ and 50-ish WAR puts him about on par with McGriff, who had to wait for the VC.

That said, maybe the MVP, another runner up (Crime Dog's highest finish was 4th), 3 slugging titles, and a 59 homer season (McGriff's high was 37) will differentiate them in the minds of the voters?

(Even better though would be if Stanton stayed healthy and actually put up a few more good seasons)

362. I just think this argument is what's holding him back and to get in you need 75%. I suspect there are a lot of people who simply think his late career production doesn't warrant the honor. It's really terrible

Finishing with 500 homers, a 130-ish OPS+ and 50-ish WAR puts him about on par with McGriff, who had to wait for the VC. That said, maybe the MVP, another runner up (Crime Dog's highest finish was 4th), 3 slugging titles, and a 59 homer season (McGriff's high was 37) will differentiate them in the minds of the voters?

It may depend on the HR environment for the remainder of Stanton’s career & his time on the ballot. 500 HRs may look like more of an achievement than when McGriff was on the ballot and compared unfavorably by some to PED-era sluggers. Let’s see how Stanton does chasing 500.

Rolen finally picks up a few conversions - up to +7 now. Still not on pace (7/29 converted so far, needs to flip about 1/3), but it looks better than it did yesterday.

Freeman is steady Eddie. He reminds me of Murray. He'll easily put up another 10-15 WAR, maybe more like 25.

Plenty of consistent players suddenly stop being consistent in their early 30s. Freeman's most-similar hitters through 32 (yeah, similarity score has issues, I know) includes several HoFers (including Murray), but also guys like Shawn Green and Greg Luzinski, who were very productive at Freeman's age and then done within 2 years.

Freeman is under contract for 5 more years, so it's unlikely he disappears into the void. If he does turn bad soon, I assume it would look more like the last 5 years of Joey Votto, which is still another 7-8 WAR and 600 hits puts him in pretty good territory.

Freeman is under contract for 5 more years, so it's unlikely he disappears into the void. If he does turn bad soon, I assume it would look more like the last 5 years of Joey Votto, which is still another 7-8 WAR and 600 hits puts him in pretty good territory.

I think Freeman probably gets in; I'm just disagreeing with the level of certainty expressed in the original post. Prince Fielder was under a long-term deal too.

I think it's safe to say that Freeman is in a bit better shape than Fielder was though. I'd suspect he'll age better.

I get harangued on here every time I mention it, but we still have not seen the writers decline to elect someone with 500 HR without a steroid taint. Would they make Stanton the first? Maybe, but I think he’d be looked at more favorably than say Konerko or Kingman had they gotten there. He’s a star in the way that sort of pretender wouldn’t have been. He passes the “feels like a hall of famer” test, IMHO. I think Stanton with an untainted 500 post-sillyball has a decent chance.

I think it's safe to say that Freeman is in a bit better shape than Fielder was though. I'd suspect he'll age better.

David Wright, then.

(Seriously, I'm not disagreeing with anyone who thinks Freeman is quite likely to get in. There's just some space between "quite likely" and "easily has 10-15 WAR left, likely 25." That's literally all I'm saying, and I'm going to leave it at that.)

Maybe, but I think he’d be looked at more favorably than say Konerko or Kingman had they gotten there.

He's unquestionably a better candidate. Neither Kingman nor Konerko would have sniffed the Hall with 500 homers. Stanton will have a chance, and if he failed with the writers then most certainly with a VC. But since I don't believe in magic numbers, I think if Stanton gets to 500 HRs with more seasons like 2022 he's no lock.

#375 - That's why I'm kind of straddling the fence about Stanton in my posts. He needs to do more than just hit empty homers like he did last year to actually WARRANT election - he's 10 WAR behind Ortiz for the lowest of the 500 HR guys - but yeah, he's already had a much more valuable career than the Kingman, Konerko, Dunn group who looked like potential 500 homer guys.

Eventually someone will reach 500 with no steroid taint and fail to get elected, but I'm hesitant to predict that an MVP winner who definitely felt like a major star at his peak will be the one.

350 - Those are some good additions to Booey's list in 341, however only the young guys (aged 30-32) are on trajectory or were on trajectory and need to turn back the clock (except for Realmuto, he needs some more 2022's). The other guys are cooked, will run out of time, started too late etc.

375 - I agree on Stanton, but if he limps to 500 homers and barely passes that and retires, it will put this theory to the test. If he can put put up some solid (and healthy) 2018 or 2021 type seasons that will help his case. I guess if he's a 500HR+ and 55WAR guy he'll get in. If it's much less than that, he's the guy who coulda/woulda/shoulda been a 600homer guy but kept getting hurt and he doesn't offer enough (positionally or defensively - although he was quite good for a few years) to offset his one-dimensional-ness at the plate.

One other thing with the younger guys - more of them will be missing a prime season in 2020 - consideration needs to be paid for notionally adjusting them to their near contemporaries in terms of career stats and things WAR (i.e. at the end of their careers how does one rank Freeman and Votto, knowing Votto missed out on 2/3 of a season at the end of his career, while Freeman won the MVP and was in his prime. I imagine most will adjust for that, but anyone looking for specific career milestones (2000 hits, 55WAR, whatever, 2020 will need to be adjusted in some form. Full proration probably doesn't work due to short schedule and such, but Freeman's MVP year say turns into a 6 or 7WAR season instead of something higher because it was the pace he was on. I don't think it will make that much of a difference with most, but may affect a couple borderliners where this will be important.

Neither Kingman nor Konerko would have sniffed the Hall with 500 homers. Stanton will have a chance, and if he failed with the writers then most certainly with a VC. But since I don't believe in magic numbers, I think if Stanton gets to 500 HRs with more seasons like 2022 he's no lock.

Interesting side note about Stanton - he might have the worst health record of any (potentially) serious Hall of Fame candidate in a very long time. He has only 5 seasons of at least 130 games played through age 32, and has only had them back-to-back once. (2020 doesn't help him; he missed 37 of 60 games that year). Comparing him to some of the more notoriously fragile candidates in recent years, Barry Larking was also at 5, but adds 110/115 games played in '94. Paul Molitor was at 6 (and in the early stages of his healthier second decade). Larry Walker had 7 (plus 103/114 in '94); Scott Rolen and George Brett also had 7.

Not saying this necessarily determines his result, I just hadn't realized he was quite THIS injury-prone.

Stanton just needs to do what Ortiz did - put up a 144 OPS+ from 33 on and accumulate another 26 WAR. Clearly the path to success lies with stopping his bullshit diet regimen and getting fat (for an extremely high level athlete).

Helton, Vizquel, Sheffield, A-Rod, and Manny

That's an odd ballot

tee hee.. it's every player with >2500 hits except he left off the first-year guy (Beltran). Maybe he penalizes 250 hits for ballot 'rookies' :)

I imagine most will adjust for that, but anyone looking for specific career milestones (2000 hits, 55WAR, whatever, 2020 will need to be adjusted in some form.

It doesn't seem as if the writers actually do this though. Although I suppose they generally don't have to. Work stoppage in 1981 was costly, but only one season so unlikely to derail anyone's HOF candidacy, similar situation to 2020. 1994-95 were significant, but even though it lapped into a second season, 1995 was still 144 games. Raines might have been hurt by the strikes as he lost a significant portion of a HUGE year in 1981, and lost playing time in both 94-95. Probably wouldn't have given him any big numbers like 3000 hits, but maybe he would have looked a little better.

Stanton just needs to do what Ortiz did - put up a 144 OPS+ from 33 on and accumulate another 26 WAR. Clearly the path to success lies with stopping his bullshit diet regimen and getting fat (for an extremely high level athlete).

Stanton is a fast twitch monster! It's a duel edged sword though. It's what makes him so extraordinarily powerful, but it can also make one injury prone. I've seen him workout with a trainer I follow on Instagram and he's just freaky strong.

Raines might have been hurt by the strikes as he lost a significant portion of a HUGE year in 1981, and lost playing time in both 94-95.

He also lost a month to collusion in 1987, which was arguably his best year.

I always thought McGriff lost the most to the strike, since it cost him 500 homers, a lesser round milestone (2500 hits), and the big power season he was missing. But he's in now anyway, so NBD.

The other big loser that rarely gets mentioned is David Cone. He was on pace for 20 wins in both 1994 and 1995. It also would have put him at 200 wins and right at 3000 IP for his career. For a guy who already has the SABR credentials (62 WAR, 36 WAA), a CYA, a perfect game, led the majors in k's 3 straight seasons, and won 5 World Series rings (with a 2.12 WS ERA), having 200 career wins instead of 194 and four 20 win seasons instead of two might have gone a long way towards helping fans and voters recognize how good he was.

@387 Agree with you on Cone. I wonder if his leadership in the union has led most writers to not give him any boost for those year?

I always thought Raines' biggest issue was that people viewed Rickey Henderson as a leadoff/SB guy, rather than an elite all-around player and inner circle HOFer.

If he had been, being a "The poor man's Henderson" would be seen as still being Hall worthy, just not an inner circle guy like Rickey.

I really don't think Henderson gets appreciated enough. He's arguably a top 10-post integration player ever — maybe even Top 5 if you exclude PED guys

He also lost a month to collusion in 1987, which was arguably his best year.

That's right, I'd forgotten about that!

I always thought McGriff lost the most to the strike, since it cost him 500 homers, a lesser round milestone (2500 hits), and the big power season he was missing.

That is an interesting question, even though as you said he's in now. He retired tied with Gehrig at 493. Everyone above him who was eligible was in, including Murray with only 11 more HR, but so many more hits. Would another 10-15 more HR have helped him over the line? He didn't debut strongly, Alomar, Larkin and Edgar received higher support among other debut candidates. The writers were in full on stingy mode at that point, IMO. Only Gossage in 2008, Henderson and Rice 2009, McGriff debuts 2010 and only Dawson, then 2011 Blyleven and Alomar, 2012 just Larkin, and we all know what happened in 2013. McGriff actually fell back a bit in his second year, finished behind first year candidates Walker, and well behind Bagwell. The latter an indication he was not seen as a stellar 1B candidate even before the ballot blew up. In year three he did pass Walker by a bit, and he moved past McGwire, who he'd been behind the first two years. He just slipped a bit behind Walker the next year, but also five other debut candidates, and then it was three years of massive first ballot inductees coming on. Maybe he would have done a bit better, but it just seems like the timing was off for him, and despite the power he was seen as a lesser candidate for whatever reason.

I always thought Raines' biggest issue was that people viewed Rickey Henderson as a leadoff/SB guy, rather than an elite all-around player and inner circle HOFer.

I think he was seen as that, also the second best leadoff hitter after Henderson, which is why it's so baffling he didn't get better support earlier. Consider this, Raines through age 30 has 634 SB and a career .301 BA! He then had five more solid seasons, although age 31 was a down year, and 34-35 were strike shortened he still played well. I think it may have been the hanging around for years as a diminished player that hurt him. I always thought that hurt Ted Simmons. Raines wasn't bad from 36-42, but it sure wasn't burnishing his image. I wonder if he would have been elected more easily if he'd retired after 1995 or 1997.

Joe Haakenson drops Wagner but votes for K-Rod. So we have our first voter who believes Rodriguez is more deserving than Wagner. Fascinating! Also voted for Beltran while adding Abreu and Rollins. Apparently Rollins was not a first ballot HOF, but is more worthy than Wagner? Again fascinating!

Apparently Rollins was not a first ballot HOF, but is more worthy than Wagner?

Well, he is.

I think we had a K-Rod only ballot earlier so this would be the second vote of K-Rod over Wagner

Again fascinating!

Very bad poetry.

Well, he is.

Well played, Sir, well played.

Update on Beltran's voters and what they're doing with 'roid users:

Beltran has 69 votes so far. Of those, 38 are voting for both Manny and A-Rod; 3 are voting for Manny or A-Rod but not both. That leaves 28 voting for Beltran but not the other highly-qualified caught-cheating options. (On the other hand, 14 people have voted for Manny and A-Rod but not Beltran, plus four additional A-Rod but not Manny or Beltran votes.)

Year 2 will tell us more about how this will go, obviously, but I think having nearly 25% of the so-far announced votes draw a distinction between Beltran and the 'roid crew is reason for cautious optimism moving forward.

I think we had a K-Rod only ballot earlier so this would be the second vote of K-Rod over Wagner

You are correct, Sir!

Edit: In fact, Art Davidson dropped A-Rod, but voted for K-Rod. Mistaken identity, or overdeveloped closer love?

Rolen still sitting at +7, but he's also 9/9 among people who didn't vote last year, which effectively puts him at +9 overall (4 new voters are equivalent to a +1 for the purposes of reaching 75%).