Until the Hall of Fame decides to make additional changes in who gets to vote, then this is the electorate which defines the Hall. If X% feel that none or one or two candidates only are worthy, they have the right, and possibly even the duty, to express that opinion.

The rule is that 75% of the people who have, and choose to exercise, the right to vote, have to agree that a candidate is Hall Worthy. If someone feels that nobody on the ballot is Hall worthy, they can do so.

Other than Mariano, EVERY person elected to the Hall was non-unanimous. There have been some VERY high percentages of people who were absolute no-brainers, and still some people who did not use all 10 spots did not give their vote.

Every person who DID NOT vote for Rolen -- and that was around 24% of the electorate -- made it so three other people had to make up for their vote, regardless of whether they voted for 6 or none. That is just how it is.

Try also to remember that "the highest honor in baseball" is actually a tourist attraction in an otherwise non-descript, no-reason-to-visit, upstate New York burg. They give the right to vote for that "highest honor" to the writers, who in turn publicize Cooperstown as a shrine to baseball. So long as they keep the good press rolling, and as long as they and the Committees generate enough winners to get people to come up for induction season, this symbiotic [parasitic?] relationship will continue.

And so long as baseball has an emotional hold on people like us, we will continue to compartmentalize the commercial nature of it all, and go on passionately arguing about it.

No, that’s just another way of saying that the voter will ignore long-established standards for the Hall and not vote for those comparable to ~ two-thirds of the current membership. A dick move. Voters should make a good faith attempt at deciphering who is a legitimate Hall of Famer, not impose their own quirky standard that has no relationship to reality.

It's not their job to vote like everyone else, or to adhere to stupid standards set by dumber writers regardless of how long-established those standards have been. In the 1930s it was a long-established standard to keep Blacks out of MLB. (I'm not pretending that HoF voting is a moral issue akin to institutional racism; I'm just pointing out that "long-established standards" is a foolish argument.)

That aside, a quirky standard would be to vote only for left-handed hitters, or just the Yankees, or just the candidates who wore their socks a certain way. The absolute best is not a quirky standard. Like, the original BBWAA-elected inductees are still to this day in the top 30 for career WAR. Their second class of inductees are also in the top 30. As is their third class. And their fifth class. Just because they put in Sisler and Keeler in year 4, and continued to elect lesser players in future years, doesn't mean the standard should forever be the top ~300 instead of the top 30. (The above use of WAR is for simplicity of illustration rather than advocating for a WAR-only assessment of a player's qualification.)

I'm sure every group of voters has some lunkheads in it. IMO there were far more lunkheads in the past. The 1954 ballot featured 53 players who received at least one vote. Three were elected that year. DiMaggio was not. Rabbit Maranville was. Arky Vaughan - who got MVP votes in 8 of his 14 seasons - got 2 votes. But the foundation of BBWAA's long-established standards hail from a time when people seem to think the BBWAA standards sucked. I can't begrudge someone wanting not to make a bad problem worse by avoiding the common standard in favor of holding a higher/originalist standard, and a blank ballot is a reasonable result of such a standard. Mind you, I don't even know if the blank-ballot voters are adhering to a higher standard, or the originalist standard I'm suggesting. ISTR hearing an interview with Thibs in which he said some writers told him that their blank ballots were on that basis, but I couldn't begin to say that all the blank ballots are like that. I'm just saying anyone claiming a blank ballot is by itself evidence of a dick move is a little too eager to put their arrogance to work.

Other than Mariano, EVERY person elected to the Hall was non-unanimous. There have been some VERY high percentages of people who were absolute no-brainers, and still some people who did not use all 10 spots did not give their vote.

I would love to know who the 16 voters were who did not vote for Maddux, who they did vote for that year, if any, and who they voted for in other years. And that goes for others of course. Seaver, Unit, Pedro, etc. I know a lot of guys back in the day were "If Joe DiMaggio was not a first ballot guy, then no one is"*. Which is a lot more egregious then sending up a blank ballot.

*Which is a logic fail for many reasons.

The 1954 ballot featured 53 players who received at least one vote. Three were elected that year. DiMaggio was not.

The first couple decades of HOF voting were weird even by HOF standards. Despite having been passed over for 2 previous elections, DiMaggio was elected in 1955; under modern rules, he wouldn't have been eligible yet (he retired in 1951).

Which, in case you want a bonus reason for "DiMaggio wasn't a first ballot guy" to be a logic fail, here you go.

103, notwithstanding Mariano's election (whose unanimity thrilled me no end, but did surprise me), not having voted for a number of inner circle HoFers should be a scarlet letter, a badge of shame on each and every voter who took that path.

To use those voters as precedent for submitting blank or 1-player ballots nowadays is disingenuous.

I’d always heard that Fergie might’ve had to wait a little longer for induction due to his drug bust.

See, I forget lots of things. That's Jenkins and Allen people have now rightly brought up. However, in Jenkins case it was simply, IMO, due to a ballot glut, not due to any character clause issues. He debuted with Bench and Yaz who both went in, then Perry with 304 votes in his debut, and Jenkins finished fifth behind Bunning in his 13th year who had 283 votes. Despite all of those players Jenkins still polled at 52.3%. Kaat also debuted that year with 19.5%. The following year Palmer and Morgan both went in first ballot, Perry stayed in 3rd place and Jenkins moved in front of Bunning by 39 votes. The following year he went in with Perry and first ballot inductee Carew (with Fingers debuting at 65.7%, more than Bunning in his final year of eligibility!!!).

Try also to remember that "the highest honor in baseball" is actually a tourist attraction in an otherwise non-descript, no-reason-to-visit, upstate New York burg.

There's also the Farmer's Museum, the Fenimore Art Museum, and Hyde Hall to see in Cooperstown. The Baseball Hall isn't the only reason for a tourist to visit there.

not having voted for a number of inner circle HoFers should be a scarlet letter, a badge of shame on each and every voter who took that path.

And therein lies the problem with anonymous and/or unannounced voting. There is no accountability. These are public figures, in fact they are paid to share their opinions on baseball, or at least to report on baseball. There is no good reason for them to be able to hide behind an anonymous vote. They should be, virtually, tarred and feathered, ridden out of town on a rail for nonsensical and unjustifiable voting.

To use those voters as precedent for submitting blank or 1-player ballots nowadays is disingenuous.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't argue that there are now traditional standards for who gets into the Hall which should be followed, while ignoring the even older tradition of withholding votes for stupid reasons.

Tradition IS Tradition! The Hall is what it is, because getting in is hard.

So getting in is hard. Just like baseball. In the immortal words of Jimmy Dugan, "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great."

Tradition IS tradition, but traditions do change.

Baseball had a tradition of not admitting black, Latin American or Asian players. That tradition changed.

At the HoF level, DHs and relievers could not hope to be inducted 35 years ago. Now they are being inducted, if sparingly. That tradition changed.

Using traditions and standards from half to three quarters of a century ago to justify blank ballots is not a winning line of reasoning.

P.S. I've managed to translate into Spanish your wonderful statement about how gay marriage should be allowed, because why should we heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer, and it has gotten rave reviews. It may have even changed a mind or two.

It's not their job to vote like everyone else, or to adhere to stupid standards set by dumber writers regardless of how long-established those standards have been. In the 1930s it was a long-established standard to keep Blacks out of MLB. (I'm not pretending that HoF voting is a moral issue akin to institutional racism; I'm just pointing out that "long-established standards" is a foolish argument.)

You’re contradicting yourself here, since you were the one defending a voter’s right to uphold the standards of the inaugural Hall class of 1936 by declining to vote for anyone ‘less worthy’. Those who recognize the current reality are merely acknowledging the totality of the voting over almost 90 years rather than obsessing on one year long ago.

Apologies if this has been hashed over earlier in the thread and I didn't find it, but I think one of the more interesting results is Andruw Jones. 60% in his sixth year of eligibility would seem to indicate he has a real shot, which I did not expect at all when he retired. (For the record, I would vote for him.)

Are Jones' boosters optimistic? Has he reached the point where he's a VC gimme if he doesn't make up the extra 16% over the next 4 elections?

Jones is a hugely interesting case. I'm inclined to think his mid career collapse has doomed him to less than 75%. There were so many upvotes this year it will be interesting to see if there is a piggyback response that pushes him over next year. I think he's doing terribly with the private voters of which there are 176 in the tracker. If the electorate is turning over 25 voters a year then almost half of these guys will be gone for his 10th year. If they are being replaced by people who reflect the public % of 66%, he certainly has a chance.

Sheffield has the same issue but too far a hill to climb in one year

Apologies if this has been hashed over earlier in the thread and I didn't find it, but I think one of the more interesting results is Andruw Jones. 60% in his sixth year of eligibility would seem to indicate he has a real shot, which I did not expect at all when he retired. (For the record, I would vote for him.)

Are Jones' boosters optimistic? Has he reached the point where he's a VC gimme if he doesn't make up the extra 16% over the next 4 elections?

I'm agnostic on Jones's candidacy, because I'm skeptical of the magnitude of his defensive stats. But I suspect he gets in via the writers at this point, 58% with four relatively weak ballots in front of him is a very good place to be.

Jones will get in. At 58 percent with four elections remaining, likely moving to the top of the backlog by 2025. There's no reason to think his support has some kind of ceiling above where he is now.

People are making two separate arguments.
1. Every actual ballot has at least a few deserving inductees
2. It's mean and evil and you're a big jerk if you 'actively hurt' players by submitting a blank ballot

The first argument is basically correct. Even if it's ultimately still subjective. How many players 'should' be in the Hall is not settled. If you have exceptionally high standards and would remove half of the current HOFers, it's not incoherent to say 'let's not make any more mistakes.' But it's tilting at windmills and seems like a silly way to use a ballot.

The second argument, though, is ridiculous. The voter's job is to contribute to the denominator, and add votes for players who they think are deserving. They fulfill that job with an eight person ballot, a four person ballot, or a zero person ballot. If you, as a voter, believe that X player isn't deserving of induction, you should submit a ballot that doesn't have their name checked, and it has nothing at all to do with how many (if any) other players you decided to check.

I was going to write something about Jones having a lower ceiling because voters had a stronger preconceived notion about him versus more nuanced cases like Rolen or Helton. But in going over Jones' voting history, he's climbed almost as much as those other two. Jones debuted on a very strong ballot (2018) at 6%; Rolen debuted the same year at 12%. Jones ticked up to 8% the next year, when Helton debuted at 16%. So plenty of writers have already changed their minds about Jones.

Still, I think that he's facing more skepticism about his advanced defensive numbers than Rolen did. Also voting history is not kind to players who abruptly fall off. With a weaker ballot next year, we should have a pretty good idea about whether Jones is able to get over the top.

80. Thank you. I just perused the list. You have to use the search feature to find it. It's amazing when looking at the 2015 list and the 2023 list how much has changed. 550 voters down to 390 and lots of new voters. It's amazing to me how consistent the PED voting has been with all this turnover.

I'd love to see the Hall put back on a few guys who were one and done and let them have another shot with the new group of writers

116, I may have been the first person to complain about blank ballots, way back in 24.

I didn't make the argument that every actual ballot has a few deserving inductees, because I can see that this would depend on the size of each voter's HoF. The argument that I did make is that certain writers are making a spectacle of themselves by submitting blank ballots (or gimmicky one or two voter ballots) and then publicizing them.

I already put out a link to Juan Vené's ridiculous blank ballot, but let me give you another example.

A writter by the name of Rob Parker submitted a Sheffield only ballot..

His Tweet went on to say this:

"My 2023 Baseball HOF Ballot. Sheff’s 500 homers is a magic number to me. A lot of Hall of Very Good players on this ballot. If there’s a debate about your career, you AREN’T a HOFer. #prettysimple"

This is not a serious voter (you can see my unanswered reply to this Tweet right below Mr. Parker's tweet, should you be so inclined).

Res Ipsa Loquitur.

I'm agnostic on Jones's candidacy, because I'm skeptical of the magnitude of his defensive stats. But I suspect he gets in via the writers at this point, 58% with four relatively weak ballots in front of him is a very good place to be.

It doesn't help him that Beltran, a better CF candidate, is on the ballot at the same time. Beltran is only 45 votes behind Andruw and figures to gain quite a few votes in his second time on the ballot.

I think the writers spend more time looking at last year's election results than the playing records of the candidates.

Still, I think that he's facing more skepticism about his advanced defensive numbers than Rolen did. Also voting history is not kind to players who abruptly fall off.

I would say it's more likely the latter than the former. I think sometimes we overweight the impact of WAR and its components on voting being a more SABR oriented website. While it certainly has more influence than it used to, it's still far from a universal, perhaps far from a majority, influence on voting. I feel like there are more voters who would look at fewer than 9000 PA's and relatively low counting stats in almost all areas, combined with a complete cliff dive after 30, and think he just doesn't look like a HOF. Even going back to 1920 and looking at all "Live Ball" era HOF players, the only ones with fewer PA's than Jones after age 30 are: Schalk, Hafey, Vaughn, Kiner, Travis Jackson, Boudreau, and, just barely, Cochran. That's three VC selections, a guy who has a ton of black ink from his HR, Vaughn didn't play from ages 32-34, an all time great catcher who won two MVP's, and a guy who was a player/manager at age 24 and won the MVP the year his team won the WS as a player/manager. Jones doesn't have any of those hooks, although he looks a lot better than Schalk, Hafey and Jackson to me.

It doesn't help him that Beltran, a better CF candidate, is on the ballot at the same time.

Didn't seem to hurt him, he still picked up 63 votes, and the tracker doesn't have him losing any so far.

If I wasn't looking at WAR, I'd rank Andruw higher than Rolen or Helton. The second half of his career is a problem, but 400 HRs and 10 Gold Gloves at a key position should almost be a shoo-in.

P.S. I've managed to translate into Spanish your wonderful statement about how gay marriage should be allowed, because why should we heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer, and it has gotten rave reviews. It may have even changed a mind or two.

That was such a long time ago. Can you point me to it?

Jones is a weird case. Early generation defensive stats always had him as a super-duperstar, but would you really take him over, say, Torii Hunter or Lorenzo Cain?

"Best ever defensive player at an important position" actually does fairly well in the voting. Maz, Ozzie, Brooks Robinson spring to mind. No catchers spring to mind, but "greatest defensive catcher ever" would probably draw a ton of support if you could make the case for one.

So I think there's a constituency out there for electing someone as the best defensive CF ever, I just don't know if Jones is the guy they're waiting to vote for.

119. Writers like to be provocative in their word choice but it's easy to come up with an only Sheffield ballot. He likes big milestones lie 3000 hits or 500 HRs. That seems pretty mainstream for voters for years. Then he says there are a lot of Hall of Very Good players on the ballot. Honestly, this is a fair statement. You either think the remaining guys are at the bottom end of the Hall or they are Hall of Very Good. No one thinks Beltran, Rolen, Jones, Vizquel etc are slam dunks. He leaves out two other guys with magic numbers so I presume he's anti-PED.

If your a small hall guy whose anti-PED, Sheffield is a reasonable choice (I'm assuming people are giving him a pass on PEDs based on the fact that Barry lied to him - supposedly)

126, There was only one Sheffield only ballot in the whole 2023 voting class, as per Ryan Thibodaux's tracker (which as of now, lists 213 ballots). There are no Sheffield and one more ballots in the whole 2023 voting class.

There were no Sheffield only ballots in the whole 2022 voting class, as per Ryan Thibodaux's tracker (which listed 321 ballots). There were no Sheffield and one more ballots in the whole 2022 voting class.

Mr. Parker voted for Sheffield, Bonds, Clemens and Sosa in 2022. He did not, however, vote for A-Rod and Manny in 2023.

At a certain point, facts overwhelm rhetoric.

I suppose it's some kind of bias, but with Ozzie in for defense, then Andruw in before Mex seems a bit like horseshit to me.

Mr. Parker voted for Sheffield, Bonds, Clemens and Sosa in 2022. He did not, however, vote for A-Rod and Manny in 2023.

At a certain point, facts overwhelm rhetoric.

That would seem like he's making a distinction between pre- and post-testing usage, which strikes me as defensible (not defending the rest of the ballot, just someone drawing the line there).

#127 - Sounds like that voter is drawing a distinction between pre-testing PED use vs post-testing PED use. That's an understandable position.

So basically, he's an old school voter who favors big traditional numbers (hits, HR, rbi, etc) rather than SABR value stats and views post testing PED use as a disqualifier.

Edit: coke to SoSh

The second argument, though, is ridiculous. The voter's job is to contribute to the denominator, and add votes for players who they think are deserving. They fulfill that job with an eight person ballot, a four person ballot, or a zero person ballot. If you, as a voter, believe that X player isn't deserving of induction, you should submit a ballot that doesn't have their name checked, and it has nothing at all to do with how many (if any) other players you decided to check.

If you submit a ballot with 1 or more names on it, you're saying "I think these guys deserve to be in." There may be other guys you can be persuaded on, and there are definitely others you would never vote for, but there's at least 1 you think should be in. That's good.

If you don't submit a ballot because you don't think any of the current nominees deserve to be in, intentionally or not you're at least making it less difficult to have your mind changed. That's being an adult.

If you submit a blank ballot, you're screaming from the mountaintop that none of the current nominees even deserve a discussion - that you're going to make it as hard as possible for any of them to get elected. That's being a jerk.

If you submit a ballot with 1 or more names on it, you're saying "I think these guys deserve to be in." There may be other guys you can be persuaded on, and there are definitely others you would never vote for, but there's at least 1 you think should be in. That's good.

If you don't submit a ballot because you don't think any of the current nominees deserve to be in, intentionally or not you're at least making it less difficult to have your mind changed. That's being an adult.

If you submit a blank ballot, you're screaming from the mountaintop that none of the current nominees even deserve a discussion - that you're going to make it as hard as possible for any of them to get elected. That's being a jerk.

I don't think the difference reads that way at all. If someone submits a blank ballot, that could mean they have obscenely high standards. Then it's a matter of convincing them that either their standards are too high, or that someone the overlooked actually meets them. Both seem plausible. If someone submits a ballot with just Jimmy Rollins or Omar Vizquel or K-Rod, that means they think Jimmy Rollins or Omar Vizquel or K-Rod is the best choice on the ballot. That's a sign to me that they don't know what they are talking about.

If you submit a ballot with 1 or more names on it, you're saying "I think these guys deserve to be in."

If you submit a blank ballot, you're screaming from the mountaintop that none of the current nominees even deserve a discussion

This is completely illogical. The 1 ballot votes no on all-but-one guy. The 0 ballot votes no on exactly the same number of guys plus one. There's no difference there. The presence of the one guy doesn't change anything at all about how you vote for the rest.

And that phrasing of "screaming from the mountaintop" just makes you look silly. That's not an argument, that's purple prose. And "none deserve a discussion" is an outright lie - it's perfectly possible to have a deep discussion that comes to a no on each candidate.

If someone submits a blank ballot, that could mean they have obscenely high standards.

Voters with obscenely high (or low) standards deserve all the criticism they get. These folks are supposed to have some expertise, and they have almost 90 years of voting history to guide them. No one asked them to throw that out and greatly reduce, or greatly expand, the Hall by imposing a personal standard that has no relation to reality.

And "none deserve a discussion" is an outright lie - it's perfectly possible to have a deep discussion that comes to a no on each candidate.

It's possible only if you follow a list of disqualifiers that has never been used for actual voting before, and you want to make a statement. There is no good faith argument against every person on the ballot, unless you think the Hall should be so tiny as to include only the top 5-10 at each position (which should be a disqualifying opinion because it's clear that's not the historical threshhold for enshrinement). And if you do hold that position, you should give up your vote because you're unlikely to ever vote for anyone - you're wasting your, the Hall's, the BBWAA's, and your readers', time.

As an aside, I'm just befuddled at the new glorification of being a jerk. I grew up in a time when being a jerk on purpose was seen as a character flaw (I'm 60); now, it's been turned into something that's aspired to.

"Best ever defensive player at an important position" actually does fairly well in the voting. Maz, Ozzie, Brooks Robinson spring to mind. No catchers spring to mind, but "greatest defensive catcher ever" would probably draw a ton of support if you could make the case for one.

Not so much for Maz, or Nellie Fox, as both had to wait for the VC. I'd say Bench had the best defensive catcher rep going for him, of course he also had the best catcher ever rep going for him, too. 1st in HR, 2nd in runs and RBI, 3rd in doubles when he retired. I mean 96.4% of voters thought he was qualified, that's pretty good.

There is no good faith argument against every person on the ballot

But this is a separate issue. If your argument is the same as YC in 134, that's fine. Then you would be pissed at the guy who turned in a blank ballot, 95% pissed about the guy who turned in a ballot with 1 player, 90% pissed about the guy who turned in a ballot with 2 players, etc.

Instead you're saying that you're unhappy with guys who have a low number of players, but once it hits zero, they're evil jerks who just want attention. It doesn't make any sense to have such a bright line between zero and one.

As an aside, I'm just befuddled at the new glorification of being a jerk.

Nobody here is glorifying being a jerk. It's that going from one to zero doesn't make you a jerk.

Did anyone ever look the part of a third baseman more than Scott Rolen? The eye black, the perpetual squint and grimace, the hulking frame coiled to stab every howling liner that had the misfortune to head his way. It seemed like his uniform was covered in dirt after the first pitch. Rolen just looked like a major-league third baseman.

Of course, style points don’t count. And that’s ok. He didn't need them. Congratulations to a deserving inductee.

No catchers spring to mind, but "greatest defensive catcher ever" would probably draw a ton of support if you could make the case for one.

The name that springs to mind is Pudge Rodriguez. Career lead in Games Caught, Defensive WAR and Total Zone Runs for a catcher. Record 13 Gold Gloves.

Now, he had enough bat and narrative to carry him, but the defensive rep is probably what pushed him over the line to first ballot status on what was a very crowded ballot. In addition to Schilling and the PED Lepers, there were two other inductees that year (Bagwell and Raines), 5 other eventual BBWAA inductees (Hoffman, Vlad, Edgar, Walker and Mussina) and two VC inductees (Smith and McGriff). So the defensive rep had to have been a big draw, given the options for voters.

Do you not consider Trammell, Blyleven, or Santo clear HOF'ers?

The problem in a nutshell.

What do you mean by "clear?" "Clear" to whom? Whether I consider them "clear" or not is immaterial. As used in this case, it is being used in a sense of "no reasonable person would consider this person not a HoFer." Yet neither Santo nor Trammell were elected by the group of resonable people in charge of voting on them. In fact neither ever received even a majority of votes. Several VCs then rejected Santo. Blyleven made it through but only after several ballots and a concerted campaign by an outsider.

They are the very definition of "unclear" HoFers. To argue "you should never submit a blank ballot because there's always a Santo" is ridiculous. Pretending that our personal opinions represent the only reasonable opinion is quite human of course but painting those who disagree as pure evil may be taking things a bit far.

Re: catcher defense -

Isn't the discussion of the defensive GOAT always between Bench and Rodriguez, the only 2 first ballot HOF catchers ever? So yeah, it seems to carry some weight.

Now obviously they both could hit too, but isn't Molina basically considered an eventual HOF lock with a case based almost entirely on defense?

Molina's eventual induction is based almost entirely on narrative.

#142 - Sure, but the 9 gold gloves, 4th all time in games caught, etc, is how they're going to justify it.

I've been vocally opposed on this site to Molina's induction before, but to his credit he remained a useful player for long enough that he's legitimately on the borderline now. Now my opinion of his potential election has been upgraded to indifference.

#142 - Sure, but the 9 gold gloves, 4th all time in games caught, etc, is how they're going to justify it.

And rightfully so. He's absolutely in the discussion for greatest defensive catcher ever.

In my mind, the selection of Hall-of-Famers should include a reasonable number from every "decade", "generation", however you measure it. That makes the Hall-of-Fame a living, breathing thing.

Any kind of 'small-hall' argument almost inevitably results in a Hall-of-Fame with members biased heavily towards the earliest days of the sport, possibly including a few inflection points where the sport changed substantially in some way. Hence: Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Johnson, Grove, Mathewson, and then maybe Williams, Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and perhaps eventually including Cal Ripken and Nolan Ryan (and Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens)((and Pete Rose)). Why? Because inevitably in sports it's the early players who tower above their contemporaries, and as the knowledge and strategy and technique of how to play the game spreads more widely, it becomes harder and harder to stand out in a blindingly flashy manner.

But does that really serve the game? If we take small-Hall arguments to their logical conclusion, one might only elect someone on average every 5 or 10 years. That would be correct, because darn few contemporary players are likely to tower above their sport in the way Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Johnson, Mays did.

Any Hall that tries to elect a representative sample of players from every generation is going to elect an increasingly larger percentage of Ron Santo's. And that's fine. To not do so, in my mind, is to not honor all the players (and all the games played) in that time period, to say that, well, because the average level of competition was higher, we are not going to honor any of y'all.

In fact a "big hall" is good for the game. You want people to go to the Hall and bring their daughter or son and say and point to that plaque and say "I saw Ron Santo play, he wasn't Mr. Cub, but he was close, and it was an honor to be in the presence of his greatness". I never saw Ron Santo play, but I saw Ichiro play, as an example, and maybe one day I will be able to go to the Hall myself and say that.

From the standpoint of the "blank ballot", or even the "one-person" ballot, that is making a very strong small-hall argument. It may be "pure", but it's pure for reasons which are more in love with purity itself than with the game or the players that play it.

How does taking the very best from each generation bias the Hall? A biased and unchecked VC bloated the Hall with Juan Pierre like teammates that doesn't mean every proceeding generation has to induct their Juan Pierres.

I agree with those who are unconcerned about blank ballots.

Let's say Hall voting was extremely efficient, and inducted all eventual HOFers on the first ballot. Then, each ballot would consist of new eligibles plus obvious mere-HOVGers.

Best new eligible, by bWAR, for each year in the past decade-plus:

2023 Carlos Beltran
2022 Alex Rodriguez
2021 Mark Buehrle
2020 Derek Jeter
2019 Roy Halladay
2018 Chipper Jones
2017 Manny Ramirez
2016 Ken Griffey Jr
2015 Randy Johnson
2014 Greg Maddux
2013 Barry Bonds
2012 Bernie Williams
2011 Jeff Bagwell
2010 Barry Larkin

IOW, about once a decade, an efficient mechanism isn't going to induct anybody, unless your Hall is big enough for Buehrle and Williams (who were excellent ballplayers, of course; not knocking them).

Unless you have a "must elect #" system like the HOM, a zero ballot can certainly be defensible (the more so if a voter has principled PEDs or character concerns).

I don't see the logic of Andruw Jones and Dale Murphy getting such drastically different treatment in the voting.

Murphy's offensive edge over Jones (121 career OPS+ over 111) makes up for Jones' defensive superiority, I would think.

Both Braves centerfielders who played at MVP or near-MVP levels for a decade or so, then hit the cliff.

Why would you vote for one and not the other?

Why would you vote for one and not the other?

Presumably because those voters don't agree that Murphy's offensive edge makes up for Jones' defensive superiority.

@149. With which WAR agrees. Also, they were on the ballot 29 years apart. The voters are very different, and those who remain are old codgers who are comparatively unlikely to vote for Jones. So it has to be the case that relatively few voters have actually said Jones yes, Murphy no. And if WAR is a reasonable guide, those voters are probably right anyway.

#142 - Sure, but the 9 gold gloves, 4th all time in games caught, etc, is how they're going to justify it.

Isn't this still narrative though? It's not as if the GG truly represent defensive superiority. They're better now that a statistical component has been blended in, but still a largely subjective award. Does his pitch framing and other defensive prowess (I believe he has pretty historically great numbers on controlling the running game although it was not a particularly big part of the game during his era) make up for the lack of offense to justify him as well qualified on a statisitical basis? I honestly am not well informed enough about catcher defense to know.

130, I cannot find another Bonds, Clemens and Sheffield votes in 2022.

That means that Parker: (a) Was the only person to submit a Sheffield only ballot in 2023;

(b) Was the only person to submit a Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield ballot in 2022; and,

(c) There was no other Sheffield only ballot in 2022.

You guys have very strange reasonability standards, but the fact of the matter is that Parker was the only one out of 213 known voters in 2023 to do a Sheffield-only ballot and the only one out of 321 known voters in 2022 to do his Bondos-Clemens-Sheffield ballot.

He is very much out in left field with his voting, clear proof that some BBWAA voters are drawing out attention to themselves with their ballots.

I don't see the logic of Andruw Jones and Dale Murphy getting such drastically different treatment in the voting.

Murphy's offensive edge over Jones (121 career OPS+ over 111) makes up for Jones' defensive superiority, I would think.

Both Braves centerfielders who played at MVP or near-MVP levels for a decade or so, then hit the cliff.

Why would you vote for one and not the other?

That's a great question. Could be a variety of reasons, of course, but I think it may be in large part due to the changes in the electorate we've seen over the past decade or so. Murphy came on the ballot in 1999, the year Jones won his second GG. Jones came on the ballot in 2018, 19 years after Murphy. I think Murphy was facing an electorate that was much more geared towards career length, big counting stats, and believing CF better be Willie Mays-good. The last two CF elected prior to Murphy hitting ballot were in fact Snider in 1980 (in his 11th year!) and Mays in 1979. Subsequent to Snider there weren't many compelling candidates as CF before Murphy, but Reggie Smith received only 3 votes in 1988, Cesar Cedeno 2 in 1992 (Grich debuted the same year and received 11), Fred Lynn received 26 votes (and off the ballot the next year) and Chet Lemon 1 in 1996. But even if you look at other well qualified players in those years leading up to Murphy's debut, you'll see a very stingy electorate. For example, Phil Niekro debuts in 1993 with no other strong pitching candidates on the ballot (Kaat finished with just 29.6%) and put up a very strong 65.7%, but the next year it's Carlton going in and Niekro drops to 60%, only 14 more votes than the debuting Sutton. Next year just Schmidt goes in and Niekro is at 62.2, with no strong debut pitchers only John at 21.3%. It's a shutout in 1996, just 68.3% for Niekro and, again, no strong pitcher debuts. He finally goes in, solo, in 1997 and neither Sutton, nor Perez can get over the line despite finishing above 63% the year before, and the highest debut is Parker at just 17.5%.

Gary Carter is another example of how stingy voting could be. He debuts the year before Murphy in 1998. Only Sutton goes in, Perez is still stuck in the mid 60's. Carter is strong at 42%, but then gets crushed by Ryan, Yount, Brett, and Fisk, falling down to 33%. Fisk and Perez go in 2000 with Carter moving up to nearly 50%. Puckett and Winfield keep him out in 2001 although he moves up again, but despite finishing at 65% he can't make it in the next year, 2002 is only Ozzie.

That's the sort of environment Murphy debuted in. And 2002 is interesting because it's his 4th year and he's going down from 23 to 18 to 15%, and Dawson debuts above him at 45%. So what does this tell us, if anything? I'd say it shows the emphasis on counting stats, despite the early move off of CF. Now it still took Dawson 9 years to get in, but Murphy was never able to build any support. Five years after he's off the ballot though I think there's enough emphasis on WAR/SABR savvy voting, and at least some faith in defensive metrics that Jones, despite being initially overwhelmed by an exceptionally crowded ballot, is being recognized as a defensive standout at the position, with enough offense, that a peak and prime case is sufficient for him for most voters despite the precipitous decline and lack of overwhelming counting stats.

152, Parker also voted for Sosa last year. It’s not necessarily attention, though. He has been among the most consistent voters over time.

2014: Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, McGwire, Smith, Sosa, Thomas
2015: Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Johnson, Pedro, McGwire, Sheffield, Smith, Smoltz, Sosa
2016: Bonds, Clemens, Griffey, Hoffman, McGwire, Sheffield, Smith, Sosa
2017: Bonds, Clemens, Hoffman, Rodríguez, Sheffield, Smith, Sosa
2018: Bonds, Clemens, Hoffman, C Jones, Sheffield, Sosa, Thome
2019: Bonds, Clemens, Rivera, Sheffield, Sosa
2020: Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Sheffield, Sosa
2021: Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield, Sosa
2022: Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield, Sosa
2023: Sheffield

No adds, no drops. Everyone without a positive PED test and either 300 W, 450 SV, 500 HR, 3000 H gets his vote, + Pedro, Smoltz, Chipper, Pudge. And that’s it. Doesn’t really scream “draw attention to myself”, he’s just consistent with different standards than you.

154, you do realize people can change over time, right?

His ballots prior to 2021 were much more justifiable, but in any case, to go from a 10 man ballot with McGwire and Lee Smith on them to a Sheffield only ballot absolutely screams drawing attention to himself.

Of course people can change, but staying consistent doesn’t seem like what someone would do to draw attention to themselves. He tweeted it on the day of the announcement, a time when everyone is paying attention to the Hall and would expect to see ballots. I just cannot fathom why you view a consistent voter as attention-drawing. Doesn’t everyone strive to see consistency in the process?

Yet neither Santo nor Trammell were elected by the group of resonable people in charge of voting on them. In fact neither ever received even a majority of votes. Several VCs then rejected Santo.

When Santo first appeared on a ballot, in 1980, the BBWAA had elected only 3 third basemen, Willie Keeler, Pie Traynor, and Eddie Mathews. Mathews took 5 ballots, and over half the voters rejected him on the first 3. Santo got 15 votes out of 385. Roy Face and Don Larsen got more votes. Harvey Kuenn, Mickey Vernon, Roger Maris and Maury Will got a lot more votes. Those were not reasonable people.

Willie Keeler was an outfielder. HR Baker, Jimmy Collins, Pie Traynor, Judy Johnson, Freddie Lindstrom, and Eddie Mathews had been inducted as third basemen prior to 1980. That said, only Mathews and Traynor were BBWAA selections, if that was your point. So it does appear that the BBWAA had no idea what to do with the 3B position for a good generation or two.

Willie Keeler was an outfielder.

Yeah, I knew that, and yet I still made that mistake.

Ron Santo was a dick to a lot of people.

dark is right. You can criticize Parker’s ballots for a number of reasons, but voting to draw attention to himself really isn’t one of them.

Ron Santo was a dick to a lot of people.

Yes. I posted that earlier. It's another data point that these were not reasonable people.

Regarding voting in 153 above, something else that occurred to me as I was reflecting on those votes is there may be a more open minded, even handed electorate in force today. Probably, again, due to the changes in the electorate's makeup, but perhaps also a bit due to the ballot glut. After the shutout in 2013, and the tidal wave of electable candidates that continued to hit in the coming 7 years, there were definitely voters out there who were making a concerted effort to elect players. In 2019 there was the first and only unanimous pick, and a first ballot selection with only 203 W's (probably given a post death boost, RIP). From 2014-2019 there was at least 1 first ballot selection and 11 in total. Now they all very much look like first ballot players in this era of elections, but look at Carter's treatment versus Ivan Rodriguez, or John Smoltz versus the way Niekro was treated.

It seems like there was a concerted effort to keep players out, at times, during those 90's, and perhaps earlier as well, elections rather than put players in. Sure, Niekro has 318 W's and over 5400 IP, but he's not a Steve Carlton sort of HOF. So he'll get excellent first year support, but in year two there are 43 more ballots cast and he still receives 3 fewer votes. Looks like voters are actively withholding votes from him so he doesn't get the recognition given to Carlton. In year three total votes goes up by 4 and Niekro's total goes up by 13, looks like some of those first year voters in 1994 added him in 1995, but he still isn't up to his debut percentage. He picks up 35 votes in 1996, but the total votes goes up by 10 so he's still shy of 70%, next highest pitcher is Sutter at just 29%, highest debut player is Bob Boone at 7.7%, and no one is elected. That's definitely not the sort of voting we're seeing today.

How can you call this electorate open-minded, when they haven't elected Bonds, Clemens, Manny or Schilling? the 1990s had no errors of that magnitude.

154, you do realize people can change over time, right?

His ballots prior to 2021 were much more justifiable, but in any case, to go from a 10 man ballot with McGwire and Lee Smith on them to a Sheffield only ballot absolutely screams drawing attention to himself.

This is a rather silly rabbit hole, but I've actually becomed convinced that Parker is among the most reasonable tiny ballots of anyone, and not that he's an attention seeker. His standards are pretty clear - he highly values big counting stat milestones, but doesn't completely rely on them, and he makes the distinction between pre-testing and post-testing PED users. Look over some of his past columns - he's old school and hard-headed, but he's also objective in a somewhat refreshing way. The results are worse, but there's a better thought process there than however Bob Nightengale came up with a Beltran/Kent/Sheff/Wagner ballot or Bruce Jenkins decided on Kent/ARod/Manny/Vizquel.

Blank ballots are not good.

156, consistency, in the abstract, is a good think.

In practice, however, it depends on what it is that you are being consistent about. Without leaving the HoF discussion, to submit a blank ballot for 20 years, thus missing out scores of clear cut, even inner circle HoFers, is not something to be priced.

I don't think Parker's consistency speaks well of his train of thought, and I do think that he loves making a spectacle of himself.

165, I disagree with your logic, but I respect the way you expressed it.

. How can you call this electorate open-minded, when they haven't elected Bonds, Clemens, Manny or Schilling? the 1990s had no errors of that magnitude.

Declining to vote for the drug guys isn’t irrational. The group think here just happens not to agree. And as for Schilling, don’t aggressively act like an a$$hole to people from whom you want something. A well behaved 8 year old understands that.

#168 - re: Schilling

True, but that doesn't make it any less petty and childish on the writer's part. He's being snubbed purely out of spite.

How can you call this electorate open-minded, when they haven't elected Bonds, Clemens, Manny or Schilling? the 1990s had no errors of that magnitude.

There were no comparable issues to those which impacted the players you mention going on during those years of voting. Clearly Bonds and Clemens were extraordinary circumstances, and yet they both still cleared 65% by their final year. Schilling was at 71% before he said don't elect me, and that was probably the least controversial thing he said. Ramirez was twice suspended for PED use, and while it may not jibe with your perspective, it's a reasonable position not to vote for someone who violated the rules of the game in that fashion.

They are at least open to electing Walker (who lacks big counting stats, has a lot of value in his defense, and a voter had to come to grips with his Coors numbers) taking him from just 22% in 2017 to in the HOF in 2020. Open to electing Edgar Martinez (low counting stats, no real defensive value as a DH, and the first player one would truly consider to be a DH to be elected) taking him from 27% in 2015 to in the HOF in 2019. Open to electing Raines, who doesn't look a whole lot like a HOF LF if you're not comfortable looking at WAR, but they kept his momentum going through the ballot crush and got him into the HOF in 2017.

Unfortunately it also appears they are open to electing more 1 inning relievers, but I guess no one is perfect.

I am warming to the idea of electing one inning relievers mostly because it drives you people nuts.

How can you call this electorate open-minded, when they haven't elected Bonds, Clemens, Manny or Schilling? the 1990s had no errors of that magnitude.

As noted earlier, the roid guys did much better with the writers than they did with their peers.

How can you call this electorate open-minded, when they haven't elected Bonds, Clemens

Further to Bonds and Clemens specifically, their voting record actually does speak to a more open minded electorate. Their first 3 years on the ballot they're consistently mid 30's, but one of their biggest percentage jumps takes place in 2016 even though they each received slightly fewer votes than in 2015. That's because the Hall implemented its purge of voters and the total votes cast dropped from 549 to 440. The writers eliminated were, by and large, the same old school guys who were so resistant to putting players in during those 90's votes. The Murray Chass crackpots who wanted to elect Jim Rice because of the Fear and Jack Morris because of the Most Wins in the 80's.

Their largest percentage jump was the next year, in 2017 with 442 votes cast, and each received 13 of 15 from new voters. In 2018 Bonds received 11 of 13 and Clemens 12 of 13 new voters. Both were 8 of 10 in 2019, 8 of 9 in 2020, and 13 of 16 in 2021. In all five of those years new voters were voting to elect them, IOW they received over 75% support from new voters each of those years. They didn't do nearly as well in converting existing voters during those years, so this clearly shows a changing attitude, more open mindedness towards them, driven by new voters.

Yeah if B & C had gotten a full 15 years they may have gotten

Yeah if B & C had gotten a full 15 years they may have gotten

The only year that Bonds and Clemens jumped base on ballot flips was in 2017, after Selig got elected. Every other year it was (mostly) the change in electorate.

Just looking at Bonds' numbers, he averaged a 2% flip each year after 2017, if you also ignore his final year. 2% per year for five years puts him at 76%. Oddly enough, you can do the same thing with Clemens... and he doesn't make it - he was gaining ground slightly less slowly. Obviously, this is a haphazard way to predict an alternate reality.

Would a VC elect Clemens if Bonds was already in? I feel like they wouldn't.

Sardell tweets



This is a good analysis - note his comment that many of the 29 who didn't vote are still eligible so it does appear a number of people chose not to return a blank ballot

Election to the Hall is a binary thing, but being open-minded to the idea of their election is different.

Last we saw, they were being supported by the writers by a 2-1 margin.

This is a good analysis

Thanks Duke, that was interesting.