There's no homer like a dumb homer.

I certainly don't think Howard is a HoFer.

I'm not that sold on Rollins, but he is definitely the type of guy that I would hope gets a couple of years on the ballot, so his case can be properly analyzed.

I wouldn't vote for Jimmy Rollins, but he is the sort of player that has historically done fairly well by the Hall voters (or at least the VC). Shortstop, ~2500 career hits, 1400+ runs, ~500 SB, 4 time GG, MVP, not quite a 1-team career, but everyone clearly identifies him with only one team, and his 10 most similar batters includes 7 Hall of Famers, and another player who more or less everyone here thinks should be in.

For Howard, what's the difference between him and either of the Fielders, or the Vaughn, or Frank Howard, or any of twenty other short career (for a Hall of Famer) sluggers who got more or less no traction on the ballot?

howard has no reasonable case. he started too late, he cratered too fast and his peak wasn't long enough.


rollins has a reasonable case, but i think he needed a few more good years to cement it.

Curt Schilling losing votes is not a great sign. So the writers it must be, who are utterly intent on not placing the best players of the era in the HOF.

If given to the fans, that responsibility would turn into organized trolling

There's a vocal section of writers who take great glee specifically in trolling fans who spend far more time and effort analyzing the game than they themselves do.

There's a vocal section of writers who take great glee specifically in trolling fans who spend far more time and effort analyzing the game than they themselves do.

Yup.
"You think you know more than me?! I was in the locker room! I sniffed their actual jocks, you passive nerd!"

It's nice that he takes a swipe at managers before making a poor choice himself in Howard.

It's a particularly bad sign for Schilling that he loses a vote while Vizquel holds onto one. Anyway, an obviously atrocious ballot. I suppose we can be thankful he didn't spend much time in the locker room with AJP.

One bad ballot seldom makes a difference, but the blatant homerism is a bit unusual these days. The Phillies were a ‘dynasty’?

BTW, time to pin The Tracker to the top of the page!

Just read the article. What nonsense.

Vizquel - best defender of his generation. I guess the reporter failed to note that Ozzie Smith and Vizquel both played from 1989-1996. Given the snark about writers being the only honest folks capable of voting for the HOF, he doesn't come across as very smart since he doesn't understand the meaning of generation.

Jones - superior hitter. Defense, which was so important for Vizquel, is irrelevant to Jones' case.

Abreu - played fair

Kent - played fair

Snark from a intellectually challenged, entitled individual. Doesn't make a good case for the natural superiority of the writers voting.

Wow. How many ballots do you think it will take to knock this one off the Dumbest Ballot throne? Could it go wire to wire? That would be something.

If he'd included Paps and A.J., it would've been the perfect bizarro ballot.

Helton is the only guy he chose that I would consider(most likely yes) for enshrinement.

I was trying to imagine how this writer could "top" this effort.

got it: another writer votes for an unlikely local choice, and this guy rips him for the vote and calls him a "shameless homer" who is sullying the sacred process.

:)

I'm a life-long Phillies fan. I would never vote for Howard, and would vote for Rollins only if I had space left on my ballot. (So, while I would say Rollins probably doesn't belong, he'd be far from the worst player in the Hall of Fame.)

No, there's a literal eye test, you have to pass it to make the HOF. 20/20 corrected or no go.

You can have a very acceptable full ballot and not vote for any of the players he chooses.


Barry, Roger, Papi, ARod, Manny, Rolen, Schilling, Sheff, Sosa, Wagner

I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't vote for Bobby Abreu, the best player of those Philly teams, because he "didn't feel like a hofer". (I mean he did, but these type of guys have a tendency to like the Rollins and Howards and not the Abreau's)

First post kinda nails it though, I mean Rolen is better than almost any guy he voted on, but because he wanted to leave the city, this moron doesn't give him the vote. I understand the anti-roid hysteria from this guy and other stuff, but seriously, he's voting for every person who is on the ballot that wore a Philly uniform, except Rolen. (and Schilling)

If he'd included Paps and A.J., it would've been the perfect bizarro ballot.

Helton is the only guy he chose that I would consider(most likely yes) for enshrinement.

Abreu, Helton, Jones, and Kent are all reasonable candidates by the metrics. And Rollins and Vizquel are reasonable candidates based on how the Hall has historically treated shortstops. It's a bad ballot because he passed over more qualified candidates, but it's not like most of the guys he did pick are ridiculous or completely undeserving options.

but it's not like most of the guys he did pick are ridiculous or completely undeserving options.

Sure, most of the picks are not ridiculous, but they are under my HOF line and for me, he's chosen a HOVG team(which in itself is a list of pretty awesome players, just not good enough for the HOF).

but seriously, he's voting for every person who is on the ballot that wore a Philly uniform, except Rolen. (and Schilling)

And Papelbon. And Wagner. Lots of former Phillies on this ballot.

There is so much stupidity in this piece that it becomes numbing.

But what does this guy have against Scott Rolen? Rolen starred in Philly, and would be a solid HOFer for a third baseman, but he doesn't even get mentioned! Not even to say why he's insufficient in the objective eyes of the Agenda-Free Scribe.

I just realized that I missed CFBs comment on Rolen in 17. I think he was spot on.

Ugh, the eye test. One of my least favorite among reasoning-free HOF-column cliches.

Also known as, “I know a HOFer when I see one.” Or more concisely boiled down to just, “I.”

Some early competition for the weirdest ballot. Sadiel LeBron dropped Bonds, while still voting for Sosa & Manny, casting a 1st ballot for David Ortiz, and adding Abreu. Less weird, he also dropped Vizquel.

I mean, Howard is too good to get zero HOF fame votes, so getting one vote from a Phillies homer isn't the worst thing in the world.

But c'mon, he didn't pass the eye test. He was a fun player who had a couple of big years.

Voting for Howard and not for Ortiz boggles the mind.

The years Rollins and Howard won MVPs, they not only weren't actually the most valuable player in the league, they weren't even most valuable on their own team as Utley did more to help the Phillies win than either one of them. I 100% guarantee McCaffery doesn't recognize this. This guy is completely incompetent and should give back every dollar he's ever been paid plus interest.

in Rollins' MVP season of 2007, the Phillies and Mets were in a division title chase down the stretch.

in August and September, Rollins put up solid .858 and .875 OPSs.
he finished with a 119 OPS+ in 778 PA and 6.1 WAR.

in August and September, David Wright put up 1.172 and 1.034 OPSs (the 2007 NL league leader was 1.029).
he finished with a 149 OPS+ in 711 PA and 8.3 WAR.

Pujols was first at 8.7, then Wright and Utley. Rollins was 9th.

but the Cardinals had a losing record, and only Wright and Utley were top WAR performers who were in title races.

Utley only played in 4 games in August, and had an .872 OPS in September.

clearly, Wright failed to motivate his team like Rollins and Utley did - or something - so to the victors goes the spoils(ed).

the writer is attempting to prove the truth of I Corinthians 13:12 "but now we see through a glass darkly..."

A rousing start to the balloting. This year promises to have a lot of bizarre stories with schilling, vizquel, bonds, Clemens, Rolen, Helton, and big Papi all having very different and interesting narratives for the writers to go on about. There’s several guys I hope get passed the 5% threshold just so they get a clean shot next year to develop a following.

I mean, Howard is too good to get zero HOF fame votes, so getting one vote from a Phillies homer isn't the worst thing in the world.

I'm not that sold on Rollins, but he is definitely the type of guy that I would hope gets a couple of years on the ballot, so his case can be properly analyzed.

Viewed individually, this ballot is obviously stupid. However, the reality of HOF voting is it's not simply a yes/no process. It doesn't just separate HOFers from non-HOFers, it reveals different de facto tiers of honor:

1. First-ballot HOFers (Greg Maddux)
2. Consensus HOFers (Craig Biggio)
3. Borderline HOFers/long conversations (Jim Rice, Jeff Kent)
4. Non-HOFers who survive to a second ballot/consensus HOVG (Nomar Garciaparra)
5. Non-HOFers who get at least one vote (Raul Ibanez)
6. "Being on the ballot is your reward" (Casey Blake)

If all of the voters submitted logical, objective, data-driven ballots, then categories 2, 4, and 5 probably disappear. (Category 4 may have already disappeared -- last year, Jason Giambi, Eric Chavez, and Cliff Lee all failed to make a second ballot despite having 38+ WAR.) We'd just have HOFers, non-HOFers, and a handful of 60 WAR guys that people argue about. Some would view this as an improvement, but I think it would be more boring because the debate about the HOF (and how everyone who disagrees with you is stupid) is more interesting than the actual HOF. We need the "dumb votes" to preserve the current system.

I don't think Howard or Rollins is a HOFer but I do agree with the sentiment above that Howard feels like a "Class 5" guy and Rollins feels like a "Class 4" guy. Howard deserves more recognition than Darin Erstad; Rollins deserves more recognition than Michael Young. So even though this ballot is bad, I'm glad it exists. (I just hope there aren't too many more of them.)

The vets committee better come through because the most likely candidate was schilling and he’s not getting in. Rolen can’t even get a Philly writer vote and big Papi/A-rod….? Is there some surge for the year 10 guys? Doubtful.

Ryan Howard:

Number of season with 100+ games played and a bWAR of at least 2.0: 3

So this writer thinks a guy with just three full seasons in which he was better than an average regular player should be in Hall of Fame?

I would say I want whatever he's smoking, except it appears to cause brain damage.

(Category 4 may have already disappeared -- last year, Jason Giambi, Eric Chavez, and Cliff Lee all failed to make a second ballot despite having 38+ WAR.)

Lol, wut? Last year saw Torii Hunter, Mark Buehrle and Tim Hudson survive the 5% thresh hold. We used to see guys like Will Clark, Jim Edmonds and Kevin Brown go one and done with far better careers.

Aaannnnd, Steve Marcus sends in a blank ballot for the second year in a row...

Wow. How many ballots do you think it will take to knock this one off the Dumbest Ballot throne? Could it go wire to wire? That would be something.

It took literally one more ballot to find a dumber one.

35. Baldrick Posted: November 29, 2021 at 02:12 PM (#6055170)

Wow. How many ballots do you think it will take to knock this one off the Dumbest Ballot throne? Could it go wire to wire? That would be something.


It took literally one more ballot to find a dumber one.

He is on Twitter defending his "ballot." Or more accurately attacking those who let him know what they think of his lack of effort and his begging for attention.

So you exclude all those with PED taint and you think Helton, Rolen and vizquel aren’t up to snuff. Remove Schilling. Voila, empty ballot

A couple empty ballots does serious damage - it’s kind of a jerky thing to do. But I’m sure there’s always a few

This is shaping up as a really bad year.

Or more accurately attacking those who let him know what they think of his lack of effort and his begging for attention.

A voter who honestly feels there are no players worthy of election to the Hall of Fame can just abstain, but casting a blank ballot is an a-hole look-at-me move that requires 3 votes to offset the damage. Must be desperate for attention.

From Cardinals beat writer (and HOF voter) Derrick Goold to Steve Marcus via twitter:

"Quick question, Mr. Marcus: Because you submitted a blank ballot -- and thus a one in the total ballots and zero in the ledger for Rolen -- it will take three of your #HOF voting peers to overcome that your vote against him. Is that OK?" (Goold also politely replied to someone else that he has heard arguments for and against blank ballot submissions and just wanted to get the view of a reporter he has read).

Steve Marcus reply:
"Beat writer as fan. That's what this business needs in an era where everyone questions the legitimacy of news."

Decide for yourself which camp you support...

If you don't believe anyone on the ballot is worthy you should absolutely send in a blank ballot and not abstain.

Now then if you don't believe in the hall then you should abstain.

There's only 4 or 5 guys on the ballot who are clear no doubt HoFers and they aren't getting in because of the whole PED issue the rest aren't the type to get 75% easily or at all.

casting a blank ballot is an a-hole look-at-me move that requires 3 votes to offset the damage. Must be desperate for attention

It's funny but I followed this principle in the mock era ballots here at BBTF. I didn't think anyone except maybe Dahlen and Minoso were valid HOFers, so I didn't vote, figuring that would be unsportsmanlike.

All the more, one should not do that in the real election. Abstain, as you say, or honor the guys you somehow know never did PEDs yet played well anyway (Rolen, Helton, Abreu, etc.)

Me, I would abstain instead of sending in a blank ballot using the rationale that I will only vote for candidates, not against them. I know that any candidate I did not vote for has the same result, hence why I would vote for any player I thought was remotely borderline if I had room on my ballot. If enough voters felt strongly about someone I considered borderline to get that candidate to 74%, then I would be happy my vote got them to 75% and induction.

I am sure I would be right about those candidates I strongly felt should be in. I could not be sure that I would be right about the borderline calls, so I would give the borderline candidates the benefit of the doubt and vote for them.

That's just me, of course...

39. I cannot decide whether to support Mr. M's view because I do not understand the meaning of what he wrote. I see a fragment and a sentence. I cannot see how the fragment relates to the sentence.

If anyone can explain it to me, I would appreciate it.

44–My take would be that he is engaging in the subcategory of verbal irony known as sarcasm.

He means that in an age when dumb people write “fake news!” on Twitter, it becomes the responsibility of the beat writer to present themselves as without bias.

( I myself endorse neither the socio-historical analysis nor the reasoning derived from it….)

44- I took it as deflection by Marcus, bringing up something unrelated to the question so he could avoid answering it. Funny that he used that tactic with Derrick Goold, who is more than a mere “beat writer” and seems to be one of the more respected members of the BBWAA fraternity.

Then again, I could be wrong since I gave up trying to make sense of anything Steve Marcus says a long time ago…

It’s hard to believe anyone can get 75% ever with so many oddballs voting

I always enjoy looking at these early votes - to see if there's been consistency. Speaking on Marcus - he is pretty consistent, but I don't get his methodology completely.
He has a high bar for greatness (generally) and is absolutely anti-PED post 2013

Going all the way back 2013 - Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Morris, Piazza. In terms of greatness, Bonds, Clemens and Piazza all make sense, Biggio and Morris are short in that sense. Why not Edgar or Raines or Walker or Schilling or Trammell. But 3 guys would appease that inner-circle ness of a hall of famer.

2014 - Drops Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Piazza. The latter 3 for their supposed connection to PED's. Biggio wasn't great enough. But Morris and Frank Thomas and Greg Maddux are on his ballot. Maddux is obvious. Thomas is a middle-upper range HOFer, who would still appeal to smaller hall candidates. And distinction is drawn with no Glavine (who I'd think would appeal to a similar set of candidates). But Morris remains, which is inconsistent.

2015 - Morris falls off and Maddux is inducted. Goes with obvious inner-circle guys like Randy Johnson and Pedro, and adds Biggio (who is I guess close to his line of greatness and missed by 2 votes in 2014). No Smoltz either who went in quickly.

2016 - RJ and Pedro and Biggio inducted. Adds Ken Griffey Jr. which makes sense based on his established norms, but then also adds newcomer Trevor Hoffman, who would seem to be much farther down the list, regardless of your view on relievers.

2017 - The Kid is inducted, goes back to the well with Hoffman and adds newcomer Vlad. Vlad is great an all, but isn't Griffey or Maddux level.

2018 - We get the Raines induction which Marcus never helped. Goes back with Vlad and Hoffman adding newcomers Chipper Jones (duh) and Jim Thome who seems a bit farther down (but compares well with Frank Thomas)

2019 - Goes with Mo (as did everyone else) and adds Edgar Martinez now in his 10th year. I mean Edgar's not far off the Big Hurt and Thome, but seems kind of like what he did with Biggio, except he never voted for Martinez before.

2020 - Mo and Edgar are in - votes for Jeter only which I sort of get if you have a super high bar for position players, a higher bar for starting pitchers or need 600 saves as a closer and do all this PED free (alleged or otherwise)

2021 - Is blank which is consistent with 2020

2022 - Is blank which is consistent with 2020/ 2021.

So to get on his ballot you need:
a) PED free (alleged or otherwise) and;
b) Inner circle level starting pitcher or;
c) upper echelon level hitter with gaudy average or homers (preferably both) and lots of longevity or;
d) 600 saves or;
e) be the face / co-face of the Yankees for 20 years

Based on that he will have blank ballots until 2024 when Beltre hits the ballot and 2025 when Ichiro! (maybe passes as a Jeter type exception) come on. Beltran's got the cheating in 2023 so he's gotta be a no. It's ridiculous, but reasonably consistent after he made his PED stand in 2014.

Lol, wut? Last year saw Torii Hunter, Mark Buehrle and Tim Hudson survive the 5% thresh hold. We used to see guys like Will Clark, Jim Edmonds and Kevin Brown go one and done with far better careers.

Ohdamn, yeah, I lost a year there. I was looking at 2020. Blame Covid.

I don't have a principled objection to not voting for anyone. If you think no one is worthy, go ahead and send in a blank ballot.

My problem is with thinking that there are no worthy players on the ballot.

Tracker is up, only 5 ballots recorded so far.

e) be the face / co-face of the Yankees for 20 years

Going out on a limb, but I suspect non-Yankees with 3465 hits might make his ballot, too.

For Howard, what's the difference between him and either of the Fielders, or the Vaughn, or Frank Howard, or any of twenty other short career (for a Hall of Famer) sluggers who got more or less no traction on the ballot?

The main difference is that they were all better than Howard, as far as I can tell.

More fun courtesy of the Steve Marcus twitter feed...

Pete Abraham (Boston Globe and HOF Voter)

"Your decision actively sabotages the chances of players others deem worthy. Why do that as opposed to simply not submitting your ballot?"

Steve Marcus' Reply

"You really want to dictate how BBWAA members should participate in the process? That's not how we have or ever will operate. If you disagree, take it up with the association's officers and see how far you get."

My thoughts:

1. I didn't see Pete Abraham "dictating" anything. He simply asked a question.

2. Marcus is right when he says that's not how the BBWAA has or ever will operate. That's a big part of the problem.

3. I really am enjoying these BBWAA voter-on-BBWAA voter spats...

1. I didn't see Pete Abraham "dictating" anything. He simply asked a question.

Marcus seems bound and determined not to actually answer any questions about his decision. Which is usually pretty telling about the strength of the decision making process.

It’s still early but Ortiz being at just 40% in the first 5 ballots is surprising

It’s still early but Ortiz being at just 40% in the first 5 ballots is surprising

IIRC, the more analytical voters tend to vote early, Ortiz will probably only get 40-50% from that crowd. Old school guys will probably bump him up because of the narrative.

I'm a Red Sox fan so of course I think he belongs.

Ryan Howard:

Number of season with 100+ games played and a bWAR of at least 2.0: 3

I remember looking at Howard's numbers and marveling at just how empty they were. He cracked 4 WAR exactly once: the 2006 MVP season, in which he hit 58 homers. You'd think that would be, what, at least 8 WAR? Nine, maybe? Nope: just 5.2 WAR, which among the people who got MVP votes in the NL that season ranked tenth, well behind Pujols, Beltran and even teammate Chase Utley. (His -1.8 dWAR didn't exactly help matters much.)

Ol' Ryan ended up with just 14.7 WAR for his career, including a terrifying -5.8 in his last five seasons. (Yes, kids, the Phillies paid this man $115 million to hit 226/292/427 over 2,122 PA and lose ballgames for them. Nice work if you can get it.) It's enough to make me wonder if WAR is somehow undervaluing slow-footed, defensive-deficient sluggers like Howard.

Marcus' very first entry in his twitter description if "HOF voter". He takes his preening seriously.

Obviously Howard isn’t an HoFer (except maybe the sitcom hof). It is hard to place his type of player: the slow, heavy, but folk heroish Paul buy on first baseman who is beloved and gets some memorable clutch hits and feels like the soul of the team from afar. I get the limits and the terribly short careers those guys have. Having lived in Boston during the Mo Vaughn years and Philly with Howard, they were fun guys to have on the team and root for before they fell apart. Doesn’t put them in Cooperstown but I get why they felt better than they were

Marcus' very first entry in his twitter description if "HOF voter". He takes his preening seriously.

Went to check his twitter feed for anything new on his HOF ballot. Appears his tweets with Derrick Goold and Pete Abraham are now gone. Three possible reasons:

1. Maybe I missed them. Could happen.

2. Maybe he deleted them. If so, then I guess having "the guts" to make HOF calls stops at the point where your fellow voters start asking you questions publicly...

3. Maybe the BBWAA told their members to not air any dirty laundry in public. If so, this would bother me more than either of the two previous possibilities...

Obviously Howard isn’t an HoFer (except maybe the sitcom hof). It is hard to place his type of player: the slow, heavy, but folk heroish Paul buy on first baseman who is beloved and gets some memorable clutch hits and feels like the soul of the team from afar. I get the limits and the terribly short careers those guys have. Having lived in Boston during the Mo Vaughn years and Philly with Howard, they were fun guys to have on the team and root for before they fell apart. Doesn’t put them in Cooperstown but I get why they felt better than they were

Well said- this is why I like clubs that have a team Hall of Fame. Perfect place to honor guys like Mo Vaughn and Ryan Howard...

(A) team Hall of Fame (is the) perfect place to honor guys like (...) Ryan Howard

Looking at WAR alone, Howard ranks 45th among all Phillies batters, between Dave "Beauty" Bancroft and Spud Davis. Throw in the pitchers and he ranks 72nd, tied with Ben Sanders, who hurled two decent seasons in the eighties. (The 1880s, that is.)

But, of course, it's a Hall of Fame, and an MVP, a ROY, 382 homers and a ring is a heckuva effective way to get famous.

By my eye test, this ballot looks like a piece of ####.

Looking at WAR alone, Howard ranks 45th among all Phillies batters, between Dave "Beauty" Bancroft

That’s Hall of Famer Dave Bancroft! QED.

Filip Bondy’s ballot…

Seven returnees (Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Manny, Schilling, Sosa, Wagner) to go with newcomers Ortiz and A-Rod along with the addition of Scott Rolen. Bondy dropped Kent, Sheffield and Vizquel to make room for the new additions, but said he would love to have been able to vote for them.

I know I’ve dissed Bondy at times in the past, but this struck me as a responsible ballot if you’re voting for PED guys. Dropped arguably his three weakest selections from last year to make room for his three additions and kept everyone in their last year on the ballot. A refreshing surprise considering some of the early ballots we’ve seen…

66 - That is a pretty great ballot. I found myself in the same position this year in that I needed to drop two to account for A-Rod and Ortiz who should be hall of famers, despite shortcomings. I ended up with Kent and A. Jones as the odd men out, but could certainly see the three he dropped as reasonable. I also liked Henning's ballot - he voted 6 and say you had a 20% discount on bWAR for alleged or otherwise PED use, it's enough to knock Sheffield and Ramirez, Pettitte and Sosa out of being good enough (say 60 bWAR), but Bonds, Clemens and A-Rod, even if you discount them by about half, still are hall-of famers (Bonds, cut in two has more bWAR than full career Curt Schilling who is way over the line-############# aside). He's got Helton, Rolen and Schilling who all clear that threshold, but no others (i.e. Abreu, Buehrle, Hudson, Kent, A. Jones, Teixeira etc.)

Full disclosure - I'd drop Wagner and re-add Sheffield, but otherwise a perfect match.

Ready to run a mock-HOF ballot?

Ready to run a mock-HOF ballot?

Sometimes I can post in hall of merit threads (like today), and sometimes I can't, even though I can post in newsblog threads. Any idea what's up with that?

I'd tell you what message it gives me when it prevents me from posting, except that today my posts go through.

That has been going on for years. I don't think I have heard a good explanation for the site's aberrant behavior.

The thing I have noticed...for me I only have issues being able to post to threads created by DL. Which is a shame because he creates the vast majority of posts I want to participate in.

Me, I would abstain instead of sending in a blank ballot using the rationale that I will only vote for candidates, not against them.

I am not sure I follow this reasoning. Let's assume you felt there was one candidate on the ballot who deserved the HoF. Presumably, you'd submit a ballot with one name, which would act as a vote 'against' all other candidates, by that reasoning. So why does the calculation differ when you feel zero names are deserving?

Or would you always abstain, under the theory that any ballot with any number of names is a vote against every candidate not included?

Me, I would abstain instead of sending in a blank ballot using the rationale that I will only vote for candidates, not against them.


I am not sure I follow this reasoning. Let's assume you felt there was one candidate on the ballot who deserved the HoF. Presumably, you'd submit a ballot with one name, which would act as a vote 'against' all other candidates, by that reasoning. So why does the calculation differ when you feel zero names are deserving?

Or would you always abstain, under the theory that any ballot with any number of names is a vote against every candidate not included?

If I had a ballot and there was only one candidate I felt qualified, I would vote for him and submit the ballot. As I said earlier, while the math impact is the same for those I did not vote for as if I sent in a blank ballot, the personal difference is there was someone on the ballot to vote for and they deserved my vote. If there was no one on the ballot I saw as deserving, I would not submit a ballot since that is an active action of voting against everyone, not the result of voting for someone.

Not saying this is right or wrong. Just saying that is how I see it...

Jon Heyman Ballot- kept his five returnees (Bonds, Andruw, Kent, Rolen Schilling), no additions or deletions. On Twitter he did say that if he had four picks for the Veterans Committee, he would go with Hodges, Allen, and two of Minoso, Oliva and Kaat. (He dropped Kaat when someone made the "Jim Kaat is Jamie Moyer" comp...)

I am not sure I follow this reasoning. Let's assume you felt there was one candidate on the ballot who deserved the HoF. Presumably, you'd submit a ballot with one name, which would act as a vote 'against' all other candidates, by that reasoning. So why does the calculation differ when you feel zero names are deserving?

Yeah, I was going to post this. I understand that you can't vote for one person without voting "against" all of the others, but I don't see why the difference between 0 and 1 valid candidate is different than the difference between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc. If you're doing your job and there are 16 people on a ballot and you choose to vote for 3 of them, then you've also chosen to vote against 13 of them. If you choose 1, you're voting against 15 of them. What's magical about going from 1 to 0?

OK, I’ll try once more using two candidates on the current ballot…

Jeff Kent- I’m not sure Kent is a HOFer, I’m not sure he isn’t. I wouldn’t check his box on my first run through the ballot, but I would include him on my ballot afterwards if I had room. If Kent was the only candidate on the ballot who I felt had a borderline HOF case, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and vote for him with my motivation being that I am voting FOR Jeff Kent.

Omar Vizquel- I am comfortable that Omar Vizquel is not a HOFer. I would never check the box next to his name regardless of who was on the ballot. But if Vizquel was on a ballot which had no one else I considered even a borderline HOFer, I would not submit a blank ballot just to vote against Omar Vizquel. If exactly 75% of the submitted ballots voted for Omar Vizquel, then good for him and he’s a HOFer. I didn’t negate two of those votes by submitting a blank ballot to vote against him.

The process requires that you vote against some players when you vote for others. I would have no control over that. But the process also says I am to vote for those I consider HOFers. It does not say I am to vote for those I consider worthy AND vote against those I don’t. I control that part and, if there is no one I think is deserving, I would choose not to vote against anyone, just to vote for those I consider deserving. Hence I would never send in a blank ballot.

That’s the difference. I don’t expect anyone to agree with this and that’s fine. What I don’t get is why this seems to be confusing. And I promise no more replies…

74. TJ Posted: December 03, 2021 at 05:03 PM (#6056068)
Jon Heyman Ballot- kept his five returnees (Bonds, Andruw, Kent, Rolen Schilling), no additions or deletions. On Twitter he did say that if he had four picks for the Veterans Committee, he would go with Hodges, Allen, and two of Minoso, Oliva and Kaat. (He dropped Kaat when someone made the "Jim Kaat is Jamie Moyer" comp...)

Heyman has long ago abandoned any thought of doing research or actually examining the careers of HOF candidates. Anyone who has been here a while certainly remembers his convoluted arguments for Jack Morris over Bert Blylevin. They were almost direct contemporaries (Bert debuted in 70 Jack in 77) and their performance as pitchers wasn't close, but Heyman argued that Morris was a better big game pitcher or some such nonsense. Not one stat supported his arguments (except one WS game). Funny thing is, Blyleven was even a much better post season pitcher (over a run lower ERA). I'd like to hear his reasoning for Bonds and not Clemens, but I'm afraid that will cause my brain to bleed. Same thing for the one voter who voted Clemens and not Bonds. How do you separate the two? No failed tests, if you're a no on PEDs. Both among best ever and received acclaim from the same voters for annual awards (7 MVPs & 5 other top 5 finishes for Bonds and 7 Cy Young awards + 3 top five finishes and one MVP for Clemens). Allegations and insinuations of PED usage has haunted both and hurt their HOF chances, but choosing one and not the other is just weird.

eah, I was going to post this. I understand that you can't vote for one person without voting "against" all of the others, but I don't see why the difference between 0 and 1 valid candidate is different than the difference between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc. If you're doing your job and there are 16 people on a ballot and you choose to vote for 3 of them, then you've also chosen to vote against 13 of them. If you choose 1, you're voting against 15 of them. What's magical about going from 1 to 0?

Because submitting a blank ballot is actively being a dick. If you only vote for one guy, then you are voting for one guy you support, you are no longer being an active dick. When you submit a blank ballot it not only states that I don't think anyone is deserving, I'm intentionally using my ballot to make it harder for other people to select a candidate. It's a dick move, pure and simple. (mind you, with a ballot like this, if you voted for just one person, it would probably be equally a dick move to be honest... and I guarantee that if someone has a ballot with just one name on it, they will be equally as ridiculed as a blank ballot moron.There is almost no criteria that exists that would allow you to vote for just one candidate on this particular ballot that would be justified.)

Edit: okay, to be honest, I could honestly see a single candidate ballot for Rolen as following some weird logic, but that is about it.

OK, I’ll try once more using two candidates on the current ballot…

Jeff Kent- I’m not sure Kent is a HOFer, I’m not sure he isn’t. I wouldn’t check his box on my first run through the ballot, but I would include him on my ballot afterwards if I had room. If Kent was the only candidate on the ballot who I felt had a borderline HOF case, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and vote for him with my motivation being that I am voting FOR Jeff Kent.

Omar Vizquel- I am comfortable that Omar Vizquel is not a HOFer. I would never check the box next to his name regardless of who was on the ballot. But if Vizquel was on a ballot which had no one else I considered even a borderline HOFer, I would not submit a blank ballot just to vote against Omar Vizquel. If exactly 75% of the submitted ballots voted for Omar Vizquel, then good for him and he’s a HOFer. I didn’t negate two of those votes by submitting a blank ballot to vote against him.

The process requires that you vote against some players when you vote for others. I would have no control over that. But the process also says I am to vote for those I consider HOFers. It does not say I am to vote for those I consider worthy AND vote against those I don’t. I control that part and, if there is no one I think is deserving, I would choose not to vote against anyone, just to vote for those I consider deserving. Hence I would never send in a blank ballot.

That’s the difference. I don’t expect anyone to agree with this and that’s fine. What I don’t get is why this seems to be confusing. And I promise no more replies…

There is a reason that Goold has proposed that the hof vote should be a yes/no decision... and I'm on the fence that it should actually be yes/no/need more time decision (where anyone who checks the box, needs more time means that for continuing onto the next year, that vote counts as a yes for the 5% threshold, but a no as to actual enshrinment. ) No limit on the number you vote for, you simply say yes or no or effectively 'check back with me next year' This allows the prima donna's who don't think someone is first ballot worthy to ensure their votes keep them on the ballot etc...

Simplify the election system:

--make a 20-player ballot
--no 5% rule
--no 10-vote limit

So get the twenty best candidates from the period under consideration (2007-2016 retirees for the 2022 election) and let the voters vote for anyone they want.

Nine votes in on The Tracker, WHICH STILL HAS NOT BEEN PINNED TO THE TOP OF THE NEWSBLOG, with Rolen & Schilling now barely above the 75% threshold. Too early to be really significant, not much in the way of adds & drops yet, but you need to cross the line sometime to make it, so perhaps we’re not looking at a shutout, which would be the worst outcome, IMHO.

Sometimes I can post in hall of merit threads (like today), and sometimes I can't, even though I can post in newsblog threads.

Same problem here. Logged in everywhere but on the Mock Hall of Fame Ballot 2022 thread.

I just now got back into the HOF 2022 thread after being mysteriously locked out for a couple of hours

It is going to be really awesome for baseball when:

1) The only news about baseball through early January is the lockout!
2) The Hall of Fame announces...nobody got 75%, and the media highlight how arguably the greatest pitcher and hitter of the last 50 years...is not in the Hall of Fame!
3) After a damaging off-season for the brand of baseball, and the potential for a delayed start to the season, the sport celebrates its comeback with a big Induction Weekend featuring...no inductees from the BBWAA!

MLB cannot get out of its own way, can it?

BTW, in terms of Steve Marcus, two questions I'd love to hear him honestly answer:

1) Is there any player not in the HOF that you think should be?
2) Give me an example of a player who is barely "above the line" of the HOF, and one that is barely "below the line".

Yes, I guess my question continues to be: say you think all the players with the best records are terrible people because of PEDs. So you will never vote for them.

But wouldn't that imply that Helton, Rolen, Rollins, Andruw Jones etc. not only are a bit better than their records look (competing against such cheaters), but also get a character bonus for declining to use PEDs?

If not, it seems that you just hate baseball and feel the HOF should close up shop, which is a valid view; but then why are you part of the HOF electorate.

So writers it must be, for they are relied upon for their eyes

"I see." said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.

Nine votes in on The Tracker...

Ortiz only has 4/9, which is utterly shocking to me. [Yes, I am a Sox fan, but definitely thought he'd be safely above 50%] Tied with ARod, note.

I'm not particularly surprised with Ortiz's middling showing so far. He scores highly in the 'feels like a Hall of Famer' department for sure, but there are a lot of reasons (not necessarily good ones mind you) not to vote for him - traditionallist voters have both the DH and PEDs to vote against, and generally have a higher bar to begin with, while the more modern voters won't be impressed with his career or peak WAR scores, and even if they support him, might like 10 other guys even better.

The number of voters who vote exclusively or primarily on feeling or eye test is relatively small at this point, and those that do are going to be more aggressively anti-PED. I think Ortiz will get in, but it'll take a few years. I bet he'll end up behind Rolen this year even.

Ortiz only has 4/9, which is utterly shocking to me. [Yes, I am a Sox fan, but definitely thought he'd be safely above 50%] Tied with ARod, note.

Most notably, he's only appeared on ballots with other PED guys (though not all of the ballots that have included Clemens and Bonds).

I'll note here that I have been one of the few skeptics to the conventional BTF wisdom that Papi would sail in within a year or two, so this slow start is hardly surprising to me.

I'll note here that I have been one of the few skeptics to the conventional BTF wisdom that Papi would sail in within a year or two, so this slow start is hardly surprising to me.

As one of the people who thought he would sail in, I'm a bit happy that there does seem a little bit of a pushback against his case. He doesn't hurt the hall in any way, but there is no rational reason to include him and exclude Sosa.

no worries about "sample size" with 9 posted out of hundreds of ballots to come?

doesn't seem BBTF Primate-like

no worries about "sample size" with 9 posted out of hundreds of ballots to come?

doesn't seem BBTF Primate-like

There is of course sample sized issues, but as 89 pointed out, so far he has only showed up on ballots that support other "roid" candidates. The fear is that he was going to somehow avoid the roid candidates narrative.

He's worthy(barely) he's tainted, and he has a fantastic personality and plays for a beloved under dog city that people want to do good with because they are not the Yankees. So everyone has been curious how much of the taint the writers will remember or whether they will selectively forget it, while ignoring the fact that Sosa has exactly the same taint(and a better career).

Can someone with keys just post the tracker as a pinned thread? Or is this the official "HOF Chatter"?

Can someone with keys just post the tracker as a pinned thread? Or is this the official "HOF Chatter"?

Yes, pin The Tracker. Thibs deserves credit for his efforts, and making a McCaffey thread the de facto HoF thread almost makes BBTF complicit in his attention-seeking homerism.

Era committees announced. They were busy:

Gil Hodges, Minnie Minoso, Tony Oliva, Jim Kaat, Bud Fowler, and Buck O'Neil.

I tried to post a link for the veteran's committee vote, we'll see if anyone has keys will approve it.

Ken Boyer got three or fewer votes (out of 16, 12 of which is necessary for the hof, Hodges, Kaat, Minoso and Oliva received most of the votes, hard to fault that selection, Allen missed by one) I'm not a Hodoges fan, and am obviously biased towards Boyer, but ehh.. it is what it is, and I don't really fault any of the selections. Personally I would have had Boyer and Allen ahead of Oliva and Hodges, but I don't think the gap is so huge that it is obvious. (Well in Allen's case it might be, but I do have issues with his ability to stay on the field) (Well I'm being a bit kind, in reality the gap between Allen and Boyer and the elected is kinda huge)

The vets didn't pick a Harold Baines type this time which is a plus. Fowler appears to be a narrative guy - last black player in non-Negro Leagues play pre-Jackie Robinson. Hodges was a trivia answer (most votes by BBWAA without getting into the HOF) and a HOVG manager and HOVG player. I'm meh on him. Oliva is a high peak, short career guy who I always saw as borderline. Kaat was an accumulator of the 60's/70's which there are many of but he was good enough to be marginal. Buck O'Neil should've been in LOOONG ago - his stats aren't wow, but his advocacy for baseball was - very sad we won't get to see him give a speech as it would've been a great one - hopefully whoever speaks for him is also a great talker.

As to this years BBWAA ballot - I would be surprised if anyone gets in. Ortiz only has 55.3 WAR due to being a pure DH - mixed with the PED stuff he has to be on the outside looking in imo. I tend to ignore PED use mostly but for marginal guys it is an issue. Guys like Clemens, Bonds are so far past any standard even if their careers had ended pre-1998 (the earliest either has been accused of PED use) that it is a joke to keep them out. Clemens pre-98 had 92.7 WAR (46 post), Bonds 91.8 pre, 71.8 post. Sosa is a marginal guy imo with his 58.6 WAR despite his 600+ HR's - I'd debate him a lot, the corked bat a negative as are rumors (but no positive tests or penalties) of PED use. A-Rod claims to have started in 2010 - if true then he had over 100 WAR and should be a lock as well

I figure someday Clemens, Bonds, A-Rod will all get in but not until 2026 or later (via a vets committee of some kind). Sosa probably will too as memories fade. Ortiz I wouldn't be shocked to see drop in support as time goes by.

97. John Northey Posted: December 05, 2021 at 10:00 PM (#6056326)
The vets didn't pick a Harold Baines type this time which is a plus.

Really? While Baines obviously had a longer career and many more plate appearances, he and Hodges have some similarities. Comparing Baines to Hodges: Homers 384 to 370, BA: .289 to .273, OBP: .356 to .359, SLG: .465 to .487, OPS+: 121 to 120, in post-season Baines was better (Small Sample Size of a hundred or so ABs). I don't put a lot of stock in defensive stats, but safe to say neither added much if anything with the glove. Overall, I'd argue Baines had a slightly better case for HOF.

With better knees Oliva is in decades ago.

As to Kaat, after Morris was enshrined, it became hard to justify keeping a much better pitcher, who was also a better compiler, out. Kaat beats him on quality and quantity.

With better knees Oliva is in decades ago.

With a better back Al Rosen is in decades ago.

I don't put a lot of stock in defensive stats, but safe to say neither added much if anything with the glove.

Hodges was an above-average 1B, Baines was a DH. As you note, they're similar hitters so that's the main difference between them and accounts for most of the difference in WAA (Hodges was also the better baserunner, Baines played a bit longer).