As usual send them in...in case I miss some.

The Mike Nadel ballot is the latest hoot.

The voters, they are flummoxed this year.

the HOF needs to threaten taking away the ballot from the clowns who keep writing in rose.

Also: Dale Murphy needs to have more kids, I guess.

MIKE PIAZZA...with a WAR ranked 179th all-time.

I think maybe catchers need to also be listed on their own list. This is ridiculous.

I think maybe catchers need to also be listed on their own list. This is ridiculous.

It's easy to invent reasons for a stupid idea if you're really committed to it, I guess. Piazza not being a first ballot slam dunk is going to confuse future baseball nerds. I fear for your children's children.

So, wow. Morris not on pace for election, and Bonds/Clemens doing extremely well -- almost everyone with 50% on the first ballot eventually goes in. Although the sample that posts their ballots on the Net might be more anti-Morris/pro-Bonds-Clemens than the norm, this is still quite a thing.

Repoz -- is there any way to get a comparison between our final projected totals from last year and the actual totals?

IIRC there were a couple guys who were very very very underrepresented on the published ballots (Bernie I believe was around 4% but ended up with 9.6%).

I'd also like to know what Morris ended up on last year through this method so we can get an early guess as to what the actual total will be.

So, wow. Morris not on pace for election (and if anything, our sample normally underrates his support IIRC), and Bonds/Clemens doing extremely well -- almost everyone with 50% on the first ballot eventually goes in.

Small sample size, this is only 9% of the ballots.

Repoz -- is there any way to get a comparison between our final projected totals from last year and the actual totals

I think this is the final gizmo count, or pretty close. It would have represented a little over a quarter of the ballots.

UPDATE (1:40) ~~~ 148 Full Ballots.

89.2 - B. Larkin
58.8 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
56.8 - Bagwell
52.0 - T. Raines
44.6 - Lee Smith
36.5 - Trammell
32.4 - E. Martinez
23.6 - F. McGriff
18.2 - L. Walker
17.6 - McGwire
12.2 - D. Murphy
11.5 - R. Palmiero
10.1 - Mattingly
3.4 - Bernie Williams !
1.4 - J. Gonzalez
0.7 - V. Castilla
0.7 - B. Mueller
0.7 - T. Salmon
0.7 - P. Rose (write-in)

Lonnie Smith is doing much better than I expected.

Lonnie Smith is doing much better than I expected.

He's in the nickname Hall of Fame, if nothing else.

The voters, they are flummoxed this year.

That's because they believe they have been hornswoggled.

So to contrast with the ballot gizmo from last year.... (accurate is +/- 3%)... it appears that Morris, Smith, and a couple others should get a little boost from our results here and that nobody here will be more than 3% higher than listed.

Barry Larkin ----- 86.4% ---> accurate
Jack Morris ----- 66.6% ---> gizmo was 8% too low
Jeff Bagwell ---- 56.0% ---> accurate
Lee Smith ------ 50.6% ---> gizmo was 6% too low
Tim Raines ----- 48.7% ---> 4% too high
Alan Trammell -- 36.8% ---> accurate
Edgar Martínez - 36.5% ---> 4% too low
Fred McGriff --- 23.9% ---> accurate
Larry Walker --- 22.9% ---> 5% too low
Mark McGwire --- 19.5% ---> accurate
Don Mattingly - 17.8% ---> 7% too low
Dale Murphy ---- 14.5% ---> accurate
Rafael Palmeiro -- 12.6% ---> accurate
Bernie Williams -- 9.6% ---> 6% too low
Juan González --- 4.0% ---> 3% too low

tl; dr: Morris is going to get in with 68.6% + 8% boost

Looks like, Junior excepted, it will be a long time before we get another HoF CFer-since Mays retired in 1973 it's been Puckett & Bust. Among actives (the much-discussed-this-week Andruw aside), Beltran is probably the best bet, but he's pretty much a long shot. Hint to writers: a CFer needs a different set of offensive standards vis a vis corner outfielders.

Bonds/Clemens doing extremely well -- almost everyone with 50% on the first ballot eventually goes in.

I think one of the important differences is that I think a large percentage of non-Clemens/Bonds voters are firmly dug in in their positions. Some of those will stop being part of the voting pool at some point but I'd guess half of the people voting against those two wouldn't change their votes under any circumstances. They really need to get close to 100% of the people who aren't staunchly anti-PED.

Also: Dale Murphy needs to have more kids, I guess.

That didn't work for Steve Garvey.

Looks like, Junior excepted, it will be a long time before we get another HoF CFer-since Mays retired in 1973 it's been Puckett & Bust.

Andre Dawson.

I think one of the important differences is that I think a large percentage of non-Clemens/Bonds voters are firmly dug in in their positions.

I've seen about 3-4 flip already to Bonds/Clemens.

They really need to get close to 100% of the people who aren't staunchly anti-PED.

Of the BBWAA voter articles/columns I've collected so far 97 are against Bonds/Clemens ~ 79 are for Bonds/Clemens.

I think the "Let's teach 'em a firstyear lesson" is a big part (10% vote) of this.

They really need to get close to 100% of the people who aren't staunchly anti-PED.

McGwire has been hovering around 20%. I think it's safe to say that Bonds will get all of those voters.

That means that of the remaining 80%, Bonds will need to pick up 69% of those McGwire non-voters in order to reach 75%.

And what that means is that all those theories about "steroid discounters" vs. "steroid blackballers" are going to be subject to their first real world test, because it's safe to say that any percentage above 20% that Bonds gets will be from "steroid discounters", while anything below 98% or 99% (or even below 100%) will constitute the hard core of "steroid blackballers".

Of course some of those "steroid blackballers" could be "one year penalty" voters, but that theory never seemed to work for McGwire, whose percentage has actually gone down since his first ballot.

If we go with 600 ballots this year (a bit higher than last year) then we're currently at +/- 13.1% accuracy (ie: Morris is somewhere between 51.6% and 77.8%) if the samples collected were totally random. Sadly, they are not but it is still interesting. This strongly suggests you need to be at 62% of the vote by now to have a realistic shot - thus Bagwell, Biggio, Morris, Piazza and Raines have a chance depending on the remaining voters. Last years final 148 of 573 would be +/- 6.9% 19 times out of 20 thus Morris and Mattingly were the only ones outside the expected range and not by much (Mattingly might have been inside depending on rounding). So given that I'm going to figure that the sample isn't purely random but close enough that I feel we can safely say none of the other guys are going to make it and odds are getting lower for each of the 5 with a shot.

Also, this means no one has become likely to miss 5% - but I would like it if Mattingly at least was removed as losing Lofton, Wells, and Williams (all of whom would've had support in a weaker year) but keeping Mattingly seems silly to me.

Note: 150 votes against = no mathematical chance if 600 or fewer ballots are returned.

I think one of the important differences is that I think a large percentage of non-Clemens/Bonds voters are firmly dug in in their positions.

Only time will tell how firmly dug in they are, but we are looking at a different animal.

In the past if a player gets 50% in year one and later gets in, you've got a player who is considered at least a reasonable candidate by most. As time goes on, the people who are OK with him going in but don't want to vote on the first ballot will jump on board, and some in the media will attach themselves to the cause, and eventually convince enough others. This process can be for good (Blyleven) or not (Rice) but it will play out regardless.

With Bonds/Clemens, you've got two players whose stats are overwhelming, who would have had slam dunk HOF cases even if they had ended their careers a decade or so earlier, before the first time they were alleged to have started using steroids or other PEDS.

Convincing someone who thinks PED use deserves capital punishment of a player's legacy may not be as easy as getting someone to come around on the player's accomplishments.

McGwire has been hovering around 20%. I think it's safe to say that Bonds will get all of those voters.

Agreed

That means that of the remaining 80%, Bonds will need to pick up 69% of those McGwire non-voters in order to reach 75%.

Looking like the blackballers are outnumbering the adjusters by about a 5:3 ratio, if Bonds stays around the 50% mark the Repoz has him at.

This is Morris'...14th year?

Convincing someone who thinks PED use deserves capital punishment of a player's legacy

I will say it again: not getting into the Hall of Fame is not a punishment. If Mark McGwire forgets where he stuck a piece of used gum for later, he will have suffered a greater loss than he will if he never gets into the Hall of Fame.

I think that looking at the "blackballers" as a fixed and ideological group is mostly wrong. The BBWAA electorate have never shown themselves to be particularly complex or ideological thinkers, and the history of HoF voting is all about going with the crowd. If it appears the crowd is moving toward the induction of Bonds and Clemens, I expect we'll see a pretty similar kind of movement.

The one that really stands out to me is the lack of votes for Schilling. Did I miss something? Is this purely about his "low" wins total?

If Lofton fails to get 5% he will be in great company with Dwight Evans, Lou Whitaker, and Ted Simmons.

Schilling was far superior to Morris in clutch performances in the post season, so the voting makes little sense on the narrative side of the equation if narrative and equation can be used in one sentence.

I think that looking at the "blackballers" as a fixed and ideological group is mostly wrong. The BBWAA electorate have never shown themselves to be particularly complex or ideological thinkers, and the history of HoF voting is all about going with the crowd. If it appears the crowd is moving toward the induction of Bonds and Clemens, I expect we'll see a pretty similar kind of movement.

I should have added that very point to my #21, though I strongly suspect it'll take something like a steroid confession or outing of a current HoF member to move the needle more than a few votes at a time, at least until it gets to the point of just needing a few more votes to get to 75%. That's when any bandwagon effect might be most likely to kick in.

But even though I realize that a fair percentage of McGwire non-voters may simply be "steroid discounters", and therefore put McGwire in a distinctly lower category than Bonds, it is worthy to note that Big Mac's percentage has been stuck just about exactly where it was after his first year of eligibility. That doesn't portend any easy gathering of votes for Bonds in the near future over what he winds up with next month.

The one that really stands out to me is the lack of votes for Schilling. Did I miss something? Is this purely about his "low" wins total?

I think it's primarily the difficulty of standing out on this crowded ballot. That said, 37% in year one should lead to Curt getting in eventually. Jack Morris didn't get that many votes until his 7th ballot. But Curt will probably have to wait for Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, and Pedro to get in first. Maybe Smoltz and Mussina too.

You wonder how many of those not voting for Bonds, Clemens et al are doing it merely to deprive them of the "honor" of being a first-ballot Hall of Famer, and will agree to place them in a year from now (or two years if they don't want to lump them in with the Thomas class next year). I'm not necessarily endorsing such an approach, merely saying it's one way some BBWAA members believe they can "punish" them. That's probably ultimately good news for five of the top seven, though Raines doesn't figure into the steroid debate and there are different issues regarding Morris.

This is Morris'...14th year?

Yes. If he doesn't get in this year, it will be really tough next year with the Maddux, Glavine, Moose class joining him (though not impossible, if he gets to 73-74 percent and thus "on the verge"). If he's not above that this year, I don't think he makes it through the BBWAA (though he's pretty much a lock as a future Vet's selection).

But even though I realize that a fair percentage of McGwire non-voters may simply be "steroid discounters", and therefore put McGwire in a distinctly lower category than Bonds, it is worthy to note that Big Mac's percentage has been stuck just about exactly where it was after his first year of eligibility. That doesn't portend any easy gathering of votes for Bonds in the near future over what he winds up with next month.

If we assume that what's going on has to do with logic and strongly held, informed opinion, then I think this take is correct.

My hypothesis is that the writers aren't logically consistent or moved by any particular ideology - they're mostly just following the crowd. When Mac doesn't get votes, he continues not to get votes. But when Clemens and Bonds gets reasonably close to induction, you'll see growth as other writers join in with what everyone else is doing.

Yes. If he doesn't get in this year, it will be really tough next year with the Maddux, Glavine, Moose class joining him (though not impossible, if he gets to 73-74 percent and thus "on the verge"). If he's not above that this year, I don't think he makes it through the BBWAA (though he's pretty much a lock as a future Vet's selection).

Thanks. What's the point of the Vet committee if we have a 15-year process by which to evaluate players? Are those regularly scheduled? I haven't paid much attention to the details here. Appreciate the insight.

Thanks. What's the point of the Vet committee if we have a 15-year process by which to evaluate players? Are those regularly scheduled? I haven't paid much attention to the details here. Appreciate the insight.

I think the point is to give another look at guys who may have been overlooked by the writers the first time around, in addition to the non-player inductions (the managers, execs) that go through the Vet's Committees. There's a definite use for it, though it would work best if the Vet's committees didn't take many of their cues (and occasional membership) from the guys doing the voting (and overlooking) in the first place.

If Lofton fails to get 5% he will be in great company with Dwight Evans, Lou Whitaker, and Ted Simmons.

Evans wasn't one and done.

All one and done team:

C - Ted Simmons
1B - Darrell Evans
2b - Bobby Grich
SS - Bert Campaneris
3B - Buddy Bell
Lf - Reggie Smith
CF - Kenny Lofton
RF - Jimmy Wynn*

SP - Kevin Brown
SP - David Cone
SP - Dave Steib
SP - Rick Reuschel

U - Lou Whitaker
U - Willie Randolph

* Never got a vote.

Jimmy Wynn never got a single vote? That's amazing and disappointing.

Checking the '73 ballot, yup...Jimmy Wynn got zero votes. Tommy Helms., Tommy Freakin' Helms got one. Remind me...why does anyone care about this stuff? Humans...whatever...

Sports is only good at one thing: scoreboard. Everything else is complete poppycock.

Ray Sadecki, owner of a 135-131 record and zero award votes or all star games, got 2. Jimmy Wynn, 0.

#22 is a good post

I think that based on that and #14 we can effectively rule out any variation of more than 6%-7% from the final gizmo total...

Sports is only good at one thing: scoreboard. Everything else is complete poppycock.

Naw, it's all about the story. The scoreboard is but the denouement.

[1], [5]

From TFA:

MARK McGWIRE … He’s kind of the anti-Bonds/Clemens. His numbers were nowhere near Hall worthy until he started using his keister as a pin-cushion. An amazing 42 percent of his career HRs came during the four-year stretch when he was cheating and lying his head off. Given his one-dimensional skill set, it’s not especially difficult to leave the box next to his name unchecked. He’ll never get my vote, and it’s not just because of the cheating. [Emphasis added]

AROM:

I think it's primarily the difficulty of standing out on this crowded ballot. That said, 37% in year one should lead to Curt getting in eventually. Jack Morris didn't get that many votes until his 7th ballot. But Curt will probably have to wait for Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, and Pedro to get in first. Maybe Smoltz and Mussina too.

I'm sure that's right, I guess I've just never been able to wrap my brain fully around the way the HoF ballots work, in that it seems unimaginable to me to have 63% of people believe a player isn't a HoFer, yet that he's likely to make it in. I really will never understand the minds of sportswriters.

I think a good portion of the anti-Schilling vote is just a "he's not a first-ballot guy" vote. Plus I can think of about 75 million reasons why he might not get support from the Rhode Island journalists.

I'm sure that's right, I guess I've just never been able to wrap my brain fully around the way the HoF ballots work, in that it seems unimaginable to me to have 63% of people believe a player isn't a HoFer, yet that he's likely to make it in. I really will never understand the minds of sportswriters.

I can't understand them. But I can at least observe their patterns. BB-ref makes it easy to see every player's HOF vote progression through the years.

I can think of about 75 million reasons why [Schilling] might not get support from the Rhode Island journalists.

From the who, now?

Repoz -- is there any way to get a comparison between our final projected totals from last year and the actual totals?

IIRC there were a couple guys who were very very very underrepresented on the published ballots (Bernie I believe was around 4% but ended up with 9.6%).

I'd also like to know what Morris ended up on last year through this method so we can get an early guess as to what the actual total will be.

As I write this, Repoz has 51 ballots accounted for. Here's where he stood last year w/ 59 ballots accounted for:

Larkin: 93.2%
Morris: 62.7%
Bagwell: 59.3%
Raines: 59.3%
Trammell: 45.8%
Edgar: 40.7%
Lee Smith: 39.0%
L.Walker: 25.4%
McGriff: 22.0%
McGwire: 20.3%
Murphy: 15.3%
Palmeiro: 10.2%
Mattingly: 8.5%
Juan Gone: 3.4%
Bernie: 1.7%

Also, as long as I'm looking, on the very eve of the Hall's announcement, MLB.com and ESPN give their ballots. That was 15 MLB.com guys & 18 ESPN guys last year -- 33 in all. Here's how they voted (to give you an idea of the biggest chunks still to add to repoz this year, withi some modifications obviously):

30 Larkin (over 90%)
22 Morris (two thirds)
20 Lee Smith
16 Bagwell (barely under half)
14 Raines
10 Edgar (just under a third)
10 Trammell
10 McGriff
9 McGwire
9 Palmerio
4 Murphy
3 Mattingly (under 10%)
2 L. Walker

Man, they didn't like Larry Walker at all, did they?

I know that this is a little belated, but I'm shocked that Juan Gonzalez got so few votes last year. The man had 434 home runs and was a two-time MVP. He wouldn't get my vote either, but you'd think there would be enough people in Cleveland or throwing votes around a not-full ballot that he'd get a couple of percent.

My hypothesis is that the writers aren't logically consistent or moved by any particular ideology - they're mostly just following the crowd. When Mac doesn't get votes, he continues not to get votes. But when Clemens and Bonds gets reasonably close to induction, you'll see growth as other writers join in with what everyone else is doing.

That last part is perfectly plausible, but how do you get it to that threshold point, and how long will it take?

Of course all of this is speculation until we see what their actual first and second year base vote turns out to be, as their second year total will presumably add those "one year penalty" aginners.

If their second year vote is 60% or more, I think that their eventual induction is almost guaranteed within another five years or less, but if it's closer to 50%, I'm not so sure, because this isn't going to be a case of trying to adjust statistics a la Blyleven or Rice. It's going to take a wholesale shifting in attitudes on the part of a full quarter of the electorate.

Schilling year 1 support at 37% would compare favorably to Brown's 2.1%. 35 points difference is a big segment of writers who are pro 3,000 K milestone pro post-season narrative and anti-steroid.

                                                                                                                                    
Player           ERA+   W From   To   Age   G  GS CG SHO GF   L W-L% SV     IP    H    R   ER  BB   SO  ERA  HR    BF IBB HBP BK  WP
Curt Schilling    127 216 1988 2007 21-40 569 436 83  20 81 146 .597 22 3261.0 2998 1318 1253 711 3116 3.46 347 13284  43  52  8  72
Kevin Brown       127 211 1986 2005 21-40 486 476 72  17  1 144 .594  0 3256.1 3079 1357 1185 901 2397 3.28 208 13542  42 139 15 108

per post 37, only Bell among that group that is HOM-eligible is not in the HOM.

Free Buddy Bell!*

:)

* or Sal Bando or maybe Ron Cey or Robin Ventura. Free someone at the hot corner, dammit!

Of course some of those "steroid blackballers" could be "one year penalty" voters, but that theory never seemed to work for McGwire, whose percentage has actually gone down since his first ballot.

If Mark would only admit what he did and show some appropriate contrition, a lot of the writers would forgive him, because there's nothing more American than a story of redemption.

Or did I only dream that I heard that somewhere? In a hundred different dreams?

If Mark would only admit what he did and show some appropriate contrition, a lot of the writers would forgive him, because there's nothing more American than a story of redemption. 

In fairness, it was not a good PR move for a bodybuilding athlete to go on TV and sit next to comparatively tiny 5'7" Bob Costas to admit steroid use with the weasly disclaimer of using them "only [...] for health purposes."

I shy away from predicting any 2014 or beyond vote percentages given the nearly unprecedented wave of inner circle guys coming.

Let's for the moment say that two guys debuted on the 2013 ballot and got about 50% each and were behind 4-5 other guys in the 60-75% range. That is let's leave side roids for the moment and just assume for the sake of argument that the finish is roughly what Repoz has at the moment. Feel free to elect one guy in 2013 if you want.

Under normal voting history what might we expect?

Well, in 2014 you have one slam dunk (Maddux), one absolutely certain to make it quickly (Glavine) and one ... well, should be an easy induction (Thomas). Under normal circumstances, with three big candidates joining the ballot, we'd expect to see the backlog stagnate if not fall back. I think we'd expect our two 50% candidates to stay where they are or drop back. In 1998, Perez was at 68%. In 1999, with Ryan, Brett, Yount and Fisk joining the ballot, he fell back to 61%. But with no major 1st year candidates joining in 2000 (well, Morris :-), he jumped to over 75%.

But our backloggers will not be so lucky as Unit, Pedro and Smoltz come on in 2015. Smoltz may or may not do well -- he could get Schilling treatment, he could get Eck treatment or anywhere in-between -- but Pedro and the Unit look like easy 1st-year inductions to me. Maybe somebody in the 60-75 group will make progress (and Morris will be gone) but it's hard to see why the 50%ers would make any real progress.

2016 sees Griffey coming on. Also Trevor Hoffman -- closers are hard to predict and I'd think he'll at least get the Lee Smith treatment but Lee Smith might not get that treatment once Hoffman is on. Some progress can be made here but probably to clear some whatever's left of Glavine, Thomas, Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza, Raines. But our 50%ers might make some progress.

2017 might be the first break although you do get Pudge and Vlad -- both legit shots at 1st ballot induction under normal circumstances but more backlog clearing and progress for the backlog.

2018 will have Chipper and maybe Thome and things might stall out again.

Point being that roids or no roids, I'm not sure we'd expect 50%ers to make much progress until maybe 2017. The HoF voting comparison pool is gonna be might small -- 50%ers with 4-5 strong candidates in front of them and 7+ "no brainer" HoFers joining over the next 4 years. If Bonds and Clemens make progress in 2013 that would be a pretty clear sign they're going to be elected; but a lack of progress won't tell us much of anything since advancement wouldn't be expected anyway.

Now, if we're sitting here a few years from now and none of the hitters have made it through, that would probably be evidence that there's at least a 25% super blackball faction refusing to vote for even Bagwell, Piazza, Biggio and Thomas.

As to voting behavior, it's never rational (group decisions by large groups will never look rational) but one key thing to understand is that the voters seem to treat it on a year-by-year basis. Morris has progressed in part because he and Blyleven were the best (only) starters on the ballot for a number of years. Barry Larkin, Andre Dawson, etc. progress in large part because they were the 4th best player, then the 3rd best player, then the 2nd best player on the ballot. ("Best" being imprecise of course ... probably more accurate to use the placement in votes) Perez didn't look so great in comparison to Brett, Yount and Fisk, but the following year he was the #2 returning vote getter with no names joining the ballot.

And that's the issue facing the 50%s if treated as regular 50%s. They'd finish 6-7 on this ballot. If nobody is elected this year, with those 3 biggies coming on, they fall to 9-10. Even if all three new guys are elected they only move up 1 spot at most with 2-3 biggies coming on. Elect three but Griffey comes on and they only advance 2 slots. It's hard to see how they can move into the top 5 before 2018 at the earliest. Seriously, if I counted right, you may have to elect at least 10 guys before Bonds/Clemens will be the returning vote getter under "normal" circumstances.

But it ain't normal. Anybody applying a one-year penalty will jump B/C to the front of the queue so to speak. But, as Andy notes, there's no evidence of a large "one year penalty" contingent in the Mac/Raffy vote histories. It's possible that's because they are more borderline to start with but you'd still expect some bump.

Hold on, shouldn't this be the 2013 ballot collecting gizmo. I know it's still 2012 to us but it is the 2013 ballot.

Hold on, shouldn't this be the 2013 ballot collecting gizmo. I know it's still 2012 to us but it is the 2013 ballot.

That was an objection taht should have been raised several gizmos ago.

49. thetailor Posted: December 27, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4333292)
I know that this is a little belated, but I'm shocked that Juan Gonzalez got so few votes last year. The man had 434 home runs and was a two-time MVP. He wouldn't get my vote either, but you'd think there would be enough people in Cleveland or throwing votes around a not-full ballot that he'd get a couple of percent.

Cleveland? How'd we get pulled into that conversation? Gonzalez had one good year with Cleveland and went back to Texas. He later returned to Cleveland and got injured in his one and only at bat. I will agree it is surprising he got so little support. 2 MVP's, more than 400 HR with good BA, 904 OPS & 132 OPS+ sounds like kind of guy who gets to hang on the ballot for 15 years if he isn't elected. And that was before the crazy crowded ballot problem.

Smoltz may or may not do well -- he could get Schilling treatment, he could get Eck treatment or anywhere in-between

Smoltz is going to be an interesting one, as he's another member of the 3000-strikeout club with a low win total. To the writers who don't know what WAR is (and brag about not knowing), I think the equation looks a lot like:

"Smoltz = Schilling + Cy Young + mucho saves + more postseason wins + lower (unadjusted) ERA + better hitting + likable personality + shirt-ironing bravery"

and so I'd expect them to lean heavily towards the Eck side of voting. (Then again, I also expected Schilling to get about 50% of the vote, and he's not there...)

I do expect Smoltz to miss out on ballot 1, esp. since he'll be side by side with Johnson and Pedro. But he'll probably go in before Schilling, fair or unfair.

Of course some of those "steroid blackballers" could be "one year penalty" voters, but that theory never seemed to work for McGwire, whose percentage has actually gone down since his first ballot.

If Mark would only admit what he did and show some appropriate contrition, a lot of the writers would forgive him, because there's nothing more American than a story of redemption.

Or did I only dream that I heard that somewhere? In a hundred different dreams?

That was a theory that I never bought to begin with, and in McGwire's case by the time he got around to it, it had been so long after the fact that any possible effect had long been nullified.

And BTW since you're the robinred of sportswriter closet skeletons, maybe you can dig out a few post-2007 quotes from specific writers saying that they would actually vote for McGwire if he would only confess. IIRC most of those statements were made within a year or two of his testimony, and not five years afterwards.

Two days in the screwed-up making...but Marc Maturo's ballot is finally done.

Two days in the screwed-up making...but Marc Maturo's ballot is finally done.

My eyes and brain hurt from reading that.

Hard as it may be to believe, Rose may have missed a potential cash generator in the last few years: it seems any number of sportswriters and other masochists would be glad to pay for the chance to be urinated upon by Pete.

Edit: I guess I shold explain that Maturo wrote in Rose's name.

Some blogger named Lewie Pollis has a spreadsheet with 27 ballots on it. Not sure if he has anyone that Repoz doesn't but figured I'd post it just in case.

Blog Article

Spreadsheet

Edit: The spreadsheet has 33 entries. He's likely updated it since he wrote that article.

I know that Mattingly usually gets strong support from the population that never post their ballots, but he is still perilously close to dropping below 5% in his 13th year on the ballot. I'm not in a position to check, but has there ever been a player that fell off the ballot in their 10th appearance or later? I know both Ron Guidry and Keith Hernandez lasted nine ballots.

Bobby Bonds fell off the ballot in his 11th year with 4.2%.

Curiously, Dick Allen seems to have "fallen off" that same ballot, his 14th, with 16.7%. I don't understand that. I'm sure someone can explain it.

Curiously, Dick Allen seems to have "fallen off" that same ballot, his 14th, with 16.7%. I don't understand that. I'm sure someone can explain it.

Allen received less than 5% on his first (83) ballot and was therefore not on the 84 ballot. The dismal performance of Santo and Allen (and maybe others) led the HoF to put together a committee to put some of these guys back on the ballot despite the 5% rule. Santo and Allen both re-entered with the 85 ballot.

BBWAA eligibility rules require that you aren't eligible once you're 20 years past your last game. Which they ignored in Santo's case but not Allen's ... that is curious.

Allen received less than 5% on his first (83) ballot and was therefore not on the 84 ballot. The dismal performance of Santo and Allen (and maybe others) led the HoF to put together a committee to put some of these guys back on the ballot despite the 5% rule. Santo and Allen both re-entered with the 85 ballot.

BBWAA eligibility rules require that you aren't eligible once you're 20 years past your last game. Which they ignored in Santo's case but not Allen's ... that is curious.

Yeah. There is a lot of curious stuff on the BBREF ballots. Vada Pinson also fell off in year 14 despite ~7%. He also wasn't on the 1984 ballot. But he drew a mere 4.5% in his debut in 1981, and then returned for 1982 when he got 1.4%. that got him onto 1983 where he got 3.2%. THEN he fell off, for 1 year. But Santo with 3.2% in 1980 didn't return till 1985. So I thought maybe the 5% rule was in effect in 1980, but not 1981-1983. But no. In 1982 when Pinson got 6 votes for 1.6% and returned, Dave McNally got 5 votes for 1.2% and was done. BTW, McNally, after falling off in 1983, came back in 1985, got 1.8%, and then returned for 1986.

They also ignored the 20 year rule for Curt Flood, who first got votes in 1977, then fell off after 1979, was restored in 1985, and had a full 15 years on the ballot. Ken Boyer, same thing.

Some blogger named Lewie Pollis has a spreadsheet with 27 ballots on it. Not sure if he has anyone that Repoz doesn't but figured I'd post it just in case.

That's actually my spreadsheet, not Lewie Pollis. It's never as complete as the work Repoz does but I have fun aggregating everything.

#37 - The One and Done Team

I'll take John Olerud over Darrell Evans at 1B. Olerud was a better hitter and a better defensive 1B. Evans gets lots of WAR credit for playing 3B for the majority of his career, but that doesn't make him a better choice at 1B.

I'll take John Olerud over Darrell Evans at 1B. Olerud was a better hitter and a better defensive 1B. Evans gets lots of WAR credit for playing 3B for the majority of his career, but that doesn't make him a better choice at 1B.

Why not? I mean, he *could* have played the easier position his whole career.

Why not? I mean, he *could* have played the easier position his whole career.

That doesn't make him a better first baseman, just a less valuable Darrell Evans. Such a shift presumably wouldn't have made him a better hitter than Olerud, and since it's quite likely he wasn't a better defensive player than Olerud at first, then I think it makes perfect sense to choose Johnny if you're looking to fill that position.

[69] Ah,I see. Perhaps you two should exchange info to expand your data.

[70] Olerud and Evans ahead of Will Clark?

Olerud and Evans ahead of Will Clark?

I'd quite forgotten about Will Clark, and he's remarkably similar to John Olerud. Overall, I think I'd prefer Olerud's defence to Clark's slight advantage on offence, but it's certainly very close. Olerud's career was a little longer, but Clark (from the stats- maybe he got injured) could have played longer.

Is that infamous blank ballot from earlier counted in the totals? Trying to get a sense of the votes/ballot. If it's part of the 60, then the average is currently around 6.8 votes/ballot.

At 61 ballots we're now +/-11.9% if it is a random sample (last years had just one outlier and that was barely). That means to have a shot at 75% you need to be at 63.1% right now. That puts Morris just outside the viable range but keeps Biggio/Bagwell/Piazza/Raines in the range.

The biggest losers right now seem to be...
16.2%: Lee Smith 50.6% to 34.4% (magic closer dust wearing off)
11.4%: Larry Walker 22.9% to 11.5%
11.2%: Don Mattingly 17.8% to 6.6%
6.3%: Bernie Williams 9.6% to 3.3%
5.9%: Fred McGriff 23.9% to 18.0%
5.7%: Alan Trammell 36.8% to 31.1%
5.4%: Edgar Martinez 36.5% to 31.1%
4.4%: Jack Morris 66.7% to 62.3%
1.5%: Mark McGwire 19.5% to 18.0%

Now, those can change drastically and the only statistically significant one is Lee Smith with Walker & Mattingly close to statistical significance. McGwire and Morris can shift to the + side with just a few votes.

Gainers?
16.9% : Tim Raines 48.7% to 65.6%
11.2% : Jeff Bagwell 56.0% to 67.2%
3.8% : Rafael Palmeiro 12.6% to 16.4%
3.5% : Dale Murphy 14.5% to 18.0%

Only Raines is statistically significant, but Bagwell will be there soon most likely (if the next ballot is positive then he is there). Quite surprised to see Palmeiro gaining, and expected a few sympathy votes for Murphy in his final year and as a contrast to the 'steroid era'. Palmeiro & Murphy can shift to the other side quickly though with a few no votes.

The takeaway? The PED ballot has cost Lee Smith, Larry Walker and Don Mattingly the most, while helping Tim Raines & Jeff Bagwell. I suspect for Lee Smith it is getting lost in the shuffle, Walker is viewed as well behind Bonds thus costing a few votes I'm sure, Raines issue with cocaine is probably viewed as a 'so what' with the PED issue, and Bagwell's "he looked big" is becoming less of an issue with guys who had far stronger PED ties on the ballot.

Bagwell may also be benefiting from Biggio being on the ballot - writers may think it's "cool" to have them go in together.

Murphy will almost certainly get a final year bump.

Can you run stats on the likelihood nobody gets inducted? I imagine they're rather high.

Olerud and Evans ahead of Will Clark

Plus Olerud was as pitcher in college and could be used as the 5th starter.

Plus Olerud was as pitcher in college and could be used as the 5th starter.

No need. There's plenty of quality starters left. Just from the last 10 years you can add Appier, Finley, Saberhagen, Gooden, Martinez. My personal favorite might be a guy who was one and done twice, Jose Rijo.

Ron Kroichick on his Bagwell/Biggio only ballot...

"Spent lots of time contemplating Jack Morris & Tim Raines. Both close calls. But when in doubt, keep 'em out"

Actually I can agree with that line from Kroichick - that if you have serious doubt about a guy's HOF case that you should vote against (or not for) them. I don't agree with his limiting his ballot to Bagwell & Biggio, but the sentiment is a good one. Weird to put Morris on 'close call' though on a stacked ballot like this one.

My problem with the "when in doubt keep 'em out" philosophy is that some voters used that as an excuse to not vote for Eddie Murray. It becomes a cover for personal peccadillos rather than an understandable sense of caution. Perhaps baseball writers should follow legal precedent- "when in reasonable doubt...."

Looks like Smith is going to join Gil Hodges in the "50+ but didn't make it" club. I can't see the whatever-it-is committee voting him in either.

I'm not too strong on stat math, but I suspect no one is getting in this year. It seems funny to me that not one of the 60+ folks is at 75+. Then again, we're sure this isn't a random sample - it's skewed towards Net-friendly voters, and based on last year, possibly underrepresents the NY crowd. And of course, those who haven't voted yet might see this thread, get depressed about the low numbers, and go on a voting rampage. We can only hope.

Tracy Ringolsby
@ROOTSPORTS_TR

Hall of Fame votes: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Morris, Murphy, Piazza, Rainges, Trammell and Walker. Ran out of room for others.

Larry Stone
@StoneLarry

HOF ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Trammell, Walker.

HOF ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Trammell, Walker.

Given that this is an exact match for my ballot in the BTF mock election, I have my leader in the clubhouse for best ballot of the year.

Tracy Ringolsby
@ROOTSPORTS_TR

Hall of Fame votes: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Morris, Murphy, Piazza, Rainges, Trammell and Walker. Ran out of room for others.

You'd have more space if you hadn't voted for Morris.

And since it's Morris at the expense of Curt f-ing Schilling, who is CLEARLY better, it's even more egregious.

Larry Stone
@StoneLarry

HOF ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Trammell, Walker.

That is my identical ballot. Larry Stone FTW!

HOF ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Trammell, Walker.

I think I have Palmiero swapped out with Walker, and McGwire with Edgar but close enough. (Repoz needs to put the "time" of the most recent update.)

Stone's ballot is the second that I approve of :)

HOF ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Trammell, Walker.

I'd swap out Bonds for Lofton and Clemens for McGwire. While I'm not an absolutist in excluding steroid users, I don't think they should keep anyone off the ballot I'd normally vote for (Lofton); and among those who did use McGwire is the least objectionable to me.

16. John DiFool2 Posted: December 27, 2012 at 02:35 PM (#4333134)

Looks like, Junior excepted, it will be a long time before we get another HoF CFer-since Mays retired in 1973 it's been Puckett & Bust. Among actives (the much-discussed-this-week Andruw aside), Beltran is probably the best bet, but he's pretty much a long shot. Hint to writers: a CFer needs a different set of offensive standards vis a vis corner outfielders.

Someone else mentioned Andre, so I'll just disagree, some, wrt Beltran.

If you meant he'd be a long shot if his career ended now, I'd tend to agree. But for his HOF chances, 2012 was a huge season for Beltran. 2011 let him re-establish himself after a season which looked like it might be the last of his career, and 2012 showed that he'd continue to be healthy and productive playing 150 games a season. While it's preposterous that CFers having to put up corner OFer hitting stats to get serious consideration, Beltran is getting there.

Games 1919
PA 8349
Runs 1267
Hits 2064
Doubles 416
Triples 74
Home Runs 334
RBIs 1243
SB-CS 306 - 47

.282/.360/.496

OPS+ 122
7 All-Star games (including 2012)
3 Gold Gloves

I can see Beltran sticking around for another five years, until he's 40. Maybe three years as a full-timer, and two in a part time role. He just put up a 128 OPS+ in 151 games. His health has been very good since his microfracture surgery in 2010. Maybe another 555 games if you give him something like 140, 130, 120, 90, 75 games played through 2017.

Even if you give him only another 450 games, he has a good chance at getting to 1500 runs and rbis, and a decent shot at 400 HRs. He'll be up around 2400 games played, well over 10,000 plate appearances, close to 500 doubles, and well over 1,000 walks. He's got the world class postseason record, and a legendary SB percentage. 7 seasons with 100+ runs scored, 8 with 100+ RBIs. Nothing that jumps out at you: no black ink other than games played, once, but enough to get him something like 30-35% of the vote, and he's got the kind of career that over time will get him in.

Another thing working in his favor is WAR. He's already up to 62.3 bWAR, and he doesn't have to play well at all by his standards to get to 70 before his career ends. That's the kind of number, even if only half the writers know what it is, that gets serious attention. Enough to get him off to a respectable start on the way towards building a case over 10 to 15 years.

Of course, he could get hurt again, and be out of the league in a year or two, but even then he'd have a chance. I think it's promising that he'd still have a chance if his career ended tomorrow, but that there's good reason to believe he can put up the equivalent of three full seasons of productive play.

Beltran is hurt by being a Royal for the first half of his career and then factor in the inherent bias against journeymen players and the argument that his New York career was disappointing(regardless of the truth of the matter, the perception was of disappointment)

I do see him along with Edmonds getting serious consideration when their time comes up, Beltran is helped that some of the backlog might be cleared out by the time he becomes eligible though.

I'm guessing we already have Danny Knobler? Morris, Trammell, Raines

"Journeymen"? Beltran would have to swing one-handed before he'd be considered a journeyman?

I also don't recall an anti-KC bias, though his NY career was considered something of a disappointment.

Beltran would have to swing one-handed before he'd be considered a journeyman?

I'm using the term journeyman to refer to a guy who journeys through a bunch of teams (So far Royals, Astros, Mets, Giants and Cardinals) Not to mean he isn't a quality player.

As to anti-Royal bias. Small town that didn't succeed while he was playing there is going to make it difficult for him to garner national attention.

The biggest losers right now seem to be...
16.2%: Lee Smith 50.6% to 34.4% (magic closer dust wearing off)
11.4%: Larry Walker 22.9% to 11.5%
11.2%: Don Mattingly 17.8% to 6.6%
6.3%: Bernie Williams 9.6% to 3.3%
5.9%: Fred McGriff 23.9% to 18.0%
5.7%: Alan Trammell 36.8% to 31.1%
5.4%: Edgar Martinez 36.5% to 31.1%
4.4%: Jack Morris 66.7% to 62.3%
1.5%: Mark McGwire 19.5% to 18.0%

Walker, Mattingly, Bernie and I think Smith all do better with non-Repoz voters. I remain stunned Walker does but he was down around here on the Repoz ballots last year too.

But in general, with Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Piazza and Schilling all making reasonably strong debuts (by historic HoF standards), you would expect all in the backlog below 50% to fall back. Any McGriff voters who are willing to vote Bonds, Biggio, Piazza (and therfore probably Clemens and almost certainly Bagwell) don't have much room left for him on the ballot.

Also what value of p are you using for your standard errors? I tried .5, .65, .7 and .75 and none of them hit 11.9% after 61 ballots (all close of course). Also, technically, you want the finite population correction (1-n/N) in there -- we've got 10% of the population of voters, it's starting to make a bit of a difference.

Just using http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm and a population of 600 (more than last year, but not crazy more). A simple tool but useful. At the moment we are at 69 which shifts it from 11.9 to 11.1. We crack 10% at 83, 5% at 235 (which we won't hit given past results). 150 puts us at 6.9% which is as good as we can hope for I suspect.

So at 11.1% the magic line is 63.9% (less means the statistical odds are extreme of getting in) which means Morris is right on that line. Given he seems to get a boost late thanks to non-printed ballots (older writers love him or something) he still has a shot, but it seems slim at this point. I'd love Biggio & Bagwell to get in together but right now the odds of anyone getting 75% is low as iirc most blank ballots and one name only guys are the ones who don't print. I am happy to see Raines in the 60's though.

Deacon White could be the 'marquee' inductee then.

Chaz Scoggins just released his:
Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Murphy, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Smith

Source

Replace Murphy with Trammell,and that's a hell of a ballot. To me, part of getting an "A" for your ballot is voting for 10 guys.Th ere are so many candidates for whomyou could make a reasonable argument that to leave some of your ten slots blank means you are not understanding the historical anomoly of the current ballotsituation, and thus, you are not doing your part to address it.Good for Scoggins.