I guess we'll find out more about that when it comes to A-Rod, who can't make the "timing" argument but can make the "discount" argument.

Yeah. Hard to separate those camps on the evidence. There's a huge WAR gap on the current ballot between #2 (Clemens, 133.9) and #3 (Bagwell, 76.7). If you think Bagwell is a juicer and give a 20 WAR discount, that might be enough to knock Bagwell off your ballot. But for Clemens, he's safe even on a 60 WAR discount.

A-Rod will be the first (and maybe only, unless anything comes out on Randy Johnson or Greg Maddux) that could survive a substantial steroid discount, but not a timing question.

Also, the steroid ignorers group has 2 subgroups. The true steroid ignorers (those who vote for Palmeiro) and those who just ignore steroids up until testing began.

Doesn't seem like very much difference, as Palmeiro's vote percentage is smack in the middle of Sosa and McGwire.

Ironically, I think anyone who gets caught using steroids by a positive test (like Braun) is going to have their test results completely ignored because there is a system in place.

I think timing is a big part of it too - Palmeiro was caught at the end of his career with the spotlight super strong on PED use, thus making him a poster boy for lying about it. Braun, on the other hand, was caught early in his career and will have tons of time for the steroid stuff to calm down before he retires.

As others have said, in 20 years the steroid issue will have vanished and other issues will take its place (genetic cheating, bionics, whatever). Bonds, Clemens and others (A-Rod for example) will get in by writers while others (Palmeiro) wait for a future vet committee to put them in as they are pushed too far down early on to recover in time.

I suspect in 20 years people will look back at the voting from this period much like many here look back at the 1980/1990's Cy Young and MVP voting - very weird and rewarding the wrong guys (Jack Morris getting more votes than Bonds & Clemens - what were those voters thinking).

Yet, To Come Block Vote. Usa Today Hall of Fame Votes: Mike Dodd, Seth Livingtone, Tom Pedulla, Bob Nightengles, Gabe Lacques (New Voter, Editor UsaToday) and David Leon Moore (New Voter, Reporter Usatoday); Milwaukee Journal Sentinel votes: Mike Hart, Bill Windler, Tom Haudricourt, Michael Hunt and Don Walker (New Voter); Star Tribune votes: Glen Crevier, Dennis Brackin, Joe Christensen, Jim Souhan and La Velle Neal III; MLB.com hall of fame votes: Michael Bauman, Barry Bloom, Hal Bodley, Ken Gurnick, Chris Haft, Paul Hagen, Richard Justice, Dick Kaegel, Terence Moore, Carrie Muskat, Mark Newman, Marty Noble, Tom Singer Lyle Spencer, Jim Molony, Todd Zolecki (New Voter), T.R. Sullivan and Peter Gammons (Votes On); ESPN.com Hall of fame votes: Jerry Crasnick, Tim Kurkijan, Barry Stanton, Mark Saxon, Brendan Roberts, Rob Parker, Wallace Matthews, I'an O'Connor, Gordon Edes, Claire Smith, Peter Pascarrelli, Adam Rubin, Michel Knisley, Pedro Gomez, Tony Jackson, Howard Bryant, Jason Stark, Sean McAdam, Dan GrazzianoChicago Tribune Votes: Phil Rogers, Mark Gonzalez, Dave Van Dick, Fred Mitchell, Phil Hersh, Tim Sullivan and Teddy Greenstein.
H

I think Williams really needs more of a look than he's gotten... I'd have no room on my nonexistent ballot this year and more than likely, the next couple -- but I hope he can muster 5%

True story, I ran into Bernie today in San Juan, immediately recognized him and wished him luck in the upcoming HOF vote. He thanked me and mentioned that it would take "ten years" if it were to happen. Hopefully he gets to hang out on the ballot for the full 15 years.

How did having Sandberg in the NL impact Whitaker's chances at AS Games, MVPs and GG in the AL?

It didn't. It meant he paled in comparison to Sandberg and therefore was never perceived as the best 2B in the game.

I wish to present a take that no one here seems to have considered. IF I am a voter who believes that steroid use is morally reprehensible, AND I believe that my HOF vote should consider the character clause, THEN I would use my best judgment as to whether the person used or not. This is not a court of law, I am voting on who gets a gold plaque. Do not ask me to make a moral judgment and then tell me I need some burden of proof.

On a related note, I knew people, close to the Red Sox organization, who believed that Clemens was using steroids as early as 1990. If you had asked me at any time in the 1990s to guess the roiders, I would have said Canseco and Clemens, 1 and 2.

Personally I would just ignore the whole issue and vote. But spare me the whole court of law thing on the friggin' Hall of Fame vote.

Do not ask me to make a moral judgment and then tell me I need some burden of proof.

I assume that you also accept religious edicts on morality blindly without rational thought or question as to their purpose.

Despite attitudes like this, The Steroid Enlightenment and Reformation will eventually happen.

Bill James predicted Trammell and Whitaker going into the HOF together. And who knows, they still might.

Repoz--exactly how many blank ballots do we currently have in the sample?

Mark--A moral judgment, when applied to an individual, requires a burden of proof, and thus needs to adhere to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Otherwise gossip and hearsay legitimize lynch mobs. Your personal inclination is the right one, because it recognizes that in the absence of incontrovertible proof, moral judgment needs to be set aside.

I assume that you also accept religious edicts on morality blindly without rational thought or question as to their purpose.

How does this possibly make any sense? While displaying an obnoxious prejudice against religious belief, you fail to offer any valid critique of Mark Armour's comment.

As it is, I think Mark Armour is wrong, but it's hardly a simple question. If the moral issue is relevant, then there's no particular reason why the criminal standard of proof is needed (or indeed the civil standard). Nevertheless, I think there should be some threshold of likelihood at which one applies a moral judgement. The alternate view is respectable in respect of non-substantial penalties, like Cooperstown honours- that with a 5% likelihood of guilt, one should apply 5% of the relevant penalty, and at a 95% likelihood of guilt, one should apply 95% of the relevant penalty.

It would be interesting to see if blank ballots are higher than the number of votes either Lofton or Bernie Williams get. A bit silly, and this year it is possible the blanks will make the difference between someone getting in or not. Don't know if they ever have, but there seems to be a higher number of them this year, although that might just be due to how much more noticeable they are when you have a stacked ballot. Based on the past and a future vet committee having Jeter on it I could easily see Williams getting in someday. As others have stated there are easily 14 qualified guys (11 with 60+ WAR plus McGwire, Sosa, and Piazza) plus guys who future vets could look nicely upon in David Wells (20 win season, perfect game, 239 wins, part of Yankee Dynasty, 2 WS rings, 10-5 in playoffs), Fred McGriff (493 HR and viewed as 'clean'), Bernie Williams (key part of Yankee Dynasty), Dale Murphy (2 MVP's, will look good next to Rice), Mattingly (NY'ers pushing for him), Jack Morris (sigh), and Lee Smith (cracking 50% in writers vote will get him a lot of serious looks). That is a total of 21 guys on the ballot who I could see getting in someday. Might seem high but 15 from the 1970 ballot (picked at random) got in with Gil Hodges likely to get in someday. Go back to 1960 and you get 40 guys who got in (including 2 guys with 1 vote each - Addie Joss and Rick Ferrell).

The tight standards today could easily become loose in a few years. I figure 2-3 vets (or more) plus 2 writers choices a year at some point will be common in an effort to 'fix' the empty space due to the steroid issue and the writers ignoring guys who played in the 80's (Whittaker for example).

As a counter point, the 1990 ballot has just 8 guys who made the Hall so far with guys who might have got in via vets in the past still waiting in Tony Oliva, Maury Wills, Jim Kaat, Dick Allen, Joe Torre, Minnie Minoso, Luis Tiant and maybe a couple of others. Didn't say they were great candidates, just ones who I could easily see a looser vet committee putting in.

The 1980 ballot had 12 get in with good candidate in Gil Hodges waiting still. That was a weak ballot with just 5 over 60 WAR and another 2 over 50. 1990 had 6 over 60, and 6 more in the 50's and 2 who did get in below that (Cepeda & Mazeroski) and 2 others who are viewed as serious candidates below 50 (Kaat & Minoso).

1970's had 4 60's, 7 50's and 6 lower than that get in as well.

1960's had 6 60's, 11 50's, 28 lower than that who got in with the lowest being Leo Durocher who was in due to managing as were many low WAR guys.

2000's (since I'm covering decades) had 4 60's, 3 50's, and 3 lower get in with Sutter's 23.1 WAR the lowest to make it so far. I can easily see Morris, Kaat, Tommy John, Luis Tiant and maybe Keith Hernandez getting in from that ballot eventually. Funny looking at the 2000 ballot I see no one with 400 HR, just one with 1500 RBI's, no one with 2800 hits.

Repoz--exactly how many blank ballots do we currently have in the sample?

4- Faller, Ebro, Gurnick and Chris Jenkins (which I'm counting as being turned in)

There are also the not-turned in ballots of Fay, Knapp and Quinn.

Do not ask me to make a moral judgment and then tell me I need some burden of proof.

Absurd. Without evidence, it's just a witch hunt.

Glenn Dickey voted for Bonds and Clemens, but the rest of the ballot is hidden on his own site...so if anyone was foolish enough to pay for glenndickey.com can you let me know the rest of the ballot? Thanks!

Repoz, did you get Adam Rubin?

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/59708/my-ballot-no-bonds-clemens-piazza-in-13?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Rubin

Yeah, have Rubin's. Tanks...

It would be a travesity if Lofton drops out the first ballot.

I wish to present a take that no one here seems to have considered.

Seriously? This take has been presented here since 1999 or so. It's surely been raised in almost every "who's on steroids", "steroids and HoF" threads we've ever had. Andy alone probably brings it up 3 times per 60 posts. The conversation usually goes like this:

"X used steroids."
"What's your evidence?"
"C'mon just look at him."
"That's not evidence."
"Hey, this isn't a court of law."

Do not ask me to make a moral judgment and then tell me I need some burden of proof.

Eek-a-mouse.

"Steroid use in baseball was wrong" is a moral judgment.

"Roger Clemens used steroids" is an evidentiary statement. Although the spell-checker doesn't think evidentiary is a word so sue me.

Now you don't want that burden of proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt. OK. But "the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Clemens used steroids" is still a statement of evidence. "There's a 25% chance Clemens used steroids" is a statement of evidence.

"A rapist who can't keep his story straight and that nobody impartial has yet had reason to believe says that Clemens used steroids" is a kind of evidence I suppose.

Some guy on the internet says he knew guys who were "close to the Red Sox organization"* who believed (based on what evidence?) that Clemens used steroids is an even lower level of evidence than that ... which is pretty impressive.

* Rented an apartment near Fenway?

While displaying an obnoxious prejudice against religious belief

Not really. I believe that the religious people that wrote the divine texts were extremely intelligent and tried to put the world and its citizens into some semblance of order with the knowledge that they had at the time. They are excellent parables - stories - that help guide us as to how we should try to live our life if we are lost or unsure.

I don't want to spend my time quantifying the value of souls or HOF votes for character - that is another deity's full time job.

Without questioning the top down authority of any institution as we acquire knowledge, we would have no progress. To that, I assume that the church of baseball of the Middle Ages would prosecute the advances proposed by sabrmetricians as heretics!

Eek-a-mouse.

Now there's someone you don't see mentioned every day in these threads.

http://www.golferswest.com/category/all-sports-opinions/

GolfersWest.com has 3 retired HOF voters on their staff. I guess everyone plays golf when they retire. They are Jim Street, Kirby Arnold and Bob Sherwin. Check out their ballots, all anti-PED users.

It would be a travesity if Lofton drops out the first ballot.

Not really. I'm actually used to seeing solid candidates drop off after one ballot. They are usually pitchers - Dave Stieb, Bret Saberhagen, Orel Hershiser, Dwight Gooden, David Cone, Kevin Brown, etc. Centerfielders tend to get overrated by Hall of Fame electors.

Three writers at GolfersWest continue to have a ballot while Bill James, John Thorn and Vin Scully don't.

GolfersWest.com has 3 retired HOF voters on their staff.

So if I'm not mistaken, they have the same number of votes as The Sporting News. This election just keeps on giving....

Centerfielders tend to get overrated by Hall of Fame electors

Which ones?

Kirby Puckett and ???

GolfersWest.com has 3 retired HOF voters on their staff. I guess everyone plays golf when they retire. They are Jim Street, Kirby Arnold and Bob Sherwin. Check out their ballots, all anti-PED users.

So much stupid in there but Street gets the victory with this note about Lee Smith;

On top of all that, he was a fine fielder, holding the NL record for most consecutive errorless games by a pitcher – 546.

I don't really remember Smith as being a good fielder but maybe my memory is wrong. But that stat isn't even close to being convincing.

Edited to correct which writer was truly stupid.

Wow, what a tremendous stat.

I'm surprised it's not Ray King or someone else who averaged .5 innings per game. I guess in that sense, it's an accomplishment.

I don't really remember Smith as being a good fielder but maybe my memory is wrong. But that stat isn't even close to being convincing.

I never really formed an opinion, either. His double play to error ratio was 9:4, Maddux was 98-53, Kaat and Gibson were both just a little better than 1:1.

I know we've been saying this all along, but it's just really sinking in for me how insane the ballot is going to look next year. The guys who are hanging on with 15% this year (Walker, etc.) are going to be hard pressed to stay on the ballot, and the guys at around 5% are going to be gone. Heck, I didn't even know Sosa was on the ballot at all until just now. Think Edgar might drop off too? What a joke.

GolfersWest.com has 3 retired HOF voters on their staff. I guess everyone plays golf when they retire. They are Jim Street, Kirby Arnold and Bob Sherwin. Check out their ballots, all anti-PED users.

Jose is right about the level of stupid there. That being said, Arnold's ballot given that he's a "no proven steroids" guy is actually pretty good: Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Jack Morris, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Lee Smith and Alan Trammell. Morris is of course an awful choice and Smith's not so hot either, but the rest are good given the limitation.

I don't want to spend my time quantifying the value of souls or HOF votes for character - that is another deity's full time job.

This.

It is my belief that the HOF rules are being generally misinterpreted. Well, more uninterpreted, as the steroid-hysteria has created much more variation among the voters in how these rules are applied. While some evolution is inevitable, the current situation is radically discomfiting much of the electorate, putting voters at polar opposites in how they interpret the rules. The consensus is breaking down, which I think is a serious problem that is only just beginning to dawn on the HOF’s board of directors.

Due to this negligent oversight, the HOF rules are transmuting into a polymorphic state making the process increasingly untenable; they can mean what anyone wants them to mean. The rancor, confusion, and frustration are at unprecedented and increasing levels. There can be no rational discussions of candidates’ qualifications because the shiny peel of my apple is incomparable to the juiciness inside your orange; there is less and less agreement about what makes players worthy or unworthy for the HOF. Voters are not just arguing their preferences in assessing players, but are battling over how the rules should be interpreted. Clearly, the Hall needs to step up and clarify the rules.

Those rules specify six criteria to be considered by voters:
the player's record
playing ability
integrity
sportsmanship
character
contributions to the team(s) on which the player played

The Hall has left it entirely open to interpretation from there. Sooner or later that was going to cause trouble and that’s where we are now.

Well, fools rush in, as they say, so I’ll take a stab at interpreting what I think was intended by this set of rules. This interpretation is based upon some of my own assumptions, the historic environment in which they were generated 70+ years ago, as well as their meaning as evidenced by voting results.

1) Player’s record – This is basically the WAR question. How good was he? What does the record tell us?
2) Playing Ability – This is the Narrative question. Is there anything beyond the record to indicate he was better or worse than that? Was he feared/respected by other players and media? Did he win awards? Did circumstances beyond his control reduce his playing record from what it should have been?
3) Integrity – Did he gamble? This was THE question back in the reign of Judge Landis. More generally, Did he do anything to damage baseball’s public image? The media’s/Congress’ newfound outrage against PED users has made this a pertinent question for some candidates.
4) Sportsmanship – This is the popularity question. Did the fans like him? Did the media? Was he a Sport?
5) Character – This means character as related to professional baseball. Did he show up every day ready to help his team win? Did he stay in shape? Did he play hard? Was he sober? These days, this criterion is popularly misapplied to non-baseball related behavior. Note that the very first HOF class had men of fairly suspect personal morals. It’s clear to me that individual’s peccadilloes are not what Cooperstown wants voters to consider when assessing candidates.
6) Contributions to the team – This is the leadership question. Did he have a positive influence on his teammates? Back in the day, players traveled long distances in close quarters. Did he get along? What do his teammates say about him? Collecting lots of rings is often (mis)interpreted as evidence of this.

That’s how I see it. Anyway, it’s exactly what the HOF needs to do – define each criterion so that voters can work from the same base.

You want a simple system? Assume that these six criteria were intended to carry equal weight. (Or come up with your own weighting scheme, if you’re so inclined.) Rank each candidate 1 to 10 in every category. A “5” is an average hall of famer, so the average HOFer should score a total of 30 points.

Here’s Barry Bonds:
10 - Player's record: an all-timer
10 - Playing ability: terribly feared, IBB totals are off the charts. Was black-balled out of the game, record would have been more.
2 – Integrity: one of the guys at the center of the Game’s current black eye, although this status is not entirely of his making.
2 – Sportsmanship: often acted like a jerk, but nobody loves Goliath.
5 – Character: not quite what one thinks of as a “Team Player”. Fortunately, baseball doesn’t demand this as much as other sports.
4 - Contributions to the team(s) on which the player played: seen as selfish, but took a serious approach to the game. Generally a positive example for his teammates, AFAIK.

So I have him with 33 points. YMMV. He should be in, according to my interpretation of the Hall’s voting criteria.

I don't really remember Smith as being a good fielder but maybe my memory is wrong. But that stat isn't even close to being convincing.

This is the percentage of non-K outs each pitcher recorded himself as a PO or an assist, for every pitcher with 350+ saves, plus Maddux and Ray King:



That doesn't mean a damn thing except that Smith gave up more flyballs that Rivera does, but it at least demonstrates that you can't use simple defensive stats to say that Smith was especially good as a fielder. Realistically, I can't imagine that advanced stats say anything useful either. His career high in chances was 20, and he had 167 in his career. There's no way that sample size rises above randomness and noise.

Yeah, CF isn't as overrated as 1B clearly is. However, I think "CF" is part of the reason Dawson was elected.

3) Integrity – Did he gamble? This was THE question back in the reign of Judge Landis. More generally, Did he do anything to damage baseball’s public image? The media’s/Congress’ newfound outrage against PED users has made this a pertinent question for some candidates.
4) Sportsmanship – This is the popularity question. Did the fans like him? Did the media? Was he a Sport?
5) Character – This means character as related to professional baseball. Did he show up every day ready to help his team win? Did he stay in shape? Did he play hard? Was he sober? These days, this criterion is popularly misapplied to non-baseball related behavior. Note that the very first HOF class had men of fairly suspect personal morals. It’s clear to me that individual’s peccadilloes are not what Cooperstown wants voters to consider when assessing candidates.

Aside from gambling being foremost in their minds back then, I can't imagine this being any more wrong. "Sportsmanship" has nothing to do with popularity -- it's more related to the criteria of the Lady Byng Award in hockey. The ultimate sign of sportsmanship would be admitting that a call that went in favor of your team was incorrect, but it would also include not slamming an opposing player who was momentarily vulnerable. I don't think there's any reason to think "character" was supposed to be restricted as some sort of term of art within baseball -- if you don't think Cobb belonged, you're probably overestimating the morals of the day.

Repoz, my utmost respect for the work you do here.

it's more related to the criteria of the Lady Byng Award in hockey

Could be. Or maybe the three "integrity, sportsmanship, character" are actually describing a singular criterion. I don't know. I decided to treat them separately and made an attempt to find distinctions between them.

Funny thing about 234 -- I disagree pretty strongly with Dan's interpretations of 1, 2, and 6. And those are supposed to be the easy ones.

1) Player's record certainly can start with "the WAR question" (and end there for some), but I happen to think that there is room for a player to earn enshrinement by excelling in one facet of the game without necessarily accruing value (however defined) that places him in the top x% all-time. If you retire with the all-time career and single-season stolen base records, for instance, you get a plaque in my personal HOF even if you only have 43 WAR.

2) Playing ability is playing ability. Period. Did the player's skills stand out in ways that are not necessarily dependent on or reflected by his statistical record? That could form the basis for a narrative, but it's not the same thing. Narratives sometimes start with our impression of a player's raw ability (or a few specific manifestations of that ability), but more often center on things like post-season heroics.

6) Contributions to the team are contributions to the team -- on the field. Did the player help win games? Much closer to "the WAR question" than to "the leadership question" IMO. I'll certainly grant that lots of people want to inject intangibles into their HOF analysis, and maybe some of them justify that as "contributions to the team," but that's not the way I read the instruction.

Yeah, CF isn't as overrated as 1B clearly is. However, I think "CF" is part of the reason Dawson was elected.

I agree. The peak argument for Dawson is looking at his years as the Expo centerfielder. Dawson for me is borderline but on the right side, I supported him. Puckett is borderline (getting to the border on the strength of postseason heroics) where I would not have voted for him, but am not bothered by his induction.

Other borderline center fielders in the HOF are among the many questionable mistakes made from guys who had high batting averages in the 20's/30's.

On the other side, I don't see a clearly qualified HOF cfers who were kept out. Lofton and Edmonds are test cases here. I presume Griffey will go in on year 1, crowded ballot or not, with 95%+ of the vote.

I think "CF" is part of the reason Dawson was elected.

Dawson's a weird case. He was actually elected to the Hall of Merit before the Hall of Fame, despite him being generally disdained in sabermetric circles for his stunningly low walk totals (Dawson averaged 27 unintentional walks per 162 games for his career) and his 1987 MVP being widely regarded here as among the worst ever. I get the sense that the Hall of Merit (somewhat reluctantly) elected him on the strength of his having been an excellent CF in Montreal. His HOF case, on the other hand, was pushed most strongly, it seemed to me, based on his years as a Cub, where he never played an inning in CF, with his 1987 MVP award being front and center in the discussion. Although my perception there might be biased by my living in Chicago, but Dawson is absolutely adored here and Chicago sportswriters were always very vocal supporters of his HOF candidacy.

Repoz,

When you update the post can you add a timestamp and perhaps add a note that this is through comment #242 in the thread, etc. I would also encourage you to post a google doc if you could.

Ron Rapoport explains to MLB Network why he voted 'yes' on his Hall of Fame ballot for several controversial candidates,such as Barry Bonds.

The Ballot (9): Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, McGwire, Palmeiro, Piazza, Smith, Sosa and Trammell.

I don't really remember Smith as being a good fielder but maybe my memory is wrong. But that stat isn't even close to being convincing.

He looked big and lumbering especially late in his career, but I remember him being surprising athletic for such a big man. Sabathia also surprised people by fielding better than you'd expect from his build. Having said all that, this guy is an idiot for basing anything on a per game ratio when talking about a reliever or in this case consecutive game error less streak. There is a reason we consider strike outs or walks, etc per 9 innings pitched not per game.

The Ballot (9): Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, McGwire, Palmeiro, Piazza, Smith, Sosa and Trammell.

Y U no have Biggio or Bagwell? Or Raines?

I'm really starting to feel the Bonds and Clemens may not even hit 40% when all is said and done, making their future election much less likely. I highly doubt 35% of the voters would withhold their vote for only one year, not to mention the volume of highly decorated "clean" players.

1) Player's record certainly can start with "the WAR question" (and end there for some), but I happen to think that there is room for a player to earn enshrinement by excelling in one facet of the game without necessarily accruing value (however defined) that places him in the top x% all-time. If you retire with the all-time career and single-season stolen base records, for instance, you get a plaque in my personal HOF even if you only have 43 WAR.

2) Playing ability is playing ability. Period. Did the player's skills stand out in ways that are not necessarily dependent on or reflected by his statistical record? That could form the basis for a narrative, but it's not the same thing. Narratives sometimes start with our impression of a player's raw ability (or a few specific manifestations of that ability), but more often center on things like post-season heroics.

You seem to be conflating #1 and #2 yourself. "Excelled in one facet of the game" would seem to be "playing ability" (which presumably also therefore usually results in a good playing record).

Post-season performance wouldn't seem to belong under playing ability at all -- either performance record (i.e. look at his performance in the postseason) or contribution to team.

Playing ability is pretty clearly the "peak" criterion -- at his best, he was one of the best ... unfortunately he got hurt. Ernie Banks is a near-perfect example of this (along with Greenberg and Kiner). Essentially this is the hit-by-bus criterion, with some room for "best fielding SS ever" but that guy's not getting in on peak anyway.

Contribution to team is the baffling one. I'd guess it's about "leadership". Also, given the era of origin, maybe it was even intended to include player-managers.

Integrity sportsmanship and character are almost impossible to separate, especially if we assume they are meant to be limited to actions within the sport itself. One of our HoF history buffs here once claimed that Landis' intent in including these clauses was more about including war heroes and other players of extremely high character not to keep out the scoundrels. Of course there wasn't much doubt about how Landis would have handled anybody he thought was a major scoundrel.

Ron Rapoport's ballot is a weird one - all the PED guys including 'backne' but not Bagwell? No Biggio but an open slot? Weird. Wonder if he forgot Houston was once a ML team.

You seem to be conflating #1 and #2 yourself. "Excelled in one facet of the game" would seem to be "playing ability" ...

Well, it is difficult not to conflate playing ability and playing record, but the specific example that I used to illustrate my point was one of a player excelling statistically in one facet of the game. An overall playing record that arguably falls short, but an unmatched record in one aspect of the game.

Post-season performance wouldn't seem to belong under playing ability at all...

Which is exactly why I cited it as a driver of "narrative" distinct from playing ability. You know, to counter Dan's interpretation that playing ability = narrative.

The last segment on Clubhouse Confidential today was all about this thread.

I would write in for Rose ANY DAY over Bonds and all the drug cheaters. He never bet against his team(s) or threw games. And he certainly didn't profit from his gambling addiction (which is really what it was).

To all those who say the 'old' voters should have their rights/votes taken away... Why, because you suddenly figured out it's not a perfect system? It's been the same way for SEVENTY years... get over it.

I don't care that Clemens, Bonds et al cheated. Most of us would do the same thing if it meant making millions of dollars (I certainly would). And it was certainly great watching them play. What I care about is that it should be taken into account as far as getting into the HoF. They also did nothing to hurt their teams, and in the case of some like McGwire they weren't even technically cheating (since Bud the Scud was too chicken to put in drug testing earlier). Nonetheless, I feel like they had an advantage over other players who were "clean" and should not be eligible for entry to the HoF. They were only interested in making themselves richer, and if it helped their team win that was just a side effect. Every player faces the same moral challenges - I just don't think those who succumed to the pressure (or greed) should be rewarded.

Yes, it's a slippery slope, but I'm a damn good skier!!

Weird. Wonder if he forgot Houston was once a ML team.

He looked at the AL in 2012 and the NL in 2013.

 243. Sean Forman Posted: January 04, 2013 at 04:09 PM (#4339171)
Repoz,

When you update the post can you add a timestamp and perhaps add a note that this is through comment #242 in the thread, etc. I would also encourage you to post a google doc if you could.

I'll repeat this request.

He never bet against his team(s) or threw games.

And you know this how, exactly?

Also, as has been noted, Rose would not be eligible for the BBWAA ballot even if he were reinstated since his playing career ended more than 20 years ago. Voting for Rose is like voting for Gil Hodges.

I would write in for Rose ANY DAY over Bonds and all the drug cheaters. He never bet against his team(s) or threw games.

I would say there is more evidence that Rose bet against his team than there is Clemens used steroids/hgh.

Repoz, my utmost respect for the work you do here.

Seconded.

The last segment on Clubhouse Confidential today was all about this thread.

That's awesome.

Repoz,

When you update the post can you add a timestamp and perhaps add a note that this is through comment #242 in the thread, etc. I would also encourage you to post a google doc if you could.

Yeah, the time stamp would be good. I care less about the document. But it could be helpful.

Either way, thanks.

Speaking of Clubhouse Confidential, the SF Chronicle's Henry Schulman gave his ballot... just in case he didn't write about it (I have no idea), it was: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Morris, D. Murphy, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, L. Smith

Post-season performance wouldn't seem to belong under playing ability at all...

Which is exactly why I cited it as a driver of "narrative" distinct from playing ability. You know, to counter Dan's interpretation that playing ability = narrative.

No, Walt is right. Post-season performance is part of the playing record.

However, I disagree with Walt when he says:

"Playing ability is pretty clearly the "peak" criterion"

A player's peak is part of the playing record as well. We can see exactly when it was and we can pretty well measure it, similar to post-season performance.

"Playing ability" refers to the intangible aspects of performance. How good was he by reputation? What did people say about his play? If this runs counter to the Playing record, one must discern whether mistaken impressions of his quality are being expressed, or whether there is something meritorious that is not captured in the statistical record.

[257] He did write about it and the article was a thread here. Article

But he had Biggio, Murphy and Trammel as maybes there, so it's good to have the update.

Edit: Leokitty, at least, already had the update on Biggio, but not on Murphy.

BCI, thanks.

Re: the CF issue: It's interesting. I suppose you can't strictly say that the HOF has been unfair to the position, because all of the no-brainers (Cobb, Speaker, DiMag, Mays, Mantle, Snider, soon Griffey) naturally are in, and then there's a bunch of questionable old guys (Combs, Roush, Carey, Averill, H. Wilson, L. Waner) who are there too. But they sure haven't been generous to center fielders for a few decades now. I feel confident that Puckett would have been elected even as a corner OF -- I think they loved the shape of his stats and his narrative. If you buy that, then the most recent candidate who needed "CF credit" to get in was Richie Ashburn, who retired in 1962.

Elected: Averill 45.1 WAR, Roush 43, Combs 40, H. Wilson 37.3, L. Waner 22 (barf)
Got or will get minimal support: Lofton 64.9, W. Davis 56.8 (that'd be the highest WAR of anyone with zero HOF votes), J. Wynn 53.1 (that'd be second on that same list), C. Lemon 52, Pinson 50.2, C. Cedeno 49.7, B. Butler 47, Lynn 46.7, Burks 46.3, B. Williams 45.9, Dale Murphy 42.6

So they used to induct borderline CF, but nowadays the voters don't even notice they exist. Granted, part of the issue seems to be that CF lends itself to an "all-arounder" type of game that the voters have trouble appreciating from anyone. (I expect Carlos Beltran to be further evidence of this, unfortunately.) Still, you can address that by giving adequate positional credit, and IMO they ain't doing it. It's the same thing at 2B and 3B, BTW. They can tell that Rogers Hornsby and Mike Schmidt were great, but that's about it. Surely Ron Santo and Lou Whitaker would have gone in easily if the voters concentrated on the question "where does this guy rank all-time at his position?" But that's not how they approach it.

Re: what the HOF criteria mean: I am not buying #234 either ;-) My personal inclination would be to think that "player's record, playing ability and contributions to the team" essentially mean the same thing, and "integrity, sportsmanship and character" essentially mean the same thing. Common sense (or at least the failed candidacies of Harvard Eddie Grant, Jim Abbott, etc.) would suggest that the great-player stuff dominates and the nice-guy stuff is secondary. But anyway, it doesn't much matter what any one of us thinks, when the larger point is that this stuff is deliberately vague and designed to be interpreted individually by each voter.

W. Davis 56.8 (that'd be the highest WAR of anyone with zero HOF votes)

I don't think Willie Davis was even on the ballot when he was first eligible in 1985. His name never appeared in any of the voting results. I have no idea how he slipped through the cracks when even Jesus Alou and his -1.0 WAR made it onto the ballot (where he picked up one vote.) As far as I know he's the only 20th century player with 2,500 hits that never made it onto the ballot. (According to Baseball Reference, Jimmy Ryan, Lave Cross, George Davis, and Jim O'Rourke never made it onto the ballot either, but they were primarily 19th century players.)

Can anybody elucidate why Willie Davis wasn't on the ballot?

Up until this very moment, I had never even heard of Willie Davis. And he's not THAT far before my time either. Wow. Learn something new every day...

divine texts... are excellent parables - stories - that help guide us as to how we should try to live our life if we are lost or unsure.

This is a perfectly reasonable approach to things- not the only reasonable approach, but I certainly regard it as respectable. My concern was with the notion that religious people accept the tenets of their faith "blindly without rational thought or question as to their purpose", which is not always or even often the case (at least with the faiths I am familiar with). Perhaps I misinterpreted the thrust of your comment, and my apologies if I did so.

Without questioning the top down authority of any institution as we acquire knowledge, we would have no progress.

To a certain extent, I agree. I do, however, think it's a bit strong to say that no progress can be made absent a meta-critique of existing assumptions and authorities. To apply Thomas Kuhn's analysis of the history of science, "normal science" continues and makes progress without critiquing its foundations; a paradigm shift occurs when those foundations are questioned and replaced. More broadly, I think an open mind is open in order that it may fasten on to the truth- including truths about reliable authorities- not open merely to flutter in the breeze.

Bringing this back to baseball, the exclusion of moral issues from consideration in HoF voting is an attractive idea, and would certainly greatly simplify matters. 'Elect them all, and let God (or the Cooperstown visitor) sort them out.' But there do remain those pesky character, integrity and sportsmanship clauses in the ballot language, so it is difficult to dismiss those who want to give substantial consideration to these issues. I think we either need to change the ballot language, or accept that there's going to remain a long, complicated and messy discussion and continued disagreement about how to apply the ethical clauses to individual players.

But anyway, it doesn't much matter what any one of us thinks, when the larger point is that this stuff is deliberately vague and designed to be interpreted individually by each voter.

"Cacophony and Confusion", as the Great One said.

The HOF voters are a lesser-developed species, content to go on as they always have. When an impetus for change comes they thrash about, seeking a better path, looking for direction, trying to survive. In the normal course of things, lack of evolution leads towards extinction. (In this case, that might not be such a bad thing.)

I would say there is more evidence that Rose bet against his team than there is Clemens used steroids/hgh.

I would say there is more evidence that Rose was a steroid user than some of these guys being blackballed. A steroid dealer used to sleep on his couch.

Question. Will Morris (if not voted in) Trammell, Murphy, and Mattingly be immediately eligible for the 2017 veterans committee?

Question. Will Morris (if not voted in) Trammell, Murphy, and Mattingly be immediately eligible for the 2017 veterans committee?

Yes on Morris, Mattingly and Murphy. Trammell will not be eligible until the 2020 Vets ballot.

Yes on Morris, Mattingly and Murphy. Trammell will not be eligible until the 2020 Vets ballot.

Thank you. I was hoping Trammell could go from off the ballot in 2016 to Class of 2017 inductee.

FWIW, I always read 'player's record' and 'playing ability' as basically 'career' and 'peak'.

Has it been a given that Morris is a shoe-in on the Veterans' committee? Or no? I don't remember what the general thought was there.

No, Walt is right. Post-season performance is part of the playing record.

I said "post-season heroics" not "post-season performance." What I was trying to get at was the kind of singular moment that can drive a narrative case. For example, Curt Schilling has a stellar post-season performance record; he also has the bloody sock game. I intended to capture the latter rather than the former.

Has it been a given that Morris is a shoe-in on the Veterans' committee? Or no? I don't remember what the general thought was there.

Based on the history of guys with his performance in the BBWAA election, and what seems like his reputation within the game, I think he's a shoe-in with the Vets at some point.

FWIW, I always read 'player's record' and 'playing ability' as basically 'career' and 'peak'.

That pretty much matches my thinking as well.

Is there even a place on the ballot for a write-in? I would imagine not, since there are rules for eligibility.

270. Lassus Posted: January 05, 2013 at 12:27 PM (#4339623)
Has it been a given that Morris is a shoe-in on the Veterans' committee? Or no? I don't remember what the general thought was there.

I think some on here are pessimistically overstating the certainty of Veterans Committee acting on Morris. The only thing we know for sure about the future of the veterans committee is we have no idea what they might do. Gil Hodges has long been thought to be a lock with the vets. They have a well earned reputation for difficulty reaching consensus. Old Reds like Morgan may support Concepcion. Others may have their preferred candidate.

The only thing we know for sure about the future of the veterans committee is we have no idea what they might do. Gil Hodges has long been thought to be a lock with the vets.

I do think we can say that unlike the previous version, this incarnation of the veterans' committee will elect people on a fairly regular basis.

I haven't been convinced about Morris going in via the Vets, though he certainly could. What seems to be the thing with them is if a player is living he needs a champion, someone on the committee to be speaking up for them and talking about how great they were and how they were overlooked in the voting process because of A, B, and C. For Morris to go through he's going to need some prominent 80s guys to show up on the committee and go to bat for him, or some angry anti-saber guys (hello Joe Morgan!) to campaign for him out of vengeance. Either of which could happen.

The problem for him if he reaches the Vets he's going to be up against a couple of guys who have the same case as him (lots of wins) but with significantly better secondary stats (ERA) in Kaat and Tommy John. The Vets would have to ask themselves why Morris if not those two guys, which they might plow through anyway, or make Morris wait in line behind them.

The problem for him if he reaches the Vets he's going to be up against a couple of guys who have the same case as him (lots of wins)

But if wins are your calling card, don't you need more of them than 254?

The other guys - Kaat and John - are knocking on the door of 300. Dennis Martinez and Andy Pettitte had nearly as many as Morris (245), and even Jamie Moyer had 269.

Hell, Morris's ability to win was used as a club to beat Blyleven over the head with, but it was _Blyleven_ who had more wins, 287 to 254.

Morris with "only" 254 wins and "only" 3800 innings simply needed to be better than he was, on a rate basis. Jim Palmer is the pitcher everyone thinks Morris is.

The problem for him if he reaches the Vets he's going to be up against a couple of guys who have the same case as him (lots of wins) but with significantly better secondary stats (ERA) in Kaat and Tommy John. The Vets would have to ask themselves why Morris if not those two guys, which they might plow through anyway, or make Morris wait in line behind them.

I think the perception is that Morris was the better pitcher between those three... Better winning percentage, higher percentage of complete games etc...In an era where the relievers were becoming increasingly more important, Morris was able to pitch the way that the old timers thought they pitched.

I think it was on MLBN where someone was comparing Morris and Schilling. In favor of Morris he said that Morris had more than twice as many complete games and 8 more shutouts. You'd think that Morris having all those extra complete games, but only having 8 more shutouts would say something about their quality.

But if wins are your calling card, don't you need more of them than 254?

The other guys - Kaat and John - are knocking on the door of 300. Dennis Martinez and Andy Pettitte had nearly as many as Morris (245), and even Jamie Moyer had 269.

I would say exactly to all of this, which is why I don't think he's going to have a particularly easy path on the Vets committee. Plus after the cooling off period he wouldn't be eligible for the Vets until 2017, at which point we'll have had another 5 years for everyone to get comfortable with saber stats. The gist is that none of these guys are HOFers, and for good reasons.

I think the perception is that Morris was the better pitcher between those three... Better winning percentage, higher percentage of complete games etc...In an era where the relievers were becoming increasingly more important, Morris was able to pitch the way that the old timers thought they pitched.

I think that's all true, the question is whether it's enough. I'm not saying he's not/never going through on the Vets - I just don't think it will be a cakewalk. With the right mix of voters and an emphasis on getting some 80s guys into the Hall he could absolutely go, and maybe as soon as 2017. Or he could get a bad mix of voters with no one in the room going to bat for him specifically, plus it's 2017 now and wins have been more thoroughly discredited and everyone looks at ERA+ and he could have a tough time.

everyone looks at ERA+ and he could have a tough time.

I don't think you need to go to the + for Morris to have problems. It's a fairly well known fact that his raw ERA would be the highest in the Hall of Fame if he ever gets elected (unless Wes Ferrell sneaks in there first).

I don't think you need to go to the + for Morris to have problems. It's a fairly well known fact that his raw ERA would be the highest in the Hall of Fame if he ever gets elected (unless Wes Ferrell sneaks in there first).

The thing is that every serious Hall of Fame candidate from the Steroids Era easily bests Morris's raw ERA even without adjustments. Granted several of these pitchers didn't pitch as many innings as him (also as a result of era), but that is pretty damning to his case.

I would say exactly to all of this, which is why I don't think he's going to have a particularly easy path on the Vets committee. Plus after the cooling off period he wouldn't be eligible for the Vets until 2017, at which point we'll have had another 5 years for everyone to get comfortable with saber stats. The gist is that none of these guys are HOFers, and for good reasons.

It's four years (it's the 2016 election, 2017 enshrinement), and three years since his last turn on the ballot.

And I'll repeat what I said earlier. Jack looks like a very easy choice for the Vet's committee, which has historically taken its lead from the BBWAA (as seen by the failure of Grich to even make the Expansion ballot the first time this committee met). Guys with Jack's kind of BBWAA support but who don't make it over the hump have been ushered in to the Hall by the Vets, with the single exception of Gil Hodges. Considering the narrative and reputation* that's built around Jack in just the last 5 years, I happen to think failure with the writers will only grow his stature, rather than reduce it. I hope I'm wrong, but I'd be stunned if Jack isn't shepherded into the Hall rather quickly by a Vet's committee.

* Inaccurate as they are.

Wow, the percentages are falling as more ballots come in.

Unless there's a Nixonian "Silent Majority" lurking out there, this is going to be awesome. Nobody elected in a field with so many worthy candidates. (And I speak as a "lifetime HOF ban on Bonds/Clemens/Palmeiro/McGwire" type -- there are STILL enough names to fill a respectable ballot: Schilling/Raines/Trammell/Martinez/Bagwell/Biggio/Piazza/Walker/Smith and oh what the hell, Morris too.)

It's gonna be a trainwreck, and I can't wait to see it.

Wow, the percentages are falling as more ballots come in.

Yeah, I mean, how many of the top five candidates per Repoz's gizmo are still viable? Just Biggio and Bagwell, who still need to make up some ground? Piazza, Morris, and Raines are barely in the ballgame.

68.4 - Biggio
67.4 - Bagwell
63.2 - Piazza
62.1 - J. Morris
61.1 - Raines

It will be interesting to see what the average number of names per ballot ends up being. Seems to me we'd have a trainwreck on our hands even without the whole steroid thing, since a large majority of voters don't seem willing to entertain the possibility that there might be more than six or seven worthy candidates on the ballot at any given time.

Yeah, I mean, how many of the top five candidates per Repoz's gizmo are still viable? Just Biggio and Bagwell, who still need to make up some ground? Piazza, Morris, and Raines are barely in the ballgame.

Biggio and Bagwell are the only two with a real chance and they're hoping that "Gizmo" is undercounting.

Is anyone able to make sense of the myriad Veterans Committee bylaws and figure out what the composition of the voting board is going to be in 2016/17? In looking at the Veteran's Committee page on Wikipedia, it looks like that last open recent players election (i.e. post 1972) was in 2011. The Historical Overview Committee (11 writers) nominated 12 candidates who were then voted on by 8 HOFers (Bench, Whitey Herzog, Murray, Palmer, Perez, Frank Robinson, Sandberg, Ozzie Smith), 4 executives (Bill Giles, David Glass, Andy MacPhail, Jerry Reinsdorf), and 4 media (Bob Elliott, Tim Kurkjian, Ross Newhan, Tom Verducci). 12 out of 16 votes were required.

It's not clear from what I've been able to find, but is the post-1972 voting committee going to change (barring health of course) or is it intended to remain the same? It hardly needs mentioning that with only 16 guys voting each vote carries a lot of weight.

It's not clear from what I've been able to find, but is the post-1972 voting committee going to change (barring health of course) or is it intended to remain the same? It hardly needs mentioning that with only 16 guys voting each vote carries a lot of weight.

I've wondered that myself, as well as if the nominating committee (I believe Primate Tracy Ringolsby was one of the members of that group) would remain intact.

I've wondered that myself, as well as if the nominating committee (I believe Primate Tracy Ringolsby was one of the members of that group) would remain intact.

Ringolsby was a member of the nominating committee in 2011. I didn't include their names because we can probably be fairly certain Morris will be nominated regardless. If that voting committee doesn't change, do we have HOF ballots for any of those writers? Would be interesting to know if any of those guys are Morris voters now, as they presumably would be in 2016 again. It's a fairly NL-dominant committee - the only guy in there who would seem to have any significant career against Morris would be Eddie Murray. And indeed in one of those crazy baseball coincidences it looks like Murray had more PAs against Morris than against any other pitcher in his career: in 105 PAs Murray went .304/.381/.511 against him. Perez had 10 PAs against Morris. I'm not an expert with BBRef's search function but I imagine Palmer and Morris matched up a few times.

Back to Morris for moment. Jim Kaat and Jack Morris would not be on the same ballot. Kaat is on the 'golden' era ballot. Morris will be competing with Tommy John. Kaat was only two votes shy the last time, and could be elected in two years. Tommy John only earned 8 votes.

Biggio and Bagwell are the only two with a real chance and they're hoping that "Gizmo" is undercounting.

Earlier it was posted that maybe the HOF would "fudge" some numbers so at least one guy makes it in. As of this point, with nearly 1/6 of the votes counted there is only Biggio who you could sort fudge to make it up to 75%. No way can you fudge a guy like Morris all the way from 62% up to 75% now. All this talk of fudge is making me hungry....

It's making me want to vote for David Wells.

Or Mike Piazza...

In other news, Repoz is reporting a Julio Franco vote!

Repoz is reporting a Julio Franco vote!

Yes to Franco, Mattingly, and Morris. No to Bagwell, Piazza, Bonds, and Clemens.

The results are growing bleaker and bleaker by the update.

The positive for me Tim Raines looking like he'll pick up around 10% points. Also, not happy that Bagwell, Biggio, and Piazza didn't get in but all three are in good shape for future elections.

Julio Franco!!!???!!! One if my faves, but???!!!????

Hersch presumably refuses to vote for roiders because they would demean the Hall. But somehow his (presumably) smoochie vote for Franco isn't demeaning to the process of electing members to that very institution. Because I really cannot believe that he couldn't find a better candidate among Bernie, Lofton, McGriff, and Murphy. Nucking futs.

But at least he made his vote public. Would making all HOF ballots public improve the process? Or just be more fodder for the collective irritation.

No way can you fudge a guy like Morris all the way from 62% up to 75% now.

I don't think I follow. When all is said and done, less than 20% of the voters will have revealed their ballots and the sample is most definitely not random. They could fudge Trammel and Smith in if they really wanted to.

s 10-year members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, Newsday's David Lennon, Mark Herrmann, Bob Herzog and Steven Marcus were eligible to vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame's Class of 2013. Here's how each one voted, with their explanation of why they voted the way they did.

 

DA