Eventually, I probably will admit that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens did enough in their pre-PED careers to merit induction. But not this year, not on a first ballot.

I value the historical integrity of the game, so I always vote yes on steroid-tainted players with Hall of Fame credentials because all of their statistics, and the won-loss records of their teams, are official.

the voters cannot appoint themselves justices on matters already litigated beyond the baseball field. Bonds and Clemens were not found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs, nor did either player admit to such use. And Major League Baseball did not put them on the disqualified list.

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds may eventually earn my vote, but I’m not ready to go there, not after the two of them hubristically kept steroids on the front page for about a decade by themselves,

Go Bob Herzog!

As for newcomers on the 2009 ballot, that is the call of the BBWAA's six-person screening committee that helps shape the ballot. The process begins in April when the committee is presented the list of players who fit the first criterion, that they played in at least 10 Major League seasons and have been retired for five years. Any player approved by two or more screening committee members is placed on the ballot.

By mid-July, the ballot is set, but it is not announced until late November while the Hall, with assistance from the Elias Sports Bureau of statisticians, put together biographical sketches of the candidates that accompany the ballot in the Hall of Fame packet to voters.

The following supplementary material reflects career record, awards, records held, league leadership, 20-victory and .300-BA seasons, no-hitters, home run/RBI achievements and championship series/World Series accomplishments. Cy Young Award and Rookie of the Year Award notes include any year a vote was received. MVP Award rankings include any time the individual finished in the top 10 in a given season. All-Star Game information includes if named to team. LCS and WS (Babe Ruth & Sport Magazine) MVP awards are also noted. Statistics and rankings provided by Baseball-reference.com. Candidates may remain on the ballot for a maximum of 15 years.

REMEMBER, FOR A CANDIDATE TO REMAIN ON THE BALLOT, HE MUST OBTAIN VOTES ON AT LEAST 5% OF ALL BALLOTS CAST. 

JACK MORRIS

14th year on the ballot… Pitched 18 seasons, 14 with Detroit and four others with Twins, Blue Jays and Indians…Three 20-win seasons (1983, 1986, 1992), 11 seasons with 200-plus innings (1980, 1982-88, 1990-92) and three 200-strikeout campaigns (1983, 1986-87)…Received Cy Young Award votes seven times: 1981 (3rd), ’83 (3rd), ’84 (T7th), ’86 (5th), ’87 (9th), ’91 (4th) and ’92 (5th)…Made 14 Opening Day starts, tied with Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young for second-most ever, two behind Tom Seaver…Named AL Pitcher of the Year by the Sporting News (1981)…Named to five All-Star teams (1981, ’84, ’85, ’87, ’91); started games in 1981, ’85 and ’91; owns a 2.53 ERA with eight strikeouts in 10 2/3 ASG innings…Named WS MVP in 1991 with Twins with a 2-0 record, 1.17 ERA, and a 10-inning, 1-0 victory in Game Seven…Ranks 32nd all-time in strikeouts (2,478) and tied for 42nd in wins (254)…Tossed a 4-0 no-hitter vs. the Chicago White Sox on April 7, 1984…Led all ML pitchers in the 1980s with 162 wins, 133 complete games, 332 starts and 2,443.2 innings…Held AL record for most consecutive starting assignments (515) before broken by Roger Clemens in 2001…Topped AL in strikeouts (232) and innings (293 2/3) in 1983, and shutouts (6) in 1986…Tied for the AL lead in wins twice (1981, ’92), starts twice (1990, ’91) and complete games once (1990)…Holds AL career record for most putouts by a pitcher (387)…Four AL Championship Series (1984, ’87, ’91, ’92); owns a 3-2 record with a 4.87 ERA and 24 strikeouts in 40 2/3 ALCS innings…Three World Series (1984, ’91, ’92); owns a record of 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA and 40 strikeouts in 51 2/3 WS innings…Pitched in postseason for three WS champion teams (1984, ’91, ’92) and was member of 1993 Blue Jays team that won the World Series.

    YRS.    W-L. ERA.  G. GS. CG.  SHO. SV.  IP.   H.  BB.  SO
1977-94 254-186 3.90 549 527 175.   28.  0 3824 3567 1390 2478

TIM RAINES

6th year on the ballot…Played 23 seasons with Expos, White Sox, Yankees, A’s, Orioles and Marlins…Named 1981 NL Rookie Player of the Year by the Sporting News…Seven-time All-Star, consecutively (1981-87)…Named 1987 All-Star Game MVP…Finished in the top 10 in NL MVP voting three times 1983 (5th), 1986 (6th), 1987 (7th)…Received NL Silver Slugger Award in 1986…Led NL in stolen bases four times (1981-84), runs twice (1983, 1987)…Won 1986 NL batting title (.334)…Led league in on-base percentage once (1986) and doubles once (1984)…Six 100-runs seasons…Seven full seasons of hitting .300 or better, four times finishing in the top 10 in average…Sixteen seasons of 10 or more stolen bases, 11 times finishing in the top 10… Ranks second all-time for highest stolen-base percentage (300 or more attempts) with 84.7…Led NL outfielders with 21 assists in 1983…Hit for the cycle on Aug. 16, 1987…Twice collected switch-hit home runs in one game…Hit three home runs in one game (April 18, 1994)…Ranks 5th all-time in stolen bases (808) and 53rd all-time in runs (1,571)…Member of two World Championship teams with the Yankees (1996, 1998)…Hit .270 (34-126) in 34 career postseason games.

          YRS. AVG.   G.  AB.   R.   H. 2B. 3B. HR RBI.  BB. SO. SB. OBP. SLG
1979-99 [sic] .294 2502 8872 1571 2605 430 113 170 980 1330 966 808 .385 .425

the voters cannot appoint themselves justices on matters already litigated beyond the baseball field. Bonds and Clemens were not found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs, nor did either player admit to such use. And Major League Baseball did not put them on the disqualified list.

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?

Here are some of the proposals I've heard/read about for reforming the HOF vote. Is there a consensus about which might be most effective...and most likely to be put through?

Wow, Willie Davis was a pretty good ballplayer for a long while. How did I have no idea he existed?

The best changes are ones that should have been done even if no crisis was brewing, so I'd certainly expand the electorate to other media.

• Revocation of voting privileges for inappropriate ballots (however defined and policed)

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.

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.

I value the historical integrity of the game, so I always vote yes on steroid-tainted players with Hall of Fame credentials because all of their statistics, and the won-loss records of their teams, are official.

• Change in the composition of the electorate
• BBWAA members must request a ballot to vote (currently mailed to all tenured voters)
• Revocation of voting privileges for inappropriate ballots (however defined and policed)
• Scrap or change the 5% rule
• Scrap the ballot-size limit or expand it past 10
• Change to a point system like awards ballots
• Leading vote getter is elected regardless of percentage (if none over 75%)
• Disclosure of all ballots
• Clarification or scrapping of character clause

. . . every year, a non-zero number of voters flout the only rule on the ballot and write in Pete Rose.

Scrap the 5% rule

Yeah, but it should be pretty hard to get past the ballot committee screeners if you don't pull 2%. Otherwise the ballot is going to be several pages long.

* Personally, I don't think the 5 percent rule is an issue at all, at least in terms of inductions. Guys who receive fewer than 5 percent of the vote are never going to get to 75 percent, so I don't see how leaving Lou or Grich around longer is going to do much good, regardless how deserving they actually are.

Raffy and Sosa are polling in the teens

* Personally, I don't think the 5 percent rule is an issue at all, at least in terms of inductions. Guys who receive fewer than 5 percent of the vote are never going to get to 75 percent, so I don't see how leaving Lou or Grich around longer is going to do much good, regardless how deserving they actually are. But since it's possible that a few extra years on the ballot could raise their profile with the Vets Committee down the road, some kind of compromise is worthwhile. But a strict removal of the 5 percent, without some way to keep the ballot size managable, is counterproductive.

Which means that, deserving or not, Raffy and Sosa are not going to be elected by the BBWAA, which brings us right back to SoSH's point. Sosa isn't going to be elected for a different reason than why Grich wasn't going to be elected, but the effect is the exact same: a guy who's just going to hang around the bottom of the ballot, cluttering it up, with no real chance of being elected.

I disagree, it's probable that they will never make it through the writers selection process, but it's very possible that they will get to the 50% threshold and that will enhance their reputations come vets committee time. On top of that, I really do think that if Ted Simmons would have stayed on the ballot, that he would have eventually made it in. I also think that Whitaker would have gotten a bump after the inclusion of Alomar and Sandberg.

This is one of the groupthink on here that I just do not get. A vote for Franco isn't a vote for a deserved hofer, it's a nod to a guy that the writer appreciated that he knows isn't going to go in. It's a perfectly legitimate way to honor/acknowledge a player if you have an open spot on your ballot. There is nothing wrong with a vote or two for the McGee's, Franco's etc of the world.

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds may eventually earn my vote, but I’m not ready to go there, not after the two of them hubristically kept steroids on the front page for about a decade by themselves,

49% to 62% is a HUGE jump up for Raines on a crowded ballot.

Yes, there is. If one doesn't think Franco is a deserving HOFer, then a vote for him is wrong, pretty much by definition.

It may be harmless, but it is most certainly *not* legitimate.

Absolutely disagree.

Sorry but there is nothing wrong with a nod to a guy who isn't going to get into the hof. On this type of ballot, it's a disgrace as there is easily 10 deserving candidates, even if you are an Andy type of anti-roider. But in a normal year, I don't remotely see the problem with this.

Yes I know you would have a problem with this, but you live in a weird world that is black and white and enjoying the game and telling great stories about players is not a product of the past time.

But for normal people with actual emotions and feelings, these type of things are a nice tribute.

Guys who receive fewer than 5 percent of the vote are never going to get to 75 percent

You're forgetting you're talking to Ray, who is the arbiter of all that is moral and right. He is, by definition, always correct.

So the problem is not that what you advocate goes against the rules; the problem is that I am not "normal." Okay.

Lou Boudreau and Ralph Kiner say hello.

You're forgetting you're talking to Ray, who is the arbiter of all that is moral and right. He is, by definition, always correct.

The problem is that you can't comprehend someone putting out a meaningless vote to honor a player that they enjoyed. EVERYONE knows it's a meaningless vote, EVERYONE knows it's not going to make a difference, including the voter. What is the harm in putting a vote out there for a guy who isn't going to go in?

We're not talking about the typical path to Cooperstown. We're talking about whether or not player who get under 5% can progress up the ballot to 75%. They can, and they have.

I told you what the harm is. The harm is that it goes against the rules. And anything that goes against the rules demeans the process.

No, and I'm not talking about what's typical either. Voting in the days when Kiner and Boudreau first came on the ballot was much different than it is now. Boudreau got 1.0 percent his first year, then 24.1 percent his next time, which was two years later. What happened then isn't relevant to how the process unfolds today.

I should have (and thought I had) noted earlier that I was talking about modern candidates. But I'll stand by what I said about the effect: If you're starting under 5 percent today, you're not getting close to election.

Harm is a word that means, actually harming something. What is the harm? Your mystical demeaning of the ballot?

Electors may vote for as few as zero (0) and as many as ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election.

Sorry, Ray, but this does not say that electors must vote for every candidate that they deem worthy. If a voter thinks Clemens is worthy but wants to leave him off anyway, this does not go against the voting instructions.

There are degrees of rules vs harm, and this causes absolutely zero harm(in a normal ballot, I will concede that on a crowded ballot like this, it can cause harm) Harm is a word that means, actually harming something. What is the harm?

While this is not related to your vote for Franco, a voter who plans to penalize Clemens by not voting for him in the first year is demeaning the process. Because the voter believes that Clemens is deserving -- the voter fully plans to vote for Clemens next year -- but is nevertheless not voting for Clemens. But the rules tell you to vote for a player if you deem him worthy; they don't support a "first year ballot" penalty.

But if you're looking for harm that is more tangible, you have a situation where Franco got a vote he didn't deserve. How is that fair or not a mockery of the process?

And people get on lawyers for parsing language.

And people get on lawyers for parsing language.

Might be more accurate if the phrase "de minimis" is used instead of "absolutely zero."

Might be more accurate if the phrase "de minimis" is used instead of "absolutely zero."

and for being the lowest forms of human beings on the planet.

That is obviously impossible to argue against, as if you aren't getting 5 percent you can't stay on the ballot, but Jack Morris started out at 20%, Blyleven 17.5%(14% in year 2), Cepeda(vets selection) 12%, There is evidence that players can improve dramatically over the course of their stay on the ballot.

Kiner retired in 1955; in 1962 he was still at only 3.1%. But even he isn't necessary to make cardsfanboy's point about players who stay on the ballot picking up support that helps them later with the VC.

Hey! #### you too, buddy.

For the record, I believe it is stupid and illogical to withhold a first-ballot vote for a candidate who deserves election--but it's not against the rules.

Guys who started with 5-15 percent haven't gone on to election.*

Don't choose the profession then. Mind you there are decent lawyers who still retain their humanity, but like baseball writers, the profession as a whole is a drain on humanity.

Are you serious? I don't come here and #### all over your job for a cheap shot, and that joke was old when Shakespeare made it. Gandhi was a lawyer, you twerp. So was Thurgood Marshall. As was Abe Lincoln. You can #### right off.

The problem is how many debatable worthy guys have debuted with 5-15 percent? Keith Hernandez is the only one I could find. One example isn't really enough to say it couldn't happen. And as I mentioned, it's not just about making it during the writers vote, but it's about the press generated every year that the player is on the ballot for the veteran's vote.

Why would you limit your pool to the arguably worthy candidates? Jack Morris is not a worthy candidate, but his support has increased. So did Jim Rice's. Guys can move up from the high teens and 20s to enshrinement. We know that.

Also, I already acknowledged, twice now, the value of staying on the ballot for how it might affect things for the Vet's Committee, which is why some kind of compromise is reasonable to handle the first-ballot casualties. But that single consideration can't be enough to allow vote-suckers to hang around forever.

Because I thought the argument was about keeping under 5% guys on the ballot so that they can get proper evaluation in the future. Your Kevin Browns, Lou Whitaker, Ted Simmons's. No one cares that John Kruk was one and done.

Now, if you want to give Sweet Lou a second bite at the apple to see if he can improve on his 2.9 percent, I'm all for it. It's a pretty fruitless endeavor, but I think it's reasonable compromise, as long as it comes with some other ballot-cleansing mechanism

I'm fine with a ballot clensing mechanism. I'm fine with more than 10 names on the ballot, I'm not fine with those guys mentioned being one and done. I've would be fine with a system that removes you from the ballot if you don't get 1% first year, 2% second and going up various ways after that.

Lemon, Bob 11.90%
Hershiser, Orel 11.20%
Palmeiro, Rafael11.00%
Fox, Nellie 10.80%
Rose, Sr., Pete 9.50%
Nettles, Graig 8.30%
Evans, Dwight 5.90%
Torre, Joe 5.30%
Hernandez, Keith5.10%

OK, just as long as you're fine with most of these guys being two and done and three and done, we're pretty much in agreement. I simply think its delusional to believe that these guys are ever going to make substantial gains from an initial starting point that paltry.

I honestly think if Whitaker would have stayed on the ballot, he would be doing pretty well, and same with Simmons. I think that after he missed out a lot of articles were written about him that could have changed peoples mind or reminded them of how good he was.

I was thinking about this earlier today. One thing that bothers me about the Morris candidacy is the almost 'why not' vote for him. Whereas Blyleven legit seemed to pick up voters who realized he was a deserving HOF player.

One other thing: While it's true that strong performance with the BBWAA helps with the Vets, that's not a good thing. I'd rather see the Vets become untethered completely from the BBWAA, so that guys like Whitaker and Grich and Simmons can get that fresh look that the Vets Committee is supposed to offer.

I was thinking about this earlier today. One thing that bothers me about the Morris candidacy is the almost 'why not' vote for him. Whereas Blyleven legit seemed to pick up voters who realized he was a deserving HOF player.

Why would you think the guys who almost unanimously rejected the Kevin Browns, Lou Whitakers and Ted Simmons six years after their last game played will suddenly get smarter given one or two or three more years?

I remember very distinctly that the morning after Game 7 in 1991, someone asked me what happened, and I said "Jack Morris pitched himself into the Hall of Fame."

I don't know of any similar watershed for Blyleven.

People really have to try to understand the mindset of others. Deserved or not, Morris gained a mystique through the 1980s. I remember very distinctly that the morning after Game 7 in 1991, someone asked me what happened, and I said "Jack Morris pitched himself into the Hall of Fame."

A very sad state of affairs as it pretty much is a lock we won't have anyone inducted.