Because it happened with Blyleven. I mean, that's a pretty obvious example, right?

No, I don't think it is. Bert debuted with six times the support of Lou. Nearly 20 percent of the electorate considered him a Hall of Famer. Less than 3 percent of the voters thought that about Whitaker. I don't see how Whitaker is going to gain ground from that starting point with virtually no champions within the BBWAA, particularly as each year a half-dozen guys are going to join the ballot with more initial support than him.

And keep in mind, Bert's more than a bit of an outlier himself. His Hall ride was extraordinarily unlikely.

Anyone else?

Hank O'Day, Jacob Ruppert, Deacon White.

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

The HOF will notice that with all of this flood of candidates, it is hugely problematic that nobody may/will be elected.

FWIW:

Blyleven -- 17.5, 14.1, 17.4, 23.5, 26.3, 29.2, 35.4, 40.9, 53.3, 47.4, 61.9, 62.7, 74.2, 79.7
Morris -- 22.2, 19.6, 20.6, 22.8, 26.3, 33.3, 41.2, 37.1, 42.9, 44.0, 52.3, 53.5, 66.7, ??.?

Jack Morris's case in a nutshell:

254-186 (.577), 105 ERA+ (3.90 ERA), 3824 innings, .9 H/9, 3.3 W/9, 5.8 K/9, ERA+ highs of 133, 127, 126, 125, 124.

- Game 7 1991!
- Most wins in the 80s!!
- Most opening day starts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Black Ink Pitching - 20 (96), Average HOFer ? 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 197 (44), Average HOFer ? 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 122 (67), Likely HOFer ? 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 39 (77), Average HOFer ? 50

JAWS Starting Pitcher (167th), 39.3 career WAR/30.8 7yr-peak WAR/35.1 JAWS
Average HOF P (out of 58) = 67.9 career WAR/47.7 7yr-peak WAR/57.8 JAWS

1.Dennis Martinez (903)
2.Bob Gibson (885) *
3.Luis Tiant (873)
4.Jamie Moyer (864)
5.Red Ruffing (860) *
6.Amos Rusie (859) *
7.Chuck Finley (859)
8.Burleigh Grimes (855) *
9.Bob Feller (855) *
10.Jim Bunning (854) *

* signifies HOFer

1.Dennis Martinez (903)
2.Bob Gibson (885) *
3.Luis Tiant (873)
4.Jamie Moyer (864)
5.Red Ruffing (860) *
6.Amos Rusie (859) *
7.Chuck Finley (859)
8.Burleigh Grimes (855) *
9.Bob Feller (855) *
10.Jim Bunning (854) *

And of course, Morris is in no way similar to Gibson or Feller ( 2 of the all time greats), or Rusie for that matter, who pitched 100 years earlier and in an era 100 times different.

And of course even Bunning - not the greatest of HOF selections, and not elected by the writers but elected by the VC a quarter century after his career ended - clearly outpaces him.

Look, we can discuss most wins in the '80s, relative lack of contemporary HOF-worthy pitchers, etc., and those things do have something to do with it. But the biggest point about the writers' treatment of Morris is that most pitchers with 250+ wins are in the Hall of Fame. The ones that aren't either pitched forever ago, or are viewed as particularly extreme examples of non-"dominant" "compilers." Morris is seen by the writers as a "dominator" rather than a "compiler" (which, to the limited extent that those descriptions even have any meaning at all, is pretty clearly incorrect). So it doesn't surprise me at all that he is a popular candidate.

If he had 30 fewer career wins, then it would surprise me.

Look, we can discuss most wins in the '80s, relative lack of contemporary HOF-worthy pitchers, etc., and those things do have something to do with it. But the biggest point about the writers' treatment of Morris is that most pitchers with 250+ wins are in the Hall of Fame.

He barely cleared 250.

On the Leokitty spreadsheet Larry Rozner voted Bonds but not Clemens. What would the reason be for this? Clemens was a bigger #######, Bonds was a better player before steroids?

[410] Rozner argued that if you cut Bonds career off after 1998, that he is still a hall of fame player. Link

Morris will be higher, Raines lower, Bonds and Clemens lower in the final vote. Basically, the more traditional voters seem to be the more difficult to count and they're the ones who will be in favor (even if it's slightly) for Morris, and more likely to want to "punish" Bonds and Clemens, and also aren't on the Raines express, at least yet. I believe Morris will be elected, and Biggio will be close, since he should draw support from the traditionalists to the saberists.

That all said, I really hope no player is elected. I want to debate to escalate with greater focus on the writers who are moralists and now basically want to hold an entire generation hostage. The real damage will be the growing ballot glut. Players like Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Bagwell, etc. would normally be cleared in one or two elections. The may not for years, and the marginal players will be pushed off more rapidly (we'll probably see that with Bernie Williams and Kenny Lofton) and it will also prevent players like Trammel from gaining any traction. The Clemens/Bonds glut will suck the air out each election.

At this point with the peak being Biggio at 67% I'd say no one gets in.

To make it you must be on the following percentage of the remaining ballots...
Biggio: 76.9%
Bagwell: 77.5%
Piazza: 78.0%
Raines: 78.2%
Morris: 78.2%
Everyone else: 80%+ with Mattingly on down needing 90%+

I guess if the old guard sees Biggio's 3000 hits as automatic and not a steroid warning he could make it, but that's about it. Morris has to go from 61.8% to 78.2% for known/unknown ballots and that is a very, very high road to climb (16.4 points or 26.5% more often). People lower than Morris need their vote % to jump by over 90% to make it (ie: a climb from 42.7% to 82.7% is a 93.7% jump in votes).

It seems appropriate to mention a post I made here last April. Here's an excerpt from comment #55 after my El Duque article in Primate Studies:

As for the 5% rule, this is truly an abomination that needs to be eliminated. Here are the players with the most career WAR who were one and done by the rule:

69.7 Lou Whitaker (#84 all-time)
67.6 Bobby Grich (#94)
65.3 Rick Reuschel (#112)
64.0 Kevin Brown (#121)
63.4 Reggie Smith (#127)

Hall of famer Ron Santo (66.4 WAR) would also be listed, but they wisely reinstated him after a few years. Another Hall of famer, Richie Ashburn (58.0 WAR), would have been one and done if the rule had been instituted eleven years earlier. These two players plus the five above are all members of the Hall of Merit. Other HoMers the BBWAA axed after one year are Cone, Saberhagen, W. Clark, Stieb, Randolph, Da. Evans, Simmons, Wynn, Freehan and Allen (who was reinstated).

Simply removing the 5% rule would expand the ballot, of course. I agree with you when you suggest that the BBWAA voters can’t be relied upon to conscientiously handle a ballot with 75 or 100 players on it. So we would look to replace the 5% rule with something more productive. Here is one suggestion:

The simplest way to avoid the ballot expanding beyond the electorate’s ability to handle it is to establish a constant size ballot. Let’s say 40 players. That’s a few more than it has now, but a lot smaller than it has been at other times.

As for the 5% rule, this is truly an abomination that needs to be eliminated.

I don't entirely disagree with this but I don't think it fixes the problem. When 97% of people miss Lou Whitaker well he could be on the ballot for 40 years and he ain't getting in. As SOSH noted above Blyleven barely sneaked in on his last ballot and he started from a much higher point than Whitaker.

At this point with the peak being Biggio at 67% I'd say no one gets in.

I still think Morris finds his way in. I think the arguments raised in 413 are good but I think Morris will clear 80% of the "old-fogey" ballots. I think there is a serious stat backlash out there right now.

Look, we can discuss most wins in the '80s, relative lack of contemporary HOF-worthy pitchers, etc., and those things do have something to do with it. But the biggest point about the writers' treatment of Morris is that most pitchers with 250+ wins are in the Hall of Fame. The ones that aren't either pitched forever ago, or are viewed as particularly extreme examples of non-"dominant" "compilers." Morris is seen by the writers as a "dominator" rather than a "compiler" (which, to the limited extent that those descriptions even have any meaning at all, is pretty clearly incorrect). So it doesn't surprise me at all that he is a popular candidate.

The challenge there is the following guys:

Tommy John 288
Jim Kaat 283

I have a hard time seeing even by basic standards how Morris had more peak seasons than they did.

Highest win totals:
John 22-21-20
Kaat 25-21-20
Morris 21-21-20

It's true that Morris is hurt by the strike year and led the league in victories twice to once for Kaat and 0 for John.

Cy Young placement:
John 2nd/2nd/4th
Morris 3rd/3rd/4th
Kaat lost his best Cy Young chance to the mixed award--nobody beating Sandy! He was 5th in the MVP and the next pitcher was Stu Miller at 11th so he probably would have won one. He did not do well otherwise in voting.


At best you can make a case that Morris should be thought of as sharing their peak, and since he's behind them on counting stats, that's not a great argument for him.

On more advanced, he's well behind John on WAR for pitchers career and slightly behind Kaat. By WAR Kaat had the biggest impact seasons.


Then go below Morris and unless you think 250 is a bright line--which John in particular would argue against--you have to place him with Martinez, Tanana, Wells. Even on basic counting stats and counting prestige awards basis, it's not obvious how Morris comes out atop that list.

I think 5 votes the first year, 5% the second year would be a reasonable improvement. There is peer pressure among the writers. People who are borderline seem a lot better when 30% of your colleagues vote yes.

People who are borderline seem a lot better when 30% of your colleagues vote yes.

Yup, that's how guys who only start at 25 percent can get 75 percent of the vote 10 years later. I think a number of voters aren't anti-first ballot per se, but simply lazy. They want to see who the rest of the gang is supporting, then they'll either look more closely at those guys, or just blindly follow along. It's one reason I don't see any of those sub 5 percent guys ever making a serious run. The reverse is also in effect (if only 3 percent support Player X as a Hall of Famer, he must not be worth examining).

BoB Nightengale hall of fame ballot 11 votes. The rest of my votes go to Craig Biggio, one of the greatest offensive second basemen in history; Jack Morris, the greatest pitcher of the '80s; shortstop Alan Trammell, the Barry Larkin of his generation; and closer Lee Smith, who wasn't Mariano Rivera, or even Trevor Hoffman, but a was model of consistency. Morris or Bagwell is the vote number Ten?

With 5 guys in the 60's and none getting in I wonder if that has happened before...
1999: 5 with 60%+ but 3 got in - Ryan/Brett/Yount in with Fisk & Perez at 60+ then next was Carter at 33.8%
1991: 5 with 60%+ but 3 got in - Carew/Perry/Jenkins in with Fingers and Bunning in the 60's, next is Cepeda at 43.3% and all others in the 30's or lower
1984: 5 with 60%+ but 3 got in - Aparicio/Killebrew/Drysdale in with Wilhelm & Fox in the 60's, next is Billy Williams at 50.1% and Bunning at 49.9% then Oliva at 30.8%
1983: 7 with 60%+ but 2 got in - Frank Robinson/Marichal in with Killebrew/Aparicio/Wilhelm/Drysdale/Hodges in the 60's and Fox at 46.3%
1955: 5 with 60%+ but 4 got in - DiMaggio/Lyons/Vance/Hartnett in with Greenberg in the 60's, Cronin in the 50's and a few in the 40's.
1954: 6 with 60%+ but 3 got in - Maranville/Dickey/Terry in with DiMaggio/Lyons/Vance in the 60's and Hartnett at 59.9% with Greenberg at 38.5%
1953: 5 with 60%+ but 2 got in - Dean/Simmons in with Terry/Dickey/Maranville in the 60's and Vance & Lyons in the 50's, DiMaggio in the 40's
1952: 5 with 60%+ but 2 got in - Heilmann/Waner in with Terry/Dean/Simmons in the 60's and Dickey & Maranville in the 50's
1951: 6 with 60%+ but 2 got in - Ott/Foxx in with Warner/Heilmann/Terry/Dean in the 60's and Dickey/Simmons in the 50's
1947: 5 in the 70's (!),6 with 60+ but 4 got in - Hubbell/Frisch/Cochrane/Grove in, Traynor in the 70's, Gehringer in the 60's and more in the 50's
1939: 5 with 60%+ but 3 got in - Sisler/Collins/Keeler in with Waddell/Hornsby in the 60's and Chance/Delahanty in the 50's
1936: 5 with 80%+, 6 with 60%+ - opening day class of Cobb/Wagner/Ruth/Mathewson/Johnson with Lajoie in the 60's and Speaker in the 50's.

So we've seen crowded ballots but in all cases at least 2 guys got in and normally 3 or more. Thus a very unique situation.

I don't entirely disagree with this but I don't think it fixes the problem. When 97% of people miss Lou Whitaker well he could be on the ballot for 40 years and he ain't getting in. As SOSH noted above Blyleven barely sneaked in on his last ballot and he started from a much higher point than Whitaker.

Look again at the cases of Ron Santo and Richie Ashburn as a potential Hall of Fame path for good candidates like Whitaker. When given further consideration by the BBWAA voters, after <5% initially, they eventually climbed to over 40% and were elected by the VC.

Look again at the cases of Ron Santo and Richie Ashburn as a potential Hall of Fame path for good candidates like Whitaker. When given further consideration by the BBWAA voters, after <5% initially, they eventually climbed to over 40% and were elected by the VC.

The overwhelmingly more likely scenario is that these guys don't make any headway with the exact same voting body that almost unanimously rejected them.

I'd much rather see the Veterans Committee completely disregard the results of the BBWAA election, rather than hope the electorally downtrodden make some unexpected but well-short gains with the goal of catching the eye of the Vets somewhere down the road, all the while sucking up votes that could go toward electable candidates.

Edit: Additionally, it took five years from the first time they got on the ballot for either of those gentleman to make any gains (Ashburn bouncing along at the bottom, Santo oddly reinserted without a Jose Rijo-like comeback). Most suggestions for changes include some way to rid the ballot of its chaff. And if you do have one of those staggered mechanisms for heave ho, Ashburn doesn't last long enough to make the kinds of gains he later did, and Santo might not either.

The challenge there is the following guys:

Tommy John 288
Jim Kaat 283

I have a hard time seeing even by basic standards how Morris had more peak seasons than they did.

The writers don't think it through to that extent. It's a question of their gut reaction to the guys. Morris was an ace on great teams, John/Kaat just hung around forever. (Which of course, in terms of seasons played, they did hang around forever.)

I do think it's quite possible that even the difference between 254 wins and 240ish is doing a lot of work. I feel we've seen that before with McGriff's 493 HR, Baines' 2866 hits, etc. -- these guys IMO would be in if they hit the round number (some would dispute that, but not me), but without it, they not only don't get elected, they get virtually no support.

Tanana is quite similar to Kaat in that the writers remember him as "hung around forever" rather than the "ace" he once was, and D. Martinez combines "not an ace" with a total zero-visibility career.

You could make an argument for Wells similar to that for Morris, and that's where I think the secondary factor of the strength of their contemporary candidates comes in -- Wells and Morris could not be more opposite in that respect. I bet that if you either disappear or immediately induct Clemens/Maddux/Pedro/Unit, and suddenly Wells has got several years on the ballot as the big winner/tough-guy pitcher of his generation, the same thing that has happened to Morris would happen to Wells.

I think a good solution to the 5% rule would be to say you need at least 1% on your first ballot then 2% on the 2nd year and so on up until needing 14% to stay on the ballot your 14th year. Would help some of the first year's but force then to be making meaningful positive strides to stay around.

I think a good solution to the 5% rule would be to say you need at least 1% on your first ballot then 2% on the 2nd year and so on up until needing 14% to stay on the ballot your 14th year. Would help some of the first year's but force then to be making meaningful positive strides to stay around.

I'm all for a stepped approach, but a year=percentage will be too low by Year 3. Meaningful progress toward election should be required to stay on the ballot.

Morris was an ace on great teams

Morris pitched for 4 playoff teams in his career, 2 of them WS winners:

'84 Tigers:
Morris: 19-11, 240.1 IP, 3.60 ERA
Petry: 18-8, 233.1 IP, 3.24 ERA

'87 Tigers:
Morris: 18-11, 266 IP, 3.38 ERA
Tanana: 15-10, 218.2 IP, 3.91 ERA
Terrell: 17-10, 244.2 IP, 4.05 ERA

'91 Twins:
Morris: 18-12, 246.2 IP, 3.43 ERA
Tapani(!): 16-9. 244 IP, 2.99 ERA
Erickson(!!): 20-8, 204 IP, 3.18 ERA

'92 Blue Jays:
Morris: 21-6, 240.2 IP, 4.04 ERA
Key: 13-13, 216.2 IP, 3.53 ERA
Guzman: 16-5, 180.2 IP, 2.64 ERA

Only once was he the "ace" of a playoff team. Hell, in '84 Juan Berenguer had an ERA of 3.48 (in only 168.1 IP, but still).

"It's a question of their gut reaction to the guys." Didn't say it was correct.

Jayson Stark's ballot: http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_/id/8814530/jayson-stark-mlb-hall-fame-ballot

That's my problem with the Morris campaign (I have a few friends who are Tigers fans, and they're aghast that I'd think Morris isn't HOF worthy) - the perception (other than durability) in no way matches the reality.

I once looked, and it wasn't just the years above - Morris was rarely the best pitcher even on his own team. I remember conversations about the '80's Tigers teams (when I lived in Detroit), and we discussed whether Petry more deserved the "ace" appelation (Petry '80-'85 had a lower ERA than Morris, though Morris pitched about 200 more innings).

Not sure if others have mentioned it, Dave Perkins from the Toronto Star has his online - http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/mlb/article/1311210--barry-bonds-roger-clemens-merit-hall-of-fame-nod-perkins
Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Jack Morris, Rafael Palmeiro, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell and Larry Walker. Other than Morris I'm good with it. More Biggio is a good thing this year.

I do like his drink factor - would you get up for a drink if this player was up to bat (or pitching as the case may be)? If so then think a bit more about putting that checkmark on him.

I'm all for a stepped approach, but a year=percentage will be too low by Year 3

An alternative to this is to leave the 5% rule in place, but let the ballot screeners reconsider players. That is, along with considering players retired for five years, they would also reconsider players retired for 15 years. So for the 2013 election, the screeners would have also reconsidered players retiring in 1997, giving a second chance to Brett Butler, Fernando Valenzuela and perhaps a couple others. For 2014 the voters would get to weigh in again on guys like Dave Stieb, Dennis Martinez, Jimmy Key and Joe Carter.

It's a lot more fair than "one-and-done".

It's a lot more fair than "one-and-done".

Two-and-done it is then. (-:

Yes, the occasional Santo and Ashburn may get a little more support with some distance, but it's important to keep one's perspective about how much such a change would accomplish, which is very, very little.

And, of course, if you're talking fairness, it's hard to reconcile the idea that one-and-done is unfair but choosing Brett Butler to get a second look instead of Tony Pena, Darryl Kile and Rick Honeycutt (all of whom received the same number or more votes than Butler when they were on the ballot together) is fair. And if you just include all of them, then what's the point?

You can have discretion or fairness, but I don't think you can have both.

how much such a change would accomplish, which is very, very little.

Absent a complete makeover with respect to HOF rules, incremental improvement is all one can reasonably hope for.

choosing Brett Butler to get a second look instead of Tony Pena, Darryl Kile and Rick Honeycutt (all of whom received the same number or more

Whatever support they received in 2003 is irrelevant. The point is that with the intervening decade there would be better perspective now than existed then.

Of course, in the case of 1997 retirees it doesn't matter as none of them have any case for the Hall. OTOH, the 1998 retirees have Stieb, Martinez and Key, all of whom have at least as good a case for the HOF as Morris. Although this fact is not obvious, there has to be much more awareness of this than in 2004 when the Hall initially rejected them.

Absent a complete makeover with respect to HOF rules, incremental improvement is all one can reasonably hope for.

If the incremental improvement comes without cost (like expanding the ballot to 15 or 20 names), I'm all for it. The problem with a lot of second-look solutions is they do have a cost. Reinserting candidates without hope of election can siphon votes away from guys with a realistic chance of getting elected (even on an unlimited ballot, guys will still limit their votes), which is a losing equation as far as I'm concerned.

Whatever support they received in 2003 is irrelevant. The point is that with the intervening decade there would be better perspective now than existed then.

So then can we stop with the fairness pretense. You're not interested in fairness (And there's nothing unfair about one-and-done. It's unfortunate. Thoroughly mistaken in some cases. But not unfair).

You want better. Which is a worthwhile goal, but you're not searching for fairness.

'91 Twins:
Morris: 18-12, 246.2 IP, 3.43 ERA
Tapani(!): 16-9. 244 IP, 2.99 ERA
Erickson(!!): 20-8, 204 IP, 3.18 ERA

I was a little confused by the exclamation points. Maybe it's because I was a seven year old Braves fan in 1991, but I always regarded Tapani and Erickson as aces. Even without looking up their stats, I realize this is not altogether the case, but my perception of them will always be that of great pitchers.

Looking into it a bit, the Hall of Fame doesn't even need new rules. Some old ones will suffice. In 1967 nobody was elected, so they did a runoff election with the top votegetter going in from that. The result was Red Ruffing going in. They did a few runoff elections over the years. Found this note on BBref:

"Notes: Intermittently from 1947 to 1967, if the BBWAA did not elect anyone on its initial ballot, the top 20-30 votegetters would appear on a runoff ballot with only the top votegetter being elected."

A runoff is fine, just make it all players with 25% or more and the best gets in.
Using that we'd have...
67.8 - Biggio
66.1 - Bagwell
63.6 - Piazza
62.7 - Raines
62.7 - J. Morris
44.9 - Clemens
44.9 - Bonds
39.0 - E. Martinez
38.1 - Schilling
37.3 - L. Smith
37.3 - Trammell

Or cut down to 50%+ (or top 5) and you'd have...
67.8 - Biggio
66.1 - Bagwell
63.6 - Piazza
62.7 - Raines
62.7 - J. Morris

Perfectly reasonable to work from. Heck, at that point you could even have a special committee ala the vets to determine who gets in. Of course, iirc, every time they did a run-off it was the leader going in who won so maybe just put in a simple 'top vote getter gets in plus all who crack 75%' rule.

Say, looking at the results so far, has the pre-vote ever had 3 'twins' in the groups with significant support? Right now we have a tie between Raines & Morris, Clemens & Bonds, and Lee Smith/Trammell. The middle group makes sense (all-time top 10 players who have PED issues) but the other two are a stathead (Raines/Trammell) with a anti-stathead (Morris/Smith). Kind of funny really.

Thought I'd throw this Jim Caple tweet here:

In straw poll, Internet Baseball Writers Association of America cast 75% of votes for only 1 player: Piazza. This is NOT actual Hall vote

Being "new media" doesn't make you any more likely to vote for the "right" players, apparently :)

IBWAA press release

-- MWE

"Notes: Intermittently from 1947 to 1967, if the BBWAA did not elect anyone on its initial ballot, the top 20-30 votegetters would appear on a runoff ballot with only the top votegetter being elected."

In case anyone needed evidence that HoF voting was different back in the day...

I'm not even referring to the runoff part. There was a time when there were 20-30 candidates who drew support on an annual basis. If they had a runoff ballot with the top 20 votegetters this year, it would look exactly the same as the actual ballot.

First-time Hall of Fame voter USA Today.

The Gabe Lacques hall of fame ballot (8): Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Raines, Piazza, Walker and Trammell.

Look again at the cases of Ron Santo and Richie Ashburn as a potential Hall of Fame path for good candidates like Whitaker. When given further consideration by the BBWAA voters, after <5% initially, they eventually climbed to over 40% and were elected by the VC.

Emphasis mine. Ashburn started at 2% and bloomed all the way to 30% by year 15. Santo got to 43% before falling off the ballot. You know this stuff better than I do but I doubt there is anyone even remotely close to where Whitaker started in the balloting who got in via the BBWAA (under present rules, stuff like the random vote for Dimaggio in 1945 notwithstanding).

You want better. Which is a worthwhile goal, but you're not searching for fairness

Semantics; to me, both better and fairness go hand-in-hand. We simply have different opinions about the meanings of these terms.

You haven't said this, but a system that would satisfy you would seem to be this: Every voter votes up or down on every candidate. You could virtually eliminate any limits on candidates that way. And I think that is actually a much better election system than the one currently in place. If nobody receives 75% support, then you send the top ten to a "supreme court" each of whom ranks them MVP-style to determine a winner.

Semantics; to me, both better and fairness go hand-in-hand. We simply have different opinions about the meanings of these terms.

The current system is fair (other than when they just throw a random Santo back into the voting pool, which is precisely what you want). The rules are clear and well-defined. You're put on 5 years after your last game. Minimum 10 years in MLB. The rules apply the same to everyone. It's perfectly fair, but it's flawed.

My system.

Writer's ballot: Keep the BBWAA (only becuase of existing issues with finding suitable group of replacements), though I'd like to find a way to remove those gents who have stopped actively covering/following the sport). No 10-person per ballot limit, stepped level of support, giving first-timers a slightly better chance of staying on the ballot, but matching that by kicking others off the ballot if they're not making meaningful progress toward election. Run-off if no one reaches 75 percent. Work in AROM's fan vote in here somehow.

My bigger fix would be to the Vet's Committee. I think the current structure will continue to elect folks, which is good. The problem is the makeup. The nominating committee is made up entirely of media members, while four of the voting committee members are also from the BBWAA, which just means that if Bobby Grich or Jimmy Wynn were criminally overlooked once, they're just as likely to get overlooked again. No BBWAA members should be involved with this process.

This is where I'd like to see the experts fit in (or, even, let the Vets have their own election, and let the experts become a second fallback group).

I doubt there is anyone even remotely close to where Whitaker started in the balloting who got in via the BBWAA (under present rules, stuff like the random vote for Dimaggio in 1945 notwithstanding).

Sure, there is nobody who debuted on the BBWAA ballot in the past 50 years to climb from 3% to election by them. But that's not what I'm arguing.

I'm saying that the Veterans Committee has always taken its cue from the BBWAA results. Gil Hodges is the only player to reach 50% in BBWAA support and not be eagerly scooped up by the VC. (Although, I have no doubt he would be elected by now if not for the reformation after the Mazeroski debacle.)

By not giving Whitaker another shot, as Santo and Ashburn enjoyed, his chances for VC election are, therefore, greatly diminished from what they could have been. He may have stayed on the ballot for 15 years; he may have received more than 30% support at some time. These things would put him on the radar for a future VC. But the opportunity for this was never allowed to exist, as it did for Santo and Ashburn, due to the 5% rule and the Hall's failure to override it.

Whitaker is lucky he has such a close association with Alan Trammell. That's the main thing that could serve to get him noticed by the Hall electors in the future.

By not giving Whitaker another shot, as Santo and Ashburn enjoyed, his chances for VC election are, therefore, greatly diminished from what they could have been. He may have stayed on the ballot for 15 years; he may have received more than 30% support at some time. These things would put him on the radar for a future VC. But the opportunity for this was never allowed to exist, as it did for Santo and Ashburn, due to the 5% rule and the Hall's failure to override it.

Again, the far, far more likely scenario is that second-shot Whitaker gets ignored again, and Steve Garvey or Dave Parker or Don Mattingly gets that bump from so much time spent on the BBWAA ballot. I don't know why you hold out so much hope that a group that almost unanimously rejected Lou Whitaker is going to suddenly see the light a few years later.

Better to try to divorce the Vets from the BBWAA vote then take a stab in the dark that Whitaker is able to increase his voting support 10-fold on the offchance the Vets take notice.

Is Bob Nightengale (USA Today) tallied yet? Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Palmeiro, Piazza, Bagwell, Biggio, Smith, Trammell, Morris.

Better to try to divorce the Vets from the BBWAA vote

How do you see this coming about? Any ideas?

I don't know why you hold out so much hope that a group that almost unanimously rejected Lou Whitaker is going to suddenly see the light a few years later.

That's not it. I'm saying that it has happened. Santo went from 4% to 43% with the same group. Ashburn went from 2% to 42% with the same group. Both are hall of famers; both are HoMers, and are deserving of the honors. Whitaker is of nearly the same quality as them, but was not given the same opportunity as them, thereby damaging his chances at election during his lifetime.

You said in #444 that it was unfair to "throw a random Santo back into the voting pool". I call that correcting an error; I call that getting it right, for a change. We need to see more of such "unfairness".

With 119 ballots accounted for here, the percentage of outstanding votes (likely) needed:

Biggio 76.8%
Bagwell 77.5%
Piazza 77.9%
Raines 78.1%
Morris 78.1%
Clemens 82.8%
Bonds 82.8%

Seems to me that there's a strong chance that, save Ken Griffey Jr.'s candidacy, we will go from 2009 (Henderson)-2018 (Chipper) without a first-ballot, non-pitcher, HOFer.

That's presuming the BBWA manages to botch Frank Thomas's candidacy.

How do you see this coming about? Any ideas?

I gave one. Don't let BBWAA members appear on either the nominating committee or the voting committee. That one's easy, and I think inarguably appropriate. If the point is to give players another look, you don't appoint the same blind guys from the first time around.

Beyond that, make it abundantly clear to both the nominating and voting committes that they are to reconsider everyone from the eligible time period, regardless how much support they garnered through the BBWAA vote.* A fresh start for all. Some supporting documentation wouldn't hurt. If they're not willing to do the hard work, thank them for their time and move on to someone who will.

Stack the nominating committee with your James and Thorn types. I don't think it's possible to replace/supplement the BBWAA with experts because it would be hard to ID who would be included. Picking a Vet's Committee nominating group shouldn't be so difficult, since you're only looking at a handful of individuals. Tap into SABR as necessary (if its willing).

As for the voting committee, why not use a screening process for the committee members, to get those who are most interested in doing the research necessary to reach the most appropriate conclusions? Perhaps load the committee with Hall of Famers who served in some front office capacity (whether they got in as a player or as an exec), and thus have a better understanding of value than the feels-like contingent.

Make these changes and I think Sweet Lou and Bobby Grich have a better chance of earning their deserved enshrinement than tossing their name back in front of the BBWAA and hoping this time the writers bite.

* By the way, time this with a change to the staggered support system of eligibility. If all of us have to rethink the ballot itself, it may be easier to divorce the ballot from the thought process of the Vets.

45.4 - Clemens
45.4 - Bonds

Sorry haven't read thru the whole thread, but are these 2 an identical overlap of voters?

453. Tim M Posted: January 07, 2013 at 05:57 PM (#4341185)
45.4 - Clemens
45.4 - Bonds

Sorry haven't read thru the whole thread, but are these 2 an identical overlap of voters?

Close, but not identical. At least one voted for each without voting for the other.

67.8 - Biggio
65.3 - Bagwell
63.6 - J. Morris
62.8 - Piazza
62.8 - Raines

Could this year be a true nightmare? Not only no inductees, but Jack Morris topping the ballot? Given he's only 4% behind Biggio, and his history of underperforming in the Gizmo count, this is a real threat.

Angels and ministers of grace defend us!

Could this year be a true nightmare? Not only no inductees, but Jack Morris topping the ballot? Given he's only 4% behind Biggio, and his history of underperforming in the Gizmo count, this is a real threat.

Angels and ministers of grace defend us!

next year will be worse. if noone gets in this year, there'll be 15 players on the ballot next year with 60+ WAR. and another 10 with 40+. and on top of that, you'll have lee smith and jack morris, who both got 50+% of the vote this past year.


oh, and to make it even better, of those 25 players with 40+ WAR, 3 are going to fall off the ballot this year because they didn't get 5% of the vote (lofton, david wells, and steve finley).



greg maddux will probably slip in next year because he's got the whole leg pissing thing going in his favor, but because so many qualified players are getting passed over year in and year out, the backlog is going to get so full that none of the returning candidates will be able to make progress towards 75%.


think about this, if you're someone who voted for 10 players this year and none of them get in, how are you going to make room on next year's ballot for greg maddux? or tom glavine? or frank thomas?



unless something in the voting process changes very quickly, the next 5-10-15-20 ballots are going to be hellish.

They'll fix it long before it gets that far-I'd give the odds of significant reform just this year as 3:1 in favor: the HoF wants to see people elected.

I don't envision any empty elections after this year for quite a few years after. Maddux is a lock next year, and at least one other will likely join him (Glavine, Thomas, Bagwell, Biggio, Morris are all candidates), plus a player could join them from the Vets). Others will start moving up the ballot in the years that follow and still more shoe-ins like Griffey, Johnson and Pedro will hit the ballot. At the other end, some hopeless causes will fall off. Even without intervention (and I hope there's at least the move to expand the ballots past 10), I don't imagine they'll be looking at empty weekends past this one.

Maddux is a lock next year,

Is there a way to argue against this, if one wanted to play devil's advocate? Perhaps voters withhold Maddux's vote because they know he'll eventually get in but they know Morris's time on the ballot is nearing its end, or they want to make sure someone like Lofton gets the requisite 5% to stay on the ballot? Add that to just generally casting their vote on an overcrowded ballot for some of the others first?

Is there a way to argue against this, if one wanted to play devil's advocate? Perhaps voters withhold Maddux's vote because they know he'll eventually get in but they know Morris's time on the ballot is nearing its end, or they want to make sure someone like Lofton gets the requisite 5% to stay on the ballot? Add that to just generally casting their vote on an overcrowded ballot for some of the others first?

Not really. If it was a one person per ballot then that is a possibility, but with 10 people per ballot, there is no way that Maddux doesn't get in, unless you run into a lot of really angry pro-clemens voters who won't vote for Maddux because Clemens didn't go in, and he was better. I don't see that happening though.

Is there a way to argue against this, if one wanted to play devil's advocate?

Benefiting from a performance enhancing strike zone might bother some folks, especially since said strike zone wasn't consistent with MLB rules. Cheating?

Is there a way to argue against this, if one wanted to play devil's advocate? Perhaps voters withhold Maddux's vote because they know he'll eventually get in but they know Morris's time on the ballot is nearing its end, or they want to make sure someone like Lofton gets the requisite 5% to stay on the ballot? Add that to just generally casting their vote on an overcrowded ballot for some of the others first?

One can always play devil's advocate. One just can't make a credible argument in the process.

Maddux is not Biggio or Piazza, guys who would top out in the low 80s on a normal ballot and in a world where no one even cared about steroids. The crowded ballot could take Maddux from 96 percent to 91, but he's not going much below that.

It's not that most of these voters, save the Chasshole and a few others, don't want to elect anyone. It's just they have too many different ideas of who is deserving. There will be no such confusion about Maddux. And the rest will sort itself out. Biggio will go in next year or the year after at the latest, and others will join him in the years to come.

Unless you run into a lot of really angry pro-clemens voters who won't vote for Maddux because Clemens didn't go in, and he was better. I don't see that happening though.

My guess is that the voters who are prone to that kind of pouting are the ones leaving Clemens off their ballots in the first place.

The crowded ballot could take Maddux from 96 percent to 91, but he's not going much below that.

I think this about hits it. I wouldn't be surprised if Maddux goes even lower than that, say 85ish for many of the reasons RDP lays out but I just can't see it being nearly common enough to happen.

Heyman's ballot:

1. Tim Raines
2. Jack Morris
3. Dale Murphy
4. Curt Schilling
5. Don Mattingly
6. Fred McGriff

Heyman's ballot:

What a train wreck.

I think the CBS guys goal is to make as bad a ballot as possible. Something like Chass.

SHOO-IN
SHOO-IN
SHOO-IN
SHOO-IN
SHOO-IN

PLEASE. That is all.

What a train wreck.

Have to agree... I'm on board with any ballot that has Raines for the most part, but my god that is a horrid ballot. He's in the camp "Piazza is writing a book, I'll wait"... he's in the camp that believes guilty until proven innocent with regards to Piazza, Bagwell and Sosa... and his line on McGwire is ridiculous...

33. Mark McGwire: Can be compared to only three batters after age 33: Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Bonds. Before that, he was compared to Jay Buhner.

I guess he looked at similarity score at age 32 and saw Buhner on the list..

From Heyman's FA:

I saw a friend's ballot and it was totally different, and I mean every single name.

Thank goodness.

SHOO-IN
SHOO-IN
SHOO-IN
SHOO-IN
SHOO-IN

PLEASE. That is all.

Got it.
Got it.
Got it.
Got it.
Got it.

Can't say I ever gave any thought to the proper form of shoo-in. What do you know?

And next time, eschew the Caps Lock. Please.

Also from Heyman:

One of Clemens' legal mouthpieces recently chastised writers who might dare omit Clemens from the ballot. But I have news for him.

This isn't like his case where the lawyer gets to pick the 12 dummies who might fall for his courtroom BS. And even though Clemens' high-priced talkers somehow got him acquitted of perjury, that hardly erases the mountain of evidence that he's one of the greatest juicers in baseball history.

I can't imagine even with the crowded ballot that Greg Maddux doesn't get around 95%. He's one of those across the board guys who's career is appreciated by both old school and new school.

holy crap it let me in! first time commenting in like 5 years or something.

i think biggio will get near unanimous support from the national publications coming out with their block votes, and he will be closer, maybe even above 70, when the gizmo is done.

when reading a lot of these voter articles, i am puzzled as to their thought process. they seem to always go over the holdovers, then use their spare votes on the newcomers. i always do the opposite. i would definitely strategic vote for lofton this year. my vote would be bonds, clemens, piazza, biggio, schilling, raffy, sosa, mcgwire, bagwell, lofton. raines is my unlucky man. trammell, mcgriff next.

i don't like some of these comments suggesting that small committees vote for the hall. the reason the baseball hall is better is because of its huge voter bloc. come on, we are stat geeks aren't we? the bbwaa process is so much better than all the others. imagine if it was like the football hall of fame and if you pissed of the baseball equivalent of peter king, you were done. or if you only had to convince a handful of people to keep yourself on the ballot or someone out year after year. i'm doing a sim ballot for before the HOF came into existence and since i only had 155 votes at the beginning, it was almost impossible to kick people off or elect them if there was any sectionalism (which there was - i had 26 nyc votes). i think one thing they could do is ask ten year mlb vets not in the hall of fame (fallen off the ballot) if they want to vote, but with the condition that they cannot be elected in their lifetime. so you would get a bloc of mlb players who know they themselves have no shot at the hall, which i think would be a pretty good group to allow to vote. maybe they could let the hof-ers themselves vote in the main ballot and not just the vet committee, which, let's be fair, has much worse selections usually (though the most recent form seems better)? of course there would be significant biases, but it's not like the writers aren't sectional. don't know what i'd do for bill james types. create a sabr ballot with a ten-year sabr requirement, lobby the hall to ratify its results once it has 500 voters, get it to merge with bbwaa version? allow gm's and other baseball people to apply in some way? who knows. anyway, i prefer the ideas of expanding the voting body rather than changing the rules.

also, people might want to look at the espn vote totals. with 18k votes in, nobody elected, biggio on top with 67, piazza 66, drops to schilling at 51, morris at 32, whole bunch of no-hopes way above 5%. writers are still smarter than basic fans i guess. the "order" of players seems more logical but percentages wacky. still not as bad as posnanski's sidebar poll last year where you had to type the name in and the top candidate was bagwell with like 14% or something. makes you understand those early years a lot better, i'm pretty sure they had to come up with the names themselves.

super long comment! now i gotta update the profile.

In terms of trying to understand how to project the Gizmo results to the ultimate result, it is important to realize that there are fundamentally two different populations of voters. The Gizmo is capturing the votes posted on the Internet, thereby capturing much of the active voters and some portion of retired baseball writers that are tech savvy to some extent. This population is more likely to consider sabermetric analysis in their thinking. Meanwhile, the non-Gizmo voters are either retired or may not be as tech savvy and are therefore not as likely to embrace sabermetric analysis in their voting. Obviously, I'm generalizing here, but overall I think that these are the two differing populations at work.

Taking that as is, we can look at how certain candidates did in 2012 among Gizmo (G) voters and non-Gizmo (NG) voters:

Morris - 58.8% G, 69.4% NG
Bagwell - 56.8% G, 55.7% NG
Raines - 52.0% G, 47.5% NG
Smith - 44.6 G, 52.7% NG

Already we can see a trend. The NG population favors "aces" like Morris and closers like Smith more than the G voters. Meanwhile, G voters value more highly the high OBP mixed with power from Bagwell and the high OBP and SB% of Raines - players that did not realize some milestone numbers (e.g. 500 HR, 3,000 H).

Taking Morris' vote for 2013 as of the latest tally of 124 ballots counted, he is at 63.7% among the G vote, up from 58.8% last year. Assuming the same 573 votes overall, that means he would need to climb from 69.4% to 78.2% among the NG vote. A tough haul, but certainly not undoable.

Using similar logic, Bagwell's NG vote would have to climb from 55.7% to 77.7% for him to clear 75% overall. Not very likely.

Biggio, on the other hand, has a real shot. Given that he is at 67.7% among G votes, he needs 77.1% among NG votes. As a member of the 3,000 hit club that the NG voter probably values, I would think this is quite likely.

One other one - Piazza would need 78.6% among the NG crows to make it happen. That's not out of the realm of possibility. Bonds and Clemens would need 83.3%, and that's not going to happen.

Lets say, for arguments sake, that Maddux does get in next year but no one else does (Glavine & Thomas pay prices for the era they played in, writers continue to be silly about the rest). Is Randy Johnson and/or Pedro Martinez a lock the next year? I doubt it. Martinez has the 'dumb voter' issue (two Martinez' on the ballot? Who do I vote for? Hey, some voters have demonstrated this degree of stupidity before) and his low win total (219 is barely more than Smoltz and he was a closer for awhile). I can't thing of anything to use against Johnson other than he was freakish (super tall and ugly - my mom called him 'the big rat'). Johnson was crazy wild early on (152 walks one year) but became a really good one later with a BB/9 as low as 1.6 one year (2004 at the age of 40). He was sub-500 in the playoffs surprisingly enough, but 3-0 in his one WS with a 1.04 ERA while in the NLCS/ALCS he had a sub 2.00 ERA over 4 starts. I guess his time in NY would hurt (100 ERA+) but that's about it. Griffey Jr seems safe, but we all thought that of Biggio.

Sigh. I could easily see the ballots this year/next/year after putting in just 2 guys (Maddux/Johnson). Hopefully not, but it is possible.

Griffey Jr seems safe, but we all thought that of Biggio.

Griffey was the one of the biggest names in baseball, and is thought to be the clear counter-example to Bonds. He's the HR-slugging superstar who fell apart as he got older, rather than turning into Superman. The anti-steroids crowd will eat that up. And the steroids-agnostics will vote for the guy who put up much better career numbers than Biggio.

Seriously, y'all need to chill a little about the Biggio/Bagwell-driven hysteria. Those guys were going to be difficult-to-sell as first ballot guys under ANY condition. Maddux and Griffey are not going to face any problems.

Griffey Jr seems safe, but we all thought that of Biggio.

No, we all didn't. A handful of us have been saying for quite some time that Biggio might have to wait 2-3 years for induction, for a number of reasons. Biggio is not Maddux. He is not Randy and he is not Griffey. OTOH, if he doesn't make it this year, he will go in over the next couple of years.

The only possible silver lining to Biggio not getting in this year is that it's possible he and Bagwell will go in together. Not super likely, but possible.

I said the same thing about Biggio. I expect Griffey to miss on the first ballot now. Maddux, sure, but these voters are doing way, way worse than I expected on this run.

I expect Griffey to miss on the first ballot now.

I'm not arguing that he's more deserving, but Griffey just crushes Biggio in things that BBWAA voters tend to love. He beats him in All-Star games 13-7, he beats him in Gold Gloves 10-4, he beats him in top 10 finishes in MVP voting 10-5 including a 1st and a 2nd (Biggio's best finish was 4th). I can't see any way he doesn't beat Biggio's first year by at least 10%, which, based on Repoz's sample, puts him in.

I'm not arguing that he's more deserving, but Griffey just crushes Biggio in things that BBWAA voters tend to love. He beats him in All-Star games 13-7, he beats him in Gold Gloves 10-4, he beats him in top 10 finishes in MVP voting 10-5 including a 1st and a 2nd (Biggio's best finish was 4th).

Griffey was on the All-Century team. Biggio was not on the ballot for the All-Century team.

I'm not arguing that he's more deserving, but Griffey just crushes Biggio in things that BBWAA voters tend to love. He beats him in All-Star games 13-7, he beats him in Gold Gloves 10-4, he beats him in top 10 finishes in MVP voting 10-5 including a 1st and a 2nd (Biggio's best finish was 4th). I can't see any way he doesn't beat Biggio's first year by at least 10%, which, based on Repoz's sample, puts him in.

Yup, and he would have in normal years as well. Without 3,000 (which he wheezed across the finish line to reach), Biggio was going to take at least as long as Sandberg, and possibly quite longer. The 3,000 should have pushed him from deserving but struggling to the low 80s at best. Now, add in the fact that he's alongside two of the best players ever, an all-time great catcher and the nonsense surrounding this ballot, and he looked like a bubble boy to me. Now Junior may also see a hit to his vote total due to some of this stuff, but he's got far more wiggle room than Biggio could expect to have. He may not sail in like he otherwise would have, but he'll make it in Year 1.

Interestingly, here are some choice names on ESPN.com's current poll (at this posting, 19,711 votes), duplicating the HOF ballot:

67.4 Biggio
66.6 Piazza
53.7 Bagpipes
45.4 Clemens
44.7 Bonds
32.3 Morris

Even the great unwashed (I voted, so I'm allowed to say that) are very well aware that Morris is nowhere near a HOFer. It's a shame the BBWAA is so out of touch.

EDIT: I see someone above already posted this info. But I included the link so I'm better.

these voters are doing way, way worse than I expected on this run.

As someone who isn't concerned with the result, but is fascinated by the process (same with the Oscars), I feel that's been the most wonderful thing about this ballot cycle. We all had low expectations going in, but the writers have managed to limbo underneath them.

I really liked Jayson Stark's ballot. Not to say I agree with his choices, but liked the accompanying article, and it seemed a very level take.

More mainstream publicity for "somebody". Congratulations to whomever!

Funny, doing the ESPN poll I thought 'ok, lets do the no-brainers first then go through a 2nd time and add in anyone who I feel also deserves it' and hit 10 in the no-brainer category (Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell, Schilling, Clemens, Bonds, Martinez, Raines, Trammell, Walker) when I intended to go through again and add Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, Lofton and ideally old favorites McGriff and Franco. Sheesh, when you try to write a ballot this year it is just so insane. Even if I remove PED suspected guys (at the most extreme, if Biggio qualifies as PED suspected we might as well tear up the ballot) I get Biggio, Schilling, Martinez, Raines, Trammell, Walker, Lofton, McGriff, Franco - 9 guys with one slot left.

Heh - made the mistake of reading comments on the ESPN thing...
There's a difference between excellent and HOF. Schilling? No way! Exc. pitcher, had some fine years, but his career was diffuse and there were periods where he was strictly mediocre. The HOF isn't just for a few peak years. It's for an entire career. Schilling, Walker, Martinez, McGwire, Murphy, a few others, are NOT good enough all-around. Exc. but not HOFers. Big impact is important. Lee Smith should be in the hall. Dominating presence.

Heh. Schilling, Walker, Martinez, McGwire not good enough for the HOF but Lee Smith is. Wonder if that comment was by a BBWAA HOF voting member (sadly, not as big a joke as it should be).

Wonder if that comment was by a BBWAA HOF voting member (sadly, not as big a joke as it should be).

Not a joke at all, sadly. When the world becomes absurd, satire fails.

The comments section is pretty good at the moment- a bunch of readers arguing that Stark was foolish to dismiss Trammell.

Griffey was on the All-Century team. Biggio was not on the ballot for the All-Century team.

The voting was in 1999. If they'd voted on an All-Century team in 1987, Dale Murphy would have had a shot. The case against Griffey, which is going to have a ton of partisans, is that he was so disappointing in his 30s that you have to wonder if he really cared about baseball enough, if he was gritty and grindery enough, and so on.

I'm not arguing that he's more deserving, but Griffey just crushes Biggio in things that BBWAA voters tend to love. He beats him in All-Star games 13-7, he beats him in Gold Gloves 10-4, he beats him in top 10 finishes in MVP voting 10-5 including a 1st and a 2nd (Biggio's best finish was 4th). I can't see any way he doesn't beat Biggio's first year by at least 10%, which, based on Repoz's sample, puts him in.

As you point out, Griffey has peak while Biggio has career. I think the Griffey of the 2000s will be stuck in voters minds, the same way the "I didn't vote for him for MVP" Biggio seems stuck in their minds.

Heh. Schilling, Walker, Martinez, McGwire not good enough for the HOF but Lee Smith is. Wonder if that comment was by a BBWAA HOF voting member (sadly, not as big a joke as it should be).

Just a note to remind that Lee Smith held the career saves record for 13 years, just about the same as Wilhelm or Fingers. At some point, we have to be able to recognize that a ballplayer's main job is to do what his manager asks of him.

Manny Mota for the Hall!

A player can do his job well without being worthy of the Hall of Fame. Obviously closing and pinch-hitting are different, but the point is that the case for Smith must be one that addresses his actual greatness and value compared to other great baseball players.

The Rob Biertempfel hall of fame ballot (6): Biggio, Morris, Bagwell, Raines, Smith and Schilling.

http://blog.triblive.com/bucco-blog/2013/01/08/my-hall-of-fame-ballot/

Oh, I can see an argument for Lee Smith but to say Schilling was less dominate than Smith is just about as silly as it gets, let along MVP Walker, Martinez or 70 HR McGwire (if you don't discount for PED use). I mean, c'mon, McGwire was the scariest hitter in MLB for a few years (before Bonds bulked up) - that is as dominate as it gets (and not Jim Rice scary but intentional walk whenever you can scary).

From Biertempfel: But, I also think a player getting inducted the first time he is on the ballot is a special thing. It’s a sort of ring of honor among an already elite group of men. Clemente deserved that. So did Wagner. Not Bonds.

I expect this is the reason for a lot of them. Perhaps this year will be empty and next year will see a large Class of players. Among the old guard, this HOF thing seems to be driven only by narrative ... perhaps next year's narrative will be, "oh no, we didn't elect anyone next year, and look at this ballot!" rather than the writers acting as the protectors of the Hall.

Yeah, If nobody is elected in 2012 everyone will jump all over the PED issue but that's not the reason why we won't see many people voted into the Hall over the next few years.

In asking "what's going wrong" with the above vote totals, I'd look at a couple of things.

There are 18 names above the dotted line up there, and I've heard cogent, well-argued cases for Lofton and Bernie on top of that. That's 20 "feasible" candidates (Rose is ineligible so is not feasible).

By "feasible", that doesn't mean you have to agree with each one of those getting into the Hall; I don't even have to agree with all the choices myself, rather it's a matter of recognising that enough people in the BWAA *do* think they're a possible Hall of Famer to get them a decent number of votes either this year or some year to come.

Trying to get even one of 20 names onto 75% of ten-name ballots is actually not very likely.

It's a structural problem and one that's only going to get worse when we see the guys coming down the tracks over the next two years.

2014: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Kent, Mussina
2015: Unit, Pedro, Smoltz, Sheffield

Even *without* steroids clouding the issue, there's so many names trying to get 75% of ballots with just 10 names per ballot that it becomes mathematically very difficult for anybody to be elected. Bill James wrote as much when the Hall voting in the 40s was really screwed up. And we're seeing the same again now.

To solve it? Increase the list of names to 15 (at the very least) and reduce the minimum percentage required to stay on the ballot to 1%.


P.S. Bonds and Clemens are irrelevant. The two big kahunas are simply too controversial on this, their first ballot. Sitting at 45%-50% of the vote, give or take, confirms that.

Repoz:
David Borges beat writer for the New Haven Register is member BBWAA?

Via Twitter Posted:
Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, Schilling. That would be my ballot.