BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: The 2013 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

The 2013 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

The 2014 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

Final: Jan.9 - 11:30 ~ 209* Full Ballots ~ (36.7%* of vote ~ based on last year) (*new ballot/pct. record!)

99.5 - Maddux
95.7 - Glavine
89.0 - F. Thomas
79.4 - Biggio
———————————
67.9 - Piazza
61.7 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
56.5 - Bagwell
54.5 - Raines
42.1 - Bonds
40.7 - Clemens
36.8 - Schilling
26.8 - Mussina
25.4 - E. Martinez
24.4 - L. Smith
22.0 - Trammell
15.8 - Kent
12.0 - McGriff
10.5 - McGwire
8.1 - L. Walker
7.2 - S. Sosa
5.7 - R. Palmeiro
———————————
4.8 - Mattingly
0.5 - P. Rose (Write-In)

Thanks to Butch, Ilychs Morales, leokitty & Barnald for their help.

As usual…send them in if you come across any ballots!

Repoz Posted: December 25, 2013 at 02:56 PM | 2002 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: history, hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 21 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›

1. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: December 25, 2013 at 03:50 PM (#4623889)

Thanks for the effort Repoz. Nice to see Raines doing well. The Trammell vote is shameful.

Those four would be an awesome induction class if it holds.

2. Rough Carrigan

Posted: December 25, 2013 at 03:59 PM (#4623890)

That's a solid increase for Bonds and Clemens, isn't it? I hope that's representative of the overall voting community.

3. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 25, 2013 at 03:59 PM (#4623891)

For comparison's sake, last year on Dec. 27 Repoz had run 51 ballots through the Gizmo. I can't find where some of this year's holdovers stood at that point (due to Gizmo updating).

Those four would be an awesome induction class if it holds.

If four were to get in (which seems unlikely), that class plus Jack's time on the ballot running out would open up quite a few votes for next year's election (which has three strong newcomers, so those votes are needed).

The Trammell vote is shameful.

It's also kind of inevitable. Something had to give, and the guy who never exceeded 40 percent and has just three ballots left is a logical place to start.

4. Monty Posted: December 25, 2013 at 04:04 PM (#4623892)

The HoF Collecting Gizmo? It really is Christmas!

5. LargeBill Posted: December 25, 2013 at 04:13 PM (#4623895)

Now to hit refresh every ten minutes hoping for more votes to be tallied.

Repoz, Once again, thanks for tracking this each year.

6. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 25, 2013 at 04:22 PM (#4623896)

Since Repoz will continually update the votes in the intro, here's a freeze frame of this year's first count. This may be interesting to no one but next year's me on Christmas Day, but I like to see what the Gizmo spits out during various points in the collection process.

The 2014 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

Updated 3:25 ~ 37 Full Ballots ~ (6.5% of vote ~ based on last year)

100 - Maddux
100 - Glavine
83.8 - Biggio
83.8 - F. Thomas
———————————
70.3 - J. Morris
70.3 - Piazza
67.6 - Bagwell
51.4 - Raines
45.9 - Bonds
45.9 - Clemens
40.5 - Schilling
32.4 - Mussina
24.9 - McGriff
21.6- L. Smith
18.9 - Kent
18.9 - Trammell
10.1 - E. Martinez
10.1 - R. Palmeiro
8.1 - L. Walker
5.4 - McGwire
———————————
2.7 - Mattingly
2.7 - Sosa

It would be interesting if Mattingly finally gets the ballot boot after 14 tries. I wonder if that's happened before (Dag?).

7. bobm Posted: December 25, 2013 at 04:49 PM (#4623904)

http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2013/12/hard_dealing_with_hall_of_fame_picks

8. bobm Posted: December 25, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4623905)

My nine holdovers from last year were Biggio, Martinez and McGwire, plus Clemens, Bonds, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines and Curt Schilling.

As soon as I opened my ballot, I placed three checks by the names of Maddux, Clemens and Bonds. [...]

Mussina has just as strong a case to be in the Hall of Fame as Glavine does. I didn’t want Mussina’s cause to fall short so early, so he and Glavine got a checkmark. [...]

Looking at the new names, I thought Thomas’ cause held up better than Kent’s in terms of overall dominance. [...]

I couldn’t leave off Raines. [...]

Bagwell and Piazza dominated their positions and have strong candidacies. Two more checkmarks.Between Schilling and Martinez, not so tough in the end.

Schilling’s case is as solid as Glavine’s and Mussina’s.

9. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: December 25, 2013 at 05:01 PM (#4623907)

http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2013/12/hard_dealing_with_hall_of_fame_picks

Hell of a ballot: Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Thomas. He dropped last year's votes for Biggio, Martinez and McGwire, and calls Kent a deserving candidate.

10. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: December 25, 2013 at 05:06 PM (#4623908)

http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2013/12/hard_dealing_with_hall_of_fame_picks

Dear Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Mark McGwire and Jeff Kent:

I’m sorry. It wasn’t supposed to end this way.

I pledged to support your cause to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame through snow, sleet and hail for as long as it took, long enough for my voting peers to vote like I did or long enough for them to abandon you until your name fell off the ballot.

I just never thought that the day would come where I’d be the one throwing you into the Charles....

HALL OF FAME DEATH PANELS!

11. JimMusComp misses old primer... Posted: December 25, 2013 at 05:39 PM (#4623913)

That ballot is a ####### FESTIVUS miracle.

Exactly what my hypothetical ballot looks like. Today at least.

Beautiful.

12. LargeBill Posted: December 25, 2013 at 05:48 PM (#4623914)

It is a good ballot, but hate to see Biggio losing any support as another year on the ballot for him acerbates the backlog problem.

13. John Northey Posted: December 25, 2013 at 06:18 PM (#4623925)

Bit surprised to see R. Palmeiro with more support than McGwire, Mattingly, Walker and Sosa at this point, of course with just 37 ballots counted he has just 4 votes I think (4/37=10.8%, 3/37=8.1 so he is one or the other, not sure how you get 10.1%). To survive with 5% you need needed 29 votes last year which with 37 votes means those with 78.4% are safe no matter what now. If we see 100 votes then only those with 37% will be truly safe no matter what.

14. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: December 25, 2013 at 06:50 PM (#4623934)

It would be interesting if Mattingly finally gets the ballot boot after 14 tries. I wonder if that's happened before (Dag?).

No one's ever gotten the boot that late. HOWEVER - the Gizmo has always been low on Mattingly. Always. It usually projects him with 5-6% and then he gets 15-16% or so.

I reckon it's because about 20% of the electorate is based out of NYC -- but the published votes aren't nearly so NYC-centric.

But Mattingly won't fall off.

15. John DiFool2 Posted: December 25, 2013 at 07:11 PM (#4623938)

Sosa is the shocker here for me. Repeat after me, very slowly: 600 home runs.

Not a sabermetric argument or anything, mind. Just boggles my mind that a 600 home run guy, a total which in past elections would have made him a very serious candidate, if not a mortal lock, would not only not be elected, but would risk falling completely off of future ballots. But on this hugely overstuffed ballot he seems like everybody's afterthought, saberhead or not.

16. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 25, 2013 at 07:22 PM (#4623941)

No one's ever gotten the boot that late. HOWEVER - the Gizmo has always been low on Mattingly. Always. It usually projects him with 5-6% and then he gets 15-16% or so.

I reckon it's because about 20% of the electorate is based out of NYC -- but the published votes aren't nearly so NYC-centric.

Understood. But it was low by projecting him in the 8-9 percent range, not the 2-3. With so many voters using all their slots, and him really not a good candidate in such a scenario, he's going to lose a lot of ground. You're probably right that the strong New York contingent will keep him afloat, but I imagine it will be close.

17. Walt Davis Posted: December 25, 2013 at 07:29 PM (#4623944)

Looking at the new names, I thought Thomas’ cause held up better than Kent’s in terms of overall dominance.

ya think?

I really don't get all the Kent respect here and elsewhere. Damn fine player, borderline HoFer but an afterthought on this ballot.

JAWS puts him 17th among "2B". Do people think he's a strong peak candidate? His WAR7 of 35.6 is not very good for 2B:

Utley 49
Sandberg 47
Grich 46
Cano 44
Alomar 43
Biggio 42
Pedroia 39
Knoblauch 38
Whitaker 38

And that's ignoring Morgan and Carew.

By career WAR he's 18th and behind all of those guys except Cano (who will very likely pass him) and Knoblauch, so there's not a strong career case either.

18. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili (TeddyF.Ballgame) Posted: December 25, 2013 at 07:41 PM (#4623947)

Yes, but no one outside of BBTF is thinking about Utley or Grich as HOFers. Cano and Biggio aren't competing against Kent yet, and Whitaker's already had his shot. Kent looks more solid, especially to the people who actually have votes, after you take those names out.

19. DanG Posted: December 25, 2013 at 08:16 PM (#4623952)

It would be interesting if Mattingly finally gets the ballot boot after 14 tries. I wonder if that's happened before (Dag?).

I believe Bobby Bonds holds that record, getting the <5% boot on his 11th try.

20. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 25, 2013 at 09:09 PM (#4623959)

The best Xmas gift I got this year. Thanks, Repoz!

For convenience, here is last year's gizmo here

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2012_hall_of_fame_ballot_collecting_gizmo

21. PreservedFish Posted: December 25, 2013 at 09:40 PM (#4623962)

I'm surprised that Kent ranks that low while, at the same time, BWAR is seeing him as a basically neutral defender over his entire career. I could see him getting dinged for his defense pretty severely.

22. bobm Posted: December 25, 2013 at 09:52 PM (#4623963)

[19] Bobby Thomson, 14th ballot, 1979, 2.5%

ETA: I guess not. He never got more than 5% ?!?

23. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 25, 2013 at 09:55 PM (#4623966)

Hey Dag Nabbit, what percentages of the electorate do you reckon are in Chicago and LA?

Seems at first blush like geographic diversity should be a desirable feature in an electorate that is supposed to judge players in all of baseball. Or maybe it doesn't really matter?

24. jobu Posted: December 25, 2013 at 10:21 PM (#4623972)

5.4 - McGwire...
2.7 - Sosa

So much for saving baseball in 1998.

25. DanG Posted: December 25, 2013 at 10:35 PM (#4623975)

[22]

Bobby Thomson, 14th ballot, 1979, 2.5%

ETA: I guess not. He never got more than 5% ?!?

The 5% rule began with the 1979 election. (Before that the screening committee decided who would continue on the ballot.) Thomson was finally knocked out after that election, although he had only one more year left even without the rule.

If Thomson was black he never would have been given as many years dribbling along at 2% support.

26. John Northey Posted: December 25, 2013 at 11:14 PM (#4623978)

It is funny how Bobby Thomson stayed on ballot so long. Guess a Giants fan must have been on the selection committee and insisted on keeping him there.

What is odd is how Pee Wee Reese was on for his 14th year, got 44.6% and was removed after 1978 while Thomson stayed on. Double checked and saw that in 1965 there was no regular vote, thus taking away one year of Reese's qualifications which also took away the first year for Thomson I think so he was removed due to years since retiring not 5%. Weird. Also seems 5 votes was the dividing line and Thomson got 5 votes in 1978. In truth, I'd prefer a 5 vote rule to 5% just so a few more guys can hang around at the bottom of the ballot.

27. Walt Davis Posted: December 25, 2013 at 11:55 PM (#4623983)

Cano and Biggio aren't competing against Kent yet, and Whitaker's already had his shot. Kent looks more solid, especially to the people who actually have votes, after you take those names out.

Biggio's on the same ballot of course. The point is that the only way you can get Kent into the conversation on this ballot is to give a massive bump for being a 2B but it's quite clear that he was not an elite 2B at any point in his career.

And so what? Kent is 17th in WAR on this ballot. Take out Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro, Bonds and Clemens for PEDS and that still only gets him up to #12. And a distant #12. The closest guy is Piazza at 59 WAR then Biggio a full 10 WAR ahead of Kent. You've got to push him ahead of at least two of Walker, Raines, Edgar and Trammell (and of course not vote for Morris, Smith or McGriff). That's a 12-15 WAR bump.

And he doesn't have the lovability of Puckett or TEH FEAR of Rice or even a single point of black ink. He does have an MVP.

But I really don't care much about the voters and Kent -- he's got no shot with them and may fall off the ballot soon, my only concern is him stealing votes from qualified but hopeless candidates. What puzzles me is the amount of support he gets around here (in a top 10 sense).

With a saner ballot, I might even vote for him (doubt it) and I wouldn't argue strongly against somebody who put him around #15. Although I think he's on the wrong side of the border I'm not gonna argue strongly against the idea that he is HoF-worthy. But top 10 on this ballot takes some real gymnastics.

28. DanG Posted: December 25, 2013 at 11:58 PM (#4623984)

[26]

which also took away the first year for Thomson I think so he was removed due to years since retiring not 5%. Weird. Also seems 5 votes was the dividing line and Thomson got 5 votes in 1978. In truth, I'd prefer a 5 vote rule to 5% just so a few more guys can hang around at the bottom of the ballot.

The rules have never specified "15 years" as the eligibility limit. It's always been specified as years after retirement. Since the 1964 election the HOF rules have allowed players eligibility up to 20 years after retirement. (This rule was set aside for reinstated players Boyer, Flood, Pinson and Santo.)

Reese retired in 1958, so 1978 was the last election he was eligible. Thomson retired in 1960 so he would have been eligible for the 1980 election if not for the 5% rule. And no, 5 votes was never meaningful; Thomson received less than 5 votes in 1970, 71 and 73 but he continued on the ballot.

However, I heartily agree that a 5 vote rule would be fairer than a 5% rule.

29. Dale Sams Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:11 AM (#4623985)

Re: Sosa

Combine the mythical "I no speekea the lainguige"....steroid suspicion....corked bat....and a growing SABR movement to paint him as not HOF worthy even if his name were Dale Murphy (yeah right), and you get 2.7%

30. MelOtt4 Posted: December 26, 2013 at 03:52 AM (#4623995)

The Gizmo always helps ease the post Christmas blues.

31. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:22 AM (#4624000)

Looks like Big Mac is heading for single digits. I guess a 163 OPS+ doesn't buy what it used to. In a sane world he'd be in Morris territory by now instead of teetering on ticket buyer status. The lesson here is most Wins in a decade > most HR in a decade.

32. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: December 26, 2013 at 07:07 AM (#4624005)

The lesson here is most Wins in a decade > most HR in a decade.

Some people might say the lesson here is "Say no to drugs".

33. Adam Starblind Posted: December 26, 2013 at 07:33 AM (#4624009)

[31] Steroids.

34. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 07:35 AM (#4624010)

Some people might say the lesson here is "Say no to drugs".

...or be careful on what is kept in your locker.

35. bobm Posted: December 26, 2013 at 08:33 AM (#4624025)

http://m.torontosun.com/2013/12/25/steve-simmons-wont-vote-for-steroid-class-in-baseball-hall-of-fame-balloting

"Alphabetically I will vote for Bagwell, Glavine, Maddux, Morris, Mussina, Piazza, Schilling, Smith, and Thomas."

36. DL from MN Posted: December 26, 2013 at 08:38 AM (#4624029)

I agree it is harder to vote for Kent with Biggio available. Somehow people are voting for Morris with several better pitchers available.

37. Lars6788 Posted: December 26, 2013 at 08:52 AM (#4624040)

If Sammy Sosa was clean, didn't cork his bat, supposedly didn't give up on his team and was a bit more transparent when he said he couldn't speak English - most voters would have probably given him a Hall pass for being an a-hole.

I suspect one of the reasons [besides any other transgressions] Sosa became the clown of the Steroids Era [and hasn't gotten much support for the Hall of Fame] is while Mark McGwire was never a peach to the media, Sosa was the guy at his peak who said you weren't good enough to talk to him and was probably a huge pain to deal with with as an arrogant 'me first' modern day athlete.

38. DA Baracus Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:19 AM (#4624104)

Murray Chass lies.

The Hall of Fame ballot sits on my desk, just to the left of my computer. Of the 36 names on it, three have the boxes next to their names marked with an X: Jack Morris, of course; Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine. A fourth box, the one next to Frank Thomas, may also get an X upon further review.

####### bloggers man.

He also says Craig Biggio was suspected of steroid use.

EDIT: Didn't see this had it's own post.

39. SouthSideRyan Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:21 AM (#4624105)

-Well, the evidence of Sosa not being clean is a sliver above LOOK AT HIS NUMBERS
-Giving up on his team being the smear job the Cubs pulled on him for leaving a meaningless game 162 he wasn't playing in early? I mean he shouldn't have, but who gives a ####?
-Used a translator and answered every question asked of him, rather than responding in his 2nd language that he was far from adept at in front of a Congressional hearing.

Sosa was the guy that went out of his way to be the lovable goof at his peak. McGwire was the cantankerous prick, and Sosa was the one everyone went to for the quick soundbite. I have no idea what you're talking about with your 2nd sentence there.

40. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4624140)

Through 38 ballots, the tally tracker gizmo is averaging 9.145 names/ballot.

WOW!

I know it won't maintain that pace, but I never thought it would be that high at all.

41. John Northey Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4624149)

Steve Simmons ballot sure is crap but not a shock given his columns (never a big fan). Real HOF'ers: Bagwell, Glavine, Maddux, Mussina, Piazza, Schilling, and Thomas. Non-HOF's Morris, Smith. Just 9 names thus ignoring a lot of really good HOF'ers from Raines to Biggio. Very poor, but at least he has the big 3 (Glavine/Maddux/Thomas) and ignores the post-retirement rumors for Piazza & Bagwell.

42. Gamingboy Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4624158)

It's still very early, also, we know that at least ONE ballot (the one that Deadspin bought) won't be revealed until after.

43. TDF, trained monkey Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:42 AM (#4624161)

Sosa was the guy that went out of his way to be the lovable goof at his peak

Didn't McGwire call bullcrap on his act, though? I seem to remember Sosa talk about his "buddy" McGwire, and McGwire responding, essentially, that he hardly knew the guy.

44. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4624163)

Didn't McGwire call bullcrap on his act, though? I seem to remember Sosa talk about his "buddy" McGwire, and McGwire responding, essentially, that he hardly knew the guy.

McGwire was much too busy being in awe of himself to think about Sosa.

45. Morty Causa Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:58 AM (#4624172)

Sosa was a hulk, and that image of McGwire of easily lifting him off his feet like he was a toy soldier is rather unforgettable.

46. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4624176)

Well, obviously what you thought was hulk was really nothing but cork.

47. rawagman Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4624196)

Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star today published a strong hint that his ballot would be maxed out as he complained about the 10 man limit. Expect to see his actual ballot published tomorrow on on the weekend.

48. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4624197)

That's a solid increase for Bonds and Clemens, isn't it? I hope that's representative of the overall voting community.

I hate to burst your bubble, but if those are the percentages they're getting in their second year on the ballot, there's not a chance in hell that they're getting voted in.

49. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM (#4624201)

I hate to burst your bubble, but if those are the percentages they're getting in their second year on the ballot, there's not a chance in hell that they're getting voted in.

I think you are wrong. Bonds and Clemens are extremely interesting cases from the standpoint of group psychology and voting dynamics. There are several scenarios I can see them getting voted in and several where they don't.

50. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4624208)

Bonds and Clemens are extremely interesting cases from the standpoint of group psychology and voting dynamics.

I couldn't disagree more. They're two of the three most clear-cut and polarizing players of this generation, with Alex Rodriguez of course being the other guy in the top three. Beyond the "no first ballot" penalizers, I can't imagine that any significant number of people are seriously going to change their minds on them going forward.

51. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:13 PM (#4624222)

I can't imagine that any significant number of people are seriously going to change their minds on them going forward.

This is a world where opinions on gay marriage (not to get political on the bit) have been changed from 46/44 to 55/39 in one year according to a CBS news poll. And that is more polarizing. People change their mind all the time. Just because you don't :)

Anyway we shall see over the next five years or so.

52. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:21 PM (#4624230)

Beyond the "no first ballot" penalizers, I can't imagine that any significant number of people are seriously going to change their minds on them going forward.

1: There are people who change their minds over time
2: The HOF electorate changes over time, assuming that the newer BBWAA members are more SABR oriented/ less anti-Ped oriented than the retiring members, we could see support for the unholy trio increase over time... Of course we haven't been seeing any increase for Palmeiro and McGwire- but the ballot's getting crowded, McGriff, walker and Mattingly all slipped similarly last year.

53. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4624232)

I'm with bitter and JSLF. Add to the fact that 14 years is a long time, and it's way too early to conclude definitively about the chances of B&C (now, it may be safe to come to similar conclusions about the lesser juicers, but that's more ballot glut-based than hard and fast PED positions).

54. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:33 PM (#4624238)

This is a world where opinions on gay marriage (not to get political on the bit) have been changed from 46/44 to 55/39 in one year according to a CBS news poll. And that is more polarizing. People change their mind all the time. Just because you don't :)

Anyway we shall see over the next five years or so.

Well that should help Piazza. Sorry, couldn't resist.

55. Morty Causa Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4624241)

All this has to do with people's ideological immune system. It in some way strikes at people's core values. Logic and reason serve to buttress those values. When that's at stake, the change (unless violently cataclysmic) takes time. It takes time, and it'll take people dying off (professionally and otherwise) and being replaced with new people who adhere to a different mindset, one that is sufficient to create a difference in views that leads the change.

56. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4624243)

By the way, I would be careful about getting too excited about those Bonds and Clemens numbers, because they are almost exactly identical to the numbers Viola had in the last posted ballot Gizmo a year ago.

I suspect that not only does he collect the ballots from virtually the same exact subset of voters every year, but that they are likely somewhat skewed towards the pro-steroids mindset that overwhelmingly dominates opinion on this site.

57. Don Malcolm

Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:44 PM (#4624248)

Through 38 ballots, the tally tracker gizmo is averaging 9.145 names/ballot.

Thanks for that, Chris, that's the first thing I was wondering about. Can't see how names/ballot will be anything but way up, people have to add 2-3 names to what they already have established on their ballots. I wouldn't be surprised to see the eventual average settle in closer to 8 than to 7.5...

58. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 26, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4624257)

Am I the only person who didn't know that the BBWAA's website includes a list of everybody who disclosed for whom they voted in 2013, linked to their comments about their vote (if they made any public comments about their vote)? This is pretty awesome (125 of the ballots from 2013 are included), and might help "feed the gizmo".

Here's the link: http://bbwaa.com/13-hof-ballots/

P.S. My apologies if this is already common knowledge...

59. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 26, 2013 at 02:36 PM (#4624293)

the pro-steroids mindset that overwhelmingly dominates opinion on this site

I don't know why I* bother, but ...

Not caring if Barry Bonds took steroids before there was CBA enforced testing is NOT the same as being Pro-steroids.
Deciding that the CBA sanctions are enough punishment and not letting it influence one thoughts about the Hall is NOT the same as being pro-steroids.
Heck dozens of possibilities - like not wanting to convict without strong evidence - is not the same as pro-steroids.

But like I said, I know I am wasting my time.

* For the record I am completely steroid indifferent with regards to baseball. I figure MLB can police it however they want, but that policing should be explicit and not applied retroactively. If they pass rules suggesting any PED usage (test positive) bans one from the Hall, I am fine with it, so long as it is enforced from that point forward.

60. Jeff R. Posted: December 26, 2013 at 04:53 PM (#4624361)

1: There are people who change their minds over time
2: The HOF electorate changes over time, assuming that the newer BBWAA members are more SABR oriented/ less anti-Ped oriented than the retiring members, we could see support for the unholy trio increase over time... Of course we haven't been seeing any increase for Palmeiro and McGwire- but the ballot's getting crowded, McGriff, walker and Mattingly all slipped similarly last year.

I can see a couple more reasons that Clemens and Bonds could pick up votes later on:

3. I'll eventually vote for the steroid users, but not until every deserving "clean" player has gotten my vote.
4. You know, these guys were pretty much HOFers before they starting popping pills--Clemens was 192-111 with 3 CYAs and an MVP before he went to Toronto; Bonds was .288-445-1299 (plus 400+ SBs). Tack on ordinary age-decline numbers and they still end up in the Hall of Fame.

61. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 26, 2013 at 04:55 PM (#4624362)

[58] Those are last years votes.

62. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 26, 2013 at 05:57 PM (#4624395)

RE: 58

Last year, the gizmo included 194 ballots. The BBWAA site included 125 ballots. Does anyone know if all 125 were contained in Repoz's gizmo? [Dag Nabbit to the White Coutesy phone, Dag Nabbit...]

63. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:06 PM (#4624399)

Last year, the gizmo included 194 ballots. The BBWAA site included 125 ballots. Does anyone know if all 125 were contained in Repoz's gizmo? [Dag Nabbit to the White Coutesy phone, Dag Nabbit...]

I think Repoz is the only one who could check that, since I don't think there are links to every ballot.

Also, it's possible some of those results may be posted the day of or even after the election results are known, which would make them useless to ol Giz.

64. Repoz

Posted: December 26, 2013 at 06:31 PM (#4624406)

Also, it's possible some of those results may be posted the day of or even after the election results are known

Yes, some of them don't like the idea of the Gizmo (or know what it is) and stick to the BBWAA/Code of Harry.

65. dejarouehg Posted: December 26, 2013 at 07:53 PM (#4624426)

The Trammell vote is shameful.

Normally, I find the Veterans Committee votes shameful (and often embarassing acts of cronyism - see Mazeroski/Scooter) but I look forward to the day this injustice is corrected.

If Sammy Sosa was clean, didn't cork his bat, supposedly didn't give up on his team and was a bit more transparent when he said he couldn't speak English - most voters would have probably given him a Hall pass for being an a-hole.

I think Sammy's "ahole-"ism was most relevant to his teammates, not to the press or public. He wasn't surly like McGwire, though his congressional appearance definitely did him no favors.

He also says Craig Biggio was suspected of steroid use.

Not sure if this is a surprise and if it is, why? He has long been suspected, much like Bagwell, as part of a culture in Houston that was pervasive during CAminitti's time. (I didn't say it is justifiable, though I certainly believe it to be the case.)

66. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 26, 2013 at 09:12 PM (#4624441)

Rosenthal:

This year, for the first time, I am voting for the maximum 10 players – Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio and Tom Glavine; Greg Maddux, Edgar Martinez and Mike Mussina; Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling and Frank Thomas.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ken-rosenthal-hall-of-fame-ballot-2014-maddux-thomas-glavine-schilling-biggio-mussina-piazza-122613

67. ajnrules Posted: December 26, 2013 at 09:47 PM (#4624449)

That's pretty much the ideal ballot non-PED ballot. Yeah, I probably would have switched Edgar for Alan Trammell (though I would have liked to vote for both), but Edgar's been suffering from a much larger withdrawal of support than anticipated in the early returns, so it's good to keep him afloat.

68. Morty Causa Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:07 PM (#4624459)

Take off Raines and Biggio and put on Trammell and Walker, and there's your perfect non-PED ballot.

69. Mike Emeigh

Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM (#4624464)

Take off Raines and Biggio and put on Trammell and Walker, and there's your perfect non-PED ballot.

If you're going to take Biggio off for PED reasons, you need to take Bagwell off too. Replace Bags with, say, McGriff.

-- MWE

70. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:22 PM (#4624468)

If you're going to take Biggio off for PED reasons, you need to take Bagwell off too. Replace Bags with, say, McGriff.

I don't think he's taking him off for PED reasons, but for playing record reasons.

71. Morty Causa Posted: December 26, 2013 at 10:32 PM (#4624474)

I wouldn't take Biggio off for PED reasons. Biggio is overrated. Even Bill James changed his mind about Biggio.

72. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:42 PM (#4624509)

Last year, the gizmo included 194 ballots. The BBWAA site included 125 ballots. Does anyone know if all 125 were contained in Repoz's gizmo? [Dag Nabbit to the White Coutesy phone, Dag Nabbit...]

Don't ask me. Ask repoz.

For those wondering, here are the guys the Gizmo was high on last year: Tim Raines, Roger Clemens, and Barry Bonds. The guy with the biggest positive differential was Bonds. The Gizmo had him at 45.4% when it was all said and done. But his actual vote was 36.2%. FWIW, it was even more extreme with the early returns. Through 51 ballots, Bonds stood at 52.9%. So when you see Bonds & Clemens doing really well so far .... don't read too much into that.

Here are the guys who the Gizmo was low on last year: Jack Morris, and Lee Smith. The Gizmo projected Smith to come in at 38.1% (with early returns at 33.3%). He got 47.8%.

Others the Gizmo was high on (but not as extreme as with Bonds, Clemens & Raines): Rafael Palmerio, and Alan Trammell.

Other guys it was low on: Don Mattingly, and Larry Walker,

73. bobm Posted: December 26, 2013 at 11:54 PM (#4624513)

http://expressmilwaukee.com/article-22399-baseball-hall-of-fame-a-pair-of-tens.html

Frank has a vote as a retired member of the Baseball Writers' Association of America. [...] So here are my 10, alphabetically: Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, McGriff, Smith, Thomas, Trammell and Walker. [...] Frank Clines covered sports for The Milwaukee Journal and the Journal Sentinel.

74. Morty Causa Posted: December 27, 2013 at 12:03 AM (#4624516)

Frank Clines? Isn't that the goody two-shoes that Homer killed? Come for the funeral, Stay for the pie.

75. Ray (CTL)

Posted: December 27, 2013 at 01:11 AM (#4624525)

69.0 - J. Morris
45.2 - Clemens

Lol.

76. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: December 27, 2013 at 01:35 AM (#4624527)

Rosenthal:

This year, for the first time, I am voting for the maximum 10 players – Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio and Tom Glavine; Greg Maddux, Edgar Martinez and Mike Mussina; Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling and Frank Thomas.

I am outraged at robothal plagiarizing my ballot.

77. dejarouehg Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM (#4624583)

I wouldn't take Biggio off for PED reasons. Biggio is overrated.

Agreed. There has to be some type of eye test here. Was there ever a point watching Biggio (outside the compiling of numbers) where anyone thought they were watching a HoF player?

Even players I don't think deserve to be in the Hall, i.e., Raines (soooo close), Walker & Edgar, were so dominant so often that it certainly lends credibility to the argument. Biggio, even if accepted that he was clean, was a real good player but never great. Raines, Walker and Edgar were, at least for some extended times, great.

78. cardsfanboy

Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:16 AM (#4624592)

I wouldn't take Biggio off for PED reasons. Biggio is overrated. Even Bill James changed his mind about Biggio.

He's still hall worthy, and is going to be borderline on getting in, voting for him increases the chances he gets removed for the next ballot. I think any reasonable voter should consider that when casting their votes. We all know that Maddux is going in, that Glavine is likely(more likely than I thought he would be) and that Thomas will probably not go in, but should be in Bagwell terriotory or better, Biggio or Morris is the next most likely to cross that 75% threshold. Morris it doesn't matter as he comes off the ballot either way, but putting Biggio in, can clear up some of the backlog.

I would find it hard to believe that someone thinks he doesn't belong. Is he the top ten? maybe not, but there are clearly more than ten deserving candidates on the ballot, and there is zero reason to just vote for your personal top ten.

79. cardsfanboy

Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM (#4624594)

Agreed. There has to be some type of eye test here. Was there ever a point watching Biggio (outside the compiling of numbers) where anyone thought they were watching a HoF player?

Really? 9.4 war season, another 2 over 6. 5 separate seasons receiving MVP votes...I think at his peak, Biggio was a hofer. I think his career says hofer, but he's a unique combo career/peak guy that individually probably doesn't make it strictly on his peak value or his career value.

80. Morty Causa Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:25 AM (#4624598)

78:

Well, I'm not saying he doesn't belong. I'm saying there are others better, and all that strategic balloting makes my head hurt. You vote for whom you think are the best, and let the hide go with the hare. People play too many mind games as it is, forgetting what the premium for selecting someone should be: is he the best player eligible for the HOF not in the HOF. Work it down from there on that basis.

81. Rally Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM (#4624602)

Probably in 1997-1998.

1997: .309, .415 OBP, 84 BB, 34 HBP, 47/10 on the bases. The perfect leadoff hitter, scored 146 runs. Also hit 22 HR with 81 RBI.

Next year hits 325/403/503, scores 123 runs, hits 50 doubles, steals 50 bases (8 CS) and hits 20 HR, 88 RBI.

That kind of all around dominance, how does that not look like a Hall of Famer? If you don't think so then you probably don't think Alomar was a HOFer either.

82. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM (#4624603)

Biggio may be borderline, but with 64.7 WAR, a career 112 OPS+ and an excellent peak for a 2B, he's borderline over, not borderline under. His biggest drawback is that he played in Houston and didn't play like Carlos Beltran in the postseason.

83. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:42 AM (#4624609)

46.8 - Bonds
44.7 - Clemens

What?

Who voted Bonds and not Clemens? That makes zero sense. I can see a case for the other way around I guess, but if PEDs are problem (and they shouldn't be, but whatever) then at least Bonds and likely Clemens should be out, and if not a problem then both are so clearly in it is silly.

84. JimMusComp misses old primer... Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4624611)

Agree with AROM. Those two Biggio seasons are like Trout version 2012 with a little less slugging.

The walks, steals, average and power all play well. I didn't know Biggio was this good when he played (AL Guy and, well, Houston) but his numbers stack up.

85. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:46 AM (#4624612)

Based on the sample we have developing in the Gizmo, as well as looking at the 2013 votes that were revealed by the BBWAA, it would seem that there are seven guys that are going to have a chance of getting in:

Maddux and Glavine are going to get in with room to spare.

Thomas and Biggio appear to be on the right side of the line by a few points.

Morris, Piazza, and Bagwell appear to be slightly below the line, but close enough (in the case of Bagwell and Piazza) that their induction seems inevitable.

Morris is obviously going to be off the ballot after this year, win or lose. I don't know about you, but I am cautiously optimistic that the voters may do more good towards loosening the logjam than I expected. If five guys "graduate" from the ballot this year (Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Biggio, and Morris), and two others get really close (Bagwell and Piazza), then we enter 2015's balloting with four new players with potential to get serious votes: Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez (who would seem to be next year's Maddux and Glavine), John Smoltz (who would seem poised to do well, maybe really well), and Gary Sheffield (I have no idea).

If you told me that in 2015, we'd see Johnson, Pedro, Bagwell, and Piazza, with Smoltz getting 60%+, and Mattingly "graduating" off the ballot, that'd be a very good year.

Trammell falls off the year after; Lee Smith, the year after that. Then, that's it for a while, in terms of people hitting their 15-year limit.

86. Howie Menckel Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:47 AM (#4624613)

Biggio 1993-98 had OPS+s of 131-138-142-120-143-139, all as a 2B.
He missed a dozen games TOTAL in that entire span, with 4 Silver Sluggers, 3 Gold Gloves, and 3 top 10 MVP finishes (2 of them in the top 5). His R totals were 98, 88 in 115 G sked, 123 in 144 G sked, 113, 146, 123 (and another 123 in 1999, which isn't in this mix). [updated with Griffey observation]

If that isn't a great player, you really need to consider whether it's your judgment - not Biggio - that isn't "great."

He had a great peak - if he hadn't stayed so long, maybe it wouldn't be overshadowed by people who only remember the end.

87. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4624614)

What?

Who voted Bonds and not Clemens? That makes zero sense. I can see a case for the other way around I guess, but if PEDs are problem (and they shouldn't be, but whatever) then at least Bonds and likely Clemens should be out, and if not a problem then both are so clearly in it is silly.

Last year was the other way around. Good luck trying to decipher the reasoning behind the thought process of the average sportswriter.

88. Rally Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4624615)

Morris is obviously going to be off the ballot after this year, win or lose.

I kind of hope he makes it in this year. If he doesn't, then in a few years the veterans committee is going to be all about Jack Morris, and he's going to get in. Wouldn't you rather be done with it, and hope the veterans committee can focus on more deserving candidates?

89. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:53 AM (#4624617)

98, 88, 123, 113, 146, 123

That 88 is in only 114 games played (1994)

90. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4624621)

I kind of hope he makes it in this year.

It's not happening. I don't think he's picked up any support from previous non-voters, and he's lost a few votes from guys who penciled him in previously. There's no reason to think that pattern won't be repeated.

91. Repoz

Posted: December 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4624622)

Who voted Bonds and not Clemens?

Rozner your honorz.

The Daily Herald voting block.

92. Mike Emeigh

Posted: December 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4624656)

To be clear, I was responding to Morty's comment in 68:

Take off Raines and Biggio and put on Trammell and Walker, and there's your perfect non-PED ballot.

except that ballot still included Bagwell. There's as much evidence that Bagwell used as there is that Biggio did; I can't imagine that a militant anti-PED crusader would include Bagwell and not Biggio.

-- MWE

93. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 27, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4624660)

I can't imagine that a militant anti-PED crusader would include Bagwell and not Biggio.

You are overrating the consistency and logic of the anti-PED zealot*. Bagwell big - used steroids. Biggio small - no steroids. See how easy that was.

* OK, really humanity, but I wanted to be specific about a part of humanity.

94. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 27, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4624672)

except that ballot still included Bagwell. There's as much evidence that Bagwell used as there is that Biggio did; I can't imagine that a militant anti-PED crusader would include Bagwell and not Biggio.

He's acknowledging both are non-PED guys. Bagwell makes it on his ballot on merit. Biggio doesn't. It's a non-PED ballot because it excludes Clemens and Bonds, not because of how it treats the Astros' killer Bs.

95. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: December 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM (#4624674)

Good to see Moose getting enough support to stay on the ballot. Makes me confident he'll make it eventually.

96. Booey Posted: December 27, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4624683)

I kind of hope he makes it in this year. If he doesn't, then in a few years the veterans committee is going to be all about Jack Morris, and he's going to get in. Wouldn't you rather be done with it, and hope the veterans committee can focus on more deserving candidates?

I'd rather he doesn't make it via the BBWAA. That way when the VC elects him, we can just write it off as yet another bad VC pick (like most the others).

Also, won't Trammell and Whitaker also be eligible the next time the VC meets? If they're going to elect Morris, it could put the spotlight on how great and overlooked those old 80's Tigers teams were. I'd be much less bothered by Jack's inevitible induction if it helped get Alan and Lou in as a package deal.

97. cardsfanboy

Posted: December 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4624691)

I don't trust the VC, it seems too often they say "Well if he was a hofer, the writers would have voted more in his favor." this logic allows them to put in Morris, while overlooking Trammel and Whitaker. (as has been done with guys like Grich previously)

98. alilisd Posted: December 27, 2013 at 12:24 PM (#4624696)

Was there ever a point watching Biggio (outside the compiling of numbers) where anyone thought they were watching a HoF player?

Guess it's sort of just piling on at this point, but, yeah, maybe from 1991 through 1999 when he averaged 5.6 WAR per season. Seems pretty Hall of Famey to me. :-)

99. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt!

Posted: December 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4624697)

I always assumed Biggio was a HOFer and, as with Piazza, I'm flummoxed he's not already in.

100. Morty Causa Posted: December 27, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4624701)

I think there is a definite "let's wait for the smoke to clear" attitude that may be tacit but is nevertheless real and has a far-reaching general effect.

Also, catchers are under-appreciated something awful.

Page 1 of 21 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

The 2013 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics