#1395 - Actually what didnt? You said nearly nothing in your post.

Something EXACTLY of this sort happened in 1977

That's a fair point, though I don't know that EXACTLY is the right word, since the effects pointed to went far beyond HR percentage.

More importantly, HRs calmed back down in 1978 (*), unlike 1994. The trend didn't continue and thus a new era was not at hand -- as it clearly was in 1993-94.

(*) 136 to 106 per team, NL; 144 to 120 per team, AL.

Enough about steroids and the like. We're getting down to the wire, so which of these things will happen?

A. Biggio holds on over 75% and makes it in.
B. Piazza stages a comeback and gets to 75%.
C. Sosa and/or Palmeiro slide below 5% and fall off the ballot.
D. Mattingly falls back below 5% and off the ballot.
E, None of the above.

Pick as many as you wish...

To answer that question, let's get an update of the comparison of the Gizmo's prediction performance from last year for the players on the respective bubbles and whether it would bump them up or down.

My gut tells me that only "A" happens...and maybe "C" (I'll go with Palmeiro)

They also changed the baseball which they also did in 1993.

Indeed. Can anyone point to a sudden and significant change in scoring levels in baseball history (excluding the one between '92 and '94) that was not caused by either a change in the rules (the strike zone, foul balls becoming strikes) or the baseball itself? Because, if not, I'm inclined to credit most of the jump in the early-to-mid '90s to the ball.

I think the Gizmo holds. Biggio makes it in, Piazza doesn't, and the other three stay on the ballot.

In order of likelihood:

A. Biggio gets in - this is the only one I think is more likely than not
C. Sosa and/or Palmeiro fall off the ballot - I'd guess both do or neither; I think more likely, neither fall off the ballot
E. Biggio and Piazza are trending the wrong way, but I still think this is fairly unlikely
D. Historically, Mattingly outperforms the Gizmo. If, for some reason, that trend doesn't hold he could be in trouble.
B. I think Piazza's too far and my best guess is that he does worse among non-published voters. I think the steroid rumors could well be what ends up keeping Piazza out this year. Hopefully not next year.

Enough about steroids and the like. We're getting down to the wire, so which of these things will happen?

A. Biggio holds on over 75% and makes it in.
B. Piazza stages a comeback and gets to 75%.
C. Sosa and/or Palmeiro slide below 5% and fall off the ballot.
D. Mattingly falls back below 5% and off the ballot.
E, None of the above.

Pick as many as you wish...

Answers, in order of confidence (most to least):
B. No.
D. No.
A. No.
C. Sosa No, Palmeiro Yes.

Bonds's power steadily and gradually increased over time, as did league-wide offense (especially from '93 onward), until a flukey spike in 2001 (again, when league-wide offense was very high) then trended back down again in his late 30's.

By what measure? His PA per HR from 21 to 26 years old averaged 26.7, with only one below 24.4. From 27 to 33 he averaged 16.7 with two below 16.1. So he clearly took a step forward in his late 20's through early 30's, and it's a somewhat sharp change, not a gradual one. But from 34 to 40 he averaged 12, never HIGHER than 13.7. There is no trending down there. He took another decided step forward at 34, and it is again a somewhat sharp change, not a gradual one.

ISO tells the same story. From 21 to 26 his ISO is .216 (high of .264, low of .178). From 27 to 33 it is .311 (high of .341, low of .283). From 34 to 40 it is .420 (high of .535, low of .355). Again, no downward trend but instead a BIG step forward. His lowest ISO from 34 to 40 was 14 points higher than his previous career best.

At ages 41 and 42 he's back to his 27-33 level for PA per HR and a bit lower than that for ISO, but still higher than his 21-26 level.

Coke to Misirlou?

What I said: He got stronger over time, then after a fluke 2001, as he hit his late 30's, his power declined.

What you seem to think I said: 2001 was a fluke because his power immediately went down to levels similar to his early 20's.

Why in Jack Morris's name would Barry Bonds hit like a 21 year old in 2005?

Good question...
Will happen (I think)
C. Sosa and/or Palmeiro slide below 5% and fall off the ballot.

Won't happen
A. Biggio holds on over 75% and makes it in.
B. Piazza stages a comeback and gets to 75%.
D. Mattingly falls back below 5% and off the ballot.

I hope I'm wrong about A. I suspect both Sosa & Palmeiro are in deep trouble as the remaining voters are the strongest anti-steroid group and the latest ballots have been showing a quickly dropping level of baseball knowledge - I mean, if you honestly think Smith or Morris were better in their overall careers than Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Schilling, or Mussina then you really don't know much about how to win in baseball or just plain old can't be bothered with doing one iota of research beyond 'I know it when I see it' which is crazy arrogant.

I suspect both Sosa & Palmeiro are in deep trouble as the remaining voters are the strongest anti-steroid group and the latest ballots have been showing a quickly dropping level of baseball knowledge

But Sosa has actually gained a bit from those votes. Sosa has 14 votes now and only needs 15 or so from the remaining 400 to live on. I think he has a good shot.

What I said: He got stronger over time, then after a fluke 2001, as he hit his late 30's, his power declined.

Declined from 2001, but still much higher than any other time in his career. Bonds 7 lowest AB/HR, excluding his trivial number of AB in 2005:

2001 - 6.5
2004 - 8.3
2003 - 8.7
2002 - 8.8
2000 - 9.8
1999 - 10.4
1994 - 10.6

2001 is way different from 2002-2004, which in turn is way different from 2000 and prior.

What I said: He got stronger over time, then after a fluke 2001, as he hit his late 30's, his power declined.

And you're wrong. His didn't get "stronger over time." Nor did his power gradually improve. He was fairly consistent from 21 through 26, then took a noticable jump up at 27 and stayed at roughly that level through age 33. At 34 it took another big jump up and stayed there through age 40.

What you seem to think I said: 2001 was a fluke because his power immediately went down to levels similar to his early 20's.

That's not at all what I think you said. His 2001/age 36 season was a bit of an outlier even for his age 34 through 40 seasons, but his power didn't go back down until he turned 41, and even then it was above his early 20's period and more in line with his previous peak period of 27-33.

Still a little surprised at the apparent total absence of courtesy votes, as well as no votes for HOVG candidates Luis Gonzalez & Kenny Rogers, who are comparable to many players who received votes or even hung on the ballot for a bit. All due to the crowded ballot, no doubt, but perhaps it does show that most of the BBWAA is taking its responsibility somewhat seriously.

I never said it "went back down". I said it trended downward.

Pioneer Press ballots (via leokitty):

Mike Bass (10): Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Tom Glavine, Jeff Kent, Greg Maddux, Edgar Martinez, Jack Morris, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas
Mike Berardino (10): Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, Alan Trammell
Tom Powers (4): Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Jack Morris, Frank Thomas
Bob Sansevere (10) (already known): Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Jack Morris, Mike Mussina, Rafael Palmeiro, Curt Schilling, Sammy Sosa, Frank Thomas
Charley Walters (6): Craig Biggio, Greg Maddux, Jack Morris, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Frank Thomas

Also Jeff Blair just Tweeted his (9): Maddux, Glavine, Raines, Clemens, Morris, Piazza, Thomas, McGwire, Bonds

Mike Berardino (10): Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, Alan Trammell

This is pretty much as good as it gets for those that leave out Clemens and Bonds.

No one told Mike Berardino that it's mandatory to vote for St Paul native Jack Morris if you write for a Twin Cities newspaper.

And job-seeking Scott Miller (10): Biggio, Glavine, Kent, Maddux, McGriff, Morris, Raines, Schilling, Thomas, Trammell

Juan C. Rodriguez (10): Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Tom Glavine, Jeff Kent, Edgar Martinez, Greg Maddux, Piazza, Raines, Frank Thomas and Alan Trammell.

Suggesting he would vote for more if he had room, he says "The casualties of being limited to a 10-man ballot: Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling, Lee Smith and Larry Walker."

Hasn't yet voted for BOnds or Clemens, but isn't ruling it out in the future. "As far as other rumored PED users, anything short of a confession, positive test or indictment won’t preclude me from voting for a player. Back acne, head size and any on-or off-field episodes of what some irresponsibly diagnose as 'roid rage' don’t factor into my process."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/miami-marlins/marlins-blog/sfl-marlins-hall-of-fame-vote-20140107,0,7746497.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+marlinsblog+(Florida+Marlins+|+Sun-Sentinel+Blogs)

And Ray Ratto (10): Morris, Bonds, Clemons, Biggio, Bagwell, Thomas, Maddux, Glavine, Raines, Piazza

"I have never voted for 10 players before. I don’t ever want to do so again. But needs must be met when the devil spits in your kettle. I could have voted for 13 and felt good about it."

http://www.csnbayarea.com/giants/unapologetic-hall-fame-ballot-revealed-explained

"I have never voted for 10 players before. I don’t ever want to do so again. But needs must be met when the devil spits in your kettle. I could have voted for 13 and felt good about it."

Sounds like he'll need to vote for 10 next year too. Unless he's not planning on voting for Johnson or Pedro.

Tom Powers and his four-person ballot convinced me to support Jack Morris. How can one argue with "Morris has more wins than Whitey Ford, Don Drysdale, and Bob Gibson"?

It's this sort of deep baseball insight and knowledge which shows why being a BBWAA member for 10 years is all the education one needs to vote on baseball's highest honor...I guess Powers never met Ray Ratto.

Still a little surprised at the apparent total absence of courtesy votes

I'm not really. Who has room for courtesy votes? Who can say "I omitted Bonds et al because they were roiders but here's a vote for Luis Gonzalez"? Who can vote Rogers unless they've already got Maddux, Schilling, Morris, Mussina on the ballot? I know there will eventually be one or two lunkheads or somebody who thinks a vote for Moises Alou is a vote for Felipe Alou to go in as a manager or something.

Anyway, I remain happy and surprised that, with a few obvious exceptions, the BBWAA isn't messing around. Names per ballot are going through the roof as they should be. (Yes, Morris, Smith, steroids, etc. but only a small handful who don't realize there are a ton of deserving players on this ballot.)

ISO tells the same story. From 21 to 26 his ISO is .216 (high of .264, low of .178). From 27 to 33 it is .311 (high of .341, low of .283). From 34 to 40 it is .420 (high of .535, low of .355). Again, no downward trend but instead a BIG step forward. His lowest ISO from 34 to 40 was 14 points higher than his previous career best.

Bonds offers a particular challenge when it comes to assessing his change in power. Do you look at his power per PA or per AB. Bonds already high walk totals went through the roof in the silly ball era and even before. He hits 21% in 1992 for crying out loud. This goes nuts from 21-24 which also raises the problem of how do we deal with his IBB. Personally I think this made everything very easy for Bonds -- he could zero in on a zone more than any player before him. It was getting to the point where they'd nibble on the first two pitches and, if they missed, just put him on ... he was playing in a league where it took only 2 balls to get a walk. If the pitch wasn't one he could crush, he didn't bother swinging ... and suffered virtually no penalty for that approach.

Anyway, if you look at HR/PA, things aren't quite so crazy -- he had a 7.8% in 94 then, from 99-04 they go 7.8, 8.1, 11, 7.5, 8.2, 7.3. Other than the 11 in 2001, that doesn't look so wacky (still quite unusual given his ages). But if you look at AB/HR, every one of those years beats 94. If you look at HR/FB, things are somewhere in between -- 00 is below 94 but other than 01 they aren't too crazy and that 00 would look just fine mixed in with 93, 94, 96, 97.

And mixed in is his G/F rate which probably goes back to that "zeroing in" thing. His G/F was always ludicrously low (.56 from 88-97) but was around .4 in the super-wacky years.

From 92-94, Bonds averaged 6.7 HR%, 12 AB/HR (leading the league twice), 17.1% HR/FB. From 02-04, it was 7.6 HR%, 8.6 AB/HR, 22.4 HR/FB. For the NL (including pitchers I assume):

92: 1.7, 52.1, 5.0
93: 2.3, 39.6, 6.7
94: 2.5, 35.9, 7.7
avg (unweighted): 2.2, 42.7, 6.5

02: 2.6, 33.8, 7.3
03: 2.7, 32.7, 8.0
04: 2.8, 31.1, 8.1
avg: 2.7, 32.5, 7.8

league increases: 23%, 31%, 20%
Bonds increases: 13%, 39%, 31%

So Bonds mostly ahead of the curve but not crazily so and, again, is it PA or AB? What advantage did Bonds draw from the plate discipline and fear? If, to pick a name, Tim Salmon had gotten to start each PA at 2-0, what would his power numbers look like?

It was a vicious circle in my opinion. This already great player started to add power as everybody else did. So pitchers nibbled more which allowed him to focus on an even smaller zone that meant that, when he did actually hit it, he hit it for even more power. Which led to pitchers nibbling (or just IBBing) even more which allowed him to zero in even more which led to even more power when he actually hit it.

And here again are the NL 94 numbers: 2.5, 35.9, 7.7. Here's the NL 2012: 2.5, 36.1, 7.6. The difference was a 16.4% K-rate in 1994 vs. 20% in 2012.

The 2013 numbers are more like 93, the first possible sign of a real reduction in power of the testing era.

Sounds like he'll need to vote for 10 next year too. Unless he's not planning on voting for Johnson or Pedro.

He will. It's a swipe at the voters who failed to get anyone elected last year.

And job-seeking Scott Miller (10): Biggio, Glavine, Kent, Maddux, McGriff, Morris, Raines, Schilling, Thomas, Trammell

How the hell do you vote for Jeff Kent.

Tom Powers and his four-person ballot convinced me to support Jack Morris. How can one argue with "Morris has more wins than Whitey Ford, Don Drysdale, and Bob Gibson"?

Someone should let him know that Morris is fifth in wins on this ballot.

The old grumpy misanthropic fucks sinking Biggio and Piazza are infuriating me.

[1428] I'm pretty sure Morris is 5th in wins on the ballot.

Edit: Oh, you edited your post in the time I took to write that. Never mind.

As I write this, there are 170 ballots accounted for in the Gizmo.

Assuming that there will 569 ballots this year like last year -- NOTE: that's a lousy assumption if you want to be exact about it, but the overall vote total should be in that general neighborhood, so the info below will be in-the-ballpark-accurate, though surely not perfectly accurate -- anyhow, if there are 569 ballots overall, here is how guys will need to do on the unknown ones for a candidate to clear 75%:

Maddux: 64.7%
Glavine: 65.9%
Thomas: 68.4%
Biggio: 73.4%
Piazza: 78.0%
Morris: 81.7%
Bagwell: 82.0%
Raines: 83.5%
Bonds: 89.0%
Clemens: 89.5%

I guess I could go on, but who cares? If you're curious, when you reach Jeff Kent, it becomes mathematically impossible.

To reach 5% -- Trammell and everyone above has already reached that level even if they're skunked on the non-Gizmo votes (which, of course, they won't be). What guys on bottom need in the non-Gizmo votes to stay on the ballot:

Mattinly: 4.8%
Palmeiro: 4.2%
Sosa: 3.8%
Walker: 3.5%
McGwire: 3.0%
McGriff: 1.5%
Kent: 1.0%

Palmerio is the one in real danger. The Gizmo was HIGH on him last year (12.9% in the Gizmo; 8.8% overall). Last year's Gizmo was low on Mattingly, Walker, and McGwire -- and fairly close on Sosa.

Oh, and last year the Gizmo had Biggio at 70.1% with 194 votes. The actual result was 68.2%.

I'm pretty sure Morris is 5th in wins on the ballot.

Edit: Oh, you edited your post in the time I took to write that. Never mind.

Yeah, my brain wasn't working right there. I was thinking there were two guys with more wins that he didn't vote for and just ignored the two he did vote for.

Apologies for looking ahead. Let's say the current results are close to the final results. Biggio does get in and no one goes under 5%. Which of the returning names do you think makes the biggest jump next year?

Ron Blum votes for 9, courtesy and Oakland Press live chat:

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20140107/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-live-chat-whos-getting-in

Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Morris, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, Sosa. Says he's gone back-and-forth on Biggio; voted for him last year, but not this year.

In the same chat I mentioned in 1435, John Hickey reveals that he didn't vote for Biggio, feels it is important to get Morris in ("He was the best pitcher of an entire decade, the 1980s, and he needs to be in there. In my opinion, he deserves it more than Schilling or Mussina"), didn't vote for Bagwell or Piazza, appears from positive comments to have voted for Raines ("If he had not played at the same time as Rickey Henderson, Raines would have been the best leadoff man of his generation with a combination of high on-base percentage, high stolen base totals and high batting average"), looks like he voted for Trammell ("I have to admit to being torn on Trammell. He was a good player for a very long time. For me, he's one of those borderline Hall of Fame players. Ultimately I think he should get in because, as has been mentioned here before, middle infielders don't have to put up the same offensive numbers as left fielders to be deemed Cooperstown-worthy."), seems a no on Bonds, Clemons, and McGwire ("Both Bonds and McGwire would be easy picks were it not for the PEDs. But while McGwire was dangerous at any time, he wasn't the most feared offensive force in the game, as Bonds was over a long stretch of time.").

Says he's gone back-and-forth on Biggio; voted for him last year, but not this year.

That sucks. He even has a 10th spot open on his ballot for him. Hopefully, he still sneaks in this year.

Apologies for looking ahead. Let's say the current results are close to the final results. Biggio does get in and no one goes under 5%. Which of the returning names do you think makes the biggest jump next year?

Under that scenario, I'd say Piazza, Bagwell, & Raines. Guys near the top of the backlog tend to do the best. And with Pedro & Johnson showing up, it'll still be another year until Mussina and/or Schilling can start moving up.

Just want to give a very big Thank You! to Repoz for providing so much food for thought and entertainment the last few weeks. Forget the job with an MLB club, the Commissioner spot is coming open ...

So I think these were the final Gizmo tallies last year, and of course nobody got in:

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

Morris picked up about 9 percentage points from the unpublished ballots.

Hmm, why is Piazza not on the above list. Maybe I got it wrong. Got it from here: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/2012_hall_of_fame_ballot_collecting_gizmo

Let's assume all these are true (even though only one of those three parks debuted in 1993, and the wider "destabilization" of pitching in 1977 had little impact).

How does the presence of these other factors eliminate the possibility of increased PED use also being a factor?

Your answer is that Everyone started using at the same time, is better than accepting a league wide change in some factors?

First off that list of 3 things, underrates the change of the ball which was probably the biggest influence in the change in offense. As far as 1977 vs 1993/1994, 1977 was the only time expansion didn't see a noticeable increase in offense, 1962, 1968 and the 90's all saw increase in offense. (mind you scoring went up from 3.99 runs a game into 4.47 runs a game in 1977.....saying there was no increase is pretty dishonest)

Second off, as people have mentioned, there were a host of factors going on, if you look at k/9 rates it was going up also, not just because pitchers were getting better, but because hitters became more willing to accept the strikeout for the possibility of a homerun. Also notice the increase offense really takes off after the strike year, and there is a real reason to think that mlb doctored the ball as mentioned.

Smaller stadiums, first sanctioned Maple bat in 1997, players accepting strikeouts for the increase in power and 2 strike homeruns, doctored ball, expansion, wide spread acceptance of working out(along with PED) etc... all of these led to increase offense, but the ONLY explanation that makes sense for the rapid increase is the combination of a doctored ball and a expansion of "range" of talent. The rest of the possibilities only lead to slow changes.

Ray, that's two years ago (when Larkin got in).

Hmm, why is Piazza not on the above list. Maybe I got it wrong. Got it from here: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/2012_hall_of_fame_ballot_collecting_gizmo

That's the Gizmo from two years ago. Both last year's Giz and this year's were labeled 2013 Hall of Fame Ballot Collecting Gizmo.

This is the one you were looking for.

Updated 1:55 ~ 194 Full Ballots ~ (33.9% of vote ~ based on last year)

70.1 - Biggio
60.3 - Piazza
59.8 - Raines
59.3 - Bagwell
59.3 - J. Morris
45.4 - Bonds
44.3 - Clemens
39.2 - Schilling
38.1 - L. Smith
37.6 - Trammell
35.6 - E. Martinez
20.1 - McGriff
18.6 - D. Murphy
16.5 - L. Walker
14.4 - McGwire
13.4 - S. Sosa
12.9 - Raffy
8.8 - Mattingly
———————————
3.1 - Lofton
2.1 - Bernie Williams
1.7 - P. Rose (goofy write-in’s)
0.5 - D. Wells
0.5 - J. Franco
0.5 - S. Alomar Jr.
0.5 - S. Green

[1440] that was from two years ago when Barry Larkin got in and Piazza wasn't eligible yet

Edit: Cokes to Pete L. and SoSHially Unacceptablr

Ah. Thanks.

Funny, I read "B. Larkin" as Biggio.

Which of the returning names do you think makes the biggest jump next year?

Piazza clears the hurdle next year.

Apologies for looking ahead. Let's say the current results are close to the final results. Biggio does get in and no one goes under 5%. Which of the returning names do you think makes the biggest jump next year?

If Biggio goes in, I imagine that Bagwell gets the jump he needs to clear the hurdle, but I also think that Mussina gets the biggest jump. He was 11th on a lot of peoples ballots.

Edit: Piazza should also go in.

I'll say Biggio makes the biggest leap next year, in the sense he goes from not in to in.

If Biggio makes it this year (and I think it will be very close either way), Piazza makes the biggest next year. But it still won't be enough. I like him for 2016.

I don't really see any backloggers making significant gains until 2016, when Griffey's the only big name joining the ballot.

How can one argue with "Morris has more wins than Whitey Ford, Don Drysdale, and Bob Gibson"?

How'd he forget Koufax? Morris kills Koufax!

Biggio is too close to call.

Send someone out to check on hanging chads.

So whenever the goofy ballots come in, someone disgustingly posts something like "and the HoF becomes more and more irrelevant for me."

I hope that's not true. The guys elected aren't the Hall though the plaque room is fun. The Hall is the museum, the town, the archives, all the people that work there and do research there. It's a great celebration of baseball.

Biggio is too close to call.

Send someone out to check on hanging chads.

On it.

Returning to the question about extreme pitching performances in the silly ball era. Wouldn't we expect pitching to be nor extreme? The real statisticians in the group can dis/confirm, but I think STDEVs go up when the R/G is more extreme. Mathematically, in a 5 run context, there are four runs per nine innings that can be given up before a pitcher is average. Obviously, that's two more than in a three-run Deadball context. More opportunity to be further from average.

Also, Eric J nails it in 1405. Just as an example, if you look at every full .400 season (no Phil Clark 1992s), one stands out because it didn't occur...
A) during an expansion year (1876, 1884 UA, 1901 NL)
B) during or immediately after a year with a significant rule change (1887, 1894, 1920)
C) during or immediately after a year with a significant equipment change (1911-1912 AL, 1920)
D) during a year or era with a pinball-machine run environment (1894-1899, 1920-1930). Tony Gwynn's .394 season fits this category too.

Only Ted Williams' 1941 season was a .400 campaign played under "normal" historical conditions.

The Astros moved to Enron/Minute Maid in 2000. Biggio's home runs:

years home road
1988-1999 64 88
2000-2007 79 60


Not much mystery there.

You are considering park effects but not the age curve.

Biggio turned 34 in 2000 but his power curve did not decline even after you adjust for the change in home parks (i.e. look at road HRs). You would expect that to happen, no? That it didn't led some to suggest Biggio was also 'roiding. But a closer look will show that his Ks went up and BBs declined. It was not hard to see then that he was committing earlier to pitches, becoming a lot more susceptible to those low-and-away breaking pitches :(

Tough to make a call on who will have the biggest percentage jump next year. If the BBWAA voters repeat this year and submit full ballots, I would say Trammell has a good chance at a serious jump because A) Morris won't be around and the 1980's Tigers still won't have anyone in, and B) IF (and I hope he does)Biggio gets in this year, Trammell may get a bump as "best middle infielder on the ballot" (if voters decide to let Kent wait until Trammell clears the ballot, even though Trammell was better).

My concern is that many BBWAA voters who cast ten votes this year will say, "We inducted enough guys last year, so now I can cut back to my normal number of votes", vote for Unit, Pedro, Smoltz, Piazza, and Bagwell, and torpedo everyone from Raines on down...

I like Piazza for 2015 if Biggio clears this year because not only is Piazza the highest back logger but he has positional competition on the ballot at all at catcher, so he stands out.

AP Angels reporter Greg Beacham, @gregbeacham on Twitter announced that his ballot was the same as Ray Ratto's (#1423 above), for mostly the same reasons:

(10): Morris, Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Bagwell, Thomas, Maddux, Glavine, Raines, Piazza

I'm getting nervous for Biggio. The gizmo overestimated his support last year by nearly 3% (2.9 if memory serves). I'd feel much safer if he was still hovering around 80, instead of floating down to 78. It's going to be close.

I'm getting nervous for Biggio. The gizmo overestimated his support last year by nearly 3% (2.9 if memory serves). I'd feel much safer if he was still hovering around 80, instead of floating down to 78. It's going to be close.

Agree. There is a part of me (hopefully) thinking that the number of people who won't vote for someone like Biggio on the first ballot is more prevalent in the segment of voters who don't publicize their support.

How much of a difference was there for Alomar versus the gizmo and non-reported?

Which of the returning names do you think makes the biggest jump next year?

Assuming Biggio (barely) gets in this year, Piazza & Bagwell should get the boost next year. The voters always give careful consideration to the returning player with the most votes from the previous year, and anyone getting over 50% early in their candidacy usually proceeds steadily towards election. Don't think the steroids witch hunt will be enough to derail this trend. Hopefully, Raines also follows that path, although I fear that the continued entry of 1st ballot types and the steroids hysteria has kept the electorate from focusing on his credentials.

How much of a difference was there for Alomar versus the gizmo and non-reported?

In Year 1, the Giz was off almost 14 percent (87.5-73.7).

In Year 2, Alomar's Gizmo showing was 3.4 points better (93.4-90) than his actual total.

The number of votes running through it were much lower back then, however. And, obviously, the ballot situation was much different for Robby than it is for Craig.

How much of a difference was there for Alomar versus the gizmo and non-reported?

The single biggest difference ever in the history of the Gizmo was Roberto ALomar in 2010. The Gizmo had him pegged at 87.5% (with 128 votes tallied). .... but came in at 73.7%.

Not only was it a 14 point difference - but the difference straddled the magical 75% barrier.

In 2011, it was much more normal. Gizmo: (with 138 votes): 93.4%. Reality: 90.0%.

EDITED: too slow.

Thank you both Sosh and Dag.

I knew that Alomar set a record for the most votes ever for a person getting elected not on their first ballot, I was just being curious about how much of that came from unreported ballots. From the answers, it still looks like Alomar's numbers among non-reported ballots in his second year was less than his gizmo numbers, which is bad for Biggio's chances.

Stark's article on his choices is very worth the read: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10253089/jayson-stark-2014-mlb-hall-fame-ballot

Keep going, Repoz! Only 18 more to get to 200!

The 2013 Gizmo is making a nice run at the 2013 Gizmo for most votes recorded, trailing by just a dozen now.

1459--Ryan T. is showing that the Biggio differential from last year's ballot was -1.9%, not -2.9%. So there's (possibly) a little more breathing room to be had.

Apologies if this has been covered somewhere else...but, assuming four BBWAA inductees, how long has it been since that's happened? If the answer hasn't been made wildly public already, then try to do this from memory....

Biggio is on the edge for this year. Seems safe to say 3 are going in at least which is better than many expected. Next year adds one dead on lock (Randy Johnson), one who should be but voters might complain about a 'low' win total (Pedro Martinez 219 wins, not a complete game guy...just saying what might cost him a lot of votes), a guy who should make it in a couple of years (John Smoltz), an unloved PED guy (Sheffield), and a couple of guys who should get a few votes but might not get 5% (Garciaparra & Delgado). Given we lose 3 with 80%+ (maybe 90%+) this year I figure Johnson gets most of Maddux's votes, Glavine & Thomas have a stack of open votes to spread around - enough to maybe get Pedro in (he should be in but I suspect he'll be tooth and nail to get there) and put Smoltz close ... strangely I wouldn't be shocked if Smoltz gets in and Pedro doesn't given the recent votes we've seen. I figure Sheffield/Garciaparra/Delgado will be, maybe, 40-50% total between them.

So, bottom line? If 3 go in this year there should be enough votes next year to get Johnson in easily and hopefully Pedro. Smoltz won't use all of Thomas' votes and the rest won't eat up all of Morris. However, the question also is what are voters who voted for Morris likely to do... will they shift to Smoltz or Sheffield/Garciaparra/Delgado (not Sheffield, but maybe one of the other two)? Will they just cut out a slot? It'll be interesting to see. Now, if Biggio also gets in then a ton of slots are opened up making a threesome very likely (Johnson/Pedro/Piazza most likely) and allow Smoltz to start a lot higher. I suspect many who voted for Eck years ago will feel Smoltz is in the same league or close enough to vote for Smoltz thus putting him close (remember, think like a voter, not like a BBTF reader).

My gut says Smoltz gets most of Morris' support, Maddux votes go to Johnson, while a chunk of Glavine's goes to Pedro Martinez. The Thomas votes get split up between voting for old favorites again, pushing Piazza over the top, and some to Sheffield/Garciaparra/Delgado. If Biggio goes in then a ton of other votes are potentially there for other guys on the ballot. Hopefully a lot to Tim Raines but we'll see.

Geoff Baker (Seattle Times) votes for 8: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Bagwell, Biggio, Raines, Schilling, Morris

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/mariners/2014/01/07/geoff-bakers-hall-of-fame-vote/

The Bay Area News Group just chimed in. New (unknown to this point) voters: Mike Lefkow, John Hickey, Rick Hurd.

Kawakami, Purdy, Steward, and Becker had previously released their ballots.

Stark's flaky statistical case for Jeff Kent exemplifies another side effect of the PED-inflated numbers of the era. Just about every above-average player from the era looks like a HOFer when compared to historical players already in the Hall, which muddies the waters for the writers trying to decide who should go in. They can't all be HOFers, but the votes still get spread across more players, which makes it harder for the best players to reach the 75% threshold.

I actually think this would be happening to some extent even if there were no PEDs and all of the offense was inflated due to parks and/or the ball.

There used to be mortal lock numbers that virtually guaranteed induction and kept the backlog low. Those don't apply anymore, so voters are now choosing whatever the hell standard they want to use. It's dogs and cats living together -- mass hysteria.

Stark's article on his choices is very worth the read: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10253089/jayson-stark-2014-mlb-hall-fame-ballot

Two things I noticed, from what was a good read.


But beyond Maddux, there's no reason to feel confident about the fate of any of those men.

There's really no excuse for this claim. Stark (or one of his editors) should be aware of the Gizmo, which gives us plenty of reason to be thoroughly confident about the fates of Glavine and Thomas. He doesn't have to credit it by name (such a thing going against ESPN protocol), but claiming no one knows how those two guys are going to do makes him look ignorant.


No matter how this turns out, Morris is about to make history. He got 67.7 percent of the votes cast last year. No player has ever gotten that high a percentage and not gone on to get himself elected. But it sure looks as if Morris is about to become the first, because that other 32.3 percent just doesn't see it.

Bunning and Fox both had higher vote totals and didn't get elected by the BBWAA. If and when Morris is rejected by the Vet's Committee, like the current clubhouse leader Hodges, he will have made history.

I think Morris is going to see an enormous bump from Gizmo to final vote. We all know non-Gizmo voters are far more inclined to support Morris than those making their votes public. On top of this, I suspect these types of voters are also going to more inclined to succumb to the emotional pull of pushing a guy across the finish line on his last shot at glory. Heck, I'm susceptible to this sort of sentiment and I am certainly not a Morris supporter--just seems lousy for someone to come so close and not get there, regardless of qualifications.

If he stays at 60-61 percent in the Gizmo, he'll probably fall short. But if he gets up to 62-63 percent, he might well make it.

If he stays at 60-61 percent in the Gizmo, he'll probably fall short. But if he gets up to 62-63 percent, he might well make it.

He needs 81 percent of the uncounted vote to make it. Last year, when he got his big push from the non-Gizmo'd voters, it represented 70 percent support. That's too much ground to make up.

There's really no excuse for this claim. Stark (or one of his editors) should be aware of the Gizmo, which gives us plenty of reason to be thoroughly confident about the fates of Glavine and Thomas.

I read this as being in the context of him casting his vote. Votes were due Dec. 31. The Gizmo was first posted on Dec. 25th. Even if Stark waited until the last possible moment, how many Gizmo votes had been reported by then?

Average votes per ballot according to what I have (not including anonymous votes): 8.92

I figure Sheffield/Garciaparra/Delgado will be, maybe, 40-50% total between them

Way too high. Sheffield was part of the Balco scandal, so there's pretty strong evidence of PED use. Additionally, he was considered a jerk and forced trades from both MIL and LAD. Writers don't like him and even those who don't care about PEDs can use his historically bad fielding as an excuse to not vote for him. I'd figure he'll get around 10%. Garciaparra has the "feels like a Hall of Famer" thing going for him in that at least for a couple of years he really did feel like a hall of famer, but his career was too short and his peak wasn't that great. Plus he left Boston on very bad terms, so there's no market to support him. He may get some votes, but won't challenge 5%. Delgado? Four hundred home runs doesn't mean anything for a Hall of Fame case anymore; I can't see him getting more than a few token votes.

1474. CraigM Posted: January 07, 2014 at 11:39 PM (#4632967)
I think Morris is going to see an enormous bump from Gizmo to final vote. We all know non-Gizmo voters are far more inclined to support Morris than those making their votes public. On top of this, I suspect these types of voters are also going to more inclined to succumb to the emotional pull of pushing a guy across the finish line on his last shot at glory. Heck, I'm susceptible to this sort of sentiment, as I am certainly not a Morris supporter--just seems lousy for someone to come so close and not get there, regardless of qualifications.

If he stays at 60-61 percent in the Gizmo, he'll probably fall short. But if he gets up to 62-63 percent, he might well make it.

I'm not a Morris supporter. However, I am flexible enough to live with a very, very large Hall of Fame which is what the voters are recommending when they vote for Morris. In fact, considering the importance of pitching I can sort of accept that pitchers are under represented in the HOF. However, once the line is drawn at Morris a valid case will be made for lots of previously rejected pitchers. How does any voter later reject Jamie Moyer after campaigning for Morris?

The San Jose Mercury News (Bay Area Newsgroup) ballots:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24865159/heres-how-bay-area-news-group-writers-voted

Some of these writers have already been detailed and are in Repoz's count (Kawakami, Steward, Becker) but the following were new to me:

MIKE LEFKOW (10): Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, McGwire, Piazza, Smith, Thomas

MARK PURDY (4): Glavine, Maddux, Smith, Thomas

JOHN HICKEY (8) (updating my guesses from the tea leaves of a live chat, in #1436): Bonds, Glavine, Kent, Maddux, Martinez, McGwire, Morris, Smith

RICK HURD (10): Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Martinez, Morris, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Smith

[Edit: Coke to Ryan...]

I'm not a Morris supporter. However, I am flexible enough to live with a very, very large Hall of Fame which is what the voters are recommending when they vote for Morris. In fact, considering the importance of pitching I can sort of accept that pitchers are under represented in the HOF. However, once the line is drawn at Morris a valid case will be made for lots of previously rejected pitchers. How does any voter later reject Jamie Moyer after campaigning for Morris?

A friend of mine on facebook just asked me why I supported Mussina over Morris... As a Cardinal fan I pointed out..

Here is what a Jack Morris Average year looked like, 16-12, 3.90 era, 105 era+.... Jeff Suppan average season as a Cardinal 16-10, 3.95 era, 109 era+..... So Jack Morris was Suppan as a Cardinal, and had the same advantages that Suppan had, a very good offense most years.


I just cannot accept Morris in the hof.. I'll be forced to live with it, if it happens, same as Jim Rice among others, but man they are just such obviously poor selections.

He needs 81 percent of the uncounted vote to make it. Last year, when he got his big push from the non-Gizmo'd voters, it represented 70 percent support. That's too much ground to make up.

Perhaps you're right and my math is off. But I think people are going to surprised when the final number comes in. I'm pretty confident the bump from Gizmo to non Gizmo will outstrip last years-I would put my bets on over 10%.

Geoff Baker (Seattle Times) votes for 8: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Bagwell, Biggio, Raines, Schilling, Morris

WTF, the dude's from Seattle. If he's got 2 slots, through Edgar a vote, how hard is that?

[Edit: Coke to Ryan...]

I started typing it all out, but stopped. You're the real hero here!

Baker's not from Seattle. He wasn't writing there during Edgar's peak as a Mariner, he was (IIRC) based out of Toronto at that time. He also doesn't really have a lovey-dovey relationship with the fans in Seattle. He's not the type to give a vote to a hometown player to appease the fanbase.

JOHN HICKEY (8) (updating my guesses from the tea leaves of a live chat, in #1436): Bonds, Glavine, Kent, Maddux, Martinez, McGwire, Morris, Smith

This is the type of ballot that will lead to me rubbing my feces on a wall in a padded room some day. I mean, just wow, the logical vortexes are mesmerizingly vast.

I know it's all stupid and doesn't matter, but all these votes for Jack ####### Morris just piss me off so ####### much. These guys have the coolest jobs in the whole world--they get to paid to write about baseball!!!--and they reward us with articles saying Jack Morris was a better player than Jeff Bagwell or Mike Mussina or Mike Piazza or whatever. It's so damn aggravating.

Palmeiro is still falling- those of you who picked him to go below 5% may be on the money...

This is the type of ballot that will lead to me rubbing my feces on a wall in a padded room some day. I mean, just wow, the logical vortexes are mesmerizingly vast.

He votes for Bonds and McGwire, so he obviously has no hangups re: PEDs. He voted for 3 starting pitchers and 1 reliever, so he obviously finds lots of pitchers worthy of the Hall. He named 8 players so (a) he's cool with voting for lots of people, but (b) he still has room to add more players if he wanted to.

AND HE DOESN'T VOTE FOR ROGER FREAKIN' CLEMENS!? WHAT!? HOW!?

That may not be the worst ballot I've seen (I saw the "Morris. And nobody else." ballot), but it might be the most inexplicable. Huh?

I'm guessing Hickey just plum forgot that Clemens was on the ballot. That is (or at least could be) another cost of the ridiculous backlog.

So after this year, with Morris and Rice both gone (plus others like Bruce Sutter) who becomes the anti-stathead choice? Lee Smith seems the only strong one, with Jeff Kent being a marginal one (better than Rice or Morris as a pick and can see a case for him). To be an anti-stathead choice you'd have to be sub 60 WAR at least, ideally sub 50. Kent is at 55, McGriff 52.6, Mattingly 42.2 (just one more year at most with no hope), Lee Smith at 29.2 (but all relievers outside of Rivera, Eckersley [just 17 as a closer] and Wilhelm are sub-50 I think). Delgado could've been a favorite due to his clean rep but he spent his core years in Toronto (hidden) and had some strong anti-US government stands that will cost him a few votes thus making him unlikely to become a surprise candidate. McGriff (another ex-Jay) is a popular one too but not popular enough I think to gain traction.

Hrm... right now I'd say only Lee Smith has a shot at the anti-stat votes. He is just on until 2017 though so at least that will be over soon. Omar Vizquel will probably take the torch from there (45.4 WAR, somehow seems to have become Ozzie Smith in voters minds). Kent is a bit too good to be as annoying as Rice/Morris/Smith/Sutter all have been/are.

JOHN HICKEY (8) (updating my guesses from the tea leaves of a live chat, in #1436): Bonds, Glavine, Kent, Maddux, Martinez, McGwire, Morris, Smith

Uh...

Omar Vizquel will probably take the torch from there (45.4 WAR, somehow seems to have become Ozzie Smith in voters minds).

I think Vizquel is the next player to show up who will get significant mainstream votes while getting absolutely no support from statheads.

I think Vizquel is the next player to show up who will get significant mainstream votes while getting absolutely no support from statheads.

I'll point out again that the BBWAA has never elected a player (from the MVP voting era) who got anywhere close to as little MVP support as Vizquel. That doesn't mean it's impossible, just unprecedented.

Also, the current Gizmo tally has nearly 1/3 of last year's entire total, with Morris just below 61%. That puts him at needing roughly 82% of the remaining votes.

IOIABO.

I think Vizquel is the next player to show up who will get significant mainstream votes while getting absolutely no support from statheads.

Yep. That seems like the most likely candidate.

To be an anti-stathead choice you'd have to be sub 60 WAR at least, ideally sub 50. Kent is at 55, McGriff 52.6, Mattingly 42.2 (just one more year at most with no hope), Lee Smith at 29.2

Why is the anti-stat head a sub 60 war guy? I hope that you don't think war is the only tool stat heads use, and career war is a pretty crappy stat without looking into a lot of context.

double

I used 60 WAR as a cut off as guys who get over 60 normally have a high enough level of talent that stat-heads can see a case for him. It is the guys like Morris, Rice, Sutter and Smith who bug stat-heads as there is no real case beyond a good storyline for them (most wins in the 80's and game 7, TEH FEAR, 'invented' split finger fastball, most career saves). I can see why those guys get in, but it always seems a shame that others with equally good stories (if writers would look for it) are kept out like Lou Whitaker, Kenny Lofton, etc.

I'll point out again that the BBWAA has never elected a player (from the MVP voting era) who got anywhere close to as little MVP support as Vizquel

I actually don't think Vizquel will get elected. But I can't think of any other player who mainstream writers talk about as a future Hall-of-Famer that would have no support here.

Maybe Trevor Hoffman will do better with mainstream writers than he'd do here at BBTF, but relief pitchers are a weird breed and I think most folks around here would put Hoffman in the "well, if you have to have relievers in the Hall, I guess he's okay" category anyway.

If Jamie Moyer had pitched until he was 50, I could have maybe seen him picking up a mainstream cult following.

I'll point out again that the BBWAA has never elected a player (from the MVP voting era) who got anywhere close to as little MVP support as Vizquel. That doesn't mean it's impossible, just unprecedented.

I don't think Vizquel falls in any "similar" traps. 2800 hits for a defense first shortstop. 11 gold gloves at the premium defensive position. He's going to get supporters. I mean he's arguably a better offensive force than Ozzie (not a good argument, but raw numbers he wins) and about as good of a defender.

el flippo