flip-flop

Bagwell. Biggio. Bonds. Clemens. Maddux. Martinez. Piazza. Raines. Thomas. Walker....and that's that.

I have no issue whatsoever with this ballot. Every player listed is a HOFer as far as I can tell, and I really like that Larry Walker got a little love. I worry that Walker is in danger of falling off the ballot in the manner of Kevin Brown.

If Palmeiro didn't have 500 HR/3,000 H, would he be considered a "don't even have to think about it" guy? Obviously not, IMHO.

Yeah but to get Palmeiro under 500 homers you'd need to take away 70 dingers. That's 2 peak seasons. You could get a lot of currently deserving HOFers under the borderline by taking away 70 homers or two peak seasons. It's not a very good argument.

I worry that Walker is in danger of falling off the ballot in the manner of Kevin Brown.

If Larry has no chance of going in then he should fall off the ballot as quickly as possible. At this point writers should be a lot more strategic with their votes.

If Larry has no chance of going in then he should fall off the ballot as quickly as possible. At this point writers should be a lot more strategic with their votes

No. Qualified candidates should stay on the ballot as long as possible, until elected. Having them clog up the ballot long term is a good thing, as it calls into relief the stupidity of the balloting process.

And as long as possible in the case of Larry Walker should be 1 year.

No. Qualified candidates should stay on the ballot as long as possible, until elected. Having them clog up the ballot long term is a good thing, as it calls into relief the stupidity of the balloting process.

If the early results hold, it looks like the writers are well on the way to cleaning up the ballot themselves.

If they elect the top-4 this year, and Morris drops. Then next year, they elect Johnson and Pedro, and probably Piazza and Bagwell. That would resolve a lot of the backlog problem.

And as long as possible in the case of Larry Walker should be 1 year.

Larry Walker is as clearly as good a HOF candidate as Allen Trammell or Time Raines.

I have no issue whatsoever with this ballot. Every player listed is a HOFer as far as I can tell, and I really like that Larry Walker got a little love. I worry that Walker is in danger of falling off the ballot in the manner of Kevin Brown.

I think Edgar is a stretch, but if your worst pick is a guy who is right on the line, then I have no problem with it. I would have preferred Trammel personally, as I think his chances with the future vets committee rests strongly on his current hof votes.

Larry Walker is as clearly as good a HOF candidate as Allen Trammell or Time Raines.

That's his problem. Actually, I would put Raines and Trammell ahead of him.

While I see McCoy's point, I'm with Rickey! on this one. Walker has never been below 20% in his previous three years on the ballot. His drop-off this year is entirely about the logjam and not any kind of coalescing judgment that he is undeserving, such as McGwire, Mattingly, or Palmeiro, whose vote totals have declined fairly significantly in recent years.

Several players were eventually enshrined after worse debuts. Blyleven for one, who debuted at 17.5%, dipped to as 14.1% and didn't crack 20% until his third year, before building to eventual enshrinement. I know there are others, just can't remember who and too lazy to research it. I'd rather see some strategic voting to keep worthy candidates who aren't currently getting a lot of support on the ballot. If they get up near year 8-10 and aren't making progress, that's different, but guys in their first 5-6 years of consideration who debuted at 20-30% or higher and have at least held steady until this crazy ballot are another entirely.

Personally, the wasted votes for me aren't the ones cast for Walker, or Martinez, or Kent or McGriff; they're the ones cast for Lee Smith (a very borderline choice at an over-represented position who is in his 12th year and pretty clearly has maximized/topped out his support level), Mattingly, and even the PED crowd that voters apparently believe wouldn't have HOF numbers but for PED use (McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa).

The logjam looks like it may break some this year. Morris is off, one way or another; it looks like Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas will be elected, with Biggio a pretty good bet and Piazza a dark horse for election this year, too. That's 5, possibly 6 guys off the top half of the ballot. Sosa and Mattingly are currently below the line, and Palmeiro is teetering (along with Walker). There could be as many as 8-10 guys removed from this ballot one way or another, and the next two years don't bring as many big names to replace them (RJ & Pedro are no-brainers and Smoltz at least a very good candidate, but Sheffield will get the McGwire/Palmeiro/Sosa treatment, and Nomah and Delgado just fall too short; the year after that brings really only Griffey as a viable candidate - and one who, like RJ, Pedro, Maddux, & Thomas should clear off in one ballot...there is nothing coming like this year, when FOUR 1st year candidates with more than 80 career WAR hit the ballot one year after nobody was elected on a ballot that saw 3-4 more 80+ WAR guys come on).

IMO, the way to handle this is to make sure you don't strategically vote for somebody at the expense of these 80+ WAR guys (unless for well-articulated and consistently-applied PED reasons not based solely on suspicion and gut), but everybody else is fair game, with a goal of keeping those with legitimate cases on the ballot for the 3-4 more years it's going to take to clear out the logjam.

Pete and I seem to be on the same page. About the only way to screw up this year's ballot is to:

1. Leave blanks (not vote for 10 candidates.) That's indefensible as far as I'm concerned. Even small-Hall guys can find ten votes on this ballot.

2. Vote for Lee Smith. Moreso than even Morris, Lee Smith is an indefensible waste of a vote that should go to a real HOF caliber player.

3. Less damning, but still problematic in my view, are votes for Mattingly (not a HOFer) or the "peak argument only, who peaked during Sillyball and had PED questions" group of McGwire, Palmeiro or Sosa. I don't like that Sosa is in danger of falling off the ballot entirely, but if it comes down to him or Larry Walker, Walker's the clear choice for the vote. If I were a PED scold I'd vote for McGriff and Trammell in lieu of Bonds and Clemens.

IMO, the way to handle this is to make sure you don't strategically vote for somebody at the expense of these 80+ WAR guys (unless for well-articulated and consistently-applied PED reasons not based solely on suspicion and gut), but everybody else is fair game, with a goal of keeping those with legitimate cases on the ballot for the 3-4 more years it's going to take to clear out the logjam.

I think if you are voting strategically, your goals are to get as many people off the ballot as possible and that means supporting the guys with the best case that the other writers are currently voting for. That means obviously Maddux(although there is a good strategic reason to not vote for him, as he's a lock, and you could use your vote better) Glavine, Biggio and Thomas are the easy choices. Piazza had a very good debut, and if history was any indicator, in a normal year, he would pick up another 10-15% and should be voted for. Bagwell is still creeping up, and is probably another that should be given the strategic vote(strategy isn't only about eliminating candidates this year, but in the future, and momentum may not exist in baseball, but it does exist in HOF voting) Same can be said about Raines. He's going to take a dip this year, but is still on the path towards election. After those guys.... I think a voter really needs to think about guys who might be dropping off, and whether they are worth the effort. Mussina is the name most often mentioned for this type of strategic voting. But Sosa and Palmiero are also guys that need to be considered. In both of their cases, I think their best bet is with the veteran's committee after a few of the "tainted" guys get in, so let them drop off.

cardsfanboy, I think we agree on just about everything you wrote there except the very end. I'm with Rickey. I don't like the idea of Palmeiro, Sosa or McGwire falling off, but if push comes to shove, I don't think the BBWAA is voting them in and admitted/caught users is not a bad place to start for whatever the special VC committee that ends up looking at the SillyBall era. I'd rather they fall off than Walker (or Kent, or Martinez, or McGriff, or Mussina - about whom the rumors of potential one-and-done were greatly exaggerated). But I completely agree with you on the top end, and the need to vote strategically there as well in order to clear as much of the ballot as possible. [I think that is one reason we're seeing Glavine doing so well. Really, everybody north of Morris.... Bagwell could have used a few more strategic votes.]

What stands out about Cowlishaw's ballot is that Maddux is the only pitcher on it. I wonder whether that was just how the cookie crumbled or if he has an insanely high bar for pitchers.

191] Do you have me on ignore or did you just not notice that I posted that in [175]?

My apologies BCI, I just missed it, just as I missed most of my assignments taking calculus in college...

@ 215, Eric P.: I think Cowlishaw's vote has only been announced by Twitter and he hasn't written an explanatory column yet. In the past, though, he has taken a position on some borderline guys he thinks will have a tough time getting elected, and has said "I will continue to vote for them." See, for instance. This article from 2011:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/columnists/tim-cowlishaw/20111223-cowlishaw-s-five-on-friday-how-i-voted-for-this-years-baseball-hall-of-fame.ece

Martinez: "I voted for the Mariners’ longtime DH last year and I will keep voting for him in the future because, frankly, I don’t imagine he’s going to get in."

Raines: "As he’s unlikely to be elected, I’m sure he will remain a candidate in future years, and I will keep voting for him."

It could be a combination of wanting to remain consistent on guys he's voted for in the past, some strategic voting, and possibly a really high bar for pitchers, as you say.

Cowlishaw also had Clemens, though that doesn't eliminate the insanely high bar for pitchers theory.

Question- do ballots with write-in votes count, or are they considered "blank ballots"?

@ 219, TJ: I don't think write-in votes are counted. Certainly not if they are for an ineligible player, like Rose, or if it is for an eligible player but is an 11th vote (as I remember at least one of the early ballots did, with Edgar being written in). I suppose that if a player who is eligible (meaning, on the ballot) were written in, and became part of ten or fewer votes, they might count it (no idea, really), but why would anybody do that rather than just check the box next to the player's name?

It's a really good question whether a ballot that has an "illegal" irregularity like a write-in of an ineligible player invalidates the whole ballot, or the write-in alone is simply disregarded. I'd assume the latter, but don't really know.

Do we have last year's final Repoz thing? I wanna see how well it estimated.

Do we have last year's final Repoz thing? I wanna see how well it estimated.

It was linked in post 20, but here it is again

Of note is post 764, which compares the actual results to the Gizmo:

68 (70) - Biggio
68 (59) - Morris
60 (59) - Bagwell
58 (60) - Piazza
52 (60) - Raines
48 (38) - Smith
39 (39) - Schilling
38 (44) - Clemens
36 (45) - Bonds
34 (38) - Trammell
36 (36) - E. Martinez
22 (17) - Walker
21 (20) - McGriff
19 (19) - D. Murphy
17 (14) - McGwire
13 (9) - Mattingly
13 (13) - Sosa
9 (13) - Palmeiro

So based on how much the Gizmo underestimated him, Morris is going to come close, but there are still over 100 votes that could bring his final Gizmo count down. It's also worth noting that the Gizmo underestimated Larry Walker, so he may not be completely doomed.

It's hard to imagine Morris gaining enough votes this year. Has anyone said they added him? I know a couple said they dropped him.

@ 222, ajnrules:

In post 173, Mark Armour posted a reverse-engineered list that Dag posted last year, showing how different the unpublished totals were from the Gizmo-collected ballots. The guy who does the best on unpublished ballots is Lee Smith (+14.7% over what Gizmo would have predicted), followed by Jack Morris (+12.7%), Larry Walker (+7.8%) and Don Mattingly (+6.7%). A few others had positive gains over the Gizmo prediction and thus were slightly underestimated by the Gizmo (McGwire was +3.7%; Bernie Williams was +1.9%; McGriff was +1.0%; Bagwell and Edgar were both +0.4%; Dale Murphy was +0.1%), but not as significantly. The guys who did significantly worse among voters with unpublished ballots were Bonds (-13.9%), Clemens (-10.2%), Raines (-11.5% , Palmeiro (-6.2%), Trammell (-6.2%), Piazza (-3.8%), Biggio (-2.9%), Sosa (-1.4%), and Schilling (-0.5%).

It's hard to draw many conclusions, but if I had to speculate, it looks like the best way to do well with non-published voters is to have a case built on traditional stats, and if you have issues with PEDs (proven or merely suspected), you will fare worse (except McGwire and Sosa seem to get some credit for dingers and "saving baseball"), and if your case relies too heavily on advanced metrics, you may also fare poorly with the Silent Majority.

If last year's trend continues this year, Palmeiro and Sosa could be in trouble; Walker is in danger, but it looks like it might not be as bad as it currently appears. The guys currently over 75% are probably well enough over it to stay over it though it might get dicey for Biggio. Piazza would probably need to get up closer to 80% to withstand expected erosion of support and Morris might get enough of a bump to get very close to enshrinement.

100 - Maddux
98.4 - Glavine
87.5 - F. Thomas

Thomas's induction speech where he calls Jeter et al. out for being cheaters because they finished ahead of him in MVP races should be fun.

It's hard to imagine Morris gaining enough votes this year.

If he outperforms the Gizmo by 9 this year, as he did last year, it's going to be hanging chad close.

@222-thank you.

@226-I was just gonna post that. Give him the 9 and he's just barely in. Jack the Jack, HOF'er.

If he outperforms the Gizmo by 9 this year, as he did last year, it's going to be hanging chad close.

Wouldn't surprise me if he did, since I wouldn't publish my ballot if I added Morris for the sake of his last year of eligibility and then have to deal with all the grief, either...

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/2013/12/30/mlb_no_room_for_clemens_on_this_hall_of_fame_ballot_griffin.html

Richard Griffin

Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Glavine, Maddux, Morris, Piazza, Raines, Thomas, Walker

Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Glavine, Maddux, Morris, Piazza, Raines, Thomas, Walker

I know I'm not the first to ask this question...but how Bonds and no Clemens?

[230]

A year ago, I voted for Roger Clemens in his first year on MLB’s Hall of Fame ballot. Due to the 10-player maximum per ballot and an influx of superb candidates, the Rocket will have a year off before I vote for him again in 2015. Is that fair? Does it make sense? Maybe not, but it creates wonderful conversation and passionate debate for the greatest Hall of Fame in pro sports. [...]

Barry Bonds: In his second year; 36.2 per cent last year. His numbers are ridiculously Hall-worthy. A seven-time NL MVP with 762 career homers and 514 steals, his career 1.051 OPS is silly. He is one of two obviously PED-stained candidates I voted for last year, along with Clemens. [...]

Jack Morris: In his 15th and final year; 67.7 per cent last year. Morris has become the lightning rod for controversy between old-school and new-wave voters. Those in favour point to his grittiness, big-game performances and durability. Those against have solid reasons. I have voted for Morris since I first became eligible to vote and must leave Clemens off my ballot until next year.

231...not bad reasoning. I don't agree with it of course, but at least it's consistent. I will never fault anyone who has 1. 10 names on the ballot 2. has Morris on the ballot and has voted for him over 10+ times... Mind you I absolutely don't believe Morris is a hofer, and I absolutely think his uptick in votes is an anti-stat protest from the limited IQ writers....but any voter who has him on their ballot and has voted him 10+ times isn't an anti-voter....they might be uneducated, or whatnot, but I can't fault them for their votes at that point in time.

I'm still not convinced re Walker. It's hard to support a guy who played more than 150 games just once in his career. Plus there's the Coors problem.

It's the headline to the article, but he his only explanation is the 10-vote limit and the new candidates. He voted for Clemens last year; I don't see how any of the new candidates, except MAYBE Maddux (if you discount for a PED effect/penalty), are more qualified than Clemens.

So the result is, he's willing to vote for PED players, and he voted for Morris but not Clemens. Therefore, one can only assume... he thinks Morris was better than Clemens????????? That makes no sense whatsoever. He says "I have voted for Morris since I first became eligible to vote and must leave Clemens off my ballot until next year." I'd rather have a record of always voting for Clemens, if I'm willing to vote for PED players, than have a record of always voting for Morris.

There's also this: "In 41 seasons of working in and around the major league game,... Larry Walker... is the best outfielder I have ever seen play." That's quite a statement.

EDIT: Coke to bobm.

I'm still not convinced re Walker. It's hard to support a guy who played more than 150 games just once in his career. Plus there's the Coors problem

I have Walker as borderline personally. But if you are an Edgar fan, I don't see any rational reasoning to support him and not Walker. I have both currently straddling the line and will accept both, neither or just Larry....I do not understand any argument that has Edgar without Walker though. (although it could be argued he would have 150 games in 1993 and 1994)

I have Walker as borderline personally. But if you are an Edgar fan, I don't see any rational reasoning to support him and not Walker. I have both currently straddling the line and will accept both, neither or just Larry....I do not understand any argument that has Edgar without Walker though. (although it could be argued he would have 150 games in 1993 and 1994)

I agree. I think they're both borderline, and it would be fine if they were elected. They're far better candidates than Morris, Rice, or Sutter. But Walker in particular doesn't feel like a HOFer to me.

Ricahrd Griffin, FTFA...

All I can suggest is that in 41 seasons of working in and around the major league game, I have actually seen all 36 candidates on the 2014 Hall ballot play multiple games in person. I would like to believe that I knew when I was watching someone special. That eyes-on opinion counts for something. That emotion and feel is then combined, in my case, with hours of study. The results are never perfect, but nobody is in favour of computers having the final say.

This coming from a guy who says that Larry Walker "is the best outfielder I have ever seen play..." I find it hard to believe that Griffin saw any outfielder play more than once in his life to make this statement, and I see Larry Walker as a borderline middle tier HOF right fielder. Insight like this makes me wish it were computers having the final say...

Coke to my doppleganger T.J.

If Larry Walker is not a viable candidate, then by extension, no player who had part of his peak in Coors can ever be a Hall of Famer. Walker sailed into the Hall of Merit pretty easily as the strength of his peak outweighed his valid durability concerns and his performance as a member of the Expos and the Cardinals proved that he was no Dante Bichette.

Request for Repoz - please include the date in your update at the top. Otherwise - thank you for doing this every year.

"[Larry Walker] is the best outfielder I have ever seen play"

Watch more baseball.

If Larry Walker is not a viable candidate, then by extension, no player who had part of his peak in Coors can ever be a Hall of Famer. Walker sailed into the Hall of Merit pretty easily as the strength of his peak outweighed his valid durability concerns and his performance as a member of the Expos and the Cardinals proved that he was no Dante Bichette.

Hall of merit way underrates in season durability, focuses too much on career value. Not that I disagree with them, but I don't think Walker is the best argument for / against Coors field. His entire case rests on how much value/penalty do you give a guy who you know is going to miss 20-40 games a season.

Hall of Merit is not a uniform voting body. All of us have our own standards and weighting mechanisms. I have been a voter since the "early 70s". I personally place a fair bit of stock in in-season durability - and Walker still rose above. He is not an "inner circle" HOFer by any means, but he fits the criteria established by 77 years of voting.

That said, I don't people for not voting for him this year due to the logjam. There are good arguments that place him 12-13 on this slate.

Hall of Merit is not a uniform voting body. All of us have our own standards and weighting mechanisms.

Just like the hof...

My point is that the hom does not, on average, care one whit about in season durability. Dick Allen, Larkin and Walker all sail in pretty easily.

Career numbers is first and foremost a priority with hom. Then peak rate stats....in season durability comes in a distant 15th or so in their discussions.(if it gets mentioned at all) Mind you... I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum in that I even ding Pedro Martinez for his durability issues. So I'm far from the most objective person on this particular issue.

Ringolsby just twitted his ballot (6 minutes ago):

"Tracy Ringolsby ?@TracyRingolsby 6min
HOF ballot complete: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Galvine, Maddux, Morris, Piazza, Trammell and Walker."

Twitted is apt for a ballot which includes Morris but neither Mussina nor Schilling.

My point is that the hom does not, on average, care one whit about in season durability. Dick Allen, Larkin and Walker all sail in pretty easily.

Not saying that WAR is the end-all of analysis by any means, but I do think it provides a good framework for thinking about things. And according to WAR, these 5/6 seasons from guys like Walker are just as valuable as full seasons for guys with worse rate stats. You seem to be strongly opposed to this idea. Why?

What is the value of playing 160 games at a worse level than the guy who plays 135 games? Are you saying that 'replacement level' is being set wrong and that true replacements will actually contributing negative value? If so, do you have any evidence for that claim?

Why is there a 'penalty' to apply beyond the penalty that already exists of not being able to accumulate any value on the DL?

The only thing questionable about Ringolsby's ballot is Morris, and we all know that 60% of the voters are going to vote for Morris whether we like it or not. Mussina and Schilling can wait another year and no one's going to be hurt by it. I think the really odd omission is F. Thomas, but I like that he got Walker another vote.

HOF ballot complete: ... Trammell and Walker."

When I see Trammell and W together, I think of sweet Lou in between the time I saw the W and saw the rest of Larry's name. Can't help it.

Chris DeLuca on why he voted for Sosa over McGwire on his ballot...

"McGwire was one-dimensional. Sosa was, at one time, a five-tool player."

The Hall of Merit balloting is rigged and determines the outcomes in advance, so I wouldn't recommend it as any sort of benchmark.

DeLuca used hashtags on Cubs and White Sox on his HoF ballot on Twitter. Sosa was an obvious homer pick. Not that I have a problem with it.

I actually liked seeing that ballot since it had the top five guys and no Morris, which from a pragmatic point of view at this point is all that really matters.

The Hall of Merit balloting is rigged and determines the outcomes in advance, so I wouldn't recommend it as any sort of benchmark.

Excuse me?

The only thing questionable about Ringolsby's ballot is Morris, and we all know that 60% of the voters are going to vote for Morris whether we like it or not. Mussina and Schilling can wait another year and no one's going to be hurt by it. I think the really odd omission is F. Thomas, but I like that he got Walker another vote.

Seeing Ringolsby's ballot here makes me wonder whether non-Thomas voters may be disproportionately from journalists who mainly covered NL teams and are more likely to be DH-skeptics. A converse question would be whether Edgar voters disproprotionately covered AL teams - once you account for his disproprotionate support among Seattle-based writers.

More generally, has anyone ever done any reserach into whether those voters who primarily covered a specific team are more likely to viote for players who spent most or all of their career in the same league as that team?

"A converse question would be whether Edgar voters disproprotionately covered AL teams - once you account for his disproprotionate support among Seattle-based writers."

Well, for one, there aren't that many "Seattle-based writers." Or even Washington-State-based. Seattle is a one newspaper town, and there might be less than ten major newspapers in the State who might employ a BBWAA member. There are several markets that might easily triple that (New York, L.A., Bay Area, Chicago, Boston,...). Second, the guy who was the Mariners beat writer until this year (Geoff Baker) famously doesn't vote for Edgar (for fairly poor reasons, to boot). The guy who replaced him isn't eligible to vote yet (though thankfully we do still have the always-thoughtful Larry Stone, even though he got moved from National Baseball writer to general sports columnist).

Still, you're probably on to something. I used to try to track pro and con Edgar votes, and might be able to figure that out (if I find the time). Leokitty's database might provide an answer as well....

Remember, Griffin used to work for the Expos - that would lead him to be a bigger Walker and Raines fan than most I suspect, plus he would've seen Walker pre-Coors and he was a solid player then (WAR over 4 for his last 3 years in Montreal, over 3 all 5 years, 5th in MVP voting in 1992).

Seeing Ringolsby's ballot here makes me wonder whether non-Thomas voters may be disproportionately from journalists who mainly covered NL teams and are more likely to be DH-skeptics. A converse question would be whether Edgar voters disproprotionately covered AL teams - once you account for his disproprotionate support among Seattle-based writers.

Sans evidence, I'd guess you're on to something real with the NL/AL split for DH candidates, but I doubt that in the post-ESPN/cable news world anyone really pushes "hometown hero" votes with any degree of significance. Granted, NL beat writers will probably vote more heavily for Andruw Jones when the time comes, and AL guys probably recognize Tim Raines a little more.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a real NL tilt to the folks who don't vote for Thomas and Edgar, much less Palimiero. As an NL guy, I never did quite grok what was so great about Harold Baines, for example.

Bob Smizik's ballot. He voted for Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, McGwire, Palmeiro, Piazza, Raines, and Thomas.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a real NL tilt to the folks who don't vote for Thomas and Edgar, much less Palimiero. As an NL guy, I never did quite grok what was so great about Harold Baines, for example.

As a NL guy who hated the DH, I'm fine with voting for Thomas, since he a) spent a big chunk of his career playing a real position and b) hated the DH, hated DH-ing, and performed much better with the bat when used as a 1B.

Remember, Griffin used to work for the Expos - that would lead him to be a bigger Walker and Raines fan than most I suspect, plus he would've seen Walker pre-Coors and he was a solid player then (WAR over 4 for his last 3 years in Montreal, over 3 all 5 years, 5th in MVP voting in 1992).

John, if Griffin had said something along those lines- that he saw Walker play both as an Expo and Rockie and felt that he was a HOFer, everyone would be fine with that. If I was a BBWAA voter, I would vote for Walker as soon as I had room on my ballot (I have Walker somewhere in the 11-15 range on this one). But to specifically point out that you have seen all the top candidates multiple times and that Walker was the best outfielder you have ever seen?

If Griffin really feels that way, then I have to question both his objectivity and judgment.

Insofar as Walker's candidacy is probably more popular with sabermetricians than with the "felt like a Hall of Famer" crowd, you'd expect him to do better in the Gizmo than he does in the real voting, as opposed to the other way around. Is the explanation that Canada is, like, unanimous for Walker? Former Expo-affiliated writers would presumably no longer be writing baseball columns for Repoz to find.

Admittedly, we're only talking about two Canadian teams, one of which has not existed for a while. Still, if it's like 100% for Walker in Canada as opposed to 10% in the US, maybe that would be a decent-size swing.

I always chuckle a little bit when somebody brings up the HoM as evidence of something. As if 20 internet dorks (and I'm an internet dork as well so it isn't meant as insult) voting on players is some sort of august body of baseball peers. Talk to them individually or in groups on the internet and you'll probably disagree with half the things they say but give them a nice shiny title like Hall of Merit and suddenly they are a credible source.

@259, TJ: Or even if he had said Walker is the best right fielder he ever saw play, I could accept that. Walker was pretty damn good out there. I might ask him if he saw Ichiro or Roberto Clemente play right field, but Walker isn't a terrible choice if limited to right field.

[Edit: UZR isn't available far enough back to be meaningful, but according to Total Zone, the top RF ever (minimum 8000 innings) are, in order, Clemente, Barfield, Kaline, Ichiro, Sosa, Walker, Aaron, J.D. Drew, Reggie Sanders, and Dwight Evans. Walker is in that conversation.]

But to specifically point out that you have seen all the top candidates multiple times and that Walker was the best outfielder you have ever seen?

Aside from young Barry Bonds, before he got old and a little slow in the field, who on the current ballot was a better OF than a healthy Larry Walker? Not Tim Raines. Walker wasn't the best OF of all time, certainly, but in his prime, when he was healthy, he was an absolute force of nature at the plate and in the field.

I'm still not convinced re Walker. It's hard to support a guy who played more than 150 games just once in his career.

Granted he missed some time those years too, but he'd look a little better if '94 and '95 were full years.

Given what we know about past voting (esp. vis-a-vis Repoz's gizmo), at what point (in terms of quantity of ballots sampled and current tracking percentage) can we safely conclude that Morris will not get in? It's hard for me to imagine someone can run 10 full percentage points below the threshold on a 12% sample and still get in, but I know there's bias built in to the sample. What say the statisticians?

@ 265, Dolf: I don't think we will ever reach that point with the Gizmo, unless his support in published ballots drops to about 60% in Gizmo-collected ballots. Morris right now is at almost 65% (64.8%, with 12.5% of the ballots accounted for). Last year, writers who didn't publish ballots supported Morris to the tune of 12.7% more than writers who did publish ballots that were collected by the Gizmo (and his final total was therefore 9% higher than what the Gizmo sample predicted). That's way too close to call...especially in a guy's 15th year, after he got almost 68% the previous year - either of which would normally be expected to produce a bump for a candidate.

Pete L and Rickey! have both made better, more realistic, and more persuasive arguments for Larry Walker than Richard Griffin did- but Griffin has a vote and they do not...

If I were a HOF voter, I can easily see myself casting a vote for Larry Walker. I wouldn't this year (due to the ballot overcrowding), but say the Gizmo is right and Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, and Biggio get in this time. I would have all four on my ballot, which opens up four spots next year. Two go to Johnson and Martinez, leaving two open. They would go to two of these three- Raines, Walker, or Smoltz.

Say next year Unit, Pedro, Piazza, and Bagwell make it in. As I would have those four on my ballot, that leaves four new open spots on my ballot. Those would go to Griffey, the loser of the Raines/Walker/Smoltz battle, along with Bonds and Clemens (would add them to my ballot as soon as there was room, after including others who are at least borderline middle tier guys). So if I didn't vote for Walker this time, I very well might next year, and surely would the following year, for both statistical reasons and those called out by Pete L and Rickey! Larry Walker was an outstanding player whose HOF resume for me sits in the "borderline middle tier for his position" category, meaning I would happily vote for him if I had room on my ballot.

Morris only had about 72% on the unannounced ballots last year which isn't nearly enough. Assuming he sees the same bump on the unannounced ballots as he's seeing on the announced ballots (+5%) that gets him to 77% on the unannounced ballots. Making a couple assumptions - our sample is representative of "announced" ballots and we end up with about 1/3 announced this year. If he gets 65% on the announced ballots he needs to get 80% on the unannounced ballots. That's a 10% increase year-on-year with more good candidates to choose from including several better pitching candidates.

Assuming he sees the same bump on the unannounced ballots as he's seeing on the announced ballots

Is anybody (Repoz?) tracking actual changes in specific voters' ballots? How many voters included in the Gizmo who are listing Morris this year failed to list Morris last year and vice versa? Because my impression from reading individual ballots (and I'm quite sure I've missed a lot of them) is that virtually nobody is adding old candidates. I wonder the same with regards to Biggio. My sense is that, for whatever reason, we're just seeing a subset of ballots here that are slightly more skewed toward Morris (than last year's final gizmo results at least) and Biggio (actually, my recollection of last year - which could well be mistaken - was that Biggio was polling over 75% for the first week or two of the Gizmo before tailing off at the end).

Is anybody starting to have hope for Piazza? If he squeaks in with biggie and the big three, I would be ecstatic

"Piazza" "Squeaks" "biggie"

Sigh, I miss Rear Admiral Piazza.

I appreciate the kind words, TJ, but praise goes to others before me for touting Walker. I could, but I haven't that much (other than posting he is a top ten - nearly top five - RF as judged by Total Zone). I completely understand that Walker's injury issues (resulting in a short career by HOF standards) and doubts voters have about the Coors effect make him a borderline candidate. And he isn't even my favorite borderline candidate. That would be Edgar...though I have to admit that even though Edgar is, IMO, the better offensive player, I'd have to vote for Walker before Edgar (a Cabrera/Trout kind of thing...). I would hope that enough voters will strategically vote for those two (and Mussina, if he shows any weakness) to make sure they stay on the ballot long enough for some of the logjam-clearing you describe to occur.

I hate to say it, because I think they are CLEAR Hall of Famers (PEDs or not) but given the backlash towards Bonds and Clemens, and the unlikelihood that they will get to 75% any time soon (maybe ever), the only thing I disagree with you about regarding how I might begin voting for some down-ballot but deserving candidates is how soon I would add Clemens & Bonds back in. I'd probably wait a bit longer than you - probably at least three years, unless they begin to look in danger of falling off the ballot. And I am less high on Biggio than most people - if he stays on, he's near the end of my ballot at best.

As you said, there is the potential for four guys to go in this year who would be on my theoretical ballot - Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, and Biggio. Of the 2015 newcomers, I too would vote for sure for RJ and Pedro, with two of those four open spots. I probably wouldn't vote for Sheffield on that ballot (combination of where he ranks on the merits, and the likelihood he will struggle because of his PED association), but hope he stays on the ballot. I have both Edgar and Walker in my Top 12 this year, and Raines is right there, too. If I want to make room for them, plus Raines and Smoltz (which I would), I don't put Bonds or Clemens on my ballot next year.

Assume that RJ and Pedro are elected in 2015, and probably Piazza too (maybe also Bagwell, possibly Raines). Three more open spots. The only 1st year guy from the 2016 class I'd vote for is Junior, which means THAT is the point I'd add Clemens and Bonds back in.

I would hope that Junior is a first-ballot inductee, and that by 2016 Bagwell is also over the top. Maybe Raines, too. Trammell is off after 2016, one way or the other. There should be 2-3 spots on my ballot opened up. The only first-timers I'd consider in 2017 are Pudge, Vlad, and Manny, and I'm not sure how I feel yet about any of them (probably wouldn't vote for Manny as a multiple violator, at least initially, even though by the numbers he is deserving). I'd probably be taking a look at McGriff and Kent at that point, and I'd probably vote for Pudge (PED suspicions notwithstanding). 2018 adds Chipper and Thome. I can't see a practical vote for McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Sheffield, or Manny until 2019 or later, and that assumes a regular progression of players being elected and moving off the ballot - which might be assuming too much. It's not that I am a PED scold, just that I don't want to waste votes on guys with no chance of being elected (because of REAL PED scolds) until after I take care of other deserving candidates who don't have that issue and might still have a real chance.

At the 71 ballot mark, Bonds, Clemens, and a Schilling have now cleared 30 votes and are likely safe for 2015, assuming the electorate remains at 600 or fewer after 569 last year.

Next up is Mussina, 7 votes away.

How many voters included in the Gizmo who are listing Morris this year failed to list Morris last year and vice versa?

I haven't paid attention to all of them, but from what I've seen, there are a couple of people who have dropped him and I can't recall anyone who has added him.

However, I'd also guess that the 15th year bump comes from people who don't currently write for baseball. It's guys who don't really pay attention who say, "Hey, why not?"

Here is a link to Wallace Matthews' ballot:


http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=new-yorkyankees&i=TWT&city=newyork&w=1dljh&id=68165&src=desktop&wjb;
Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Thomas, Walker.

He indicated he previously voted for Morris but didn't have room this year.

@ 274, Greg: That's my sense, too. I'd guess the kind of voter likely to give a "bump" is the kind of voter who doesn't publish their ballot (and is it just me, or are there fewer published ballots, published later, this year than previous years?), but I don't think he'll do quite as well as a 9% improvement over the Gizmo this year...but close enough that I wouldn't go out on a limb about predicting he is in OR out.

However, I'd also guess that the 15th year bump comes from people who don't currently write for baseball. It's guys who don't really pay attention who say, "Hey, why not?"

More to the point of the Gizmo's error bars, a voter likely to give Morris a "last year on the ballot" bump is also a voter who is unlikely to publish his ballot for internet dissection.

More to the point of the Gizmo's error bars, a voter likely to give Morris a "last year on the ballot" bump is also a voter who is unlikely to publish his ballot for internet dissection.

Correct. There's a very good chance Morris Final outperforms Morris Gizmo by more than 2013's 9 percent for this very reason.(*)

I thought he had about a 10-15% chance to get in before the vote; I'm now up to around 40%. I'd still wager no if my life depended on it, but it's getting much closer.

(*) It's ... interesting ... that for all the blabbery about Morris's vote being a product of sticking it to the nerds, he runs distinctly stronger with the great silent majority of voters who quietly publish their ballot and slither away anonymously.

Looking at it from a whip perspective Morris needs to be added to at least 40 ballots without dropping off any. Who are the 40 voters who didn't vote for Morris last year that will say "yea" this year when Maddux, Thomas, Glavine and Mussina are added?

Gizmo Snapshot at 73 votes, for BTF Archeologists:


100 - Maddux
98.6 - Glavine
86.3 - F. Thomas
82.2 - Biggio
———————————
74.0 - Piazza
64.4 - Bagwell
64.4 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
54.8 - Raines
46.6 - Bonds
45.2 - Clemens
43.8 - Schilling
34.2 - Mussina
23.3 - L. Smith
23.3 - Trammell
16.4 - McGriff
15.1 - E. Martinez
12.3 - Kent
12.3 - L. Walker
11.0 - McGwire
8.2 - R. Palmeiro
6.8 - S. Sosa
———————————
2.7 - Mattingly
1.4 - P. Rose (Write-In)

I thought he had about a 10-15% chance to get in before the vote; I'm now up to around 40%. I'd still wager no if my life depended on it, but it's getting much closer.

Has he added a single vote from last year's no voters? Until he starts adding them, rather than losing support, I'm sticking with the claim I've been making for five years around here - he ain't making it.

It's ... interesting ... that for all the blabbery about Morris's vote being a product of sticking it to the nerds

.

Well, that's been a narrative in a fruitless search of some supporting evidence.

Is anybody starting to have hope for Piazza? If he squeaks in with biggie and the big three, I would be ecstatic

Hang in there, GregD- Piazza's crawling even closer...

Looking at it from a whip perspective Morris needs to be added to at least 40 ballots without dropping off any. Who are the 40 voters who didn't vote for Morris last year that will say "yea" this year when Maddux, Thomas, Glavine and Mussina are added?

And I think he's already dropped off three.

Gordon Edes: Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Morris, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Thomas

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/33859/my-hall-ballot-the-big-schill-and-9-others

He also said he wanted to vote for Biggio and Martinez if he had room.

@284 - You left out Glavine, whom he also voted for, rounding out his full ballot.

(*) It's ... interesting ... that for all the blabbery about Morris's vote being a product of sticking it to the nerds, he runs distinctly stronger with the great silent majority of voters who quietly publish their ballot and slither away anonymously.

Well, that's been a narrative in a fruitless search of some supporting evidence.

How many of the silent majority of voters currently have a publishing outlet? It would be pretty hard to locate supporting OR rebutting evidence for those voters whose most recent column was in 2004 or 1987.

Is anybody starting to have hope for Piazza? If he squeaks in with biggie and the big three, I would be ecstatic

I was thinking this with Piazza at 71%, and now he's even higher. Still a good showing even if he doesn't make it, but I think after a weekend of zero a weekend of four would be amazing. I'd probably go - for the first time!

How many of the silent majority of voters currently have a publishing outlet? It would be pretty hard to locate supporting OR rebutting evidence for those voters whose most recent column was in 2004 or 1987.

The idea that the Morris vote has been about sticking it to the nerds just doesn't stand up to a closer look at his ballot history. He advanced in Bert's wake. He made his biggest gains when there were no first-ballots types and after Bert finally got enshrined. Most important, he gained steadily from his OK but not typical Cooperstown starting point because of the total absence of (perceived) Hall-worthy pitchers hitting the ballot for a dozen years. Aside from Murray's spite-based support, a bitterness that doesn't count just the stathead brigade but the world in general, it's a nice little tale, but it doesn't ring true.

What the silent majority is thinking is outside my jurisdiction, and why I didn't address that part of SBB's remark.

[285] Oops. I should have used copy and paste and just reformatted.

Looking through Leokitty's database (which isn't quite as complete as Repoz's, but is better preserved by name for posterity), over the last three votes, Morris lost votes this year from Dunn, Grant, and Lennon, and lost Gregor and Mathews (who voted for him in 2012) last year. It appears he picked up Verducci in 2013, and this year has picked up Edes, Klein, Rozner, and possibly McGrath and Loverro (their previous ballots were recorded as partials, but didn't include him). It looks like his voting population is pretty steady/solid, and he MAY be picking up a few net votes based on the early returns. Not sure if he can pick up a net 30-40, but maybe 15-25? Might be just short. Wouldn't surprise me if he did make it, though.

I wonder what effect the Gizmo may have on voters who wait until the last minute to fill out their ballot? Maybe Aaron few who will add Morris because he is sitting mid to upper 60s? Strategic votes for the Walkers of the world when they dip sub-8%? That sort of thing?

and this year has picked up Edes, Klein, Rozner, and possibly McGrath and Loverro

No on Loverro. He's listed as a 2013 Jack voter on the BBWAA's website. So he's at best +1 (McGrath's vote isn't listed).

Fair enough. Like I said, those two were listed as partials, and to be honest, tired old eyes could have missed a few either way. I did want to emphasize that he *is* picking some up even as he is clearly losing some. If he's +1 after ~13% of the ballots are counted (less than that in Leokitty's database - it's at 52 ballots right now), and anticipating Morris doing better with the unpublished crowd, I can see a +15, maybe +20. Probably not enough to get in, but almost certainly enough that the VC will put him in eventually.

It's exciting - especially after last year - to think we might have 4-6 inductees this year!

"How many of the silent majority of voters currently have a publishing outlet?"

There' s always Twitter. @RRepoz, @leokitty and @icho1977 do a pretty good job of running those down.

BUMP...new update.

I must say I am surprised (in a good way) at the results so far. I thought it was possible another shutout or just Maddux but right now we have 2 over 95% (Maddux/Glavine) thus pretty much locks baring a major drop by non-reporting voters. Thomas and Biggio both over 80% is a big surprise as I expected them to be fighting the 75% mark - if they stay over 80% on the gizmo I'd think they get in...what is the record for highest Gizmo % without making it?

I did not expect to see Piazza over 70% this late either. Good to see Raines still could be over 50% this year (really want him in as the 3rd Expo in the HOF). Mussina being over 30% is a big shock as I thought he had a shot at falling off the ballot due to the blah post-season record (no WS wins) and the single 20 win season without 300 overall wins. Others I feared could be forgotten (McGriff, Kent, Walker) are doing OK (all in the 10's). Surprised that McGwire and Palmeiro and Sosa are all still over 5% as I figured at least one or two would be off the ballot due to the crowding (and still could be, they are hardly safe).

Wonder who will get the 'huh?' vote this year. The no votes yet crew is Kenny Rogers, Luis Gonzalez, Moises Alou, Ray Durham, Hideo Nomo, Richie Sexson, Paul Lo Duca, Armando Benitez, Mike Timlin, Sean Casey, Jacque Jones, Eric Gagne, J.T. Snow and Todd Jones. In a normal (under 10 solid HOF'ers) year we'd see votes sprinkled in there but this year? Remember we have 11 guys with 70+ WAR on the ballot, 15 over 60 and 19 before we reach the first of the no vote crew. That is a lot of talent to leave off the ballot to give a 'hey, I remember you' vote. I expect Nomo to get a few (first Japanese player to make an impact in MLB), maybe a guy who was well liked (Timlin always seemed that type) will sneak a vote too but it won't be easy. Probably an anti-steroid voter who is extreme and who just loved one of those guys, or a protest voter who goes all-PED on his ballot (thus giving Gagne a vote). I don't count the Pete Rose as a 'huh?' vote since we know some idiot will vote for him every year (more a 'duh...what do you mean he wouldn't be eligible even if he wasn't banned' vote).

The no votes yet crew is Kenny Rogers, Luis Gonzalez, Moises Alou, Ray Durham, Hideo Nomo, Richie Sexson, Paul Lo Duca, Armando Benitez, Mike Timlin, Sean Casey, Jacque Jones, Eric Gagne, J.T. Snow and Todd Jones. [...] maybe a guy who was well liked

Sean Casey is your clubhouse leader there.

A little heavy on first baseman and in need of a shortstop but that's a pretty good start.

You'd look like an utter and complete fool voting for Mike Timlin this year. As mentioned, Nomo could get some "pioneer" votes, but I see the rest of that crew combining for vanishingly close to zero.

BTW, ballots with 8 players checked or fewer: Caputo (8), Chass (3, might be partial, but still likely under 5-6 at most), DeLuca (8), Goddard (8), Gosselin (8), Gregor (8), Lariviere (8), Dan McGrath (8), Shaughnessy (5), Vene (4)

Those with 9: McCaffery, Simmons, Parker.

I can't imagine voting for less than 10 on this ballot with even a modicum of research. If you vote for less than 9, you likely are such a Small Hall advocate that your standards bear NO resemblance to who is actually in the Hall - even if you exclude VC choices.

Missing some.....

253. Adam S Posted: December 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM (#4626441)

Seeing Ringolsby's ballot here makes me wonder whether non-Thomas voters may be disproportionately from journalists who mainly covered NL teams and are more likely to be DH-skeptics. A converse question would be whether Edgar voters disproprotionately covered AL teams - once you account for his disproprotionate support among Seattle-based writers.

More generally, has anyone ever done any reserach into whether those voters who primarily covered a specific team are more likely to viote for players who spent most or all of their career in the same league as that team?

FYI, spent 16 years covering teams in AL and have no problem with DH. Actually feel it adds a subtle strategy, particularly in lineup structure. But also had more than 10 I felt were legit candidates and had to figure a cutdown. Have voted in past for several left off this year to fit Glavine and Maddux.