Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

The 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

The 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!

Updated: Jan 6:  1:45 ~ 205 Full Ballots ~ (35.9% of vote ~ based on last year) ~ As usual…BBWAA ballot digging is welcome!

98.5 - R. Johnson
97.6 - P. Martinez
86.3 - Smoltz
84.9 - Biggio
76.1 - Piazza
————————————
63.4 - Raines
62.4 - Bagwell
51.2 - Schilling
43.9 - Bonds
43.4 - Clemens
35.1 - Mussina
31.2 - E. Martinez
24.4 - Trammell
21.0 - Lee Smith
15.6 - McGriff
14.1 - Kent
  9.8 - Sheffield
  7.8 - L. Walker
  5.9 - McGwire
  5.4 - Mattingly
————————————-
  4.9 - Sosa
  2.0 - Garciaparra
  1.5 - Delgado
  1.0 - Pete Rose (Write-In)
  0.5 - Percival
 

Big thanks to Ryan Thibs, Ilychs Morales & Butch for all their help! And check here for Thibs’ excellent HoF Ballot spreadsheet.

Took their ballot and went home - Buster Olney and Lynn Henning.

EDIT: Originally posted at 12/17/14 7:31 PM. Date updated to make it easier for visitors to find. Jim.

Repoz Posted: January 06, 2015 at 09:03 AM | 1534 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 16 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. Howie Menckel Posted: December 19, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4865590)

"B. An elector will vote for no more than ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election. Write-in votes are not permitted."

That's the instruction. It doesn't specify "the 10 best" - I'm surprised, but it doesn't.
   102. Baldrick Posted: December 19, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4865597)
If you think 11+ people are HOF worthy, then you have to apply some kind of theory to a ballot that doesn't let you go beyond 10. Voting the best 10 is a good theory, but it's still a theory. It's not inherently invalid to pick one group of 10 from your pool of 13 (say) worthy players over a different group of 10. And if you knew that one of your 13 was going to come up 1 vote short without you, I don't think it would be invalid (at all) to ballot that player in place of someone you happened to know was going to stay eligible but wouldn't be elected. The only people who don't have a theory are the people who see 10 or fewer worthy players.

Agreed.

I am getting increasingly irritated with the people around here asserting that anyone who doesn't choose the particular mechanism for sorting among 10+ good candidates is voting incorrectly or stupidly. If you select 10 guys, and those 10 guys are all cromulent HOFers, as far as I'm concerned you did a perfectly fine job. I have my own preferred choice (just pick the 10 best players), but I have no problem with others who want to value things differently.

Particularly since the effects of this particular ballot on eventual election are not crystal clear. Trammell isn't getting elected by the BBWAA, but his chances of eventual inclusion via the VC or something may well be higher if he's able to sustain his numbers throughout his career on the ballot. Bonds and Clemens aren't getting elected by the BBWAA either, but if their totals decline significantly, it's quite possible people will interpret that as a shifting sentiment against them, which could delay their eventual induction by quite a bit. Who knows? But if you feel confident in your ability to game this out, go right ahead.
   103. Rob_Wood Posted: December 19, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4865639)
Yes, I would agree. With the provisos that your strategic ballot should (1) only include players you think are Hall of Fame worthy, and (2) increase the overall likelihood of the eventual election of the players you deem most worthy in decreasing order. That is, you cannot include your 12th most worthy player if it decreases the chance that any of your most 11 deserving players eventually make the Hall of Fame.
   104. Moeball Posted: December 19, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4865641)
According to the Green Diamond people (link referenced in #67), Lee Smith was 8 times the pitcher that Mike Mussina was.

Wow...just wow.

While we here at BBTF are debating the best strategy for voting - should you pick the 10 best players as you see it, or should you pick the 10 most likely to get elected? We assume when we see certain ballots that some writer was voting "strategically" because he's not voting for players who were clearly better than the ones he's voting for. We're kind of missing a point, I think - some writers really honestly believe that Lee Smith was an exponentially better pitcher than Mike Mussina was. Some writers really honestly believe that Barry Bonds without steroids would have finished with a .240 career batting average and 282 career HRs with 936 RBI. You have to account for the possibility that sometimes there's no strategy to how a writer votes - he's voting for the players he really feels were the most deserving. He just really believes that Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell weren't that great or deserving of election. And Mike Piazza was the worst defensive catcher ever, whose inability to throw runners out at second had absolutely nothing to do with pitchers who were poor at holding runners on base. And if Alan Trammell was that great he'd already be in by now, wouldn't he?
   105. gabrielthursday Posted: December 19, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4865656)
Trammell, Walker, and Edgar are all worthy players IMO, but they're not getting in via the BBWAA any more than Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, and Sosa are. They've been on the ballot awhile and have gained pretty much zero momentum. If we're being realistically strategic and maximizing the chances that as many worthy players get in as possible, I'd definitely remove two of them in favor of Schilling and Moose, who need to start building as much momentum as they can ASAP to have a shot.
I think this is a respectable viewpoint, but we should recognise that BBWAA results have an influence on the likelihood of the Veteran's Committee eventually electing players. A surge in his final two years of eligibility might well give Trammell a bit more credibility with the VC - and even (I hope) give Whitaker a bit of a boost by association. With Walker and Edgar Martinez, I think the concern is firstly, to make sure they stay on the ballot througout, and secondly to position them for decent showings towards the end of their eligibility to set them up well for the VC. A similar argument could be made for McGwire and Sosa. Arguably, Schilling and Moose have enough current support and time on the ballot that they don't need the support right now, and that once the log jam thins out a little, they will be able to move fairly quickly; however, ymmv.
   106. toratoratora Posted: December 19, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4865665)
Moose does have one great hook as far as narrative-he's the only HoF level pitcher I can think of who won twenty games for the first time, then called it a career
   107. TJ Posted: December 19, 2014 at 05:58 PM (#4865666)
And then there's this...Hal McCoy admitted he might be the only BBWAA member to vote for Aaron Boone, who McCoy credited with helping to convince him to continue his writing career several years ago despite problems with his vision.

Hall of Famer or not? Writers debate at Green Diamond


Why did I hit that link and read that? Now I have a splitting headache due to comments like Paul Daugherty's punishing players in his own small way (didn't know the bylaws of the HOF vote allowed for corporal punishment) and the possibility of Aaron Boone getting a vote...
   108. TJ Posted: December 19, 2014 at 06:34 PM (#4865681)
Well, if McCoy does vote for Boone, maybe that will inspire the Pre-Integration VC to vote for Kid Gleason since he helped save people from a fire, bringing hope to Kid Gleason fans everywhere...
   109. Booey Posted: December 19, 2014 at 06:47 PM (#4865693)
#104 - While I agree that we can't discount simple stupidity to explain a lot of silly looking ballots, I think a sizable percentage of voters also simply vote for the players they WANT to make the HOF the most rather than the ones that are actually the most deserving. Hence the Jack Morris/Don Mattingly type votes.

I have a hard time believing up to 2/3 of the voters really thought Morris was HOF worthy. They just wanted him to be so they tried to make it happen.
   110. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 19, 2014 at 07:02 PM (#4865701)
I have a hard time believing up to 2/3 of the voters really thought Morris was HOF worthy. They just wanted him to be so they tried to make it happen.


I don't know. That sounds like trying to draw distinctions between things that aren't different or trying to be generous to people in a way that ends up actually being less generous. It's one thing to toss a "he was a nice guy" vote to a guy that you know has absolutely, positively, zero chance of being elected (e.g., Aaron Boone) and quite another to vote for a guy who's thisclose to actually being elected. At that point, any vote for a guy that you don't actually think "was HOF worthy" is basically a F*** YOU to the Hall of Fame and/or the voting process. Sometimes a whole lot of people are just wrong about something, or different people view subjective things differently and end up with different opinions from other people. If people voted for Jack Morris for the Hall of Fame because they "wanted him to be" in the Hall of Fame, then they thought he "was HOF worthy" by definition.
   111. Booey Posted: December 19, 2014 at 08:12 PM (#4865723)
At that point, any vote for a guy that you don't actually think "was HOF worthy" is basically a F*** YOU to the Hall of Fame and/or the voting process.


You don't think voters submit F*** YOU ballots? I totally think some do. Isn't that pretty much what blank ballots or Jack Morris and no
one else type ballots are?
   112. Booey Posted: December 19, 2014 at 08:20 PM (#4865727)
If people voted for Jack Morris for the Hall of Fame because they "wanted him to be" in the Hall of Fame, then they thought he "was HOF worthy" by definition.


Not necessarily. There's been plenty of players I liked and wanted to be HOFers but that I wouldn't actually vote for cuz I don't really think they're worthy. Juan Gone, Belle, Nomar, etc.
   113. Howie Menckel Posted: December 19, 2014 at 08:45 PM (#4865730)

"Aaron Boone was an occasionally decent player who showed kindness to McCoy. This is the one and only year that he'll be on the ballot, because he will likely only receive the one vote. McCoy isn't pushing Boone's candidacy, he's only repaying a kindness in a small but personally meaningful way."

All voters are representing the millions of baseball fans who are interested in this process. The voters are supposed to use the expertise they have from covering the sport - for decades, in his case - and make an honest effort to produce the best possible ballot, choosing only from "eligible candidates deemed worthy of election."

That's the ballot you get. It's a privilege. If you choose to participate, then those are your guidelines.

Deliberately ignoring the guidelines doesn't make McCoy a bad person, but it makes him a lousy voter. A heartfelt essay on Boone (which I assume he's written) is a nice and very public and meaningful way to express thanks. That column is his and his employer's, if he still has one. The vote in the Hall of Fame selections is not simply his. He's a proxy for fans.



   114. Mark Armour Posted: December 19, 2014 at 09:07 PM (#4865734)
I am beginning to think that there is a true consensus building that Piazza, Bagwell and Biggio should be in the HOF now. This seems obvious to me, and most of you, but the early showing suggests that, despite the overload of great candidates, that those three guys in particular should get votes. This does not mean that they will make it this year, but I am impressed by the showing.

I can see the case that Mussina, Raines and Schilling (for example) are as worthy as those three guys. The way to remove the backlog is if a consensus forms that certain guys should get votes NOW and others can get votes LATER. If this is happening, I am optimistic for not just those three but for next year as well.
   115. Booey Posted: December 19, 2014 at 09:28 PM (#4865735)
#113 - Agree WRT the Aaron Boone vote. I don't mind a courtesy vote if there's less than 10 worthy players on the ballot; that's not hurting anyone. But to waste a spot on this ballot when there already aren't enough to go around directly hurts a more deserving players chances, and that bothers me.
   116. Moeball Posted: December 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM (#4865741)
I have a hard time believing up to 2/3 of the voters really thought Morris was HOF worthy. They just wanted him to be so they tried to make it happen.


Hey, whatever helps you sleep better at night. If believing the writers are smarter than they really are helps, go for it!

I'm so messed up I firmly believe that close to half of the writers still don't believe Bert Blyleven was anywhere close to being HOF-worthy, to this day. Even though they voted for him. But he was building momentum and as Rich Lederer kept pointing out, Blyleven wasn't just qualified, but ridiculously overqualified if you analyze the stats properly. He should have gone in on the FIRST ballot, not the 14th or 15th. So it got to a point that if you didn't vote for Blyleven and people found out about it, you were going to get labeled a dinosaur with his giant head firmly planted up his giant a**. So people felt they had to jump on the bandwagon.

I really think that's how the process works sometimes. It's a sad indictment of the writing profession, but I think that's how bad it really is.
   117. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 19, 2014 at 11:43 PM (#4865756)
5 guys above the line right now! Yay!!!

But I know how this game plays out. Ugh.

#Don'tGetYourHopesUpKid
   118. Booey Posted: December 19, 2014 at 11:46 PM (#4865758)
5 guys above the line right now! Yay!!!


Six!!!

But yeah, I'm not holding my breath.
   119. ajnrules Posted: December 19, 2014 at 11:48 PM (#4865759)
Six with Bagwell. But if he and Piazza end up getting over 65% of the vote this year there's a good chance they may join Griffey next year

Edit: Coke to Booey
   120. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 20, 2014 at 12:03 AM (#4865761)
So far, Piazza's up 15% on last year's Gizmo final, and 20% over his actual result. That's with 29 ballots tallied vs. 209 vs. 571.

Bagwell's up 20% on the Gizmo and 22% on the full result.
Biggio's up 7% and 11%.
Raines is up 10% and 19%.
The all but conjoined Bonds and Clemens are plus 10% and 16%.
Schilling up 14% and 22%, Mussina up 8% and 14%.
Meanwhile, Lee Smith is 10% behind on the Gizmo, and minus-16% from last year's results.

These numbers will not stand.
   121. Repoz Posted: December 20, 2014 at 12:46 AM (#4865766)
These numbers will not stand.

The anti-sabermetric, anti-steroid, pro-Lee Smith gang are still trying to generate enough fluid to seal their return envelopes closed. Give 'em time.
   122. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 20, 2014 at 12:46 AM (#4865767)
Combining with Ryan Thibs' numbers, through 27 public votes:

Biggio has lost two 2014 voters but picked up two non-voters - 0 gain*
Bagwell has lost three and gained one: -2
Piazza has gained three and lost one: +2
Raines has gained five and lost two: +3

None of these guys include the non-voters, but they're not nearly as costly as a yes voter turned no.

   123. LargeBill Posted: December 20, 2014 at 12:48 AM (#4865768)
This is the point where we need someone who paid attention (and remembers what they paid attention to) in Statistics 101 to weigh in on likelyhood of player with X % staying above 75% in final tally. Obviously, with only 5.3% of last years ballots in nothing can be taken as guaranteed. However, there is a point at which Johnson and Pedro being close to 100% can be taken to the bank. Similarly, there is a point where Smoltz and Biggio being north of 85% would be a lock IF we had ____% of total ballots. If Piazza stays over 80% after we have tabulated 120+ ballots do we start getting confident in his chance of election? Last year it seemed like 100 ballots was the point where we stopped seeing much movement of the percentages. Or am I misremembering?
   124. Gamingboy Posted: December 20, 2014 at 12:49 AM (#4865769)
Ah, the gizmo...
   125. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 20, 2014 at 01:15 AM (#4865772)
[123] If we had reason to believe it was a random sample, yeah, but this is very much not a random sample. For returners, the best we can probably do is look at how players are doing with the same voters as last year. I remember last year that Bonds and Clemens had over 50% at this stage. Raines is another who tends to start well in the gizmo, fade a bit late and come out well behind where he polls.
   126. Walt Davis Posted: December 20, 2014 at 01:19 AM (#4865773)
Statistically ... the best way to do it is the way that SoSH is doing it (essentially). This year's sample is biased in a different way than last year's sample was through Xmas day. To this stage, no matter his percentage, Biggio hasn't gained a single vote, Bagwell has apparently lost two. So far it appears they have made no progress.

Now maybe we have fewer ballots so far than we had at this point last year and maybe that trend will continue such that Biggio gets over with the same number of votes. I don't know if the first bit is true and I wouldn't expect the second bit to be true even if the first bit was.

But, sure, a true 75% probability in 30 independent trials has a 95% confidence interval of about +/- 4.5 votes under the normal approximating. So a true 75% player would have a 95% CI of about 18 to 27 votes -- 60% to 90% -- after 30 random draws. (Normal approx which should be decent for n=30 I'd guess.)

But, to reiterate, it's not a random (or at least not representative) sample as apparently 26 of these 30 voters went for Biggio last year too. (Oops, Ryan's got 27 votes, Repoz has 30 but you get the point)
   127. Random Transaction Generator Posted: December 20, 2014 at 01:20 AM (#4865775)
If Piazza stays over 80% after we have tabulated 120+ ballots do we start getting confident in his chance of election? Last year it seemed like 100 ballots was the point where we stopped seeing much movement of the percentages. Or am I misremembering?


The problem with that logic is assuming that the random sampling of ballots we are getting now (published) is a representation of the ones we don't see (unpublished).
I'm pretty sure someone showed that the votes we never see (unpublished) are drastically different than the ones we do see.
For example, there was a much smaller percentage of people who voted for Glavine/Maddux in the unpublished in 2013 than in the published.

For guys like Johnson and Martinez, I don't think it will matter much.
But for guys on the cut-off line (Piazza, Bagwell, Biggio), it seems to matter much more.
   128. Scott Ross Posted: December 20, 2014 at 09:50 AM (#4865807)
I stupidly got duped by Repoz's Facebook feed into reading the Green Diamond piece and man alive... That board tabulating their voting results just hurts my heart. How does Pedro not even break 70%?

And I find McCoy's declaration that he never reconsiders a guy to be way more troubling than his throwaway vote for Boone.
   129. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 20, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4865828)
No. I have no problem with Bonds and Clemens waiting to go in, because of their cheating. I think they belong eventually, but having to wait 8 or 9 years is fine by me. Since they have no chance anyway right now, I'd vote for 10 guys with a chance.


Leaving off worthy candidates because "they have no chance anyway right now" is no more or less valid than leaving off worthy candidates because they're sailing in this year with or without my vote. So I'm leaving off Pedro and Unit to vote for ten guys who need the help.
   130. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 20, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4865885)
Has anyone ever seen a voter talk about their own rankings of candidates relative to history? As in, "I rank Biggio 16th among all second basemen in history." Or "I rank Bagwell 109th among all players in history."

I ask this because it seems like such an obvious thing for a voter to do, yet I've never heard about any voters doing so. (Except maybe JoePoz.) Even if their rankings were incredibly subjective, at least they'd have a ranking to reference!

Naturally this is colored by my experience in the HOM, but it still seems intuitive.
   131. Howie Menckel Posted: December 20, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4865900)

"And I find McCoy's declaration that he never reconsiders a guy"

another public declaration of ignorance, yeah.
it's weird how the people who are so certain of their opinions tend to be the dumbest ones, which sucks for them.
   132. Walt Davis Posted: December 20, 2014 at 02:34 PM (#4865925)
#130: Krieger was doing this using JAWS numbers this year and his own WAR/year numbers. He dropped Biggio apparently because he doesn't rank that well by JAWS and even worse by WAR/year (something like 22nd) among 2B.

We seem to forget this around here occasionally. Biggio is no better than Sandberg, Larkin or Alomar and those guys had to wait a bit. I expected 3000 hits to push Biggio over the line on his first ballot but it didn't happen. One could even argue that the BBWAA has been perfectly consistent in treating Biggio in a manner similar to Sandberg/Larkin. And "we" should be happy that they have not been driven by 3000 hits.
   133. Baldrick Posted: December 20, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4865944)
As someone who would not vote for Biggio with my theoretical ballot, I have a hard time getting worked up about his possible non-inclusion. Yes, it will make things harder for others if he's sucking up 7% of the votes for another year or two, but that's a systemic problem with the balloting system. I'm certainly not going to blame individual voters if they fill up their ballot with ten guys they think are better candidates.
   134. bigglou115 is not an Illuminati agent Posted: December 20, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4865950)
@132. I think Biggio is an interesting case because of how his support has swung. I remember Biggio's first year as more of a "Well he's got 3000 hits and he's deserving, So while he's not a blow away candidate it's fine that he'll go in." Then when he didn't, and for some stupid reasons, that immediately switched to "Wjy isn't Biggio in?"
   135. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 20, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4865975)

@132. I think Biggio is an interesting case because of how his support has swung. I remember Biggio's first year as more of a "Well he's got 3000 hits and he's deserving, So while he's not a blow away candidate it's fine that he'll go in." Then when he didn't, and for some stupid reasons, that immediately switched to "Wjy isn't Biggio in?"


Without 3,000 hits, Biggio was going to have a really difficult time getting in.* Alomar seemed to be the bigger star, and Larkin/Sandberg had the MVPs. I think Biggio would have taken longer to get in than all of them.

The 3,000 hits gave his candidacy a nice hook, but as I've long said, there are no automatic numbers. They can obviously help grease the skids for the deserving, but they've never been a rubber stamp for election.

Given the strength of the ballot he came in on (and the ones that followed), I thought it could take 2 or 3 years for Biggio to get in. And that's pretty much what happened. He'll go in this year.

* If no one gave a damn about steroids, he wouldn't have gone in on the first ballot in 2013, ranking behind Roger, Barry and Sammy, and possible Piazza. He'd basically be in the exact same position he's in now.




   136. Win Big Stein's Money Posted: December 20, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4865999)
Updated 5:00


What does this mean? Why not just give a date?
   137. dr. scott Posted: December 20, 2014 at 05:36 PM (#4866010)
82: Thanks for the link to the Wash post article about the Glavine/Musina book. I will have to look for it now. I love this bit about glavine having to change his approach after questech.

In fact, Tom willingly admitted that his career changed when Questech came into existence and umpires began getting graded on their calls. For a long time, what you're talking about was known in baseball as the Glavine-Maddux strike. It was sort of like the Ted Williams ball -- the theory that if Williams took a pitch, because his eye was so good, it had to be a ball. With Glavine and Maddux, because their control was so good, the theory was that if they threw a pitch to a spot, it must be a strike. In large part7, because of Questech, Glavine had to reinvent himself in 2005 by learning to pitch inside. Since then, his record is 44-23. Pretty good adjustment I would say.


This also makes me wonder how good Javy Lopez and Eddie Perez were at pitch framing.
   138. Lassus Posted: December 20, 2014 at 07:01 PM (#4866031)
I already admitted I don't think Piazza is making it this year, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to be enraged by that result.
   139. Jack Sommers Posted: December 20, 2014 at 08:21 PM (#4866048)
Combined with the steroids issues clouding the voting, the fact that the most qualified player, and 5th greatest pitcher since the DH ERA began in 1973, over 40 years ago, has no chance of getting elected this year, and maybe not within the next 7, I am fast thinking this HOF thing is just a waste of time. If after all this time the voters can't spot the difference between park and league adjust ERA and raw ERA, then we are just wasting our time here. I mean it's the 3.46 ERA right ? Thats got to be whats bothering them the most, right ?

Player             WAA/pitch From   To    G     IP  ERA  FIP ERAOPS+
Roger Clemens           94.5 1984 2007  709 4916.2 3.12 3.09  143   68
Randy Johnson           68.1 1988 2009  618 4135.1 3.29 3.19  135   71
Greg Maddux             64.9 1986 2008  744 5008.1 3.16 3.26  132   75
Pedro Martinez          61.3 1992 2009  476 2827.1 2.93 2.91  154   61
Curt Schilling          54.1 1988 2007  569 3261.0 3.46 3.23  127   77
Mike Mussina            48.6 1991 2008  537 3562.2 3.68 3.57  123   81
Roy Halladay            40.7 1998 2013  416 2749.1 3.38 3.39  131   76
Kevin Brown             40.5 1986 2005  486 3256.1 3.28 3.33  127   79
Tom Glavine             39.1 1987 2008  682 4413.1 3.54 3.95  118   88
John Smoltz             38.0 1988 2009  723 3473.0 3.33 3.24  125   76
Bret Saberhagen         36.8 1984 2001  399 2562.2 3.34 3.27  126   81
Rick Reuschel           36.2 1973 1991  536 3419.1 3.39 3.27  113   93
David Cone              35.6 1986 2003  450 2898.2 3.46 3.57  121   82
Mariano Rivera          32.7 1995 2013 1115 1283.2 2.21 2.76  205   46
Johan Santana           32.3 2000 2012  360 2025.2 3.20 3.44  136   74
Roy Oswalt              32.2 2001 2013  365 2245.1 3.36 3.37  127   85
Dave Stieb              31.1 1979 1998  443 2895.1 3.44 3.82  122   81
Tim Hudson              31.1 1999 2014  458 3003.0 3.45 3.75  122   82
Kevin Appier            30.7 1989 2004  414 2595.1 3.74 3.81  121   83
Dennis Eckersley        30.6 1975 1998 1071 3285.2 3.50 3.40  116   84
Andy Pettitte           30.2 1995 2013  531 3316.0 3.85 3.74  117   88
Mark Buehrle            29.3 2000 2014  486 3084.2 3.81 4.10  117   92
Clayton Kershaw         28.8 2008 2014  211 1378.1 2.48 2.73  151   65
Chuck Finley            28.6 1986 2002  524 3197.1 3.85 3.91  115   91
CC Sabathia             27.3 2001 2014  423 2821.1 3.63 3.56  120   83
Ron Guidry              26.3 1975 1988  368 2392.0 3.29 3.27  119   85
Jimmy Key               26.2 1984 1998  470 2591.2 3.51 3.80  122   86
Cole Hamels             26.2 2006 2014  275 1801.1 3.27 3.48  125   84
Felix Hernandez         26.0 2005 2014  303 2060.2 3.07 3.15  130   79
Orel Hershiser          25.1 1983 2000  510 3130.1 3.48 3.69  112   89
Dwight Gooden           24.0 1984 2000  430 2800.2 3.51 3.33  111   86
Cliff Lee               23.9 2002 2014  328 2156.2 3.52 3.45  118   87
Mark Langston           23.6 1984 1999  457 2962.2 3.97 3.93  107   93
Justin Verlander        23.1 2005 2014  298 1978.0 3.53 3.43  122   78
Brandon Webb            23.0 2003 2009  199 1319.2 3.27 3.50  142   72
Al Leiter               22.9 1987 2005  419 2391.0 3.80 4.10  112   89
Carlos Zambrano         22.9 2001 2012  354 1959.0 3.66 4.01  120   82
Zack Greinke            22.5 2004 2014  332 1872.0 3.55 3.38  117   90
Frank Viola             22.4 1982 1996  421 2836.1 3.73 3.81  112   93
Brad Radke              22.1 1995 2006  378 2451.0 4.22 4.24  113   92
David Wells             21.9 1987 2007  660 3439.0 4.13 3.99  108   93
Steve Rogers            21.4 1973 1985  399 2837.2 3.17 3.20  116   85
Jered Weaver            20.5 2006 2014  265 1688.0 3.28 3.74  124   82
Adam Wainwright         20.4 2005 2014  280 1541.2 3.01 3.13  132   79 


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/21/2014.
   140. Repoz Posted: December 20, 2014 at 08:25 PM (#4866050)
(cues "Empty Pages") The Marty Noble HOF Ballot (3): P. Martinez, R. Johnson and Smoltz.

Thoughts on the Hall of Fame ballot
   141. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 20, 2014 at 08:47 PM (#4866058)
Marty Noble explains his vote:
"The exercise tends to enhance the blood flow to the remaining gray matter and to introduce passion into thought processes that ideally occur without bias. The ballot is my personal brain sharpener.

...Actually, the ballot for the Class of 2015 presented few challenges for a brain that controls these slowing keyboard instruments... No need to look up the record of performance for Pedro, Big Unit and the third piece of the Braves' triumvirate of the 1990s. I may be unable to recite the specific numbers the three of them piled up -- I'm not playing Jeopardy! -- but anyone who's been around the game for 30 or 40 years knows the broad strokes of this troika. And those strokes form the most treasured monogram in North American sports: HOF. Specifically the Hall that salutes the best of baseball.

...Another year will pass before I need to study Kent, who I sense is HOF-worthy, and Mike Mussina, who is ... well, I'm not sure. I withheld my vote from Kent this year only because I don't care to see the Cooperstown stage sag under too much weight come July 26. Three's company, four's a crowd.

Kent can be a classmate of Junior Griffey in summer 2016. Nothing wrong with waiting. Ralph Kiner was as much a Hall of Famer as Lou Gehrig the moment he was elected -- in his 15th and final year of eligibility on the writers ballot.

More than three or four inductees is unnecessary, and 10 would be folly. Folks who feel obligated to check to the max have the right, but they've probably got it wrong. No ballot has that much. None has had that many. And to those who favor increasing the number of checks permitted ... oh, please! Have you ever heard of less is more?"



Ballot grade of A-. Small deduction for citing Bob Lemon and Catfish Hunter as past "automatics," but dissing Tony Perez by omission.
   142. JJ1986 Posted: December 20, 2014 at 08:51 PM (#4866061)
So it sounds like he's one person who's definitely voting for Smoltz because of Maddux and Glavine.
   143. Al "Battery" Kaline Posted: December 20, 2014 at 09:22 PM (#4866063)
Do not feed the Marty.

Re: why not Schilling, WAA/pitch is just one metric, and one that the vast majority of voters (even the sabermetric-friendly ones) have no clue on.

There was one voter, I think it may have been Tim Kawakami, who gave an elegant two-word answer as to why Schilling has an uphill climb: "Feelings matter." My guess is, Schill may have wrong-rubbed a large portion of voters, to the point where they don't WANT to take the time to check even his basic stats, and find the 3,116 strikeouts (a stat which rarely, if ever, gets mentioned) and other goodies. When you have a great but not inner-circle resume like Schilling's, with no Cy Youngs and so forth, checking those stats could easily be the difference between a yes and a no.

I noticed at MLB.com (even if you ignore the small-hall folks) support for Schilling is exceptionally low. Richard Justice is fighting hard for him, but it seems like his side is vastly outnumbered.
   144. Jack Sommers Posted: December 20, 2014 at 11:11 PM (#4866084)
The WAA was just for this crowd.

T 15 th all time in ERA+. Min ip 2800

But 79th all time in ERA

link

This is all about failure to understand context, and there is little excuse for that at this juncture.

Pitched his peak through high scoring era

Spent fair amount of time in hitters ballparks

Didnt give up un earned runs


Edit: i acknowledge him being a huge jerk costs him some votes, but c'mon.......thats even worse. If thats what they are basing their votes on then truly ....#### them


   145. cardsfanboy Posted: December 20, 2014 at 11:29 PM (#4866088)
Any of these lists are going to be tilted toward the more recent. I doubt it takes Barry Bonds as long to get into the Hall of Fame as it did Arky Vaughan


I just don't get this sentiment that Bonds has a better chance with the veteran's committee than he does with the writers. In my mind, there is absolutely zero chance that the veteran's committee puts Bonds in.
   146. Jack Sommers Posted: December 20, 2014 at 11:40 PM (#4866091)
Agree with CFB here.

Bonds, Clemens, McGwire NEVER go in either by writer or veterans.

   147. cardsfanboy Posted: December 20, 2014 at 11:45 PM (#4866093)

Deliberately ignoring the guidelines doesn't make McCoy a bad person, but it makes him a lousy voter. A heartfelt essay on Boone (which I assume he's written) is a nice and very public and meaningful way to express thanks. That column is his and his employer's, if he still has one. The vote in the Hall of Fame selections is not simply his. He's a proxy for fans.


McCoy is a bad person in regards to his job description, and he's typical of the standard level of incompetence that is routinely accepted and encouraged by the BBWAA. The fact that you don't seem to realize that the bbwaa has 70% level of incompetence is funny as hell.
   148. cardsfanboy Posted: December 21, 2014 at 12:01 AM (#4866096)
The 3,000 hits gave his candidacy a nice hook, but as I've long said, there are no automatic numbers. They can obviously help grease the skids for the deserving, but they've never been a rubber stamp for election.


I absolutely agree there are no magic numbers, but Biggio's lack of votes to break 75% is pretty much fully on Caminiti and him being his teammate. Biggio was probably always going to be the lowest % player with 3000 hits, but he would have gone in, on a normal ballot situation. He's obviously will go in, and I'm pretty comfortable thinking it will be this year, but if he doesn't get in this year, he's going to fly in in 2016.

I'm actually somewhat encouraged based upon the writers comments over the last two seasons that Piazza will get in, and that Bagwell will also get in eventually. (Raines and Trammell of course never will through the writers, but high vote totals do help their chances with the veteran's committee.)
   149. cardsfanboy Posted: December 21, 2014 at 12:22 AM (#4866102)
Ballot grade of A-. Small deduction for citing Bob Lemon and Catfish Hunter as past "automatics," but dissing Tony Perez by omission.


I do not see how any ballot with less than 10 names can get a score over B-.

It's sad to see a baseball voter who doesn't really get how statistics work. You vote for ten, it doesn't mean that ten people are going to get in. In the MOST crowded ballot ever, the first ballot of all time, plenty of people put 10 names on the ballot and 5 went in. Nap Lajoie Cy Young and Tris Speaker didn't make the cut. (among others) but the point is you still vote for the names, the simple fact is that writers look at previous year votes and make a decision on who else to support in the next ballot. Momentum is very important with the writers.

   150. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: December 21, 2014 at 12:53 AM (#4866117)
A ballot with 3 names is a complete joke. Marty Noble is a shitheel hack who should have his children taken away.
   151. cardsfanboy Posted: December 21, 2014 at 12:57 AM (#4866119)
too bad we don't have a like button, but post 150 would get a check mark on the "like" option if it was available.
   152. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 21, 2014 at 01:00 AM (#4866121)
Noble is, as his name suggests, nobly looking out for the players' welfare. "I withheld my vote from Kent this year only because I don't care to see the Cooperstown stage sag under too much weight come July 26. Three's company, four's a crowd." And as Noble astutely notes, the fourth-best player on this year's ballot is nowhere near an all-time slam dunk like Bob Lemon.
   153. Monty Posted: December 21, 2014 at 01:37 AM (#4866129)
And to those who favor increasing the number of checks permitted ... oh, please! Have you ever heard of less is more?


Well you can't argue with logic.
   154. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 21, 2014 at 03:59 AM (#4866138)
...Another year will pass before I need to study Kent, who I sense is HOF-worthy, and Mike Mussina, who is ... well, I'm not sure. I withheld my vote from Kent this year only because I don't care to see the Cooperstown stage sag under too much weight come July 26. Three's company, four's a crowd.


This sounds like he's saying "I could do some research to decide whether or not these guys are HoF worthy but I already found 3 guys I like, so I'll procrastinate until next year."
   155. toratoratora Posted: December 21, 2014 at 04:58 AM (#4866140)
A ballot with 3 names is a complete joke. Marty Noble is a shitheel hack who should have his children taken away.

This. If you support the steroid crowd, there's something like 16-20 HoF argument worthy players on this ballot. The non roid group has no problem coming up with ten.
Tossing out a three man ballot is the height of absurdity and it's insulting to many worthy players. Doing so without even considering others is worse. Openly discussing it and being proud of it is advertising personal ignorance. Having Kent as one of the two other players worth consideration is simply loopy.

F
And he should be sent to the Deans Committee for discipline. Something stricter than double secret probation.
The only reason he didn't get an F- is because at least he did come up with three worthy players and didn't #### Pedro
   156. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 21, 2014 at 07:31 AM (#4866143)
The New York Post's Joel Sherman (last year: Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, E. Martinez, Morris, Raines, Schilling, Thomas) makes it seem as if he won't be revealing his ballots anymore:

I used to believe in complete transparency on this. That every ballot should be made public. But I, a) do not want to publicly damn anyone with a non-vote, and b) quite frankly, do not want to subject myself to even more venom than is now standard by just being a voter and writing a column such as this.

However, last January the Post published all nine of its voters' choices, on the day before the announcement.
   157. McCoy Posted: December 21, 2014 at 08:19 AM (#4866147)
There are many things far worse than angry emails. Like silence and apathy to what you write. I would think a writer would want people to be reading their articles and getting moved one way or another. I would also think that your Hall vote is a quick and easy way to goose your page views for at least one article. If you don't like the tone of your emails either don't read them or vote better. Obviously voting better won't eliminate angry and stupid emails but at least you won't look like an idiot to everybody.
   158. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 21, 2014 at 09:34 AM (#4866158)
I just don't get this sentiment that Bonds has a better chance with the veteran's committee than he does with the writers. In my mind, there is absolutely zero chance that the veteran's committee puts Bonds in.


Then you're not giving it a whole lot of thought. There are numerous reasons why a future Veterans committee could induct Bonds, Clemens, et al.

A) Public opinion toward PED use among ballplayers softens.
B) A few more election-free weekends leads to the Hall's board taking a more welcoming stance toward PED users.
C) Changes among the Hall Board's makeup.
D) Some already enshrined, well-respected HoFer admits to usage (perhaps in a Williams at the podium moment).
E) The makeup of the Vets Committee changes
F) The structure of the Vets Committee changes
G) Others.

I think at some point in the future the Hall will figure out a way to induct one of the three greatest position players of all-time. Thinking there's "absolutely zero chance" is just bizarre.

I absolutely agree there are no magic numbers, but Biggio's lack of votes to break 75% is pretty much fully on Caminiti and him being his teammate. Biggio was probably always going to be the lowest % player with 3000 hits, but he would have gone in, on a normal ballot situation. He's obviously will go in, and I'm pretty comfortable thinking it will be this year, but if he doesn't get in this year, he's going to fly in in 2016.


Robin Yount, a two-time MVP and, for a brief time, the absolute best player in baseball, who coasted past 3,000 hits (rather than earliwinned his way over the line) and appeared on a strong ballot, but not as strong a ballot as the 2013 class, only received 77.5 percent of the vote.

Craig Biggio was no Robin Yount. Not even close.

It's possible being teammates with Caminiti cost him election last year, just because he was so close that any negative factor (the 10-person limit, for example) could be cited as costing him induction. It didn't cost him in 2013, and in a world without steroid concerns it would have taken him as many ballots, or more, to gain enshrinement.
   159. sanny manguillen Posted: December 21, 2014 at 09:56 AM (#4866166)
b) quite frankly, do not want to subject myself to even more venom than is now standard by just being a voter and writing a column such as this.


I'm mostly sympathetic with this. The Hall of Fame is a made-up, essentially nothing thing, and if anyone actually feels angry (or contemptuous or whatever) about it, they'd probably be better off finding a nothing hobby they don't get angry about.

I withheld my vote from Kent this year only because I don't care to see the Cooperstown stage sag under too much weight come July 26. Three's company, four's a crowd.


Having said the above, I think votes like this should be challenged and thrown out. The rule is, "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." There's nothing about a self-imposed quota, and that's what should be spoken, without any bile.
   160. toratoratora Posted: December 21, 2014 at 10:17 AM (#4866178)
Earliwinned is wonderful neologism.Had me going for a bit, to the point where I almost googled it before realizing that it was a great coin for "staggering to the end and dying on the finish line, having barely crossed."

Asa word, it was potential.
   161. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 21, 2014 at 10:36 AM (#4866185)
Earliwinned is wonderful neologism.Had me going for a bit, to the point where I almost googled it before realizing that it was a great coin for "staggering to the end and dying on the finish line, having barely crossed."


I've been hoping it would gain traction for several years now. I'm glad you liked it.
   162. Random Transaction Generator Posted: December 21, 2014 at 10:55 AM (#4866196)
If there is no milestone to reach (or has been reached), is it the Bill James version, "Steve Carlton path to retirement"?
   163. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 21, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4866244)
I've been hoping it would gain traction for several years now.


Maybe if you spelled it right?
   164. dr. scott Posted: December 21, 2014 at 12:56 PM (#4866252)
I'm mostly sympathetic with this. The Hall of Fame is a made-up, essentially nothing thing, and if anyone actually feels angry (or contemptuous or whatever) about it, they'd probably be better off finding a nothing hobby they don't get angry about.


You could replace Hall of Fame in that sentence with sports....

Granted there are lots of things that people write about that really don't mean much, but still upset people, but sports is probably the biggest, so he should probably find a new profession if he does not like the hate mail.
   165. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 21, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4866277)
Maybe if you spelled it right?


Are you telling me his name wasn't spelled Earli?



   166. Al "Battery" Kaline Posted: December 21, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4866290)
Are you telling me his name wasn't spelled Earli?


Man, do we all have to go back to remedial spelling? All together now: U-R-L-Y, N-G-U-Y-E-N.
   167. Moeball Posted: December 21, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4866340)
N-G-U-Y-E-N

No, he's the guy who played RF for the Padres all those years.
   168. Tony S Posted: December 21, 2014 at 05:00 PM (#4866348)
Craig Biggio was no Robin Yount. Not even close.


Yount is probably better, but it's not a mismatch. Yount's career OPS+ was 115 to Biggio's 112. Biggio beats Yount in black ink (17-14); Yount's ahead in gray ink (120-104).

Both were excellent fielders at their best, with a few Gold Glove awards; both were position nomads up the middle.

Biggio is way ahead on the Hall of Fame monitor (169-132), and enjoys a slight edge in standards (57-52).

And Yount was an ordinary player at best after his second MVP award. His last four seasons were basically career-fillers. He was more worthy of a major-league starting job than Biggio during his career coda, but not by a whole lot.

Biggio belongs in the HoF every bit as much as Yount does.


   169. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 21, 2014 at 05:11 PM (#4866352)
Yount is probably better, but it's not a mismatch. Yount's career OPS+ was 115 to Biggio's 112. Biggio beats Yount in black ink (17-14); Yount's ahead in gray ink (120-104).


WAR disagrees (77.5-65.0 - largely because it's not a big fan of Craig's defense).

But I wasn't talking about their Hall of Fame worthiness, but them as Hall of Fame candidates. And Yount's two MVPs (compared to Biggio's uninspiring MVP finishes), one-time standing as best player in baseball and the way they reached the big milestone simply make him a more obvious Hall of Fame candidate than Biggio (who, by the way, I personally support more strongly than a lot of folks I've seen here).

Without 3,000 hits, Biggio would have taken longer than Sandberg to make it to Cooperstown. Yount is probably a second or third ballot guy, at worst, without them.
   170. bobm Posted: December 21, 2014 at 05:14 PM (#4866356)
Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1901 to 2014, (requiring H>=3000), sorted by greatest WAA Position Players

                                                                 
Rk             Player WAA/pos    H  oWAR  dWAR WAR/pos   Age    G
1         Willie Mays   110.1 3283 136.4  18.1   156.2 20-42 2992
2             Ty Cobb   101.8 4189 150.9 -10.8   151.0 18-41 3034
3          Hank Aaron    92.5 3771 131.7  -4.8   142.6 20-42 3298
4        Tris Speaker    88.3 3514 123.6   2.5   133.7 19-40 2791
5         Stan Musial    81.6 3630 124.6  -9.3   128.1 20-42 3026
6       Eddie Collins    78.8 3315 119.6   8.2   123.9 19-43 2825
7    Rickey Henderson    68.6 3055 104.2  -3.4   110.8 20-44 3081
8          Wade Boggs    57.0 3010  80.6  12.9    91.1 24-41 2440
9    Roberto Clemente    56.8 3000  70.9  12.1    94.4 20-37 2433
10          Al Kaline    55.3 3007  77.9   2.5    92.5 18-39 2834
11         Cal Ripken    53.1 3184  77.2  34.6    95.5 20-40 3001
12       George Brett    50.4 3154  84.1   1.2    88.4 20-40 2707
13   Carl Yastrzemski    49.9 3419  77.7   0.5    96.1 21-43 3308
14          Rod Carew    46.0 3053  80.4  -2.4    81.0 21-39 2469
15         Paul Waner    38.7 3152  71.1  -9.6    72.8 23-42 2550
16       Paul Molitor    37.1 3319  74.8  -8.0    75.4 21-41 2683
17        Robin Yount    37.0 3142  82.2   5.8    77.0 18-37 2856
18         Tony Gwynn    36.4 3141  66.2  -8.3    68.8 22-41 2440
19        Derek Jeter    30.5 3465  95.5  -9.7    71.8 21-40 2747
20    Rafael Palmeiro    30.1 3020  66.7 -11.7    71.6 21-40 2831
21       Craig Biggio    28.7 3060  75.1  -3.9    65.1 22-41 2850
22          Pete Rose    28.6 4256  82.2 -14.0    79.1 22-45 3562
23       Eddie Murray    27.0 3255  61.2 -12.8    68.3 21-41 3026
24      Dave Winfield    23.7 3110  73.1 -23.7    63.8 21-43 2973
25          Lou Brock     8.2 3023  48.5 -17.1    45.2 22-40 2616
Rk             Player WAA/pos    H  oWAR  dWAR WAR/pos   Age    G


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/21/2014.
   171. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 21, 2014 at 05:28 PM (#4866365)
The weak part of Yount's career was the start. Six seasons as an everyday player at .270/.308/.364, 89 OPS+. On a good team, he would have been in the minors for a chunk of that time, rather than in the Majors at 18. Still a darn good career, but if he starts it 2 years later, he'd be short of 3,000 hits, assuming the same results.
   172. Walt Davis Posted: December 21, 2014 at 06:50 PM (#4866400)
Hey Ryan, I noticed a small error in your spreadsheet. You code both Steward and Stone as having dropped Schilling but neither voted for him last year. (I was curious who Schilling had lost votes to and theirs didn't seem to add up).

EDIT: I should say the 2014 spreadsheet shows neither of them voting for him last year.
   173. Ryan Thibs Posted: December 21, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4866412)
Hey Ryan, I noticed a small error in your spreadsheet...


Good catch! Thanks. I must have been looking at Raines' column on the 2014 tab.
   174. Bob from Indiana Posted: December 21, 2014 at 09:50 PM (#4866469)
Smoltz more hall worthy than Bagwell?
   175. The District Attorney Posted: December 21, 2014 at 10:46 PM (#4866489)
Robothal: Bagwell, Biggio, R. Johnson, E. Martinez, P. Martinez, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Smoltz
   176. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 22, 2014 at 12:14 AM (#4866517)
Robothal's ballot is identical to both Jeff Jacobs and Scott Priestle.
   177. Mark Armour Posted: December 22, 2014 at 03:13 AM (#4866526)
What is the confidence level for Biggio at this point? Still touch and go?
   178. PreservedFish Posted: December 22, 2014 at 03:24 AM (#4866527)
Biggio is way ahead on the Hall of Fame monitor (169-132), and enjoys a slight edge in standards (57-52).

I thought we all agreed to stop looking at these.
   179. PreservedFish Posted: December 22, 2014 at 03:25 AM (#4866528)
Biggio is way ahead on the Hall of Fame monitor (169-132), and enjoys a slight edge in standards (57-52).

I thought we all agreed to stop looking at these.
   180. Qufini Posted: December 22, 2014 at 07:38 AM (#4866538)
The bottom of the tracker is almost as interesting as the top. Right now, Sosa is in real danger of falling off the ballot for failing to garner 5%. The four players above him (McGwire, Sheffield, Kent and Walker) aren't exactly safe either, considering the tracker's history of overestimating support, especially early on.
   181. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 22, 2014 at 08:05 AM (#4866542)
Each of the last two years, it required 29 votes to surpass 5%.
   182. alilisd Posted: December 22, 2014 at 09:52 AM (#4866596)
Robothal: Bagwell, Biggio, R. Johnson, E. Martinez, P. Martinez, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Smoltz


I like the support for Edgar, but not at the expense of Trammell. They are two of my favorite candidates, but the guy who played SS his whole career deserves it a bit more than the DH, IMO.
   183. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 22, 2014 at 09:59 AM (#4866603)
Leaving off worthy candidates because "they have no chance anyway right now" is no more or less valid than leaving off worthy candidates because they're sailing in this year with or without my vote. So I'm leaving off Pedro and Unit to vote for ten guys who need the help.

I think that's a fair approach also.
   184. All In The Guetterman, Looking Up At The Stargell Posted: December 22, 2014 at 10:14 AM (#4866616)
I'm good with Robothal's ballot, though I'd probably replace Schilling and Moose with Trammell and McGriff, not that I think the former two aren't deserving but because I think they will have no problem getting in eventually but Trammell and McGriff need the boost now.
   185. Morty Causa Posted: December 22, 2014 at 10:14 AM (#4866618)
I think voters should vote for those they think belong in the HOF. No more no less, no indulging in mind games, no feeling you have to complete a full ballot or one that has only two or three names. If you the voter think someone should be in the HOF, vote for him. If not, don't. If that means some years voting for 10, fine. If that means some years voting for none, fine.
   186. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 22, 2014 at 10:44 AM (#4866654)
I think voters should vote for those they think belong in the HOF. No more no less, no indulging in mind games,

Right, but when that number reaches >10, you have to figure out some way to winnow it down to 10.
   187. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 22, 2014 at 10:53 AM (#4866668)
What is the confidence level for Biggio at this point? Still touch and go?


I'm quite confident. History suggests he won't have any trouble picking up the twoish* votes necessary.

* He needs to net two of the no votes to yes, plus possibly another to account for any abstained former supporters. Right now, he's plus one among the voters who have changed preferences. Based on the strength of the ballot compared to 2014, there's no reason to think he'll lose more votes than he gains.
   188. The District Attorney Posted: December 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM (#4866675)
History suggests he won't have any trouble picking up the twoish* votes necessary.
I didn't even know Biggio was twoish.

It makes sense to me to vote for the 10 best guys, and not leave off people whom you "know" will be elected... in other words, you should assume everyone is voting the same way that you are. Yet it doesn't make sense to me to have a small ballot because you wouldn't want to see 10 people simultaneously inducted... in other words, you shouldn't assume everyone is voting the same way that you are.

I'm struggling to reconcile this, but I'm sure it's right ;)
   189. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 22, 2014 at 10:59 AM (#4866676)
I'm quite confident. History suggests he won't have any trouble picking up the twoish* votes necessary.

Yeah, there's a pretty big band-wagon effect when a guy comes up just short. I'd expect a lot of the "casual" voters to add him based on last year's result; but those voters won't show up in the Gizmo, as they're largely inactive writers.
   190. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4866682)
you shouldn't assume everyone is voting the same way that you are.


You shouldn't. Hell, the old rules required 10 votes per ballot, and it still didn't produce four- or five-person classes. Last year's average ballot size was the highest we've seen in a long time, and only three people went in. The 75 percent requirement solves any worries of a Hall class getting too large (which, in itself, is a non-problem).

Not voting for guys you think should be elected because you're afraid of a class that's too damn large is idiotic, and a fear not supported by 80 years of Hall of Fame voting.
   191. Morty Causa Posted: December 22, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4866686)
Right, but when that number reaches >10, you have to figure out some way to winnow it down to 10.

Yes, but the guiding overall principle remains: who are the ten most qualified? Everyone at the Olympic trials is fast as hell. There is nevertheless an artificial limit on the number of runners selected.

Moreover, for HOF selection, the voters should mainly considered their selections in terms of contemporay competitors. Otherwise you end up thinking Sheffield hitting over 500 homers is equal to Foxx hitting over 500 homers. (Just a quick glance at the black and gray ink should disabuse you of that notion.)
   192. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM (#4866737)
Yes, but the guiding overall principle remains: who are the ten most qualified?


I reject the "most qualified" premise. If you vote for 10 qualified candidates then you have done well.
   193. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4866740)
I reject the "most qualified" premise. If you vote for 10 qualified candidates then you have done well.


You've also done what the voting guidelines asked of you. There's nothing that specifies you have to vote for the 10 most qualified. It's a fine guiding principle if a voter wants to follow it, but it is not required.

   194. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: December 22, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4866749)
Huh, only 47 full ballots and Bonds and Clemens are already down to the upper 30s, low 40s?

Doesn't bode too well for their chances to make any headway, considering that the disgronificator always overstates the support of the 'roiders by a few points.
   195. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 22, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4866750)
Yes, but the guiding overall principle remains: who are the ten most qualified?

As BM and SoSH have noted, that's not the voting instruction. Any 10 qualified candidates will do.

It's also really hard to parse "most qualified". Is Piazza more or less qualified than Bagwell? Bagwell has got the WAR, but Piazza stands out a lot more among C than Bagwell does among 1B.
   196. Booey Posted: December 22, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4866791)
Bagwell has got the WAR, but Piazza stands out a lot more among C than Bagwell does among 1B.


Offensively yes, but I'd put both in the top 5 all time at their positions, so they're pretty close overall.
   197. Morty Causa Posted: December 22, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4866802)
You've also done what the voting guidelines asked of you. There's nothing that specifies you have to vote for the 10 most qualified. It's a fine guiding principle if a voter wants to follow it, but it is not required.

Then what's the alternative? If election isn't predicated on selecting the best of the best, then it's just a Shriner's parade.
   198. Morty Causa Posted: December 22, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4866810)
Bagwell has got the WAR, but Piazza stands out a lot more among C than Bagwell does among 1B.

Isn't it much more difficult to play and excel at catcher than at first baseman, even such that it will degrade a person's hitting. No one is ever put at catcher to protect his hitting. I think catchers (and SS &2B; to a lesser extent) suffer in value just by being catchers because it will act to degrade your hitting. Valuation systems should have a way to weigh for that.
   199. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 22, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4866814)
Then what's the alternative? If election isn't predicated on selecting the best of the best, then it's just a Shriner's parade.


Nonsense. The election is to determine who is hall worthy. By voting you select up to ten people who are hall worthy. if someone gets enough votes they go into the hall.

There is nothing wrong with any of that. And as an aside it is foolish to try to come up with a perfect voting system.

In social choice theory, Arrow’s impossibility theorem, the General Possibility Theorem, or Arrow’s paradox, states that, when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no rank order voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a pre-specified set of criteria. These pre-specified criteria are called unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives. The theorem is often cited in discussions of election theory as it is further interpreted by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem.

The theorem is named after economist Kenneth Arrow, who demonstrated the theorem in his doctoral thesis and popularized it in his 1951 book Social Choice and Individual Values. The original paper was titled "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare".[1]

In short, the theorem states that no rank-order voting system can be designed that satisfies these three "fairness" criteria:

If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.
If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).
There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's preference.
   200. Rusty Priske Posted: December 22, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4866817)
Then what's the alternative? If election isn't predicated on selecting the best of the best, then it's just a Shriner's parade


Exactly

Page 2 of 16 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogForecasting Aaron Nola's free-agent payday as contract talks with Phillies break off
(13 - 5:34am, Mar 29)
Last: McCoy

Newsblog2023 NBA Regular Season Thread
(1330 - 1:05am, Mar 29)
Last: Russlan is not Russian

Newsblog‘OOTP Baseball:’ How a German programmer created the deepest baseball sim ever made
(15 - 1:02am, Mar 29)
Last: It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out

NewsblogOrioles’ Elias on the demotions, futures of Hall, Rodriguez
(8 - 11:55pm, Mar 28)
Last: shoelesjoe

NewsblogGuardians finalizing 7-year extension with Giménez
(12 - 11:13pm, Mar 28)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogAll 30 MLB stadiums, ranked: 2023 edition
(36 - 11:03pm, Mar 28)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogRed Sox drop trademark applications for 'Boston', blame MLB
(17 - 10:30pm, Mar 28)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogSources: Hoerner, Cubs agree on 3-year, $35 million extension
(10 - 8:53pm, Mar 28)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Champions League Knockout Stages Begin
(314 - 7:04pm, Mar 28)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogSergio Romo pitches for last time, gets curtain call amid final exit
(12 - 6:22pm, Mar 28)
Last: GregD

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2671 - 6:19pm, Mar 28)
Last: /muteself 57i66135

NewsblogAnthony Volpe wins competition to be Yankees’ Opening Day shortstop
(4 - 5:34pm, Mar 28)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogSpring training OMNICHATTER 2023
(164 - 5:08pm, Mar 28)
Last: The Duke

Sox TherapyOver/Under
(60 - 12:47pm, Mar 28)
Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful

NewsblogReggie Jackson: Former commissioner Bud Selig blocked me from buying A's
(39 - 10:31am, Mar 28)
Last: It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out

Page rendered in 4.0731 seconds
48 querie(s) executed