Does he object to its existence or the way it isn't 100% accurate?

The latter, because it doesn't count 100% of the voters.

Pedro interview up next on MLB. Must watch TV.
I may cry. Seriously

Schilling is in big trouble, despite the 10-point gain (which really only got him back to his first-year total). He made almost no headway on the non-published ballots, which are still the majority. I think both he and Mussina will be VC selections.

EDIT: Math mistake, actually he made significant progress in both groups. Schill might be ok. Mussina, we'll have to see.

[1396] And Nomah!

Maybe you should be ripping on the voters.

For voting for Piazza?

:)

Sorry to go OT here, but I really object to these military family surprise reunions. They bring the guy (or girl) halfway around the country, but he's not allowed to see his family until the scripted moment. It bugs the hell out of me.

Back you your normal programing.

Harold Reynolds ripping on the Gizmo.

For what? For counting? He does understand that it's just counting, right? I mean, I guess there is some division involved. Is it the division he is objecting to?

Gizmo vs. reality:
Randy -1%
Pedro -6%
Smoltz -3%
Biggio -2%

Piazza -6%
Raines -8%
Bagwell -8%
Schilling -12%
Bonds -7%
Clemens -6%
Mussina -10%
Edgar -4%
Trammell +1%
L. Smith +9%
McGriff -3%
Kent correct!
Sheffield +2%
L.Walker +4%
McGwire +4%
Mattingly +4%
Sosa +2%
Nomar +3%

It looks like my hypothetical ballot for next year will actually be able to fit everyone I would like to vote for... it would still be full, but I see ten names.

Of course that could change.

And it also doesn't matter, since I don't get a vote. They haven't added 'poet' as a sub-category of the BBWAA yet.

@1403, next year will be telling for Schilling. It'll be his chance at being the best pitcher on the ballot. If he gets another 10-15 point jump then he's still alive.

Mussina and Schilling will look a lot better to voters when Maddux, Pedro, and Unit aren't on the ballot.

Ok, ripping was a bit strong. He said "This is why I don't put any stock in these exit polls. They had Mike Piazza at 76% and he didn't even get 70."

I really don't get the huge gap between Smoltz and Schilling, and the ridiculous gap between Smoltz (and Schilling) and Mussina.

Pedro says he "did it clean".

It'll be his chance at being the best pitcher on the ballot.

second best

I want to be careful how this comes across, but I sincerely hate Harold Reynolds.

Gizmo vs. reality:
Randy -1%
Pedro -6%
Smoltz -3%
Biggio -2%

Piazza -6%
Raines -8%

Yeah, I nailed that one. Dammit.

I think Smoltz and Glavine sailing in has to end up being good for Schilling and Moose. People aren't going to go 3 or more years without voting for a starting pitcher.

It'll be his chance at being the best pitcher on the ballot.

second best

I count him as third best, but hey... he still deserves a spot on the ballot.

I'm wondering if anyone has camped up there and knows which ones are particularly good. We'll be there for the ceremony and museum, of course, but we'd probably make a little mini-vacation of it since it's an undertaking to set up camp with two kids. Also, your girlfriend sounds awesome.

I haven't camped there, but Glimmerglass State Park is closest to Cooperstown, and I've heard good things about it. RV Park Reviews is the place to go for campground ratings, mostly from those in motorhomes, but there is info that is helpful to tent campers, too. I suspect you'll have to reserve at Glimmerglass as soon as allowable. Not sure what New York State does, but some states are on a year ahead schedule, and for popular places at peak times, you have to be online within minutes (seconds?) of the deadline to get thru.

Mussina and Schilling will look a lot better to voters when Maddux, Pedro, and Unit aren't on the ballot.

Right - Costas pointed this out and while it makes for another nice brick to hurl at the voters (really? You can't recognize that 3 all-time greats like Pedro, Maddux, and RJ don't outshine guys that are perfectly cromulent HoFers?) but I think it's true.

The 'obvious' pitchers from this era are now enshrined - and it was a pretty extraordinary era for all-time great pitchers - so the voters ought to be able to take a better look at Curt and Mike.

...and Pedro has to be one of the best interviews around.

I'm having trouble buying Pedro Martinez getting 91.1% of the vote is simply strategic in nature.

Gizmo for Martinez: 200/205 = 97.6%
Non-Gizmo: 300/344 = 87.2%

I'm not a math guy, but that seems out of range.

Pedro interview up next on MLB. Must watch TV.

Thanks for the heads up, that was awesome. Toughest guy to face? Edgar Martinez cos he made Pedro throw 13 fastballs per AB.

Sorry to see that Bagwell isn't making much progress. He got a higher percentage of more total votes 2 years ago. Raines reached a new high, but I don't see him getting another 20% over 2 years. He'll be the first victim of the new 10-year rule. Piazza looks good for next year. Bonds and Clemens ain't going nowhere. Next year will be interesting for Schilling and Mussina. I think we'll all be grateful when Lee Smith is off the ballot. Always liked Lee, but his totals are ridiculous. Oh, wait, that's right. Hoffman figures to take his place.

List of BBWAAs who voted.

Anyone have a sense of whether the registration made any difference?

BTW: Chass not listed.

To appease MLB. Voters aren't supposed to reveal their ballots beforehand.

MLB has nothing to do with the vote or the voters. Where did you come up with that one?

Is it possible that the reason the non-Gizmo voters seemed to not support Pedro as much is that the non-public voters are the ones who aren't as willing to stand behind their vote.

If I didn't vote for Pedro out of some misguided strategic plan, I would be hesitant to tell anyone as well.

If I didn't vote for Pedro out of some misguided strategic plan, I would be hesitant to tell anyone as well.

He got in without your vote (well, without the vote of the hypothetical strategic voter), so I'm not sure it was all that misguided.

[1418] Don't be so sure. They went 12 years between Nolan Ryan and Bert Blyleven (obviously I'm not counting Eckersley).

He made almost no headway on the non-published ballots,

Not true, he did as well there as he did with Gizmo voters. He converted a good number of 2014 non-Schilling voters, granted only to 2013 totals. That's still good progress given there were 3 SP elected easily on this ballot. Schilling will take a big jump next year.

The guy who was killed in the non-Gizmo population was Mussina. I had him at 30% if he maintained his add/drop rates so his non-Gizmo switch rate was terrible. Same with Bagwell and Raines -- turns out I had them pegged correctly in my first go with a mis-specified model. :-)

Anybody figured out names per ballot yet?

So a disappointing finish because of Bagwell/Raines and I'd say there's now a good chance nobody is elected in 2017 (with Griffey and Piazza going in next year). I don't see Raines making it.

For the record, S-BLIMPS did not so great. Low on Biggio, high on Bagwell, Raines and Mussina, all by 5-6%. Piazza's last guesstimate was at 71% so that was pretty good, Schilling spot on.

Just one data point but now we see that the unpublished not only have different basic opinions about candidates but that they also convert at different rates, much heavier on the front-runner Biggio, much lighter (for some reason) on Bagwell and Raines.

Never camped there, but last time I went to Cooperstown I stayed in some cheap motel right next to Glimmerglass. It's a beautiful park.I did some hiking through there and had a great time

Gizmo for Martinez: 200/205 = 97.6%
Non-Gizmo: 300/344 = 87.2%

I'm not a math guy, but that seems out of range.

And the non-gizmo guys had far fewer votes per ballot than the gizmo guys, so little if any can be explained by strategic voting.

Wait and see but Piazza looks like the only sure thing to go in via the writers.

[Read wrong column...]

I'm having trouble buying Pedro Martinez getting 91.1% of the vote is simply strategic in nature.

Gizmo for Martinez: 200/205 = 97.6%
Non-Gizmo: 300/344 = 87.2%

I'm not a math guy, but that seems out of range.

I agree - I suspect it has a lot less to do with 'strategic voting' and a lot more to do with the largely silent and non-active BBWAA voters who just get ballots because they were once on the baseball beat 20-30 years ago and get to keep their ballot because the paper keeps up the dues. These voters - I'm betting - can't be bothered to do any more than look at the traditional counting milestones and populate their ballots accordingly. I'm willing to bet there were a few ballots that listed just Randy (300 wins), Biggio (3000 hits), and perhaps (depending on whether they're PEDers or not) Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, etc.

Even if they won't go so far as to release the votes attached to names -- I do wish the HoF would release the ballots themselves.

The bottom of the announcement on the BBWAA site says

The Hall of Fame now has 310 elected members, including 215 players, of which 119 have come through the BBWAA ballot.

However this doesn't seem to jive with the list of members: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Baseball_Hall_of_Fame

The 310/119 numbers are correct, but that list has 244 players, not 215. Anybody know what the discrepancy could be?

A 600 home run guy doesn't make the cut for next year.

I think you are looking at the Gizmo totals. Sosa made the 5% threshold.

Good job by the BBWAA on releasing the names of the voters.

I like Dan Graziano's coverage of the NY Giants for ESPN.com, but after just seeing his name on the list of voters, and then seeing that his ballot was public, I'd like to smack him. Really can't figure out why he didn't vote for Schilling and Mussina this year after voting for them last year, considering he only voted for 7 guys.

Anybody figured out names per ballot yet?

549 voters and by my math 4,623 votes so 8.42.

I wanted to take a minute to thank Repoz for tracking this. Great information frequently updated.

549 voters and by my math 4,623 votes so 8.42.

Up from last year. I wonder if the voters will get used to putting a lot of names on the ballot or if will drop off dramatically.

[1437] Negro Leaguers?

I'd like to take a minute to blame Repoz for Piazza falling short.

Up from last year. I wonder if the voters will get used to putting a lot of names on the ballot or if will drop off dramatically.

I wouldn't be shocked if next year had a big drop.

8.85 names per public ballot, 8.08 per private ballot.

Mussina 35.1% 18.3%

Yeah, that's just shocking. Very bizarre.

Looks like 549 total ballots down from 571 last year. With at least 12 new voters, 34 voters down. Repoz (last I saw) said he knew of 8 non-voters and surely a few must have died or gone off to nursing homes, etc. So registration probably only knocked out maybe 20 voters. Maybe more if there were many more newbies than 12.

So a disappointing finish because of Bagwell/Raines and I'd say there's now a good chance nobody is elected in 2017 (with Griffey and Piazza going in next year). I don't see Raines making it.

Have no fear Blackjack Morris is here.

Player Public Private
R. Johnson 98.5% 96.5%
P. Martinez 97.6% 87.2%
Smoltz 86.3% 80.8%
Biggio 84.9% 81.4%
Piazza 76.0% 66.3%
Bagwell 62.4% 51.7%
Raines 63.4% 50.0%
Schilling 51.2% 32.0%
Clemens 43.4% 34.0%
Bonds 43.9% 32.6%
Lee Smith 21.1% 35.8%
E. Martinez 31.2% 24.4%
Trammell 24.0% 25.9%
Mussina 35.1% 18.3%
Kent 14.2% 14.0%
McGriff 15.7% 11.3%
Walker 7.8% 14.2%
Sheffield 9.8% 12.8%
McGwire 5.9% 12.5%
Mattingly 5.4% 11.3%
Sosa 4.9% 7.6%
Garciaparra 2.0% 7.6% 

Quick, someone put together the public ballots of Jeff Kent voters, and see how well they match up with the final results.

Wow, names per ballot up? I didn't see that coming. Can't complain too much if non-Gizmo averaged 8 names per ballot. Can complain about who they voted for all day long but not the number of names.

While we'll see a big drop after 4 elected and only one no-doubter coming on, that it went up does bode well for a good names per ballot next year. It will still be pretty dismal but maybe if can hold at/above 6. Must have been a good number of 10-name ballots among the non-Gizmo and some of those will add some new names next year.

But I don't see how Raines can make progress quickly enough. Worried that Bagwell is spinning his wheels. Worried time will run out before Mussina gets there (needs an average gain over 6% per year over the next 8 ballots). Schilling still looks pretty solid.

Mike Piazza 384 (69.9) 3
Jeff Bagwell 306 (55.7) 5
Tim Raines 302 (55) 8

These totals are a bit disappointing. Piazza isn't quite guaranteed to make it next year, and Bagwell & Raines are long shots. Clearing the ballot space may be enough to put them over the top, but it would look a lot different if Piazza had cleared 70% and Bagwell & Raines 60%. Raines is the one running out of time, so I was hopeful he'd top Bagwell to get the extra attention that'd bring. Could be wrong, but I think Raines needs to be the top returning candidate after next year's vote in order to make it in his final year.

Have no fear Blackjack Morris is here.

Unless they've changed the rules recently, he's not eligible for the VC until 2019.

Unless they've changed the rules recently, he's not eligible for the VC until 2019.

No, that should be his year.

I don't think Raines is going to make it. Collusion cost him a possible MVP, with which that alone he might already be in. Certainly that and the other playing time loss to labor strife explains most if not all of his problems with the electorate. But even with all that, he's making what would normally be considered good progress for eventual election*, but the powers that be again intervene robbing him of his last 5 years.

* Raines is on year 8 with 55%.

Jim Rice in year 8 had 55%, got in on year 15
Bruce Sutter 48%, got in on year 13
Blyleven 41%, year 14
Duke Snider 55%, year 11


I realize many will point out that this is a good reason to make the cutoff 10, and I'm not arguing that, but just pointing out how Raines is getting a double screw job here.

Unless they've changed the rules recently, he's not eligible for the VC until 2019.

Isn't 2019 the old timers vote?

Morris is an Expansion Era candidate. They'll vote on those guys again in December 2016, less than two years from today. We should expect Morris to be nominated and on the ballot.

Jim Rice in year 8 had 55%, got in on year 15
Bruce Sutter 48%, got in on year 13
Blyleven 41%, year 14
Duke Snider 55%, year 11

When did Sutter, Blyleven and Snider get to 55%?

When did Sutter, Blyleven and Snider get to 55%?

Snider in year 8 obviously. Blyleven year 9 (well, 53.3%), Sutter year 10 (53.6). I'd cite guys who were at 55% in year 8 and got elected by 10, but I don't think there are any. Not in the modern era (post 1970) anyway.

I don't think you can just take the past trends on a 15 year clock and apply it to the 10 year clock. The voters aren't the brightest guys in the world but they'll see that the clock is about to expire for Raines. I also expect a concerted effort from some of the voters (like Stark). I don't know that that will be enough for Raines but I think he's got a reasonable chance. Guys with a forum start beating the drums, he makes some progress next year, then the drumbeat changes to "last chance". Like I say, it'll be close.

If you're a guy with a forum reading this, please bang the drum loudly for Raines.

Expanding to twelve which was recommended by a committee would help Raines but probably not enough.

With the ballot thinning out Raines has a shot. Or he could end up like these two: Cepeda and Fox, their last three years on the BBWAA ballot:

OC 57.2 - 59.6 - 73.5
NF 46.3 - 61.0 - 74.7

Expanding to twelve which was recommended by a committee would help Raines but probably not enough.

Was it a blue-ribbon committee?

Yep, looks like the VC considers players retired 21+ years so Morris will be eligible.

In fact, per the HoF website, that's been the case since 1962 although I'm sure every treatement of the VC I ever read said it was 25 years.

#1352 Gary Huckabay was talking about his chances to pass guys like Musial sometime around 1993. Dale Stephenson had him 4th on the LF peak list in 1993 (moved to #3 next year)

And here's our own DMN in 1994 (responding to a weird greatest of all time list which happened to include Bonds in LF)

"well, at least this one isn't absurd, since he's one of the all-time greats.
But he hasn't had the best career. His offensive peak is great, but not the
greatest ever. Maybe if you add in defense, you could make a case for him
being the best peak LF ever. But not the best career yet."

Yep, looks like the VC considers players retired 21+ years so Morris will be eligible.

In fact, per the HoF website, that's been the case since 1962 although I'm sure every treatement of the VC I ever read said it was 25 years.

Yeah, the Hall website is wrong. The 21+ year limit has been in place since the VC reformation in 2002. Before that it was 23+ years. I believe it was shortened from 25 years in the late 1980's.

For the election of December 2019 they may shorten it to 16+ years to correspond with the new 10-year BBWAA ballot limit. That could be when Raines gets elected.

Schilling 51.2% 32.0%
Clemens 43.4% 34.0%

This is a surprise to me, that Schilling takes a bigger ding than Clemens among the private ballots.

I haven't yet seen a comparison of this years' vote totals to last year's - does anyone have that handy?

Walker 7.8% 14.2%
Sheffield 9.8% 12.8%
McGwire 5.9% 12.5%
Mattingly 5.4% 11.3%

This is.... intriguing.

This is a surprise to me, that Schilling takes a bigger ding than Clemens among the private ballots.

Not to me. Grandstanders gotta grandstand.

Some comparisons


Piazza:......57.8 - 62.2 - 69.9
Biggio:......68.2 - 74.8 - 82.7
Carter:......42.3 - 33.8 - 49.7 - 64.9 - 72.7 - 78.0
Larkin:......51.6 - 62.1 - 86.4
Sandberg:..49.2 - 61.1 - 76.2

I'm sure someone already covered this but ... who in the Gizmo said they were voting for Delgado? Didn't he get 0 votes in the actual tally?

I'm sure someone already covered this but ... who in the Gizmo said they were voting for Delgado? Didn't he get 0 votes in the actual tally?

Jeff Blair and Richard Griffin, who I think both had Toronto ties (that's where Griffin is), and Juan Vene, who's determined to battle Barry Stanton for yearly honors in the bizarre battle competition.

Randy Johnson
Gizmo: 201 of 205 (98.5%)
Non-Gizmo: 333 of 344 (96.8%) (-1.7% from Gizmo)
Total: 534 of 549 (97.3%)

Pedro Martinez
Gizmo: 200 of 205 (97.6%)
Non-Gizmo: 300 of 344 (97.2%) (-10.4% from Gizmo)
Total: 500 of 549 (91.1%)

John Smoltz
Gizmo: 177 of 205 (86.3%)
Non-Gizmo: 278 of 344 (80.8%) (-5.5% from Gizmo)
Total: 455 of 549 (82.9%)

Craig Biggio
Gizmo: 174 of 205 (84.9%)
Non-Gizmo: 280 of 344 (81.4%) (-3.5% from Gizmo)
Total: 454 of 549 (82.7%)

Mike Piazza
Gizmo: 156 of 205 (76.1%)
Non-Gizmo: 228 of 344 (66.3%) (-9.8% from Gizmo)
Total: 384 of 549 (69.9%)

Jeff Bagwell
Gizmo: 128 of 205 (62.4%)
Non-Gizmo: 178 of 344 (51.7%) (-10.7% from Gizmo)
Total: 306 of 549 (55.7%)

Tim Raines
Gizmo: 130 of 205 (63.4%)
Non-Gizmo: 172 of 344 (50.0%) (-13.4% from Gizmo)
Total: 302 of 549 (55.0%)

Curt Schilling
Gizmo: 105 of 205 (51.2%)
Non-Gizmo: 110 of 344 (32.9%) (-18.3% from Gizmo)
Total: 215 of 549 (39.2%)

Roger Clemens
Gizmo: 89 of 205 (43.4%)
Non-Gizmo: 117 of 344 (34.0%) (-9.4% from Gizmo)
Total: 206 of 549 (37.5%)

Barry Bonds
Gizmo: 90 of 205 (43.9%)
Non-Gizmo: 112 of 344 (32.6%) (-11.3% from Gizmo)
Total: 202 of 549 (36.8%)

Lee Smith
Gizmo: 43 of 205 (21.0%)
Non-Gizmo: 123 of 344 (35.8%) (+14.8% from Gizmo)
Total: 166 of 549 (30.2%)

Edgar Martinez
Gizmo: 64 of 205 (31.2%)
Non-Gizmo: 84 of 344 (24.4%) (-6.8% from Gizmo)
Total: 148 of 549 (27.0%)

Alan Trammell
Gizmo: 50 of 205 (24.4%)
Non-Gizmo: 88 of 344 (25.6%) (+1.2% from Gizmo)
Total: 138 of 549 (25.1%)

Mike Mussina
Gizmo: 72 of 205 (35.1%)
Non-Gizmo: 63 of 344 (18.3%) (-16.8% from Gizmo)
Total: 135 of 549 (24.6%)

Jeff Kent
Gizmo: 29 of 205 (14.1%)
Non-Gizmo: 48 of 344 (14.0%) (-0.1% from Gizmo)
Total: 77 of 549 (14.0%)

Fred McGriff
Gizmo: 32 of 205 (15.6%)
Non-Gizmo: 39 of 344 (11.3%) (-4.3% from Gizmo)
Total: 71 of 549 (12.9%)

Larry Walker
Gizmo: 16 of 205 (7.8%)
Non-Gizmo: 49 of 344 (14.2%) (+6.4% from Gizmo)
Total: 65 of 549 (11.8%)

Gary Sheffield
Gizmo: 20 of 205 (9.8%)
Non-Gizmo: 44 of 344 (12.8%) (+3.0% from Gizmo)
Total: 64 of 549 (11.7%)

Mark McGwire
Gizmo: 12 of 205 (5.9%)
Non-Gizmo: 43 of 344 (12.5%) (+6.6% from Gizmo)
Total: 55 of 549 (10.0%)

Don Mattingly
Gizmo: 11 of 205 (5.4%)
Non-Gizmo: 39 of 344 (11.3%) (+5.9% from Gizmo)
Total: 50 of 549 (9.1%)

Sammy Sosa
Gizmo: 10 of 205 (4.9%)
Non-Gizmo: 26 of 344 (7.6%) (+2.7% from Gizmo)
Total: 36 of 549 (6.6%)

Nomar Garciaparra
Gizmo: 4 of 205 (2.0%)
Non-Gizmo: 26 of 344 (7.6%) (+5.6% from Gizmo)
Total: 30 of 549 (5.5%)

Carlos Delgado
Gizmo: 3 of 205 (1.5%)
Non-Gizmo: 18 of 344 (5.2%) (+3.7% from Gizmo)
Total: 21 of 549 (3.8%)

Troy Percival: 3 of 4 votes non-Gizmo
Aaron Boone: 2 votes non-Gizmo
Tom Gordon: 2 votes non-Gizmo
Darin Erstad: 1 vote non-Gizmo

I wanted to take a minute to thank Repoz for tracking this. Great information frequently updated.

The same here.

Darin Erstad: 1 vote non-Gizmo

Who from the Omaha World Herald has a vote that was non-published? Cause there is your vote.

To his credit, Erstad's response was:

I wonder what that one person was thinking?

We are slowly evolving to a full slate of PED or suspected PED candidates. All that's left for the non PED voters are Mussina, Schilling, Martinez, Trammel, L Smith, Kent, Raines, McGriff and Walker and the newbies next year. Add Griffey, Hoffman, Edmonds and you can come up with 10 names but most people would not have all those guys on a ballot

seems to me the need for more than 10 names is gone for now especially when a few of these guys will be off the ballot in a couple years. I expect votes per ballot to drop a full big figure or 2

Maybe the crime dog does better next year if they confuse him with Griffey :)

[1474]

Just for fun, results sorted by absolute vote differences between Non-Gizmo and Gizmo

           Player {NG - Gizmo} 
   Curt Schilling      -18.3% 
     Mike Mussina      -16.8% 
       Tim Raines      -13.4% 
      Barry Bonds      -11.3% 
     Jeff Bagwell      -10.7% 
   Pedro Martinez      -10.4% 
      Mike Piazza       -9.8% 
    Roger Clemens       -9.4% 
   Edgar Martinez       -6.8% 
      John Smoltz       -5.5% 
     Fred McGriff       -4.3% 
     Craig Biggio       -3.5% 
    Randy Johnson       -1.7% 
        Jeff Kent       -0.1% 
    Alan Trammell       +1.2% 
       Sammy Sosa       +2.7% 
   Gary Sheffield       +3.0% 
   Carlos Delgado       +3.7% 
Nomar Garciaparra       +5.6% 
    Don Mattingly       +5.9% 
     Larry Walker       +6.4% 
     Mark McGwire       +6.6% 
        Lee Smith      +14.8%  

Since the Hall of Fame now publishes who voted, we can compile an incomplete list of 2014 voters who didn't vote in 2015. I took the 299 known voters in 2013 from Ryan's list, and crossed them against the published list of voters. As best I can tell, there's 27 of them. The number of voters went down by net 22, there's 12 known first time voters, which means at least 34 2014 voters didn't vote in 2015. The surprise to me is that it looks like most came from the public voters. Other than the 5 who we knew weren't going to vote (Olney, Henning, Le Batard, Gurnick, Wallace Matthews), they are:

- Phil Arvia (10 players chosen in 2014)
- Jon Becker (10)
- Tim Brown (10)
- John Canzano (8)
- Murray Chass (4)
- Gerry Fraley (10)
- Paul Hoynes (10)
- Jerry Izenberg (3)
- Sean McAdam (10)
- Rick Morrissey (3)
- Steve Serby (8)
- Dennis Backin (8)
- Ron Cook (8)
- Glen Crevier (9)
- Bill Dickens (8)
- Mark Kiszla (10)
- Bill Peterson (10)
- Angel Prada (3)
- Jim Reeves (10)
- John Romano (10)
- Richard Telander (10)
- David Wilhelm (10)

Average number of votes for those 22 is 8.0, with a lot of full ballots. It would be interesting to get a sense of how may have been boycotting vs. actively didn't bother to request a ballot or not vote vs. intended to vote but didn't request a ballot (Wallace Matthews).

#1479: Honestly, I find that list extremely surprising. My stereotype is "non-Gizmo voters = old farts who cast fewer, dumber votes." So I expect to see them not vote for Bonds/Clemens, of course... maybe leave off Bagwell/Piazza because of the infamous taint... maybe leave off Mussina because he lacks "narrative." And on the other side, Lee Smith and Don Mattingly have long been the non-Gizmo champions. Trammell, sure, he's an old guy now. And Delgado might be homer votes from guys who aren't taking this too seriously.

But I'm shocked to see McGwire being boosted so much by the non-Gizmo voters. Second-highest positive discrepancy?? Really astonishing. Also surprised to see Sosa and Sheff on that side of the ledger, and Raines and McGriff on the other. I dunno what they'd have against Schilling, either. (I guess maybe they're the types who figure four SP on one ballot is intolerable?) Even their support for Walker is a little surprising.

Doing a little more digging, it looks like there's at least another 7 first-time voters with non-public ballots thus far: David Barron, John Carson, Bob Cohn, Carlos Frias, Steve Henson, Ken Hirdt, and Charles Odum. Which would mean at least 41 didn't vote, so at least 14 non-public 2014 voters. Still leaves the non-voters skewed more to the public voting side.

Good old Lee Smith, favorite of the non-Gizmos. I know his votes are lower the last two years, but I'm amazed he can still pull 30% on this ballot.

Got to thinking tonight...what happens next year, when Smith becomes arguably the third-best reliever on the ballot? (Hoffman, Wagner...though WAR has them all pretty close.) Now, I'm sure Wagner will actually run 3rd out of that group, dominance be damned, because he never held the all-time saves record, and some of the Smith voters seem to be skewed towards the '80's candidates anyway. But I have no idea where to project these guys. (Smoltz's support this year, and even Troy Percival getting four votes and Tom Gordon two, have really thrown me off for just how much the writers value saves.)

-Smith I can see ranging between 25-35%. He could lose some votes to the new closers, or he could gain a few old supporters back, between four spots being cleared this year (maybe 5 for some with Mattingly) and a bump as he enters his 14th year.
-Hoffman, I can see anywhere from that 30% low end up to possibly approaching election (60-70%).
-Wagner, I have no idea. He does have 400+ saves to appeal to the non-Gizmos, and he has the otherworldly ERA, WHIP, and K/9 that could appeal to other voters. I could see him falling off the ballot with Delgado-like numbers, or I could see him getting 20%.

Thoughts?

I'm going to go bold and predict over 50% for Hoffman, setting him up for election sometime before Mariano Rivera hits the ballot. Wagner doesn't get 5% and falls off, just like another closer with 400 saves in John Franco. (Although Franco missed by just three votes, and Wagner was better than Franco. In fact he has a higher WAA than Hoffman and Lee Smith. So maybe he'll get in the single digits. )

bobm: Just for fun, results sorted by absolute vote differences between Non-Gizmo and Gizmo

This is cool, thanks

So, I think the obvious thing with the non-Gizmo voters is that they are more eccentric (or eclectic, or variable) than those who publish. This helps explain why the top 10 (!) candidates by overall vote did worse among non-Gizmo voters, while the bottom six all did better. These are voters who dance their own way, largely oblivious of the consensus (they only really mirrored consensus on Randy Johnson and a few guys in the middle of the field (Trammell, Kent).

As a result, it will probably continue to prove harder to move opinion among the non-Gizmo voters than with the published voters, except perhaps where it is obvious that the player is the next in line (Biggio in this case) or perhaps when confronted with a last time on the ballot (perhaps these two factors will push Raines over the line).

Looking at the list in 1479, it seems to me that a lot of it can be explained by a non-Gizmo electorate that understands park and era effects much less well than the publishing electorate.

i know these guys get a lot of flack as a collective group but one can hardly argue with the seven people they have chosen in the last two years (either in absolute terms or relative to others on the ballot) and also one can't help but be amazed that such a diverse group of people can come to a 75%+ answer on one person let alone seven.

I think there must be strong bias to saves which indicates they really do believe the leverage argument (only 100 IP per year, but the most important innings)

They clearly have talked amongst themselves on who the PED guys are and aren't.

non-power positions continue to stump the voters like Trammel and raines.

Can't really explain Edgar Martinez though. Frank Thomas was put in by acclamation and he was basically a DH. Martinez gets no love at all.

Someone send bobm's #1479 report to Harold Reynolds.

Now, I'm sure Wagner will actually run 3rd out of that group, dominance be damned, because he never held the all-time saves record, and some of the Smith voters seem to be skewed towards the '80's candidates anyway.

Not sure how well-known this is, but Billy Wagner is actually right-handed. When he was young, he broke his right arm and started throwing left-handed in order to play ball. When it healed, he broke it again shortly afterwards and had to keep throwing left-handed.

Can't really explain Edgar Martinez though. Frank Thomas was put in by acclamation and he was basically a DH. Martinez gets no love at all.

Frank is just better. Rate and volume. OPS 156-147, games 2322-2055, homers 521-309, WAR 73.7-68.3.

I think the homer margin is pretty significant. Right now Mark McGwire is about even in support with Larry Walker, despite the steroid issue which has kept him out. If not for steroids Mark would have been in long ago and Larry (no steroid perception I'm aware of) would still be a long shot.

Walker was the better player, career or peak. McGwire was the better hitter, and a 216 OPS, 70 homer season is incredible. But Walker, one season before, played every day with a 178 OPS+, stole 33 bases, and won a gold glove. By WAR Walker beats McGwire by 10 in career, by 2 for best season, and also wins WAR7 and JAWS.

I guess we're just never going to see a player elected unanimously, are we? Not even Jeter.

I guess we're just never going to see a player elected unanimously, are we? Not even Jeter.

I guess the Raines/Trammel ballot came from someone who deals with PEDs by simply not voting for anyone from the era. Soon they will have no one to vote for, will they just abstain or send in a blank ballot?

Can't really explain Edgar Martinez though. Frank Thomas was put in by acclamation and he was basically a DH. Martinez gets no love at all.

Edgar may well deserve it, but he isn't in Thomas' class.

Peak OPS+ (for seasons with more than 500 PA)
Thomas 212/181/180/179/178/177/174
Edgar 185/167/165/164/160/158/158

Even after you get beyond top 7, Frank still leads though the gap narrows.

Frank had seasons with an oWAR over 6.0; Edgar had 4.

Frank led the league in OPS+ three times, Edgar once. Frank led in OPS 4 times, Edgar once.

I don't think you have to search too hard to find out why Frank came in above Edgar. Frank had an insane peak. Edgar had a really, really good peak. Edgar remained good older but has a harder time compiling a career case (fairly or unfairly) because of his late start. I can see a case for him, but comparing him to Frank Thomas weakens his case significantly since it exposes what Edgar was not.

From the collection of ballots that were recorded (Gizmo or Ryan's list), do we know what is the "mode" ballot is for that set?
Which ballot occurred most often of all the ballots recorded?

I can see a case for him, but comparing him to Frank Thomas weakens his case significantly since it exposes what Edgar was not.

Yeah. You can't sell a HOF case by saying "He's almost as good as X, who got in". Unless X is Willie Mays.

I guess we're just never going to see a player elected unanimously, are we? Not even Jeter.

I wouldn't think so but Jeter is the first player in about a quarter century that I thought had a chance. I really think Rose had a fighting chance before he ###### up and Jeter is fairly similar. Unquestionably a great player, beloved by the old farts, respected by the young bucks there is really no plausible argument against him.

Just because it hasn't happened and the reality is that getting 500+ people to agree on what day it is is virtually impossible I think he won't get in unanimously but he's the guy I would say has the best shot.

So, I grabbed the Ryan's spreadsheet and found the 3 most common ballots.

Of the 226 completed ballots collected (I removed incomplete ballots), the three most common ones are:

13 times
Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
John Smoltz

11 times
Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Randy Johnson
Edgar Martinez
Pedro Martinez
Mike Mussina
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
John Smoltz

4 times
Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
John Smoltz

There were 174 different combinations listed on his web site.

Did we ever link this? FiveThirtyEight covers the Gizmo

There weirdest ballot?

Lawrence Rocca's ballot is the only one on the website that is not a blank ballot, but lists NONE of the players who were elected this year.
His ballot is:

Tim Raines
Alan Trammell