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.

You're ignoring the point. What's "hall worthy", Elaine Benes, if it isn't selecting the best players? And if you're restricted to ten entries, and you think more than ten are hall worthy, what is the criteria for making that cut if you aren't going to go with making it the best of the best?

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.

Isn't that what the positional adjustment does? I assumed that adjustment included an acknowledgement that the harder defensive positions made hitting more difficult. Which is why I think the DH adjustment is too much - because being a DH does seem to be a hard skill for players to manage, maybe it's because players tend to DH when they are old and/or injured, but a lot of players' offensive numbers suffer when DH'ing.

You're ignoring the point. What's "hall worthy", Elaine Benes, if it isn't selecting the best players? And if you're restricted to ten entries, and you think more than ten are hall worthy, what is the criteria for making that cut if you aren't going to go with making it the best of the best?

Multiple people have already posited alternatives. My personal one is pick the 10 where your votes are most likely to have an impact on them, and other worthy players, getting elected.

In today's crowded ballot environment that means voting for guys likely to get in this year or in the next few, to help clear the ballot, (e.g. RJ, Pedro, Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza, Smoltz, Mussina, Schilling) and guys who need to build support so that the veterans eventually elect them (e.g. Raines and Trammell).

Okay, Shriner's parade. We're back to not making quality paramount. What's next: Everybody gets a trophy and a coupon to McDonald's.

You're ignoring the point. What's "hall worthy", Elaine Benes, if it isn't selecting the best players? And if you're restricted to ten entries, and you think more than ten are hall worthy, what is the criteria for making that cut if you aren't going to go with making it the best of the best?

Whatever the voter chooses, which is how the Hall has set up the system. If the Hall's governing body would like the voters to choose the 10 most-qualified candidates, they can write that into the bylaws. Until they do, the voters are under no obligation to handicap themselves further than the Hall is already doing with the 10-person limit.

Isn't that what the positional adjustment does?

Don't position adjustments only work on a rate basis? IOW position adjustments don't reflect for the loss of, maybe, ten games per year (in good years) and three years of the player's career overall.

I would vote in such a way as to increase the odds that the best players make the Hall of Fame. Because of the ridiculous system that has been set up, it is obvious to me that voting for the best players is not always the way to do that. My vote for Pedro Martinez is essentially worthless--it does not increase Pedro's likelihood of getting to Hall of Fame in any way. My vote for Roger Clements is worthless.

I would also never, under any circumstances, make my ballot public. Doing so harms my attempt at strategizing, and also puts the focus on *me*, rather than on the players where it belongs.

What's next: Everybody gets a trophy and a coupon to McDonald's.

Don't be ridiculous. McDonald's uses gift cards now.

Also, many BBWAA writers are unhinged about the special sauce.

You're ignoring the point. What's "hall worthy", Elaine Benes, if it isn't selecting the best players? And if you're restricted to ten entries, and you think more than ten are hall worthy, what is the criteria for making that cut if you aren't going to go with making it the best of the best?

As other said, no I am not. The point is "Hall Worthy" versus "Not Hall Worthy". That is what the rules say. There is no more or less hall worthy, it is a yes/no question, with a limit on the number of possible yes votes each voter is allowed.

Note: I had to use Wikipedia to know who Elaine Benes was. Not a Seinfeld watcher. Say it twice, thought is terrible and moved on. I am not sure what you were implying by calling me that, but whatever.

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 ;)

One obvious follow-up I could potentially make to myself is that simultaneously inducting 10 deserving players actually wouldn't be a problem at all, whereas not inducting Randy Johnson because everyone figured everyone else would vote for him would be a problem :)

But if anything, I think maybe the problem with strategic voting is the opposite... that it doesn't cohere. You're gonna be the only schmo voting for Piazza instead of Big Unit, based on your own unique precog entrail-reading of how the voting will turn out, and who needs what. Especially in an atmosphere where you're discouraged (although seemingly not prohibited) from coordinating your votes with others, it's not gonna accomplish anything.

As an analogy, people often used to speculate that concerns about PED would help the HOF cases of McGriff, Delgado, etc., because people would essentially transfer their votes from the "dirty" sluggers to the "clean" sluggers. I knew that that wouldn't happen, and it didn't. Folks indeed mostly didn't vote for the PED guys... but there was still no way that those votes could be coordinated and channeled to specific alternative players. And, really, that was a more plausible notion than what we're talking about here. There were a lot more voters who were anti-PED than there will be voters who are willing to vote against Randy Johnson to help Jeff Bagwell.

I dunno, I realize I might be contradicting myself, to simultaneously say that strategic voting would be bad if it worked, and that it won't work anyway. Still trying to put it all together. (I can't imagine I'll be swayed to endorsing strategic voting, however.)

Whatever the voter chooses, which is how the Hall has set up the system. If the Hall's governing body would like the voters to choose the 10 most-qualified candidates, they can write that into the bylaws. Until they do, the voters are under no obligation to handicap themselves further than the Hall is already doing with the 10-person limit.

Doesn't some things in the world go without saying? But, yeah, if that satisfies your sense of what a selection process for a Hall of Fame should be, whatever.

My vote for Roger Clements...

I assume you feel the same way about Mark McGuire, and would gladly have voted for Cal Ripkin, Jr.

Doesn't some things in the world go without saying? But, yeah, if that satisfies your sense of what a selection process for a Hall of Fame should be, whatever.

I don't think there should be a limit on the number of players a voter can select. That offends my sense of what the selection process should be, because the ballot is structured in a way that doesn't accurately reflect the will of the entire electorate. Fix that, and this pet issue of yours is wiped out.

But I don't get the Hall of Fame voting process I want, just the one that exists. And under the one that exists, I see nothing wrong with voting as the ballot instructs, not the ballot as you believe it should be.

I would vote in such a way as to increase the odds that the best players make the Hall of Fame. Because of the ridiculous system that has been set up, it is obvious to me that voting for the best players is not always the way to do that. My vote for Pedro Martinez is essentially worthless--it does not increase Pedro's likelihood of getting to Hall of Fame in any way. My vote for Roger Clements is worthless.

I would also never, under any circumstances, make my ballot public. Doing so harms my attempt at strategizing, and also puts the focus on *me*, rather than on the players where it belongs.

This is certainly an acceptable approach. But it rubs me the wrong way.

And the second paragraph explains precisely why. I just completely reject the idea that a voter should conceptualize their job as an attempt to manipulate the stupid rules of a stupid system. The job of a voter should be to talk about the players they think deserve induction, to celebrate their accomplishments, to try and get other people to see them as greats in the same way that you do.

That doesn't necessarily mean 'vote for the 10 best candidates on the ballot' but it pushes in that direction. And it certainly makes me think that getting obsessed with voting strategically robs the HOF of even the marginal amount of joy that it can bring to the world. Yes, it's a stupid system. But accepting the existence of the system, intentionally hiding your POV in order to better manipulate things, just feels like the absolute wrong approach.

None of this is meant to affiliate myself with Morty. I don't think strategic voting is wrong in some objective sense. It just strikes a bad chord with me and I certainly wouldn't do it.

I assume you feel the same way about Mark McGuire, and would gladly have voted for Cal Ripkin, Jr.

His new album is excellent, actually. So yeah, I'd vote for McGuire.

207:

Yeah, those are good points.

My vote for Pedro Martinez is essentially worthless--it does not increase Pedro's likelihood of getting to Hall of Fame in any way.

I think, though, this rather trivializes the process and the Hall itself (which, admittedly, is easy to do). Those who do not vote for a player like Pedro or Randy or any of the truly inner circle great send a message to the world at large that the process is tainted if not somewhat corrupt because those entrusted with offically acclaiming the best and greatest are fundamentally non-serious. Voting on a basis other than selection of those most worth of enshrinement speaks badly as to the integrity of the voters, the voting process, and, thus, ultimately the meaning and value of the Hall itself.

Selecting candidates on the basis of other than quality of play on the field is a corroding thread that conduces to degrade the entire fabric that makes up the honor. it step toward turning a great sport into one like pro-wrestling. Randy, Pedro, Tom Seaver, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mickey, etc., shouldn't just get elected--it means something if players such as these are elected by acclamation (or near acclamation). This not only reflects on the quality of baseball followers, fans and professionals, but on the game itself really. It better not get to the point where there's a lot of brother-in-lawing, and I would think that as to that, if there be error, it should be on the side of an elitism. Better to exclude the merely good than to raise doubts about the winnowing of the truly excellent.

To me, you are either in or you are out. If Pedro got 81% of the vote, I would care only because of all of the scrolling I would have to do to get past the senseless blog posts about it.

Trammell and McGriff need the boost now.

Trammell needs a boost, McGriff needs to get the hell out of the way.

Those who do not vote for a player like Pedro or Randy or any of the truly inner circle great send a message to the world at large that the process is tainted if not somewhat corrupt because those entrusted with offically acclaiming the best and greatest are fundamentally non-serious.

How come these vote totals didn't cause any problems?

DiMaggio 88.8%, Ted Williams 93.4%, Musial 93.2%, Berra 85.6%, Mantle 88.2%, Frank Robinson 89.2%

To me, you are either in or you are out. If Pedro got 81% of the vote, I would care only because of all of the scrolling I would have to do to get past the senseless blog posts about it.

Concur. Once you're in, no one give 2 craps about your vote %.

How come these vote totals didn't cause any problems?

I think they do, for the reasons I gave. Moreover, at the time, and even now if you ask fans and writers, they'll tell you it's an insult. In fact, in the first Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James went on record as stating that the HOF did not have the capacity to honor the truly great player, only to insult them. He had this in mind, as well as the quality of some of that great player's HOF cohorts.

Note: I had to use Wikipedia to know who Elaine Benes was. Not a Seinfeld watcher. Say it twice, thought is terrible and moved on. I am not sure what you were implying by calling me that, but whatever.

Not the guy who used the term, but I don't think it was intended as an insult, but a play on the term "Hall-worthy." There was an episode of Seinfeld when Elaine's favorite form of birth control--a sponge--was discontinued. So she went to all the stores she could in the tri-state area and bought up all the ones that she could find and filled a closet full of them. Still, she had a limited supply and was determined to ration them effectively. So when she went on a date, she determined that the guy wasn't "sponge-worthy."

BBWAA voter Steve Simmons tweets:

"If Pedro Martinez winds up in the Baseball Hall of Fame, then you can pencil in Roy Halladay when his time comes. Similar careers."

And with Elvis Presley in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, then you can pencil in Johnny Hallyday when his time comes. Similar careers.

BBWAA voter Steve Simmons tweets:

"If Pedro Martinez winds up in the Baseball Hall of Fame, then you can pencil in Roy Halladay when his time comes. Similar careers."

And with Elvis Presley in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, then you can pencil in Johnny Hallyday when his time comes. Similar careers.

Roy Halladay had a great career, and I hope he gets some consideration when his time comes. But even if you're just going by raw wins and ERA totals . . . Pedro has an ERA a half run lower, and ~15 more wins.

Thank you for maintaining this, Repoz. It's an interesting snapshot every year.

And then we have to put in Mark Portugal, who is basically Pedro's statistical twin.

I'm probably as big a "big Hall" guy as there is, and can't recall there ever being a ballot I couldn't fill with ten names. It's interesting to see the strategies evolving when everyone is faced with leaving people off, and eventually seeing some slide off the ballot.

I think they do, for the reasons I gave. Moreover, at the time, and even now if you ask fans and writers, they'll tell you it's an insult.

I think there's a subset of baseball fans and writers who look for things to be insulted over, especially with Hall of Fame voting. I'm sure there will be people insulted that Randy Johnson won't get 100%. And if Pedro or Jeter or whoever manages to, different people will be insulted by that because they'll demand to know how that guy got something Babe Ruth didn't. Some guys get insulted if you vote for a "steroid" guy, others get mad if you don't. Some guys decry the overuse of advanced stats in the process, others hate narratives. Some people are upset that a voter says he never reconsiders anyone, but others ask how it's possible that some player gains 200 votes over 15 years. I know people who get upset at the hat certain players have on their plaques. There seems to be nothing baseball fans won't get indignant about--how could that player celebrate in that manner? How could the pitcher not respond? Why didn't Chipper's retirement tour garner as much press as Jeter's? Why does Bryce Harper not behave with appropriate levels of humility? Why does Jeter never say anything interesting? Why won't curt schilling shut up?--so I'm not going to ask a voter to do something simply because someone will be insulted if they don't. I'm not even sure it's possible to do anything in baseball without someone being insulted.

I'm probably as big a "big Hall" guy as there is, and can't recall there ever being a ballot I couldn't fill with ten names. It's interesting to see the strategies evolving when everyone is faced with leaving people off, and eventually seeing some slide off the ballot.

I would have wanted to vote for more than 10 people in 1936 and probably a few years after. But generally I agree with your point. No one needed 10 ballot slots until the PED silliness and the glut of good retirements created a problem that has compounded and will continue to compound.

If you don't think Willie Mays (or Babe Ruth or Honus or...) belongs in the HOF, then you have to be waiting for Jesus to come back as a .... Those voters who didn't vote for Willie (et. al.) should have been stripped of their voting privileges, straight and simple. Not everything is arguable, although everything will be argued by somebody. At some point that should be seen as a flaw not a feature to be perpetuated.

BBWAA voter Steve Simmons tweets:

"If Pedro Martinez winds up in the Baseball Hall of Fame, then you can pencil in Roy Halladay when his time comes. Similar careers."

And with Elvis Presley in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, then you can pencil in Johnny Hallyday when his time comes. Similar careers.

Steve Simmons writes for the Toronto Star, so I expect stuff like this from him...I can see him making a "Chris Carpenter should be in, since he has a similar career to Dizzy Dean" comment in a few years...

I'm probably as big a "big Hall" guy as there is, and can't recall there ever being a ballot I couldn't fill with ten names. It's interesting to see the strategies evolving when everyone is faced with leaving people off, and eventually seeing some slide off the ballot.

I'm a small hall guy who, until now, likely would have never filled ten spots in my lifetime. I can name 12 guys I'd vote for on this ballot(Note that I vote for roiders cuz I think use was so commonplace that I just don't care)and make a good argument for 19.
I think the ethical obligation is to vote for the best ten players (or in most years less) that the voter deems worthy. That's it. That's what I could control and that's what I would feel obligated to do.
What other people do and vote is on them and if they wanted to play games or strategize or whatever, fine. There's enough of a mix with the guys behind the big two of Pedro and Johnson to almost guarantee none of the big names miss the cut. The real shame is that some of those players, Tim Raines, ahem, may get caught in the new ten year limit and not have the time to come out on the other side of the current ballot crush and have a real chance at breaking through. In typical HoF fashion, their solution to the crunch has exacerbated the problem, not helped solve it. They should have opened it up to 15 players max, at least 12, and left the waiting period the same. That way once the ballot crush has subsided, players such as Edgar et al could garner real discussion instead of having potential votes split several different ways.

And with Elvis Presley in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, then you can pencil in Johnny Hallyday when his time comes. Similar careers.

This is some inner-circle Repoz action.

204. Morty Causa Posted: December 22, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4866836)
Okay, Shriner's parade. We're back to not making quality paramount. What's next: Everybody gets a trophy and a coupon to McDonald's.

Congratulations, you've succeeded in showing that the system the Hall of Fame has set up for selecting its members is internally inconsistent. The only instruction is to vote on players in a binary way - Hall-worthy or not - but the restrictions on the ballot make it impossible to follow those instructions accurately. In the absence, each voter (hypothetical or otherwise) is left to make their own decision as to how to proceed. "Best 10" is valid but no more or less so than any other approach that accords with the instructions as given.

Aw, who didn't vote for Pedro? (no Napoleon Dynamite pun intended)

Trammell needs a boost, McGriff needs to get the hell out of the way.

Why? Trammell isn't getting elected by the writers any more than McGriff is. And Crime Dog actually still has time to build momentum (not that it'll happen).

"If Pedro Martinez winds up in the Baseball Hall of Fame, then you can pencil in Roy Halladay when his time comes. Similar careers."

Pedro: 409 GS, 2,827 IP, 3 Cy Youngs, 7 top-five finishes, led league in pitcher WAR three times, eight top-five finishes.

Halladay: 390 GS, 2,749 IP, 2 Cy Youngs, 7 top-five finishes, led league in pitcher WAR four times, eight top-five finishes

Pedro was the much better overall pitcher as his peak was much higher, and he had a couple extra very good seasons, but I do think they had similar types of careers. Short, ended early by injury, with a heavy emphasis on peak. I mean, Schilling's individual season WARs were more comparable to Halladay's, but he never led the league in it or won a Cy. I think he's a better comparison, but for guys sitting at around 400 starts, we don't have a ton of options. (Bret Saberhagen with a slightly more consistent career, but minus the cameo in a terrible movie? David Cone without the rings?)

I don't agree with the writer's logic all the way through here, but I can also see how someone looking to put Halladay's career in context could arrive at Pedro.

EBWOP: 'the restrictions on the ballot make it impossible to follow those instructions accurately' (assuming you believe, as many do, that there are more than 10 qualified candidates on the current ballot).

And another ballot with no unanimous electees (Pedro was going to drop sooner or later). '72 Dolphins, break out the Geritol.

Congratulations, you've succeeded in showing that the system the Hall of Fame has set up for selecting its members is internally inconsistent. The only instruction is to vote on players in a binary way - Hall-worthy or not - but the restrictions on the ballot make it impossible to follow those instructions accurately. In the absence, each voter (hypothetical or otherwise) is left to make their own decision as to how to proceed. "Best 10" is valid but no more or less so than any other approach that accords with the instructions as given.

I think the instructions for voting are more specific than "Hall-worthy or not". And I think voting with the best in mind, whatever the competition (Academy Awards or Best Public School Teacher of the Year), is invariably the way to go. It's obviously the paramount, if not sole, criterion--and strategic voting is not mentioned in those instructions. Strategic voting, or voting based on gonad bulge, or whitest smile, or most ingenious tattoo, or most autograph signings, can't be prevented, but shouldn't be officially condoned either. Just like you vote for an actor for the Oscar based on his acting, you should vote for a baseball player based on his baseball playing.

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

The rules give latitude to a variety of methods, as long as the voter genuinely deems his choices "worthy of election." Hal McCoy gives Aaron Boone a vote because Boone was nice to him, and he thinks he's too important to have to follow the rules.

But when 15 or 20 players seem clearly worthy, options abound. I'd vote for the 10 "best," but have no quarrel with a voter who takes another route with the 15 or 20 group.

There's a *lot* of consternation among many writers about the state of the Hall of Fame ballot. From conversations, writers that do take the exercise very seriously feel legitimately bad about having to not check off names they feel are deserving. I totally see where they're coming from, too, though I'd probably vote for the 10 likely to be closest to 75 or 5 and hope for the best.

Rosenthal's piece on the issue was quite scathing. He outright said that he doubted even half of the BBWAA voters were qualified to pass judgment on Hall of Fame candidates.

I think the instructions for voting are more specific than "Hall-worthy or not". And I think voting with the best in mind, whatever the competition (Academy Awards or Best Public School Teacher of the Year), is invariably the way to go. It's obviously the paramount, if not sole, criterion--and strategic voting is not mentioned in those instructions. Strategic voting, or voting based on gonad bulge, or whitest smile, or most ingenious tattoo, or most autograph signings, can't be prevented, but shouldn't be officially condoned either. Just like you vote for an actor for the Oscar based on his acting, you should vote for a baseball player based on his baseball playing.

Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you genuinely not understand what people are saying?

Just like you vote for an actor for the Oscar based on his acting, you should vote for a baseball player based on his baseball playing.

Not analogous. I haven't read the instructions given to Oscar voters to be able to work that into a comparison but the relevant difference is that their system structurally makes sense: A pool of candidates are presented to the electorate and of that pool one candidate will win. A vote for "Movie A" is simultaneously a vote for "Not Movies B, C or D" (perhaps more precisely it's a vote for "Movie A over Movies B, C and D"). There is no confusion about how to rank candidates relative to each other because it's an ordinal process by nature. There's no need for voters to individually come up with ways to cope with the inconsistencies with which they are faced. As opposed to the HoF situation, where literally the only instruction is to affirm that a worthy player deserves enshrinement - except that you aren't allowed to find more than 10 players worthy.

Listen, I understand (and agree!) that "Best 10" seems like the most natural/obvious rubric and feels like it makes the most sense. The fact remains that there are no instructions and so no method is by rule any more or less valid than any other, including your ad absurdum examples.

You say you think the rules are more specific than yes/no on each player but no more than 10? Read them! Howie quoted one relevant portion. There are literally only five sections that remotely speak to what is expected of a voter:

1. Authorization: By authorization of the Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc., the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) is authorized to hold an election every year for the purpose of electing members to the National Baseball Hall of Fame from the ranks of retired baseball players.

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

5. Voting: 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.

6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.

7. Time of Election: The duly authorized representatives of the BBWAA shall prepare, date and mail ballots to each elector during the latter part of November. The elector shall sign and return the completed ballot no later than December 31. The vote shall then be tabulated by the duly authorized representatives of the BBWAA.

I think you'll agree that 6 and 7, while included as instructions to the voter, are irrelevant to our purposes. 5 is fairly well-known (and famously non-specific).

That's it. That's all you get. The purpose is to elect members to the HoF, the electors vote for candidates they deem worthy, may not vote for more than 10, and the criteria are outlined in #5. The only instruction given directly to a voter is to "vote for... candidates deemed worthy of election." So, not to put too fine a point on it, but no, the instructions are in fact not more specific than "Hall-worthy or not."

Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you genuinely not understand what people are saying?

The former.

[235] Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1901 to 2014, (requiring WAA_pitch>=0, WAR_pitch>=0 and WAA_pitch>0.7*WAR_pitch, and W > 10), sorted by greatest Wins

                                                               
Rk            Player   W WAA/pitch  WAR From   To   Age   G  GS
1     Pedro Martinez 219      61.3 86.0 1992 2009 20-37 476 409
2    Clayton Kershaw  98      28.8 39.7 2008 2014 20-26 211 209
3         Chris Sale  44      16.3 22.9 2010 2014 21-25 165  85
4       Tanner Roark  22       5.0  7.1 2013 2014 26-27  45  36
5     Jose Fernandez  16       5.6  7.4 2013 2014 20-21  36  36
6        Matt Harvey  12       5.0  6.9 2012 2013 23-24  36  36

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/22/2014.

It's probably time for a Gizmo Snapshot.

Updated 5:25 ~ 51 Full Ballots ~ (8.9% of vote ~ based on last year) ~ As usual…BBWAA ballot digging is welcome!

98.0 - P. Martinez
98.0 - R. Johnson
88.2 - Smoltz
84.3 - Biggio
78.4 - Piazza
————————————
70.6 - Bagwell
68.6 - Raines
56.9 - Schilling
43.1 - Mussina
39.2 - Bonds
37.3 - Clemens
25.5 - E. Martinez
25.5 - Trammell
17.6 - McGriff
15.7 - Lee Smith
13.7 - Kent
9.8 - McGwire
9.8 - Sheffield
7.8 - L. Walker
————————————-
3.9 - Sosa
2.0 - Garciaparra
2.0 - Pete Rose (McWrite-In)

>= 0.65

                                           
Rk               Player   W WAA/pitch   WAR
1        Pete Alexander 373      77.2 117.0
2         Roger Clemens 354      94.5 139.4
3         Randy Johnson 303      68.1 104.3
4           Lefty Grove 300      72.2 109.9
5        Pedro Martinez 219      61.3  86.0
6        Curt Schilling 216      54.1  80.7
7       Clayton Kershaw  98      28.8  39.7
8          Brandon Webb  87      23.0  33.3
9          Josh Johnson  58      15.9  23.8
10           Chris Sale  44      16.3  22.9
11           Mark Prior  42      10.5  15.7
12         Mark Fidrych  29       7.6  11.4
13         Tanner Roark  22       5.0   7.1
14            Joe Berry  21       4.5   6.7
15   Gordon Maltzberger  20       4.4   6.5
16       Jose Fernandez  16       5.6   7.4
17          Matt Harvey  12       5.0   6.9

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/22/2014.

>= 0.6

                                           
Rk               Player   W WAA/pitch   WAR
1        Walter Johnson 417      97.4 152.3
2        Pete Alexander 373      77.2 117.0
3     Christy Mathewson 373      59.0  95.9
4           Greg Maddux 355      64.9 104.6
5         Roger Clemens 354      94.5 139.4
6            Tom Seaver 311      65.5 106.3
7         Randy Johnson 303      68.1 104.3
8           Lefty Grove 300      72.2 109.9
9        Pedro Martinez 219      61.3  86.0
10       Curt Schilling 216      54.1  80.7
11        Hal Newhouser 207      37.5  60.4
12         Roy Halladay 203      40.7  65.6
13          Dazzy Vance 197      39.1  62.5
14      Bret Saberhagen 167      36.8  59.1
15           Roy Oswalt 163      32.2  49.9
16           Dizzy Dean 150      26.7  42.7
17        Johan Santana 139      32.3  50.7
18           Nap Rucker 134      29.7  47.9
19      Adam Wainwright 119      20.4  32.5
20          Cole Hamels 108      26.2  40.4
21            Russ Ford  99      19.6  31.3
22      Clayton Kershaw  98      28.8  39.7
23          Tex Hughson  96      15.7  25.7
24         Noodles Hahn  91      20.0  31.0
25         Brandon Webb  87      23.0  33.3
Rk               Player   W WAA/pitch   WAR
26         Josh Johnson  58      15.9  23.8
27           Chris Sale  44      16.3  22.9
28           Mark Prior  42      10.5  15.7
29           Yu Darvish  39       7.9  12.8
30       Jhoulys Chacin  38       8.7  14.1
31    George Kaiserling  32       3.8   5.9
32         Mark Fidrych  29       7.6  11.4
33          Darren ODay  25       6.9  11.5
34         Tanner Roark  22       5.0   7.1
35           Doc Watson  22       2.5   4.0
36           Mike Adams  21       6.1  10.1
37        Takashi Saito  21       6.5  10.5
38            Joe Berry  21       4.5   6.7
39   Gordon Maltzberger  20       4.4   6.5
40           Drew Smyly  19       4.9   8.0
41         Dutch Ulrich  19       5.2   8.4
42       Jose Fernandez  16       5.6   7.4
43        Craig Kimbrel  15       7.6  12.2
44          Koji Uehara  15       7.4  11.6
45        Kenley Jansen  14       4.8   7.9
46         John Fulgham  14       3.0   5.0
47      Al Alburquerque  13       2.8   4.4
48      Masahiro Tanaka  13       2.1   3.3
49        Neftali Feliz  12       5.1   8.4
50          Matt Harvey  12       5.0   6.9
Rk               Player   W WAA/pitch   WAR
51          Luis Avilan  10       1.8   2.9

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/22/2014.

Koufax: 30.7 WAA / 53.2 WAR

1961 - 1966 (All star seasons): 30.9 WAA / 46.6 WAR

Best guess on who didn't vote for Pedro- obviously a Yankees fan, who is reserving their first ballot vote for the only player in baseball history deserving of unanimous first-ballot induction, one Derek Jeter...

Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you genuinely not understand what people are saying?

You first.

As opposed to the HoF situation, where literally the only instruction is to affirm that a worthy player deserves enshrinement - except that you aren't allowed to find more than 10 players worthy.

But that is literally not true. You are given instruction on what to consider. It may not be as specific as you like, you’re not being spoon fed, but it tells you that you have to consider “the player’s record, playing ability, etc.” Yeah, you reply, that leaves a lot unsaid. Hey, that comes with the job. It leaves it up to the writer how he will decide what that criteria means to him, as well as how he will weight the factors. This is done all the time in all kinds of jobs and assignments.

Moreover, that you choose 1 or 10 or 100 doesn't negate that you have to choose out of a pool or players (or actors). Why do you insist on engaging in mind ####? How often has being able to vote for "only" ten players been a problem? But, if it is, tough. Them's the rules. Play the game or go home. Choose the ten best. If it were Cy Young, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, yadda yadda for 50 more, and you could only choose ten, choose ten, dammit, however you feel whoever best meets the criteria of ability, etc, that is enumerated. Or excuse yourself from the process. What's so confusing about that? If you think that’s confusing, I’ve got some government regulatory manuals I want you to read, some judicial opinions, some insurance boilerplate to decipher.

Listen, I understand (and agree!) that "Best 10" seems like the most natural/obvious rubric and feels like it makes the most sense.

Thank you. We really should just end it there. But I'm fascinated by how far you want to insist on overthinking this. So,

The only instruction given directly to a voter is to "vote for... candidates deemed worthy of election."

No, that is not the only instruction. Further down it enumerates what a voter is to consider in making that determination. In fact, it seems all-inclusive. Says nothing about strategic voting, or trying to keep somebody’s candidacy alive, or giving Canseco credit for saving that old lady’s cats in the fire on The Simpsons. It tells the voter his vote “shall be based”..., yet you scratch your head and insist you are at loss at how to make your decision. You have no idea what a player’s record is, how to evaluate his ability, etc.? Well, maybe, then, you should resign your position.

The fact remains that there are no instructions and so no method is by rule any more or less valid than any other

Yes, there are instructions. No one has written a scientific treatise on how you are to constitute the general criteria, but I'm sure you've been asked (I know I have) if you can work independently on your own according to a general set of instructions. People do that all the time. Your boss says we want to know X. Consider ABCD in determining X, in a way you think appropriate, and let us know what your bottom line conclusion is. You’ve never had to do this? In fact, for experts in a field that's usually how it works. I was reading recently where when E. O. Wilson went to Harvard, he was asked what they wanted him to do (being a poor boy out of a state university). He was told they didn’t care. He could do what he wanted, as long as what he did brought renown upon himself, changed his area of study, and reflected to the credit of the school. Now, I know we don't think much of most members of the BBWA, but the Hall is assuming exactly that from it's "brainiacs". Let them figure out what is "the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played," and how it distinguishes one player from another--or ten from 12.

So who skipped Johnson and what was their reason? Always curious when an obvious HOF'er is skipped and there isn't a painfully obvious reason for skipping him (ala Bonds & Clemens).

I'm curious: does anyone know if there's always been a handful of guys who regularly maxed out the ballot? If so, it'd be interesting to know their voting patterns, e.g., would they tend to be generous to guys in danger of dropping off the ballot?

The guy who passed on Johnson didn't give a reason. Chances are he forgot. He revealed his ballot in a Hank's Thoughts type of stream of consiousness column. Who skipped Pedro? Do we know? Obviously Repoz knows, but has he said?

I rather bend the rules slightly -- if there are more than 10 you feel are worthy, there's no guideline as to which 10 you have to take -- and properly honor baseball's greatest players than follow the rules and leave even one player waiting one minute longer than he has to. I care more about honoring Mike Mussina or Curt Schilling than honoring the Hall's antiquated policy.

No votes for Mattingly yet, huh?

(Or Delgado or Giles, but I think they basically have no chance at 5%.)

Wait? Who didn't vote for Pedro?

The spreadsheet still shows him at 100%

BBWAA voters Bill Madden and John Harper discuss this year's ballot:


Bill Madden on Mike Piazza: “Ah, if only it were just about the raw numbers and not about the acne... I don’t know from acne. But what is evident is that, beginning in 2003 when baseball had its experimental testing, is when Piazza’s career began bottoming out and he started getting injuries.”

Madden on Gary Sheffield: “In his case, in which he said he used “the cream” only once and didn’t know it was a steroid, I believe him, if only because throughout his entire career he was brutally honest about everything... He’s one of those guys, like Jim Rice and Tony Perez, who will look better to the voters the longer he’s on the ballot.”

John Harper on Piazza: “Because of that suspicion, which was widespread during his career, I withheld my vote in Piazza’s first year of eligibility. But without convincing evidence I don’t feel it’s fair to withhold the vote long-term, so I voted for Piazza last year and I’m voting for him this year.”

Madden on Tim Raines: ”Just not enough Hall of Fame seasons for me.”

Harper on Roger Clemens: “Though Clemens was never convicted of any PED-related charges, I’m convinced that he used steroids for years, largely because I can never get past the logic that if Brian McNamee was telling the truth about Andy Pettitte, why would he have been lying about Clemens?”

Madden on Don Mattingly: “Just not nearly enough. I’ve been voting for him just to keep him on the ballot, but this might be his last year.”

Madden on Mike Mussina: “Good as he was, I still need to be convinced and, for this ballot anyway, he’s not in the same category as Pedro or the Big Unit... He led the league in wins only once.”

Madden on Pedro Martinez: “His relatively low win total can be ignored.”

Who didn't vote for Pedro?

Someone who didn't like Napoleon Dynamite.

Boston Herald writer Steve Buckley's ballot is already factored into the running tally above, but he annotated his picks with the following:

Voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America who do not reveal their choices are hacks, cowards and, oh, I don’t know, maybe even racists. Wouldn’t you like to know the names of the 23 press box sages who didn’t vote for Willie Mays in 1979? Or the nine who didn’t vote for Henry Aaron in 1982?

... I can’t respect anybody who doesn’t vote for Johnson or Martinez.

...Martinez already has been screwed once by the BBWAA, when, in 1999, two voters left him entirely off their Most Valuable Player ballots. It cost Martinez the MVP. A nice olive branch, then, would be for Martinez to be a unanimous selection to the Hall of Fame. It won’t happen, though, and we won’t know who left him off his or her ballot.

...No, I am not voting for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire. And, yes, I am voting for Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza, because: a) they’ve never been linked to PEDs, and b) I don’t care about your stupid ‘eyeball test.’ My system is just as flawed as everybody else’s, and I open myself up to all kinds of criticism, but unlike the cowards I can live with it.”

And here’s the annual sharing of a line from Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci: “Voting for a known steroid user is endorsing steroid use.”

If you’re in that daffy camp that believes “they all did it,” then you’re insulting a lot of former big leaguers who walked away from the needles, creams and other magic potions. As former major leaguer Dave Gallagher once told me, “You hear all these stories about guys in the toilet stalls in the clubhouse and all that, but I never saw it. But I’d hear guys talking. I remember once sitting at a table in the clubhouse and this player came up to another player and said, ‘Man, you have to hook me up with that doctor.’ And the other guy, the look on his face was, ‘Shut up. You don’t know who’s listening.’ Maybe that was me. I don’t know . . . But I have five kids, and I always vowed I’d never lie to them. I want to be proud of my career in that I did the best I could with what I had.”

Gallagher gutted out nine big league seasons with seven teams, mostly as a fourth outfielder. He was a .271 career hitter with just 17 home runs, so I doubt a regimen of ’roids would have catapulted him to Cooperstown. But he’d have been a better player had he cheated. He didn’t.

He’s one of those guys, like Jim Rice and Tony Perez, who will look better to the voters the longer he’s on the ballot.”

Hahahahahahahahahah.
Man, if that's support, Sheff should go without.
I'm not a Sheff fan at all, but, with the exception of Rice 77-78, I'd rather have him than either of those two mistakes

Thanks for the heads-up on the Buckley article, Gonfalon. Just read it- Buckley sounds seven more ticked off about some BBWAA voters than most of us out here in BBTF land...

227. Ithaca2323 Posted: December 22, 2014 at 04:19 PM (#4867043)

I think there's a subset of baseball fans and writers who look for things to be insulted over, especially with Hall of Fame voting. I'm sure there will be people insulted that Randy Johnson won't get 100%. And if Pedro or Jeter or whoever manages to, different people will be insulted by that because they'll demand to know how that guy got something Babe Ruth didn't. Some guys get insulted if you vote for a "steroid" guy, others get mad if you don't. Some guys decry the overuse of advanced stats in the process, others hate narratives. Some people are upset that a voter says he never reconsiders anyone, but others ask how it's possible that some player gains 200 votes over 15 years. I know people who get upset at the hat certain players have on their plaques. There seems to be nothing baseball fans won't get indignant about--how could that player celebrate in that manner? How could the pitcher not respond? Why didn't Chipper's retirement tour garner as much press as Jeter's? Why does Bryce Harper not behave with appropriate levels of humility? Why does Jeter never say anything interesting? Why won't curt schilling shut up?--so I'm not going to ask a voter to do something simply because someone will be insulted if they don't. I'm not even sure it's possible to do anything in baseball without someone being insulted.

Especially around here. Best post of the thread.

Madden on Don Mattingly: “Just not nearly enough. I’ve been voting for him just to keep him on the ballot, but this might be his last year.”

At least Madden is open to not voting for Mattingly on his 16th year on the ballot.

Best post of the thread.

Concur.

If you get "insulted" b/c someone "only" gets 90% of the HoF vote, you've got too much time on your hands, and too easy a life.

Bill Madden on Mike Piazza: “Ah, if only it were just about the raw numbers and not about the acne... I don’t know from acne. But what is evident is that, beginning in 2003 when baseball had its experimental testing, is when Piazza’s career began bottoming out and he started getting injuries.”

Yeah, this could be the reason- or maybe the reason for the injuries and downturn is that Piazza was a 34-year old catcher in 2003 who had already caught in over 1300 games in his career (which alone would rank Piazza in the top 50 in games caught of all time.)

Nah, the latter couldn't possibly be the reason...

Yeah, this could be the reason- or maybe the reason for the injuries and downturn is that Piazza was a 34-year old catcher in 2003 who had already caught in over 1300 games in his career

Do you think that would happen to a true all-time great like Johnny Bench?

Madden on Tim Raines: ”Just not enough Hall of Fame seasons for me.”

A leadoff hitter’s job, presumably, is to:

A) Get on base and
B) If possible, move himself into scoring position without using up outs

There are many ways a player can do this. For example:

For the years 1981-1988, Tim Raines:

1) Led the NL in OBA
2) Led the NL in hits
3) Led the NL in doubles
4) Led the NL in triples
5) Led the NL in stolen bases with nearly double the total of the #2 guy (Steve Sax)
6) Led the NL in Runs Scored

Isn’t that about everything that you can possibly want from your leadoff man?

For almost an entire decade Raines dominated the league in half a dozen categories. If you look throughout all of MLB history you won't find too many players that can make that claim. (Look at how Rogers Hornsby dominated the NL of the 1920s for the obvious exception).

This is an incredibly high peak (the only player in the league with more WAA than Raines during this period was Mike Schmidt) and the years that followed in Raines' career, the supposed "filler" - weren't exactly shabby, either, as Raines maintained a .380 OBA (with a 114 OPS+) and stole an additional 264 bases (at an 80% success rate) during the remainder of his career, adding almost 10 WAA to his career total. This was the "downhill" portion of his career? There's a whole lot of players that would like for that to be their "peak"!

So if Tim Raines didn't have enough "HOF" seasons for Bill Madden, I'd sure like to know what his idea of HOF seasons are?

Wait, on second thought, maybe I don't want to know. Maybe he thinks a HOF season is one where the player hits 30 HR and drives in 100 runs or has a .300 BA.

Yeah, this could be the reason- or maybe the reason for the injuries and downturn is that Piazza was a 34-year old catcher in 2003 who had already caught in over 1300 games in his career (which alone would rank Piazza in the top 50 in games caught of all time.)

Nah, the latter couldn't possibly be the reason...

Yeah, I was going to point that out too. I don't know about bacne or body types, but as far as suspicious power spikes go, Piazza had one of the most consistent and least suspicious peaks of anybody (in any generation, actually). He hit 35 homers as a rookie in 1993 and then came within 5 homers of that either way (prorating the strike seasons) every year for the next nine years.

Madden on Tim Raines...

MADDEN: From 1981-86 he was on his way to being a first-ballot electee, but then, between a drug problem and injuries, his career just dropped off.

Raines from 1981-1986: Six seasons, 31.7 WAR, 19.2 WAA. Averaged 5.3 WAR, 3.2 WAA.
Raines from 1987-1992: Six seasons, 26.2 WAR, 14.5 WAA. Averaged 4.4 WAR, 2.4 WAA.

Yes, a drop off, but it's not like Raines fell off the face of the earth.

By the time he came to the Yankees, he was a fourth outfielder.

Raines was 36 years old when he came to the Yankees...

234: Hey, Booey, Happy Holidays! For me Trammell is a clear HOF, and I believe the writer's voting influences the VC voting, so I'd like to see him get as much support ad possible in the hope it will help him be elected by the VC. McGriff, for me, is a poor candidate, at best. I would not like to see him elected, and I think supporting him over well qualified candidates is wrong.

1st time voter

http://blog.northjersey.com/knicks/387/the-hardest-hall-of-fame-vote-ever/

Re 269 and whether the BBWAA influences the VC.

The VC currently includes BBWAA members, so there's some likelihood of influence on part of their deliberations. Meanwhile, I Was talking with a pal about this and looked up some figures on this topic.

Here's the list of all players who:
-received 30% in a BBWAA vote
-were not elected by the BBWAA
-are not on the current BBWAA ballot
-are not yet eligible for the VC ballot.

Surprisingly, perhaps, there are only 38. Apologies if I missed anyone, I may have left out a Frisch guy or two. Asterisks for the VC HOFers:

*Fox: 74.7%
*Cepeda: 73.5%
*Bunning: 70.0%
*Slaughter: 68.9%
Hodges: 63.4%
*Roush: 54.3%
*Rice: 53.2%
*Rixey: 52.8%
*Carey: 51.1%

88% of candidates who scored 50% or higher were elected by the VC (8 of 9).

Oliva: 47.3%
*Gomez: 46.1%
*Schalk: 45.0%
*Bender: 44.7%
*Mize: 43.6 %
Maris: 43.1%
*Santo 43.1%
*Newhouser: 42.8%
*Schoendienst: 42.6%
Garvey: 42.6%
*Maz: 42.3%
*Ashburn: 41.7% [overall rate of election is still above 80% here, 17 of 21]
Wills: 40.6%
Marion: 40.0%

64% of candidates from 40% to 49.9% were elected (9 of 14).
74% of all candidates from 40% upward were elected (17 of 23).

Kuenn: 39.3%
*Rizzuto: 38.7%
*Wilson: 38.3%
*Kell: 36.8%
Gowdy: 35.9%
Cavaretta: 35.6%
*Grimes: 34.2% [overall rate of election is still above 70% here.]
Sain: 34.0%
*Cuyler: 33.8%
Reynolds: 33.6%
*Lazzeri: 33.2%
John: 31.7%
Tiant: 30.9%
*Faber: 30.9%
*Baker: 30.4%

53% of candidates from 30% to 39.9% were elected (8 of 15).
66% of candidates from 30% to 74.9% were elected (25 of 38).

It's hard to draw conclusions from some of these guys because the election traditions and rules have changed a little bit over the years, and the BBWAA ballot included guys in the early days and for some time after who today would lose eligibility after 15 years. But if this information is indicative, the higher a guy's support goes, the more he has benefitted in the VC historically.

Two other random bits of info:
1) Another interesting stat is that only three times has a player received 70% of the vote and failed to be elected the next year. The first was Frank Chance during the period I mentioned with all the oldsters still on the ballot. The other two were both Jim Bunning, in consecutive years. The third year his support dropped under 70%, and he had to wait for the VC.

2) Johnny Bench is the only catcher elected on his first ballot.

I will tilt at this windmill one more time and then give up.

The only instruction given directly to a voter is to "vote for... candidates deemed worthy of election."

No, that is not the only instruction. Further down it enumerates what a voter is to consider in making that determination. In fact, it seems all-inclusive. Says nothing about strategic voting, or trying to keep somebody’s candidacy alive, or giving Canseco credit for saving that old lady’s cats in the fire on The Simpsons. It tells the voter his vote “shall be based”..., yet you scratch your head and insist you are at loss at how to make your decision. You have no idea what a player’s record is, how to evaluate his ability, etc.? Well, maybe, then, you should resign your position.

All of this is entirely beside the point. Yes, they are told what to consider in making the determination of WORTHY OR NOT WORTHY. Their instructions are to VOTE FOR WORTHY CANDIDATES. As you grant here.

Let them figure out what is "the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played," and how it distinguishes one player from another--or ten from 12.

Not sure what you think you're saying here because what you are saying is "let them figure out" how to handle the problem they're facing, which is my argument. As a reminder, your argument is "a voter must vote for the '10 Best' candidates, ignoring all other factors." My argument is that in the absence of instruction, strategic voting for 10 is equally as valid as '10 Best.' Your sophistry aside, the voting instructions no more say that a voter must vote for the 10 best candidates than they do that strategic voting is allowed, as you are so fond of pointing out.

Hall of Fame voting is not a ranking process. Nobody wins. Of any two players who have been inducted, by the structures laid out by the organization itself, neither can be more worthy than the other. Every player deemed eligible by the screening committee is either WORTHY of the HoF or NOT WORTHY of the HoF, and the electorate is explicitly given the task of individually declaring one way or the other on each candidate. But only up to 10.

In point of fact, strategic voting might be considered to be more in line with the HoF's (ruinously incomplete) instructions to the electorate. Remember the first section, 'Authorization'? Their purpose is to elect players to the HoF by voting for worthy candidates. Insisting on voting for '10 Best' while believing there are more than 10 worthy candidates makes it more likely that a worthy candidate will not be enshrined, violating the purpose of the institution. Strategic voting increases the likelihood that all worthy candidates will be elected.

You'd be better off arguing that the instructions implicitly declare that only 10 players can be worthy of election in a given ballot year which necessarily means that only 10 players can inherently be worthy at a time. At least that would be consistent with what's presented and no more (or less) silly than your current position that the rules mean something that they don't say.

{shrug} Your convoluted lengths in desperate rationalization speak for themself. Your g-spot shouldn't be this hard to find.

I find it interesting how differently voters are treating Sosa (3.9%) as compared to Bonds (39.2%) and Clemens (37.3%, as of 12/23). There is less PED evidence for Sosa than the other two, yet it is not only treated as a given that he used, but that without PEDs, he would have been nothing.

alilisd #269 - Got it! I figured that's what you meant, just checking to make sure you were talking about worthiness of candidates rather than momentum/likelihood of getting elected. :-) I agree that Trammell is a better candidate than McGriff. I think Freddy has a slightly better (though still almost non-existant) chance of getting elected by the writers though.

Raines from 1981-1986: Six seasons, 31.7 WAR, 19.2 WAA. Averaged 5.3 WAR, 3.2 WAA.
Raines from 1987-1992: Six seasons, 26.2 WAR, 14.5 WAA. Averaged 4.4 WAR, 2.4 WAA.

Yes, a drop off, but it's not like Raines fell off the face of the earth.

Perhaps his years were just off?

Raines from 1983-1987: 32.2 WAR, 21.1 WAA
Raines from 1988-1992: 19.5 WAR, 9.8 WAA

#271 - If past trends hold, that list is discouraging cuz it just means that Morris and Lee Smith and maybe even Steve Garvey are more likely to get elected by the VC than Grich or Whitaker or Walker.

I find it interesting how differently voters are treating Sosa (3.9%) as compared to Bonds (39.2%) and Clemens (37.3%, as of 12/23). There is less PED evidence for Sosa than the other two, yet it is not only treated as a given that he used, but that without PEDs, he would have been nothing.

There actually isn't much evidence against Clemens, either. And while I agree with you that Sosa is getting screwed, Bonds and Clemens were WAY better players than Sammy, so it doesn't surprise me that they're pulling in a lot more votes. Both were HOFers before the alleged juicing, whereas Sosa barely squeaks in (statistically) even with the alleged juicing.

I don't know about bacne or body types, but as far as suspicious power spikes go, Piazza had one of the most consistent and least suspicious peaks of anybody (in any generation, actually). He hit 35 homers as a rookie in 1993 and then came within 5 homers of that either way (prorating the strike seasons) every year for the next nine years.

Isn't the official suspicion that Piazza did "something" between 1988, when he was drafted in the 62nd round as a family favor, and, say, 1991, when he started posting slugging percentages above .500 in the minors?

Yes, the implication is that nobody ever can deviate from their talent evaluation when they were 20 years old, but nobody has ever said steroid allegations are fair.

#271 - If past trends hold, that list is discouraging cuz it just means that Morris and Lee Smith and maybe even Steve Garvey are more likely to get elected by the VC than Grich or Whitaker or Walker.

Exactly. Rather than hope that Trammell can pick up support he's not got going to get, I'd rather see efforts made to divorce the Veterans Committee from taking cues from the BBWAA election.

JL, you really don't see the difference between Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa?

Both were HOFers before the alleged juicing, whereas Sosa barely squeaks in (statistically) even with the alleged juicing.

Here, yes but in normal HOF world, Sosa's stats would usually be a lock.

JL, you really don't see the difference between Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa?

Sure, but not 9x better.

Sosa hit 609 homeruns, an MVP and some damn memorable seasons. Without PEDs, he gets in no problem. Yet he is treated as if he was all pharma, which I find a bit surprising.

The work in #271 is fun, but it's pretty much the definition of why we can't assume causation from correlation, right?

Players who do better in the BBWAA voting most likely do better in the VC voting because they're, y'know, better players. It doesn't prove at all that the VC takes cues from the BBWAA voting totals.

Is there a reason why the spreadsheet is not updated with the non Pedro vote? Was that person given an assurance that they would not publish their vote?

I find it interesting how differently voters are treating Sosa (3.9%) as compared to Bonds (39.2%) and Clemens (37.3%, as of 12/23). There is less PED evidence for Sosa than the other two, yet it is not only treated as a given that he used, but that without PEDs, he would have been nothing.

You're overthinking this, IMO. Sosa's career WAR is just 58, and he he had just one season where he finished in the top five among position players in the league in WAR and just three where he was in the top 10. Compare that to Bonds/Clemens.

I think sometimes, we look at these "PED" guys and assume that a no vote for them is because of the PEDs. I mean, look at McGwire. Regardless of if you put stock in the PED stuff or not, and where you fall on him, I can see why guys didn't vote for him.

He was a first baseman who the metrics have slightly below average defensively. He stole 12 bases, and was a slightly below average baserunner. He was an everyday player for just 10 seasons. He hit just .263. He never won an MVP, and he finished in the Top 5 just three times. He hit just .217/.320/.349 in the postseason, and while he won a ring, the two losses the As had in the WS probably stick out more than the win. All of these things could matter to a voter, even if we don't think some of them should matter at all.

His entire case is that he hit HRs at an all-time great rate and he drew a lot of walks. Those are two incredibly valuable things, and to me, he was so good at them I'd vote for him. But I could see a voter saying that his all-around game wasn't good enough to support even that.

Yes, Sosa's accomplishment has to be considered with reference to his time and place.

284 - I think looking solely at WAR is over thinking things.

I do understand why we consider him borderline. But 606 HRs, even in the context of his environment, is still a whole heck of a lot. That so many of the HOF voters treat him as just a PED creation is a bit surprising.

Your comparison to McGwire makes that point. For as much of a close call he is, he has still gotten over twice the votes that Sosa has, despite admitting to using. Sosa was more rounded, with better defense at his peak and some speed thrown in there.

Again, I get that Sosa is borderline at best. But HOF votes typically don't treat guys with his type of stats that way. I am surprised that Sosa gets that treatment while other alleged PED users don't.

piazza did steroids because he was barely drafted and scouts are never wrong about draft picks. also because no male ever has back acne after age 18 unless he shoots up

sosa did steroids because no male can possibly increase his muscle mass by lifting weights

bonds and clemens did steroids because the media hates their personalities

biggio and bagwell did steroids because they had a teammate who later, on some other team, because infamous for doing drugs

- am not sure about the excuse someone used to explain why randy johnson does not belong. with pedro, i'm sure it is not enough W

JL, you really don't see the difference between Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa?



Sure, but not 9x better.

9 X the vote % does not necessarily mean a player is considered 9 x the player since there are limits to the numbers of players any voter can select.

am not sure about the excuse someone used to explain why randy johnson does not belong

The guy who omitted Johnson wrote a full article about who he voted for and why and even included a few comments about guys he didn't vote for and why. He never even acknowledged that Johnson was on the ballot.

D.A., I think you are right that I have overstated the relationship.

To my mind, the most important thing is that history has shown that, whatever the explanation, the more votes a guy gets with the BBWAA, the more likely he is to get VC love. So getting Trammell, say, more votes through strategic voting at the expense of someone else may be a reasonable play for the long game.

more votes through strategic voting at the expense of someone else may be a reasonable play for the long game.

Not enough to make a difference. Trammell's support has peaked. A handful of extra "strategic": votes will earn him nothing down the road.

[ahem] From the Bill James Mailbag linked eslewhere here.

Hey Bill, if you had a Hall of Fame vote (by the way, what a joke it is that you don’t) and believed that more than 10 candidates were deserving, how would you proceed? Would you engage in “strategic” voting? (This could take the form of, e.g., not voting for “sure thing” Randy Johnson. Or it could take the form of voting for Johnson to get him in and “unclog” the ballot going forward, while not voting for e.g. Alan Trammell, who seems to have little chance.) Or, would you just vote your top 10?

I would just vote for the ten best players.

the more votes a guy gets with the BBWAA, the more likely he is to get VC love

Great example for showing why correlation does not imply causation.

Great example for showing why correlation does not imply causation.

There's actually a strong reason to believe there is considerable correlation there.

[ahem] From the Bill James Mailbag linked eslewhere here.

{shrug} Your convoluted lengths in desperate rationalization speak for themself.

Knowing that you think that convoluted is a hoot. Thanks.

Morty, I have to say, I think your argument is wrong (and I say that as someone who would almost certainly vote for "best ten" with no strategic voting). In the eyes of the Hall of Fame, every single player elected is equal to every other single player elected, and the worthy/unworthy distinction is a binary choice. Therefore, there is no concept of "best ten" with the ballot; there is a concept of "worthy players" and "unworthy players", and the voters can include up to ten players they deem worthy.

There's as much indication that the Hall of Fame wants voters to limit their top ten alphabetically (as that's how the players are listed on the ballot) as it wants voters to limit by ordinal ranking.

289

who is the writer who left out johnson?

How far back does the ten-player limit go? The very beginning? It almost has to be an artifact of the the Hall of Fame not foreseeing the league's growth and, therefore, ability to produce more than ten worthy players per ballot.

And now, the Hall of Fame - which is loath to make any sort of judgement on players, be it PEDs or whatever - won't acknowledge that there might be more than ten worthies on a single ballot. So instead, they reduce the length of time a single player can appear on the ballot(*). And we get these discussions about which ten to include instead of voters being able to treat all worthy players equally (as the Hall itself does, once they've been elected).

(*) Thinking about this, the time reduction probably will mitigate the logjam, in that players like Jack Morris or Alan Trammel - who aren't being voted in by the BBWAA, regardless of worthiness - have five fewer years to steal votes from players that still have a chance. That said, upping the player limit (or removing it all together) would have been a better solution.

Garry Brown left off Randy Johnson. The article he wrote seems to no longer exist, though. The link on the spreadsheet and the link from BBTF both go to here.