Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, November 26, 2018

Thibs’ Hall of Fame Tracker

Primate Thibs’ indispensable Hall of Fame tool is back for another year.

SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2018 at 03:02 PM | 1365 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, son of gizmo

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 14 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14
   1301. bachslunch Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:13 PM (#5807900)
Flip again.
   1302. homerwannabee Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:18 PM (#5807903)
I know this will be strange coming from me, but I thought Mo would lose 2 to 5 votes today.

It just feels that Mo went to Vegas, and got the jackpot in regards to luck. To be honest it's a way bigger shocker than Moose getting in. Still less of a shock than Baines getting in though.

Like everyone else I am glad the 100% thing is a thing of the past.
   1303. The Duke Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:25 PM (#5807905)
Schilling still has a shot. Next year will determine whether he can get close enough - if he stalls next year with a clear ballot he won’t get in. I don’t ever see vizquel getting to 75. He will follow the lee Smith path to the hall. I bet walker gets in next year. The real interesting part will be Helton, Kent, Wagner, rolen,Jones. Do any of these guys vault to the top or do they all end up in McGriff land .

Lots of open spaces next year - will be fun to see it unfold
   1304. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:29 PM (#5807906)
Like everyone else I am glad the 100% thing is a thing of the past.

I'm not so sure we will see consistency here. It only takes 1 contrarian to decide this is the year to pursue a personal agenda, engage in some silly tactical voting that omits the most deserving, or even decide that Rivera should stand alone for a few years. Undoubtedly, any such inconsistency will bother some, but it won't really matter.
   1305. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:31 PM (#5807907)
Voters didn't forget that Mariano Rivera was a Ruthian two-way player, averaging more than 160 RBI per 500 at-bats.
   1306. Hank Gillette Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:40 PM (#5807913)
Clemens: 57.3 to 59.5
Bonds: 56.4 to 59.1


There are still one or two voters who are voting for Clemens and not Bonds. That has been consistent every year that they both have been on the ballot, with small variances.

I have to wonder if there are enough voters who want to punish the two, but will vote for them in their last year of eligibility. If so, then shortening the number of years that they could be on the ballot may have actually moved up their induction by five years.
   1307. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:42 PM (#5807915)
Sixteen people voted against Greg Maddux in 2014.

I think it's more likely that some of those people people looked at the absurdly crowded 2014 ballot, said "Maddux is in regardless," and voted strategically to support other candidates. (Say, Mussina and Martinez, both of whom were under 30% that year and could reasonably have been thought to need help.)

Although... the tracker archives seem to indicate otherwise. The 2014 page has three non-Maddux votes - one blank ballot, one Morris-only ballot, and one - wait for it - Morris, Nomo, Raines and Trammell. So maybe I'm giving the anonymous writers too much credit.
   1308. bbmck Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:48 PM (#5807918)
Hopefully the 14 living players of the club are making plans to get together for drinks to toast the newest member.

Debut since 1901, Final Year 2013 or earlier, most Hits with 0 HoF votes:

2561 - Willie Davis (left off ballot)
2217 - Juan Pierre
2192 - Cecil Cooper
2152 - Ruben Sierra
2150 - Ed Konetchy (pre-ballot)
2109 - Chris Chambliss

2091 - Hal McRae
2060 - Wally Joyner
2055 - Orlando Cabrera
2054 - Ray Durham
2040 - Mark Grudzielanek

2029 - Ken Singleton
2020 - Amos Otis
2018 - George Burns (the MVP winner, the other one got votes)
2011 - Gary Matthews
2007 - Tony Taylor
2004 - Todd Zeile

211 of the 228 players with 2000+ Hits received at least one vote. Among the 17:

Highest BA: George Burns .307, Cecil Cooper .298, Juan Pierre .295, Hal McRae .290, Wally Joyner .289, Mark Grudzielanek .289
Most SB: Juan Pierre 614, Willie Davis 398, Amos Otis 341, Ray Durham 273, Ed Konetchy 255
Most HR: Ruben Sierra 306, Todd Zeile 253, Ken Singleton 246, Cecil Cooper 241, Gary Matthews 234
Most WAR: Willie Davis 60.7, Ed Konetchy 46.4, Amos Otis 42.8, Ken Singleton 41.8, Cecil Cooper 36
   1309. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:49 PM (#5807919)
There were a few people who left off Maddux and said they were doing so because they knew he’d be elected anyway, but true that not all were that way. I think that was also before the great purge.
   1310. John DiFool2 Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:56 PM (#5807927)
There are still one or two voters who are voting for Clemens and not Bonds. That has been consistent every year that they both have been on the ballot, with small variances.

I have to wonder if there are enough voters who want to punish the two, but will vote for them in their last year of eligibility. If so, then shortening the number of years that they could be on the ballot may have actually moved up their induction by five years.


So...any guesses at to whether there is a hard firewall there for these two, and where it might be? [or Schill too] Ordinarily, getting to/near 60% w/ 3 to go (for all 3) would mean they would be mortal locks. Not here tho.

   1311. MelOtt4 Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:56 PM (#5807928)
If Schilling gets in next year with Jeter and Walker (off the ballot either way) there's a possibility of no one on the writers ballot being inducted in 2021.
   1312. Srul Itza Posted: January 22, 2019 at 08:06 PM (#5807936)
he'll probably get in if he can avoid saying offensive things for a couple years.


So you're saying he's screwed.
   1313. homerwannabee Posted: January 22, 2019 at 08:16 PM (#5807945)
People who I think benefit most from what happened in this year's vote.

Larry Walker: having Mussina get in gets him a few more votes. Plus his rise this year with another similar rise gets him in.

Billy Wagner: His, "hey I beat Mo in WHip" will help his cause. Regular season wise Wagner was similar to Mo, but with a shorter career.

Curt Schilling: Leading non HoF vote getter. Writters can't vote for the similar non PED pitcher with the much better personality. Curt will be the only non PED pitcher that's hall of fame worthy in stats.

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens possibly. There aren't any more 10 non PED players to vote for who are Hall worthy. So maybe the writer who wants to vote for non PED players first will have a couple of spaces now to think about putting Bonds and Clemens first.

Omar Vizquel: More big hall guys will have space for Omar on their ballot.
   1314. Esoteric Posted: January 22, 2019 at 08:38 PM (#5807967)
All four inductees are eminently deserving, and this was actually a wonderful surprise for the HOF voters -- I'm pretty sure we all expected Mussina to fall agonizingly short, even though the numbers suggested he had a chance.

I have no complaints at all about how the voting turned out this year, not even with Mariano being unanimous (silly that he was the first, but it's hardly like he's an undeserving HOF'er). Edgar finally making it and Mussina surprising everyone entirely makes up for the ridiculousness of Baines being inducted by the Today's Game committee.

A lotta people are going to be making the pilgrimage to Cooperstown this year, and justifiably so.
   1315. Man o' Schwar Posted: January 22, 2019 at 09:41 PM (#5807991)
Although... the tracker archives seem to indicate otherwise. The 2014 page has three non-Maddux votes - one blank ballot, one Morris-only ballot, and one - wait for it - Morris, Nomo, Raines and Trammell. So maybe I'm giving the anonymous writers too much credit.

From what I remember, around that time there were still people who were taking the stance of refusing to vote for anyone who played during the steroid era, whether or not they were ever linked to steroids. So it's not surprising that Maddux was off a ballot by someone who might vote for guys who peaked in the 80s.
   1316. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 22, 2019 at 09:59 PM (#5807999)
So it's not surprising that Maddux was off a ballot by someone who might vote for guys who peaked in the 80s.

Sure, but... Hideo Nomo along with them?
   1317. Howie Menckel Posted: January 22, 2019 at 10:08 PM (#5808002)
It only takes 1 contrarian to decide this is the year to pursue a personal agenda, engage in some silly tactical voting that omits the most deserving, or even decide that Rivera should stand alone for a few years.

this is a cultural era where such a voter would get death threats on social media, with his residence and names of family members freely disseminated for potential mob justice.

it's a shame that these great players noted were not unanimous - but we have gone from that to the punishment not fitting the crime. the jackals out there will leave any potential contrarian voter cowering in fear - over something as ultimately silly as percentage of a vote for a Hall of Fame for a ballplayer.

what the hell have we done?

oh, and Thibs got quoted in three separate NY Post articles today. nice!
   1318. Booey Posted: January 22, 2019 at 10:27 PM (#5808009)
Edgar is now the fifth Puerto Rican in the Hall.


- Ooh! I wanna play! Clemente, Cepeda, Alomar, and Pudge Rodriguez, right? Carlos Beltran should be the 6th. And then you've got Correa and Lindor, who it's way too early to be talking about, but what the hell, I just did it anyway.

I assume PR has got to currently hold the record for a foreign country or territory, but let's double check (going by memory, so feel free to make adds. There's probably some NeLers I'm missing at the very least).

- Mo just became the 2nd HOFer from Panama (Carew). I don't see any more in the pipeline any time soon.

- DR surprisingly only has 3 (Marichal, Pedro, Vlad), but they've lost 2 so far to PED's (Sosa, Manny), plus now a 3rd in the future (Cano). They've still got 3 more coming up, though (Ortiz, Beltre, Pujols).

- Venezuela only has 1 (Aparicio), but Vizquel could be the 2nd, and then Cabrera will surely join him/them. Also too early to talk about Altuve, but I like his chances. Too bad their awesome pitchers keep getting hurt or flaming out (Johan, Felix).

- Cuba only has 1 (Perez), but lost another to PED's (Palmeiro). Canseco wasn't getting in either way.

- Only 1 Canadian so far (Fergie Jenkins), but Walker and Votto have a good shot.

- Ichiro! will become the first Japanese born MLB HOFer

- I suspect Blyleven will keep his status as the only Dutch HOFer for a while. Unless Ichiro wants to do it, of course.
   1319. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 22, 2019 at 11:14 PM (#5808024)
The Tracker ended up with 129 10-player ballots (at the last 232 vote update), 26 9-player ballots, and 37 7 or 8-player ballots, with the 4 electees all very heavily represented. That's a lot of Large-Hall votes (with some more among the undisclosed voters) who will be able to give the marginal candidates a close look next year. Might be the least predictable vote in quite a while.
   1320. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 23, 2019 at 11:26 AM (#5808138)
1280. vortex of dissipation Posted: January 22, 2019 at 06:38 PM (#5807872)
I'm not going to comment on whether Sammy Sosa deserves to get elected or not (he didn't make my ten man ballot either), but doesn't it seem a bit unreal that a player who hit 609 home runs gets only 8.5% of the vote? I understand why, but...609 home runs? That's still a lot.


1296. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: January 22, 2019 at 07:05 PM (#5807895)
[1280] Agreed with the befuddlement over the lack of love for Sammy Sosa. All I can think is the voters are punishing him for bleaching his skin more than they are for using a corked bat or alleged connections to PEDs.


Borrowing from the Bobby Abreu thread, post 7:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/hall_of_merit/discussion/bobby_abreu/

A huge feather in Abreu's cap is his situational/contextual valuations.

From baseball-reference, his raw batting runs are at 418.1, converted to RE24 contextual at 570.2, moving his raw batting wins from 39.0 to 53.1, or +14.1 wins! In addition, his "clutch" score is a +4.4.

My question for the electorate: how much do we factor contextual measures like this into our analysis?

All fields, balanced hitters like Abreu had real team win value in this situations, where as boom-bust sluggers like Sammy Sosa were truly awful and detrimental to team wins and losses. Sammy's at 30.6 raw batting wins and 35.6 RE24 for a +5 wins, but he's an all-time worst level of clutch at -17.0 I'd take Sosa in a context neutral setting over Abreu, thanks to a stronger/peak prime, career value is relatively similar, but my gut says to flip the switch and take Abreu after factoring in situational value. The B-R measures are also borne out in the work Kiko has done for Sammy, with Sosa earning 38.1 neutral wins and 30.4 tied to team wins, although Abreu doesn’t seem to move the needle at 35.4 neutral and 34.8 tied to team victories.

I'm on the fence for Sosa, I'd have 10 ahead of Sammy without any consideration of corked bats, clubhouse cancer, and PED challenges.

Maybe he'll see some bump with 4 electees this year?

Will you guys/the BBTF family vote for Sosa ahead of Abreu?
   1321. Booey Posted: January 23, 2019 at 12:11 PM (#5808157)
Will you guys/the BBTF family vote for Sosa ahead of Abreu?


I absolutely would. IMO, the HOF is as much about telling the story of baseball as it is about recognizing statistical value, and Sosa was significantly more relevant to baseball history than Abreu was. In my PHOF (and often for the real one), that's what defines the in/out line for borderline players (see Rivera, Ichiro, Ortiz vs Olerud, Damon, Cone, etc).
   1322. dlf Posted: January 23, 2019 at 12:23 PM (#5808165)
Just wanted to say one more time before this thread goes dark for another year that I really appreciate the work of Ryan T and his "interns." Thanks for all you do guys!
   1323. bachslunch Posted: January 23, 2019 at 12:54 PM (#5808186)
Will you guys/the BBTF family vote for Sosa ahead of Abreu?


For the Hall of Merit, definitely, if forced to choose. Both will likely be on my ballot next time, though.

I'd do the same for the HoF if I actually had a vote. But I think both belong in there as well.
   1324. SoSH U at work Posted: January 23, 2019 at 12:59 PM (#5808191)

Just wanted to say one more time before this thread goes dark for another year that I really appreciate the work of Ryan T and his "interns." Thanks for all you do guys!


Indeed.
   1325. Srul Itza Posted: January 23, 2019 at 01:05 PM (#5808195)
the jackals out there will leave any potential contrarian voter cowering in fear


Or submitting an anonymous ballot.
   1326. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 23, 2019 at 02:36 PM (#5808259)
Just wanted to say one more time before this thread goes dark for another year . . .

ADD A "HOF TRACKER" TAG TO THE THREAD (AND OTHER YEARS) TO MAKE IT EASIER TO REFERENCE IN THE FUTURE! The poor tagging practices here make finding stuff more difficult than it should be,


   1327. Rusty Priske Posted: January 23, 2019 at 03:06 PM (#5808279)
2020 Ballot

Bonds, Clemens, Jeter, Schilling, Walker, Rolen, Ramirez, Jones, Helton, Sheffield.

Close: Pettitte, Abreu

It is never too early...
   1328. Karl from NY Posted: January 23, 2019 at 03:22 PM (#5808286)
Otherwise the best players on the ballot are Bobby Abreu and Jason Giambi.

Damn, I had no idea that Giambi hadn't been on the ballot yet. I would have guessed he already fell off under 5% like five years ago.
   1329. SoSH U at work Posted: January 23, 2019 at 03:29 PM (#5808288)
Damn, I had no idea that Giambi hadn't been on the ballot yet. I would have guessed he already fell off under 5% like five years ago.


That's because he spent about five years in a marginal pinch hitter/kindly grandpa role.
   1330. Rally Posted: January 23, 2019 at 03:31 PM (#5808290)
he'll probably get in if he can avoid saying offensive things for a couple years.


So you're saying he's screwed.


Schilling dropped from 52 to 45% in 2017, right on the heels of the 2016 election. Since then he hasn't been in the news much, and has picked up 15% in two years. My guess is he continues to gain a few votes next year. But the 2021 ballot will be right after another presidential election year, so yeah, no way he keeps his mouth shut.
   1331. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 23, 2019 at 03:34 PM (#5808291)
I absolutely would. IMO, the HOF is as much about telling the story of baseball as it is about recognizing statistical value, and Sosa was significantly more relevant to baseball history than Abreu was. In my PHOF (and often for the real one), that's what defines the in/out line for borderline players (see Rivera, Ichiro, Ortiz vs Olerud, Damon, Cone, etc).


Olerud is an under the radar stats guy, I get where you are coming from here.
Damon is a classic compiler that isn't value worthy by WAR.

I take exception to Cone, comfortably above the borderline for me + he was an ace/high end starter for 4! world series champions.
   1332. vortex of dissipation Posted: January 23, 2019 at 03:39 PM (#5808295)
The 2014 page has three non-Maddux votes - one blank ballot, one Morris-only ballot, and one - wait for it - Morris, Nomo, Raines and Trammell. So maybe I'm giving the anonymous writers too much credit.


Obviously not voting for Maddux is ridiculous, but of the four members he voted for, three are now in Cooperstown, and the other one is now a member of the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame.
   1333. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 23, 2019 at 04:49 PM (#5808319)
Tibbs now has 17 post-announcement ballots on The Tracker, if anyone's interested. A larger number will be released by the HoF 14 days after the announcement, IIRC.
   1334. alilisd Posted: January 23, 2019 at 08:04 PM (#5808363)
I suspect Blyleven will keep his status as the only Dutch HOFer for a while. Unless Ichiro wants to do it, of course.


Well played, Sir; well played!
   1335. RickA. Posted: January 24, 2019 at 10:31 AM (#5808467)
I absolutely would. IMO, the HOF is as much about telling the story of baseball as it is about recognizing statistical value, and Sosa was significantly more relevant to baseball history than Abreu was.


You know, I see statements like this all the time, usually in regards to Marvin Miller, Bonds or Clemens, and I tend to feel the same. It's a museum, and history is not always pretty or convenient. But shouldn't the same be true of Pete Rose. I personally think Rose is a scumbag, but if you feel that the Hall of Fame should be about recognizing history and should tell the story of baseball, how do you tell the story of baseball without Rose, the all-time hit king. In the history of baseball, he is more important than Edgar or Mussina or Lee Smith.

I don't really care if he goes in or not. I just think there should be consistency if you feel the purpose of the HOF is to tell the story of baseball. You really can't say Marvin Miller should be in because of the story of baseball, but Rose shouldn't.
   1336. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 24, 2019 at 11:00 AM (#5808480)
You know, I see statements like this all the time, usually in regards to Marvin Miller, Bonds or Clemens, and I tend to feel the same. It's a museum, and history is not always pretty or convenient. But shouldn't the same be true of Pete Rose. I personally think Rose is a scumbag, but if you feel that the Hall of Fame should be about recognizing history and should tell the story of baseball, how do you tell the story of baseball without Rose, the all-time hit king. In the history of baseball, he is more important than Edgar or Mussina or Lee Smith.
The argument there is that they can/should be included in the museum exhibits for historical reference, but not "enshrined" as officially honored members of the HOF, right? That's a reasonable and consistent position, whether or not people agree with it.
   1337. RickA. Posted: January 24, 2019 at 11:48 AM (#5808505)
No it's not. #1321 said he would support Sosa over Abreu because Sosa was significantly more relevant to baseball history than Abreu was. Then he mentions his PHOF. Why would either need to be mentioned if we are talking about museum exhibits, but not being enshrined?

As I said, I really don't care either way. I just believe that if you're arguing that people should be enshrined in baseball for historical reasons and telling the story of baseball, you need to be consistent about it, not exclude people because you don't like them. That's just as bad as writers excluding Bonds and Clemens, or the VC excluding Miller because of reasons outside their historical effect on baseball.

Do I want Rose in the HOF? No, not particularly. But if your arguing that Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, Miller should be enshrined because of historical reasons, then so should Rose. So should Joe Jackson.
   1338. Mark Donelson Posted: January 24, 2019 at 12:23 PM (#5808516)
Do I want Rose in the HOF? No, not particularly. But if your arguing that Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, Miller should be enshrined because of historical reasons, then so should Rose. So should Joe Jackson.


Hell, it's arguable by that logic that so should Arnold Rothstein.
   1339. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 24, 2019 at 12:29 PM (#5808519)
But the 2021 ballot will be right after another presidential election year, so yeah, no way he keeps his mouth shut.


Might be OTP, but if Trump loses re-election in 2020, I think Schilling gets in. If he gets re-elected, it will be tougher for Schilling, especially if he's as outspoken as he was in 2016.
   1340. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 24, 2019 at 12:30 PM (#5808520)
No it's not. #1321 said he would support Sosa over Abreu because Sosa was significantly more relevant to baseball history than Abreu was. nThen he mentions his PHOF. Why would either need to be mentioned if we are talking about museum exhibits, but not being enshrined?
Ah, sorry, I wasn't referring to 1321 specifically.

I just believe that if you're arguing that people should be enshrined in baseball for historical reasons and telling the story of baseball, you need to be consistent about it, not exclude people because you don't like them. That's just as bad as writers excluding Bonds and Clemens, or the VC excluding Miller because of reasons outside their historical effect on baseball.
Yeah, I see the logic in this. I personally lean more to the museum/enshrinement distinction, but if you're just talking about enshrinement, it does seem inconsistent.
   1341. TomH Posted: January 24, 2019 at 12:41 PM (#5808524)
Who wants to put up a prediction for HoF electees by BBWAA next 4 yrs, 2020-2023?

Big Newbs include Jeter, A-Rod, Papi, Beltran. That is ... not many!
   1342. Booey Posted: January 24, 2019 at 12:43 PM (#5808527)
I was simply referring to how I (and often the real HOF) defines the in/out line for players of BORDERLINE STATISTICAL VALUE. I wasn't trying to make any kind of broader point about players being snubbed for PED's, gambling, or any other non-value related reason.
   1343. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 24, 2019 at 01:02 PM (#5808531)
Who wants to put up a prediction for HoF electees by BBWAA next 4 yrs, 2020-2023?

Big Newbs include Jeter, A-Rod, Papi, Beltran. That is ... not many!


Walker sneaks over. Schilling gets in. Would not be surprised if Rolen and Wagner made strong moves. Omar could be interesting. Moved about 6%
   1344. Booey Posted: January 24, 2019 at 01:03 PM (#5808532)
Who wants to put up a prediction for HoF electees by BBWAA next 4 yrs, 2020-2023?


Yeah, that's the flipside to the fun run of 20 BBWAA elections in the last 6 years that we're on...it's probably over.

I'm guessing we get 1 per year for the next 4 years before finally getting 2 in 2024:

2020 - Jeter (Walker just misses and then drops off the ballot)
2021 - Schilling
2022 - Ortiz
2023 - Beltran (I wouldn't have thought he'd be first ballot, but on THESE ballots, he just might)
2024 - Ichiro, Beltre

Other predictions: Bonds and Clemens don't make it via the writers. ARod gets similar support but doesn't go anywhere. All the other PED guys (Manny, Sosa, Sheffield) run out of time without making any significant progress. Vizquel eventually gets in towards the end of his run. Wagner, Rolen, Helton, and maybe Kent start climbing and at least 1 or 2 of them eventually get in too. Pettitte would be in this group too, but it's hard to say how much he's getting dinged for the PED thing. Abreu, Buerhle, Hudson, and Hunter are all one and done. Andruw and Rollins hang around but don't come particularly close to getting elected.

Who else am I missing?
   1345. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 24, 2019 at 01:08 PM (#5808537)
Who wants to put up a prediction for HoF electees by BBWAA next 4 yrs, 2020-2023?

Big Newbs include Jeter, A-Rod, Papi, Beltran. That is ... not many!


I'll try:
2020: Jeter
2021: Schilling
2022: Bonds, Clemens, Ortiz
2023: ARod, Vizquel, Rolen
- I suspect multiple candidates will get selected during this time, as well, from the various committees, like Walker, Simmons, and/or Whitaker
- The only other players appearing on a ballot during these years who I think have a reasonable chance of being elected by the BBWAA eventually are Beltran, maybe Helton. I'm curious to see if Tim Hudson gets much traction, along with Rollins, Wagner, Abreu, and A. Jones. In a few years, the ballot will go from very clogged to quite sparse...and there will be pressure on the BBWAA to elected somebody every year.
   1346. RickA. Posted: January 24, 2019 at 02:02 PM (#5808564)
Yeah, I see the logic in this. I personally lean more to the museum/enshrinement distinction, but if you're just talking about enshrinement, it does seem inconsistent.


Yes, That is what I'm talking about. I'm fine with the museum/enshrinement distinction. In that case, it is perfectly OK to exclude Rose, Bonds, etc. It's just when people mention that baseball history would be different without a particular person, and therefore should be enshrined, that I feel that anyone who was a great player and changed baseball in a significant way should be enshrined, regardless of personal feelings about them.

Hell, it's arguable by that logic that so should Arnold Rothstein.


By that logic, yes, if you believe that historical significance should also determine who is enshrined. You could argue, in that case, that Tom Yawkey, for example, is a reasonable selection. He was the last owner to integrate his team. He represents the reprehensible bigotry and racism that existed in the front offices of the time. That is as much a part of baseball history as Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige.

I guess my point is why should players be enshrined in the HOF? Is it being a great player only, or is it being a great player and/or having historical significance in baseball? If it's the later, then it shouldn't matter whether he was good for baseball or not, or personal likes/dislikes. History is not always nice.
   1347. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 24, 2019 at 02:20 PM (#5808568)
Bonds & Clemens fell 68 & 66 votes short this year, gaining 13 and 11 votes, respectively. The gains were mostly due to turnover in the electorate, only 3 returning voters added them this year. They need to pick up ~ 22 votes in each of the next 3 years to make it in the final year, assuming the electorate is about the same size. Not sure there's going to be enough turnover for them to do that, although I haven't seen any info on how many new voters & no longer eligible voters there will be. Bonds & Clemens probably don't get the typical surge that comes when a player gets close, and they may not get the traditional last ballot courtesy vote, but there will be some who see voting them in on the last ballot as a punishment itself, although it's uncertain what the numbers will be. My guess is that Bonds & Clemens at least make it close, within ~ 30 votes, but they'll likely need to do better than they did this year to make it over the 75% line in time.
   1348. JL72 Posted: January 24, 2019 at 02:29 PM (#5808570)
Bonds & Clemens probably don't get the typical surge that comes when a player gets close, and they may not get the traditional last ballot courtesy vote, but there will be some who see voting them in on the last ballot as a punishment itself, although it's uncertain what the numbers will be.


Curious if the backlog thinning out may help these two. In the previous votes, folks could keep them off with little concern because there were lots of other good candidates. With those candidates gone, will some of the voters decide to finally add them?

As YC notes, it would need to be more than just a couple. I am a bit more optimistic, but agree they will probably fall short (I think by about 20 votes).
   1349. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 24, 2019 at 02:38 PM (#5808572)
Curious if the backlog thinning out may help these two. In the previous votes, folks could keep them off with little concern because there were lots of other good candidates. With those candidates gone, will some of the voters decide to finally add them?

If there is going to be a softening of positions, it should begin to show up next year, one would think. Too much to expect a big shift in just the final year, but I'd think that the more obvious the trend, the more difficult it would be for the holdouts to insist that a minority of the voters should impose personal, subjective standards that have been rejected by a majority of the voters.
   1350. SoSH U at work Posted: January 24, 2019 at 02:43 PM (#5808575)
Curious if the backlog thinning out may help these two.


It can't hurt. I agree that next year should give us a good read on where things stand. They ought to be rooting hard for Schilling.

   1351. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 24, 2019 at 03:56 PM (#5808612)
I guess my point is why should players be enshrined in the HOF? Is it being a great player only, or is it being a great player and/or having historical significance in baseball? If it's the later, then it shouldn't matter whether he was good for baseball or not, or personal likes/dislikes. History is not always nice.


If they're there for historical impact, it should be for doing something good. And really there aren't many players who qualify under this regard, maybe just Robinson who was a Hall of Fame player anyway. There were, of course some others who were inducted as pioneers who happened to play a little bit as well, such as Al Spalding and I think that's fine. I think Tommy McCarthy was a bad choice and don't think that him dropping pop-ups leading to the introduction of the infield fly rule really bolsters his case, nor do I think highly of of the Candy Cummings selection for inventing the curve ball (some believe Sutter is in for inventing the split finger, but I'm somewhat skeptical of that claim and I think Sutter was a mistake but he fits in ok with some of the other relievers, so whatever). Likewise, I don't think Chase Utley's case should be enhanced by him taking out Ruben Tejada's leg, nor Buster Posey's for getting injured in a home plate collision.
   1352. The Duke Posted: January 24, 2019 at 09:53 PM (#5808693)
I can’t see how the backlog thinning out helps. B &C are two of the best ever. If they weren’t on your ballot, it’s not because they were the 11th and 12th choice. Although I would have a chuckle if someone said we had to get Mcgriff off the ballot so I could finally vote for bonds.

I’m betting that the only way they get in via writers is if a book comes out identifying a bunch of current hall of famers as steroid users. Especially if it were recent names like piazza or Thome or bagwell or pudge.

I’m surprised some enterprising writer hasn’t done an interview tour to build a better Picture of guys that were using .



   1353. DanG Posted: January 24, 2019 at 11:12 PM (#5808709)
I’m betting that the only way they get in via writers is if a book comes out identifying a bunch of current hall of famers as steroid users. Especially if it were recent names like piazza or Thome or bagwell or pudge.

I’m surprised some enterprising writer hasn’t done an interview tour to build a better Picture of guys that were using .
You won't get any HOF members, or prospective members, to give that interview. The HOF holds its members very close and treats them very well. I'm sure it's very clear to all involved what is expected of the members.
   1354. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 24, 2019 at 11:17 PM (#5808711)
[1352] Someone did write a book claiming that they personally administered steroids to Pudge, but it basically got ignored.
   1355. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 24, 2019 at 11:21 PM (#5808712)
I can’t see how the backlog thinning out helps. B &C are two of the best ever. If they weren’t on your ballot, it’s not because they were the 11th and 12th choice.

It could just be strategic voting, if you subscribe to the "vote for any 10 you think belong, they don't have to be the 10 best" philosophy. (FWIW, looking down the Tracker's list of "would have voted for him if I had space," there were two mentions of Bonds and one of Clemens. Which is... not a lot but also not zero.)
   1356. SoSH U at work Posted: January 25, 2019 at 12:43 AM (#5808721)
I can’t see how the backlog thinning out helps. B &C are two of the best ever. If they weren’t on your ballot, it’s not because they were the 11th and 12th choice.


Can you explain how guys gain ground from one year to the next? How Edgar picked up a huge number of ballots this year from guys who never supported him before? That Roger and Barry, the two best ever, have climbed from 37.6 percent in Year 1 to nearly 60 percent in Year 8?

Hall voting doesn't necessarily work logically. Voters follow the herd. They push guys that are close over the top. And when guys move to the top of the backlog, they get more support.

If Schilling goes in next year, Clemens and Bonds could be 1 and 2 on the ballot in 2022. It might not be enough to overcome the anti-roid bias, but the absence of any backloggers will most likely give them a boost.
   1357. QLE Posted: January 25, 2019 at 04:59 AM (#5808724)
Can you explain how guys gain ground from one year to the next? How Edgar picked up a huge number of ballots this year from guys who never supported him before? That Roger and Barry, the two best ever, have climbed from 37.6 percent in Year 1 to nearly 60 percent in Year 8?


1) I haven't run numbers yet involving this year's gained votes for Edgar- but an examination of the ballots for the past two years demonstrates that a majority of his gains were the product of the backlog clearing up.

2) With Bonds and Clemens, there seem to be multiple factors at play- but it's hard not to note that the two big leaps for them were in 2016 (when a lot of the older voters who seem more likely to be die-hards on the subject of steroids lost their voting rights) and in 2017 (when a bunch of voters openly admitted that they changed their minds on the subject in response to Selig's induction by the VC).
   1358. JL72 Posted: January 25, 2019 at 08:38 AM (#5808736)
If they weren’t on your ballot, it’s not because they were the 11th and 12th choice.


I can see other reasons being possible, including strategic voting. But next year should tell us.
   1359. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 25, 2019 at 10:11 AM (#5808757)
There could be sportswriters who are waiting for year 10. I'd expect something of a bump then, but have no idea if the "never ever" group is more or less than 25%
   1360. SoSH U at work Posted: January 25, 2019 at 10:38 AM (#5808765)
1) I haven't run numbers yet involving this year's gained votes for Edgar- but an examination of the ballots for the past two years demonstrates that a majority of his gains were the product of the backlog clearing up.

2) With Bonds and Clemens, there seem to be multiple factors at play- but it's hard not to note that the two big leaps for them were in 2016 (when a lot of the older voters who seem more likely to be die-hards on the subject of steroids lost their voting rights) and in 2017 (when a bunch of voters openly admitted that they changed their minds on the subject in response to Selig's induction by the VC).


I wasn't really looking for answers. And maybe Edgar wasn't the best example of the point I was making, which is that looking for strictly logical reasoning to voting is a fool's errand.

Take, Jim Rice or Bruce Sutter or some other backlogger who made his way up in the past. There's no logical reason, absent a heavy ballot situation, why someone who is viewed as a Hall of Famer by just 30 percent of the electorate in Years 1 and 2 gains enshrinement 10-15 years later by largely that same voting body. There was absolutely nothing that changed in their Hall worthiness in that time frame, yet they went from support from 1/3 of the electorate to 75 percent. But this kind of thing happens, somewhat regularly.

Thus, thinking that Bonds and Clemens can in no way benefit from the backlog clearing (or becoming the leading vote-getter) shows a lack of understanding of the way Hall voting works (even if B & C have an additional hurdle that others that typically find themselves at their level of support aren't saddled with).



   1361. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 25, 2019 at 12:01 PM (#5808812)
The fewer available alternatives, the more likely a voter is to consider the remaining options. Sure, some of the opposition to Bonds & Clemens will never fade, but some voters faced with more ballot space than they have had for a decade likely will at least consider whether they want to maintain their unyielding opposition for the full 10-year eligibility period. It's the same for players on the cusp - fewer strong candidates gives the voters an opportunity to consider whether those players might be just over the enshrinement line.
   1362. DanG Posted: January 25, 2019 at 01:25 PM (#5808853)
I was just looking at the Hall of Merit results and noticed a few things:

--The top 8 finishers in the BBWAA voting, all with over 50% support, are in the HoM (Rivera, Martinez, Halladay, Mussina, Schilling, Clemens, Bonds, Walker).
--3 more HoMers are on the ballot: Ramirez, Rolen, Sheffield.
--3 more HoMers were not on the ballot but are still under BBWAA jurisdiction: Brown, Palmeiro, Edmonds.
--Three others on the ballot have very strong support in HoM voting: Helton, Kent, and Jones.
   1363. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 25, 2019 at 01:35 PM (#5808857)
Pardon my ignorance, but are HoM voters instructed not to consider PEDs in any way (I'm assuming there is no "character clause"), or are they allowed to view some players' totals as artificially inflated, and withhold their votes for that reason rather than any moral reason?
   1364. DanG Posted: January 25, 2019 at 02:00 PM (#5808868)
Most HoM voters ignore cheating, gambling, racism and other "character" issues. However, voters are allowed to consider such things in the first year eligible; so a "protest non-vote" is allowed in a player's first year eligible. After that voters must ignore these things.
   1365. JL72 Posted: January 25, 2019 at 03:00 PM (#5808897)
but some voters faced with more ballot space than they have had for a decade likely will at least consider whether they want to maintain their unyielding opposition for the full 10-year eligibility period.


This hints at in interesting question - as voters have had relatively "full" ballots for the last 5-6 years, will they continue that trend going forward or will they revert back to the smaller ballots? If they do revert back, will it be immediately or something more gradual?
Page 14 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Infinite Yost (Voxter)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(6537 - 9:20am, Jul 07)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogCleveland Indians look into changing name amid pressure
(170 - 8:55am, Jul 07)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogOT – NBA Revival Thread 2020
(467 - 8:28am, Jul 07)
Last: Willard Baseball

NewsblogBillionaire Mike Repole joins A-Rod and J-Lo’s bid for the Mets
(32 - 6:31am, Jul 07)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogPhillies’ Andrew McCutchen disses Yankees’ hair policy
(6 - 5:07am, Jul 07)
Last: MuttsIdolCochrane

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Spring 2020
(368 - 11:59pm, Jul 06)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogWith baby on the way, Trout unsure if he'll play
(58 - 10:01pm, Jul 06)
Last: RJ in TO

NewsblogNats’ Ryan Zimmerman, Joe Ross among first MLB players to opt out of 2020 season
(7 - 9:33pm, Jul 06)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBill James: Why We Need Runs Saved Against Zero
(183 - 8:30pm, Jul 06)
Last: Rally

NewsblogCovid-19 test delays impacting multiple teams
(15 - 8:28pm, Jul 06)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (July 2020)
(3 - 8:19pm, Jul 06)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-6-2020
(26 - 7:49pm, Jul 06)
Last: JJ1986

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1928 Results
(2 - 4:48pm, Jul 06)
Last: DL from MN

Newsblog8th? BBTF Central Park Softball Game: October 3
(54 - 4:00pm, Jul 06)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogDodgers pitcher David Price opts out of 2020 MLB season
(14 - 2:19pm, Jul 06)
Last: Joe Bivens, Elderly Northeastern Jew

-->

Page rendered in 0.5979 seconds
46 querie(s) executed