The link is screwed up. For some reason it takes you to the 2008 THT Annual screen. At least it's doing that on my computer.

(checks)

OK, this is weird - the url is right, but it pops up to a different article. I don't know what's going on.

(checks a bit more)

Well, it's not showing up as a link at ballhype, but then again it got several votes from ballhype this morning that have since disappeared. Something goofy happened, but I have no idea what.

Hopefully something similar will occur tomorrow, and Harold Baines will be elected with 3 votes.

OK, this is weird - the url is right, but it pops up to a different article. I don't know what's going on.

Chris...I just reset the link again, even tho the url looked the same.

Hope that takes.

So the HOF is announcing it's election results on the same day as the New Hampshire primary. Good job baseball, way to maximize your publicity.

Eventually, they have one last shot for election. (Usually it's 20 years after their final season, but for a handful of players like Ken Boyer and Ron Santo that wasn't the case for whatever reason)

Do you really not know this Chris? It's because they were re-instated in 1985 after getting thrown off for lack of support earlier, Boyer after 1979, Santo after 1980. After reinstatement, they were given the full remainder of the alloted 15 years.

Do you really not know this Chris? It's because they were re-instated in 1985 after getting thrown off for lack of support earlier, Boyer after 1979, Santo after 1980. After reinstatement, they were given the full remainder of the alloted 15 years.

I knew they were throw off, but never really quite understood the whos and whys of how those particular players got put back on. I think Don Larsen was another.

So the HOF is announcing it's election results on the same day as the New Hampshire primary. Good job baseball, way to maximize your publicity.

Well, the HoF announcements come several hours earlier. It'll be what people hear about as they drive home.

Well, the HoF announcements come several hours earlier. It'll be what people hear about as they drive home.

And what will they talk about the next day? Not the Hall of Fame.

I dunno. It'll still be the headline story in the sports section and lead fodder for sports radio. It'll only have a little blurb on page one of the main paper, but often times that's all it gets anyway.

They probably could've moved it a day or two, though. As fast as the primaries are being moved up, though, it's either compete against the political coverage, announce the 2008 election results in 2007, or sit on the results for two months.

I knew they were throw off, but never really quite understood the whos and whys of how those particular players got put back on. I think Don Larsen was another.

My facts may be a little off, but essentially the 5% rule came about in 1979 due to Milt Pappas. Prior to 1979, a screening comittee decided who would get on the ballot, but one on, a player stayed on until 15 years or election, regardless of support. Pappas did not get put on the ballot and screamed bloody murder (and rightly so. While perhaps nobody's idea of a HOFer, Pappas was every bit as qualified to be on the ballot as Joe Pepitone or Tommy Agee, both on the 1978 ballot). So, the screening comitte was disbanded, and every player with 10 years service put on the ballot, but to keep the numbers reasonable, the 5% rule was instated. Well, that rule clashed with the tradition that less than slam dunk newbies had to work their way up from little support to eventual serious consideration. Some deserving newbies in the next few elections were victims of this change, like Santo, Boyer and Dick Allen, so a review comitte was set up to give those caught by the squeeze a second chance.

Curious though, Vada Pinson remained on the ballot post 1979, with less than 5% each of his first 4 years, starting in 1981. I wonder why?

Interesting.

I think I've seen others stay on the ballot after getting 5% into the 1980s and maybe early 1990s, but it was rare.

I think Don Larsen was another.

Don Larsen received over 5% every year from 1974-1988. But he retired in 1967 and thus should have been on the 1973 ballot. The screening committee must have left him off in 1973 and put him on in 1974. Not really the same thing.

Dave McNally was re-instated in 1985, but like Pinson, he remained after a sub 5% year in 1981. He also had less than 5% in 1985 ans stayed one more year. Jim Perry had less than 2% in 1981, and again in 1983.

The 5% rule seems to have been sporatically enforced in those early years. Gates brown got 1 vote in 1981 and was still on the 1982 ballot. But Ron Santo with 15 votes in 1980 didn't reappear until 1985.

Collected HOF ballots

Keith Law

89% - Gossage
66% - Rice
65% - Blyleven
65% - Dawson
48% - Morris
35% - Raines
35% - Lee Smith
24% - McGwire
23% - Trammell
19% - T. John

Baseball Primer

88% - Gossage
69% - Rice
60% - Blyleven
61% - Dawson
48% - Morris
31% - Raines
28% - Lee Smith
26% - McGwire
25% - Trammell
17% - T. John

I think I've seen others stay on the ballot after getting 5% into the 1980s and maybe early 1990s, but it was rare.

You mean <5%? I think 1985 was the last year. Vada Pinson, Wilbur Wood, Dave McNally, Ken Holtzman all got less than 5% in 1985. All returned in 1986 but only those with >5% returned for 1987. Harvey Haddix, re-instated in 1985 after getting the boot in 1979, got 3.8%, more than McNally and Holtzman, did not return in 1986. I thought it might have been because he was a reinstatee, but then so was McNally.

Comparing Repoz and Law to me:

Goosage:
Repoz - 88
Law - 89
Me - 83

Rice:
Repoz - 69
Law - 66
Me - 74

Blyleven:
Repoz - 60
Law - 65
Me - 56

Dawson:
Repoz - 61
Law - 65
Me - 62

Morris:
Repoz - 48
Law - 48
Me - 42

Raines:
Repoz - 31
Law - 35
Me - 45

Lee Smith:
Repoz - 28
Law - 35
Me - 35

McGwire:
Repoz - 26
Law - 24
Me - 32

Trammell:
Repoz - 25
Law - 23
Me - 17

John:
Repoz - 17
Law - 19
Me - 26

I'm probably high on Raines, especially since I based my guess on what Repoz and Law's earlier estmiates were before they had as larger a sample size.

Interesting that I'm almost always at one extreme or the other - there's not a single case where either Repoz or Law is higher than me, and the other is lower, except Dawson. Probably not a good sign for the estimates.

Yeah, I mean under 5%, misirlou.

You mean <5%? I think 1985 was the last year.

I take that back. Manny Mota got 4.2% in 1988 and came back in 1989, but Mark Belanger with 2 fewer votes than Mota did not. I've gone through 1994 and he appears to be the last one.

I count 11 players given renewed eligibility for the 1985 election: Santo, Flood, Boyer, Allen, Pinson, Wood, McNally, Haddix, Fairly, McLain and Carroll. The first three attained +5% support until they were dropped after 15 tries at election. (This violates one of the BBWAA rules, that limits eligibility to players retired less than 20 years. Oh, well, rules are made to be broken.) Allen also reached 5% every year, but he was held to the 20 year limit and allowed only 14 years on the ballot.

Pinson, Wood and McNally were still under 5% support in 1985, but were held over again for 1986. Four other 1985 newbies were given another shot in 1986: Holtzman, Lonborg, Messersmith and G. Scott. Pinson did finally reach the 5% mark and continued until his 15 years were up, allowed on the ballot past the 20-year limit in his final try. Wood also reached +5% and hung on for three more years before missing 5% again and being dropped for good.

Larsen was not one of those reinstated. He received from 6% to 12% in support every election 1974-1988. As to the whos and whys, I take it as an admission that they knew the rule was wrong. I think they realized that this reinstatement amounted to such an admission, but rather than strike the rule, they’ve chosen to never again allow for mass reinstatement such as this. Some other 5% victims from 1979-84 that could’ve/should’ve been reinstated include Freehan, Powell, Cash, F. Howard and Fregosi.

Dan, what do you know about Jim Perry? He got 6 votes in 1981, did not appear in 1982, and then got 7 votes in 1983 before being dropped for good.

In the 1995 election Blue, Foster and Baylor were on the ballot, despite falling short of 5% in the 1994 election. There was a minor outcry and all were dropped for 1996, despite Blue getting +5% in 1995.

For a couple years following, the results look suspicious. Staub in 1995 and Bonds and Staub in 1996 received exactly enough votes to reach 5%. In 1997 I believe the Hall put the counting of the votes into the hands of a CPA firm rather than the BBWAA. In that election Nettles, Lynn and Griffey all came up 2 votes short of 5%. I see no glitches since then.

Dan, what do you know about Jim Perry? He got 6 votes in 1981, did not appear in 1982, and then got 7 votes in 1983 before being dropped for good.

I think it was simply carelessness. Someone slapped the list together and nobody double checked him. McDaniel and Cardenas were accidentally left on the ballot for the 1982 election after getting one vote each in their 1981 debuts.

For another strange vote total, look at Aparicio's support dip of 1981. I suspect a miscount there.

For another strange vote total, look at Aparicio's support dip of 1981. I suspect a miscount there.

Most definately. In 1980 he got 76 more votes than Orland Cepeda, in 1981 29 fewer, in 1982 132 more.

Guys left on with less than 5%:

1994: Blue, Foster, and Baylor were under 5%.

1988: Manny Mota

1985: McNally, Messersmith, Pinson, Wilbur Wood, Holtzman, Lonborg.

1984: Wilbur Wood (two years in a row?)

1983: Munson, Dick Allen, Pinson (all over 3%, while all below thrown off)

1982: McNally, Pinson (both under 2%)

1981: Leo Cardenas, McDaniel, Osteen, McNally, Jim Perry, Pinson

1980: Santo

1979: Haddix.

Some of these were reinstated guys (Haddix, Santo, Allen, Pinson).

If they adopted the 5% rule around 1980, they were mighty cavilier about enforcing it for several years.

Really, it looks like one screw up (keeping guys on in 1995) but otherwise 20 years smooth sailing.

There are serious problems with the vote totals for older elections on the HoF website. My personal favorites:

they list 10.1 names appearing per ballot in 1945. Huh?

In 1946, they claim that people either receieved 16 or more votes, or none at all. There's none with 1-15 votes. Not-so-coincidently, it lists barely 5 names per ballot, wildly out of character for that era, and far lower than current ones even. Some of the 1946 votes were put in 1945 on the website.

Minor point: I remember looking it up with the old Total Baseball and figuring there were 9.87 names per ballot in 1936. The websites gives it at 9.12. Now who do you have more faith in - Pete Palmer (blatantly obnoxious self-promotional plug - next week's THT article will be an interview with Pete Palmer!) or Dale Petrovsky?

Guys left on with less than 5%:

1994: Blue, Foster, and Baylor were under 5%.

1988: Manny Mota

1985: McNally, Messersmith, Pinson, Wilbur Wood, Holtzman, Lonborg.

1984: Wilbur Wood (two years in a row?)

1983: Munson, Dick Allen, Pinson (all over 3%, while all below thrown off)

1982: McNally, Pinson (both under 2%)

1981: Leo Cardenas, McDaniel, Osteen, McNally, Jim Perry, Pinson

1980: Santo

1979: Haddix.

Everyone who received a vote in 1981 came back in 1982, except for Glenn Beckert. Others not mentioned above were Gates Brown, Jim Northrup, and Sonny Siebert,

I dunno. It'll still be the headline story in the sports section and lead fodder for sports radio. It'll only have a little blurb on page one of the main paper, but often times that's all it gets anyway.

Uh...LSU vs. Ohio State says hello.

That's the day before.

I'm probably the only one, but I'm more interested in the HOF election than the primary. And I'm probably less interested in who gets a plaque than your average baseball history buff.

Here are some selected first year vote totals from the past 15 years for players who have since been elected, or stand a decent chance to be elected before their eligibility expires:

Ultimately Elected

1992 50% Tony Perez
1994 23% Bruce Sutter
1998 42% Gary Carter
2003 49% Ryne Sandberg

Trending Towards Possible Election

1995 30% Jim Rice
1998 17% Bert Blyleven
2000 33% Goose Gossage
2002 45% Andre Dawson

If Raines is able to get 45% as predicted, he'll stand a decent shot at ultimate election, based on this data, and the possibility of at least a few Neyer/Law types getting voting privileges before his eligibility expires.

First year votes over the last 20 years, elected (at some point) in bold:

1. Ryan 98.8%
2. Seaver 98.8%
3. Ripken 98.5%
4. Brett 98.2%
5. Gwynn 97.6%
6. Schmidt 96.5%
7. Bench 96.4%
8. Carlton 95.6%
9. Yaz 94.6%
10. Jackson 93.6%
11. Palmer 92.6%
12. Boggs 91.9%
13. O. Smith 91.7%
14. Carew 90.5%
15. Murray 85.3%
16. Molitor 85.2%
17. Winfield 84.5%
18. Eckersley 83.2%
19. Stargell 82.4%
20. Puckett 82.1%
21. Morgan 81.8%
22. Yount 77.5%
23. Perry 68.0%
24. Fisk 66.4%
25. Niekro 65.7%
26. Fingers 65.7%
27. Sutton 56.8%
28. Jenkins 52.3%
29. Perez 50.0%
30. Sandberg 49.2%
31. Dawson 45.3%
32. Cater 42.3%
33. L. Smith 42.3%
34. Garvey 41.6%
35. Gossage 33.3%
36. Tiant 30.9%
37. Rice 29.8%
38. Mattingley 28.2%
39. Sutter 23.9%
40. McGwire 23.5%
41. Morris 22.2%
42. John 21.3%
43. Kaat 19.5%
44. Murphy 19.3%
45. Blyleven 17.5%
46. Parker 17.5%
47. Trammell 15.7%
48. Lyle 13.1%
49. Hershiser 11.2%

Interesting that two-thirds got elected by the BBWAA. Toss out first-year guys, 10 out of 27 went in.

Gossage should go in this year. I really like Dawson's shot in upcoming elections.

I'd say the cut off is around 30-40%. The only guys over 30% who didn't/won't get in are Garvey & Smith, the two men forever linked by that one farking pitch. One had off-field issues detract from anyone's willingness to sing his praises combine with many arguing he was overrated. The other's campaign was based on being all-time saves leader. Then again, the only guys below 40% who look good - Sutter and Gossage, are weird ones to look at because the BBWAA is still trying to figure. They probably tell you very little about how a player will do in future balloting.

Actually, the real noteworthy bit is the gap between Garvey and Gossage. It's huge compared to surrounding one. Get at 40% and the BBWAA is willing to be talked into inducting you. Go below and they won't pay much attention.

Rice and Blyleven are both below - well below - 40% of course. That shows you how important a campaign can be, whether it be conducted by the Red Sox or Rich Lederer.

My long-range prediction: Raines will probably around where Law/Repoz (see post #14 on why I trust them over me on that particular candidate), but will have his advocates who jerry-rig a campaign for him. I think he'll get in eventually, though it might take 10-15 years.

Looking at #29, I have to ask: How did Joe Morgan get only 81.8% of votes? That's crazy.

Looking at #29, I have to ask: How did Joe Morgan get only 81.8% of votes? That's crazy.

If I had to guess, I'd say batting average.

How did Joe Morgan get only 81.8% of votes? That's crazy.

He was a career .271 hitter who hit no major milestones (just over 2,500 hits) and holds no records that I can think of off the top of my head.

Not that these are good reasons to not vote for one of the top 3 second basemen in MLB history, of course.

Umm yea, that lil middle infielder who is #5 all time in walks ( #3 then ).

If I had to guess, I'd say batting average.

I think so, too. The BBWAA loved Morgan when he played, giving him two MVP awards. He ended his career with more MVP Shares than Al Kaline, Ernie Banks, or Johnny Bench (but not as many as Jim Rice). But those were the years when he was hitting over .290 and usually over .300 every year.

Cater 42.3%

I used to think very highly of Danny Cater, but this is extreme.

I used to think very highly of Danny Cater, but this is extreme.

East coast bias at its rankest.

35% - Raines

If Raines is able to get 45% as predicted, he'll stand a decent shot at ultimate election,

What an effing travesty this guy doesn't get in on his first ballot. Those comparisons to Henderson are flattering, not detrimental. Its like saying Gehrig wasn't as good as Ruth.

Wait, someone didn't think Tom Seaver was a Hall of Famer? Really? What's the rationale there? Is the pitchers' wing of that guy's personal Hall of Fame just Cy Young, Walter Johnson and a couple of other deadball guys?

I assume the thinking was "If Ty Cobb didn't get 100% of the vote, no one should."

Seaver actually set the record for highest voting percentage of all-time, breaking Ty Cobb's 60+ year old mark. I think Ryan ever-so-narrowly broke Seaver's record. They both have 98.8, but I think Ryan pulls ahead at the next decimal.

Wait, someone didn't think Tom Seaver was a Hall of Famer? Really? What's the rationale there? Is the pitchers' wing of that guy's personal Hall of Fame just Cy Young, Walter Johnson and a couple of other deadball guys?

None of those guys were unanimous either. One feeds the other. Since Seaver wasn't unanimous, how could Clemens, Maddux, or Johnson be?

I assume the thinking was "If Ty Cobb didn't get 100% of the vote, no one should."

Oh, so the guy didn't actually think Seaver didn't belong in the Hall, he was just playing games with the system. Got it. From what comparatively little I know of the HoF election process, that sounds about par for the course.

I think Ryan ever-so-narrowly broke Seaver's record. They both have 98.8, but I think Ryan pulls ahead at the next decimal.

Seaver - 425/430 .9883

Ryan - 491/497 .9879

Seaver wins.

Oh, so the guy didn't actually think Seaver didn't belong in the Hall, he was just playing games with the system. Got it. From what comparatively little I know of the HoF election process, that sounds about par for the course.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

Warren Spahn only got 83.2%
Mickey Mantle - 88.2%

Being a first balloter used to be far more difficult. Robin Roberts had to wait. So did Whitey Ford. Ditto Yogi.

I think the tide turned in the early 1980s. Al Kaline, Bob Gibson, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Brooks Robinson, Lou Brock, Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, Yaz, and Johnny Bench went in. That's 10.

In the 1970s only Sandy Koufax (86.9%), Mantle (88.2), Banks (83.8%), and Willie Mays (94.7%) went in. Five - and only one over 90%.

Willie Mays (94.7%)

So five out of every 100 voters didn't think Mays was worthy? What an incredibly inane process.

Looking at #29, I have to ask: How did Joe Morgan get only 81.8% of votes? That's crazy.
...
If I had to guess, I'd say batting average.
...
He was a career .271 hitter who hit no major milestones (just over 2,500 hits) and holds no records that I can think of off the top of my head.

You want evidence that it's batting average? (And, secondarily, milestones?) Tony Gwynn got 97.6%

No one here (except maybe some small-hall extremists) is seriously disputing that Gwynn belongs in the HoF, but with the same level of support as Schmidt and more than Morgan? The kicker is the debate you'll find (largely in HoM threads) as to whether Gwynn or Raines was more valuable.

So five out of every 100 voters didn't think Mays was worthy? What an incredibly inane process.

1 in 10 didn't think Frank Robinson (89.2%) worthy.

9 people left Hank Aaron off their ballot.

16 left off Johnny Bench and Mike Schmidt

Eddie Mathews took 5 elections to get in, and then with over 20% dissenting.

Ron Santo got 15 votes (out of 385 cast) in his first go, fewer than Willie McGee, Joe Carter, and Jeff Reardon got in theirs.

how could anyone seriously argue that mickey mantle and wille mays didn't belong in the hall of fame?

they should get their vote taken away

how could anyone seriously argue that mickey mantle and wille mays didn't belong in the hall of fame?

they should get their vote taken away

Well, you could say the same thing about anyone who didn't vote for about 50 or so other players, and probably even more than that. But that's why the make the voting pool as large as it is, so that the idiosyncrasies of a handful of cranks don't amount to much.

Not that this addresses the type of voter who thinks that a Rice is more worthy than a Raines, unfortunately a much larger problem, but that's another story altogether.

It still makes no sense to me that voters don't vote for players they had previously voted for just because of new people on the ballot. You either think a guy is a HOFer, or you don't. I understand waffling, but to say "Well, last year I said yes to Jim Rice, but this year Gwynn is on the ballot so I'm saying no to Rice," is retarded when you have 10 spots. Do voters just get caught up in all the discussion about the newbies that they "forget" about the other players?

I'm at a loss. It's hard not to have respect for the men in the BBWAA because of what they do, but holy man, there are so many things wrong with the HOF balloting that it's not even funny.

how could anyone seriously argue that mickey mantle and wille mays didn't belong in the hall of fame?

Sure they were good, but what did their teams ever win?

So five out of every 100 voters didn't think Mays was worthy?

No, 5 of every 100 didn't put him on their ballots.

OK, I don't know if this means anything, but here's everyone (I found) who had at least 10% of the vote in their first yar on the ballot since 1956 (when the HoF first creating a rule dictating that a player had to have been retired for 5 years prior to eligibility). BBWAA inductees in bold, VC in italics - both done from best knowledge:

1. Ryan 98.8%
2. Seaver 98.8%
3. Ripken 98.5%
4. Brett 98.2%
5. Aaron 97.8%
6. Gwynn 97.6%
7. Schmidt 96.5%
8. Bench 96.4%
9. Carlton 95.6%
10. Mays 94.7%
11. Yaz 94.6%
12. Feller 93.8%
13. Jackson 93.6%
14. T. Williams 93.4%
15. Musial 93.2%
16. Palmer 92.6%
17. B. Robinson 92.0%
18. Boggs 91.9%
19. O. Smith 91.7%
20. Carew 90.5%
21. F. Robinson 89.2%
22. Kaline 88.3%
23. Mantle 88.2%
24. Koufax 86.9%
25. Murray 85.3%
26. Molitor 85.2%
27. Winfield 84.5%
28. Gibson 84.0%
29. Banks 83.8%
30. Eckersley 83.2%
31. Stargell 82.4%
32. Puckett 82.1%
33. Morgan 81.8%
34. McCovey 81.4%
35. Brock 79.7%
36. J. Robinson 77.5%
37. Yount 77.5%
38. Perry 68.0%
39. W. Ford 67.1%
40. Berra 67.2%
41. Fisk 66.4%
42. Niekro 65.7%
43. Fingers 65.7%
44. Killebrew 59.6%
45. Marichal 58.1%
46. Campanella 57.2%
47. Sutton 56.8%
48. Roberts 56.1%
49. Hunter 53.7%
50. Jenkins 52.3%
51. Perez 50.0%
52. Sandberg 49.2%
53. Dawson 45.3%
54. G. Carter 42.3%
55. L. Smith 42.3%
56. Wilhelm 41.7%
57. Garvey 41.6%
58. Bunning 38.1%
59. Reese 36.3%
60. Gossage 33.3%
61. Slaughter 33.1%
62. E. Mathews 32.3%
63. Tiant 30.9%
64. M. Wills 30.3%
65. Rice 29.8%
66. Mattingley 28.2%
67. Wynn 27.9%
68. Aparicio 27.8%
69. Rizzuto 27.5%
70. Boudreau 24.1%
71. Hodgers 24.1%
72. Sutter 23.9%
73. McGwire 23.5%
74. B. Williams 23.4%
75. Morris 22.2%
76. Maris 21.4%
77. John 21.3%
78. Kaat 19.5%
79. Murphy 19.3%
80. Schoendienst 19.1%
81. Blyleven 17.5%
82. Parker 17.5%
83. Mize 16.7%
84. G. Kell 16.4%
85. Trammell 15.7%
86. Oliva 15.2%
87. Marion 13.8%
88. Vander Meer 13.2%
89. Lyle 13.1%
90. Cepeda 12.5%
91. B. Lemon 11.9%
92. Hershiser 11.2%
93. N. Fox 10.8%


Ralph Kiner, who was eleted by the BBWAA, did even worse than 10%. Worse than 5%, even.

93 guys. 61 elected by the BBWAA. 9 more by the VC.

Plus I think 3-4 more will be elected by the BBWAA and several more by whatever form the VC eventually takes when they take the keys away from Joe Morgan.

Perhaps the most surprising (and I didn't realize) is Yount barely slipping in. He did have the 3,000 hit milestone (and a 285 average).

The BBWAA has just always kinda sucked when it comes to non 1B/LF/RF. They seem to think that Cs and 2B should hit and play as long as Frank Robinson to get in. (This is a mild exaggeration) With, oddly, exceptions for "great" fielding SS almost no matter what they hit as long as they play long enough. (I predict Vizquel outpolls Trammell's first year)

But yeah, Mathews took a few years, Sandberg took a few years, Gary Carter took a few years, Berra, Fisk and Campanella all had to wait a bit, Santo didn't get in, Whitaker and Grich fell off, Trammell is probably not going to make it, Nettles and Darrell Evans didn't even get a sniff. They really don't get position adjustments very well at all.

Perhaps the most surprising (and I didn't realize) is Yount barely slipping in. He did have the 3,000 hit milestone (and a 285 average).

Well, he was on the same ballot as Ryan, Brett, and Fisk.

Perhaps the most surprising (and I didn't realize) is Yount barely slipping in. He did have the 3,000 hit milestone (and a 285 average).

As misirlou mentions, that's because he was on the deepest ballot in memory. He's the only 3,000 hit guy under 85&#xis;h.

The BBWAA has just always kinda sucked when it comes to non 1B/LF/RF. They seem to think that Cs and 2B should hit and play as long as Frank Robinson to get in. (This is a mild exaggeration) With, oddly, exceptions for "great" fielding SS almost no matter what they hit as long as they play long enough.

By position the BBWAA has elected:
12 rightfielders
10 shortstops
9 second basemen
9 left fielders
8 third basemen (including Killebrew as a 3B0
8 first basemen
8 catchers
7 centerfielders

Plus, of course, 30 starting pitchers and 4 relief pitchres.

But yeah, Mathews took a few years, Sandberg took a few years, Gary Carter took a few years, Berra, Fisk and Campanella all had to wait a bit, Santo didn't get in, Whitaker and Grich fell off, Trammell is probably not going to make it, Nettles and Darrell Evans didn't even get a sniff. They really don't get position adjustments very well at all.

(checks list up on top). They get position adjustments pretty well, except for centerfielders. From 1936-2007, CFrs have received fewer votes total than relief pitchers. Seriously.

Yeah, you can name a lot of middle infielders and catchers who didn't get in, but you can do the same for other slots as well. Will Clark fell off, as did Albert Belle and Dewey Evans. Johnny Mize might be their biggest oversight, and Goose Goslin is high up on that list. Carter and Sandbertg took a few years to get in, as will Andre Dawson and so did Tony Perez. Fisk's not getting in was entirely caused by the tough ballot he was on. If he debuted this year, he'd be a slam dunk first ballot nominee. Campanella and Berra had to wait because of the era they were in. Like I said upthread, only 5 guys were first balloters in the 1970s. Looking at the list, only 3 guys (Robinson, Feller, & Musial) went in on the first ballot in the 1960s. Heck, three newbies went in in 1999 alone.

Looking at the list, only 3 guys (Robinson, Feller, & Musial) went in on the first ballot in the 1960s.

Surely Ted Williams did, no?

Oh, yeah, Ted Williams too. That's what I get for just eyeballing the list. Four (unless there's another I missed) in the 1960s, and 5 in the 1970s.

Perhaps the most surprising (and I didn't realize) is Yount barely slipping in. He did have the 3,000 hit milestone (and a 285 average).

That didn't surprise me all that much. If you look at his offense, he's quite close to Cal Ripken on a career basis (fewer HRs, higher BA, but with a virtually identical OPS+), even if the distribution of his best years wasn't the same. But if you remember that by age 29 he went from being a Gold Glove level shortstop to being a relatively weak armed centerfielder, that offense doesn't stack up nearly as well. IMO if he hadn't had that one super year in 1982, and if he had been just another team-hopping free agent rather than a one town icon with a "good guy" aura about him, he'd still be on the outside looking in.

And BTW I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the HoF. But we're not talking Cal Ripken or George Brett here. Or Tim Raines.

If you look at his offense, he's quite close to Cal Ripken on a career basis (fewer HRs, higher BA, but with a virtually identical OPS+),

Well, yeah. from 1974-1981, the highest offensive level Yount saw was 4.67 R/G. From 1994-2001, the lowest offensive level Ripken saw was 4.93. Given Yount's superior base running and higher relative OBP, I'm comfortable with believing he was the better offensive player.

If you look at his offense, he's quite close to Cal Ripken on a career basis (fewer HRs, higher BA, but with a virtually identical OPS+),

Well, yeah. from 1974-1981, the highest offensive level Yount saw was 4.67 R/G. From 1994-2001, the lowest offensive level Ripken saw was 4.93. Given Yount's superior base running and higher relative OBP, I'm comfortable with believing he was the better offensive player.

Take away Cal's 2 or 3 best seasons, and I'd agree with that. Yount's career from his mid-20's on was far more consistent. Nobody who watched Ripken on a daily basis would ever confuse his average batting skills with that of George Brett; he was the streak hitter supreme, and his slumps often lasted for months at a time.

But the other factors are Ripken's huge defensive / positional advantage, and the one team / overall "good guy" aura that surrounded Yount, along with that one transcendent year that was capped with a 2 HR, 3 hit finale with the division title on the line. The first explains my lack of surprise that Yount didn't breeze in at around 85%-90%; the second explains to me why he got in on the first ballot at all.

Take away Cal's 2 or 3 best seasons, and I'd agree with that.

Cal's top 3 EQA and EQR - .321 .310 .305 132 120 119

Yount's top 3 - .331 .316 .314 139 120 114

Neither player had a 4th .300 EQA full season.

I don't see the peak argument for Ripken. Again, offense only. I believe Cal was the better/more valuable player.

Does anyone know why Mark McGwire doesn't have his own link on the Hall of Fame's candidate page?

Robb Nen has his own page, for cryin' out loud!

Robb Nen didn't take steroids. Or at least he didn't take the 5th in front of Congress about it. Don't you know?

I doubt that this equation is valid across every season of baseball you are attempting to measure. It isn't standard deviation adjusted. It doesn't take into account a 2 inning relief stint v. a 1 inning stint v. pitching to only one batter with the platoon advantage.

The gap between starters and relievers wasn't always as big as it is now. The fewer innings per appearance relievers throw, the better their ERA relative to starters.

IMO if he hadn't had that one super year in 1982, and if he had been just another team-hopping free agent rather than a one town icon with a "good guy" aura about him, he'd still be on the outside looking in.

I'm not saying he was as good as Cal, Brett, or Raines, but with 3000 hits I'm pretty sure he goes into the HOF with no trouble. Replace his 1982 with any of his last 4 poor seasons and he still tops 3000 hits.

Re: Seaver. Sam once explained that the 5 non-votes.

Three were protests over Pete Rose's banishment from the Hall of Fame ballot as a result of being permanently ineligible from baseball. Rose and Seaver retired the same year, and if my memory is correct, the Hall made a very late decision to exclude Rose from the ballot in order to spare the blushes that a banned man would be inducted into the Hall of Fame. This aroused some protest.

The other two were people who simply forgot that Seaver was on the ballot. Seriously.

So if Blyleven gets in, who is the next player to get pushed as hard as he has? Trammell?

So if Blyleven gets in, who is the next player to get pushed as hard as he has? Trammell?

Raines. There's already been a fair amount of push. Raines is better than Trammell, but Trammell could probably use the push more. I wonder if somebody could convince the Tigers to do for Trammell what the Red Sox PR department has been doing for Jim Rice.