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.
Jack Morris— We’ll have plenty of time to fight about Morris’ merits for inclusion this coming December and January. For now we’re only discussing whether or not he’ll get in and my hunch is he will.
I don't see how any voters, even old school guys, get Morris in, but not Glavine. 300 wins is a lock.
I anyone votes for Morris but not Glavine, I'd like to see an explanation.
There likely won't be one, as it is indefensible, but it would be amusing.
It won't shock me one bit if Morris gets in and Glavine doesn't.
If anyone votes for Morris but not Glavine, I'd like to see an explanation.
To add onto #14, most writers don't use the full 10 anyway.
Strike Bonds and Clemens (regardless of how you feel, they have no chance)
#11 Might go the other way though. Kind of a , "tell your data to shut up" vote. See also Jim Rice.
could Bonds and Clemens be in danger of falling below the 5% cutoff if enough people take snapper's advice (which I'd probably do this year if I had a hypothetical ballot)?
Still, if Maddux doesn't get in first ballot, we riot.
Anyone who has no steroids qualms (at least 35 percent of the electorate) is never going to exclude the two best guys on the ballot every year.
To add onto #14, most writers don't use the full 10 anyway. I don't remember what the average is though (Vague memory of 5 to 6, but I could easily be wrong).
They really need to expand or eliminate the cap on the number of players one can vote for.
I'm confused by your response. Are you saying they do have a chance?
Yes. They are outnumbered 2:1, and, they are wasting a scarce resource - their ballot spots.
I don't think that solves the problem though since most writers aren't using the 10 spots to begin with.
If there's no chance of them falling off, even more reason to vote strategically. There's no practical difference between 25% and 35%. Bonds and Clemens won't be building momentum in a conventional way.
Morris is a vote for sanity in an insane world. A true HOFer, who didn't care about fancy stats.
Plenty of writers have said they won't vote for a single player from the "steroid era".
Thats how Morris gets in next year while Glavine gets 50%.
That's particularly true considering that, to their supporters, they will remain the two best players on the ballot every year.
I see what you are saying, but I am of the opinion voters should vote for those who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.
If you are going to use all your slots then perhaps strategic voting has a place, but I would rather people vote for the best players.
I am pretty sure they are the best players on the ballot (and more certain once Maddux is elected). The Hall of Fame is not the Hall of Most Valuable, but in terms of best Clemens and Bonds are pretty much at the top I should think in everyone's estimation - it is just some folks think how they were the best disqualifies them, which is their right.
If you tie remaining on the ballot to vote totals, you invite strategic voting. I think that both Alan Trammell and Barry Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame. If I have to vote for one of them, knowing that neither of them will actually be elected, I don't see what the problem is with voting for Trammell. If I have to vote for either Mike Piazza or Barry Bonds, knowing that Piazza might be elected but Bonds won't be, why shouldn't I vote to actually put a deserving player in the Hall of Fame? Now, if I vote for Jack Morris instead of Barry Bonds with my last ballot slot, well sure, then that's a stupid vote.
The idea that 85 percent or so of those voters are going to abandon them because they're "lost causes" when the ballot is constantly filled with guys who are "lost causes" who continue to get support strikes me as immensely bizarre. It's simply not going to happen.
I am not suggesting Bonds and Clemens will drop off, and don't think I hinted that. Just that one should vote for the best.
I am not suggesting Bonds and Clemens will drop off, and don't think I hinted that.
If you think that the PED issue is causing a cluster**** of the HOF voting process, you can either try to convince 60-70% of the electorate that they should start electing these guys or you can shake your head, concede that Bonds isn't getting in from the BBWAA, and focus on guys who could.
Not sure about 2013, but 2012 was an all time low, per Chris Jaffe, of 5.1.
There were a fair number of full ballots posted last year. There will be even more full ballots this year.
Twenty years of names-per-ballot, debuts and electees:
2013: 6.6 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Biggio, Piazza, Schilling, Clemens, Bonds) --0 elected
2012: 5.1 (Debuting candidates over 33%: none) --2 elected
2011: 6.0 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Bagwell) --1 elected
2010: 5.7 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Alomar, Larkin) --1 elected
2009: 5.4 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Henderson) --2 elected
2008: 5.3 (Debuting candidates over 33%: none) --1 elected
2007: 6.6 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Ripken, Gwynn) --2 elected
2006: 5.6 (Debuting candidates over 33%: none) --1 elected
2005: 6.3 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Boggs) --2 elected
2004: 6.5 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Molitor, Eckersley) --2 elected
2003: 6.6 ((Debuting candidates over 33%: Murray, Sandberg, Lee Smith) --2 elected
2002: 6.0 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Ozzie Smith, Dawson) --1 elected
2001: 6.3 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Winfield, Puckett) --2 elected
2000: 5.6 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Gossage) --2 elected
1999: 6.7 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Ryan, Brett, Yount, Fisk) --3 elected
1998: 5.4 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Carter) --1 elected
1997: 5.3 (Debuting candidates over 33%: none) --1 elected
1996: 5.7 (Debuting candidates over 33%: none) --0 elected
1995: 6.1 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Schmidt) --1 elected
1994: 6.3 (Debuting candidates over 33%: Carlton, Sutton) --1 elected
Maybe Bagwell and Piazza will get into the upper 60s. They have easy, short arguments: Bags is best Astro ever,
If you think that the PED issue is causing a cluster**** of the HOF voting process, you can either try to convince 60-70% of the electorate that they should start electing these guys or you can shake your head, concede that Bonds isn't getting in from the BBWAA, and focus on guys who could. But, again, this all presupposes full ballots. If Bonds and Clemens aren't keeping HOF-worthy players off of your ballot, absolutely, keep voting for them as long as they're on the ballot.
How does not voting for two of the top ten all time players accomplish that?
Maybe Bagwell and Piazza will get into the upper 60s. They have easy, short arguments: Bags is best Astro ever, Piazza best hitting catcher ever. The rest I think will crater as I think writers will just settle for a more exclusive subgroup. Anyone with any lack of obviousness on stats alone or a comprehensive high concept one sentence narrative case will drop significantly - Raines, Smith, Schilling, E. Martinez. Morris I think will drop to the low 60s.
This seems to suggest voters are easily influenced by other voters' ballots. That would be somewhat of a new trend
But as snapper says, this is, in fact, exactly how HOF voting works. Historically, players whose vote totals go up see their vote totals continue to go up as more and more voters notice them and jump on the bandwagon. When Barry Larkin debuted with just over 50% of the vote, there were voters who literally expressed surprise that he was on the ballot at all (despite the HOF ballot being an actual physical ballot with everybody's name on it) and others who were shocked to learn that Barry Larkin actually had a HOF case. Over time, some of these voters, influenced by previous votes, decided to vote for Barry Larkin, and he was elected. Obviously, the case is much more dramatic in the case of Bert Blyleven or a Jim Rice.
In fact, I'm actually kind of assuming the opposite with respect to Bonds and Clemens. Historically, a 1st-ballot total of 36% can easily grow over time and lead to eventual induction (under more normal circumstances, I'd expect to see this happen with Schilling, for example). I suspect, however, that this will not be the case with Bonds and Clemens precisely because I actually think Bonds/Clemens voters are NOT influenced by each other. Nobody forgot that Bonds and Clemens were on the ballot. Nobody was surprised to find that their statistical records merited HOF consideration. The people who voted against Bonds and Clemens did so in spite of their record and they knew full well what they were doing. Nobody "forgot" to check Barry Bonds's name on last year's HOF ballot.
I'm not sure what I said that suggests that. I simply meant that you're literally depriving some other worthy candidates of the two votes that you'd give them but for the presence of Bonds, Clemens, and ballot limitations.
B. Electors may vote for as few as zero (0) and as many as ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election. Write-in votes are not permitted.
Strategic voting feels dishonest to me. That would be like leaving Cabrera off your MVP ballot because you think Trout should win and so you don't want the second place points going to his competition. Just vote for your top 10.
I think I'd give the writers the benefit of the doubt if I were the HOF: unlimited number of players may be voted on and players stay on the ballot so long as they get one vote in any given year. That would eliminate any need to do strategic voting and you could simply do as B. Mouse says and vote for any player you thought was a HOFer.
I think any measure that doesn't allow for culling will have the reverse effect of what's desired, regardless how big they make the ballot. If you want to give Sweet Lou and Bobby Grich and Kevin Brown another chance at getting rejected, sure, why not? But if you don't cull the herd at some point, it's going to make it even more difficult for the guys with realistic hopes to build support and separate themselves from the bottom feeders.
I kinda like this, actually. Nomo coming to America was a big deal. He wasn't the first Japanese player but he was clearly a pioneer. I mean, he wasn't Jackie Robinson -- Japanese players weren't technically banned, fans/opponents/teammates weren't particularly cruel to Nomo -- but he did something that a lot of Japanese players were scared to do. He was also an inspiration to a lot of Asian-American kids. (Who else did we have? Michael Chang?)
And while his MLB career numbers obviously aren't HOF-worthy (97 ERA+), his career had a lot of cool bits that merit attention: the Rookie of the Year award (5.8 H/9, 11.1 K/9 in 1995), the two no-hitters (one at Coors Field), two more 1-hitters, two strikeout titles, a 17-K game, his multiple career resurrections. He's got a bit of a Roger Maris argument.
I wouldn't vote for him if I was entrusted with a real HOF ballot, but I might reserve a space for him on my pretend ballot -- where I'm also trying to find room for Dennis Martinez, Tony Fernandez, and Lance Parrish -- just to give him some "props." (Don't worry, I'm not a Hall of Merit voter!)
If by "all of this" you're talking about the actions of players who thought that using steroids wouldn't eventually come back to bite them, I would agree that there's been a certain amount of temporary damage, at least in the eyes of those who just pine to see their plaques and their speeches. I have no problem acknowledging that sort of damage.
The 5% threshold is not a big deal
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 3.6547 seconds, 73 querie(s) executed