A Candidate-by-Candidate Look at the 2023 Hall of Fame Election Results
The following article is part of Jay Jaffe’s ongoing look at the candidates on the BBWAA 2023 Hall of Fame ballot. For a detailed introduction to this year’s ballot, and other candidates in the series, use the tool above; an introduction to JAWS can be found here. All WAR figures refer to the Baseball-Reference version unless otherwise indicated.
Until the moment Hall of Fame president Josh Rawitch beamed at the cameras on Tuesday evening and said, “Tonight we are pleased to announce the addition…” most of us expected to hear that the BBWAA voters had pitched their second shutout in three years. Happily we were wrong, and Scott Rolen beat the odds. While many of us certainly would have preferred him to have company in reaching the 75% threshold instead of becoming the second one-man class in as many years, the election of one candidate is far better than none. Particularly given the shortage of third basemen in the Hall, the institution will be a better place with one of the hot corner’s best enshrined.
As for the other 27 men on this year’s ballot, the voting results have left us plenty to digest, so as promised, here’s my candidate-by-candidate breakdown of the entire slate.
Matt Cain, Jacoby Ellsbury, Andre Ethier, J.J. Hardy, Jhonny Peralta, Jered Weaver, Jayson Werth (1st year on the ballot, 0.0%)
According to Baseball Reference, 234 players last appeared in the majors in 2017. Just 14 of them — slightly less than 6% — lasted long enough and had careers substantial enough to make onto this ballot. So this bears repeating annually: There is no shame in being shut out on a Hall of Fame ballot. A check next to these players’ names is the reward for their unique, impressive careers, and with every year that I do this, my appreciation for the endurance, perseverance, and good luck it takes just to get to this point grows. As Vin Scully liked to remind viewers, “They also serve who only stand and wait.”
Bronson Arroyo, R.A. Dickey, John Lackey, Mike Napoli, Huston Street (1st, 0.3%)
What I wrote in the paragraph above applies to these guys as well, each of whom received a single vote — not because some voter truly believed they merited a plaque in Cooperstown but as a small courtesy, a gesture of respect or gratitude. When the ballots were overstuffed a few years ago, such gestures drew the ire of those spending too much time watching the Ballot Tracker (myself included), but on leaner ballots, they’re a bit of goodwill that I’ve come to appreciate. Dickey and Street both received their votes from longtime Rangers beat writer T.R. Sullivan, who gave very brief explanations here, and who last year tossed a courtesy vote to A.J. Pierzynski. The identities of those who voted for the others have yet to be revealed.
As I voted for just seven candidates this time, I did think for a moment about partaking in the custom, leaning toward either Dickey (the lone award winner from among these 12 one-and-dones, and apparently the last great knuckleballer) or Cain (who had a significant influence on our understanding of pitching statistics, one that shows up in FanGraphs’ calculation of pitching WAR). Ultimately I opted not to do so, thinking that might look odd when I could have at least given a nod to one of a couple of other more serious candidates, whom I’ll note as I breeze through their results.
Torii Hunter (3rd, 6.9%, up 1.6%)
After making it across the 5% line by just one vote last year, Hunter got a bit more breathing room. As of Sunday you could still count the votes he’d received in the Tracker on one hand, and his pre-announcement share of 3.4% suggested his time might be running out. The lion’s share of his support — nearly three-quarters of it — came from voters who have not yet published their ballots.
Francisco Rodríguez (1st, 10.8%)
K-Rod was the only other first-year candidate besides Carlos Beltrán to receive enough support to maintain his eligibility for 2024. While I don’t see him amassing a groundswell that will take him to 75% over the next nine years in light of the warts on his candidacy, it’s worth noting that he’s already above what we might call the Rolen Threshold, the lowest first-year share of any candidate elected to the Hall by the writers (10.2%). He’s also above the first-year share of Billy Wagner (10.5%), though it’s fair to note that in both of those cases, their shares of the vote were suppressed because they became eligible at a time when ballots were much more crowded than they currently are. More on that topic below.
Mark Buehrle (3rd, 10.8%, up 5%)
The Huehrle Buehrle Man more than doubled his support from last year, though he fell 0.2% shy of his inaugural 2021 share. Even while analyzing him in light of the workload-adjusted S-JAWS, I’m still not convinced that he’s a strong enough candidate to get my vote, but there are people whom I greatly respect who do support him. Given that I’ve staked my role in the electoral ecosystem upon voters remaining open-minded as they review their process annually, I’m open to taking another look at arguments on behalf of Buehrle and Andy Pettitte. With Adrián Beltré, Joe Mauer, and Chase Utley gaining eligibility next year, and with six of the seven candidates I voted for returning, ballot space will be at a premium, so I’m not making any promises of a vote — just another look.
Jimmy Rollins (2nd, 12.9%, up 3.5%)
At the height of the Phillies’ 2007–11 run atop the NL East that included a championship in ’08 and a pennant the following year, you probably couldn’t have found many takers on their MVP-winning shortstop languishing in the nether regions of a Hall of Fame ballot as the guy they ran out of town on a rail because he wouldn’t sign a lucrative extension (Rolen) gets the call from Cooperstown. But times change, and so do perspectives, including the statistical one that shows that even an injury-wracked Rolen was still good for 4.6 WAR per 650 PA during his 30s, and a largely healthy Rollins managed just 2.1 per 650.
Rollins’ set of credentials appeals more to traditionally-minded voters than to statheads. Beyond the Phillies’ success, he won four Gold Gloves and ranks sixth in career games at shortstop, eighth in homers and stolen bases, and 10th in hits among those who played the majority of their careers at the position. Given that collection, I still suspect he lasts the full 10 years on the ballot and winds up being elected by a committee to be named later.
Bobby Abreu (4th, 15.4%, up 6.8%)
Abreu is another candidate whose outpolling of Rollins no doubt causes early 2000s Phillies fans some cognitive dissonance, but he finally got enough voters to take another look, boosting him into the double digits. Had he come along a few years later, whether as part of that run of success in Philadelphia or somewhere else, his on-base skills and five-tool combination would have resulted in more than two All-Star appearances. It certainly doesn’t hurt that his 60.2 WAR and 50.9 JAWS puts him in the neighborhood of Hall of Famer Dave Winfield and Vladimir Guerrero, but he’ll need a bigger breakthrough among voters to have a real shot at election.
Andy Pettitte (5th, 17%, up 6.3%)
After losing a few points from 2021 to ’22, Pettitte got his highest share to date, which isn’t saying much, and he’s now halfway through his candidacy. I do see his massive body of postseason work, which was pretty strong but did have its share of shellackings en route to a 3.80 ERA, as elevating him above Buerhle (who’s 0.2 points higher in JAWS), though that’s offset at least somewhat by his popping up in the Mitchell Report. It’s tough for me to get too worked up about the usage of human growth hormone, though in Pettitte’s case it came after MLB introduced testing and penalties. That puts it on the wrong side of the line I’ve used in making out my virtual and actual ballots over the past decade and stuck to with consistency.
UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: Within the report, Pettitte was identified as having used human growth hormone in 2002; he soon admitted to doing so, and later in front of Congress admitted to using it in ’04 as well. Though considered a performance enhancer, HGH is not a steroid and was not banned by Major League Baseball until 2005, though in-season blood testing did not begin until ’12. That blurs the line I’ve stuck to when it comes to making out my virtual and actual ballots over the past decade; steroid testing began in 2004 though the first suspensions didn’t come until a year later. For consistency’s sake I would consider Pettitte’s usage as belonging into the Wild West era and not disqualifying, though it’s actually his performance, and not his PED usage, that has kept me from voting for him.
I will say that when I consider the prospect of rounding out my ballot with an appreciative nod to a candidate outside the one-and-done group, Pettitte’s name comes to mind first. I spent more time watching him as a fan and covering him as a member of the media than any other candidate on this ballot, and I have a great deal of respect for what he meant to the Yankees’ success in that period. Getting back to that postseason record, he gets dinged for his pitch-tipping in Game 6 of the 2001 World Series, but even as he got chased in his lone start the following October, he had a 3.18 ERA in his last 20 playoff outings (from 2002 onward), averaging 6.3 innings per turn and allowing more than three runs in just four of them; 15 of those 20 were quality starts, and one other was a World Series clincher where he came just one out short of reaching the six-inning, three-run threshold. So like Buerhle, I’ll think long and hard next year about whether to add him to my ballot.
Omar Vizquel (6th, 19.5%, down 4.4%)
Vizquel’s fall from grace is stunning, with 25.2% drop from 2021 to ’22 — the largest in modern electoral history — in light of domestic violence and sexual harassment allegations. He continued to shed votes this year even though the legal cases surrounding both matters were resolved.
Some have asked why Vizquel’s domestic violence allegations have cost him votes despite other candidates with past allegations (including Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, and Andruw Jones) faring better. A few possibilities come to mind: none of those guys have been enshrined yet, either; many voters (including this one) don’t view DV allegations as disqualifying, for as queasy as that may make us feel; the surfacing of such allegations during a Hall of Fame candidacy is so far as I can tell unprecedented; the baseball connection of the latter case — he’s alleged to have sexually harassed the batboy of the minor league team he was managing — would probably lead to substantial discipline from Major League Baseball if he were ever hired again; and a certain part of his appeal as a candidate depended upon a “good guy” reputation that has since been shattered.
Even if one wants to stick to a performance-only viewpoint on candidates, Vizquel’s longevity-driven counting stats and reputation for great defense are offset by his modest advanced statistics (he’s 43rd in JAWS, below both Rollins at no. 31 and Rabbit Maranville, the lowest-ranked Hall shortstop, at no. 38). And last I checked, the winds have been blowing in favor of the advanced statistics.
Manny Ramirez (7th, 33.2%, up 4.3%), Alex Rodriguez (2nd, 35.7%, up 1.4%)
Even with the departures of Bonds and Clemens from the ballot, the PED issue hasn’t gone away, but the volume of the arguments for electing such players (in both senses of the word) was thankfully lower than during the decade of the Gruesome Twosome. It’s simply tougher to get worked up about two players who drew weighty suspensions long after MLB’s policy of testing and penalties was put into place than it is over players whose infractions were confined to the Wild West of the pre-testing era.
For some voters, the fact A-Rod and Manny served their suspensions and retained their voting eligibility (instead of the Hall moving to make them ineligible, for example) is an indication that they’ve been penalized enough. For others, there remains an impulse to stick a thumb in the eye of MLB over PEDs, particularly when the commissioner that presided over the icky era, Bud Selig, is enshrined. Yet the fact that both Ramirez and Rodriguez were also reported to have failed the supposedly-anonymous 2003 survey test only underscores the viewpoint that the violations for which they were suspended weren’t just latter-day mistakes but part of broader patterns of abuse that cloud our assessments of their greatness.
tl;dr: sowing, reaping.
Jeff Kent (10th, 46.5%, up 13.8%)
“[I]t’s rare that my own [JAWS] system surprises me, but this is one of those cases,” I wrote in Kent’s first profile for the 2014 ballot. “I am genuinely surprised by how far off the standard Kent is; it runs contrast to my own gut feeling, to say nothing of those of others.” I returned to that line nine times, still looking for reasons to elevate Kent beyond what JAWS tells me, but I could never get there; as a hitter during a high-offense era, his advanced numbers just weren’t special enough to offset his subpar defense at a Hall-caliber level.
I did think about including Kent with one of my spare spots, not as an admission that I’d had a change of heart but as an indication that I respect his career nonetheless. He may have been a prickly sort, but I don’t think that’s the reason he didn’t break 20% until his seventh ballot or 40% until his 10th. Putting his motorcycle escapade aside, he had a reputation within the industry as an accountable player who made himself available to answer questions through thick and thin, which is what reporters expect rather than hugs, laughs, and exchanges of Christmas cards. He had the misfortune of debuting on the the single most packed ballot of modern times, with 14 players who met the JAWS standards at their positions and 17 with a JAWS of at least 50 (40 for catchers); for most voters, he simply wasn’t one of the top 10 candidates. Again, I do think his status as the all-time leader in home runs by a second baseman will play well in front of a committee where Hall of Fame players account for half of the votes. If the current rules remain in place, we’ll likely see him on the 2026 Contemporary Baseball ballot.
Carlos Beltrán (1st, 46.5%)
Statistically well-qualified in terms of both traditional and advanced numbers, Beltrán quite understandably received a less-than-rousing reception in the wake of the Astros’ sign-stealing scandal, which cost him his job as Mets manager. As I noted on Tuesday, a 46.5% debut is nothing to sneeze at given that every modern candidate who’s received at least 41.7% in their first year has eventually been elected either via the writers or a small committee.
The sign-stealing baggage may act as a drag on Beltrán’s support, and it’s worth noting that he had the third-largest gap between the percentage of votes he received in the Tracker prior to the announcement and his final percentage:
| Player | Actual % | Pre-Annoucnement % | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Andruw Jones | 58.1% | 66.5% | -8.4% |
| Gary Sheffield | 55.0% | 62.6% | -7.6% |
| Carlos Beltran | 46.5% | 53.9% | -7.4% |
| Todd Helton | 72.2% | 78.6% | -6.4% |
| Jeff Kent | 46.5% | 51.5% | -5.0% |
| Scott Rolen | 76.3% | 80.6% | -4.3% |
| Billy Wagner | 68.1% | 72.3% | -4.2% |
| Manny Ramirez | 33.2% | 36.4% | -3.2% |
| Bobby Abreu | 15.4% | 18.4% | -3.0% |
| Alex Rodriguez | 35.7% | 38.3% | -2.6% |
| Andy Pettitte | 17.0% | 16.5% | 0.5% |
| Mark Buehrle | 10.8% | 10.2% | 0.6% |
| Jimmy Rollins | 12.9% | 12.1% | 0.8% |
| Francisco Rodríguez | 10.8% | 9.2% | 1.6% |
| Torii Hunter | 6.9% | 3.4% | 3.5% |
| Omar Vizquel | 19.5% | 8.3% | 11.2% |
That translates to just 38.4% of private (unpublished) voters choosing Beltran, though that percentage is subject to change as additional ballots are revealed, either individually or within the BBWAA’s mass release of those who gave permission in two weeks. With next year’s strong crop of newcomers, and the well-supported players reaching the ends of their candidacies, Beltrán could find himself squeezed for a bit; in last year’s five-year outlook, I estimated he’d be elected in 2027, his fifth year of eligibility, but that was based on a gut-feeling estimate of a 57% share this year, about 10 points higher than his finish.
Having not yet revisited my five-year outlook, I’d now guess Beltrán will be elected in year six. That’s not far off from Jeff Bagwell, who debuted with 41.7% and had just 10 years of eligibility. He needed seven years in part because he had publicly admitted to using androstenedione, a steroid precursor, back before it was banned (the same was true of Mark McGwire and Mike Piazza, not to stretch this out into too long a tangent). That proved to be surmountable, and I believe Beltrán’s transgression will, too.
Gary Sheffield (9th, 55%, up 14.4%)
Even given that he gained no ground from 2021 to ’22, Sheffield’s support has more than quadrupled since 2019 (13.6%) as the ballot has thinned out and, perhaps, as his PED connection and other controversies have been put into perspective. Still, as noted above, he had the largest second-largest dropoff of any candidate in terms of his pre-announcement share in the Tracker and his final voting percentage, as just 46.4% of unpublished ballots included him. The bigger issue is that he heads into the final year of his candidacy needing a 20% jump to cross the threshold for election, which would at a minimum require the fourth-largest such gain in modern electoral history:
| RK | Player | Yr0 | Pct0 | Yr1 | Pct1 | Gain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Barry Larkin | 2011 | 62.1% | 2012 | 86.4% | 24.3% |
| 2 | Larry Walker* | 2019 | 54.6% | 2020 | 76.6% | 22.0% |
| 3 | Vladimir Guerrero | 2017 | 71.7% | 2018 | 92.9% | 21.2% |
| Gary Sheffield* | 2023 | 55.0% | 2024 | ≥75% | ≥20% | |
| 4 | Yogi Berra | 1971 | 67.2% | 1972 | 85.6% | 18.4% |
| 5 | Luis Aparicio | 1983 | 67.4% | 1984 | 84.6% | 17.2% |
| 6 | Eddie Mathews | 1977 | 62.4% | 1978 | 79.4% | 17.0% |
| 7 | Ralph Kiner* | 1974 | 58.9% | 1975 | 75.4% | 16.5% |
| 8 | Tony Perez | 1999 | 60.8% | 2000 | 77.2% | 16.4% |
| 9 | Roberto Alomar | 2010 | 73.7% | 2011 | 90.0% | 16.3% |
| 10 | Tim Raines* | 2016 | 69.8% | 2017 | 86.0% | 16.2% |
Walker’s final-year push offers a reassuring precedent, and amid a ballot that was more crowded, though it’s still difficult to weigh his more stathead-friendly case against a milestone-driven one (509 homers) that also has a PED link. I do think that getting over the 50% threshold bodes well for Sheffield in the long run, though it’s worth noting that aside from current candidates, it’s the PED-linked Bonds and Clemens and the baggage-laden Curt Schilling who currently stand as the exceptions to what was once the Gil Hodges Rule, in which every candidate to reach 50% eventually gained entry.
Andruw Jones (6th, 58.1%, up 17%)
Jones posted a double-digit gain for the third time in five years, and this one is his largest to date and his most significant one, as he crossed the 50% threshold for the first time. If he does get to 75%, his first-year share of 7.3% will supplant Rolen’s 10.2% as the lowest of anyone elected by the writers, and likewise it will surpass Walker’s 10.2% second-year percentage as the lowest at any point for a candidate elected by the writers.
That isn’t to say that getting to 75% is automatic. I’ve voted for Jones in spite of his arrest for domestic violence, but I know that at least some voters will not. Sticking to what happened on the playing field, his status as the top center fielder in terms of fielding runs appears to depend upon his harvesting a lot of discretionary balls, such as popups that the shortstop or second baseman might have gotten to had he not been playing so shallow. Within Jones’ candidate profile I mentioned defensive stat guru Chris Dial’s comparison of Jones to the Bad News Bears’ ball-hogging Kelly Leak, as well as his study of Jones’ various defensive metrics. One voter said that in doing so — and in discussing this particular aspect of Jones’ candidacy in a conversation at the recent Winter Meetings — I somehow talked him out of including Jones on his ballot. That’s a first, but my modus operandi is still to put as much relevant information out there on these candidates and let them make up their minds.
Dial offered more insight into Jones’ defense in a Twitter thread last week. Even if WAR overestimates his defensive value (Dial suggested it could be by 40 runs overall), that would still leave his 195 fielding runs as the highest among center fielders and would only cost him about four WAR and maybe 3–4 points of JAWS. That would bump him from 11th at the position closer to Jim Edmonds at 15th, but I don’t think it would change my vote or alter too many assessments of him in the grand scheme.
Billy Wagner (8th, 68.1%, up 17.1%)
Wagner edged Jones for the second-largest jump among this year’s candidates and made his third of at least 14% in four years; according to The Athletic’s Jayson Stark, he made the largest year-to-year jump by any reliever ever, surpassing the 15.5% increase by Rollie Fingers in 1992. With voters coming around to appreciate Wagner’s dominance — he owns both the highest strikeout rate and lowest opponent batting average of any player with at least 800 innings — and finding space for him on their less crowded ballots, he has more than quadrupled his support since receiving just 16.7% in 2019.
Wagner now stands a very good chance of being elected by the writers, but he’s not a lock by that route. Since the voters returned to annual balloting in 1966, there have been 30 instances of candidates receiving between 65% and 70% and still having eligibility remaining (23 candidates, five of whom repeated once and one of whom repeated twice). In 14 of those 30 instances, the candidate was elected the next year, and in 21 of the 30, he was elected within two years. Only three of those candidates — Enos Slaughter, Jim Bunning, and Jack Morris — had to wait to be elected by small committees; Bunning and Morris each had back-to-back instances of being stuck in the high 60s.
What matters most is that all 23 of those candidates are now in the Hall. Someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, Wagner will join them.
Todd Helton (5th, 72.2%, up 20.2%)
Helton posted this election cycle’s largest gain and something of an unprecedented one, as Stark and I figured out in an exchange on Wednesday: no modern candidate has made a leap of at least 20 points that put him over 70% but not over 75%. Luis Aparicio’s 25.5-point gain to 67.4% in 1984 and Early Wynn’s 20-point gain to 66.7% in 1971 are the closest examples I could find.
Beyond that, Helton completed one of the largest three-year gains in modern electoral history, placing him just a gimme putt away from enshrinement:
| RK | Player | Yr0 | Pct0 | Yr3 | Pct3 | Gain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Larry Walker | 2017 | 21.9% | 2020 | 76.6% | 54.7% |
| 2 | Early Wynn | 1969 | 27.9% | 1972 | 76.0% | 48.1% |
| 3 | Luis Aparicio | 1981 | 36.9% | 1984 | 84.6% | 47.7% |
| 4 | Scott Rolen* | 2019 | 17.2% | 2022 | 63.2% | 46.0% |
| 5 | Nellie Fox | 1982 | 30.6% | 1985 | 74.7% | 44.1% |
| 6 | Todd Helton* | 2020 | 29.2% | 2023 | 72.2% | 43.0% |
| 7 | Scott Rolen* | 2018 | 10.2% | 2021 | 52.9% | 42.7% |
| 8 | Scott Rolen* | 2020 | 35.3% | 2023 | 76.3% | 41.0% |
| 9 | Billy Williams | 1982 | 23.4% | 1985 | 63.8% | 40.4% |
| 10 | Gary Carter | 1999 | 33.8% | 2002 | 72.7% | 38.9% |
| 11 | Andruw Jones* | 2020 | 19.4% | 2023 | 58.1% | 38.7% |
| 12 | Eddie Mathews | 1975 | 40.9% | 1978 | 79.4% | 38.5% |
| 13 | Don Drysdale | 1975 | 21.0% | 1978 | 57.8% | 36.8% |
| 14 | Billy Wagner* | 2020 | 31.7% | 2023 | 68.1% | 36.4% |
| 15 | Billy Williams | 1984 | 50.1% | 1987 | 85.7% | 35.6% |
Helton’s 35.5% gain, from his debut at 16.5% on the 2019 ballot to last year’s 52%, is next on the list. It’s remarkable, then, that seven of the top 16 such gains belong to current candidates — a testament to the combination of the ballots becoming less crowded in the wake of so many elections (and graduations) and in voters favoring the candidates whose cases are bolstered by advanced statistics. You don’t see Kent on here, for example.
Certainly it would have been nice, and better for the candidates just below him in the rankings, if another 11 voters could have found room for Helton. As I noted on Tuesday, the eight blank ballots that were cast weren’t enough to prevent him from getting to 75%, but when you factor in the seven one-candidate ballots already in the Tracker — ballots that feel like performance-art pieces (only K-Rod? Only A-Rod? Only Sheffield? These all happened!) designed to call attention to the voter — then yes, these miserly ballots did block Helton’s election. Take away those 15 ballots and you have a total of 374, 75% of which is 280.5; Helton got 281 votes. In other words, he’d have spot on the stage this summer if not for those outliers.
While it’s easy to get mad about that, the larger point is that Helton is on the doorstep of Cooperstown, and he shouldn’t plan to be out of the country either in late January 2024 or the following July.
Scott Rolen (6th, 76.3%, up 13.1%)
The moment Scott Rolen's parents found out their son is heading to Cooperstown. ?? pic.twitter.com/r1i22VHMjy
— Cincinnati Reds (@Reds) January 25, 2023
Amazing, right? I have to admit I let out a loud holler, and then got pretty verklempt myself before Rawitch finished his first sentence. The announcement of Rolen’s election after so many of us had braced for a shutout, and then endured so much suspense as his prospects seemed to brighten at the last minute, was pure catharsis.
As with Tim Raines, Larry Walker, Edgar Martinez, and a few others of recent vintage, this one was personal, too. Though I never rooted for any of his teams, Rolen was a favorite of mine as a fan. Sometime during his Phillies tenure in the early 2000s, I explained to a Yankees fan friend that if he played in New York, he’d be loved like Derek Jeter, and that he was every bit as good. Not that we knew it at the time, but it turns out that from 1998 to 2003, both had exactly 32.5 WAR, albeit via different routes. I loved watching Rolen dive for balls, hit home runs, and break up double plays, and came to appreciate the extent to which the advanced stats, including JAWS, marked him as one of the position’s best. On Tuesday, a reader reminded me of my inscription in his copy of The Cooperstown Casebook, when the book was less than six months old and Rolen only weeks into his first year on the ballot.
We did it, @jay_jaffe pic.twitter.com/64eMfDGVGr
— Richard Fitch (@RichardFitchNYC) January 24, 2023
Rolen received a rather disheartening 10.2% on that 2018 ballot, and on Tuesday and Wednesday more than one person on Twitter interpreted his record-setting rise to 75% as evidence of the Hall’s dysfunctional process. What those folks failed to consider was that first-year share was so suppressed by the traffic. Ten players on that ’18 ballot met the JAWS standard at their positions, and 13 had a JAWS of 50 or higher. The voters set modern records with 8.46 candidates per ballot and 50% of all ballots using all 10 slots, resulting in four candidates elected, two more positioned for election within another quartet the next year, and one eighth-year candidate given a puncher’s chance at a 10th-year election. With the 10-slot rule and the 10-year eligibility rule, the Hall gives voters only the crudest of tools to triage such logjams, and some years all that matters for a candidacy is that it survives and advances. This was one such case.
.@jay_jaffe evaluates the importance of WAR when determining if a player is a Hall of Famer with Brian Kenny. #MLBNow pic.twitter.com/g7SPiR9ATe
— MLB Now (@MLBNow) January 25, 2023
Now Rolen is headed to Cooperstown. I would have been pretty ambivalent about heading up for Induction Weekend if Fred McGriff had been the only honoree, but I’m ready to pack my go-kit. And for as weary as I am as I write this, I’m already looking forward to Beltré, Mauer, Utley, Bartolo Colon, and David Wright joining the ballot next year. Which works well, because I’ll address their arrivals in my next installment.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
I hereby submit “tl;dr: sowing, reaping.” as the standard response to any question or discussion about players suspended for PED use and their chances at the HOF.
PEDs are pretty arbitrary. Who gets to determine a PED? The testing and maintenance of those processes is not all that scientific. See MMA for further discussion where the athletes have more of a voice. I move that everyone who played through the juiced ball era is ineligible.
Major League Baseball gets to determine a PED, for purposes of this discussion. Crawl back under your rock, Ronnie.
Username checks out
It’s about the the intent to chemically and illegally enhance performance irregardless of how well it actually worked.
Mark Buehrle would probably be in if he performed up to his career norms in the one year that he tanked my fantasy baseball season
Of note: the user ID “grudge holding Wes” was already taken
If it’s 2006, I’d like to share one Buehrle memory from that season. Despite having a brutal year, and this particular start ended up being firmly average, he had a mindblowing (especially for him) 7 Ks in his first three innings in a massive three-game sweep of the Tigers mid-to-late season.
I remember being totally shocked, it just came out of nowhere and for one brief trip through the lineup Buehrle turned into Randy Johnson at a key moment in the season.
Here’s the game – any other Sox fans remember this? It was awesome. Jose Contreras with a shutout the night before as well
Jay wrote: “It’s tough for me to get too worked up about the usage of human growth hormone, though in Pettitte’s case it came after MLB introduced testing and penalties. That puts it on the wrong side of the line I’ve used in making out my virtual and actual ballots over the past decade and stuck to with consistency.”
I think Jay has his facts wrong. Andy Pettitte admitted in Dec. 2007 to using HGH in 2002 and in 2004. Baseball began non-anonymous testing (although not yet for HGH) in 2005.
Yeah I’m pretty sure that you are right and Jay has the dates wrong.
MLB began testing in 2004, due to anonymous testing in 2003 exceeding the limits. In 2004, a first positive test resulted in treatment. A second positive test resulted in a 15-day suspension without pay or fine of up to $10,000. Offenders wouldn’t be publicly named unless they had a second positive test.
MLB and the MLBPA first agreed on blood testing for HGH in 2012.
hughduffy has this right in terms of the 2004 date that I have used as my general “line in the sand” (the first suspensions didn’t happen until 2005), though it wasn’t until 2013 that HGH was first tested for in season (https://www.si.com/mlb/2013/01/10/mlb-hgh-testing-regular-season). Detroit Michael has it right that Pettitte has admitted to use in both 2002 and 2004. Thus, the whole passage the latter cited could use some clarification.
I didn’t realize how stacked next years ballot is going to be. Adding 3 players who are clearly qualified for the Hall and at least 2 others (Colon & Wright) who are fairly likely to hang around for the full 10 years is going to make for some interesting ballot decisions.
It will be fun having some new names to root for. Thanks to Beltran’s scandal I literally haven’t been excited for a new name on the ballot since Jeter and Rivera and it’s not like I can get that excited about them since they’re Yankees. Beltre and Utley, specifically, are going to be very fun to root for.
There’s some other intriguing names that have some shot of hanging around, too: 2024 Potential Hall of Fame Ballot | Baseball-Reference.com. Specifically, Matt Holliday, Jose Bautista, Adrian Gonzalez, Victor Martinez, Jose Reyes (depending on how much you value his defense), James Shields. But given the actual amount of ballot space available, I think those guys likely pick up more than the single courtesy vote, but don’t clear 5%.
If you go by “fame”, Shields has tons of that. Thanks to you know who.
I know Colon has a certain cult following, but his case would be no better than the guys that are barely holding onto the ballot and he was caught using PED in the suspension era. With the crowded ballot and the aforementioned three worthy candidates, I doubt he gets 5 percent. Wright will, though.
TBH, I’m not sure Wright will be more than one & done. He’s deserving of more, but, his career was really short.
I could see him being overlooked by the BBWAA.
He’s basically 2/3 Scott Rolen & Rolen only got 10% his first go around.
With him having about 50 WAR and 247 wins, I wouldn’t be surprised if he winds up getting 10% every year until he falls off.
I think there’s a chance that Wright does well enough that the veterans committee takes a look at him. There are a lot of parallels here to Don Mattingly and Jeff Kent.
Feel like Wright is much more Mattingly than Kent, haha.
I think Mark Buehrle would be a *perfect* candidate for Veterans Committees of the future, in the historical sense of Veterans Committees (or Old-Timers or Era Committees or whatever the then-current terminology) bringing in guys who were great in their era, who did not come up to the writers’ standards, but who nevertheless enrich the Hall. Ultimately, Jack Morris, Fred McGriff, Jim Rice, Lee Smith — all of these guys fall into that category. On the numbers, Abreu falls somewhere around here, too, although I always found Buehrle more fun as a fan.
(I would reserve a different category for the men whose belated induction rights the injustice of their oversight: guys like Joe Gordon and Ron Santo. Eventually Lou Whitaker will fall into this category, and may it come speedily and in our days.)
I think the standard for starting pitchers could migrate downward a bit and at some point 1-2 of these guys who were among the best of that high-offense era should be recognized. With Wagner’s induction, there will be four pitchers in the HOF who debuted after the start of that era (1993), and three will be closers. Sabathia will maybe make that 2-3 but still it’s weird to have more closers than starters making the hall of fame.
My vote is for Pettitte, but Buehrle could also fit. Otherwise you’ll have a timespan of more than a decade’s worth of debuts (1993-2004) and a grand total of two hall of fame starting pitchers. That’s ridiculous.
In fairness, Pedro was a rookie in 1993, and both Greinke debuted in 2004…but yeah, I think there’s a reasonable argument for Pettitte/Buehrle/Hudson (who absolutely should not have fallen off the ballot year one).
Shame that Johan, Oswalt, Webb, and Felix broke down.
(I’d put Johan in anyway)
I’d put Johan in anyway, too. And, to be honest, I’ll probably feel the same way about Johan 2.0, Jacob DeGrom.
And Brett Saberhagen and Kevin Appier and David Cone. They’re totally forgotten
Coney has an article in the Casebook, at least!
Also, El Tiante belongs.
Among pitchers who debuted from 1993-2004, here’s who is already in the HOF:
Roy Halladay (1998-2013)
Mariano Rivera (1995-2013)
Trevor Hoffman (1993-2010)
Pitchers who will get in once they’re eligible:
Zack Greinke (2004-2023?) – last pitcher to get a hit the World Series
CC Sabathia (2001-2019) – he’s got 3093 K’s, he’s getting in.
Guys who are on the bubble:
Billy Wagner (1995-2010)
After that, you have the flawed 4, among which I think either all should go in, or none of them should go in:
Johan Santana (2000-2012)
Tim Hudson (1999-2015)
Mark Buehrle (2000-2015)
Andy Pettitte (1995-2013)
Santana, Hudson, and Buehrle would all have been helped if they had pitched more years. Pettitte has PED issues and wasn’t as good.
Roy Oswalt, Cliff Lee, Carlos Zambrano, and Javier Vasquez aren’t getting in if Johan Santana isn’t getting in — too short careers and not as good.
And while I love Big Sexy (Bartolo Colon), he’s got a PED suspension, and his peak wasn’t that high.
This is the timeframe where so many pitchers ended up breaking down and not coming back to the game. It’s no coincidence that Will Carroll’s book, “Saving the Pitcher: Preventing Pitcher Injuries in Modern Baseball” came out in 2004.
The reason why we won’t have as many pitchers from this period is because so many of them broke down.
I agree with all of this…except Vazquez being mentioned in the same sentence as Lee and Oswalt, haha.
“One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong.”
Roy Oswalt: bWAR / fWAR: 50.0 / 52.6
Cliff Lee: bWAR / fWAR: 43.2 / 48.2
Carlos Zambrano: bWAR / fWAR: 43.9 / 30.9
Javier Vazquez: bWAR / fWAR: 45.6 / 53.7
To be fair, the one who probably doesn’t belong is Zambrano, but Vazquez does lead this group in fWAR and is second in bWAR.
I did not realize how good Vazquez was in Montreal!
That said…Javy threw 2800 innings, 30% more than either Oswalt or Lee, who had totals a lot closer to Johan’s.
Feels a bit like saying Coco Crisp and Sizemore had similar careers…or Dale Murphy and Harold Baines, haha.
Yeah, I was off by a year on when the current big 4 debuted, but the point still stands. Over an 11-year period, there will be two pitchers who debuted and went into the hall as starters and three that went in as closers (Wagner is not on the bubble; look at his blurb; he’s a lock to eventually get in, most likely in two years).
And I also agree and would put Santana in along with Pettitte.
And I think there’s an argument that high-offense eras make pitchers more prone to breakdowns. Lots of long, stressful innings.
Kent now falls somewhere in the best 3-5 primary 2B no longer eligible for non-Committee induction. Clearly behind Grich/Whitaker, and depending on your particular preferences around career shape, might be behind Randolph, Knoblauch and/or Stanky. I can see reasonable arguments for drawing the line anywhere after Grich, but Whitaker is a heavy lift, as I feel very comfortable putting him in the hall.
Whitaker is a surefire HoF guy…and I’d definitely put Willie ahead of Kent.
But Kent’s definitely a guy, like McGriff, whom I won’t be angry about the Vet Committee including.
To Kent and Dustin Pedroia are of similar quality.
Bartolo Colon retired only a couple months ago, so it’s wild to consider that he’ll be on the Hall ballot so soon (I know why, he hasn’t played in MLB, etc etc)
I mean, he was teammates with Julio Franco (albeit only during his rookie season) who returned to professional baseball after appearing on the HOF ballot at age 54.
I’m not convinced he’s really retired
I too shouted with glee when Rawitch made the announcement. I was watching with my kids and it was a good chance to give them a quick crash course in Rolen. Basically told them he was Arenado before Arenado.
Perfect contemporary comp!!
The folks angry about it keep saying “He’s just Graig Nettles.”
Graig Nettles should absolutely be a Hall of Famer!
Nah, he was a much better hitter than Nettles (122 wRC+ vs 111 for Nettles) & had a much higher peak.
Nettles has 670 more games & 1700 more PA’s & has a lower fWAR & bWAR than Rolen.
Not saying Nettles isn’t deserving, but, Rolen isn’t really a comp. He’s better. Guys like Ken Boyer, Darrell Evans, Buddy Bell are more in Nettles range, IMO.
Oh, I definitely agree Rolen was better than Nettles!
Completely different caliber of hitter.
Just saying that I rate Nettles as pretty firmly the best 3B not currently in the Hall (especially if you consider Allen a 1B).
The HOF is so weird. It excludes the single season HR leader. All time HR leader. All time hits leader. 7-time Cy Young winner Roger Clemens. It is not a collection of the best MLB players of all-time – it is something else. It is also very interesting to see guys that not many people would have considered HOFers in thier time surpass players that were considered to be better every day of their careers as time passes. Revisionist history at its finest. The HOF is weird and broken. It is fun to see who got votes and remember all of the great players that have played this game. We spend so much time fawning over mediocrity and almost all of them will never approach these guys that get .1% of the vote. It should also be mentioned how weird PEDs are in this discussion. Many of these guys surely used PEDs but never got caught. There are a bunch of guys that I think are PED guys that I don’t think are? That is the problem with making the HOF about something other than performance.
Bonds and Clemens will one day be put in the hall of fame. The disgust for them will fade but their accomplishments are written in stone. Rose (and Joe Jackson) are banned by MLB. I’m not sure I see that changing and with how much sports now want to get in bed with gambling, perversely, I think the chances actually grow smaller.
Disgust may fade but moralizing is forever!
I want to believe that, but Eddie Cicotte, along with Rose and Jackson create a strong argument to the contrary.
And where does Mark McGwire fit into all of this? What’s the difference between his candidacy and David Ortiz?
He was a lot better than Ortiz regular season and worse postseason
There is an actual reason, absent moralizing, to keep the gamblers out. Gamblers risk the integrity and very existence of professional baseball while PEDs simply don’t.
McGwire is a known cheater and illegal (by U.S. law even if not technically by MLB rules) user of steroids, while the evidence against Ortiz is very questionable.
Oh, I agree that the character clause is overall a huge joke and that all the cheaters (save for the officially banned gamblers) should ultimately just be let in if their performances merit the honor, especially with the uncertainty of who just never got caught.
However, it’s not weird or broken for the current voters to interpret the clause as they see fit. I just ask that they be consistent about it and not vote in guys like Bonds and Clemens while leaving the other guys out.
“As I noted on Tuesday, the eight blank ballots that were cast weren’t enough to prevent him from getting to 75%, but when you factor in the seven one-candidate ballots already in the Tracker — ballots that feel like performance-art pieces (only K-Rod? Only A-Rod? Only Sheffield? These all happened!) designed to call attention to the voter — then yes, these miserly ballots did block Helton’s election.”
There need to be a couple rule changes here. First, blank ballots should count the same as a ballot that wasn’t returned. Second, there needs to be some mechanism for tossing ballots from people who clearly aren’t taking this seriously. It would be very easy to quantify a “divergence from consensus” number that would disqualify a ballot for consideration.
Because this is just reducing the process to silliness.
For starters, I would like to see all ballots published with their respective voters’ names. There are a lot of voters who like to make some…unique choices, or try to make some sort of point or statement behind a veil of anonymity. I think having your vote published with your name on it should be a requirement that comes with being allowed to take part in the HOF voting process.
With that done, I’m fine enough to allow whatever performative votes the voters want to do – they could at least be called out on it or talk about their rationale (regardless of how asinine it might seem to others). Some would still do clownish things but lifting the veil of anonymity would cut back on the antics quite a bit, I think.
As an example, just look at the stark difference between Vizquel’s pre-announcement and post-announcement vote shares; there are a lot of voters who wanted to secretly support a marginal HOF guy who has also done (or been accused of) some pretty terrible things.
Want to support a defensive wizard with some terrible off-field behaviors? Want to support the all-time HR king regardless of steroid usage? Want to support a guy twice suspended for PED use? Want to support the nicest guy ever whose statistical case may be lacking? Whoever you vote for, put your name on it and defend your vote.
Generational moment: While we’re at it, let’s also publish the names of voters in 1966, 1969, 1979, and 1982 who didn’t vote for Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron, respectively, on their first ballot. Which is more offensive: turning in a blank ballot (or one with a solitary “sympathy vote” for a clear non-HoFer) or refusing to put the name of an absolutely clear, inner-circle HoFer on, for who knows what reason? Agree wholeheartedly that some accountability is needed here, but this isn’t a new problem.
IIRC the BBWAA voted in favor of that and the hall squashed it because they didn’t want anything that might lead to Bonds/Clemens inductions.
The first one sounds pretty logical. The second one…they’re never going to do that. Sportswriters pride themselves on iconoclasm.
I don’t see any issues with blank ballots if the writers seriously believe nobody on the ballot should be elected. These ballots are just as much for voting against candidates as they are for voting for them.
As for “not taking this seriously” ballots, there’s no reasonable way to determine the criteria for such.
Seem like a good time to bump this old gem (Rolen vs. Jeter):
https://tht.fangraphs.com/is-it-better-to-burn-out-or-to-fade-away/
MARK BUEHRLE
In the entire history of baseball, only 64 pitchers had a higher lifetime WAR.
There are more than 30 pitchers in the HOF with less WAR.
Additionally, how many of them pitched a Perfect Game AND a No-hitter AND their team to a World Series Championship?
HALL OF FAMER
It’s nice to see that certain writers remain committed to not enshrining the best players in the HOF.
I believe that the voting pool should be expanded to include anyone who worked or played in MLB for at least ten years, including players, coaches, managers, and team executives.
The writers don’t deserve to have the sole right to the first set of gatekeepers.
Having a select group of writers is clearly imperfect, but I’m not sure your solution improves the problem at hand. “Mickey Morandini? He was such a nice guy, shook hands with me that time! Hall of Famer!”
“Chipper Jones? Man I hated playing the Braves in the 00s, they won so much! No thank you” etc
Agreed. The veterans committee of all hall of famers already flunked. Improving voting requires increasing the expertise of the voting bloc, and expanding the group would likely lower it. Try shrinking it first. When they did that a half dozen years ago, a bunch of good candidates saw better numbers.
even with their flaws, the writers ballots are almost always more accurate and even handed than player/manager voting. look at things like season to season votes (all stars, various all league teams) and the committees to inducted players no longer on the ballot. players and managers tend to have way stronger biases both for and against specific players, or biases towards their eras or being prisoners of the moment after a given season. the bbwaa voter pool is large enough to wash away some of that with the writers, and if there was a way to combat the blank ballot submission issue it would be about as good as it could get on the voter end
Player and coaches voting en masse has traditionally been largely an embarrassment. Manager gold glove voting is how we got Rafael Palmeiro winning a gold glove as a DH. In the NBA the player component of all-star voting is littered with joke votes. Chet Holmgren got 4 player votes as an all-star starter this year despite having yet to make his NBA debut.
Even if they all were to take it seriously, there would be significantly less analytic rigor then there is today. If the Frankie Frisch veteran committees are any indication, they would probably be more likely to have inducted Steve Garvey then Barry Bonds.
I will make one argument in Buerhle’s favor. I don’t think he’s a hall of famer, but I do think he’s closer to the Jack Morris level where its at least arguable because his WAR total is a bit deflated due to the type of pitcher he was. WAR penalizes guys who are “pitch to contact” and rewards strikeout pitchers and he had a career K rate of 5.13.
I think we can all agree that he had a significant sample size for his career, and his ERA was .3 below his FIP yet he was playing with a poor defensive team behind him too. From 2000 to 2015, the Chisox had the 25th best rating on fangraphs defensive stats with a -140.2. They were also 25th with a negative 200 DRS. UZR/150 was -1.3, good for 26th. And that doesn’t account for the hitter friendly ballpark in which he toiled during a period when the AL was the only DH league. His ERA- is 87 and its deceptively high given the defense stats.
So, no I wouldn’t vote for him, but I wouldn’t complain if the veterans committee let him in either.
I’d say he’s firmly better than Morris.
There’s a LARGE gap between “Morris” and “HoF-caliber,” though, haha.
so much HOF content
So AJ Peirzinski got one vote but Matt Cain got none? What kind of fucked up world do we live in?
Not that I’m advocating his inclusion, but one thing I long admired about Buehrle is that he’s a classic example of maximizing mediocre gifts. The only other guys in his class as far as results vs. stuff who come immediately to mind are post-injuries Tanana, ’85 Tudor, and Moyer.
Re: Kent, I think he was just older than people realize. By WAR standards, he doesn’t have his first all-star level year until age 29, and even then it’s only a 4.1.
The back half of his career is pretty extraordinary – he put up only 13.3 WAR in his 20s, but 42.7 from age 30-40. If those big years were front loaded to the beginning of his career, then he had a normal decline phase racking up counting stats, he could very possibly be in by now.
Jay, in reevaluating Buehrle’s candidacy, I’d urge you to consider that he spent the majority of his career with the world’s greatest baseball club, and is my personal favorite player in addition to the other excellent arguments here. Can’t yet figure out why this hasn’t taken him to unanimous induction, but we’ll see about next year.
In all seriousness, I do love him and I like that he has pretty much every bad HOF argument in his favor – i.e., things that make him unique and fun and interesting but probably shouldn’t be considered. Fun to watch, incredible individual moments especially for someone with such mediocre MLB stuff (a perfect game AND a 27-batter no-hitter, buzzed WS Game 3 save after a Game 2 win), the “probably could’ve pitched longer and padded his case but preferred to just retire,” great pace, defensive ability (should be in his value already), and so on. At some point do all of those things together mean something? I’ve been a HOF hardo most of my life saying they don’t, but ultimately baseball and life are supposed to be fun… can’t begrudge anyone for keeping him out, but if anything I’m looking forward to a few more years (at least) of supporting his candidacy on the internet.
Yeah, it’s no wonder he outperformed his FIP, when he had Mark freaking Buehrle playing defense for him every start!
I mentioned this in another thread, but, I’ve pretty much come to conclusion that the reason Sheffield isn’t in is because every subset of writers has a reason not to vote for him & no subset is making him a cause celebre.
Advanced stats writers won’t because of the crappy defensive stats killing his WAR, no matter how illogical & unreliable those #’s are.
Old crotchety guys don’t like his attitude & petulance & the not trying in Milwaukee stuff (I’m always concerned there is a racial angle to this, too..even if it’s covert, not intentional)
PED hardliners say no due to the Bonds ties & Sheff admitting he unknowningly used PED’s for a short period..despite the fact he called for PED testing in 2002 & there is really no reason to doubt his account.
He wasn’t a “nice guy” or beloved like Ortiz..or even Helton, so no one goes to bat for him.
For non-inner circle guys, it’s as much a popularity contest as anything else..& he’s just not a popular guy or someone people feel compelled to advocate for.
i agree, he checks no vote boxes for multiple types of “this is why i wont vote for ___” types. its unfortunate. also funny cause you say hes a non inner circle guy which i guess he is (depends on your definition of inner circle) but he essentially had a 12 year peak of 6800 PAs of 307/416/557, 156 OPS+, 300 more BB than K. 6 of those 12 seasons he was over a 160 OPS+, including 1996 which was a 677 PAs of a 189 OPS+ and led the league in OBP (.465) and OPS (1.090) lol.
Rolen dilutes the hall. Aramis ramirez was more feared in their time
Only by his own team.
maybe he was more feared, but rather clearly a worse player
Aramis Ramirez may have actually been more feared than Rolen, but that is largely because fear stems largely from HR power. Rolen was a better hitter overall, but that was through doubles and walks instead of an additional 5-10 HRs. Also defense tends not to inspire fear.
If we are just going off the amount teams feared them. Ryan Howard, Mo Vaughn, and Joey Bats are first ballot HOFers.
Jeff Kent >>> Harold Baines
And a Worthy HoF>>>>Harold Baines.
Doesn’t the idea that Rollins “winds up being elected by a committee to be named later” defeat the whole purpose of this?
Beltran being punished from the Hall for the sign stealing scandal may finally put me over the edge, make me go full joker goblin mode, and burn down the Hall. That would be so extremely silly and ridiculous
He’ll be fine.
Similar path to Alomar, who a bunch of folks held off a year on for being a jerk.
Luckily, he’s a clear cut HoF by every trad and advanced metric, so voters will feel silly after a couple years.
Rolen really deserved more support all along. It’s very surprising that Helton received almost as many votes.
So players can commit actual felonies to cheat with the the illegal use of steroids (or taking advantage of illegal distribution of HGH, which still makes you an accessory), but it doesn’t count unless it occurred after MLB started enforcing it themselves? Does that mean that only those who got suspended for MLB’s domestic violence policy fall foul of the character clause, while previous known wife-beaters get off the hook?
Yes, I know that the character clause has been enforced very unevenly over the years (basically never before McGwire’s first year on the ballot, aside from those officially banned), but the same voters should still treat the same situations evenly. The clause says nothing about being limited only to official violations of MLB policy, and to interpret it that way is very irresponsible. Either vote for all the cheaters who you otherwise feel belong in the Hall, or don’t vote for any of them! The only wiggle room should be on questionable levels of evidence like with Ortiz.
Helton and Jones have also committed “actual felonies,” and Jay voted for them.