A Look Ahead to Next Year’s Hall of Fame Ballot
While fully acknowledging the honor bestowed upon Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, and Ivan Rodriguez yesterday evening by the voters, it’s also never too early to begin looking ahead to next year’s Hall of Fame ballot. The three who gained election this time around were certainly deserving — and will receive due recognition this summer in Cooperstown. That said, there were a lot of players worthy of the Hall who failed to earn the requisite 75% for entry — and those players will be joined by even more great players seeking induction on the next ballot.
During the eight-year period from 2006 to 2013, the writers selected just 10 players for enshrinement. Over the last four years, however, 12 players have been elected, suggesting that the voters have changed their standards a bit to compensate for a stingier time.
Unfortunately, the increase has done little to clear the backlog of worthy players. Consider: of the 12 players inducted over the last four years, eight of them were elected on their first ballot. So, while it’s nice to know that certain deserving players have been given due recognition, there actually hasn’t been as much activity as one might suspect to benefit the other players worthy of Cooperstown. The last four years have seen Mark McGwire, Jack Morris, Alan Trammell, and now Lee Smith age off the ballot, but the numbers of players who’ve exited from the ballot doesn’t compensate for the appearance of new qualified candidates.
Before getting to the newcomers, let’s take a quick look at the players coming back from this year’s ballot in order of their voting percentage this year. Information on the Hall of Fame points system can be found here, but if you’re familiar with Jay Jaffe’s JAWS at Baseball-Reference, the system works fairly similarly, except using FanGraphs version of WAR.
| Player | Voting % in 2017 | HOF Points | WAR | HOF RATING | HOF AVG | HOF MEDIAN | BBWAA AVG | BBWAA MEDIAN | JAWS | JAWS pos |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trevor Hoffman | 74.0% | 6.0 | 26.1 | 16.1 | 22.3 | 18.7 | 22.3 | 18.7 | 24.0 | 34.0 |
| Vladimir Guerrero | 71.7% | 33.0 | 54.4 | 43.7 | 63.1 | 51.5 | 85.0 | 71.8 | 50.2 | 58.1 |
| Edgar Martinez | 58.6% | 44.0 | 65.5 | 54.8 | 57.3 | 52.6 | 71.9 | 75.3 | 56.0 | 55.0 |
| Roger Clemens | 54.1% | 115.0 | 133.7 | 124.4 | 52.9 | 48.2 | 66.9 | 63.3 | 103.3 | 62.1 |
| Barry Bonds | 53.8% | 173.0 | 164.4 | 168.7 | 55.7 | 49.7 | 62.7 | 52.5 | 117.6 | 53.3 |
| Mike Mussina | 51.8% | 53 | 82.2 | 67.6 | 52.9 | 48.2 | 66.9 | 63.3 | 63.8 | 62.1 |
| Curt Schilling | 45.0% | 65.0 | 79.7 | 72.4 | 52.9 | 48.2 | 66.9 | 63.3 | 64.5 | 62.1 |
| Manny Ramirez | 23.8% | 37.0 | 66.4 | 51.7 | 55.7 | 49.7 | 62.7 | 52.5 | 54.6 | 53.3 |
| Larry Walker | 21.9% | 44.0 | 68.7 | 56.4 | 63.1 | 51.5 | 85.0 | 71.8 | 58.6 | 58.1 |
| Fred McGriff | 21.7% | 31.0 | 56.9 | 44.0 | 59.1 | 57.0 | 66.3 | 57.1 | 44.1 | 54.2 |
| Jeff Kent |
16.7% | 32.0 | 56.1 | 44.1 | 59.8 | 52.8 | 77.1 | 65.4 | 45.4 | 56.9 |
| Gary Sheffield | 13.3% | 41.0 | 62.1 | 51.6 | 55.7 | 49.7 | 62.7 | 52.5 | 49.1 | 53.3 |
| Billy Wagner | 10.2% | 5.0 | 24.2 | 14.6 | 22.3 | 18.7 | 22.3 | 18.7 | 24.0 | 34.0 |
| Sammy Sosa | 8.6% | 40.0 | 60.1 | 50.1 | 63.1 | 51.5 | 85.0 | 71.8 | 51.0 | 58.1 |
Those above the median Hall of Famer at their respective position are highlighted in blue.
This year’s voting points to a couple of interesting developments. The voters’ enthusiasm for Trevor Hoffman, is one of them. Despite possessing the second-most saves in history, Hoffman doesn’t compare so favorably to to the relievers in the Hall of Fame already. Likewise, the writers appear to have been wowed by Guerrero’s great hitting even as defensive metrics subtract some wins from his overall value.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have players like Sheffield and Manny Ramirez — each of whom has a solid case for the Hall of Fame, but who also possess ties to PED usage. In the middle, we have a big group of deserving players, six in total, with Larry Walker rounding things out. There are likely quite a few writers who wished they could have cast votes for Hoffman and Guerrero, but just couldn’t find room on their ballots for them. Given how close those two players were, it seems highly likely that they’ll cross the 75% threshold next year.
That’s likely going to hurt players like Ramirez and Walker — and perhaps Jeff Kent and Fred McGriff, as well. All four are vulnerable to getting pushed off of ballots next year as writers vote for Guerrero and Hoffman. Last year, Ken Griffey Jr., Mike Piazza, Mark McGwire, and Alan Trammell came off the ballot. In their place came Vladimir Guerrero, Manny Ramirez, and Ivan Rodriguez. Next year, Bagwell, Raines, Rodriguez, and Lee Smith will be absent from the ballot, theoretically clearing up more space so that more voters can move Guerrero and Hoffman into the Hall of Fame and create more room for Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, and Mussina to receive votes.
It might not be that easy, though. Look at next year’s class.
| HOF Points | WAR | HOF RATING | HOF AVG | HOF MEDIAN | BBWAA AVG | BBWAA MEDIAN | JAWS | JAWS Pos | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chipper Jones | 62.0 | 84.6 | 73.3 | 57.3 | 52.6 | 71.9 | 75.3 | 65.8 | 55.1 |
| Jim Thome |
46.0 | 68.9 | 57.5 | 59.1 | 57.0 | 66.3 | 57.1 | 57.2 | 54.2 |
| Scott Rolen |
53.0 | 70.1 | 61.6 | 57.3 | 52.6 | 71.9 | 75.3 | 56.8 | 55.1 |
| Andruw Jones | 53.0 | 67.1 | 60.1 | 64.6 | 49.2 | 92.1 | 77.1 | 54.6 | 57.8 |
| Johan Santana | 30.0 | 45.4 | 37.7 | 52.9 | 48.2 | 66.9 | 63.3 | 48.1 | 62.1 |
| Johnny Damon | 19.0 | 44.5 | 31.8 | 64.6 | 49.2 | 92.1 | 77.1 | 44.4 | 57.8 |
| Omar Vizquel | 16.0 | 42.6 | 29.3 | 55.0 | 52.5 | 62.0 | 57.8 | 36.0 | 54.8 |
Apologies to Chris Carpenter, Livan Hernandez, Kevin Millwood, Jamie Moyer, Ben Sheets, Kerry Wood, and Carlos Zambrano for their omissions: they’re unlikely to receive the requisite votes, though. Orlando Hudson, Hideki Matsui, and Jack Wilson are also technically eligible. (See the full list here.)
Chipper Jones is a first-ballot no-doubter, so let’s say he gets Bagwell’s votes. On the MLB Network broadcast of this year’s voting, there was general consensus that Thome would be selected in his first year of eligibility. He does have 600 homers and is clearly deserving. If he’s inducted, then he’ll basically have taken Raines’ votes. That leaves many just Rodriguez’s spot for voters to select new player without dropping someone for whom they voted in this most recent election. The writers are going to be faced with some difficult decisions. Johan Santana seems like an afterthought among this group, and he won two Cy Young awards. Same for Johnny Damon, despite his two World Series rings and nearly 2,800 hits.
Three of the newer players on the ballot — Andruw Jones, Rolen, and Vizquel — earned a decent share of their value in the form of defense. We don’t yet know how the voters will consider the 28 Gold Gloves collected between those three players. Rolen was a good offensive player with a career that looks just like Ron Santo’s. Andruw Jones has more than 400 homers and debuted at 19, while Omar Vizquel was a very poor offensive player who, by the metrics, isn’t close the Hall. He wasn’t reasonably close to Ozzie Smith on either offense or defense, no matter what the current narrative says.
Writers will be faced with some difficult decisions. If they didn’t vote for Hoffman or Guerrero, do they add that pair to make sure they’re elected? Do they remove a player from their 2016 ballot, like Manny Ramirez or Larry Walker, because they’re worried that Andruw Jones or Scott Rolen will fall off the ballot? Many voters will be faced with the choice of voting for something different than the 10 most eligible players if they want to maximize the effect of their vote. The Hall of Fame is a great honor, but many more players are deserving.
The 5% rule and the 10-player limit are serving to squeeze deserving players at both ends of the ballot and provide impossible choices for writers. The writers previously asked for the option to vote for 12 players and there’s a precedent for putting players back on the ballot after failing to get 5% of the vote. Both of those remedies should be considered this next year, as the ballot is likely to be as full as it’s ever been and writers are not being allowed to decide whether a player is a Hall of Famer, but rather being tasked with casting strategic votes to get deserving players elected.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
I have two thoughts:
1. I have a feeling Thome doesn’t get in first ballot. Thome certainly has better numbers and ratings than Vlad, but Vlad felt like a much shinier option than Thome. If Vlad didn’t get in first ballot, I don’t quite see Thome doing it.
2. ‘ve been thinking about this a lot since yesterday. Prior to yesterday, I felt pretty good about that answer being yes. Prior to the announcement, @NotMrTibbs had his public exit polling at a strong 66%. My own projection methodology had him finishing at 64%, while others had him somewhere around 62-64%. Final projections put him at 58.5%, which doesn’t seem like much, but represents one of the largest public to private differentials this year at 16%. All and all, this means he would need to flip about 75 ballots in the next two years to get in or to put it in percentage, rougly 40% of remaining voters who did not vote for him this year.
Of course, it isn’t quite that cut and dry. Over the next two years there will be new voters on the roll, as well as older voters being taken off of it. Such an instance would likely favor his odds of getting in, but the extent of that shift is unknown. Not to mention, while Tim Raines received 100% of first time votes this year, Edgar only received 71%. Unlike Raines candidacy, there is also the DH issue. I just don’t see many voters who are steadfast on the No DH’s in the HOF narrative budging in the next two years.
I guess it’s starting to not feel as safe of a bet as I once thought.
Doesn’t Rivera hold the record for saves?
According to the leader boards on this Site, Rivera 652, Hoffman 601
Hoffman was the first to break 600 and held the record for a few months before Rivera broke it.
My fault! I’m a bad editor! Duly edited! Thanks!
Pudge!
I understand that Jamie Moyer isn’t a hall of fame talent, but damn if he didn’t wow me with what he was able to do as he aged. I remember in particular a game he pitched against the Yankees in 2010, in which he limited the Yankees to 3 hits over 8 innings. After the game, it was pointed out to manager Joe Girardi that Moyer was older than he was. I wonder how much longer he could have held on if it wasn’t for the TJS and attempted comeback in “home run”-ville.
I know a bit off topic, listening to Colin Cowherd talk to some baseball “guy” (Rob Parker) about the Hall of Fame and what they are saying is such lazy commentary. Mike Mussina is nowhere near a HoFer, Raines wasn’t that good, Bagwell wasn’t that good (didn’t reach their magic numbers of 3,000 or 500), just on an on. I’m stupider having listened to that segment.
Deadspin has an article from 2015 re: Parker titled “Dumbest Man Alive Gives Dumbest Possible Explanation For Dumb HOF Vote”.
http://deadspin.com/dumbest-man-alive-gives-dumbest-possible-explanation-fo-1678295876
You listen to those awful ESPN/FS1 talking heads?
I watch MLBN. The caliber of conversation there is much better and so it’s much easier to forgive when the former players get a little anti-SABR.
As much as people dislike Kenny as loud and pompous, he ensures that a wide variety of people in the SABR community get appearances on “MLB Now”
The only one who is consistently awful is Mad Dog. I can watch him if I’m in the mood, and occasionally he makes an insightful point, but he’s obnoxious merely because his main argument is shouting. Anyway, I think all of MLBN’s programming is fun… except for “High Heat”.
As much as I liked watching Chipper Jones and loved his consistency, I don’t see him being a 1st ballet HOF. Jim Thome is one of the most respected players in MLB, a hell of a good guy and the numbers easily make him a HOF player. There isn’t any whispers of him doing roids. I see Jim being voted in on the 1st ballet. Vladi should have made it this year and will probably make it next year. It drives me nuts how Clemons might have been out of baseball if not for roids. His arm injury his last couple of years with Bos was a major concern. Also, Trevor Hoffman has the saves to be considered, but Billy Wagner has all the other numbers that are MUCH better then Hoffman’s. Just my opinion.
Can you please explain why you don’t Chipper will be in on his first ballot? I haven’t heard that opinion before, honestly.
As much as I tried to Jones, and like his consistency, I do not see it as ballet 1 Hof. Jim Thome is one of the most respected players in the first division, tough nice guy and easy to get the number of players Hof. Nothing to gossip with steroids. I see Jim ballet know about 1. The Government should have this and next year are allowed. So how crazy we Clemons in baseball, except for steroids. His injuries on his hand the last two years with the character Bos. Also, Trevor Hoffman, except research, but Billy Wagner, that all the other characters are much better than Hoffman. Just my opinion.
Nice to see you back in fine form, Serb. Just my opinion.
I think Thome definitely deserves it–but Chipper was a better all-round player, and as much as I liked Thome blasting the ball, if I were a GM, given perfect foresight, and had the chance to pick one for their careers, it has to be Chipper. Both will make it in, deservedly.
Larry Wayne is a First Balloter (that probably doesn’t need to be capitalized), indisputably so, that is all.
Also Larry Walker>Vladi (I’m all about the Larry W.’s), though I totally love Vladi, so I hope he gets in too.
Agreed, on all points, Jonesing.
Not sure why Dave Cameron opined in his recent chat that Tim Raines is a “clear” HOFer but Larry Walker is “borderline.” Walker actually tops Raines in every single HOF yardstick devised by Bill James a couple of decades back.
HOF Standards: Walker 58 points, Raines 47.
HOF Monitor: Walker 148, Raines “merely” 90.
Black Ink: Walker 24, Raines 20.
Gray Ink: Walker 116, Rock 114.
Now Walker of course got that Coors Boost in some ways, but even adjusting for that, I’d say he’s even with Raines at the very least. I hope to see both of their plaques the next time I’m at Cooperstown.
Can someone tell me why Walker is getting passed over for Guerrero? He has better stats in every way (including those that are park-adjusted). Is he a steroid case that I’ve never heard about?
It isn’t the Hall of Stats. There wasn’t really any point in time in their careers when Larry was considered a better player than Vlad. I think both belong, but its pretty easy to explain why Vlad gets more love.
I don’t actually think there’s anything wrong with this answer despite the down votes. Not to say vlad was actually the superior player but pirates hurdles is right about people believing he was
How about the last 5 years of their respective careers, when Larry Walker posted 21.2 WAR and Vlad posted a grand total of 6. Don’t get me wrong, I loved watching Vlad play, and would vote for him if I had the chance to do so, but even the the most ardent Vlad supported has to acknowledge that he was unproductive in the later stages of his career.
“There wasn’t really any point in time in their careers when Larry was considered a better player than Vlad. ”
Except for the entirety of both of their careers.
I think Pirate Hurdles means when they were actively PLAYING, Vlad was considered a better player. & that is accurate, when they played people viewed Vlad as a better player than Walker. Just look at AS & MVP voting.
Remember, WAR wasn’t even around or barely a blip on the radar for most of their careers. The #’s we have now indicate Walker was better*, but, it’s tough to change the minds of people that thought otherwise for 15 years.
Their offensive value is VERY close overall & as stated by others, Walker gets dinged for the Coors Effect, fair or not. He DID average well more offensive WAR per game in Colorado, than he did in Montreal..despite being supposedly past his prime for most of his time on Colorado. Are we sure the park effects are accurate? It’s tough to reconcile how much Coors helped him.
*- I do think there should be some questioning of defensive stats from players before the Statcast era. I think we’ve seen enough discrepancies to not use them as gospel in calculating career value & assert with 100% certainty that they’re accurate.
Two words: Coors Field.
Longer answer: Basically voters don’t trust his stats due to Coors Field. Beyond that he was a great all-around player. Voters hate that. They prefer the simple narrative and pointing to one stat (500 home runs, 300 wins, 3,000 hits), rather than trying to balance hitting + fielding + baserunning.
I would think the field-neutralizing stats would control for that argument though. Walker’s OPS+ and wRC+ are both higher than Vlad’s, and that’s before you get to the clear distinction in baserunning and defense.
I’ve been in lots of discussions with friends re: Walker. The basic anti-Walker argument is that the Coors Fields adjustments are too small. So basically they feel there’s still a lot of “air” in his stats. I imagine lots of voters feel the same and that if you “properly” adjusted for Coors Field, Walker wouldn’t look as great.
Most people — even many stat-heads, in practice — selectively weight their own intuitive perceptions of field adjustment over the actual field-adjusted stats.
I think there are good reasons to be skeptical of accepting adjusted stats without deeper examination in particular situations. Adjusted stats rely on the premise that the adjustment is consistent, that the benefits or detriments do not spike in one particular area. Consider that a LD/FB hitter will benefit to a greater degree from the altitude and big outfield at Coors than a GB hitter will. So I think it’s reasonable to conclude, from looking at his splits at Coors vs. other parks, that Walker benefited disproportionally from playing much of his career in Denver.
Yeah but tailoring your swing to your park isn’t something you should be punished for. He could’ve done that at any park. That’s why an average adjustment makes more sense. Yeah that means that Larry walker was more valuable at coors than elsewhere but he could’ve done the same thing with other home teams. Dustin pedroia made a career out of this at Fenway. The guy takes advantage of the green monster like no one else but that should be praised not punished
Lots of missed games, home/road splits suck (especially in Colorado), played in Montreal which voters ignore, totals aren’t close to great, Colorado factors improved his totals and slashes, played with players often considered better than him (Helton, Pujols for two), not sure what else.
Also, Vlad had joy in his game, hit balls no other could, both had great guns, Vlad has two hitting streak records, Vlad’s totals exceed Walker’s mostly, Vlad was almost always the best player on his team, lead 4 poor and 5 mediocre teams to over .500 records. And WAR is garbage (one baseball math person did an analysis of the last 30 HOF people to people eligible now and soon; found Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente, just to pick two, were off a bit, others even more, and guys like Michael Young and Barry Bonds vastly, vastly overrated by WAR; his regression line showed Bonds and others as tremendous outliers, so found a lot of bias in WAR that had no bearing on how actually good a player was).
and if you don’t believe One Baseball Math Person, who are you going to believe?
Walker is one of the more ridiculous mistakes that voters are making. Guy was a brilliant player and is suffering from Coors Field bias and having played in places (CO and MTL) that got little attention.
I don’t think Rolen will do too well at all. Let’s play a little game and see if we can choose between these 2 third basemen:
Player A – 316 HR, 1287 RBI, 1211 R, 7x AS, War: 70, OWar 52.1 dWAR 20.6
Player B – 390 HR, 1314 RBI, 1193 R, 6x AS, War: 68, Owar 52.3 dWAR 20.9
Two very similar players, no? Player A is Scott Rolen. Player B is Graig Nettles and he lasted only 4 years on the ballot and peaked at 8.3%
Rolen will be helped a bit by having a voting pool which understands advanced stats. (at least some of them). Still, I’d be surprised if he ever gets more than 20% of the vote and it’s possible he falls off after one or two years.
I’ve always thought Nettles got a raw deal too. One difference in your stats is that Nettles had 1500 more plate appearances than Rolen though. If you account for playing time, Rolen is clearly the better player.
I should point out that Rolen has more WAR than Edgar Martinez in the same amount of playing time too. I don’t understand why people tend to downplay his career.
You’re using counting stats, but ignoring that in this comparision Rolen has 700 less games and 1500 fewer ABs in which he accrued similar counting stats. Per 162, Rolen would be significantly better. That, at least to me, makes a huge difference. Now if Rolen didn’t have a long enough career you could maybe hold that against him, but Rolen’s career was adequately long I’d think to not hold that against him in any way.
Nettles is also a career .248 hitter. That’s kinda ugly, regardless of the OWar. For reference, Rolen is .281.
Rolen’s 122 career WRC+ vs 111 for Nettles, 11 points is a 10% difference. Not insignificant.
Just looking at FANGRAPHS own OFF and DEF totals, Rolen’s career numbers are 252 and 182. Whereas nettels is 119 and 179. Both clearly were good at both, but this puts Nettels in a situation where his defense is likely generating a lot of his value; whereas Rolen has his OFF score significantly higher than his DEF. Assuming a bias toward offense, this is very much in Rolen’s favor.
I look at this and am actually surprised at how great Rolen was. You never really hear about him.
“…surprised at how great Rolen was. You never really hear about him.”
No, you really never do.
And (on a tangent) that’s why I roll my eyes when someone says, “Well, it *is* the Hall of FAME, ya know!” There’s just no accounting for taste. Bill James told a story in the Historical Abstract about how Dixie Walker, “The People’s Choice” in Brooklyn, had been equally UNpopular in Detroit just before coming over. Sometimes Q Rating is a matter of accident.
Rolen isn’t going to get the support he should get if judging by how little support some of these others have gotten like Trammel, Edmonds, Posada, Walker, Kent, McGriff, Cone, etc.
A reminder of how good you have to be to have no chance at the Hall of Fame.
Jayson Stark has already come out with his preliminary 2018 ballot and it includes Vizquel.
No idea how people will respond to what I’m about to say but if you honestly believe that Vizquel was a HOFer, you should lose your right to vote.
Two all-star game appearances, one 16th place MVP finish, the 4-6 best position player on a team that never won the World Series. Not even close to a HOFer.
I agree that Vizquel isn’t deserving, but no part of your last paragraph is relevant to that subject.
“but no part of your last paragraph is relevant to that subject.”
1) The HOF isn’t just what YOU want it to be and plenty of people do think that number of all-star appearances and performance in MVP voting matters.
2) At the very least, things like number of all-star appearances and performance in MVP votes can be used as a screening tool. In the case of Vizquel, he performs incredibly poorly on those two measures. And there’s a reason for that…he wasn’t putting up HOF type seasons.
3) Next time, before being completely dismissive of someone else’s idea, you might actually try adding some actual value of your own.
Omar Vizquel had a tough road to the all star game during his best years. He played at a time when ARod, Derek Jeter, Nomar Garciaparra, and Miguel Tejada were all at their peaks as AL shortstops.
And this is from the same guy who moans constantly about “only” having 10 votes and how unfair it is, yet every year he has players on his list that have no business in the hall. That 10 vote limits exists specifically to prevent guys like Stark from watering down the hall.
This whole “Vizquel is basically Ozzie” argument befuddlles me.
Yes they are almost the same player aside from one of those players being a better hitter and fielder.
By this argument Albert Belle is basically Barry Bonds.
Where does this come from? By the numbers its clearly false and the eye test makes it absurd.
Smith was a much better baserunner too.
I was fortunate enough to get to watch both of them play, and they were both insanely good defensive shortstops by eye. We really don’t have any way to quantify how good either was because of the eras they played in though.
Strategy: don’t waste your vote on guys getting a ton (like Chipper Jones) because he will go first ballot anyway. Save that vote to keep Andruw Jones from slipping off the ballot!
The 10 person limit is dumb for this reason. Instead, they should have all those names on a ballot, and you just check “yes” or “no” for each one. players getting 75% (or higher because it’ll be easier?) go in. The 5% rule wouldn’t be an issue then because with no restrictions on number you can say “yes” on, lots more players will get a “yes” from someone.
If you look at Guerrero’s putouts, assists, and other fixed, un-judgemental stats, his advanced stats look way better. One baseball writer used Total Runs, compared PA to runs, total men on base to RBI, OPS, and didn’t screw up anything by weighting according to random factors that nobody can make reasonable. Just facts. He evaluated HOF players and modern hitters. Willie Mays came out at 142, Roberto Clemente at 130, Vlad Guerrero at 105, Barry Bonds at 92. He didn’t do pitchers yet. Just facts.
Anything that has Vlad ahead of Bonds is questionable and should be reviewed,
But he said “just facts” twice, so I’m sold.
I’m pretty sure he confused Bobby Bonds with Barry Bonds.
Next year will be a mess. Vlad Guerrero clearly deserves in, Chipper too, then no one else has a clear shot, to be fair. Steroids for a bunch, some were just DH (heck, Edgar Martinez comes out close to Mags Ordonez), closers who never reached exceptional heights (9.0 K/9, WHIP under 1, ERA under 2.5). On and on. But voting cliques will grow, so there’ll be voters only voting for steroid guys, voters only voting based on what they’re told by WAR fanatics since they don’t have a clue, voters who want to vote for Americans only, voters who think if you played in smaller centres you can wait, voters who think voting is a way to make themselves popular, those who think voting is a pulpit, “small hall”, on and on.
I’d just like to push back on one part of what you said – believing in a “small hall” is a completely legitimate way to vote, unlike the other cliques you identify that are based on problematic biases.
I disagree that voting the small Hall is legitimate because it ignores what the Hall is. The HoF isn’t for just the Ruths and Mayses, but also the Hunters, Rices, Bunnings and many others (obviously some of these are more deserving than others). The Hall to date is a big Hall and to vote for the small Hall is to make it more difficult for more recent and future players to get in. This seems wrong. The Hall wants more players who people alive today have seen, not to have it filled just with the “very good” players of the ’20s and ’30s.
Me, right now, my choices would go Vlad, Chipper, Vizquel, McGriff, Schilling, Walker, and then I’d have to study.
You know you can rant to yourself offline too, right? We would certainly appreciate it.
The “WAR” and “HOF Points” columns are flipped in the first chart
I’m not sure how realistic it is, but my hope for next year is:
Chipper Jones: 95%
Jim Thome: 85%
Vladimir Guerrero: 80%
Trevor Hoffman: 77%
Edgar Martinez: 68%
Mike Mussina: 60%
Barry Bonds: 58%
Roger Clemens: 58%
Curt Schilling: 54%
Larry Walker: 33%
Manny Ramirez: 26%
Omar Vizquel: 25%
Fred McGriff: 22%
Scott Rolen: 20%
Jeff Kent: 18%
Andruw Jones: 15%
Gary Sheffield: 15%
Billy Wagner: 12%
Sammy Sosa: 8%
Johan Santana: 5%
Nobody falls off the ballot, due to having it be their tenth year, but if the top four get in, that would allow 2019 to be Mariano and Edgar, and maybe Halladay, 2020 Mussina, Jeter and some combination of others, and allow the down-ballot guys to start seriously gaining.
Next year, I’d vote, if limited to ten, for Bonds, Clemens, Edgar, Mussina, Schilling, Walker, Andruw Jones, Chipper Jones, Thome & Rolen, and if they extend the list to 12 until then I’d add Guerrero and Manny, but still feel bad about leaving off Sheffield, Kent and McGriff. I can’t justify voting for Hoffman or Wagner or Sosa or Vizquel on such a jam-packed ballot.
Bagwell, Rodriguez, Raines were on 381/332/380 ballots, Smith on 151, Posada on 17, 1261 total votes, or 2.853 votes per ballot, 285.3 “percent” opening up. If Chipper gets 95%, Thome 85%, that leaves 105% for others. The other newcomers I forecast here at 65% total, leaving 40% for gains. I have Vlad at 8, Hoff 3, Edgar 10, Bonds 4, Clemens 4, Mussina 8, Schilling 9, Manny 2, Walker 11, Kent 1, Sheffield 1.5, Waner 2, which would take voters using more ballot space than they did this year by a little.
If Rolen and Andruw have any chance of getting elected they absolutely need to get on most of the saber-friendly, 4+/spots open no-Bonds/Clemens ballots.
I believe that voters will use more ballot space because of all ballots being public next year. The fear of shame should push voters to vote more.
I agree. The change to public ballots will push voters to make publicly defensible choices, and not just mail it in after spending five minutes thinking about the ballot. It doesn’t mean every currently anonymous voter will take it seriously next year, but it should help increase votes.
Also, the existence of sure fire first ballot guys (Jones for sure, I’d argue Thome as well) generally pushes up the average slots used per voter. I’d bet the average number of slots used would go up next year even without public ballots. I guess it is relative to a person’s point of view, but the number of voters who use fewer than 10 spots given the guys on the ballot right now, to me, is shockingly small.
One other factor, besides that all voter selections will be public, is how many will lose their vote and how many will be voting for the first time?
Johan Santa could steal a few votes from Santana, dooming him from the start.
Of the nine position players returning to next year’s ballot, Vlad has the fewest WAR. Add in the four headliners of next year’s newcomers, and he’s 13th of 13. And he’s probably the only holdover who’ll be elected.
Fuck the BBWAA with a rusty pickaxe, is what I’m saying.
Well at least your conclusion was in line with the seriousness of the perceived offense.
“That fly landed in my soup! Blow up New Zealand and rocket every person who ever set foot there into the moon, is what I’m saying.”
The 10 year and 10 player limits and 5% rule are all problems but the fixes should be a 5 year limit and no one drops off the ballot for being under some threshold. And voters must vote for at least 10 players on their ballots or lose their vote thereafter. And a committee could re-nominate a player who doesn’t get in after the 5 years.
Voters have done too much engineering of their ballots as you can see from Raines ascension from 25% support in his 1st year. There is no reason that voters cannot reach an up or down decision on a player in 5 years. If these voters “see things” about a player such as Raines 10 years in to the voting that they didn’t see earlier, then they are not looking seriously enough.
Furthermore, just rotate the voting pool. Half the voters don’t know what they’re doing anyway. Having the same pool of clods vote on these players every year might be the biggest problem.
So if all the high probability candidates on the poll are in and what’s left are Chris Carpenter, Livan Hernandez, Kevin Millwood, Jamie Moyer, Ben Sheets, Kerry Wood, Carlos Zambrano, Orlando Hudson, Hideki Matsui and Jack Wilson, are you still required to vote for 10?
First, every era has its great players so it’s not likely we’ll see ballots like that. That’s almost like saying no player would be worthy of mvp some year.
But I would have some sort of weighting system like ordering 1-10 and selecting the top 2 or 3 each year.