On Tuesday night in Arizona, CC Sabathia claimed a little slice of baseball history. With his strikeout of the Diamondbacks’ John Ryan Murphy, the 38-year-old Yankee became just the 17th pitcher to reach 3,000 for his career, the first since John Smoltz on April 22, 2008, and just the third southpaw ever, after Steve Carlton and Randy Johnson. It’s a milestone worthy of celebration, a testament to longevity, dominance, and tenacity. It’s also inextricably a product of this high-strikeout era, a point worth considering when placing Sabathia’s accomplishment in context.

But first, to savor the moment. Sabathia, who entered the night three strikeouts short of 3,000, collected all three in the second inning, first freezing David Peralta looking at a sinker, then whiffing Christian Walker on a high cutter. After yielding a solo homer to Wilmer Flores and an infield single to Nick Ahmed — the latter on an 0-2 changeup well outside the strike zone — he induced Murphy (who caught Sabathia’s 2,500th strikeout in 2015) to chase an 84.2 mph changeup:

Alas, while Diamondbacks starter Zack Greinke — himself a potential 3,000 strikeout club member, more on which below — held the banged-up Yankee lineup to a single run over 7.2 innings, Flores also added a fourth-inning RBI double off Sabathia. The big lefty departed on the short end of a 2-1 score, and the Yankees ultimately lost, 3-1, putting a mild damper on the celebration.

Of the major traditional milestones among pitchers and hitters, 3,000 strikeouts is the least common. Thirty-two players have notched at least 3,000 hits, and 27 have swatted 500 home runs. On the pitching side, 24 pitchers have collected 300 wins. Nearly all of the players who have reached any of those round numbers have been elected to the Hall of Fame, with the exceptions generally related to performance-enhancing drugs and other bad behavior. Among the members of the 3,000 strikeout club who have preceded Sabathia, only Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling remain outside, for reasons besides on-field performance. This could very well be the big man’s ticket to Cooperstown. Read the rest of this entry »

Even if you didn’t wake up at an ungodly early hour to watch Thursday’s Mariners-A’s game at the Tokyo Dome, by now you may have seen the stirring footage of Ichiro Suzuki exiting the game in the eighth inning en route to his official retirement. If not, beware the coming dust storm:

That the 45-year-old Suzuki — who was nudged off the Mariners’ roster and into an unofficial retirement and special assistant role last May 3, at a point when he was hitting .205/.255/.205 through 47 plate appearances — went 0-for-5 with a walk and a strikeout in his two-game cameo matters not a whit as far as his legacy is concerned. His awe-inspiring total of 4,367 career hits (1,278 in Nippon Professional Baseball, 3,089 in Major League Baseball) still stands as the signature accomplishment for a player who has spent more than a quarter-century serving as a wonderful ambassador for the sport on two continents. His stateside resumé, which includes not only his membership in the 3,000 Hit Club (despite not debuting in the majors until he was about half past his 27th birthday) but also his 10 All-Star appearances, 10 Gold Gloves, AL MVP and Rookie of the Year awards, and so on, is ample enough to guarantee him first-ballot election to the Hall of Fame. In the wake of Mariano Rivera’s groundbreaking unanimous election to the Hall in January, it’s even possible that Ichiro could replicate the feat.

The question is when. Hall of Fame election rules require a player to be retired for five seasons before appearing on the BBWAA ballot, which means that had he been content to hang up his spikes last May, he would have been eligible for the 2024 ballot (the date refers to the year of induction, not the year of the ballot’s release, which is typically in late November or early December of the previous year). Barring what would be an unprecedented ruling by the Hall, his two-game cameo resets his eligibility clock, pushing him to the 2025 ballot, a small price to pay for his being able to check off the bucket-list item of retiring on his own terms, in his native country. Not only will he become the first Japanese player to be elected to the Hall, but according to the Baseball-Reference Play Index, he will be the owner of the shortest final season of any elected position player. Read the rest of this entry »

Editor’s Note: In the run up to the January 22 Hall of Fame announcement, we were fortunate to feature a few pieces from Anthony Calamis and Adam Dore, members of Ryan Thibodaux’s excellent team that tracks public Hall of Fame ballot. This is the final such piece. Be sure to check out the ballot tracker, which is an indispensable tool for any Hall of Fame enthusiast.

Last month, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum announced their latest group of inductees. Mariano Rivera received a vote on 100% of the ballots cast, while Edgar Martinez, Roy Halladay and Mike Mussina also cleared the 75% minimum.

Of the 35 players on the ballot, 11 got zero votes: Rick Ankiel, Jason Bay, Freddy Garcia, Jon Garland, Travis Hafner, Ted Lilly, Derek Lowe, Darren Oliver, Juan Pierre, Vernon Wells and Kevin Youkilis.

The results for the other 24 players are summarized below:

With 425 ballots cast, the average ballot contained 8.01 names, down from 2018’s 8.46. 42.8% of voters used all 10 available votes, down from 50.0% last year.

Nearly half of the 3,404 total votes cast were awarded to candidates who are no longer on the ballot. 1,671 votes (49.1%) went to inductees Rivera, Martinez, Halladay, and Mussina, final-year candidate McGriff, and the quintet of players who failed to received the minimum 5% to remain on the ballot.

The result of having a four-man induction class – to go along with a swan song candidate who received a vote on nearly two fifths of all ballots – is that an average of 3.93 votes per ballot will be freed up come next year. Given 2019’s 8.01 votes-per-ballot overall average, the 2020 election cycle begins with just 4.08 returning candidates per ballot.

With nearly six open spots on the average ballot heading into next year, the 2020 results are bound to look quite a bit different than those we saw a month ago. For starters, there is a strong possibility of only a single new Hall of Famer earning election via the BBWAA.

Derek Jeter is expected to draw a vote share near 100%, but none of the other first-year eligible players are expected to garner significant support. Bobby Abreu should have a decent chance to clear the 5% minimum to be on the 2021 ballot, but it’s possible none of the rest of Jason Giambi, Cliff Lee, Alfonso Soriano, Paul Konerko, Josh Beckett, Adam Dunn, Rafael Furcal, and Eric Chavez do. That will leave a lot of room for returning candidates to either begin gathering momentum or continue building on it.

Full ballot voters may add multiple new candidates next year, since many who regularly check 10 boxes have indicated they would vote for 11 or more if the bylaws permitted it.

Following the BBWAA’s publishing of voluntary public ballots, we have collected 168 of the overall 182 10-player ballots cast in the Tracker. Looking specifically at the full ballots, the average number of votes for players making their final ballot appearance was 4.46, more than half a vote higher than the overall ballot average of 3.93.

If we assume that Jeter collects 100% of the vote (he will probably receive 99% – 100% of the vote anyway), then voters who submitted a ballot with the full allotment of 10 names have an average of only 6.54 spots filled in 2020, even after including Jeter.

Since the BBWAA returned to annual voting in 1966, the record for the largest year-over-year decrease in votes per ballot is 1.23, from 2007 to 2008; only two other times has votes per ballot decreased by more than 1.0. The 1.23 vote per ballot decrease (from 6.58 to 5.35) came following the elections of Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn, both of whom received over 97.5% of the vote. In 2008, Tim Raines (24.3%) was the only first-time eligible candidate to receive more than two votes, and his vote share was only slightly above 15th-year candidate Steve Garvey’s 21.1% showing the year prior.

The 14 players who got between 5% and 75% and will return to the 2020 ballot received an average of 4.08 votes per ballot. If voters tie the record for the largest decrease, there is still more than 2.5 votes per ballot to be spread out among newcomers and returnees next year.

There is a strong possibility that many of the 14 returning candidates receive at least a double-digit percentage increase from last year.

Overall Trends

When we last checked in on public voting data the afternoon of the announcement, there were 227 ballots logged in the Tracker. A few more ballots trickled in over the ensuing hours, increasing the total number of tracked ballots to 232 when Jeff Idelson stepped up the podium to announce the results.

Since the announcement, another 125 ballots have been made public. The 357 known ballots account for about 84% of the ballots cast, a Tracker-era high water mark.

The latest results in the Tracker are summarized in the following table, which shows how each player has done on the total public ballots, ballots released before and after the announcement, and those ballots that have not yet been released.

Among the interesting trends to emerge from the post-results data is Omar Vizquel receiving the sixth-most votes behind only the four inductees and Curt Schilling, Mussina receiving more than 75% of the vote on post-results public ballots, and Andy Pettitte tying Helton and outpolling Sheffield and others.

This marks the second consecutive cycle in which Vizquel finished markedly better in the final results than he was on track to. In 2018, he jumped from 33.5% to 37.0%, and this year he went from 38.4% to 42.8%.

The recent history of players getting 40-45% in their first five years has been a mixed bag, but Vizquel seems better positioned to make a slow climb than some of the others who have been in this range.

Jeff Bagwell began in a similar place to Vizquel but needed until 2017, his seventh year of eligibility, to gain the necessary 75%. It took Mussina a total of six years, with three coming after he entered the 40% range. Schilling and Barry Bonds, on the other hand, are still waiting and conceivably may never get there.

Encouragingly, 32 voters who did not vote for Vizquel in 2018 added him this year, the fourth-most among all returning candidates and the most among those with multiple years of eligibility remaining.

Nine voters withdrew their support for his case, but some of that could be temporary. One voter who “dropped” Vizquel cited ballot management, preferring to support Sheffield, while another added back Bonds after a temporary hiatus. Both of those voters chose 10 players. Nonetheless, the nine lost votes were tied with Manny Ramirez for the most in the cycle, and could be a sign of things to come for Vizquel.

Mussina got 76.7% of the votes overall, and was the only interesting bubble candidate heading into the announcement. The other 34 players were essentially guaranteed to either exceed 75% or fall short.

Moose was at 81.5% at the time of the announcement, and saw a drop of 6.5% from his pre-announcement public ballots to final percentage in 2018. That drop off shrank this year, however, leading to his induction. It is interesting to update data originally included in our piece from the day of the announcement.

The year before they were elected, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, and Tim Raines saw their pre-announcement public percentages fall 6.7%, 6.3%, and 5.6%, respectively. When they cleared 75%, those figures dropped to 1.4%, 3.3%, and 2.8%, respectively. Mussina benefitted from this phenomenon as well; the aforementioned 6.5% turned into a 4.8% decrease this year.

Are Walker and/or Schilling, who each saw their percentage drop by around 10% this year, be next in line? It is entirely possible both spend much of the 2020 cycle above 75% on public ballots.

Besides Mussina and the question of Rivera’s unanimity, the most interesting topic leading into the announcement was probably Pettitte and how the post-results ballots would treat him. After getting under 7% support on pre-announcement public ballots, Pettitte received a vote on about 13% of the post-results public ballots, and is on more than 14% of the private ballots. Helton had a better overall debut, but the two were similarly well-received on these later ballots.

Pettitte could stand to be a huge beneficiary of the ballot logjam easing in 2020 and 2021, as he is on just 16 of the 168 known 10-player ballots.

Inductees

The only drama concerning Rivera was whether or not he’d become the first unanimous Hall of Fame choice by the BBWAA. Now that one player has been elected unanimously, will more follow? Derek Jeter could do it next year, and perhaps Albert Pujols, Miguel Cabrera, Ichiro Suzuki, and others could in the years that follow.

Rivera’s induction breaks one of the more bizarre baseball traditions and permanently puts an end to the notion that no candidate can be a unanimous baseball Hall of Famer since nobody before him was. That a relief pitcher became the first player ever to receive every single vote speaks volumes about Rivera’s stature in the game and quiets complaints of an “anti-closer” bias.

Martinez, as expected, easily cleared the 75% threshold in his final year of eligibility after falling just 20 votes short in 2018.

In so doing, he became only the seventh candidate in the annual voting era to miss induction in each of their first two years and then subsequently be elected with a vote share of greater than 85%, following Raines (86.0% in 2017), Bagwell (86.2% in 2017), Barry Larkin (86.4% in 2012), Rich Gossage (85.8% in 2008), Billy Williams (85.7% in 1987), and Duke Snider (86.5% in 1980).

He just barely missed breaking Raines’ record for highest percentage of votes received in a player’s last year of eligibility, but did break Paul Molitor’s record for the highest percentage for any player who played a plurality of their games at DH has gotten. Molitor got 85.2% in his first year of eligibility in 2004, a hair behind Martinez’ 85.4% share.

Halladay missed out on a top 10 share for a starting pitcher, but still finished with the 16th highest percentage of any starter ever.

The inductions of both Halladay and Mussina could bode well for Schilling and make him a down-to-the-wire case next year along with Walker. Two starting pitching contemporaries making it to Cooperstown may increase consideration Schilling receives among his current holdouts. With Schilling, however, there will always be the matter of his off-field persona to contend with.

Among public 2019 voters, 27 did not vote for Schilling after having done so at least once previously. A handful of voters have been on record stating they will no longer vote for him due to his vitriolic comments, but it is unclear how many of the aforementioned 27 withdrew their support for these reasons.

Considering that Schilling lost just one vote he had received in 2018 – on a ballot that included just three names this past year – it’s fair to speculate that Schilling won’t be getting many of those 27 votes back.

Mussina’s induction continues the recent trend of players receiving under 25% of the vote before subsequently earning induction. He is the fifth player to be elected by the BBWAA after getting under 25% of the vote at some point, following Tim Raines, Bert Blyleven, Bruce Sutter, and Duke Snider.

That Mussina received 24.6% just four years ago and is now in Cooperstown offers hope to a number of candidates who have struggled to earn support in the last number of years. Multiple down-ballot candidates could be primed for a huge breakthrough in 2020 following 11 inductees in the last three elections. Any number of candidates currently in the 10% – 20% range could begin the long climb to 75% à la Martinez or Mussina

Larry Walker

The most intriguing situation on next year’s ballot will be Walker’s push for 75% in his final year of eligibility. If he were to get there, he’d be the third player in the last four years to cross 75% in their last chance.

Walker received 232 votes on the 425 ballots cast this year, 87 votes away from the magic threshold. With 193 “no” votes, he needs a bit less than half of the people who didn’t vote for him to change their minds.

Walker has at least 33 chances to gain a vote on ballots containing 10 names, and at least 42 additional chances to gain a vote on ballots containing eight or nine names with Bonds or Clemens, or seven, eight or nine names without them.

Those three groups were all ones with which Mussina excelled this year as he made the climb from below 64% to above 76%, and will be key for Walker as well.

Mussina gaining entrance this year also makes it more likely that some of the 69 ballots not included above could add him as they lose anywhere from 1 to 5 players on their ballots.

Others

The cat is already out of the bag that Walker will be the most fascinating story to follow nine months from now. Schilling has an outside chance at election as well. Beyond those top two returning vote-getters from last year, there is plenty of room for growth for numerous other candidates who will appear on the 2020 ballot.

Bonds and Clemens received the next highest vote shares of any returning candidates after Walker and Schilling, but are once again unlikely to gain much ground in 2020. After Clemens reeled in 54.1% and Bonds 53.8% in 2017, the two have seen only marginal vote increases in the two years since. Clemens increased 3.2% in ‘18 and 2.2% in ‘19, while Bonds gained 2.6% followed by 2.7% in the same timeframe.

Both will surpass 60% next year but probably not by more than a couple percentage points. It is possible that they gain some new support from voters who are typically stingier with awarding votes. Perhaps after seeing the ballot logjam rapidly clearing, voters would prefer to vote for this pair rather than return a ballot with only two or three names checked.

Expanding on the earlier exploration of his candidacy, Vizquel finds himself in a favorable position with a 42.8% share in 2019. Already more than 5% past the halfway point to election, Vizquel has another eight years to pick up an additional 32.2% – which would require right around a 4.0% annual increase. Most candidates in a similar position have historically been elected, often sooner rather than later, as the rate of increase tends to increase rapidly once a candidate holds a majority of the votes.

Overall, there are 168 public 10-player ballots. Of them, eight voters will have at most four holdovers, 71 will have five holdovers, 80 have six holdovers, and nine will have seven or eight holdovers.

Each of these candidates has at least 100 add opportunities on full ballots, and all except Ramirez and Scott Rolen have at least 95 chances to gain a vote on full ballots that already have Bonds, Clemens, and two or more of Schilling, Walker and Vizquel.

From 2018 to 2019, the percentage of voters using all 10 spots decreased from 50% to 42.8%, and a similar decrease this year would still leave a lot of space for these candidates to pick up considerable ground.

In that vein, it is worthwhile to look at how holdovers did in the following year recently.

The lower total of gained votes per ballot for returning candidates in 2018 can be explained by a very strong showing from first-time candidates that same year. Chipper Jones and Jim Thome both sailed into Cooperstown on their first try, with 97.2% and 89.8% of the vote, respectively. Both of those marks were higher than all three 2017 inductees – Bagwell, Raines, and Ivan Rodriguez.

Vizquel’s healthy 37.0% debut accounted for a higher share than Lee Smith’s final year showing of 34.2% the prior year. Rolen and Jones each received enough support to remain on the ballot.

The average votes gained jumped to more than one full vote per ballot in 2019, despite two first-ballot inductees. The big difference was that this past election followed a four-player induction class, whereas 2018 followed up a three-man class.

It is pretty much a guarantee that the 1.06 mark will improve substantially in 2020 after another four inductees and McGriff are off the ballot, and with Jeter the only newcomer likely to earn much support.

With ballots for 168 of the 182 10-player ballots, and 357 of the 425 total ballots, it is possible to get a good sense for how voters will react to the downturn in first-ballot locks over the next three cycles and better spot trends. We’re excited to pick it up again next year.

Save for the actual inductions of this year’s six honorees — the late Roy Halladay, Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina, and Mr Unanimity, Mariano Rivera, elected by the BBWAA last week and Harold Baines and Lee Smith by the Today’s Game Era Committee last month — the Hall of Fame circus is leaving town, at least until the July 19-22 induction weekend in Cooperstown. Before it departs, however, it’s time engage in my sixth annual attempt to gaze into the crystal ball to see what the next five elections will hold.

Admittedly, this is an exercise requiring some amount of imagination and speculation, though it is grounded in my research into the candidates and the history and mechanics of the voting. Having said that, the past half-decade of changes to the process raises the question of how valuable that history is, at least as a road map. As a response to the logjam of qualified candidates, the Hall’s own truncation of candidacies from 15 years to 10 — less to clean up the ballots than to move the intractable debate over PED-related candidates out of the spotlight — and its rejection of any variation from the long-standing 10-slot rule, the writers have responded by setting and breaking records for slots used per ballot, and for ballots filled to the max. As a result, the BBWAA has elected 20 players over the last six years, five more than in any other six-year stretch in voting history. We’ve had three quartets elected over the past five years, compared to two (plus the original 1936 quintet) over the previous 78 years.

Read the rest of this entry »

From the time of its inaugural election in 1936, when the late Christy Mathewson (1880-1925) was chosen among the original class of five honorees, the Hall of Fame has often highlighted the stark contrast between baseball immortality and human mortality. In fact, more than one-third of the 329 members of the Hall were elected posthumously, an inevitability given that the major leagues had a 65-year head start on the institution that honors its greats. Yet Tuesday’s election of the late Roy Halladay — who died on November 7, 2017 while flying his Icon A5 light sport airplane — marked the first time since 1954 that the BBWAA elected a deceased player (Rabbit Maranville) and the first time since Mathewson that they did so in the player’s first year of eligibility.

A Denver native who spent 12 seasons with the Blue Jays (1998-2009) and four with the Phillies (2010-2013), Halladay was admired throughout the game for his tireless work ethic and his character as well as his impeccable control of his sinker. His devotion to the mental aspect of the game stood out; he rebounded from an historically dreadful 2000 season aided by the writings and counseling of sports psychologist Harvey Dorfman as much as the remaking of his mechanics and repertoire by Blue Jays pitching instructor Mel Queen. “Roy Halladay was your favorite player’s favorite player. A true ace and a wonderful person,” wrote pitcher Brandon McCarthy upon the news of his death. Read the rest of this entry »

Edgar Martinez sits at the center of my first really clear baseball memory. I have others, hazier ones, with moments that snap into more specific relief. I remember walking up the ramps of the Kingdome. I remember the brief moment of chill you’d experience when you entered its concrete chasm, separated suddenly from Seattle’s July warmth. I remember baseball guys doing baseball things, but which guys and what things are lost. Liking baseball, loving it, has persisted, but I don’t remember specific home runs any more than particular days of kindergarten, even though I still know how to read.

I have a hard time sussing out what of the rest of Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS is real memory and what is the result of having rewatched it, over and over and over, when I was in need of a good thing to hold on to. I do not feel confident that my impressions of Randy Johnson in relief, entering as he did to “Welcome to the Jungle,” are borne of the moment; nine-year-old me would not know to smirk at how much of his warmup was broadcast, would not have thought the hairstyles of those in the crowd funny. That’s what hair looked like in 1995.

But The Double is there. The Double I know. The Double I remember back through the years and into the corners of my living room. I recall the moment before the pitch was delivered. I remember my step-mom nervously fidgeting with the stakes of the moment and the gnawing concern about how long the game might go, how close to bedtime it would stretch. I remember yipping for joy, in that high-pitched way that kids have, annoying but pure. I remember, even if I didn’t yet quite have the vocabulary to talk about obsession and yearning, thinking, “Oh, I have to do this again.” I remember believing that Edgar Martinez was great. (I do not recall a single pitch of the Mariners loss to the Indians in the ALCS. Sometimes our memories spare us.)

I think much of baseball’s fastidious statistical chronicling is attributable to a native curiosity, a desire to be able to answer how this thing over here relates to that thing over there, even when the this and that are separated by generations. But I think a not-small part of our motivation to catalogue lies in an anxiety over the state of our own memories, whether we’re still sharp. We don’t just seek to make sure the deserving are immortalized; we seek to trust our own mortal lives, to know that we know things as they were. That we are reliable narrators. That the moments around which I built my fandom and my professional life, the root of this thing I sometimes recall more carefully than the details of my own biography, is as I thought it to be. That something so foundational need not be met with the same disquieting sensation I experience when I can recall what the third reliever on the Reds’ depth chart looks like, but for a moment, can’t muster up his name.

Edgar Martinez was a Hall of Famer, only for a long time he wasn’t one. And you start to wonder in those moments, despite knowing so many who agree with you, whether we haven’t all gotten it wrong, whether we aren’t a little less smart than we thought. Whether he was great.

And so I think it helps us to feel complete when we are affirmed in this way. We feel our memories and lives rich with detail, our mental pictures not only accurately rendered but placed in their proper context. Perhaps it takes me a beat longer than it used to to recall a player’s name from 1995, but this thing I know. I used to, as a very young person, think that Dan Wilson was a Hall of Famer. I was tiny and dumb and enamored with catchers, and there he was, our catcher and so the best catcher. But he was not the best. To Cooperstown he could only credibly go as a visitor, a witness to his friends’ greatness. I didn’t know what it meant to be great in any sort of a rigorous way back then; good childhoods aren’t often marked by an excess of rigor. I didn’t know. Except maybe on occasion I did.

After all, Edgar Martinez is a Hall of Famer, just like I remember him.

The 2019 Hall of Fame election results from the BBWAA’s vote broke new ground with the unanimous election of Mariano Rivera, the first candidate to run the table since the voting began 83 years ago. With the late Roy Halladay, Edgar Martinez, and Mike Mussina topping 75% as well, it also produced the institution’s fifth quartet in electoral history, and the third in five years, after these four:

In the six cycles since the 2013 shutout, the writers have elected 20 players, surpassing the 15 elected from 1951-56 for the most elected in a six-year span. With an eye toward electoral history and more recent trends, what follows here is both my rundown of the fates of all 35 candidates on the ballot (some of which will figure into my updated five-year outlook for Monday) and a clearinghouse for an assortment of relevant notes and links. One thing that stands out: all 15 holdover candidates gained ground, even if it was just by 0.2% (I’m working to confirm as to whether this is a first). None of those candidates’ share of the vote went down relative to 2018, though that doesn’t always mean that that they made real forward progress in burning a precious year off their eligibility clocks.

Mariano Rivera (1st year, 100%)

It’s still almost unbelievable that Rivera was the first candidate elected unanimously. That honor rightfully would have gone to any one of a few dozen players before him if not for the self-appointed guardians of the Cooperstown gate, but it took a perfect storm of voter accountability, transparency, a candidate who was the best ever at his speciality, and a man universally respected throughout the industry, one who lived up to the responsibility of being the last player to wear Jackie Robinson’s otherwise-retired number 42, in order for it all to come together. And oh, what a moment to behold.

Once upon a time, there was a thought that the Joe Torre-era Yankees dynasty might not produce a single Hall of Famer. Now they have three, namely Torre himself (as manager, of course), Tim Raines (admittedly, a role player by that point) and Rivera, with Derek Jeter on the way next year. Rivera is the eighth Hall of Famer to spend his entire career with the Yankees (Earle Combs, Lou Gehrig, Bill Dickey, Joe DiMaggio, Phil Rizzuto, Whitey Ford, and Mickey Mantle are the others, and Jeter is next) and the second Hall of Famer born in Panama, after Rod Carew.

On Tuesday night, after the election results were announced, I did a spot for “The Big Sports Show” on St. Louis radio station WTRS, where hosts Ben Fredrickson and Brendan Wiese pointed out that I chose pretty well when it came to the cover subject for The Cooperstown Casebook.

Edgar Martinez (10th, 85.4%, up 15.0%)

The first modern candidate to post four straight year-to-year gains of at least 10 percentage points, Martinez took a much rougher, though no less rewarding, road to Cooperstown than Rivera. As previously noted, he’s the sixth candidate in modern electoral history (since 1966, when the writers returned to annual voting) to be elected in his final year of eligibility, after Red Ruffing(1967), Joe Medwick (1968), Ralph Kiner (1975), Jim Rice (2009), and Raines (2017). He’s the fifth Puerto Rico-born Hall of Famer, after Roberto Clemente, Orlando Cepeda, Roberto Alomar, and Ivan Rodriguez, and as La Vida Baseball’s Jose de Jesus Ortiz — a former president of the BBWAA — pointed out, his election alongside Rivera makes 2019 the first time the writers have elected two Latino inductees in the same year. Together, Rivera and Martinez run the total of Hall of Famers who spent their careers with a single team to 54.

As with the candidacy of Raines, the election of Martinez is somewhat personal. He was a favorite of mine when I was simply a fan, and I supported his candidacy from the outset in 2010. The Martinez profile I put together for Baseball Prospectus and ESPN Insider in December 2010 is the first version of a piece that was adapted for SI.com, the Casebook, and ultimately FanGraphs, reflecting the annual ups and downs of his candidacy.

There’s more to it than that. My uncle Harold Jaffe spent his retirement years as the gregarious “mayor” of the then-Safeco Field Diamond Club, but just as I was finishing the Casebook in January 2017, he passed away after a long illness. I had come to refer to that side of the family as the Edgar Martinez Wing of the Jaffes, and so Martinez’s candidacy took on an additional layer of meaning. In an appearance I did for the Mariners Hot Stove Show on Tuesday night (starting at the 13:20 mark here), I got a bit verklempt, discussing both Edgar and Harold, whom co-host Shannon Drayer called “an absolute Safeco treasure.” She had some kind words for me as well.

Roy Halladay (1st, 85.4%)

I’ve mentioned that Halladay was the first player posthumously elected by the BBWAA in a regular election since Rabbit Maranville in 1954, and the only other one elected by the writers in his first year of eligibility besides Christy Mathewson in the Hall’s inaugural election in 1936 (he died in 1925). I have more on that topic in a separate feature in the pipeline, so enough said about that angle for now.

Here’s one to ponder: who will be the next starter elected on the first ballot? Backstage at MLB Network in Secaucus, where I made a pre-announcement appearance on MLB Now, Jayson Stark (himself a Hall of Famer this year, via the 2019 Spink Award) and I pondered the question and concluded that the first pitcher to have a real shot would be Justin Verlander, since neither of us sees CC Sabathia as a slam dunk. I’m not yet sure Verlander is a slam dunk, either (let’s see how he finishes his career) and so upon further consideration, I might choose Clayton Kershaw as the next lock. We shall see…

Mike Mussina (6th, 76.7%, up 13.2%)

I didn’t catch this on Tuesday, but the 20.3% Mussina received in his 2014 ballot debut is the third-lowest percentage of any modern player elected by the BBWAA. The only ones lower? Duke Snider, with 17.0% in 1970, and Bert Blyleven, with 17.5% in 1998. It took Blyleven 14 years and a substantial grassroots campaign to gain entry; that Mussina only needed six is both a reflection of the growing impact of advanced statistics on the process and a testament to how overstuffed the ballots have been. Nonetheless, he made double-digit gains in three years out of the four since that debut, and now he has to figure out which cap to wear on his plaque (I lean Orioles – he was a perennial Cy Young contender in Baltimore, and represented the team in all five appearances). The link between Blyleven and Mussina is significant in another way. It took 20 years between the elections of non-300 win starting pitchers Fergie Jenkins in 1991 and Blyleven in 2011. We’ve had four since then: Martinez and Smoltz in 2015, and Mussina and Halladay this year. It’s about damn time.

Curt Schilling (7th, 60.7%, up 9.7%)

If not for his noxious public persona — the reprehensible things he’s said on social media and the radio, the cozying to white supremacists, the conspiracy theories — he would have beaten Mussina to Cooperstown, because he had a one-year head start on the ballot, and a 9.3% lead as of 2016 (52.3% to 43.0%). Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, however, and the voters gave Schilling a little chin music in 2017. As it is, he’s regained his momentum, receiving his highest share of the vote to date and putting himself within striking distance next year, particularly as he’s the top returning candidate by voting percentage. Of course, his capacity for self-sabotage doesn’t guarantee a smooth path to 75%.

Roger Clemens (7th, 59.5%, up 2.2%), Barry Bonds (7, 59.1%, up 2.7%)

If you were hoping that the Gruesome Twosome would regain momentum — which certainly appeared possible, given that both were about 6.5 points ahead of last year’s pre-election results in the Ryan Thibodaux’s (@NotMrTibbs) Hall of Fame Ballot Tracker — the answer is apparently no. The pair had public-versus-private differentials of 25.5% and 25.6%, respectively, the largest in Tracker history; those have since dropped below 20 points as more ballots have been revealed, but that still doesn’t count as good news.

ESPN’s Jeff Passan reached out to 60 voters who according to the Tracker excluded both players from their ballots. He got responses from 18, 15 of whom told him that they couldn’t ever see themselves changing their minds. Whether or not that group constitutes a representative sample of the electorate is an open question, but here’s some sobering data from the Tracker: each had net gains of just three votes from returning voters, with Clemens matching last year’s total and Bonds tripling his. First-time voters went 7-for-8 on both this year, while last year, they were 12-for-13 on Clemens and 11-for-13 on Bonds. But that math doesn’t help them as much as flipping a no to a yes.

In other words, it’s probably going to take another jolt akin to the 2016 decision to sunset inactive voters, and the 2017 election of Bud Selig, commissioner of the steroid era — which together helped Bonds and Clemens climb from the mid-30s to above 50% — for a substantial bloc of voters to change their minds. How about this: in 2022, their final year on the ballot, Alex Rodriguez, who served a full year suspension for PED violations, will be eligible for the first time, as will David Ortiz, who reportedly tested positive in the 2003 survey test, a result that commissioner Rob Manfred essentially waved off during the love-fest of the latter’s retirement tour, on the grounds of “legitimate scientific questions” about at least 10 samples, “issues and ambiguities were never resolved because they didn’t matter… [because] we knew we had enough positives to trigger the testing the following year.”

Rodriguez might be an obvious no in 2022, but neither Bonds nor Clemens are known to have failed the survey test or any other steroid test administered by Major League Baseball. As with Ortiz, both were beyond the league’s ability to discipline for any infraction, and let’s face it, they’re miles beyond Ortiz in terms of their overall caliber of play. How is somebody going to justify voting for Big Papi but leaving the pair off? We’ll find out.

Larry Walker (9th, 54.6% up 20.5%)

As noted on Tuesday, Walker posted the largest year-to-year gain of anybody on this year’s ballot and the ninth-largest in modern history; he’s also in the top five for two-year and three-year gains (32.7% and 39.1%, respectively). It’s a remarkable surge, no doubt, and again, the good news is that aside from current candidates, only Gil Hodges has received at least 50% and never gained entry.

Still, Walker finishing in the mid-50s instead of the high 50s was a sobering blow given the optimism of the past couple of weeks. He had a 25-point differential between published ballots (65.9%) and private ones (40.9%), the third-largest of any candidate this year after Bonds (25.6%) and Clemens (25.5%). Thus he fell short of the 57.1% projected by Adam Dore last week, an estimate that Dore described as “conservative.” Similarly, he fell short of the 57.2% median projected by Jason Sardell, the cycle’s most accurate projectionist. Can’t win ’em all.

As for next year, Walker needs to replicate this year’s jump almost exactly in order to get to 75%. Doing that would make for the third largest leap over the finish line in modern voting history, but here’s the thing: only one candidate has done so from below 60%, and he had a four-point head start on Walker.

Like Walker, Kiner was in his final year of eligibility when he made that jump, and as we’ve seen in the cases of Raines and Martinez, voters tend to close ranks around players in their final turn — as well they should, given that all three of these candidates were robbed of five years of eligibility by the Hall’s unilateral rule change in 2014, when all three were scuffling for votes.

Omar Vizquel (2nd, 42.8%, up 5.8%)

The gain doesn’t look like much and no, he’s not a candidate that I support based upon his low JAWS ranking, but Vizquel is actually in very good shape as far as the voting goes. Only one modern candidate has polled above 40% in his second year and failed to gain entry via the writers, and — again, as the exception that seems to prove every Hall of Fame voting rule — that’s Hodges. Bet on some voters to consider him for the first time based upon their distaste for the fact that Jeter won five Gold Gloves with defensive metrics that are horrifying.

Fred McGriff (10, 39.8%, up 16.6%)

In his final year of eligibility, the Crime Dog posted the ballot’s second-biggest year-over-year gain, which enabled him to surpass 25% for the first time in his 10-year candidacy and approach 40%. It’s a showing not unlike that of Alan Trammell, who in 15 years on the ballot back in the olden days (2002-2016) didn’t break 20% until his ninth year, topped 30% for the first time in his 11th year, backslid into the low 20s but gained 15.8% in his final turn to top out at 40.9% — and then was elected by the Modern Baseball Era Committee in his first try. Between the final-year surge and the easy statistical hook of his 493 homers, McGriff seems likely to travel the same path in front of the 2022 Today’s Game Era Committee.

On MLB Now, Stark and I sat down with host Scott Braun to discuss McGriff and various other ballot matters:

Manny Ramirez (3rd, 22.8%, up 0.8%)

Manny is three ballots into his candidacy, with less than two points of variance between his high (23.8% in 2017) and low (22.0% last year). Shorter version: Two suspensions, no chance.

Jeff Kent (6, 18.1%, up 3.6%)

He’s short in my system, and I gather that his prickly personality made him less than a media favorite, but I remain shocked that the all-time home run leader among second baseman is six years into his candidacy and has yet to reach 20%. For what it’s worth, this is Kent’s best showing yet, and according to the Tracker team’s Anthony Calamis, he had 10 mentions from voters who said he would have been one of their picks if they had more than 10 slots, tied for the second-highest total. Six of those were McGriff voters, and recent history says that the conversion rate on voters using those spots is pretty good (expressing it mathematically is complicated). Like McGriff, Kent’s best chance at reaching Cooperstown is probably to build to 40-50% and then hope for better luck in front of the Today’s Game panel.

Scott Rolen (2nd, 17.2%, up 7.0%)

Rolen didn’t double the support he received in last year’s debut, but he did make some headway, and he stands to make more as the traffic thins out. Not only did he lead all candidates with 11 mentions in the “If I had space” category, but now that Martinez and Mussina are in, and Walker has only one more year, Rolen’s candidacy stands to benefit from being a focal point for attention from the statheads.

Billy Wagner (4th, 16.7%, up 5.6%)

With three relievers elected in the past two years (Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, and Lee Smith) to bring the total enshrined to eight, standards are starting to come into focus. This time around, half again as many voters included Wagner as last year, and he tied with Kent with 10 “If I had more space” mentions. He should benefit from being the ballot’s top closer, for those who swing that way, but it’s still going to be an uphill climb.

Todd Helton (1st, 16.5%)

A Hall of Fame-related conversation at the Winter Meetings with a fellow writer (one who has a ballot) led to a gentlemen’s wager over Helton’s first-time percentage. With a pint of beer at stake, we agreed to set the over/under at 30.0%, and I — who eventually included the first baseman on my virtual ballot — took the under. That’s one less brew I’ll have to pay for next December. I’m a bit surprised that Helton did not fare quite as well as Walker in his debut (20.3%), though to be fair, this year’s ballot is deeper than 2011’s.

And don’t count him out just yet. He got nine mentions from the space cases, and I suspect next year’s focus on Walker — and that particular slot on the ballot freeing up for 2021, regardless of outcome — will benefit Helton in the long run as well.

Gary Sheffield (5th, 13.6%, up 2.5%)

He picked up a few votes among holdovers, and I know that two analytically included first-time voters, ESPN’s Christina Kahrl and Keith Law — both alums of Baseball Prospectus (as am I) — included him due in part to their suspicions over the extent to which his defensive metrics are such outliers. He went 0-for-6 among the other newcomers in the Tracker, however, and appears fated to remain in down-ballot limbo.

Andy Pettitte (1st, 9.9%)

Despite his high win total and strong postseason track record as part of the Torre-era Yankees dynasty, Pettitte did not make an auspicious debut. That almost certainly had far less to do with his appearance in the Mitchell Report and subsequent admission of HGH usage than it did his presence on a ballot with four clearly Hallworthy starters (the two elected, as well as Clemens and Schilling, warts and all). Other than postseason volume, which ain’t nothing, there’s no area where he stacks up as the best of the bunch, and it’s still a 10-slot ballot. I suspect his future is as a Kent or Sheffield-type candidate who gains enough support not to be in danger of falling off the ballot but doesn’t come anywhere close to 50%, let alone 75%.

Sammy Sosa (7th, 8.5%, up 0.7%)

Between the eye test and the New York Times report that he was on the 2003 survey test positive list (see above), Sosa can’t escape the perception that his career, and particularly his 609 homers, was purely PED-driven. He hasn’t been in double digits since his 2013 debut (12.5%) but he does have enough support to stick around on the ballot and remind the baseball world of the inconsistent standards voters have applied to PED-linked players.

Andruw Jones (2nd, 7.5%, up 0.2%)

Whether it’s due to ballot crowding, the quick fadeaway in his 30s, the post-career domestic violence allegation, or the Rule of 2,000 — nobody with fewer than 2,000 hits whose career took place in the post-1960 expansion era has ever been elected — Jones didn’t gain any traction. Still, it appears that the strength of his defensive metrics and position within the Braves’ dynasty will keep him on the ballot for further consideration.

Michael Young (1st, 2.1%)

Young fell below the 5% cutoff but did receive nine votes, including two from longtime Rangers beat writers Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News and T.R. Sullivan of MLB.com. Once upon a time, when ballots were less crowded and the process less scrutinized, such gestures of respect were commonplace. Grant, who took considerable heat for giving Young a first-place vote for MVP in 2011 (when Verlander beat out Jacoby Ellsbury), was prepared to to do the same for including him here, and explained his rationale at length, summarizing, “The Hall of Fame is a state of mind more than anything else, the qualifiers the things that make a player special in each individual fan and voter’s mind. In mine, Michael Young left an indelible mark on a franchise and the game. And if you want to laugh at me for that, it’s OK.” No laughs here, and no pitchfork.

Lance Berkman (1st, 1.2%), Roy Oswalt (1st, 0.9%)

Five votes for the former, four for the latter. There’s little doubt in my mind that both had Hall of Fame-caliber talent, but their bodies didn’t hold up long enough to yield careers that could stand out alongside those who lasted longer. Berkman, with 1,905 hits, is the latest victim of the Rule of 2,000, while Oswalt’s fate resembles that of 1980s Blue Jays great Dave Stieb, just as his career did. The good news is that the Astros are creating their own team Hall of Fame, and while this pair isn’t part of the inaugural class, there’s little doubt they’ll get their due soon.

Miguel Tejada (1st, 1.2%)

Between the various allegations connecting him to PEDs — the mention in Jose Canseco’s book, the desperation of Rafael Palmeiro trying to pin his own positive test on Tejada, the Mitchell Report mention, and finally his actual suspension for using a banned stimulant in 2013 — and the fadeaway in his mid-30s, Tejada never had a real shot at election. Nonetheless, the arc of his career, from its extreme poverty and age falsifying in the Dominican Republic to the highs and lows of the Moneyball years in Oakland to the big contract and the mess he got himself into later, is fascinating and instructive. “No one player encapsulates baseball’s modern era better,” wrote Sports on Earth’s Jorge Arangure in 2013, who called him “baseball’s version of Forrest Gump, an observer and participant in some of baseball’s most defining moments of the era.”

Placido Polanco (1st, 0.5%)

Not a Hall of Famer but a better player than you probably remember. Damn, could that guy pick it.

Rick Ankiel, Jason Bay, Freddy Garcia, Jon Garland, Travis Hafner, Ted Lilly, Derek Lowe, Darren Oliver, Juan Pierre, Vernon Wells, Kevin Youkilis (1st, 0.0%)

As the great Vin Scully often reminded viewers, “They also serve who only stand and wait.” There’s no shame in being shut out on the ballot; that check box next to these players’ names is the reward for their unique, impressive careers.

Our long national nightmare is over. For 82 years, in one of the dumbest traditions in all of sports, no candidate in the history of the Baseball Hall of Fame had ever been elected unanimously. If all 226 of the BBWAA voters who participated in the Hall’s inaugural election in 1936 couldn’t completely agree on Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth, the logic went, then some voter somewhere needed to take it upon themselves to ensure that the candidacies of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Ken Griffey Jr. didn’t arrive without blemish either.

In a reflection of the universal respect that he amassed throughout the industry, as not only the greatest closer in the game’s history but also the last wearer of Jackie Robinson’s otherwise-retired jersey number 42, Mariano Rivera slammed the door shut on that dumb tradition. Per the voting results of the BBWAA’s 2019 balloting announced on Tuesday evening, Rivera ran the table, receiving all 425 votes cast in this year’s election. He’s one of four players elected this year, alongside the late Roy Halladay (85.4%), Edgar Martinez (85.4%), and Mike Mussina (76.7%).

This is the second year in a row, and the third year out of five, that the writers have elected four players in a single year. The Cooperstown-bound parade of candidates elected by the writers over the past six years now numbers 20, more than in any other six-year span; the previous record of 15 was set from 1951-1956. This year’s class of six — including Harold Baines and Lee Smith, elected by the Today’s Game Era Committee last month — will be inducted in Cooperstown on July 21.

What follows here is my best attempt to collect several scattered thoughts in a timely fashion. I’ll follow this with a full candidate-by-candidate breakdown on Wednesday.

On This We Can Agree

When the writers first voted in 1936, Cobb led the pack with 98.2%, followed by Ruth and Honus Wagner (95.1% apiece), Christy Mathewson (90.7%), and Walter Johnson (83.6%). Regardless of what the various dissenters objected to about those candidates, the fact that somebody did was enough for at least some voters to justify non-unanimity for future candidates. Ted Williams? 93.4% in 1966. Stan Musial? 93.2% in 1969. When Mays received 94.7% in 1979, his share was the highest since Cobb’s, and the same was true of Aaron, at 97.8%, three years later, but here and there, one of the old guardians of the Cooperstown gates still spit on their ballots. In 1992, Tom Seaver finally surpassed Cobb with 98.84%, and after Nolan Ryan fell short by an eyelash seven years later (98.79%), Griffey came along and set the new standard with 99.3% in 2016.

What was different about Griffey’s share was that it took place in an era of greater transparency. Interested observers could follow along in real time on social media as voters revealed their ballots, and at the point just prior to the announcement of the results, The Kid had been on every one of the 249 ballots published in Ryan Thibodaux’s Hall of Fame Ballot Tracker. In the end, three of the 440 voters left him off their ballots, none of whom ever identified themselves, but Griffey still set the record. While many believed that the BBWAA’s late-2016 resolution to publish every ballot received starting with the 2018 election might open the door for unanimity, the Hall of Fame unilaterally scuttled those plans.

Even as Rivera was named on all 232 ballots published in the Tracker pre-election, it was apparent that some voter, somewhere, might leave him off on purely philosophical grounds. After all, Rivera’s 1,283.2 innings are just over a third of those thrown by Mussina (3,562.2), for example, and 14 players on the ballot accumulated higher WAR totals in their careers (by Baseball-Reference’s version, at least). Along those lines, one voter, the Worcester Telegram’s Bill Ballou, announced in late December that he had reached a similar conclusion but was abstaining rather than be That Guy. Then, earlier on Tuesday, he admitted to reconsidering his position and casting a ballot that included Rivera.

Anyway, here’s the new leaderboard, which should remind us that while the Hall is supposed to reward the best on the basis of merit, the messy process can turn it into a popularity contest along the way. It’s the Hall of FAME, after all, and the wiry Panamanian closer, who set the all-time saves record (652) and sealed four World Series championships for the Yankees, has that in spades, too.

Last Licks

A seven-time All-Star who has a claim as the best designated hitter in the game’s history, Martinez not only helped put the Mariners on the competitive map during an 18-year career spent entirely in Seattle, he may have saved baseball for the Emerald City with “The Double,” his 1995 Division Series-winning walk-off hit against the Yankees. His candidacy followed the path of 2017 honoree Tim Raines: a modest start (36.2% in 2010 in his debut) but then a failure to make headway with the voters (25.2% in 2014, and just 27.0% a year later), the loss of five years of eligibility due to the Hall’s unilateral rule change shortening candidacies from 15 years to 10, and a late surge that carried him over the top in his final year of eligibility.

Martinez is the sixth candidate in modern electoral history (since 1966, when the writers returned to annual voting) to be elected in his final year, after Red Ruffing (1967), Joe Medwick (1968), Ralph Kiner (1975), Jim Rice (2009), and Raines. He’s the first player in modern history to gain at least 10 percentage points in four straight elections, thanks in part to the testimonials he received from his former Mariners teammates now in the Hall, Randy Johnson (2015) and Griffey, as well as a strong boost from the franchise’s PR department and a little love from the stathead crowd, which helped to convince voters that a player who spent 72% of his career plate appearances as a designated hitter could nonetheless produce enough value to match those of the average Hall of Fame third baseman.

Bittersweetness

The joy of election day was tinged with sadness when it came to Halladay, an eight-time All-Star and two-time Cy Young winner who died on November 7, 2017 at the age of 40 while flying his Icon A5 light sport airplane. He became the first player elected posthumously by the BBWAA since Roberto Clemente in 1973. The Pirates great, who himself died in a plane crash on December 31, 1972 while delivering humanitarian aid to earthquake-stricken Nicaragua, was honored via a special election conducted shortly after the announcement of that year’s voting results. The last player posthumously elected by the BBWAA in a regular election was Rabbit Maranville in 1954, while the only other one elected by the writers in his first year of eligibility was Mathewson, who died in 1925, at the age of 45, due to tuberculosis and a respiratory system compromised by exposure to poison gas during World War I.

From a statistical standpoint, Halladay, who had “only” 203 career wins and fewer than 3,000 total innings, may not have had a case quite as strong as the ballot’s other top starters, namely Mussina, Roger Clemens, and Curt Schilling. Nonetheless, the weight of his death lent an urgency to his candidacy. Based upon the results in the Tracker, where he received 92.7% of the pre-election votes but a more modest 76.4% from those ballots yet to be published, some voters might have been uncomfortable with anointing him so quickly, even given the circumstances. That said, his public-to-private drop-off was less than those of the more controversial Schilling (20.3%, from 69.8% to 49.5%) or Clemens (24.4%, from 71.1% to 46.7%).

The Moose Is Loose!

Aside from the question of Rivera’s potential unanimity, the major suspense around Tuesday’s announcement centered around whether Mussina, a five-time All-Star who spent his entire 18-year career in the crucible of the AL East, would sneak over the 75% line or fall just short. Based on the Tracker, he received 81.5% on the published ballots, but several projection systems still had him finishing in the low 70s based upon his falloffs in years past, and Jason Sardell’s probablistic model gave him “only” a 63% chance of reaching the threshold this year.

Both at the outset of this election, when I noted that candidates in his position (63.5% last year) generally need two years to close the deal, and in the hours before the announcement, when I told a few people I thought that he’d finish a handful of votes short, à la Bert Blyleven in 2010, even I was surprised by the results. Pleasantly so, I might add, because I’ve been stumping for Mussina ever since he became a candidate in 2014. And yet another slow starting one, at that, with 20.3% that year, and 24.6% in 2015. Mussina made double-digit gains in three years out of the four since then, and cleared the bar by a mere seven votes.

Walker’s Jump

Among the 31 candidates who did not get 75%, none made more headway than Walker, who jumped 20.5 percentage points from last year, the ninth-largest jump in modern history:

Similarly, Walker’s two-year jump of 32.7 points (from 34.1%) ranks fourth, while his three-year jump of 39.1 points (from 15.5%) ranks fifth.

That’s the good news, as is the fact that he’s crossed the 50% threshold, a virtual guarantee of future election; current candidates aside, only Gil Hodges has received at least 50% and never gained entry. The bad news is that Walker, who was polling at 65.9% in the Tracker prior to the election, will need to almost exactly replicate this year’s boost to get to 75% next year, his final year of eligibility for election via the writers. Those of us who have chewed our fingernails while sweating out every single ballot on behalf of Raines and Martinez might need to pay more regular visits to the manicurist.

Going Big Yet Again

Last year, BBWAA voters set a new modern record by averaging 8.46 names per ballot, the third time in five years they’ve set a new standard. This year, they were not quite as generous, nor did as high a percentage use all 10 spots, but the numbers from these past six cycles remain in the stratosphere:

And what of Clemens? Schilling? Barry Bonds? Scott Rolen? For now, I’ll leave you with a table of the results, and my promise that I’ll write about ’em all in my next installment.

With the Hall of Fame announcement of the 2019 Class set for this evening, many baseball fans are eagerly awaiting the 6 PM EST arrival of results. We perused our Tracker and uncovered voting trends for most of the candidates on the ballot for you to enjoy while you’re waiting to pop the champagne. If you’re from Seattle or Toronto, we would suggest that you go ahead and book a Cooperstown hotel for July’s induction weekend as soon as you’re finished reading. If you’re a New Yorker, pack up the car and bring enough lawn chairs for 50,000 others. Here is a rundown of the vote through 226 ballots, ordered by current vote percentage in the tracker:

Mariano Rivera (226-of-226, 100%)

Spoiler alert: Mariano Rivera will be elected to the Hall of Fame later this evening. He almost certainly won’t be elected unanimously, but he could conceivably top Ken Griffey Jr.’s record-setting 99.32% share. In order to outpace Grifey’s 437-of-440 mark, Rivera can miss no more than two votes, since the number of ballots cast is expected to be be fewer than it was in 2016.

Rivera will become the second relief pitcher elected by the BBWAA in as many years, following Trevor Hoffman’s induction a year ago – not to mention the Today’s Game Committee’s selection of Lee Smith just one month ago. In an interview for Mark Newman’s Yankee Legends, Hoffman said of Rivera, “He has been a great ambassador for the game and he’ll be a welcome addition here.”

Rivera is set to become to first pure reliever inducted into the Hall of Fame on his first opportunity. Dennis Eckersley received 83.2% in 2004, but he spent the first 12 seasons of his career predominantly working as a starting pitcher before shifting to the bullpen full-time in 1997.

Roy Halladay (210-of-226, 92.9%)

Roy Halladay stands a very good chance at posthumously becoming the 56th first-ballot Hall of Famer. All types of voters have taken to his candidacy, checking his name at least 85% of the time on every ballot size except zero-to-four player ones. The current estimate is that he will need a “yes” vote on 53.2% of the remaining ballots to clear the 75% threshold.

The most any candidate has ever dropped in his pre-announcement to post-announcement totals is Mike Mussina, who fell 11.0% in 2015. Halladay’s percentage could fall that far and he’d still be inducted with more than 80% of the vote.

Will 90% of voters vote for Halladay? A vote share that high for a starting pitcher is actually much rarer than you’d think.

He could become the 11th starting pitcher in history to receive 90% of the vote if he stays above that mark.

Regardless of where his vote share ends up, it is a near-certainty he will be inducted into Cooperstown as one of the all-time greats, and next July will be a celebration of the life one of baseball’s best.

Edgar Martinez (204-of-226, 90.3%)

After falling 20 votes short in 2018, Edgar Martinez fans should be encouraged by the DH’s early returns. He’s seen 46 of his “no” voters from last year reveal their ballots and has received a “yes” vote from 26 of them. Incorporating one lost vote, he is currently at +25. There is always a degree of uncertainty in how the electorate will change from one year to the next, but he’s in great shape.

Since the BBWAA returned to annual voting in 1966, there have been seven instances of a candidate receiving at least 55% of the vote in their penultimate year on the ballot. All seven have been inducted eventually, though some needed help from a small committee to gain entry. Martinez is the third player in the last 15 years to reach 65% of the vote entering their final try. His situation compares well to the previous two.

Like Raines, Martinez had a strong campaign elevate his candidacy. He went from 27% to 43.4% to 58.6% to 70.4% of the vote, and appears primed to hear his name announced today, becoming the second player in three years to earn election in their final year of eligibility.

One last note of intrigue concerns whether Martinez can set the record for the highest vote share for a player in their final year. Currently, Tim Raines holds that record with 86.0% in 2017. Can Martinez remain that high? He’s dropped more than that in previous years, but so too had Raines.

If the difference between his final and pre-announcement results increases by the same amount as Raines’ did, 90.2% would be the mark to target in order to beat Raines’ record.

Mike Mussina (184-of-226, 81.4%)

Mussina emerged early in this cycle as the ballot’s most interesting bubble candidate. He received 63.5% of the vote last year, just 49 votes shy of election.

A more detailed breakdown of Mussina’s chances was published here last week, but many ballots have been revealed since then.

He’s only received one additional vote on these new ballots, but it was from a voter who voted only for the four inductees last year, a “Small Hall, no PED” voter. That group still likely comprises the majority of remaining voters, so for Mussina to change a mind there bodes well for his chances.

This evening, Mussina fans should hope he once again experiences a post-announcement surge.

Since inactive voters began losing voting eligibility, Mussina’s post-announcement gains have by and large kept pace with his pre-announcement gains percentage-wise. He needs an overall gain of 11.5% to clear 75%. If the pattern holds, he’ll be agonizingly close to the votes he needs.

It’s also worth noting that players who have been in the 80% range have seen the differential between their pre-announcement and final share shrink. After drops of 6.7%, 6.3%, and 5.6% the year before they were each elected, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, and Raines saw their final shares decrease by only 1.4%, 3.3%, and 2.8% when they crossed 75%. If Mussina’s gap shrinks, that would help a lot.

Barry Bonds (161-of-226, 71.2%) and Roger Clemens (162-of-226, 71.7%)

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are grouped together here because their situations are virtually identical. One is arguably the greatest player of all-time; the other is arguably among the greatest pitchers of all-time. They would have been in the Hall of Fame years ago if not for their connections to performance-enhancing drugs. Instead, they have been passed over six times. Clemens reached 57.3% last year, while Bonds got to 56.4%.

Both men have seen virtually no change in support from 2017 to now; Bonds has netted just four public votes in the last two cycles, with Clemens gaining six. So is there any hope that these two make it to Cooperstown on the BBWAA’s ballot?

Well, both candidates are much closer to the 75% threshold now than they were just a few years back. After each landed in almost exactly the same spot from 2013 to 2015, the duo has seen a series of favorable events fall their way.

The Hall reduced the window of eligibility for players to be considered from 15 to 10 years prior to the 2015 election. While seemingly hurting their chances by allotting them fewer opportunities on the ballot, Bonds and Clemens may have actually benefited, as the 10-year limit has coincided with a number of players making large gains in an effort by voters to get worthy players inducted before their time runs out.

Of much greater aid to Bonds and Clemens was the Hall’s decision to dramatically decrease the voter pool prior to the 2016 election, which meant revoking the voting rights of honorary BBWAA members who had not held active status within the last 10 years. This rule change preceded jumps of 7.7% and 7.5% for Clemens and Bonds, respectively, in 2016.

The very next year, the Today’s Game Committee inducted Bud Selig to the Hall of Fame, nearly unanimously. Pandamonium ensued following the selection of the man who presided over the Steroid Era and chose to ignore what was happening in the sport, and as a result, a large number of voters began supporting Bonds and Clemens, feeling as though there is no reason they should be kept out if Selig was already enshrined. Clemens tacked on an additional 8.9% and Bonds increased his share by 9.5%.

As already mentioned, the support for these two has hit a wall in the two years since. Support will continue to grow slowly due to voter turnover as new voters enter the pool and older voters lose eligibility. Since the election of Bud Selig, public first-time voters have overwhelmingly supported both – Clemens at 31-of-35 and Bonds at a 30-of-35 clip.

Still, some chips have to fall the right way for Bonds and Clemens to have a shot at BBWAA induction. Much like with Curt Schilling, the first hurdle is clearing 60% of the vote. It may not be as dramatic as with other candidates, but it is likely that there are voters who will begin to support Bonds and Clemens if, say, a 60-65% majority of their peers have already done so.

It is also conceivable that a handful of voters are simply waiting until 2022 – the final time Bonds and Clemens will appear on the writers’ ballot – to check those two boxes.

A lot can happen over the course of three years. Perhaps there will be yet another referendum by the Hall that, whether intentionally or inadvertently, will present a more favorable outlook for the two of the arguably most widely debated candidates in history.

Curt Schilling (158-of-226, 69.9%)

After Schilling praised a photo of a t-shirt that advocated the lynching of journalists, his support dropped from 52.3% to 45.0%. He recovered most of that lost support in the 2018 cycle, rising to 51.2%, but along the way lost two valuable years of eligibility. At +17, he’s been among the big gainers so far this cycle, but it might be too little, too late.

The most important benchmark for Schilling’s eventual candidacy is clearing 60%. Only Gil Hodges has cleared that mark with the BBWAA and failed to later make the Hall of Fame. Schilling has three more tries left before his Hall fate is left in the hands of small committees. If Mussina is elected this year, Schilling will be the top returning candidate without a hard link to performance-enhancing drugs, though his offensive and inflammatory public persona persists. In recent years, top returners without a tie to PEDs have usually been inducted in short order.

Piazza, Raines, Hoffman, and Vladimir Guerrero were all inducted in their first try as one of the top two returning clean candidates. Martinez is expected to follow suit, and Mussina might as well.

At 60%, Schilling would need to average a gain of just 5% per year to make it to 75%. If he does better, his chances increase that much more. He won’t be elected today, but the important thing to look at when assessing his future candidacy will be whether or not he can clear into the 60s and whether Mussina is elected.

Larry Walker (149-of-226, 65.9%)

A breakdown of Larry Walker’s candidacy was explored in full last week, with some of the findings updated below following the influx of 49 ballots since then.

After seeing a huge uptick in public ballot support (+47 net gained votes so far) and appearing on 75.8% of all ballots of at least seven votes cast, Walker appears primed for a huge vote increase this year. Come 2020, there is a chance Walker is in a very similar position to where Mussina finds himself now. Ballot space will be cleared as four or five candidates – including Fred McGriff – who received a sizable vote total will exit the ballot in advance of next year. As with McGriff and Martinez, it is quite common for candidates to receive an additional boost in their final year of BBWAA eligibility.

The sudden, dramatic increase Walker has experienced is rather unprecedented, and it should allow him to clear 55% with relative ease. He’d be hard-pressed to see such a jump next year, but then again, nobody foresaw his current trends as a possibility either.

Fred McGriff (89-of-226, 39.4%)

Three years ago, Alan Trammell entered his final year of eligibility with the BBWAA with just 25.1% support. He went +39 among public, returning voters en route to surpassing 40%, then was promptly elected his first try in front of a small committee.

Smith didn’t enjoy the same final-year bump, in no small part due to the presence of Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, and Guerrero all debuting alongside him, but he had previously cleared 50% in 2012. He was elected unanimously by the Today’s Game Committee last month.

McGriff’s best path towards induction is to follow in their footsteps and clear 40%. If he can do that, he might be viewed favorably when his name is put before a committee in a few years. Right now, he’s trending in the upper 30s, but has typically fared better with later ballots than earlier ones. Whether that holds now that he has been getting additions from voters who vote for 10 players remains to be seen.

His meteoric rise is one of the biggest stories of the cycle, however, and it will be extremely interesting to see if he ends up over 40%.

Omar Vizquel (85/226, 37.6%)

In just his second year of eligibility, Omar Vizquel has received the third-most “+1s” of any candidate, with 23. It seems unlikely that he can cross 50%, though if he does, eventual induction would seem to be assured; only one candidate not on the current ballot has ever received 50% of the BBWAA vote and not made the Hall of Fame, though some have needed help from the committees.

Even if Vizquel settles in around 46 to 48%, he has eight more years of eligibility to get the required remaining votes. With fewer players coming onto the ballot in the coming years who are expected to draw significant support, Vizquel could quickly emerge as a candidate for rapid increases.

Only a small handful of players have ever cleared 40% and not gotten into the Hall of Fame, namely Hodges, Marty Marion, Maury Wills, Roger Maris, Tony Oliva, and Steve Garvey.

Vizquel fans should look to 45% as a reasonable target this year, as that’s where most of the above names stopped making further progress.

Manny Ramirez (58-of-226, 25.7%)

Unfortunately for Ramirez, he remains stuck in PED-tainted purgatory on the Hall ballot. After collecting a vote share of 23.8% as a first-time eligible candidate in 2017 and dipping slightly to 22.0% in 2018, he appears set to land right around those two marks yet again. The reasoning behind both why his vote total has been stagnant and is unlikely to change much year-to-year is simple: he is the only player discussed here to be handed a suspension by MLB for a positive PED test, an event that occurred multiple times. For a player who most would agree statistically merits enshrinement, the PED stain is a major obstacle to overcome. One positive sign for Ramirez is that a number of voters may begin to consider him as ballot space permits, holding to the philosophy that he deserves a vote, but not at the expense of another worthy candidate who was never disciplined by MLB for PED usage.

Scott Rolen (48-of-226, 21.2%)

Scott Rolen has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the ballot logjam easing. Of those candidates who received under 20% of the vote last year, he has seen the biggest net increase in votes from returning voters, at +16.

His initial vote share of 10.2% would be historically low for a candidate eventually elected by the BBWAA, but the recent past provides more reason for optimism if Rolen can see a jump to around 19%. In his fifth year of eligibility, Walker received votes on 11.8% of ballots cast and is now expected to clear 50% handily. Martinez bottomed out with 25.2% in his fifth year, and is now on the doorstep of Cooperstown.

Walker and Martinez are but two examples. Mussina went from 20.3% to 63.5% in four years and is expected to receive yet another large jump. If Rolen can quickly distinguish himself from other candidates, he could ride a similar wave of momentum and avoid languishing at the bottom of the ballot for too long.

In that vein, it’s worth watching where he lands relative to Ramirez, Todd Helton, Jeff Kent, and Billy Wagner this year. With four or five of the top candidates exiting the ballot either by election or the expiration of their eligibility, some of these candidates could enter into the top 10 next cycle, which has served as a good indicator of future enshrinement in recent years. From 2007 to 2016, 33 different players ranked in the top 10 of a ballot share at least one time, though Mark McGwire, Bonds, and Clemens all have ties to performance-enhancing drugs. If Martinez and Mussina are both elected, 26 of the 30 candidates without ties to PEDs will already have been elected, and three of the remaining four will be top 10 on this ballot.

Todd Helton (40-of-226, 17.7%)

Todd Helton is perhaps the most intriguing candidate that nobody is paying attention to. In his first ballot appearance, he is performing significantly better than Rolen did pre-announcement a year ago, and the two are within a handful of votes. As touched on last week, the number of votes on any particular ballot has had minimal correlation with the frequency of Helton’s votes. Through 226 public ballots, he has gotten the nod on 25 of 127 (19.7%) ballots on which the maximum 10 spots were utilized. That figure has dropped marginally to 15.2% on all other ballots, and Helton’s name has actually been included most frequently on ballots in the 7-8 vote range (20.6%).

Why is this the case? Helton’s supporters are negatively correlated with Bonds and Clemens voters. On 160 ballots with both Bonds and Clemens, Helton has just 18 votes (11.3%), and just one on a ballot that did not feature 10 checkmarks. However, that ratio has nearly tripled when Bonds and Clemens aren’t chosen; he is 22-for-66 here, a 33.3% share.

The catch here is that, when Bonds and Clemens are excluded, there is the same amount of space available for a Helton vote as there is on a full ballot that includes them. In fact, there may be as much space on a six or seven-player ballot in the former category, as many Bonds and Clemens supporters also vote for Ramirez and/or Sammy Sosa, whereas they are almost always out of consideration for voters who exclude Bonds and Clemens from their ballots.

Since post-announcement reveals have been notoriously unkind to those accused of PED usage, it is very possible that Helton will be the rare candidate who winds up finishing ahead of where he currently tracking.

Jeff Kent (38-of-226, 16.8%)

Kent might be the best example of a candidate who has been lost in the shuffle on the ballot. A player known more for his consistency than anything else, Kent suffers from sharing a ballot with others who were perceived as consummate superstars. He won the 2000 NL MVP Award, but did not record any other top-five finishes.

With just four years of eligibility remaining after 2019, Kent probably won’t ever sniff election by the writers. He does seem like a prime candidate for serious consideration by a small committee somewhere down the road, though.

Billy Wagner (37-of-226, 16.4%)

The time has come for Wagner to make some headway on the ballot. He has flipped 12 voters from a “no” vote to a “yes” vote and has received a checkmark on 16.4% of ballots. Closers typically see a slight boost in the final results, so it is possible that Wagner could wind up at around 20% of the final vote. With the ballot logjam easing, Wagner is a prime candidate to make up a ton of ground in the next few years. He should benefit from a ballot that won’t feature Rivera, Hoffman, or Smith for the first time since Wagner’s 2016 ballot debut.

In theory, Rivera’s tremendous support could draw more attention to the career Wagner authored. Among pitchers to debut in the live-ball era and throw at least 500 innings, Wagner ranks at or near the very top of the leaderboard in virtually every rate stat there is. It stands to reason that Wagner could benefit reasonably well from an internet push, much like Tim Raines was likely aided by Jonah Keri spearheading an artfully-crafted campaign in his honor.

Former Hoffman and Smith voters may well begin to offer some newfound support to Wagner once he is the primary reliever in the spotlight next year.

Gary Sheffield (31-of-226, 13.7%)

As many others have already written, Gary Sheffield has been a victim of the deep pool of candidates throughout his tenure on the ballot. In his first four years of eligibility, Sheffield reeled in 11.7%, 11.6%, 13.3%, and 11.1% shares. Despite 509 home runs and 62.1 WAR, he’s yet to gain much traction with the voters.

Sheffield does have a small link to steroids, but it is unclear how much that suppresses his reputation with the voters. A few other factors may very well be equally (or more) responsible for his lack of support. Like Walker, Sheffield was oft-injured, particularly earlier in his career.

He wore eight different uniforms – none for more than parts of six seasons – and played his most games for the Marlins, a franchise that has lacked the attention paid to to larger-market clubs. The lack of association with one single franchise has likely inhibited his votes to an extent.

Sheffield also comes with a less-than-stellar defensive reputation, one not offset by despite being one of baseball’s most feared hitters – by pitchers and third-base coaches – of his era.

Sheffield probably won’t gain much ground this year, but perhaps when the ballot opens up we will have more knowledge of what exactly has kept his support depressed to this extent. His 18.1% showing on 10-player ballots is up from the 13.3% he sported last year, and going forward that number should continue to trend upward, in all likelihood.

Sammy Sosa (25-of-226, 11.1%)

Sosa was one of four players – along with Kent, Sheffield, and Wagner – who lost support in 2018 from returning voters who had also publicly revealed their ballot the previous year. He did, however, post a decent 4-for-13 showing among public first-time voters and is 3-for-8 so far this year. He has also rebounded slightly from last year, earning back two votes he lost in 2018. He is assured of remaining on the ballot yet again, and he is likely to finish somewhere between 8-10%.

There doesn’t appear to much to look forward to here for Sosa, but perhaps he can eventually surpass the 12.5% high-water mark that he received way back in 2013, his first year of eligibility on the BBWAA ballot. If nothing else, he’s the last candidate guaranteed to return to the 2020 ballot and should stay on for all 10 years before his candidacy moves on to a committee.

Andruw Jones (19-of-226, 8.4%)

One of the biggest questions leading up to the 2018 announcement was whether Andruw Jones would receive the requisite number of votes to remain on the ballot for a second year. He ended up seeing a boost on the ballots which did not reveal prior to the announcement and finished with 7.3%. So far, he has been checked on 19 ballots, with just 12 of his 2018 voters revealing. Nine of those voters voted for him again, and he has also received votes from six voters who did not vote for him in 2018 and four voters who are new to the voting bloc.

He could see modest gains when the results are announced this evening, but if nothing else, he should once again remain above the 5% cutoff for another year.

Andy Pettitte (15-of-226, 6.6%)

Every year, there seems to be one candidate who is in serious danger of being removed from the ballot for further consideration. In 2016, Jim Edmonds fell off the ballot despite 393 home runs and eight Gold Gloves, while in 2017, five World Series rings couldn’t keep Jorge Posada’s candidacy afloat. Last year, the aforementioned Jones skated by with 31 votes, nine above the minimum. With 15 votes on the 226 publicly revealed ballots, Andy Pettitte would appear to be safe at first glance. His vote share has been steadily declining, however; he was on eight of the first 48 ballots and has been on just seven of the last 178. That latter vote share of under 4% has corresponded with more voters from chapters other than New York revealing their ballots, which doesn’t help Pettitte’s chances of clearing the 5% threshold. He only needs six more voters to reach 5%, however, so it is not a reach.

Others

Lance Berkman, Roy Oswalt, Miguel Tejada, and Michael Young each have two or three votes among published ballots, but none is even at 1.5%. The only candidate in Tracker history to clear the 5% minimum to remain on the ballot with less than 4% at announcement time is Nomar Garciaparra in 2015. He received 5.5% of the vote despite being on only 2.0% of pre-announcement ballots. He gives these four a small amount of hope.

FanGraphs readers want their Hall of Famers, and they want ’em now! That’s the take-home message from the results of our inaugural Hall of Fame Crowdsource Ballot, for which we invited registered users of our site to partake in our version of the real thing. To an even greater degree than the Baseball Writers Association of America — which over the past five years has elected 16 candidates, more than any other five-year stretch in the institution’s history, while using more slots per ballot than at any time since 1966 — our voters went deep, and they weren’t shy about honoring the ballot’s best.

A total of 1,213 users (including some of our staff) cast their electronic ballots (something the Hall of Fame currently does not yet have); they could vote for up to 10 candidates while adhering to the same December 31, 2018 deadline as the voters. Remarkably, more than three-quarters of our voters — 77.6% — used all 10 slots, well above the rate in the @NotMrTibbs Hall of Fame Ballot Tracker (55.8% of the 217 ballots as of midnight ET on Monday), and well beyond the modern BBWAA record of 51%, set in 2015. Our voters averaged a generous 9.41 votes per ballot, again ahead of both the current Tracker (8.61) and the modern BBWAA record (8.46), set last year.

Oh, you want to know who we elected? No fewer than seven of the 35 candidates received at least 75% of the vote from our crowd. Keep in mind, that’s two more than in any actual Hall of Fame class, and three more than in any class besides the 1936 inaugural one (Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Babe Ruth, and Honus Wagner). Not only did our users anoint the three candidates who appear to be locks this year (Roy Halladay, Edgar Martinez, and Mariano Rivera) and the man on the bubble (Mike Mussina), they waved in the slate’s two most controversial candidates, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, and still had ample room to include Larry Walker as well. Read the rest of this entry »