Hall of Fame Voters Have a Mess to Deal With
Last year, seven former players received at least 45% of the Hall of Fame vote while also earning less than the 75% necessary to actually get elected to the Hall. Seven former players, in other words, possessed sufficiently impressive credentials to merit serious consideration and were then all pushed to this year’s ballot for further review. Notably, this was one year after eight players returned to the ballot having received at least 40% of the previous season’s vote. The consequence of these developments? A very crowded ballot in 2018 — and that’s without even accounting for the newly eligible candidates.
It’s a state of affairs that’s rarely been duplicated in history. Back in the late 40s and early 50s, there was a considerable logjam of deserving candidates. Writers responded by including an average of nine-plus players per ballot, inducting 13 different players between 1951 and -55.
There was a similar issue in 1981, a year in which 10 players received at least 40% of Hall of Fame votes but only Bob Gibson was elected. The writers eventually elected Don Drysdale, Harmon Killebrew, Juan Marichal, and Hoyt Wilhelm, leaving the Veterans’ Committee to decide the rest. Jim Bunning, Nellie Fox, and Red Schoendienst, eventually earned a place in the Hall, while Gil Hodges and Maury Wills remain on the outside looking in.
It was shortly after that 1981 election that writers began to significantly downsize their ballots. Consider: from 1936 to 1986, the average number of players per ballot was at least seven for every season but 1946. From 1987 through 2013, however, the average decreased significantly, never once reaching the seven-per-ballot mark. The trend was particularly pronounced from 2006 to -12, when the average was just 5.7 players per ballot.
The last four cycles have seen an average of roughly eight votes per ballot, but with eight of the 12 Hall of Famers elected coming on the first try, ballots remain congested.
Below are the players returning to this year’s ballot with last season’s vote totals, Hall of Fame rating, and JAWS. If you’re unfamiliar with Hall of Fame rating, you can find the introduction here. It works similarly to Jay Jaffe’s JAWS except that it uses FanGraphs WAR instead of Baseball-Reference and measures peak in a different way, so as to encompass all of a player’s good seasons. HOF AVG and MEDIAN denote the average and median HOF Ratings of players at a candidate’s respective position. BBWAA AVG and MEDIAN denote the same thing, except consider only those players voted in by writers (and not those inducted by, say, the Veterans’ Committee).
| 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.
You’ll notice immediately that the two returnees who came closest to the 75% threshold last year actually don’t surpass the average Hall of Famer at their respective positions according to the criteria used here. Paul Swydan looked at the case for Vladimir Guerrero through the lens of MVP winners, which certainly helps his case, while I made some generous modifications to Guerrero’s stat line in an attempt to “quantify” fear. In any event, Guerrero’s exciting play likely made him feel like a Hall of Famer to a lot of voters, and though he is more of a borderline case, it’s unfair to say he’s undeserving.
As for Trevor Hoffman–moving from 67.3% to 74% of the vote–made a bit of history last season. In the last 50 years, only a handful of players have received at least two-thirds of the vote and not gained election the next year.
- In 1979, Enos Slaughter went from 68.9% of the vote to 68.8%.
- In 1988, Jim Bunning went from 70% to 74.2% down to 63.3% in 1989. That 1989 ballot was stacked with first-timers Johnny Bench, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, and Carl Yastrzemski, along with holdovers who eventually made the Hall of Fame in Orlando Cepeda, Bill Mazeroski, and Ron Santo.
- In 1990, with a ballot that was still fairly stacked, Gaylord Perry went from 68% to 72.1%.
- In 1999, with Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Robin Yount, and Carlton Fisk all first-timers on the ballot, Tony Perez moved from 67.9% to 60.8%. he would get over 75% the following election.
- In 2014, Craig Biggio went from 68.2% to 74.8%.
- Also in 2014, Jack Morris went from 67.7% to 61.5%. That came a year after he moved up just one percent from 66.7%.
Of the nine occurrences above, four have come in the last five years. To get a sense of how a normal progression occurs, consider this table, which documents the average yearly election change over the last 50 years depending on the previous year’s vote. If Hoffman doesn’t get it in this year, it would be very unusual.
| Vote Percentage | AVG Increase | % of Players Increasing |
|---|---|---|
| 40%-49% | 4.1% | 67.7% |
| 50%-59% | 4.9% | 77.6% |
| 60%-69% | 6.9% | 78.8% |
| 70%-74% | 8.7% | 94.4% |
While the effect of “voter momentum” does appear to exist, it isn’t something that really emerges until a candidate has reached the 60% mark. Before that point, there are generally small increases, but they aren’t guaranteed. Looking at this year’s ballot, that’s a problem. It’s hard not to see Guerrero and Hoffman getting inducted this year — Hoffman isn’t doing great in the early going — but of the remaining holdovers, it’s improbable that any of them will receive sufficient support to earn induction this year. In the last 50 years, only Ralph Kiner has received less than 60% of the vote one year and then been elected the following season. He was also the only player to make the Hall in the 1975 vote, which makes things very different from our present situation.
Given the already crowded ballot and the addition of some qualified first-time candidates, it’s unlikely that we’ll see a major jump for any of the players who received less than 60% of the vote last year. For Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina, and Curt Schilling, the consequences aren’t that grave: they each have at least four more years on the ballot after this one (though Schilling dropped seven points from last year and can’t really afford that again).
As for Edgar Martinez, though, the situation is more critical. Last year, his third-to-last on the ballot, he earned just 58.6% of the vote. Of the 26 players who’ve appeared on 60% to 65% of ballots in one year, only seven gained induction the next one. Between 65% and 70%, 13 of 27 gained induction the following year. Hoffman notwithstanding, over 70% is pretty close to a lock. Martinez should get a bump in his last year, not unlike what Tim Raines received. That said, Raines went from 55.0% to 69.8% in his ninth year on the ballot before easing in with 86% in his final year of eligibility. As one of the greatest hitters of all time, Martinez is certainly deserving of the honor, and from the publicly available information, things look promising. According to the early returns from Ryan Thibodaux’s indispensable ballot tracker, Martinez has gained some ground, but he’s going to need a big push this year to put in him range next season.
As for the rest of the ballot, I’ve talked about the strange case of denying Mussina and Schilling before. Larry Walker is like Vladimir Guerrero but better. We know why Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens aren’t in, and Joe Morgan’s letter isn’t helping people care more about the Hall of Fame. The cases for Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, and Sammy Sosa are better or at least similar to Vladimir Guerrero, though PED accusations and suspension hurt the former three players. Billy Wagner was nearly as good as Trevor Hoffman but doesn’t have the saves to sway voters. Jeff Kent was a darn good player, as was Fred McGriff, but they fall short of the Hall of Fame standards as I discussed last season.
So we have seven clearly deserving Hall of Famers based on the on-field merits, plus another two surpassed the 70% mark last year. That’s before we even get to first-time candidates in Andruw Jones, Chipper Jones, Jim Thome, and Scott Rolen. Because writers can’t vote for more than 10 players, the Hall of Fame is keeping players on the ballot while seemingly requesting writers not vote for them. Voters, meanwhile, are holding some players — particularly pitchers — to an impossible standard. Whatever the case, writers once again have an extremely difficult task this year.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
To the non fangraphs inclined Mussina’s ERA of 3.68 looks pedestrian, which is why even though he pitched in veritable bandboxes his whole career he has had such a hard time getting elected.
Jack Morris just got in with a 3.90 ERA. Not saying Morris isn’t deserving – as a Tiger fan growing up in the 80’s, he was a favorite – but that could give Mussina a better case for the non-Fangraphs types.
Morris isn’t deserving.
He and Jim Rice should have their own wing of the hall of fame, called the “perceived but not actual hall of fame”.
Where does Johan Santana rank for HOF rating? Want to see him make it, great peak.
He won’t make it and may not even be on the ballot next year. Right now there are 50 ballots counted on the HOF Vote Tracker and he has 0 votes.
In fact, Omar Vizquel (19) has more votes than Santana (0), Rolen (8), and Andruw Jones combined (5). Ugh!
bit.ly/hof18
Here’s hoping Rolen doesn’t fall off in the first year, that would be a shame.
Rolen’s doing way better than many expected. He’s likely fine.
I realize he’s at 0 but am sort of shocked why. Want him to at least get 5%
I get a 1:13 chance that he’s truly a 5%+ player who happened to get 0 votes on 50 [of ~416] ballots.
I guess 1:10 if the 5% to stay on can be rounded up to [so 4.5%+], but I think it has to be a true 5%
Does not round up. If there are 401-420 ballots, Johan needs 21 votes. If there are 421-440, he needs 22.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/santajo02.shtml#all_hof_other
Peak is great, but not even particularly great by HOF standards because it wasn’t a full 7 year peak.
It’s not really enough to build a Koufax case.
He’s still sixth on the ballot by WAR7 and led the league in WAR three straight years. He doesn’t need to be as good as Koufax (inner circle) but I believe he merits consideration.
Hmmm…using Baseball Reference numbers:
Koufax: 53.2 WAR in 2324.1 innings
Santana: 50.7 WAR in 2025.2 innings
Koufax had a 6 year peak of 46.6 WAR whereas Santana’s was only 39.5. But that’s mostly because of differences in how pitchers were used between their eras. Koufax’s 61-66 peak is 19.8% better than the #2 guy for those years (Marichel); santana’s 03-08 peak was 17.9% better than the #2 guy (Webb).
So I have a hard time seeing a big difference in either peak or overall value.
The one big advantage that Koufax has is his postseason performance (0.95 ERA in 57 innings vs 3.97 ERA in 34 innings).
Santana won’t get in, but in my opinion, he deserves a much longer look than what he’s going to get.
I miss Brandon Webb. That guy was so good.
Koufax is the weirdest, most extreme case in the Hall IMO. Essentially his peak was shorter than anyone else’s but it was also way better than anyone elses to that point. From 1963 to 1966 he was pretty much the best starting pitcher anyone had ever seen. And he was dominating in a way almost no one had seen before. from 1900-1959 only 1 pitcher had a K/9 over 9.00 for a full season (Herb Score). Koufax did it 7 times over the next 10 years. Imagine what that must have looked like to baseball fans in the 60’s.
He posted three 9+ win seasons in a 4 year span and he probably would have had a 4th if his 1964 season had not been cut short by injury (he had 6.1 fWAR in 28 starts which was about half a season back then) and then was done forever.
Even today, almost 50 years later, only one other starting pitcher has had three 9+ win seasons (Randy Johnson has 5).
Comparing him to someone like Santana simply by career WAR misses a lot of the context I think.
I don’t get the Santana issue. I’m not sure he is a hall of famer but he should be getting 20-30% of the vote and yet he is being shut out right now
If every voter thinks the same thing, nobody will vote for him. “Probably not in for me, but a lot of people should be voting for him” could be what people think across the board to get zero votes.
It’s tempting to translate how close a career was to HOF level into the percentage of votes he should get, but it’ll always lead to unsatisfactory results. Griffey got the highest vote percentage ever, but nobody would say he was the greatest player of all time.
Someone like Santana deserves to have more people talk about what it was like to watch him at his best. That changeup could be magical sometimes. But we can’t translate that to vote percentages.
He’s got roughly the same argument as Koufax, 0 support so far though, probably doomed until veteran’s committee (if that). A much better pitcher than the similarly scorned David Cone. Really if you’re on track to be a HoF pitcher you should just switch to being a reliever later in your career, much easier route.
Favorite pitcher I ever saw personally.
Santana “much better” than Cone? If you take Cone’s career stats and subtract Santana’s, you’re left with 873 innings and 10.7 fWAR over 5 seasons. Five extra years of at least MLB-average value is a pretty big advantage for Cone.
I don’t claim that proves Cone was “better,” but it’s absurd to say the opposite. Peak value is important, but it’s not everything.
The PEDS bottleneck is hurting other players. Bonds and Clemens are going to soak up votes until they are in. Sheffield and Sosa will get some but not get in. if you believe steroids are immaterial, that’s up to four of ten slots.
Whether you think the steroid users should be allowed in or not, it still baffles me when voters select one of Bonds or Clemens but not both. Either vote for both or vote for neither. Voting for just one just shows your incompetence as a voter.
That’s a very good point. Cumulatively their starts are irrefutably HOF. And their alleged “sins” are the same. I don’t understand the bifurcation. I get why some people might pick Schilling over Mussina or Mussina over Schilling, but not Bonds/Clemens
Hardly anyone votes in one but not the other, but here is an easy distinguishing point:
Bonds admitted to using steroids, but denied taking them knowingly, and then was convicted criminally for a felony related to that denial.
Clemens always denied using steroids, and then was formally acquitted of criminal charges related to his denials.
Bonds never admitted to using steroids unknowingly. I don’t care how many media outlets reported it that way at the time, his actual testimony when asked about using steroids was a simple and unequivocal “no”. For that denial he was charged with perjury and acquitted, just like Clemens. The only conviction (for obstruction of justice) was for a rambling response Bonds initially offered to a different question, even though on follow-up Bonds went on to to give a direct answer to that question too. And of course that conviction was reversed on appeal so in effect it never happened either.
To sum up then, both Bonds and Clemens denied using steroids under oath, both were prosecuted for it, and at the end of the day both were acquitted by the legal system every bit as much as they were found guilty in the court of public opinion. All of which makes that “easy distinguishing point” to you look a whole lot like hair-splitting to the rest of us. And I’m not sure I even want to get into why it is that people who engage in it always seem to do so to come down on the side of putting Clemens in the HoF but not Bonds, so I’ll just be generous and assume that it’s their particular allegiances as baseball fans somehow pulling them to that dubious conclusion rather than how it appears on its face.
They both had their detractors over personal conduct beyond the PEDs. Clemens had the Piazza bat thing and Bonds was, well, Bonds. I’m guessing he would throw race into the discussion as well. But mostly people are just fickle and illogical. Witness the rest of the voting that goes on in the world.
all of the posters here on this site are more qualified to vote than the actual voters….thats the problem. system is broke.
That’s definitely not true. It’s not the Hall of WAR. What people like these posters do well is pop balloons like Morris or highlight value like Raines.
It would be a one-dimensional hall of fame if fangraphs readers were the voters
Yes, and the dimension would be “how good at baseball was this player?”
All of these players with near average or better profiles- Bonds, Clemens included- are extremely likely to get into the HOF at some point. There is no reason it has to be immediate, and poster impatience doesn’t somehow make the HOF a broken system.
Has anyone who voted for one and not the other ever given a reason why? I guess their specific cases are kind of different (Clemens to this day denies using, Bonds admitted he unknowingly used), but I would imagine there is a very small sector of the population that would care about such a discrepancy.
Of this year’s voters to separate:
Sadiel Lebron, RC w/o BB: ran out of spots, is planning on voting Bonds in future but prioritized guys a) running out of time (McGriff), b) near 5% (Sosa, Andruw Jones) and c) near election (Vlad, Hoffman, Chipper, Thome) before moving on to others.
Jose De Jesus Ortiz, RC w/o BB: previously voted for both, but dropped Bonds because he’s not 100% sure Clemens used since he’s fought for his innocence. Was influenced by the Morgan letter to reconsider Bonds. Also left out Chipper as well, but added McGriff, Edgar, Mussina
Jon Heyman, BB w/o RC: Believes the Bonds story about being jealous of the great HR chase, views him as a HoFer before that, does not like Clemens for throwing McNamee under bus.
Of the 50 votes on record, here are the ones that have one *or* the other:
Jon Heyman (10)
Sadiel Lebron (10)
Jose de Jesus Ortiz (10)
So only a handful of them and they all had full ballots, so at least it is plausible that they just didn’t feel they had room for both of them…?
I can’t speak for the voters, obviously, but I do see a distinction. When Clemens left the Red Sox, his career was in decline and he hadn’t yet earned hall of fame status. Then, he got bulky and put together an irrefutable hall of fame case. When Bonds left the Pirates he was an MVP and just entering his prime. He continued performing on that level before he got huge and started putting up ridiculous numbers. Therefore, I think there’s a possibility that someone might vote for Bonds and not Clemens based on the theory that Bonds had already earned that status or was on that trajectory before he started using steroids.
Yes, after 1996, Clemens seemed to be in decline, but he was surely at least on a HOF trajectory. In Boston, Clemens was 192-111 with a 3.06 ERA. He also had 2590 strikeouts. He had an MVP award and 3 Cy Young awards. He had led the AL in ERA 4 times, wins twice, and strikeouts twice. Actually, if Clemens had just retired after 1996, he would probably be in the HOF today.
After 1996 he was at 81.3 rWAR with a peak7 of 60.4 rWAR
The average HoFer is 73.9 and 50.3 respectively, so he’d be well over the bar.
Pedro Martinez’s career is pretty similar to Clemens through 1996 in those regards [as well as GS, IP, ERA, CYA] and Pedro got in on his first ballot with 91% of the vote
There are a lot of things baffling about HOF voters. Those who won’t for anyone on first ballot, won’t vote for a player who wasn’t nice to them, etc. It sounds as though its getting better (?), but its a weird club with some goofy characters.
they should never be in. hof sold out last year when they put mr steroid himself bagwell in there. difference is bonds was a phenominal player before roids and he shouldve never taken them. he wouldve made it. Bagwell on the other hand was not athletic, terrible ball player and his only calling card was his power that he got from the roids and needed them to even make the team.
“Mr Steroid” was inducted last year, but his name is Selig.
Yes. Selig is by far the most disgraceful of the recent inductees.
This is absolutely true. The Hall of Fame’s total lack of direction on how to handle Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield, Sosa, and McGwire is what is creating this bottleneck. Enough of these guys would either be off the ballot one way or the other (either through election or disqualification) that we wouldn’t have this issue.
Not sure the “lack of direction” argument still applies after Morgan’s letter.
It isn’t just the PED guys.
Voters keep using votes on guys that aren’t deserving as well (Hoffman, Vizquel, McGriff).
Still, this is a problem created by the voters. As a group, they have been bad at identifying which players had HOF careers and which ones have not. Schilling and Mussina still being on the ballot is 100% on the voters for being bad at understanding baseball.
It’s not the Hall of WAR. You can probably lay 100% of the reason Curt Schilling isn’t in the Hall of Fame on things Curt Schilling has done since he retired. If, for example, Mike Trout continues to play at the same level for the next few years but then pulls a Marty Bergen, you can logically say that he’s both one of the greatest players of all time, and somebody who should not be in the Hall of Fame. There’s no logical inconsistency there.
Who is it hurting and to what extent?
Should Andruw Jones, for example, be first ballot? Is there any chance he will not get in at some point? I’d say no to both- he’ll get in, in the normal 3-10 years that it takes for such a player.
Certain players like Santana deserve more votes than they are getting- but that’s just poor voting for guys like Vizquel and Hoffman.
There are only 3 PED guys with above average profiles currently soaking up votes (Bonds, Clemens, Manny) and only one likely to join them soon (Arod)- there are nearly as many guys like Hoffman, Sheffield (PED but below average profile), Kent, Wagner and Vizquel soaking up votes with well below average profiles.
Which above average or near average candidate is somewhat likely (i.e. 30%) to get left out of the HOF over this?
Andruw Jones is absolutely hurting- he might not get 5% because he’s not one of the ten best on the ballot despite being deserving.
the hof has already gone down the drain. Its a disaster. It used to be a very exclusive club and only the best got in, now they let 5 guys a yr in and lots of them were just good players and weren’t the best of all time. Need only 1-2 max players in a year. There should be a cap. Some years should be 0 players inducted.
You should probably go back and see who has been elected. The dilution started in 1945, then ’46, ’48, ’54, ’63 mostly marginal. Don’t even look at the 70s. Even 1939 could be the start of the drop, with Sisler, Ewing, and Keeler getting in. The HOF was the exclusive club you are talking about for 3 years.
How dare they elect 5 players in 1936? 3 or 4 of those guys should’ve had to wait, dadgumit.
So infuriating that Edgar hasn’t gotten in. Being a DH is a position in the league! He did as much as anyone could at the position, is acknowledged as being among the best hitters, and was beloved. The steroid players should be in, the rules of baseball have been shifting for years and years, they were just a part of their era. Moose is borderline but I’d like him to make it, and I despise Schilling but he’s probably deserving.
To be fair, Martinez is a borderline case if your standard for DHs is Frank Thomas. I think he should probably get in and based on the public ballots so far he is right on the border of election…
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=F2E5D8FC5199DFAF!8063&ithint=file,xlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!AAAsz3uDsmqy_Vw
fred mcgriff isnt getting in, neither is edgar martinez both are borderline and probably under the avg HOF performance line.
that being said so are many other players they let in so you never know. martinez may get in. Trammel and morris were both under the performance line as well.
Luckily Ortiz is a DH so now everyone has to vote for Edgar to justify Ortiz
MLB will likely want the ‘players caught on PEDs get into the hall’ situation settled before Pettite and Ortiz, as surely they are so popular that the league will want them in.
The thing is, if it doesn’t happen with this year’s monster class, it won’t likely have as much ‘bottleneck argument’ support going forward- which is why we see such a push this year IMO. 100% of fangraphs/ESPN articles on the subject are in favor of electing the PED guys now, and are openly protesting the HOF- about an article a week lately.
Pettitte is an SP that isn’t ridiculously overqualified, won’t get in on BBWAA for sure.
He’s basically this generation’s Jack Morris.
Ortiz (-9.4) and Pettitte (-14.5) both have JAWs below average for their position. I agree neither are easily in based on regular season, but both will fly in due to popularity and post season.
They will both fly in to the HOF IMO as a marketing-based must, as they are arguable the two most popular NYY and BSox players from championship eras.
MLB may have an interest to resolve the PED issue before these two PED goldenboys Pettitte and Ortiz come up, it may look better if the narrative is that the ‘public demanded a changed policy’ before their candidacy, whereas it’ll tax Big Papi and Pettitte’s celebrity if the policy is changed for them, as it will be controversial and their deeds will be closely examined, debated, etc.
IMO Bonds, Clemens, Manny and Sheff are not popular enough for their celebrity to be a big help to baseball, Ortiz and Pettiette (for some reason) are.
But he will get in, and likely soon. Quantifying a DH’s contribution is difficult and has taken some serious thought and time, the right conclusion being made now making it very likely he’ll get in soon.
The HOF process has always been a drawn out one that has taken some time, see Trammell.
Moose is borderline? Schilling is ‘probably’ deserving?
Mussina and Schilling are 23rd/26th by bwar and 17th/20th by fwar.
Every single pitcher with higher total except Clemens got in.
Oh and there are 62 starting pitchers in HoF.
By JAWS, they are 27th/28th and the only pitcher above them that did not get in was McCormick who pitched for 10 years in 19th century and Clemens.
Take a look back at the HOF rating.
Mussina has 67.6 and Schilling has 72.4.
The median among HOFers voted in by BBWAA is 63.3.
In other words, they are better than half the starting pitchers that got in by votes by writers.
Bottom line is there is no starting pitcher with similar career to Schilling/Mussina that did not get in HoF.
Borderline? Probably deserving? Hell no.
When the conversation always begins with “since player A is in, and player B is as good or better than A, then B should get in too” this will never end. The standards for election have fluctuated so much, most notably during the 1940’s and then in the 60’s when Frankie Frisch got his cronies on the Vets Committee. But it’s not limited to just those 2 periods. Admittedly I don’t have a solution to this. And not letting in player B is unfair based on the argument I used. For me, the answer is not to compound previous dubious picks with more.
Lastly, for Curt Schilling not to be in is pretty ridiculous. It seems obvious that he’s being kept out because he’s a jackass.
There are probably a bunch of writers who remember his “let’s lynch journalists!” thing. Man, that was awful. But at least he has been awful in a context that had nothing to do with baseball and occurred after he retired, which is why I still think he should be inducted.
whats awful is the baseball sports writers don’t even write about baseball. More and More are millenials and lots of them are unknowns that don’t have a clue who some of the players are….theyre too young to remember a guy like trammel. yet they some how have votes to decide who the best baseball players of all time are. so sad.
And there are plenty of players that you’re too young to remember. How is this a generational thing and what is your point?
If you don’t write about baseball and follow it how do you get a vote. Its a buddy buddy system. Pretty much everyone on this site, even the posters are more qualified to vote then the actual voters. sad.
They *do* write about baseball, though. It’s a requirement to be in the BBWAA for ten years. Perhaps they also cover other sports or pivot away from MLB after the ten years, but they *do* cover it for ten years.
My favorite player is my user name. He was dead a long time by the time I was born, and I’ve never even seen video of him play. Not sure any exists. What’s your point?
Every Hall of Fame voter, by the literal definition of getting a vote, has been in the BBWAA for ten years and actively covered MLB during that time. And yeah, they are too young to remember Trammell, but when a guy lasts on a ballot for fifteen years – 20 after retirement – and voters only need to cover the sport for ten, that’s a natural problem that’ll arise.
What’s depressing is that once Vlad enters the Hall of Fame, Larry Walker’s case gets stronger.
Initial reaction from the Hall of Fame tracker, almost all related to Vizquel: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=F2E5D8FC5199DFAF!8063&ithint=file,xlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!AAAsz3uDsmqy_Vw
If Rolen and Andruw Jones don’t even crack 10% but Vizquel still has a healthy showing I’m going to be pissed.
Why are people voting for Jim Thome and not Chipper Jones?! Bill Livingston and Jose de Jesus Ortiz have some explaining to do, especially since they voted for Vizquel.
Man, Vizquel is actually gonna become the next Jack Morris, isn’t he?
Look at Livingston’s article, the guy needs to lose his vote immediately.
https://articles.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2017/12/my_baseball_hall_of_fame_ballo.amp
Jose de Jesus Ortiz explains his reason for not voting for Chipper in his article and that is his character. He’s is/was a Sandy Hook truther, talked about putting alligators in the Rio Grande, etc. Regardless, at least he voted for 10 candidates and skipped the one that is easily getting in.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/jose-de-jesus-ortiz/ortiz-integrity-and-character-matter-when-weighing-hof-vote/article_dc7d1422-176a-5b4f-b837-600878a334ee.html
I suppose it could be worse. He could have tried to vote for Jack Morris ten times.
I think when you get down to voting against a guy because he is a dummy brainwashed by Fox News and drunk tweeting stupid comments, you’ve created a ridiculous bar. I’m not a fan of hyper-sanctimony, even if you are on the right side.
The “right side” is always a matter of opinion. If you gave me any political stance of the past several thousand years I assure you that I can find an example where that position was the “right side,” including some things that would be considered unquestionably evil by 97% of the humans alive today.
I do agree with your assessment. In my opinion, “character” should be limited to baseball activities (ex. “he was a cancer in the locker room,” “he was a well known cheater,” “he was a great ambassador of baseball,” etc.) and outright criminal activity. Once you start digging into political views, then you get into essentially criminalizing political opponents. That never ends well and that applies well beyond sports.
I disagree. I think character should not be limited at all. I’m sure if there were a major leaguer who were an outspoken communist as well as being a slam-dunk HOFer, he’d never get in either.
Jose’s explanation is a poor rationalization and a sign that he cares more about politics than sports. He should request a transfer to the Op-Ed department where he would be more comfortable.
Jose explains clearly that he knows Chipper will get in – and he will – but couldn’t, with a clear conscience, vote for him, and chose to reward others he felt were deserving. Jose doesn’t vote for Schilling either, so he’s consistent, which, IMO, is all you can ask.
Still feel bad for Jim Edmonds. Falling off after one ballot is a crying shame.
Edmonds, Lofton, Reggie Smith, Willie Davis (never even on the ballot). Seems like if you’re a CFer, you’ve got to be Griffey or Mays or Mantle to have a chance.
Willie Davis was on the ballot, he just got 0 votes [and BB-ref’s query doesn’t handle]. Jimmy Wynn also got zero votes
Thanks, appreciate the correction. BTW, a few years ago, Joe Pos, found that among players elected by the BBWAA, CFers had the highest median WAR at 90.3.
http://joeposnanski.com/the-bbwaa-project-center-field/
Jay Jaffe has said Davis was not on the ballot; are you sure?
Bernie Williams.
the hall of fame sucks and it’s their and BBWAA’s fault
Makes no sense that someone can vote for Bonds and not Sosa.
I used to feel very strongly that the steroid users never get in.
Now that time has passed, I would include them… Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGuire, Manny…
Of course it makes sense. Bonds was great without and without steroids. Sosa was only great with them.
If you ignore everything from year 1999 (allegedly the year Bonds really started doping) and forward, Bonds is at 99.2 WAR at the age of 33. Sosa FINISHED with 61.2 WAR (being generous and ignoring his later negative years) which already makes him borderline.
Bonds was a far better player than Sosa. By bWAR, Sosa’s entire career (58.4) was only somewhat better that Bonds’s tenure with the Pirates (50.1) and he passed him in his first year with the Giants.
There appears to be an assumption that Bonds did not start partaking in PEDs until later I his career. Bonds pre-PEDs is an obvious first ballot Hall of Famer. A clean Sosa is probably a Hall of Famer, but not an obvious one.
Bonds has 153 more career HRs, 782 more runs, 329 more RBIs, 280 more steals, 10% better steal success rate, 527 more hits, 222 more doubles, 32 more triples, a 10% better BA, a 29% better OBA, a 14% better SLG, and a 20% better OPS than Sammy Sosa.
I haven’t gotten into any advanced stats yet.
Its not an argument about “better”. Bonds was the best. Its about 600HR, 3 60 hr seasons, and being tainted with roids. I find it hard to want to vote bonds and not for sosa. Nobody knows when bonds started on steroids, so all of these assumptions about “when he was clean: are irrelevant. Roids were in baseball since at least 1987. Its really about “do we let in guys who are tainted, or not.”
I find it hard to want to vote Bonds and not for Marlon Byrd.
That’s how you sound like.
McGriff has no chance but wht I don’t understand is if you are refusing to vote for bonds at al why doesn’t the crime dog get more support . His numbers on a level playing field would likely be much better
I think the way aging curves have changed since drug testing began is pretty strong proof that most players were using in the generation we’re voting on now. Even the ones that didn’t get big and bulky played a lot longer at a higher level than guys can play today. Based on that, I think its especially silly to leave the guys out of the hall of fame who had bacne and huge muscles while letting others in who were skinny.
McGriff just has too many things going against him right now
-most of his value comes from HR’s, which are viewed extremely skeptically
-He fell just short of that magical/meaningless 500 HR number
-There are already so many good 1st basemen in the HOF
-Never got higher than 4th in the MVP vote
To me he falls into the “hall of great” class, but he’s one of the better members of that group.
Well, all those guys played approximately in the same era. It’s not like that doesn’t apply to all the other non-Bonds candidates too.
If you throw out Bonds and Clemens and Sheffield and Sosa he’s still behind Schilling, Mussina, Chipper Jones, Thome, Martinez, Walker, Rolen, and Andruw Jones. Potentially behind Guerrero too, since his peak was likely better than McGriff’s, and a lot of writers are also dead-set on voting in Trevor Hoffman too. That’s ten right there.
Obviously you can drop someone from that list and put McGriff in but he’s going to be at the back of list for almost all of them.
HOF needs a redo. I sometimes wished the Hall of Fame was fluid. Meaning something like only 100-150 hitters can be in and 100-150 pitchers can be in max.
The top ones according to some defined metric every year such as WAR or something better. The ones that fall below the metric get dropped. That would be in the performance wing.
Then you would have a manager/umpire wing. Then you would a another wing that would have the ones that are in the HOF based on influencing and impacting the game.
no steroid cheaters or ones known to be steroid users get entered. this would guarantee the HOF to be sacred and something special and the not the buddy buddy system getting the guys in currently.
This would get rid of the uninformed voters.
I’ve thought similarly in the past, but the problem is most of your ideas fall apart really quickly:
>only 100-150 hitters can be in and 100-150 pitchers can be in max
If you are going to do this, then you should increase that number each year.
>WAR or something better
fWAR or bWAR? What happens when one of the 2 decides to change their formula? What about players that were defensive greats but we have no way of accounting for it? (Completely ignoring that even our current defensive metrics are horrible) What about for stars who get their career counting numbers cut short by injuries (Koufax) or war (500+ in WW2 alone) or accident (Clemente) or racism (Robinson). Should WAR account for postseason play and if so, at what weight compared to regular season?
>performance wing…manager/umpire wing…another
What about people who don’t qualify in any one category but might based on the sum of their contributions? Should a player 200th in WAR and was a solid manager for 15 years be in, and if so what group?
>no steroid cheaters or ones known to be steroid users
Good luck with defining that and your ‘proof’. Also, what about players in the past that used other substance enhancing drugs (amphetamines) or used pseudo-steroids that were legal at the time?
>guarantee the HOF to be sacred and something special
Like Pete Rose, the player who admitted to betting on baseball. Cap Anson, who enshrined segregation in baseball. Shoeless Joe Jackson?
Why in the world keep Cap Anson in? Sure, kick out someone who intentionally and maliciously illegally deprived a class of persons their inalienable rights, while worsening lives and the game for it. How many dozens would actually protest kicking out Cap Anson?
Rose and Jackson are already out- and it’s been a mixed bag as, after being caught their reputations were poor, but the HOF controversy does a bit to keep their reputations, sympathies and fame alive.
Letting the research, hindsight, and discussion play out through semi-democratic voting isn’t outrageous with regards to players who got caught committing a crime with controlled substance (steroids) to defraud people out of millions. And keeping Cap Anson in the HOF does nothing- it doesn’t tell a story, the worthy lessons from history about him would be more loudly told if he were excluded- being excluded generates publicity – but the right kind, in Anson’s case it would be negative- as much or more than being in.
Should those caught committing sexual assault get into the HOF?
I am firmly in the camp that voting for HoF induction is stupid. The HoF is a museum dedicated to the history of baseball. Any players who are vital to the story of baseball’s history should be in the hall, no matter their skills or numbers. If it is simply impossible to tell someone about baseball without mentioning a player, that player needs to be in.
Example: If you were talking about baseball in the 1990s, the story would be how the sport was in decline and that other more exciting sports, and labor disputes were killing the sport. Then in 1998 baseball had probably the most exciting personal rivalry between McGwire and Sosa and their race to beat Marris (and eventually 70 HR). This brought excitement back to baseball for the time as they became must watch TV, and introduced the break in to watch at bats for ESPN and other networks.
You simply cannot tell the story of baseball without describing those events. They need to be in.
It is nice to have players getting in, but that isn’t the point of the place. The place is a museum and should be treated as such. It isn’t a glitzy club that has exclusive membership that outside observers vote to be able to come in.
It’s not just a museum though, it’s also an award/honor.
Furthermore, all the PED superstars (Bonds, Clemens, Manny, Arod, Pettitte, McGuire & Ortiz) are likely to get in at some point. This whole fake controversy is simply a coordinated PR stunt which will make less sense in the next 5 years when very few decent candidates will become eligible. Why are so many throwing a tantrum over the HOF taking it’s time to decide on how to assess caught PED users?
No one is attempting to tell the story of baseball without the steroid users, it’s a question not just of history but also how to avoid encouraging criminal use of a controlled substance- it will take some time to do it right, and allowing a semi-democratic vote has its ups and downs but generally works for the HOF when given time.
noone wants the ped users in. vast vast majority do not want that. Me included, they have no place in the HOF. cheats.
There only 3 above average HOF candidates (positive JAWS-Jpos) in the
2019, 2020, 2021 & 2022 classes- Arod, Jeter & Rivera, so this issue will sort itself out by the current mechanisms.
Here are the top 35 rated HOF candidates (by JAWS, all players over 40 JAWS) who would be on the 2022 ballot if no one is elected between now and then. The 10 caught PED users are notated in parenthesis, and the 7 players with a positive JAWS-Jpos who were not caught on PEDs are in bold.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2022.shtml
RK……Name…………….JAWS-Jpos
1…….Barry Bonds………….+64.3…..(PED)
2…….Roger Clemens……….+41.2…..(PED)
3…….Alex Rodriguez……..+36.2…..(PED)
4…….CHIPPER JONES……..+10.6…..above average profile, no PED
5…….CURT SCHILLING……..+2.3…..above average profile, no PED
6…….MIKE MUSSINA……….+1.7…..above average profile, no PED
7…….Roy Halladay……….-4.5
8…….JIM THOME……………+2.6…..above average profile, no PED
9…….DEREK JETER………….+2.2…..above average profile, no PED
10……SCOTT ROLEN………….+1.6…..above average profile, no PED
11……Manny Ramirez………+1.3…..(PED)
12……Andruw Jones……….-3.3
13……Todd Helton………….-0.8
14……Sammy Sosa…………..-7.1…..(PED)
15……Bobby Abreu………….-6.4
16……Vladimir Guerrero….-7.9
17……Gary Sheffield…….-9.0…..(PED)
18……Tim Hudson…………-13.6
19……Johan Santana……..-4.0
20……Andy Pettitte…….-14.6…..(PED)
21……Mark Buehrle………-15.0
22……Jason Giambi……….-8.3…..(PED)
23……Jeff Kent…………..-11.5
24……Lance Berkman………-8.0
25……David Ortiz…………-9.4…..(PED)
26……Roy Oswalt…………-15.0
27……David Wright……….-10.2
28……Mark Teixeira………-9.7
29……Johnny Damon………..-13.6
30……MARIANO RIVERA……..+8.6…..above average profile, no PED
31……Cliff Lee……………-19.6
32……Carlos Zambrano……-20.3
33……Jamie Moyer…………-20.3
34……Miguel Tejada……..-14.1…..(PED)
35……Torii Hunter………..-17.3
So of all the candidates, only these 7 have a positive JAWS-Jpos, and were not caught on PEDS
4……CHIPPER JONES………+10.6
5……CURT SCHILLING………+2.3
6……MIKE MUSSINA………..+1.7
8……JIM THOME…………….+2.6
9……DEREK JETER………….+2.2
10…..SCOTT ROLEN………….+1.6
30…..MARIANO RIVERA………+8.6
All of these players will get elected- Mussina and Schilling will only have been made to wait ~5-8 years, while Rolen and Thome may also have to wait a similar handful of years. That’s how the HOF has always worked, and none of them are even +3.0 (JAWS-Jpos), so it’s not like those 4 have easy ‘first ballot’ all-time great status. Jeter and Rivera will sail in first ballot, and Chipper may come close. That’s 7 above average candidates who weren’t caught on PEDs for the next 5 elections- none of whom are at serious risk to not get in the HOF.
The only notable other guys are Edgar Martinez (+0.8, 58.6% in 2017) and Trevor Hoffman (-10.4, 74% in 2017), both who will likely get in, and Halladay who will cruise in despite a slightly below average profile. Fred McGriff (-10.5) would be the next name who might fall off- but has a profile well below average and is still is likely to get strong consideration in the Eras committee.
That’s a total of 10 guys from the list of 35, all likely to get in over the next handful of years- if 2.0 players were elected in the next 5 years, it could be all of these guys (and let’s face it, Hoffman’s profile is underwhelming by most measures).
Only 4 PED candidates have a positive JAWS-Jpos: Bonds, Clemens, Arod, and Manny. Even if someone thought that all of these 4 ‘need to get in asap, or else the HOF is bogus,’ that would only bring the total to 14 guys over the next 5 years. Throw in Vlad (with a below average profile) as he looks likely to get in, and it’s 15.
Hoffmann..likely in next 1-3 years
Martinez..likely in next 1-3 years
Vlad……..likely in next 1-3 years
Chipper…likely in next 1-3 years
Mussina…likely in next 2-5 years
Schilling.likely in next 2-5 years
Thome……likely in next 2-5 years
Jeter……first ballot
Rolan……likely in next 3-8 years
Rivera….first ballot
&
Bonds…..?
Clemens…?
Arod……..?
Manny…..?
That’s 3.0 guys a year- the actual average will likely be 2.5 or so. Would it really be a tragedy if one or two of these guys- say Manny and Vlad- had to wait until 2023 or 2024?
There is no risk at all that guys like Chipper, Mussina, Schilling, Thome, Jeter, Rolan, and Rivera will fail to be enshrined. The 2018 class is strong with 4 very notable candidates- future years are much leaner.
There are some other guys worth considering for sure- Andruw Jones, Todd Helton, Lance Berkman, Billy Wagner, but then the list quickly becomes Bobby Abreau, Tim Hudson, Johan Santana, and the like. Some of these guys will get in, especially in the Eras committee.
So I would pose this question, from a actuarial probability perspective, about the supposed ‘mess’ that voters have to deal with-
* What player with a positive JAWS-Jpos, who wasn’t caught on PEDs, is likely to fail to become a HOF on the normal ballot- and,
among those (if any), who is likely to fail to become a HOF in the Era’s committee.
tl;dr
comprehensive, data-informed analysis takes some characters.
only non ped users should be in period. rest are cheaters. it was illegal and they used them anyway.
Well it’s some of the guys who are already in the process of getting screwed — Larry Walker, for instance, because the PED guys who haven’t cleared the ballot have soaked up votes that could have gone to him.
Good catch on Walker.
I disagree however that there is another name worth mentioning- Walker is simply the one guy I left off from above, +0.5 JAWS-Jpos.
Apologies for that substantial oversight. The rest are the McGriffs and Johnny Damons, etc.
And for what its worth, (1) Walker will get in either by staying on the ballot and getting in within the next 7 years, or (2) by Era committee. Clearly the voters are taking their time figuring how to assess his career with the time in Colorado or assessing the value from his arm and basebath ability- he’ll get in, but agreed it’s surprising that he hasn’t. He should get in over Vlad anyway, but he will get in.
Once Whittaker, Grinch, Lofton and just a couple more get in, there will be very few above average profiles that didn’t test positive for PEDs that aren’t in the HOF.
Walker only has two more years after this one — the time eligible to be on the ballot has been shortened to 10 years.
Hey voters! Take a year to unclog the jam up top! Thanks!
What kills me is even with the glut of qualified candidates, a handful of voters still find meaning in giving a token vote to someone who is CLEARLY not qualified. Each of Wakefield, Varitek, Renteria and Magglio Ordonez got votes last year. Heck, the last 3 in that list got multiple votes. The year before it was Garret Anderson, David Eckstein, Jason Kendall and Mike Sweeney.
That is ridiculous.
The real problem, as I see it, is the glut of worthy candidates make it impossible for the borderline guys to get their due and have their careers examined. Edgar should already be in along with Walker, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, and Mussina. Then we can have an honest conversation about the guys who are borderline. Maybe McGriff, Santana, Jones fall just short but the stacked ballot makes it impossible to justify voting for them because they pretty clearly aren’t among the ten best players on the ballot. If the BBWAA were capable of recognizing an obvious Hall of Famer it would go a long way to improving the process.
It would also help if they would stop with the revisionist history and acknowledge that Vizquel was never a great player but merely average for a very long time which doesn’t qualify him for the Hall. The Ozzie Smith comparisons are just lazy. It’s hypocritical for an organization that holds the players they’re voting for to such a high standard while simultaneously failing to do their homework and defending such decisions by claiming they know a Hall of Famer when they see one.
Hilarious, thanks for the laughs! Vlad’s slash line, career averages and totals, sure are “borderline”. I guess if his name was Joe Smith he’d get more credit, or if he’d done PEDs.
There are now 319 Hall of Fame members. If one went to the Hall and spend just one minute apiece per member, it would take well over 5 hours. Personally, I think it’s time to raise the bar and maybe even start throwing some guys out, not trying to elect a dozen at a time. At the very least we need a “Hall of Fame of the Hall of Fame” to separate the truly special players from the run of the mill Hall of Famer.
That’s two persons inducted per 150 years of MLB history, which hardly seems ridiculous. If you’re upset because if takes more than five hours to learn about the sport’s Hall of Fame, get a new hobby.
The HOF is a museum. I’ve always believed that people who are motivated enough to visit, or to analyze the members, are very aware of the history and controversy surrounding the players. For example, Pete Rose, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. How many people are not aware of the issues surrounding them? I say vote by their careers. No asterisks, no “Cheaters Wing.” Personally, I can’t stand Schilling, but if his play makes him qualified, put him in. Otherwise, go back and purge the Hall of those statistically less-deserving players, those who agreed with a segregated game, the amphetamine users, a Commissioner who forced a team to change leagues because his team had caused the imbalance between the leagues, etc.
I’m a big-Hall proponent, because a baseball museum without the all-time hits leader, the all-time HR leader, etc., doesn’t fulfill its purpose. Trust the fan to know the back-story.
“The HOF is a museum” — No. The institution is named the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. That would be awfully redundant if both nouns meant the same thing.
So, it was obviously not meant to be solely or mainly a museum. Nor has it ever been viewed that way by most who care about it, including the voters. Now, that fact doesn’t settle the question of who deserves induction, but it should put to rest the arguments based on “the HOF is a museum.”
Voters don’t have a “mess” to deal with at all. For the most part, it’s pretty simple.
Yes – C.Jones, Thome, Mussina, Schilling, V.Guerrero
Maybe (warrants substantial research and debate) L.Walker, S.Rolen, McGriff, E.Martinez, A.Jones, Hoffman.
No – Vizquel, B.Wagner, J.Santana, Kent, Damon.
Hell No (obvious PED users) – Sosa, Sheffield, Ramirez, Clemens, Bonds.
At most, there are 11 legit candidates for 10 spots. I made this list in about two minutes.
Except: If Wagner is a no, why is Hoffman a maybe? Why is Santana a no? Santana had a bigger impact on winning games than Hoffman even by traditional stuff.
Many don’t disqualify PED users. That’s their prerogative. I happen to agree with them.
On this ballot you have, without attaching names:
– 700 HR LF
– 350 W SP
– 450 HR/2700 H/MVP 3B
– 600 HR/.400 OBP/.950 OPS 1B
– ~450 HR/MVP/~2600 H RF
– 383 HR/MVP/141 OPS+ RF
– 500 HR, 9-time AS RF
– 600 HR, 3-time 60 HR RF
– 600 SV Closer
– 422 SV Closer
– All-time 2B HR leader
– 493-HR 1B w/ HR titles
– 10-time GG CF
– 8-time GG, 7-time AS 3B w/ 300 HR
– 11-time GG SS
– .997 OPS LF
– Best DH ever
– 270-win SP
– 216-win, 3000-K SP w/ 2.23 playoff ERA
– 2-time CY SP
Whether you want to quibble with some of these – and I did not mention WAR here for a reason – there are legitimate reasons to vote for any of these guys, especially if you do not care about PEDs.
Trevor Hoffman had 67.3% of the vote in 2016, not 70%+
I actually think you can toss out some of the voting trends you mention here, Craig, due to the “purge” of inactive writers. Decreasing the denominator that significantly – and continuing to decrease the denominator – means it’s easier for changed minds & new, saber-inclined voters to make an impact. Last year the 15 new voters that went public included a whopping 146 names on their ballot, 13 with 10, 2 with 8 (and one was anti-PED, all saber).
For evidence of this, let’s look at some trends in recent years since the 2016 purge.
Mike Piazza: 69.9 -> 83.0
Jeff Bagwell: 55.7 -> 71.6 -> 86.2
Tim Raines: 55.0 -> 69.8 -> 86.0
Roger Clemens: 37.5 -> 45.2 -> 54.1
Barry Bonds: 36.8 -> 44.3 -> 53.8
Edgar Martinez: 27.1 -> 43.4 -> 58.6
Alan Trammell: 25.7 -> 40.9
Mike Mussina: 24.6 -> 43.0 -> 51.8
That’s a LOT of major jumps from all over the map, with the smallest year over year jump of the group belonging to Bonds’ +7.5% from 2015 to 2016.
Edgar, entering the 2018 cycle, is polling ahead of where Raines was and has a similar push from voters like Raines did, though not a centralized effort from someone like a Jonah Keri (Raines) or a Rich Lederer (Blyleven).
We gotta count the FEAR factor! Its a better measure than all the advanced metrics. That’s how Jim Rice got in.