The Envelope Please: Our 2022 Hall of Fame Crowdsource Ballot Results and a Preview of Election Day
The finish line of one of the longest Hall of Fame election cycles in memory is in sight. On Tuesday, the results of this year’s BBWAA balloting will be announced by new Hall president Josh Rawich at 6 pm ET on MLB Network. With so many polarizing and at times off-putting candidates — by my count, eight have been credibly linked to performance-enhancing drugs and six to incidents of domestic violence — it’s been another particularly contentious cycle; beyond the usual back-and-forth between voters and bystanders on social media, we’ve even seen a top candidate fire back at a voter over a snub. It remains entirely possible that for the second year in a row, the writers won’t elect a single candidate, something that hasn’t happened since 1958 and ’60, a point at which the BBWAA was voting on a biennial basis.
If it were up to FanGraphs readers, however, three candidates would be headed to Cooperstown this summer, based on the results of our fourth annual Hall of Fame crowdsource ballot. As has been the case since the 2019 ballot, registered FanGraphs users were invited to select as many as 10 candidates from this year’s slate, just as actual voters do, using the same December 31 deadline. A total of 1,018 users participated, which is down 11.6% from last year, a drop that probably owes something to a couple of lapses on my part. First, I forgot to send out a last call for votes, having last tweeted about the crowdsource ballot on December 23, and second, I plumb forgot to submit my own ballot into the system after filling out my paper one and dropping it in the mail on December 30. Though I called up the page and checked the boxes at some point that week, I was hazy on whether I’d actually completed the task until noticing that none of the individual returns matched my particular 10. None of those 1,018 ballots has Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Joe Nathan but not Alex Rodriguez or Manny Ramirez, just as none of the 178 ballots in the Ballot Tracker as of 12:01 AM ET on January 24 does. Oops.
The three candidates chosen by our readers are the same trio as last year. In number, that’s down from four in 2020 and a honking seven in ’19. Ta-da:
| Player | YoB | 2022 Crowdsource | 2021 Crowdsource | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scott Rolen | 5 | 84.8% | 84.5% | 0.3% |
| Barry Bonds | 10 | 82.9% | 83.0% | -0.1% |
| Roger Clemens | 10 | 79.8% | 82.0% | -2.3% |
| David Ortiz | 1 | 71.9% | — | — |
| Alex Rodriguez | 1 | 67.7% | — | — |
| Todd Helton | 4 | 66.1% | 63.6% | 2.5% |
| Andruw Jones | 5 | 61.7% | 67.9% | -6.2% |
| Gary Sheffield | 8 | 53.5% | 59.0% | -5.5% |
| Billy Wagner | 7 | 53.4% | 53.6% | -0.1% |
| Manny Ramirez | 6 | 52.8% | 53.5% | -0.6% |
| Curt Schilling | 10 | 40.9% | 54.9% | -14.1% |
| Sammy Sosa | 10 | 36.3% | 40.0% | -3.7% |
| Bobby Abreu | 3 | 25.6% | 29.9% | -4.2% |
| Jeff Kent | 9 | 22.3% | 24.7% | -2.4% |
| Andy Pettitte | 4 | 16.0% | 26.5% | -10.5% |
| Mark Buehrle | 2 | 9.1% | 13.5% | -4.3% |
| Joe Nathan | 1 | 8.5% | — | — |
| Jimmy Rollins | 1 | 5.5% | — | — |
| Tim Lincecum | 1 | 5.3% | — | — |
| Tim Hudson | 2 | 4.4% | 6.3% | -1.9% |
| Omar Vizquel | 5 | 4.0% | 13.7% | -9.7% |
| Torii Hunter | 2 | 2.1% | 4.5% | -2.5% |
| Jonathan Papelbon | 1 | 1.5% | — | — |
| Mark Teixeira | 1 | 1.3% | — | — |
| Prince Fielder | 1 | 1.1% | — | — |
| Ryan Howard | 1 | 1.1% | — | — |
| Justin Morneau | 1 | 0.7% | — | — |
| Jake Peavy | 1 | 0.7% | — | — |
| Carl Crawford | 1 | 0.3% | — | — |
| A.J. Pierzynski | 1 | 0.3% | — | — |
Leading the way for the second year in a row was Rolen, an elite defender at the hot corner as well as a very good hitter for the position, and as a candidate controversial only for the fact that injuries cut into his career totals. Bonds and Clemens, both of whom have been linked to the use of PEDs dating back to the time before Major League Baseball and the players’ union introduced testing and penalties, were “elected” by our readers as well despite those allegation and their other negatives, as they’ve been every year since I began this exercise. The top trio’s shares of the vote showed impressive consistency from year to year; indeed, the levels of support for Bonds and Clemens have been nearly unchanged since 2020, when the pair polled 82.1% and 80.9%, respectively. Rolen has grown in support from 61.1% in 2019 — when he got just 17.2% on the ballot — to 73.6% and then 84.5% in the past two years.
This year’s voters were more generous than last, averaging 8.62 names per ballot compared to last year’s 7.65, and giving at least one vote to all 30 candidates (per the Tracker, Crawford, Fielder, and Peavy have yet to get on the board). Even so, not enough of them included Ortiz — the top polling candidate in the Tracker, and the only one with any real shot at election — to push him past the 75% threshold. That probably has more to do with his spending most of his career as a designated hitter rather than his reportedly failing the supposedly anonymous 2003 survey test. As illustrated by the crowdshare percentages for Bonds, Clemens, Rodriguez, and others, our voters have been more accepting (or forgiving) of such candidates, outpolling even the voters in the Tracker, who themselves tend to include those candidates with greater frequency than the BBWAA electorate as a group.
| Player | YoB | 2022 Crowdsource | Tracker | Dif |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex Rodriguez | 1 | 67.7% | 40.4% | 27.3% |
| Manny Ramirez | 6 | 52.8% | 37.6% | 15.2% |
| Scott Rolen | 5 | 84.8% | 70.2% | 14.6% |
| Bobby Abreu | 3 | 25.6% | 11.2% | 14.4% |
| Andruw Jones | 5 | 61.7% | 48.9% | 12.8% |
| Sammy Sosa | 10 | 36.3% | 25.3% | 11.0% |
| Todd Helton | 4 | 66.1% | 57.9% | 8.2% |
| Gary Sheffield | 8 | 53.5% | 46.6% | 6.9% |
| Joe Nathan | 1 | 8.5% | 2.2% | 6.3% |
| Barry Bonds | 10 | 82.9% | 77.5% | 5.4% |
| Andy Pettitte | 4 | 16.0% | 10.7% | 5.3% |
| Billy Wagner | 7 | 53.4% | 48.9% | 4.5% |
| Mark Buehrle | 2 | 9.1% | 5.1% | 4.0% |
| Roger Clemens | 10 | 79.8% | 76.4% | 3.4% |
| Tim Lincecum | 1 | 5.3% | 3.4% | 1.9% |
| Tim Hudson | 2 | 4.4% | 2.8% | 1.6% |
| Prince Fielder | 1 | 1.1% | 0.0% | 1.1% |
| Jonathan Papelbon | 1 | 1.5% | 0.6% | 0.9% |
| Jake Peavy | 1 | 0.7% | 0.0% | 0.7% |
| Mark Teixeira | 1 | 1.3% | 0.6% | 0.7% |
| Torii Hunter | 2 | 2.1% | 1.7% | 0.4% |
| Carl Crawford | 1 | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.3% |
| Justin Morneau | 1 | 0.7% | 0.6% | 0.1% |
| A.J. Pierzynski | 1 | 0.3% | 0.6% | -0.3% |
| Ryan Howard | 1 | 1.1% | 1.7% | -0.6% |
| Jimmy Rollins | 1 | 5.5% | 11.2% | -5.7% |
| Omar Vizquel | 5 | 4.0% | 11.2% | -7.2% |
| Jeff Kent | 9 | 22.3% | 31.5% | -9.2% |
| David Ortiz | 1 | 71.9% | 83.7% | -11.8% |
| Curt Schilling | 10 | 40.9% | 60.7% | -19.8% |
The seven PED-linked candidates besides Ortiz polled an average of 10.7% higher via our crowd than they’ve done in the Tracker; including him, the average drops to 7.9%. Big Papi is one of five candidates who underperformed by more than five percentage points relative to the pre-election Tracker results. Four of those five players (all but Schilling) are significantly below the JAWS standards at their positions but have credentials that appeal more to traditionally-minded voters; they’ve all got Hall of Fame Monitor scores of at least 120, not quite “a virtual cinch” (130 points) but nearly so.
But that’s not what’s torpedoing Vizquel’s candidacy. Instead, allegations that he physically abused his wife and that he sexually harassed a batboy while managing the White Sox’s Double-A affiliate have resulted in an exodus of voters; if it were up to the FanGraphs electorate, which has never really supported his candidacy to begin with — his high was 13.7% last year, whereas he reached 52.6% on the actual 2020 ballot, and slipped only to 49.1% last year — he wouldn’t even make it onto next year’s ballot.
And then there’s Schilling, whose support here has generally lagged relative to his share on the actual ballot. He maxed out at 67.0% on the 2020 crowdsource ballot but slipped to 54.9% last year after spreading election and COVID-19-related conspiracy theories on social media. After calling for martial law, voicing support for the January 6 Capitol rioters, and then requesting that the Hall of Fame take him off this year’s ballot so he could avoid accountability for his toxic emanations, he’s down near 40% here, with the 11th-highest share from our crowd. Actual ballot-wise, after final results of 70.0% and 71.1% in 2020 and ’21, he’s polling about 14 points below where he was prior to the unveiling of last year’s results. He’s not getting in via the writers.
Given that Bonds, Clemens, and Rolen have seen about a 7% to 12% dropoff from their pre-election Tracker numbers to their final ones over the past three cycles, it’s clear that it’s Ortiz or bust when it comes to any candidate getting elected by the writers this year. Jason Sardell, whose probabilistic model has been the most accurate among the projectionists for three years running, estimated as of Thursday (when there were 173 ballots in the tracker) that Ortiz had a 99% chance of election:
Only 5 more days until we know the official results, but here are my updated Baseball Hall of Fame projections if you can't wait until then. Through 173 ballots in @NotMrTibbs's Tracker. pic.twitter.com/r7XrTcPMaS
— Jason Sardell (@sarsdell) January 21, 2022
At the same time, Sardell has pointed out at numerous turns that he feels as though his model — which characterizes voters based upon whether or not they’re “Large Hall” voters (i.e., using all 10 spots on their ballots), and Bonds/Clemens or anti-PED voters — may be overestimating his chances. Excerpts from his January 11 thread:
1st-time candidates are harder to predict, and my model has often overestimated support amongst the top players… One explanation is that private voters apply higher standards to “first-ballot” HoFers than public voters. And while my model adjusts for decreased acceptance of PED use among private voters, it’s difficult to quantify how many will penalize Ortiz for being a DH… Another potential source of error is that Boston-based voters are currently over-represented in the Tracker. We’ve seen the ballots of ~60% of likely Boston voters, but only ~40% of all ballots. And, except for Dan Shaughnessy, they’ve overwhelmingly supported Ortiz.
The Tracker’s Ryan Thibodaux has been comparing Ortiz’s performance on published ballots to those of two close calls, Ivan Rodriguez in 2017 (elected with 76.0%) and Jeff Bagwell in 2016 (short at 71.6%, elected the following year). Thibodaux hasn’t published an update in over a week, but Ortiz was ahead of both through 170 ballots:
Here's how David Ortiz is tracking through 170 ballots compared to Pudge Rodriguez in 2017 (when he was elected with 76.0%) and Jeff Bagwell in 2016 (who came close at 71.6%): pic.twitter.com/KpgLZX6Thm
— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) January 16, 2022
As for the other top-tier candidates, we’ll see how well Rolen sets himself up for possible election next year, whether Helton, Wagner, and perhaps even Jones and Sheffield can push past that all-important 50% threshold. Will Rodriguez surpass the 36.2% that Bonds received in his first year (and 37.6% for Clemens) to offer hope of a more, um, positive outcome by the time his eligibility lapses? Stay tuned.
One way or another, this election cycle will all be over soon, and if you’re weary from the debates over the controversial candidates, and the blowback on social media, I can’t say I blame you. Elsewhere on this site, we’ve published the transcript of my FanGraphs Audio podcast spot with ESPN senior writer Buster Olney, who earlier this month wrote an article about whether this two-month period of prolonged discussion and the daily drip of ballot reveals is good for the Hall of Fame and the electoral process, and whether it sacrifices the suspense. I took issue with a couple of Olney’s points via Twitter, and after a friendly exchange, invited him to continue the conversation on a podcast.
You can listen to and/or read the whole thing, but I’ll cut to the chase here. From 2002-16, the election results were generally revealed in the first week or two of January, with January 12 (2009) and January 10 (2006) the only times the date reached double digits. Since then, however, the announcements have ranged from January 18 (2017) to January 26 (2021), meaning that an extra two weeks or so of waiting has suddenly become part of the deal, that at a time when the baseball calendar is pretty dead. That extra time isn’t a logistical necessity; if you’re wondering about the actual counting of votes, it all takes place at Ernst & Young on the day of the announcement. But interestingly enough, the slack in the schedule has coincided with the 10th-year elections of Tim Raines (2017), Edgar Martinez (2019), and Larry Walker (2020). Because of the limited information that pre-election Tracker results provides — an exit poll consisting of 55-59% percent of the total ballots, but with significant variations in the patterns of gaining or losing ground from candidate to candidate — there’s been no shortage of suspense, not just with those three candidacies but with regards to the unanimous voting for Mariano Rivera (which held up) and Derek Jeter (which did not), and the gains further down the ballot, all the way to the 5.0% cutoff for retaining eligibility.
It seems rather apparent that the Hall likes this extra delay of its own making, and that it has come to like or at least tolerate the Tracker. While the Hall pushed back after the writers voted to make every ballot public starting with the 2018 election cycle, it has done nothing to crack down on the pre-results publishing of ballots, because any publicity is good publicity. As for the BBWAA, the voters have amply illustrated that they’re in favor of greater transparency and accountability. That makes for a healthier process, even if it might be an unruly one.
This year, at a time when the baseball landscape is even deader than usual due to the lockout, the election has taken up a greater share of attention. While normally that would be a good thing, so many of this particular set of candidates angry up the blood for one reason or another. The PED issue is now guaranteed to be front and center even after Bonds and Clemens age off of the ballot, because Rodriguez won’t get in anytime soon and will be eligible for nine more years (gulp). The Hall already tried to limit these candidates’ exposure by unilaterally truncating the eligibility window from 15 years to 10, and while we could have expected at least a year’s respite between Bonds and Clemens falling off the BBWAA ballot and landing on the Today’s Game Era Committee one, the postponement of last year’s Era Committee proceedings due to the coronavirus pandemic means that they’ll be eligible next year, which could crowd the likes of Fred McGriff, Kenny Lofton, Bruce Bochy, and anyone else you’ve hoped might gain entry via the small-committee route.
Still, what I think the din of the debates shows — just as much this year as any other — is that people do care about the Hall, very deeply, in spite of swearing up and down on social media that they don’t because of this player’s exclusion and that player’s inclusion. Yes, it may be that the Hall will sacrifice a bit of relevance without the inclusions of Bonds, the all-time home run leader and a contender for the best all-around player in the game’s history, and Clemens, the best pitcher since World War II; the Hall has already sacrificed some relevance by barring the all-time hits leader, Pete Rose, as well. That’s not to say that the two situations are parallel; they are most definitely not. Rose broke the rule whose consequences regarding lifetime banishment had been clear for over half a century, and so he’s no longer in good standing within MLB, whereas Bonds and Clemens were messing in an area where the league had no means of enforcement; both remain in good standing, employable and electable if enough voters could agree. The Hall has survived without Rose, and it will survive without Bonds and Clemens for as long as that plays out.
The space on the walls of the plaque gallery at 25 Main St. in Cooperstown remains worth fighting for, and while the electoral process could certainly use some tweaks here and there, the extra attention of this election cycle amply illustrates that the Hall still matters.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
Sardell is expecting Tim Hudson to be a very likely casualty of the ballot this year. I don’t know that he’s a HOF’er, but I would like to see him hang around for more than a couple of years so that the electorate can have a fuller consideration of and discussion about his candidacy once some of the noise surrounding Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling dies down. No way he could ever get from 5% up to 75% but I feel like he deserves to be on the ballot nonetheless.
Hudson (and Buehrle) were both on last year’s ballot and squeaked through. Hudson and another first-year candidate, Torii Hunter, were below 5% from the pre-announcement votes in the Tracker but got enough votes from the private voters to stick around. I don’t think either is going to make it through to year 3.
Most importantly, Timmy Lincecum would survive another year if we were doing the voting. I suspect this has a lot to do with Jay’s wonderfully written article last week.
I don’t really want Mark Buehrle to get in the Hall of Fame, but it’ll be sad if/when he falls off the ballot because he’s a lot of fun to talk about. Everything about him is interesting.
I actually do want him in the Hall. I know he’s shy on WAR/JAWS compared to the average, but so are roughly 70% of the pitchers already enshrined. I feel like his other accomplishments, most especially the 200 IP streak, justify his induction. I realize MLB history is filled with “everyone who did *thing* is in the Hall except for this one guy”, but he’d be the only guy with that many 200 IP seasons outside the Hall.
In the Fangraphs virtual ballot, I think I’m most surprised by the number of votes for A-Rod. Voting for A-Rod is more or less an admission that you don’t care about PEDs at all. Which is definitely a position I know lots of people hold, I’m just surprised it’s 2/3rds of the people who cast virtual ballots.
He was good enough without steroids.
Are you referring to when he was 16, or when he was 39?
…which is irrelevant when he chose to take them anyway. We also don’t know exactly how much of his career was tainted by PEDs.
Looking at the overall results, I don’t think too many of the Fangraphs voters are troubled by PEDs in general.
I’m surprised that 1/3 wouldn’t vote for him. The Jaffe rule (punish those who violate rules after the rules are in place) is logical, but in a statistically-minded community like Fangraphs readers, doesn’t the fact that he was SO GOOD matter most? Surely a significant number of other players were taking steroids even after the testing began (ahem, Robbie Cano)–how many of them are as good as A-Rod was?
This is why Bonds & Clemens not getting in (until the veterans committee or something) is so aggravating. They both used and it clearly improved their games, but not only were both SO GOOD, it wasn’t against baseball rules at the time.
The Hall vote is corrupt and/or brainless.
>doesn’t the fact that he was SO GOOD matter most?
Does it?
If PED could get Bonds, who previously peaked at OPS 1.136 as a 28 year old
could get him to hit OPS 1.422 as a 39 year old,
I’m not sure what kind of numbers to expect from a clean version of a PED-assisted OPS 1.000 hitter.
At least for me, I don’t know whether it’s “don’t care” so much as “don’t have any way to gauge the effects of PEDs on performance.” I mean, in a vacuum, maybe, but when pitchers and hitters are both taking them, when we know the ball’s composition changed at the same time, when we know players were taking other PEDs (including amphetamines) for decades, including during the steroid era … I for one can’t say, “Clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, A-Rod doesn’t belong in the Hall because he used steroids.” Of course, if you want to make a moral case – fail a test, don’t get in – that’s different, but again for me, we have HOFers who were ejected from games for throwing illegal pitches, corking bats, etc. Is this form of cheating worse than those? I’m not in a position to say, given the above numerous unanswered questions, and certainly not in a good enough position (were I an actual voter and not just some random guy on the internet) to deny someone a HOF spot over it.
I don’t vote for people who I think would not have had the numbers without steroids. If you think it is unfair that I’d vote Arod in but not Sosa or Manny, I don’t really care. Am I making a guess in this? Yes. But what’s wrong with that? How is that worse than just including everyone regardless or excluding everyone regardless? I don’t think players are completely to blame but I also don’t want players to literally cheat their way in. I don’t think Arod did. I think he, Bonds, and Clemens were good enough anyway.
Pretty much exactly my thoughts. Sosa’s case is entirely predicated on having hit a ton of HRs, which I don’t think he would have hit without PEDs. If you discount those then he doesn’t have a Hall case anymore. ARod on the other hand was good at so many things, and put up so many numbers, that even if you give him a massive discount he’s still HOF worthy. You could cut him in half and he would still have a decent Hall case.
I agree, though I’d say Manny’s bat was special without the PEDs.
Very surprised that so many Fangraphs readers are small-hall!
I don’t think it’s that readers are small-hall, just not quite a consensus on what the big hall should look like. Ten candidates over 50% and 8.6 average votes per ballot are both a lot. I think that’s just the 75% threshold working as intended.
Besides, if you’re an ardent follower of the character clause, it’s very hard to justify 10 votes among this group even with a Big Hall mindset. Just casting 6 or 7 votes qualifies as a Big Hall ballot in that case.
Where do I start the petition to scrap the BBWAA ballot and just let FG readers vote? Not that I agree with all the votes, but I don’t think there has been a year yet that I wouldn’t have preferred the crowdsourced inductees over the actual ones.
(No offense intended to Jay or anybody else who is justifiably proud to have earned their ballot and takes the responsibility seriously.)
How about we just fire anyone who voted for Vizquel this year? I was already on the verge of suggesting that last year, but now I’m pretty convinced anyone who is voting for him is not paying attention.
“F-U, stat geeks” is a hell of a drug.
Except the stat geeks were the ones really propping up Vizquel’s candidacy up to this point. Traditional voters didn’t like him because he was a terrible hitter if I recall correctly.
It’s the literal opposite, but all good.
It’s got to be hard to be part of the “Boston” contingent and not vote for Ortiz, and it looks like he’s going to make it, unless the private voters are far more negative on him. There are any number of ways you can slice the PEDS apple…it’s interesting that “tainted” Bonds and Clemens poll higher than “exonerated by Manfred” Ortiz does. And also interesting how poorly A-Rod fares, telling us it’s not “how can you keep him out with that level of performance?”
I think a fair number of people discount Ortiz’s number because of the DH penalty on WAR.
I’m one of them. I’m not saying that a DH should never been in the Hall, because the DH is part of the game. But I think you have to be a generational talent to make the Hall as a DH. Edgar Martinez was a generational talent. David Ortiz was very good.
One could argue Ortiz was generational when it mattered most (in the playoffs), in addition to being very good in the regular season. Edgar’s postseason wRC+ is 26 points lower than his regular-season wRC+. Not that we should be judging anyone based on when their teams went to the playoffs, but it’s worth consideration.
Also worth noting that his career BA with men on base is 40 points higher than without (152 to 138 wRC+), while Edgar performed similarly regardless of situation there.
EDIT: Realizing that Ortiz’s postseason wRC+ is only four points higher than his regular-season mark, so I’d have to take a look at Edgar’s specific postseason heroics.
Edgar has less than half the postseason PAs (148) that Ortiz has (369), Neither approaches the 500+ you need to feel confident you’re seeing true talent, but Edgar’s sample is so much smaller you can’t be sure it’s telling you anything. And one of those PAs is The Double. Ortiz may have his own postseason heroics, but none of them are a signature hit that kept the Red Sox from leaving Boston.
Ortiz’s career wRC+ was 140, in a virtual tie for 60th in league history, when you set the PA threshold down to 3000.
I would define that as generational talent.
Has any pro-Ortiz+anti-Sosa voter (there are clearly tons of them) tried to explain themselves, given that the evidence of juicing is identical for both players and Ortiz had the inferior career by any objective measure?
While no smoking gun, there has been additional evidence against Sosa beyond the 2003 survey test.
Meanwhile, Ortiz had a better career in all 3 slash lines, wOBA and wRC+, and also had better plate discipline (while the WAR penalty for DHs is an unfair joke, anyway). While that’s not the full story, they certainly count as several objective measures where Ortiz had a better career.
Ortiz was a better hitter, but Sosa’s peak was higher and broader, and he played the field. And the DH penalty is analytically derived, like the rest of WAR. And actually quite intuitive. This is basic, Bill-James-wrote-about-it-in-the-1980s kind of stuff, nothing we should be actually having to rehash in 2021.
The most charitable possible analysis as to Ortiz is that he and Sosa were peers in terms of production, yet he is going to sail in on his first ballot in the year that Sosa falls off entirely.
What is the additional PED evidence against Sosa? I saw nothing in Jaffe’s old posts other than he was called before Congress where he denied the allegations.
“And the DH penalty is analytically derived, like the rest of WAR”
Actually that’s not true. The other positional adjustments are derived by looking at how teams trade off offense and defense at the various positions. But you obviously can’t do that for the DH. In fact, Tom Tango admitted that he just made a number that made sense to him for the DH adjustment.
The DH penalty is set such that it is equal to the worst-fielding 1B. That is an analytical and intuitive representation of reality. Tango didn’t just pull a number out of his ass like you’re implying.
Postseason heroics are carrying a lot of, lot of weight here.
Too, I think Sosa is tainted by association to some extent in the Bonds-McGwire-Sosa chases of the late 90s. I think when those HR chases rewrote the record books most folks lump all three in as users in hindsight.
Just blurting out “they’re all the same” is extremely simplistic. There are numerous differences between the two, both related to steroids and not.
I think your explanation comes closest to the truth Jason. Sosa is tainted by association with McGwire and being one of the iconic players of the era in general. People assume that OF COURSE he juiced, he hit 600 homers right in the heart of the steroid era. It’s just become canon. But in terms of actual evidence, the case against him is functionally identical to Ortiz.
I’m a Yankees fan.
Sosa was a AAAA guy before his hat size doubled.
Ortiz was the same size throughout his career…and put up a higher wOBA in 2016, when there was blood testing for HGH, than he did in 2003, when he tested positive in a year where OTC supplements didn’t care about residual steroids.
I’m one of those.
#1 reason I vote for David and NOT Sammy is Sammy is a tick below David in the stats, where Regular Season David is kind of on the fence.
#2. I know Sammy didn’t have a chance to shine in the Post Season, but David surely did.
#3. The corked bat
#4. Post career also hurts Sammy (whitening of skin, no real presence) vs David “man of the people”.
The above list isn’t weighted the same but there is enough of a separation that I feel comfortable with my choice.
All that said, If Sammy gets in, ok. 50 WAR for non catchers/relievers is fine, I’d prefer 60+, but I’m big enough to allow them, even if most below 60 don’t get a yes on a yes/no ballot.
I have a full ballot and prefer Abreu, Helton, Jones, Wagner and Pettitte over Sammy, Manny, Gary and Jeff (and I will vote for A-Rod 2nd ballot onwards)
Sheffield was a better hitter than Helton.
He also had a -11 UZR/150 and a -8 DRS/150 in the RF from 33-38 vs his -15 TZ/150 from 25-32, indicating that fWAR underrates his OF defense by at least 3-5 wins.
I can only guess that your user name is short for the 14-way tie for your favorite player, namely
Brett Butler/Royce Clayton/Alex Rodriguez/Alejandro Pena/Andy Benes/Pete Rose/Chris Sale/Juan Marichal/Ben Davis/Lou Whitaker/Mike Trombley/Zack Greinke/Roberto Petagine/Joey Votto ?
Funny how a bunch of fully engaged fans can do a far better job than a bunch of grandstanding self-righteous fools. The news this week of the writer who didn’t even know Jeter was already in the hall encapsulates my opinions on the standards & quality of the currenty voters. Needs to change.
I disagree, as they’re overall giving too much credit to the PED guys while leaving out the deserving Ortiz. Yeah, they’re putting in Rolen, but he should get in next year, anyway. Meanwhile, Abreu over Kent, seriously?!
They’re very different players, but Abreu played longer, had more value during his peak years, and also stole 400 bases (in addition to accumulating more WAR). I get the counting stat love for Kent, but it’s not hard to make the case for Abreu as the superior player
Also the superior teammate.
This seems mostly about how the voters wish to be perceived than the contribution to the game
I think it’s hilarious (not really, but sort of) that the only player Shaughnessy voted for was Jeff Kent, which probably has ~80% to do with Kent’s public hatred of Barry Bonds, and ~20% to do with Jeff Kent the actual player.
Ortiz rightly calling him out should earn him an extra percentage point or two in the balloting.
The Hall of Fame is about playing the game not player‘s personalities or their opinions. Steroids and betting is cheating, but opinions are just that. There‘s no excuse for punishing Schilling for exercising his freedom of speech. Honestly it’s pretty disgusting. The only “toxicity” I see is hatred towards Schilling.
Free speech isn’t the only democratic value. There’s also suffrage. In this case, I would use that to not vote for Schilling because while I am not limiting his free speech, I find him repugnant.
I would have fully agreed with you that Schilling should be voted in until this year, where he asked people not to vote for him. If he doesn’t want to be elected, I don’t see why they should give it to him
Exactly. Schilling asked not to be considered. I’d give him his wish.
But the voters are given the right to vote–to choose, on their own, weighting whatever criteria they wish to apply. They don’t need to be automatons, otherwise all selections could be done by an algorithm. If we really want some “objective” ranking such as WAR to decide, then some prominent players aren’t getting in, including David Ortiz.
While I wish the character clause was never part of the requirements, especially with how it was never enforced before PEDs became an issue, it does exist and applies equally to toxic personalities as it does to cheaters.
Nobody’s taking away his freedom to speech; people are simply exerting their own in response. Welcome to the free world, baby.
Disgusting? OK, snowflake.
This is your daily reminder that “free speech” does not equal “no repercussions for your speech”.
Get back to us when you figure out what “freedom of speech” is.
Shaughnessy really is an awful person. I don’t think not voting for Ortiz makes him a jerk at all. But the man basically just writes to stir things up. What he writes doesn’t necessarily represent what he believes (he told this to a friend of mine who saw him in public once). I grew up reading him and realized in my early 20s that he was so negative that I was always in a worse mood after reading him. Stopped reading him then and never regretted it.
I wouldn’t vote for Ortiz myself, but I’d rather be wrong than side with Shaughnessy
Sorry I’ll strongly disagree with you. Shaughnessy has been clear from the beginning that he will not vote for anyone associated with PEDs. You are free to disagree with his stance but he is 100% consistent in his position.
The awful person is Ortiz himself who called Shaughnessy an a-hole for not voting for him. Seriously? Lighten up dude. Of course, this is classic Ortiz. Remember him calling out the official scorer for not giving him a base hit? But I will give credit to Ortiz for keeping his word. He actually threatened to call out voters who did put him on their ballots. Pretty sure that’s a first…
If calling Dan Shaughnessy an a-hole makes you an awful person then pretty much anyone who has read the Boston Globe sports section in the last 30 years is an a-hole.
Please note that I didn’t say that calling Dan Shaughnessy an a-hole makes you an awful person. What I said is that calling Dan Shaughnessy (or really anyone) an a-hole for failing to vote for you makes you an awful person.
TIL I learned calling someone a name “makes you an awful person”.
Also, Shaughnessy *is* an a-hole. This is demonstrated fact.
Yeah, Dan Shaughnessy being a beacon of goodness (or common sense, or reason) is not a hill I would die on, nor did I think anyone outside of his immediate family would.
(And probably not them either, they have known him longer.)
Sigh. Please show me where I called Dan Shaughnessy a beacon of goodness or common sense or reason? I simply pointed out that he is consistent in how he votes for the HOF. That’s all.
I mean honestly, what’s with these need to put words in other peoples’ mouths and claim that they said something that they clearly didn’t???
You’re right. Block quotes only from now on, no need to get in a huff.
(Also, the very clear implication of “the awful person is Ortiz himself” is that Shaughnessy is not. Again, not a hill to die on from the evidence I have seen over the past 30 years, but you do you.)
Saw him once on the street as well, and on TV. He is a toxic merc and nothing more.
I think there’s a big difference between best players and election the Hall of Fame because the Hall has that character clause in its eligibility criteria. To ignore it is wrong in my mind. If it’s not going to be applied, then eliminate it.
But, as it is there, I would hope Bonds, Clemens and other people who clearly cheated are not elected. The same would apply, if the clause remains, to the Houston Astros who cheated and Alex Cora as well.
I’m not arguing that (a) several people of poor character are already in the Hall or (b) the clause should be kept in. All I’m saying is, that if it is one of the selection criteria, then it needs to be applied when voters make a decision.
Otherwise, why have it ?
And what if other people’s interpretation of it differs from yours? Is that OK? Voters can ignore whatever they want, unless you’re suggesting we interrogate them under truth serum or something.
I wouldn’t vote for Bonds, but it won’t upset me if he is elected. Clemons is another matter. On top of the PEDs, he has a huge additional strike against him — the Mindy McCready fiasco/tragedy. Under no circumstances should he be in. If he’s elected, Vizquel might as be elected too.
Clemens is the best pitcher since WWII? Koufax, Gibson, Ryan, and Atlanta’s Big 3 at the very least were arguably just as good if not better.
I don’t think anyone else has the total package of dominance, longevity, and having done it during probably the hardest era to pitch.
It’s kind of like the “Is Jordan the best all time” argument. Yeah, you can throw some names out there and not get laughed out of the building, maybe even make a decent case, but deep down everyone kind of knows it’s really Jordan in the end
Just a heads up: You misspelled “Chamberlain.”
The problem with Clemens is how much do you discount his post-Boston success (which is the most likely time he started using steroids)? That’s about 40% of his career value.
The #’s may say he’s the best, but, there IS a significant question in how he earned them & whether he still would have if he was clean.
Of course, the thing with Clemens is that taking out his post-Boston success still leaves him as one of the most dominant pitchers of all time, with 77 RA9-WAR over his 11 full seasons.
That’s not what the numbers say.
I’m really not on board with giving anyone with a ton of PEDs stuff as any sort of “best” designation, so I agree with you in the big picture even I don’t think that’s a particularly strong argument. But beyond that, there’s a pretty strong case that Randy Johnson’s statistical resume is about as strong as Clemens. Johnson’s run of dominance from roughly 1993-2004 is absolutely bonkers.
I was actually debating Randy Johnson and Maddux when I wrote my first post. The only thing that held me back was that list starts smelling a bit of recency bias and I wanted to dig in a bit more to make sure the numbers were really there
“Koufax, Gibson, Ryan, and Atlanta’s Big 3 at the very least were arguably just as good if not better.”
Tom Glavine and John Smoltz were very, very good. Even great, perhaps.
They pale in comparison to Clemens’ overall career.
Koufax accrued 60 RA9-WAR in his 12 year career.
Clemens accrued 74 in his first 12 seasons.
Yeah I didn’t even touch on Koufax, I just picked off the lower hanging fruit. But you’re right.
Not even a big hall guy and I think there should be more from this ballot who get in. I’d be voting Bonds, Clemens, Ortiz, Schilling, Jones, Sheffield, Rolen. Can’t talk myself into Helton.
I am very surprised to see A Rod get the support he does, as “cheating after it became expressly cheating” is a bit of a bright line. I also wonder why Clemens trails Bonds in both the crowdsourced and real balloting – they both have the same case by the numbers and the same baggage. If anyone has a link to the rational from Some of the HoF voters who did that I would be interested in seeing it
Ah, I mean, Clemens’s off field baggage is a bit more egregious than Bonds’s, so that probably explains the difference between them.
What off field baggage? The country singer thing that according to the alleged victim was a consensual relationship between adults?
Who knows if he did anything illegal there or not, but society can’t function on “mere accusation is proof of wrongdoing” as a basis.
The fact that they met when she was underage does him no favors. I get what you’re saying about ‘innocent until proven guilty’ but it’s still terrible optics regardless of what transpired.
We also can’t function on “they weren’t convicted so they didn’t do it.”
FG readers like some a**holes (Bonds, Clemens) but not others (ARod, Sheffield). I guess their standard is, best-ever a**hole is ok, just great is not good enough. What a stance. Jeez.
Could also be that some folks voted on factors not directly related to the candidates’ purported “asshole-ish-ness”. Weird, I know.
I mean, Ortiz seems to have coasted through at least partially upon “lack-of-asshole-ish-ness”, so assholery does move the needle
Except (and this is coming from a Red Sox fan) Ortiz has his questionable moments but people are more likely to overlook it. Probably because he also participates in a lot of very public charitable endeavors.
There were the dueling restraining orders (post playing career) and his 2016 comments on how he ‘feels bad’ for guys getting in trouble for DV.
Add in obliterating the dugout phone, with no regard for who was around him (Pedey was hit by flying debris), and the rumors regarding him being shot, and you get sense that he just does whatever he wants and sometimes that means F the consequences.
Prepared to be dissatisfied.
Really don’t get the Ortiz. He’s probably a HoFer but it’s close and he’s being treated like an inner-circle quality player. by voters. I mean, Bagwell was a vastly better player and took 7, 8 years? McGriff had a better career and fell off the HoF ballot completely. Dick Allen was way better and can’t even get in veterans committee but Ortiz is going to first ballot? I think it’s probably for a few reasons
1) A lot of voters don’t watch much baseball until playoff time so playoff performance get an outsized boost. Ortiz as amazing in the playoffs and it helps his candidacy but you’re talking about 10K plate appearance versus 370.
2) Playing on big market teams (NYY, Bos, LA,, etc…) gives a massive boost. More exposure, more stories, etc…It’s why the only unanimous HoFer ever was Mariano. it’s why the second highest percentage ever was Jeter. They are both HoFers but guys like Maddux and Randy Johnson and Griffey didn’t get 99% of the votes.
3) For whatever reason, the steroid talk didn’t stick with Ortiz. It isn’t conclusive like with Arod or Palmerio but it’s more than what held guys like Piazza and Bagwell back and they were much better players. I don’t get why a positive test is so easily dismissed.
4) Ortiz is likable and liked and is now in the media and it’s always been a bit of a popularity contest. (Allen and Whitaker as good examples)
All your points are good ones. He’s not an inner circle HOF under any set of objective criteria, especially WAR. He’s a marginal candidate who is boosted by great performance in the post season. He is somewhat tainted, although Manfred went out of his way to exonerate him–but no one else. It does seem that the fix is in. That being said, it’s a popularity contest in part and Ortiz is very popular. I think Jeter was overrated, but deserving of induction. Rivera was one of a kind, the best at his position. Maddux wasn’t on 16 ballots, which I think was ridiculous. and Johnson on 15–also crazy.
There were a few writers, most of whom I think have either changed their ways or retired, who used to never vote for anyone on the first ballot. Which is the only way anyone could rationalize guys not voting for Maddux, Johnson, Rickey Henderson, Cal Ripken Jr, etc. Nine people didn’t vote for Hank Aaron. Hank Aaron!
Yes. Of players who made it into the 1960’s, Mays and Mantle received the same treatment…as did Musial and Ted Williams. Really nuts.
I think more than anything its:
1. Before any of the DH/PED stuff is brought into it, his resume puts him at least in the conversation. Like you said, he’s “probably a Hall of Famer”
2. The BBWAA didn’t vote in anyone last year. 2 years in a row is not a great look and some voters are combining their own personal opinions with who has the most electability.
3. Of Ortiz, Bonds, Clemens, A-rod and Schilling, hesitant voters see Ortiz as the least unlikeable.
4. And the post-season stuff.
Unfair? Maybe. Right place, right time.
It’s 1:49 PM Eastern Standard Time Where are the ladies in the gowns and the guys in tuxedos with the really bad jokes?
this is my first year paying close attention to the process of induction / voting, and man, i hold the hall in such lower regard than what i did before. its a gimmicky tourist attraction and reflects nothing about the actual history of baseball. this is just embarrassing, the sport shooting itself in the foot.
A big part of reading fangraphs is knowing i’ll get sensible coverage of the game. baseball writers (outside of FG) are a special breed of self-indulgent loser. tom verducci’s ballot is so embarrassing, its clear he gets off on this power. nothing can take the dominance away from bonds, clemens, manny, arod, or any of the others left out of the hall. who cares at this point.
Have you been to the hall? Of course it’s a tourist attraction but it’s also a baseball museum that tells the story of the history of the game and is not all that ‘gimmicky.’
Bonds, Clemens, Rose, Sosa, McGwire, etc. all have gear that gets displayed in the hall. There are literally a thousand reasons to go to the hall for every plaque ‘missing’ from the wall.
I can agree that the ‘hall’ as in the people in charge of decision making for the hall and the voting process itself could use updating but your comment indicates you think the hall in totality is essentially the Wall Drug of baseball and that’s mostly unfair.
Well, Ortiz in, everyone else out. This seemed so expected almost to have been preordained. Rolen is too much of a stat based case w/o the threshold numbers or big moments, Bonds/Clemens/A Rod were never going to make it, Schilling was doomed the minute he opened his mouth after last year’s balloting, and Ortiz himself is just so beloved on a personal level that a microscope wasn’t going to get held up to his candidacy, or his alleged PED issues.
Everyone start sharpening your knives for next year’s Carlos Beltran debate…
I’m not sure this result represented “justice” but it is what it is. Ortiz just opened the door to several others who have his PED profile…failed a test, and that’s it. If he’s in, those folks should get serious attention.
Look no further than Sheffield, who has a better resume and a similarly middling PED case against him, yet continues to languish. Hopefully Ortiz turns out to be wind in the sails for Sheffield, but I kind of doubt it…I think Ortiz is going to be the exception. He is just too beloved, and MLB so aggressively markets him as warm and cuddly, that he got a pass.
Not sure anyone else is going to get the Ortiz treatment, especially because we are running out of guys with the “I did it before it was against the rules” excuse.
The election of only Ortiz is …a very strange outcome.
How in the world is Schilling NOT chosen?
no mention of slam-dunk Bonds and Clemens?