Walking Through the 2020 Hall of Fame Ballot Trends

Later today, the Baseball Writers’ Association of America (BBWAA) will announce the results of its 2020 Hall of Fame election. So far, three players have been checked on more than 75% of the 210 ballots counted in Ryan Thibodaux’s Ballot Tracker (the tracker is maintained by a four-person team of which I am a part), thus clearing the threshold for induction: Derek Jeter in his first year, Larry Walker in his final year, and Curt Schilling in his eighth year. While Schilling is expected to tail off and may even come in under 70%, the other two have at least a chance to hear their name called. Here are the candidates to receive at least 5% of the vote (the percentage needed to stay on the ballot) in the Tracker so far:

2020 Hall of Fame Candidates
Player Total Votes Percentage
Derek Jeter 210 100.0%
Larry Walker 175 83.3%
Curt Schilling 166 79.0%
Barry Bonds 151 71.9%
Roger Clemens 149 71.0%
Omar Vizquel 103 49.0%
Scott Rolen 101 48.1%
Gary Sheffield 76 36.2%
Billy Wagner 73 34.8%
Jeff Kent 70 33.3%
Todd Helton 67 31.9%
Manny Ramirez 66 31.4%
Andruw Jones 50 23.8%
Sammy Sosa 36 17.1%
Andy Pettitte 22 10.5%
Bobby Abreu 13 6.2%

Since the 2013 shutout, the BBWAA has opened their doors to an unprecedented six-year flood of 20 inductees, capped by Mariano Rivera’s unanimous selection a year ago. The result has been a cleared ballot and a realistic path to induction for many candidates who have previously struggled to gain any traction.

What follows is a brief overview of the candidates with the most interesting trends in the publicly released data, current through the 210 ballots in our Tracker.

Walking the Path to Induction

The only candidate whose induction fate isn’t neatly wrapped up, Larry Walker has seen a massive surge in support for the third consecutive year, which has him on the precipice of history. After receiving only 34.1% of the vote in 2018 and 54.6% in 2019, Walker needs to make up around 87 votes to earn induction in 2020. As of this writing, Walker has gained a net 32 votes, which doesn’t seem very encouraging, but changing a mind isn’t the only way to make up ground.

At the bottom of the Tracker is a small section detailing those voters who have been confirmed as not voting in 2020. 15 public voters are listed here; only four supported Walker in 2019. Seven first-time voters have revealed their ballots thus far, and all of them voted for Walker. Baking that into the calculation moves Walker’s status from approximately 232-for-425 to 235-for-417. While his 2019 vote total was 87 shy of induction, it’s just 78 short after accounting for this turnover. Those 14 public voters aren’t the only ones who aren’t voting, and any additional changes in the electorate are likely to only help Walker’s chances further.

While Walker has gained the aforementioned 32 votes so far, the most promising aspect of this cycle is that he’s been doing well in different categories of voters. For example, among voters who chose 10 players last year but didn’t vote for him, he’s changed 83.3% of their minds.

For the remainder of this article, I’ll be broadly referring to four different categories of voters, distinctions I first started using after discussions with Hall of Fame results projector Jason Sardell (@sarsdell on Twitter). They are as follows:

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-Members
✓Full postseason coverage
  • Large Hall: voters who checked 10 names in 2019.
  • Medium Hall: voters who checked eight or nine names regardless of whether they voted for Bonds or Clemens, or seven names but not Bonds and Clemens.
  • Small Hall, Anti-PED: voters who checked six or fewer names, and did not vote for Bonds or Clemens.
  • Small Hall, PED: voters who checked seven or fewer names, and did vote for Bonds or Clemens

Over time, voters in these different categories have operated in similar ways, and track closely. In this space last year, I laid out the case to be optimistic about Mike Mussina’s chances, and some of the same optimism applies to Walker:

Larry Walker, By the (Ballot) Numbers
Category Flip Chances Flip Rate Remaining Public Flip Chances Target Flips
Large Hall 18 15-for-18 (83.3%) 10 8
Medium Hall 13 6-for-13 (46.2%) 23 10
Small Hall, anti-PED 20 12-for-20 (60.0%) 24 11
Small Hall, PED 14 1-for-14 (7.1%) 7 1
SOURCE: Ballot Tracker, Jason Sardell

Walker has already cycled through the majority of the voters likeliest to add him and least likely to add him. The key to his chances this evening is to continue doing well with those middle two groups. So far, he’s picked up 18 of a possible 33 votes from the middle two groups, with the majority of remaining voters who don’t already have Walker falling into one of those two categories. If he can pick up one out of two of those voters going forward, he should have a fighting chance after all the ballots are tallied.

In that vein, I asked Sardell to run his probabilistic model and report in what percentage of his simulations Walker’s final percentage fell into, to see where he most often finished. Sardell was kind enough to oblige:

Simulating Larry Walker’s Candidacy
Range Percentage of Simulations in Range
Less than 72% 1.0%
72-73% 2.6%
73-74% 6.4%
74-75% 11.8%
75-76% 21.8%
76-77% 19.2%
77-78% 18.3%
Greater than 78% 20.9%
SOURCE: Jason Sardell’s Model

There are a lot of hurdles still in Walker’s way, but if nothing else, that he’s been doing well across the board and not relying too heavily on any one type of voter gives him multiple ways to reach 75%.

Infield Greatness

Last year, four infielders received between 16% and 43% of the vote, all of whom have strong arguments for and against their candidacies. With the bottleneck of candidates easing, all of them have seen their vote shares drastically increase:

(Flipping) Infield Greatness
Flip Rate, Through 210 Ballots Remaining Flip Opportunities
Player Large Hall Medium Hall Small No PED Small Yes PED Large Hall Medium Hall Small No PED Small Yes PED
Helton 30.3% 20.0% 8.0% 0.0% 36 46 27 9
Kent 33.7% 2.9% 4.3% 0.0% 35 45 29 9
Rolen 49.3% 27.8% 14.3% 0.0% 38 43 29 9
Vizquel 31.8% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% 25 24 18 8
SOURCE: Ballot Tracker, Jason Sardell

As the candidate converting “no” voters to “yes” voters at the highest rate across the board, Rolen appears best-suited to benefit from continued cleared space as the years go by, and to maintain his rate of adds through the remainder of the ballots.

On the other hand, the majority of Kent’s adds have come from the voters who may have run out of room for him in 2019. Of the 168 public voters who filled out full ballots a year ago, more than 100 have already revealed. That Kent is doing so poorly with every other category of voter may mean his gains don’t translate when the final totals are tallied.

Helton and Vizquel are in similar boats: early in their candidacies, and flipping about 30% of the full ballot voters and something like one in every five or six “medium” voters. Their gains may carry over better with the remainder of the electorate, which could lead to Vizquel cracking 50% and Helton maintaining his gains and polling in the low 30% range.

Closing Out the Big Gainers

Three other players have netted at least 25 new voters, namely outfielders Andruw Jones and Gary Sheffield, and closer Billy Wagner. While numerous voters had named each among their nearest misses the past several years, the groundswell of support for each nonetheless leaves proponents of their cases optimistic:

The Big Gainers
Flip Rate, Through 210 Ballots Remaining Flip Opportunities
Player Large Hall Medium Hall Small No PED Small Yes PED Large Hall Medium Hall Small No PED Small Yes PED
Sheffield 40.0% 17.9% 7.7% 0.0% 40 45 27 9
Wagner 34.1% 20.6% 0.0% 0.0% 34 40 29 9
Jones 26.3% 5.1% 7.1% 0.0% 43 51 29 9
SOURCE: Ballot Tracker, Jason Sardell

Given his starting point of only 7.5%, it’s notable that Jones has converted more than a quarter of potential full ballot voters, but it’s possibly more encouraging that he’s not altogether striking out with other types of voters.

Wagner has yet to find himself added to the ballots of the stingiest voters, but has been doing incredibly well on voters who prefer to choose at least seven players. It seems possible that his support with stingier voters could pick up as his overall support rises in the coming years.

Sheffield’s gains might be the most surprising of any candidate on the ballot. For five years, his candidacy appeared stalled, but the new space on the ballot has caused voters of all types to flock to Sheffield. He’s second to Rolen in net votes gained and has converted an incredible rate of his potential full ballot gain opportunities. He only has four more years of eligibility after 2020, but has already positioned himself to finish in this year’s top 10 along with Wagner, a good sign for future growth.

Top Returning Trio

Lastly, the three top vote-getters who weren’t inducted in 2019 – Schilling, Clemens, and Bonds – all received between 59% and 61% of the vote, and have between 71% and 80% of the vote so far this year. To say each has strong detractors is an understatement. Bonds and Clemens have a well-documented dalliances with performance enhancing drugs dragging down their candidacies, which to date has kept more than 40% of the electorate from voting for them. Schilling’s tweet endorsing a shirt which supported lynching journalists combined with his transphobic and bigoted rhetoric has caused voters to invoke the character clause and withhold their vote, including several who had publicly supported him in past years.

None of the three will make the Hall of Fame in 2020, but they will each have two more years of eligibility to earn the necessary 75%. 2022 will bring Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz, and a host of steroids-related questions, potentially causing some of the candidates making gains this cycle to hit a one-year speed bump in their trajectories.

Takeaways

I asked Sardell to run a few additional scenarios for me, mentioned above. Arbitrary or not, crossing different thresholds could mean a candidate is more likely to pick up further support. With that in mind, I asked him to run his model and give me the figures shown in the table below:

Simulating the 2020 Ballot
Scenario Percentage of Simulations
Walker over 75% 78.20%
Schilling over 70% 73%
Clemens over 60% 84%
Bonds over 60% 78%
Vizquel over 50% 36%
Rolen over 40% 88%
Abreu over 5% 62%
SOURCE: Jason Sardell’s Model

The plethora of available ballot space has led to unprecedented gains for the majority of the returning players. It will be interesting to see if some of these trends continue as the number of voters using their entire allotted space shrinks over the next few years. If nothing else, most of these candidates now enjoy a significant enough base of support to justify their continued presence in future Hall of Fame debates. That kind of increased conversation may just be what propels Walker into the Hall of Fame today.





25 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Baron Samedi
6 years ago

The fact that Derek Jeter gets more votes than Barry Bonds proves that many baseball fans are still, and I say this in the most charitable way possible, racist morons.

Let the down votes commence!

ironfireman
6 years ago
Reply to  Baron Samedi

You mean voting for Jeter, whose father is black, over Roger Clemens who is arguably one of the greatest pitchers of all time is racist? You may or may not be a racist, but you are certainly a moron.

hombremomento
6 years ago
Reply to  Baron Samedi

Of all websites you could troll on you picked this one

Ukranian to Vietnamese to French is back
6 years ago
Reply to  Baron Samedi

The fact that Derek Jeter received so many votes for Barry Bond proves that many baseball fans still exist, and to say the least, racist.

Let all the voices begin!

Will H.
6 years ago

I’d love to hear how someone voted for Bonds but not Clemens. Weird.

TakiarMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Will H.

Likely a Baltimore fan, whose team faced Clemens way too often.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Takiar

Or a Red Sox fan, honestly.

stanMember since 2019
6 years ago
Reply to  Will H.

Bonds was a sure hall of famer even before he got huge. Its not so clear that Clemens was. It really looked like his useful career when he left Boston for Toronto. He was 20-18 with a 3.83 ERA in his last two seasons in Boston before he left for a 3/24 contract with the last place Blue Jays. Then he got bigger and leaner and added 10 superlative years to his career. He’d been outstanding early on with the Sawx but would a 191-100 record and 3.03 ERA have gotten him into the hall? Maybe-Maybe not.

tung_twista
6 years ago
Reply to  stan

Does a pitcher with three cy youngs and an MVP, all time top 10 ERA+ belong in the hall?
That is not a maybe.
Clemens prior to Toronto is a slightly better version of Halladay’s entire career.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  tung_twista

I’ve got a better comparison:

Clemens prior to McNamee is Bob Gibson.

BacterunMember since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  Will H.

While Bond is alleged to (or proven to, I’m not sure which) have beaten his wife, Clemens was accused of raping a minor. You can obviously find more information about this online.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Bacterun

Eh. The only person who said Clemens ever slept with MacReady said that nothing happened till she was like 20.

Very, very gross. Very, very different from “raping a minor.”

BobbyJohn69
6 years ago

Understanding that the margin is likely to be razor thin one way or the other, I am more and more hopeful that Walker will get the call.

stanMember since 2019
6 years ago

I still wonder what in the world these Vizquel voters are seeing. He wasn’t even as good as Andruw Jones and Scott Rolen defensively and he can’t touch their offensive value. Nor was he as good as guys like Rabbit Maranville or Luis Aparicio either defensively or offensively yet both of those guys were borderline Hall of Famers.

Lanidrac
6 years ago
Reply to  stan

People like to compare him to Ozzie Smith, but the Wizard was significantly better defensively (arguably the best defensive SS of all time) and also had a notable advantage in offensive value due to his baserunning.

OTMHeartBBCMember since 2019
6 years ago

vizquel has zero bidness getting this many votes. he makes harold baines look like a good pick

sadtromboneMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  OTMHeartBBC

I’ve been banging this drum for a while: Omar Vizquel is very much the bizarro-world version of Harold Baines. They both played forever and compiled huge counting stats as a result, except that Vizquel compiled on defense and Baines on offense, while being pretty bad at the other one. Take a look at this:
Harold Baines
11092 PAs
OFF: 243.1
DEF: -235.7
fWAR: 38.4

Omar Vizquel:
12013 PAs
OFF: -234.3
DEF: 262.1
fWAR: 42.5

I actually am fully in favor of Vizquel getting elected if–and ONLY if–he shares a bust with Baines, looking like a handsome version of Two-Face from Batman. I am afraid that ship has sailed, but it would have been great.

Also, I tried to figure out who the closest person in terms of value was if you took Baines’s offense and Vizquel’s offense–would that person be a Hall of Famer? Turns out that person looks a lot like Adrian Beltre.

The GuruMember since 2026
6 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

you want to let everyone in. Neither one of them should even be on their respective teams HOF.

BobbyJohn69
6 years ago

Walker got elected!!!!

The GuruMember since 2026
6 years ago
Reply to  BobbyJohn69

sickening. Steroid era at coors field. Lets let everyone in.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  The Guru

And he was also awesome in Montreal and STL.

MUST OF BEEN RESIDUAL EFFECTS FROM COORS!!!

sadtromboneMember since 2020
6 years ago

F**king time ordering, how does it work?

hombremomento
6 years ago
Reply to  The Guru

If you take away homeruns due to Coors, you have to add steals because catchers can throw straighter at that altitude.

stanMember since 2019
6 years ago

Let’s break down Omar Vizquel’s candidacy:
272/336/352 career batting line, 82 OPS+. 400 stolen bases and 2700 hits. 45.6 bWAR in 24 years, 42.5 fWAR. A peak of 6 WAR in one year but after that there are only 5 years where he put up 3 WAR. He made three all star games and his only showing in the MVP voting was a single 16th place finish, so its safe to say that sportswriters and fans at the time did not believe that he was hall of fame material.
Defense can be somewhat underrated by both versions of WAR and the public, but even if there was a hall of fame for defenders-only, Vizquel would be a borderline candidate. He has 262.1 points in fangraphs’ defensive WAR. That puts him 9th overall, but…. he also has 2709 games played at shorstop, the most all-time. That means that on a rate basis, he’s only good, not great. He never once led the league in assists, putouts or even double plays. He won 11 gold gloves, and I’m sure several of them were earned, but we all know gold gloves sometimes aren’t earned too. The hall of famers to whom Vizquel’s fans like to compare him, Aparacio, Maranville, and Smith, led the league in those categories an aggregate of 11, 10 and 13 times to Vizquel’s zero. On a rate basis, his dWAR and fangraphs fielding rating are comparable to Cal Ripken’s and below contemporaries like Rey Sanchez and Rey Ordonez. So, if you squint and give him credit for longevity and being a nice guy, you could maybe make an argument for a defense-only hall of fame. But if you are trying to shoehorn him into the real hall of fame, you have no case whatsoever. He has virtually the same OPS+ as borderline candidates Maranville and Aparacio and as I’ve shown above, he’s not close to them defensively. In fact, since Rey Sanchez has virtually same batting line (272/308/334) and far better fielding numbers, you could make a case that he was a better player.
In short, this is a Jim Rice, Harold Baines level of stupidity. Clearly there’s some sort of campaign among the voters that is not being run on behalf of the many contemporaries who were superior players to Vizquel.

SnowLeopard
6 years ago

According to Mr. Tibb’s tracker, voters who did not vote for Bonds/Clemens had generally more low-information “Wow, that’s certainly an opinion” ballots across the board.

First column is Yes included both, second column is No left both off:

161 – 70 : Number of voters
100% – 100% : Jeets
85% – 80% : Walker
85% – 63% : Schilling
47% – 60% : Vizquel
49% – 39% : Rolen
33% – 41% : BillyWags
45% – 13% : Scheff
30% – 40% : Kent
31% – 36% : Helton
44% – 1% : Manny
25% – 20% : Andruw
22% – 0% : Sosa
13% – 3% : Pettitte
6% – 7% : Abreu
0% – 3% : Konerko