2017 MLB HOF ballot released

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
17,267
Yeah, it's a good thing we don't have any verbally abusive racist assholes in the Hall of Fame. Whew!
.
It's a good thing we don't already have any cheaters who bragged about getting away with their cheating in the Hall of Fame. Whew!

Gaylord Perry is one cheater who bragged about his cheating, wrote a damn book about how he got away with cheating and profited by it, and still got into the Hall. There are plenty of others in there who kept quiet about it, but who many people assume were blatant cheaters, like Whitey Ford.

If you holler against cheaters in the Hall then you should have been hollering just as loudly when they went in, and you should be utterly disgusted by their induction.

Either you are against cheaters in the Hall or you're not.

If you start trying to split hairs about some types of cheating being okay but other kinds are an immoral disgrace, then you lose that ground to stand on and are just making noise.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,971
Washington, DC
Agree, but this guy switch from voting for Schilling last year to not voting for him this year, while adding Manny Ramirez. Two positive steroid tests. Irrelevant to this guy.
Rubin's ballot seems pretty consistent and can be explained easily in a way not motivated by Schilling's politics. He has 10 votes. He wants to use them all. He doesn't care about steroids (see the votes for Bonds and Sosa and Clemens). He needs to drop the worst of the 10 in his list to make space for Manny, and Schilling is #10 in his book.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,178
Rubin's ballot seems pretty consistent and can be explained easily in a way not motivated by Schilling's politics. He has 10 votes. He wants to use them all. He doesn't care about steroids (see the votes for Bonds and Sosa and Clemens). He needs to drop the worst of the 10 in his list to make space for Manny, and Schilling is #10 in his book.
Go look at his ballot again. He swapped Schilling for Edgar.

Last year, Rubin voted for the two who got in, and Trammell who didn't and was taken off the ballot. The three newcomers that he voted for replaced those who are not on the ballot now.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,074
Oregon
Go look at his ballot again. He swapped Schilling for Edgar.

Last year, Rubin voted for the two who got in, and Trammell who didn't and was taken off the ballot. The three newcomers that he voted for replaced those who are not on the ballot now.
Closer, but not correct. Three of Rubin's 2015 votes were no longer available to him; taking Schilling off allows him to add a fourth new person to his ballot.

Unless he says so specifically, there's not enough evidence to indicate who the Schilling "replacement" was. He could have added Edgar and two first-timers with the first three slots, and a third newcomer with the fourth pick.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,608
Maine
Closer, but not correct. Three of Rubin's 2015 votes were no longer available to him; taking Schilling off allows him to add a fourth new person to his ballot.

Unless he says so specifically, there's not enough evidence to indicate who the Schilling "replacement" was. He could have added Edgar and two first-timers with the first three slots, and a third newcomer with the fourth pick.
Does it really matter if it was a direct one-for-one swap? He chose to not vote for one player that he voted for last year, and added another for whom he'd previously not voted. It doesn't really matter how many "open" spots he had or how many first timers he voted for. For whatever reason, Schilling's candidacy took a hit in Rubin's mind, and of the players who were previously not worthy of Rubin's vote, Edgar benefited. End of story.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,926
South Boston
Sosa is a borderline candidate even if you accept his numbers at face value. He had a lot of holes in his game and never was able to control the strike zone (.344 OBP) until 98, which mitigated a lot of his value earlier in his career when he was a better all around player. Even considering context, his peak was beastly, and I can't completely argue with the logic of voting for him based on heavily weighted peak value. The bar is pretty damn high for HOF right fielders though, and home runs aside Sosa wasn't on Manny's level as an offensive force.

http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/11/25/
Should "importance" to the game count for anything? The Sosa/McGuire HR battle is credited with "saving" baseball. I think that is a little extreme, but they definitely helped to bring it back.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Should "importance" to the game count for anything? The Sosa/McGuire HR battle is credited with "saving" baseball. I think that is a little extreme, but they definitely helped to bring it back.
I think that's a subjective factor that can/should be thrown in the mix, along with other things like proven PED use, being a "good leader" in the clubhouse, being a colorful character, or being an embarrassing asshole (to, say, Congress). Which is to say, even if you credit Sosa and McGwire with that moment, there are plenty of other things you could put in the "no" column to negate it.

I'm not necessarily advocating either way, but I do think if a guy's numbers don't clearly merit inclusion, there has to be a compelling reason to induct him. I don't think Sosa's case is compelling, all things considered.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,074
Oregon
Does it really matter if it was a direct one-for-one swap? He chose to not vote for one player that he voted for last year, and added another for whom he'd previously not voted. It doesn't really matter how many "open" spots he had or how many first timers he voted for. For whatever reason, Schilling's candidacy took a hit in Rubin's mind, and of the players who were previously not worthy of Rubin's vote, Edgar benefited. End of story.
That's what I was trying to get at, because the argument previous had been trying to assign his Schilling un-vote to one player or another. No such direct equation can be made.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,178
That's what I was trying to get at, because the argument previous had been trying to assign his Schilling un-vote to one player or another. No such direct equation can be made.
I get what you are saying but the end result is still the same. You do agree that Schilling's vote total is going to crater, right?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,608
Maine
That's what I was trying to get at, because the argument previous had been trying to assign his Schilling un-vote to one player or another. No such direct equation can be made.
Well, yes, it can, if the point being made is that something changed in the way the voter viewed Schilling as a HOF candidate (which is what axx was trying to say). Rubin exchanged Schilling for Martinez no matter how you slice it. On the 2016 ballot, he determined Schilling to be the more deserving of the two. On the 2017 ballot, those two players were reversed.

If it were a matter of filling his three open spots plus Schilling's spot with four first-time candidates, then yes, you can't really definitively say the voter's position changed on Schilling. But since he removed Schilling AND added a pre-existing candidate that he'd not voted for before, it's safe to say he had a change of heart on Schilling. And since Schilling's stats and accomplishments haven't changed, it's reasonable to conclude that his actions/politics over the last 12 months played a role.

It could have been any player Rubin had left off his ballot in 2016 and the point remains the same.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,074
Oregon
Well, yes, it can, if the point being made is that something changed in the way the voter viewed Schilling as a HOF candidate (which is what axx was trying to say). Rubin exchanged Schilling for Martinez no matter how you slice it. On the 2016 ballot, he determined Schilling to be the more deserving of the two. On the 2017 ballot, those two players were reversed.

If it were a matter of filling his three open spots plus Schilling's spot with four first-time candidates, then yes, you can't really definitively say the voter's position changed on Schilling. But since he removed Schilling AND added a pre-existing candidate that he'd not voted for before, it's safe to say he had a change of heart on Schilling. And since Schilling's stats and accomplishments haven't changed, it's reasonable to conclude that his actions/politics over the last 12 months played a role.

It could have been any player Rubin had left off his ballot in 2016 and the point remains the same.
It's a useless semantic argument at this stage. I was just trying to say that they could have been independent decisions -- Edgar was his "next man up" and might well have been added to an open spot, even if he kept Schilling.

It's clear he changed his mind on Schilling, for the reasons you stated. I was just trying to refute axx's notion that Edgar was the beneficiary. of that change of mind isn't necessarily proven by the facts in evidence.

But, it's a circle game at this point, so I'll bow out
 

Sir Lancelotti

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
284
Boston
I think that's a subjective factor that can/should be thrown in the mix, along with other things like proven PED use, being a "good leader" in the clubhouse, being a colorful character, or being an embarrassing asshole (to, say, Congress). Which is to say, even if you credit Sosa and McGwire with that moment, there are plenty of other things you could put in the "no" column to negate it.

I'm not necessarily advocating either way, but I do think if a guy's numbers don't clearly merit inclusion, there has to be a compelling reason to induct him. I don't think Sosa's case is compelling, all things considered.
Agree with Leather on Sosa, but I agree with your point that "importance to the game" should play a factor. This will get a bit more play when Ortiz becomes eligible, as statistics alone don't even come close to painting the Papi picture. Im actually surprised this criteria hasn't helped Schilling more, hes a legit HOF on statistics alone, but the "IT" factor along with the fact he was involved in so many big moments should absolutely be part of his advocacy. In a case like Jack Morris, who I don't believe should be a borderline candidate, the 91 World Series wouldn't be enough to put him over the top but for someone with a stronger resume, it should definitely be considered.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Bonds and Clemens did get a bit higher % last year, but still are nowhere close. Manny's not getting in, that's for sure.
This is a big election for those two guys. If they pick up another 6-7% then they're over 50%, which augurs well for election. There is definitely a cascading effect among HOF voters in terms of momentum. Sportswriters seem to like to imagine themselves as the guy whose votes put player X in the Hall.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,074
Oregon
On the fifth ballot released, NYPost writer George Willis removes Schilling, Bonds, Clemens and Hoffman ... adds Edgar, Bagwell, Mussina and Lee Smith
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,101
Wesport, MA
Gotta hand it to Mussina for pitching his whole career in the AL East. Pretty shitty era to spend 18 years on the mound with BAL and NYY and facing down stacked lineups night after night.

In 1996, his 4.81 ERA was above league average (103 ERA+). Hard to wrap my head around that.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,074
Oregon
Schilling gets his first vote ... and it's someone who didn't vote for him last year.

Jack McCaffrey of the Delaware County News ... who also wrote in Pete Rose
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
On the fifth ballot released, NYPost writer George Willis removes Schilling, Bonds, Clemens and Hoffman ... adds Edgar, Bagwell, Mussina and Lee Smith
I mean hate Schilling and his politics all you want but is there any reason why a sane writer would vote for Moose and Lee Smith over Schilling and Hoffman?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I mean hate Schilling and his politics all you want but is there any reason why a sane writer would vote for Moose and Lee Smith over Schilling and Hoffman?
I see no reason to question the sanity of anyone choosing either end of those particular comparisons. Moose and Schilling are pretty comparable as are Hoffman and Smith.

Maybe you could make the argument as to why it seems so crazy to you?
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,522
Scituate, MA
Ten I'd Vote For
Jeff Bagwell
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Vladimir Guerrero
Trevor Hoffman
Edgar Martinez
Tim Raines
Manny Ramirez
Ivan Rodriguez
Curt Schilling

Others I'd like to vote for:

Jeff Kent
Fred McGriff
Mike Mussina
Jorge Posada
Gary Sheffield
Billy Wagner
Larry Walker
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,307
Portland
Coop, why no Sosa?
I didn't have him either. I don't think he was a hall of fame talent until 1998 at age 29 in the heart of the steroid era, so believe he arguably benefited the most.

He had two seasons with an wRC+ over 125 until then during normal peak seasons (125 and 126), though he was also fantastic defender. He accumulated 20 of his 58 WAR then averaging 3 or so per season.

58 is on the low end these days as well, so the PED's and corked bat is one of the tie breakers for me.

I put him and Edmonds on roughly the same level, and they actually have a lot of the same parallels. Both were well above average hitters with gold glove caliber defense who had late career surges during the wrong period. Edmonds had one all star appearance before his 30's and then 3 more with a top 5 MVP in a non All-Star season.

I don't necessarily feel sorry for him, but Palmeiro is a worthier candidate than either of those guys and arguably McGwire too, but he won't have a shot unless the Veterans Committee elects him.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,620
Southwestern CT
Yeah, it's a good thing we don't have any verbally abusive racist assholes in the Hall of Fame. Whew!

And you know, as someone else posted above Manny's done a lot more in the abuse department than drugs. Beat up an old man, quit on his team, and slaps his wife around. But, no, he doesn't retweet bigoted bathroom jokes or campaign for Republicans. So it's all good I guess.
Schilling is an ignorant blowhard who is being held accountable for his unacceptable behavior. The (allegedly humorous) suggestion that we lynch journalists was the straw that broke the camel's back for many, including the (alleged) journalists who actually vote for induction.

Your point about PEDs is not without merit. For those where we know about PED use or suspect use to a point of near-certainty, the needle that many are trying to thread is whether a player would have been a Hall of Famer without using PEDs. That's a difficult (if not impossible) task and will lead to a lot of inconsistency. So you have a point there.

I'll admit that I forgot about the violent behavior of Manny and that makes a difference. I'd probably remove him from my theoretical ballot based on that alone. I suspect that he won't get a high percentage and will eventually fall off the ballot.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,494
Schilling is an ignorant blowhard who is being held accountable for his unacceptable behavior. The (allegedly humorous) suggestion that we lynch journalists was the straw that broke the camel's back for many, including the (alleged) journalists who actually vote for induction.
Case-in-point: Jon Heyman told one of the Boston-area sports radio shows yesterday that Schilling's lynching post was enough for him to take him off the ballot permanently.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,926
South Boston
Not sure if this should go in the Pos thread or this one, so I will put it in both...
Joe Posnanski is counting backward thru his HoF ballot, from least deserving to most deserving. Of course, he will never finish it, which is why he started from the bottom, to get some guys stories out there. So far, so good. This is right up Pos' wheelhouse.

The first two are up, Arthur Rhodes (what a strange and awesome career) and Matt Stairs. Well worth reading.

http://joeposnanski.com/no-34-arthur-rhodes/

http://joeposnanski.com/ballot-33-matt-stairs/
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,178
Huh, Ballot Tracker has a bunch more voters now. Pudge is on 15 of the 16 so far, he might get in on the first try. Raines and Bagwell have 13. It might be those three.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,074
Oregon
Huh, Ballot Tracker has a bunch more voters now. Pudge is on 15 of the 16 so far, he might get in on the first try. Raines and Bagwell have 13. It might be those three.
What we discovered doing this last year is that those trending well early started to fade as more ballots came in. It's still way to early to project
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,989

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,994
Do you think it's some sort of defense mechanism at this point? Like he got the sense his career wasn't going to get him in on the merits, so he decided to blow the whole thing up so he can claim he sacrificed a spot in the hall to speak his mind?
No. I don't think that Schilling is saying, "Fuck you, I quit" before he's been told that he's fired. If he did do that, then he's dumber than I think he is because I think that Schilling eventually would (I guess "will" could be used too) make it into the Hall of Fame. My thought is that he was basically on the Jim Rice/Tim Raines (I think Raines goes in this year) track where if he just STFU for once in his life, he'd have gathered more and more momentum and eventually would have been inducted.

He's a better than marginal candidate, especially if you combine what he did in the postseason. I really think that Schilling would have been a HoFer in his eighth or ninth year of eligibility. I really do.

But since he has to retweet everything that comes across is Twitter feed, he won't and it that sorta sucks. Because like I said, he deserves it.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,994
Except his peak was very very short. I'm not even sure what team cap he would wear. Schilling only really had one good year with the Red Sox.
I know. Like I said, he's not a slam dunk but I think his post season stuff gets him over. He had done great years with the Phils, Dbacks and Sox. There are guys in the HoF with a lot worse regular season numbers and don't have nearly the post season resume.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,989
No. I don't think that Schilling is saying, "Fuck you, I quit" before he's been told that he's fired. If he did do that, then he's dumber than I think he is because I think that Schilling eventually would (I guess "will" could be used too) make it into the Hall of Fame. My thought is that he was basically on the Jim Rice/Tim Raines (I think Raines goes in this year) track where if he just STFU for once in his life, he'd have gathered more and more momentum and eventually would have been inducted.

He's a better than marginal candidate, especially if you combine what he did in the postseason. I really think that Schilling would have been a HoFer in his eighth or ninth year of eligibility. I really do.

But since he has to retweet everything that comes across is Twitter feed, he won't and it that sorta sucks. Because like I said, he deserves it.
So, you think he's the kind of dude that'd be okay being publically denied 7-8 times before getting in because he has that sort of temperament and ability to see the big picture?
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,457
Except his peak was very very short. I'm not even sure what team cap he would wear. Schilling only really had one good year with the Red Sox.
1996-2007 every year except the injury shortened 2005 he was 4+ bref war and 120+ era+, how much longer of a peak do you want? He'd be better than half the SPs already in the hall not even counting his postseason numbers.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,307
Portland
The more I look at Moose, the more I think he is very deserving as a first ballot guy. I'll pick on Tom Glavine who was considered a lock and Fergie Jenkins who is a decent comp.

Wins - Glavine 305 vs. 284 Jenkins and 270 Mussina
k/9 - Mussina 7.11 vs Jenkins 6.4 vs.Glavine 5.32
bb/9 Mussina 1.98 vs Jenkins 2.0 Glavine 3.06
xFIP Jenkins 3.28 vs Mussina 3.43 vs. Glavine 4.57 (not a typo).
ERA+ Mussina 123 vs. Glavine 118 vs. Jenkins 115
Hr/9 Glavine .73 vs Mussina .95 vs. Jenkins 1
WAR Mussina and Jenkins at 83 vs. Glavine 74.

Extra props for Mussina winning 20 games in his final season at age 39. It wouldn't have been a huge stretch for him to get to 300.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
I see no reason to question the sanity of anyone choosing either end of those particular comparisons. Moose and Schilling are pretty comparable as are Hoffman and Smith.

Maybe you could make the argument as to why it seems so crazy to you?
It's not so much I'm against Moose in the hall. But the voting has always been slanted towards those with post season success. Schilling wouldn't get in because of his regular season only but his post season numbers are amazing.

Lee Smith was a good player. Hoffman has about 100 + more saves comparable amount of k's in less innings. More of a clear case there. The only reason if you take post season performance under consideration to not vote for Schilling is if you don't like his politics.

Politics shouldn't have any bearing in this process. I personally wouldn't be shocked to see Schilling fall off the ballot within 2 years.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,924
Michigan
Huh, Ballot Tracker has a bunch more voters now. Pudge is on 15 of the 16 so far, he might get in on the first try. Raines and Bagwell have 13. It might be those three.
I was just looking at Rodriguez' stats. In 2007, he had 9 walks in 515 PAs. Jesus. He must have been actively trying not to walk or something.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,994
Politics shouldn't have any bearing in this process. I personally wouldn't be shocked to see Schilling fall off the ballot within 2 years.
In a bubble, you're 1000% right. And if the HoF was voted on by computers or those robots from West World, it wouldn't be a problem at all. But the problem is the voting is being done by people. And like Depeche Mode once said, "People are people" and in this case the writers aren't going to do a guy any favors who feels that they should be lynched. Whether he was joking (he wasn't) or not (again, he wasn't).

If I were voting, Schilling would have to have to be an absolute slam dunk case for me to vote him in. Petty? Absolutely. But in the same respect why would I make Schilling's life better (being a HoFer has distinct privileges, many of them monetary) when he thinks my life is worthless? Yes, Schilling exercised his freedom of speech and for that, well done. But it's not freedom of consequence and in this case, his words have repercussions.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,074
Oregon
Stark: An important change in Hall of Fame voting. The Baseball Writers vote to make all ballots public starting in 2018. Long overdue
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Olney suggests that because of the new voter transparency rules, the first eligible HoFer to be unanimous will be Mariano Rivera

http://www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=15312&ex_cid=InsiderTwitter_olney_roundupriveracouldbefirstunanimoushalloffamer
Conversely, I could see someone like the CHB using that to draw attention to himself by being the only no vote.
http://www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=15312&ex_cid=InsiderTwitter_olney_roundupriveracouldbefirstunanimoushalloffamer
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,426
Olney suggests that because of the new voter transparency rules, the first eligible HoFer to be unanimous will be Mariano Rivera

http://www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=15312&ex_cid=InsiderTwitter_olney_roundupriveracouldbefirstunanimoushalloffamer

I don't know if voter transparency is a good or a bad thing. I like accountability, but I hate internet outrage culture. Anyway, more than Griffey, Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson are the poster children for "should have been 100%".
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,074
Oregon
Anyway, more than Griffey, Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson are the poster children for "should have been 100%".
You mean of recent elections, right? Becaus, of course, guys like Aaron and Mays weren't unanimous
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,426
You mean of recent elections, right? Becaus, of course, guys like Aaron and Mays weren't unanimous
Right. And though racism had a part in that, voters are also simply getting better at it. Mickey Mantle wouldn't have 11.8% reject him today.

I think Rivera and Griffey are obvious HOFers, but I can at least imagine someone saying "closers are just failed starters, I'm not voting for him" or "Griffey had a very non-HOF second half of his career". There's at least a sliver of truth there. But Maddux and Unit, I can't even come up with a 1% reasonable explanation.
 

BuellMiller

New Member
Mar 25, 2015
456
Maybe if someone like George King extends his MVP voting logic to HOF voting?
(or really playing devil's advocate, you could argue that neither of them (Maddux and Unit) were dominant in the postseason (both under .500 W-L) and only each won a World Series just once. ).
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,074
Oregon
The Schilling Vote Trickle Down Effect is becoming a thing. SSS, but 4 of the first 26 ballots made known are from those who left him off after previously voting for him. Mussina and Hoffman are the only others with more than one such change
 

AirborneSas

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
345
North Carolina
I'm going under. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than 5% and dropped on the first ballot. He tested positive twice. Who knows if any of his career was clean. And then you have the awful defense, the time he quit on the Red Sox, and thee altercation with the travel secretary. Writers didn't like him at all. And compared with other users like Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds, his stats aren't that great.
Through 28 votes on HoF tracker he has been named on 46% (13 of 28).

He only needs around 12 more votes out of the estimated 422 remaining to reach 5%.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
8,250
Boston, MA
I think this might be the worst Hall of Fame ballot ever submitted. Even the guys who left theirs blank could make something of an argument about not knowing who could have possibly played clean. But this guy looked at all the names on the list and somehow decided to select just those two. Baffling.image.jpg
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,494
Not that a known 9.7% is any kind of reliable barometer, but it's interesting that Raines and Bagwell are the top vote-getters. But if the percentages hold, which they most likely won't, it could be a large class this year.
 
Last edited: