2020 MLB Hall of Fame News and Notes

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
8,733
He was terrific when he was the Red Sox analyst back in the day
Over the last decade of his career, at least, he had become a huge homer - more so than the typical local color man. It was grating as a non-White Sox fan. He was also overly emotional, positive and negative, making every game into a melodrama. And then his catch phrases...oh lord...but if he's your guy, I get it. He reflected what White Sox fans felt and amplified it many times over. A couple of generations of fans have grown up with the Hawk. And I'm happy for him. The dude poured himself into the game and into the White Sox.



 
Last edited:

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
Ooh, looking forward it looks pretty grim for the Hall. Other than Jeter and A-Rod (tbd if he will get in), the only possible new candidates between now and 2024 is Ortiz and Beltre. I know the Hall really wants the BBWAA to vote at least one in to get people to show up but you could end up with multiple years of nobody.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
The 2024 ballot will have some interesting names. Beltre, I assume, is a lock. Carlos Beltran will probably still be on the ballot, and I imagine he’ll have a much-discussed candidacy, especially depending on how the whole sign-stealing thing plays out for him. Then also entering the ballot that year are two guys who I think will get a lot of consideration and will likely inspire some arguments: Chase Utley and Joe Mauer. (I would vote for all four of these players except maybe Utley.)
 

stepson_and_toe

New Member
Aug 11, 2019
386
The Ford C. Frick Award is given to a broadcaster for "major contributions to baseball" and "are eligible to serve on the voting bodies that replaced the Veterans Committee (currently four) that consider candidates from different eras of baseball." Wikipedia

I've been following baseball for a very long time; yet, there are winners of that award I've never heard broadcasting or even heard of. There were a few on the list, including Harrelson, who I disliked, another (who shall remain unnamed) to the extent that I would turn off the sound whenever he was in the booth. What is the basis for election? Longevity? Does a West Coast announcer make a major contribution to East Coast baseball fans or teams?

Maybe it is because I grew up mostly listening to the game on radio when the announcer had to announce the game that has led me to despise the modern-day system with a crowded booth babbling about seemingly everything but the game, showing replay after replay, stressing statistics that they don't understand. I don't want to know what color shirt Remy will be wearing for the next game but I do wonder why DO'B has trouble getting the count or number of outs right. Major contributions to baseball. Remy has been the color commentator for the Red Sox for more than 30 years and undoubtedly will receive the Frick Award. He can be quite compelling when he pays attention to baseball but there are far too many times when the Red Sox broadcasting booth does everything other than the game. Then you have the major networks.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
As of Dec. 12


For those who can't see tweets, Derek LBI Jeter and Larry Walker above the threshold, Schilling-Bonds-Clemenst just below it ... but only 5.6% of ballots logged thus far
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
For the record, I'm not asking people to prove negatives. I'm just curious how they're line drawing. I get Bonds, Clemens and Manny all got caught. Is that the standard, that you won't vote for someone if it's proven/admitted they took steroids?

I've expressed my opinion before that like 90+% of these guys are on something, and you can't always tell by body type or sudden power surge or late career flourishing. ARod apparently started in high school, so I'm sure there are others who were great their whole careers in part because they've been juicing their whole careers.

It just seems odd to me to believe that in an era when both batters and pitchers were using, you'd think a guy like Jeter could have such a long, distinguished career against and in comparison with known cheaters and still play at or near the highest levels. Like, he must've had reallllllly good genes.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
It just seems odd to me to believe that in an era when both batters and pitchers were using, you'd think a guy like Jeter could have such a long, distinguished career against and in comparison with known cheaters and still play at or near the highest levels. Like, he must've had reallllllly good genes.
Part of it is the eye test. Jeter doesn't look the part. Never really hit a ton of dingers and was only Top 5 once in doubles (in 2007).
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,260
Seacoast NH
So 117 ballots in from the HOF tracker. Anusface still at 100%. I'll be somewhat surprised if he doesn't end up unanimous since Mariano popped that cherry. Walker putting on a last year push, he'll need to carry that gain over into the private ballots where he had a huge unfavorable differential (-32%) to the public ballots. Schilling gained a few votes but he also does pretty bad on the private ballots so that probably won't be enough to get him in. Bonds and Clemens are basically holding serve from prior.

Interesting to note that there are some huge gains vs. prior same ballots this year for a few guys - Rolen (+30) Sheffield (+29) Wagner (+22) Helton (+21) and Andrew Jones (+20) have all gained over 20 votes but none are on 50% of the ballots.

Name % of vote Gain/loss on prior ballots
Jeter 100% N/A
Walker 85.5% +17
Schilling 78.6% +6
Bonds 76.9% 0
Clemens 76.1% -2
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
It's one person - @ChristinaKahrl on Twitter. Her ballot just got revealed today and basically every comment on her tweet is asking how Bonds not Clemens. She also voted for Manny so I'm perplexed.
She says that 14-15 players deserved her vote, and, in part, she voted for Pettitte but not Clemens because she thought Clemens would get in without her vote but was worried about Pettitte. Or something.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Bonds and Clemens update: they're now in almost an identical position (75.8%, 75.0%) to where they were at this time last year (74.7%, 75.3%), on 1/5. Last year, the public vote % faded down the stretch, finishing at 70.7% for both; the actual-final numbers came in at 59.1% and 59.5%. If they maintain the current level of support to the end of the pre-announcement period, you'd expect an announced total around 64-65% for both.

In terms of voter turnover,
- of the 6 who lost ballot due to eligibility rules, B/C were on 2019 ballot of 3/6.
- of the 2 who voluntarily gave up ballot, B/C were on ballot of 2/2.
- of the 6 who passed away in 2019, B/C were on 2019 ballot of 2/6 (Cafardo and Fraley yes, and no from Carson, Delcos, Noble and Siwoff)

So that's 50% in favor, among the votes leaving the pool; they've usually been ~85% on the ballots of first-time voters, so that's a net gain of ~5 votes right there.

Then you've got the net +/- among returning voters. The last few years have netted them:
2016: +14 / +14
2017: +27 / +27 (major ballot-backlog clearing)
2018: +1 / +3
2019: +4 / +3
2020: +0 / -2 so far

I figure if they come in around 65% this year (their 8th of eligibility) they'll have at least a puncher's chance next year. That's probably their best shot, as in 2022 you've got Big Papi, A-Rod and others coming in, whereas in 2021 the best newcomers are Tim Hudson and Mark Buehrle. 65% is still ~40 votes short of induction, so that's a lot of persuasion and/or turnover that needs to happen, but it's within the realm of possibility. And if it doesn't, well, you've got the Veterans Committee that inducted Jack Morris, Lee Smith and Alan Trammell the first chance they got.
 

Attachments

GoJeff!

Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2007
2,011
Los Angeles
For the record, I'm not asking people to prove negatives. I'm just curious how they're line drawing. I get Bonds, Clemens and Manny all got caught. Is that the standard, that you won't vote for someone if it's proven/admitted they took steroids?

I've expressed my opinion before that like 90+% of these guys are on something, and you can't always tell by body type or sudden power surge or late career flourishing. ARod apparently started in high school, so I'm sure there are others who were great their whole careers in part because they've been juicing their whole careers.

It just seems odd to me to believe that in an era when both batters and pitchers were using, you'd think a guy like Jeter could have such a long, distinguished career against and in comparison with known cheaters and still play at or near the highest levels. Like, he must've had reallllllly good genes.
I worked with a bunch of baseball players around when the Mitchell report was coming out. I got the sense that who used and who didn’t was pretty common knowledge among teammates, to the point where there was almost active betting on whether Mitchell would “catch” arod.

for what it’s worth, Jeter was considered clean.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I worked with a bunch of baseball players around when the Mitchell report was coming out. I got the sense that who used and who didn’t was pretty common knowledge among teammates, to the point where there was almost active betting on whether Mitchell would “catch” arod.

for what it’s worth, Jeter was considered clean.
It's certainly possible. I've also met/trained with/lived with people who are impossibly careful about hiding their steroid use. The way some people can be about having affairs or taking drugs or walling off any other secret. The reasons people give for believing or not believing someone is juicing usually sound like the person doesn't understand steroids. Obviously, your anecdote is different, especially because you'd have to think ballplayers talking about who's using would be incentivized to make it sound universal.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
Very glad Mariano was unanimous as he was by far the best ever at his role, but I hope Jeter is not the second one.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Among the 146 revealed ballots so far (5 of them anonymous), you've got some split ballots between the Bonds/Clemens voters and the Schilling voters:

12 voted for none of the three
17 voted for Bonds/Clemens but not Schilling
23 voted for Schilling but not Bonds or Clemens
92 voted for all three

(1 Christina Kahrl voted Bonds but not Clemens or Schilling; 1 Jon Heyman voted Bonds and Schilling, but not Clemens)

So:
- Schilling voters also voted for Bonds/Clemens at a 92/(92+23) = 80% clip
- Bonds+Clemens voters also voted for Schilling at a 92/(92+17) = 84% clip

If they all just did a "you vote for my guy(s), i'll vote for your guy(s)" between those 40 voters, that'd cover at least half of the gap in votes that each of them need to get inducted.

(also, speaking of split ballots, the last 5 years Bonds and Clemens have split by only a handful of ballots. Among public ballots, the final pre-announcement differentials from 2015+ went: Even, B+1, B+3, Even, Even. Once the results were announced, the final vote counts were: C+4, C+4, C+1, C+4, C+2.)
 

donutogre

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,194
Philadelphia
Very glad Mariano was unanimous as he was by far the best ever at his role, but I hope Jeter is not the second one.
I believe that there's no way Jeter doesn't get 100 percent. The media just fucking loves him. It makes no sense to me how he can get 100% but yet some people didn't vote for Pedro or Randy Johnson, but this process is incredibly weird.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Sean Forman (B-Ref / Sports-Ref founder) gets a vote, and almost was the first to drop Jeter from his ballot. Not for lack of being deserving, but because he thinks there's more than 10 who deserve his vote, and Jeter needs it the least.

View: https://twitter.com/sean_forman/status/1211706303019700230

9 hitters and 1 pitcher on that ballot. Insane. If you’re voting for Abreu, Rolen and Andrew Jones, and considering Sheffield, you should be considering Wagner, Pettitte, and Cliff Lee in addition to Schilling.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,393
I believe that there's no way Jeter doesn't get 100 percent. The media just fucking loves him. It makes no sense to me how he can get 100% but yet some people didn't vote for Pedro or Randy Johnson, but this process is incredibly weird.
Why? He's a crystal clear HOFer, an absolute no-doubter. There's not a single HOF voter who thinks Jeter does NOT deserve to be in the HOF. And he's going to get in this year. Absolutely, positively. So this is the only shot to vote for him. How many HOF voters at this point want to be maybe the only guy on record to NOT vote for what is an absolute no-brainer, lock HOFer?

It used to be that some people would happily do that in principle ("If Gehrig or Mays weren't unanimous, then this guy can't be unanimous either."), but with Rivera breaking that ice, I just don't think too many people want to be in that camp.

This is very different from people like Bonds or Clemens, no-doubt HOFers except for the whole steroid thing, or from guys like Schilling, who are NOT no-doubt HOFers. Jeter is 100% an absolute lock HOFer, and every single HOF voter thinks he should be in. It isn't difficult at all to see why he'd be unanimous at this point, and it actually makes tons of sense for him to be one.

Doesn't mean he's a better player than a lot of non-unanimous guys, nor should that be any sort of gauge. Rivera is not the best pitcher or player of all time, but he's the only first-ballot unanimous HOFer.
 

stepson_and_toe

New Member
Aug 11, 2019
386
Why? He's a crystal clear HOFer, an absolute no-doubter. There's not a single HOF voter who thinks Jeter does NOT deserve to be in the HOF.
Jeter's career dWAR is -4.3, at a position that gets a fairly high positional adjustment. He has two season of 1.1, one of 0.8, and one of 0.0, while the remainder are all negative, so I don't think he made it shortstopping.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,662
where I was last at
Nothing against Mo, and he's a HoFer, but in a HoF with just a handful of relievers, and with just a couple of DHs, and with a clear preference for starters and position players, I'm still mystified how a part-time role player got that singular honor as Mr. Unanimous?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,393
Jeter's career dWAR is -4.3, at a position that gets a fairly high positional adjustment. He has two season of 1.1, one of 0.8, and one of 0.0, while the remainder are all negative, so I don't think he made it shortstopping.
Irrelevant. Do you think ANY HOF voter thinks Jeter is NOT a lock hall of famer?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,393
My point is only that the claim that "It makes no sense to me how he can get 100%" is...well....put it this way - it's very easy to see how Jeter could get 100%, and it would actually make a ton of sense. I don't know if it WILL happen, but I could easily see it happening.
 

donutogre

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,194
Philadelphia
Why? He's a crystal clear HOFer, an absolute no-doubter. There's not a single HOF voter who thinks Jeter does NOT deserve to be in the HOF. And he's going to get in this year. Absolutely, positively. So this is the only shot to vote for him. How many HOF voters at this point want to be maybe the only guy on record to NOT vote for what is an absolute no-brainer, lock HOFer?

It used to be that some people would happily do that in principle ("If Gehrig or Mays weren't unanimous, then this guy can't be unanimous either."), but with Rivera breaking that ice, I just don't think too many people want to be in that camp.

This is very different from people like Bonds or Clemens, no-doubt HOFers except for the whole steroid thing, or from guys like Schilling, who are NOT no-doubt HOFers. Jeter is 100% an absolute lock HOFer, and every single HOF voter thinks he should be in. It isn't difficult at all to see why he'd be unanimous at this point, and it actually makes tons of sense for him to be one.

Doesn't mean he's a better player than a lot of non-unanimous guys, nor should that be any sort of gauge. Rivera is not the best pitcher or player of all time, but he's the only first-ballot unanimous HOFer.
I don’t like to get all high and mighty about internet message boarding, but I really have to take exception to this. You’re trying to break down my argument... by literally ignoring half my argument.

I didn’t say that anyone thinks Jeter shouldn’t be in the hall of fame. I have zero issue with him getting in at 100%. What I DID say is I think it’s really stupid that Jeter will get 100% while many other potentially more deserving players did not. As someone said, it’s a little weird that Rivera is the first to get 100% playing a part-time position. Again, no issue with him getting 100%, either. He’s the best ever at that position. But if Jeter and Rivera deserved and got/get 100%, explain to my why Pedro and Johnson didn’t? In recent years, they’re about the most no-doubter guys I can think of, and yet.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,393
I don’t like to get all high and mighty about internet message boarding, but I really have to take exception to this. You’re trying to break down my argument... by literally ignoring half my argument.

I didn’t say that anyone thinks Jeter shouldn’t be in the hall of fame. I have zero issue with him getting in at 100%. What I DID say is I think it’s really stupid that Jeter will get 100% while many other potentially more deserving players did not. As someone said, it’s a little weird that Rivera is the first to get 100% playing a part-time position. Again, no issue with him getting 100%, either. He’s the best ever at that position. But if Jeter and Rivera deserved and got/get 100%, explain to my why Pedro and Johnson didn’t? In recent years, they’re about the most no-doubter guys I can think of, and yet.
I kind of explained already this in post #224. Some voters, up til Rivera, had this idea that you're describing - "If Gehrig and Mays didn't get in unanimously on the first ballot, no way player X should" - even if player X is a no doubt hall of famer. And so even though they KNEW that player X deserved to be there, they'd not vote for that player on the first ballot in principle, because they didn't want player X - who is inferior to Gehrig and Mays - to be a unanimous first-ballot HOFer if Gehrig and Mays weren't.

But with Rivera getting in, I think that's changed. Well, obviously it has (or did in the case of Rivera anyway). Voters recognized that Rivera was an absolute lock, fully-deserving HOFer, and would be in on the first ballot. And maybe some of them decided that they didn't want to be the only guy (or one of just a few guys) to NOT vote for a clear first-ballot shoo-in.

Now that the ice has been broken, I don't see why the same voters would go back to the "if Gehrig and Mays weren't unanimous, Jeter shouldn't be" rule, when they know that Jeter is a slam-dunk first ballot hall of famer.

So yeah, I got your argument, I think, and talked about it in post #224 and why I think it makes perfect sense that he could (not WILL, but *could*) get in unanimously.
 

donutogre

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,194
Philadelphia
I kind of explained already this in post #224. Some voters, up til Rivera, had this idea that you're describing - "If Gehrig and Mays didn't get in unanimously on the first ballot, no way player X should" - even if player X is a no doubt hall of famer. And so even though they KNEW that player X deserved to be there, they'd not vote for that player on the first ballot in principle, because they didn't want player X - who is inferior to Gehrig and Mays - to be a unanimous first-ballot HOFer if Gehrig and Mays weren't.

But with Rivera getting in, I think that's changed. Well, obviously it has (or did in the case of Rivera anyway). Voters recognized that Rivera was an absolute lock, fully-deserving HOFer, and would be in on the first ballot. And maybe some of them decided that they didn't want to be the only guy (or one of just a few guys) to NOT vote for a clear first-ballot shoo-in.

Now that the ice has been broken, I don't see why the same voters would go back to the "if Gehrig and Mays weren't unanimous, Jeter shouldn't be" rule, when they know that Jeter is a slam-dunk first ballot hall of famer.

So yeah, I got your argument, I think, and talked about it in post #224 and why I think it makes perfect sense that he could (not WILL, but *could*) get in unanimously.
Yeah, I see what you mean about the ice being broken now. There's no reason for him not to get 100%. I'm mostly just looking back at how weird it is that so, so many legendary players didn't get 100%. I guess my question isn't "why Jeter, but not player X?" but "why Rivera, but not player X?" But yeah, at this point, now that it's happened once, there's no good reason for it not to again. It's just bizarre how long it took to me!

But yeah, I guess the answer to my original query of "why Jeter but not Pedro or Johnson" is because the 100% barrier is gone. Who knows why it took so long, but here we are.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,880
Boston, MA
Yeah, I see what you mean about the ice being broken now. There's no reason for him not to get 100%. I'm mostly just looking back at how weird it is that so, so many legendary players didn't get 100%. I guess my question isn't "why Jeter, but not player X?" but "why Rivera, but not player X?" But yeah, at this point, now that it's happened once, there's no good reason for it not to again. It's just bizarre how long it took to me!

But yeah, I guess the answer to my original query of "why Jeter but not Pedro or Johnson" is because the 100% barrier is gone. Who knows why it took so long, but here we are.
I can see an argument against Pedro if you really, really value longevity. The two absolute no doubt guys from that era were The Unit and Maddux. There was no argument you could possibly come up with to vote against them.

The problem was that they arrived on the ballot when there were two competing forces both taking votes from them. There was a group of voters who said they didn't know who was using and who wasn't in the steroid era, so they couldn't vote for anyone in those years. Partially because of that, there was another group of voters who thought that were more than 10 deserving candidates on the ballot and had to vote strategically. They took votes away from players who didn't need them, like Maddux and Johnson, to give them to guys who may have been on the bubble.

Once that backlog got worked through and the particulars of the steroid era became more clear, the no doubters are getting 100%.

And before the 2000s, there were definitely voters who felt that nobody should ever get in unanimously. They're all gone now.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,393
Yeah, I see what you mean about the ice being broken now. There's no reason for him not to get 100%. I'm mostly just looking back at how weird it is that so, so many legendary players didn't get 100%. I guess my question isn't "why Jeter, but not player X?" but "why Rivera, but not player X?" But yeah, at this point, now that it's happened once, there's no good reason for it not to again. It's just bizarre how long it took to me!

But yeah, I guess the answer to my original query of "why Jeter but not Pedro or Johnson" is because the 100% barrier is gone. Who knows why it took so long, but here we are.
Totally agree. Rivera is my favorite Yankee of all time (and as a die-hard Sox fan, there simply aren't many Yankees that I've liked) and I have the utmost respect for him. But he's not the best player or pitcher to ever play. So it's kind of crazy that he, of all people, was the first unanimous first-ballot HOFer. But, well, it is what it is.
 

donutogre

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,194
Philadelphia
The problem was that they arrived on the ballot when there were two competing forces both taking votes from them. There was a group of voters who said they didn't know who was using and who wasn't in the steroid era, so they couldn't vote for anyone in those years. Partially because of that, there was another group of voters who thought that were more than 10 deserving candidates on the ballot and had to vote strategically. They took votes away from players who didn't need them, like Maddux and Johnson, to give them to guys who may have been on the bubble.

Once that backlog got worked through and the particulars of the steroid era became more clear, the no doubters are getting 100%.
Thanks for this breakdown! Makes sense in a weird way and I can see the idea of not “wasting“ a vote on someone like the Unit who will absolutely get in, if not at 100%.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,101
Does it really matter if a player gets 100% or not? I've always viewed the HoF as a pass/fail exam; earn 70%, and you get a plaque and a jacket. Anything recognition beyond that is going to depend on the player's career contributions more so than the voting percentage. I guess it's important to the media looking for something to write about.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Does it really matter if a player gets 100% or not? I've always viewed the HoF as a pass/fail exam; earn 70%, and you get a plaque and a jacket. Anything recognition beyond that is going to depend on the player's career contributions more so than the voting percentage. I guess it's important to the media looking for something to write about.
No one told you there'd be math
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,343
Part of it is ballot tracking and public ballots becoming so huge. I don’t think anybody would have been one of the 3 that didn’t vote for Ken Griffey Jr. even just a few years later. Forman wasn’t going to vote for Jeter strategically and decided it wasn’t worth the backlash.
 

McBride11

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
22,114
Durham, NC
Does it really matter if a player gets 100% or not? I've always viewed the HoF as a pass/fail exam; earn 70%, and you get a plaque and a jacket. Anything recognition beyond that is going to depend on the player's career contributions more so than the voting percentage. I guess it's important to the media looking for something to write about.
And getting into the most exclusive HoF there is, there is some extra credit for simply achieving that.

But I also get the questions about why didn't Ruth, Mays, Williams, etc get 100%. The baseball HoF voters are, for a good reason, the most picky, but also have some weird voting tendencies.

I will never understand the lack of voting because of roids either. Bonds doesn't have the 6th best all time OBP because of roids (the 5 above him are all HoF). Roids don't improve hand/eye and zone recognition His HR record maybe has a *. But he is also the all time bWAR leader.
Maybe keep out a marginal player due to roids, but Bonds is not a marginal player. (And I disliked Bonds while he was playing, yet here I am saying he should be in).
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
And getting into the most exclusive HoF there is, there is some extra credit for simply achieving that.

But I also get the questions about why didn't Ruth, Mays, Williams, etc get 100%. The baseball HoF voters are, for a good reason, the most picky, but also have some weird voting tendencies.

I will never understand the lack of voting because of roids either. Bonds doesn't have the 6th best all time OBP because of roids (the 5 above him are all HoF). Roids don't improve hand/eye and zone recognition His HR record maybe has a *. But he is also the all time bWAR leader.
Maybe keep out a marginal player due to roids, but Bonds is not a marginal player. (And I disliked Bonds while he was playing, yet here I am saying he should be in).
It’s been brought up multiple times in all the Hall of Fame threads, but why would you assume Bonds, Clemens et al were ever clean? I don’t. Cheat once, then I assume you cheated always until there was testing. Maybe the only time Clemens was clean was for 1993-1996, when he had a long-term contract and no reason to be great, and he was merely good until he turned it around suddenly in the second half of 1996 for a contract run.

And ‘roids, as well as HGH, may very well improve hand/eye and zone recognition. If you can practice more and practice harder you’ll get better at recognizing pitches and timing, and if you’re stronger and you’ve shortened your swing from all that practice, you can wait a split second longer, which improves pitch recognition.

And for pitchers it’s all about stamina. Add to your fastball. Hold your fastball longer in games. Throw more pitches on your side day so you’re sharper.

If we’re keeping people out for tweeting while stupid well after retirement, then there’s no sympathy or benefit of the doubt from me for those guys who altered history with their actions.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
A good roundup of the current status, from David Adler of MLB.com.

Not much change on the tracker over the last week or so, not many new ballots. In fact, the whole tracker system is like 40% behind (on volume) from the past few seasons' pace. I don't know if that's a function of Ryan Tibbs' team and focus, or if something happened among the electorate that has made them less interested in sharing.
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,260
Seacoast NH
A good roundup of the current status, from David Adler of MLB.com.

Not much change on the tracker over the last week or so, not many new ballots. In fact, the whole tracker system is like 40% behind (on volume) from the past few seasons' pace. I don't know if that's a function of Ryan Tibbs' team and focus, or if something happened among the electorate that has made them less interested in sharing.
Yeah, I think the criticism that ballot sharers get may be a bug and not a feature of the tracker. When a voter submits a ballot that votes for 10 but leaves off someone or votes for someone that makes no sense the Twitter world loses their collective minds. Sometimes it's deserved, other times not but there is usually some sort of uproar when those ballots are posted.

EDIT - or this explanation.


From @notmrtibbs in response to a question about lack of ballots received:
"There's been a bit of other news in the baseball world that has pushed back the publication date of various ballot explainers, sources tell The Tracker. https://twitter.com/birdsonthebat50/status/1217870823043801088"
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Seems like an argument to send it anonymously, not an argument not to share at all. The vast majority of the ballots they collect were originally published on twitter by the BBWAA member.

But on another level: you're a baseball writer, you're paid to write about baseball and get people reading about and talking about baseball, but then you get a few words of criticism for voting your opinion on baseball, and all of a sudden it's not a safe enough space for you? C'mon man. That's wanting it both ways.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
Shanks voting only for Jeter and then using the rest of the space to make fun of advanced metrics is very on-brand.
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
8,733
Shanks voting only for Jeter and then using the rest of the space to make fun of advanced metrics is very on-brand.
He writes:

Those were the days of Ron Santo vs. Brooks Robinson and Luis Tiant vs. Don Drysdale and Catfish Hunter.
Ah, yes the unwritten rule that there could only be one HoFer per position during the years I watched baseball.

I think there’s a case to be made that this guy invented the “hate click” 30-odd years ago.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
200 ballots known, approaching 50% of the electorate.

Jeter 100% (1st ballot)
Walker 85.0% (10th ballot, +32 net among returning public votes, 7/7 first-timers)
Schilling 79.0% (8th, +10, 6/7 first-timers)
Bonds 72.5% (8th, +3, 6/7)
Clemens 71.5% (8th, +2, 6/7)
---
Rolen 50.0% (3rd, +49!, 4/7)
Vizquel 49.0% (3rd, +22, 2/7)
Sheffield 36.5% (6th, +43!, 4/7)
Wagner 34.5% (5th, +34, 3/7)
Helton 33.5% (2nd, +32, 1/7)
Kent 33.0% (7th, +31, 2/7)
Manny 32.0% (4th, +12, 4/7)
---
A. Jones 25.0% (3rd, +28, 3/7)
Sosa 17.0% (8th, +10, 3/7)
Pettitte 10.0% (2nd, +7, 0/7)
Abreu 6.5% (1st, 1/7)

I think it's absolutely facinating to see that huge glut in the mid-30s, each with the massive +net from returning voters. It's direct evidence of the oft-discussed "logjam" of the last few years, where obvious HOFers didn't get in fast enough and as a result they had to hog ballot space for a few years. So now we've got some nominees whose candidacy is only just now gaining steam, because space on the ballot has only just freed up. The momentum behind Rolen and Sheffield seems to make them the next few years' causes-celebre.

I also have gone from thinking Walker will just miss this year, to thinking he's a coinflip. His 7/7 among first-time voters and big vote-flipping (and of course, the closer you were to election last year, the fewer votes there ARE to even flip) suggests that his public-to-final correction number might well be below last year's -11.3%. If he carries 85.0% through till tomorrow, he may actually pull it off. The only other drama to the announcement is whether the drop-off numbers give hope to Bonds and Clemens for next year, and whether Abreu makes a second ballot.

Lastly, among that Globe group, Bob Hohler's ballot of Jeter, Bonds, Clemens and Schilling is only slightly less-bad than Shank (about whom the less said, the better - I'll just note that in 2019 he cast a 1-vote ballot for Rivera, in 2018 voted only for Chipper, Guerrero and Thome, and was for Schilling up through 2016 but dropped him in 2017). Not top-10 most ridiculous ballots, but being that I read him and somewhat respect his thoughts on baseball, I found it disappointing that he'd cast a 4-vote ballot. Bob Ryan didn't vote for Bonds or Clemens but at least found 5 worthy candidates. Meanwhile, Tony Mazz's ballot of Jeter, Bonds, Clemens and Manny (but not Schilling or Walker), would get a facepalm if it weren't so on-brand for him.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,568
He writes:



Ah, yes the unwritten rule that there could only be one HoFer per position during the years I watched baseball.

I think there’s a case to be made that this guy invented the “hate click” 30-odd years ago.
Under this guideline, Jeter shouldn't be getting in,at all. Instead, it should be a mirror-loving analyst on ESPN.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
Peter Gammons somehow found a way to drop Walker in his final year, not vote for 10 guys, and also say that he really hopes Walker doesn't miss by 1 vote. If only he could have done something to help improve Walker's chances of not missing....