Pedro, Smoltz, Biggio, and RJ get into HOF

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
It obviously should have been more, but it could have been a lot worse.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Randy Johnson 97.3% 
Pedro Martinez 91.1% 
John Smoltz 82.9% 
Craig Biggio 82.7% 
Mike Piazza 69.9% 
Jeff Bagwell 55.7% 
Tim Raines 55.0% 
Curt Schilling 39.2% 
Roger Clemens 37.5% 
Barry Bonds 36.8% 
Lee Smith 30.2% 
Edgar Martinez 27.0% 
Alan Trammell 25.1% 
Mike Mussina 24.6% 
Jeff Kent 14.0% 
Fred McGriff 12.9%
Larry Walker 11.8% 
Gary Sheffield 11.7% 
Mark McGwire 10.0%
Don Mattingly 9.1% 
Sammy Sosa 6.6%
Nomar Garciaparra 5.5% 
Carlos Delgado 3.8% 
Troy Percival 0.7% 
Aaron Boone 0.4% 
Tom Gordon 0.4% 
Darin Erstad 0.2% 
 
 
Others have 0
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Why these numbers are lower than what the tracker revealed, I think, comes down to the old guard types and outlier voters being less likely to agree to reveal their choices
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Does this mean Carlos Delgado falls off the ballot?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
RedOctober3829 said:
How could 49 people not even vote for Pedro Martinez?  That is inexcusable.
 
Excusable for the people who left him off strategically to give a vote to someone else deserving because of the 10 candidate limit.  Inexcusable for the voters who had room on their ballot and left him off.  I'm guessing there's more of the latter than the former.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Piazza, Raines, Bagwell and Schilling all saw a significant drop between final percentages and percentage that had been tracked
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
RedOctober3829 said:
How could 49 people not even vote for Pedro Martinez?  That is inexcusable.
Nothing can wipe the smile off my face from Pedro's induction, but I agree, that is a complete fucking joke that no amount of explaining away as a 'strategic vote' can justify.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
Excusable for the people who left him off strategically to give a vote to someone else deserving because of the 10 candidate limit.  Inexcusable for the voters who had room on their ballot and left him off.  I'm guessing there's more of the latter than the former.
How is there 10 more deserving players on that ballot than Pedro Martinez?  Give me a break.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
Lose Remerswaal said:
Randy Johnson 97.3% 500
Pedro Martinez 91.1% 455
John Smoltz 82.9% 454
Craig Biggio 82.7% 384
Mike Piazza 69.9% 306
Jeff Bagwell 55.7% 302
Tim Raines 55.0% 215
Curt Schilling 39.2% 206
Roger Clemens 37.5% 202
Barry Bonds 36.8% 166
Lee Smith 30.2% 148
Edgar Martinez 27.0% 138
Alan Trammell 25.1% 135
Mike Mussina 24.6% 77
Jeff Kent 14.0% 71
Fred McGriff 12.9% 65
Larry Walker 11.8% 64
Gary Sheffield 11.7% 55
Mark McGwire 10.0% 50
Don Mattingly 9.1% 36
Sammy Sosa 6.6% 30
Nomar Garciaparra 5.5% 21
Carlos Delgado 3.8% 14
Troy Percival 0.7% 2
Aaron Boone 0.4% 2
Tom Gordon 0.4% 1
Darin Erstad 0.2% 1
 
 
Others have 0
 
These number are wrong--the vote total came before the name, so you cut off Unit's total and attributed the number to the next guy in the list. Players needed 412 to get in, and as you have it here Biggio reads at 384. Pedro had the 500 vote total, Smoltz 455, etc.
 
edit--Unit's total was 534. The vote total after each name then is actually for the guy below him.
 

Trlicek's Whip

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2009
5,607
New York City
rodderick said:
 
Who the fuck voted for Aaron Boone?
 
I was pretty certain someone would vote for him for one swing in extras in 2003. 
 
If they made ballots public the day after the announcements it'd probably fix at least 80% of all the bullshit wrong with this system because symbolic votes would have to be defended ridiculed.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
TheYaz67 said:
And bye-bye to Donnie Baseball on his last ballot...
 
He might be a lock to get in through the Veterans Committee
 

BoSoxFink

Stripes
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
7,646
South Park
Felger and Mazz are arguing against Biggio, saying its a joke he got in. I don't understand people who say that. Aren't Jeter and Biggio's numbers pretty damn similar? The big difference between the two is the team they played for. I bet if you switch their teams for their careers, than Biggio gets all the love Jeter does and Jeter is the guy not getting in right away. If Jeter is a hall of famer than Biggio is too. And for the record I think they both arr
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
RedOctober3829 said:
How is there 10 more deserving players on that ballot than Pedro Martinez?  Give me a break.
 
I agree, but it's not about ranking the ballot.  There are voters who admittedly left Pedro (and RJ) off their ballot to include other guys because they knew that Pedro (and RJ) were getting in anyway.  It's the folly of limiting ballots to only 10 votes.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
40,371
Pioneer Valley
Surprised Martinez is in frigid Boston when he could be in the DR.
What a cutie he is. He makes me proud, although I had nothing to do with his amazingness!
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Piazza +7.7% from last year
Raines +8.9%
Bagwell 1.4%
Schilling +10%
Mussina +4.6%
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
Even when they have a good year, they still have so much to learn. Their are certain voters on the ballot who have some weird policy that restricts them from voting on ANYBODY the first year they are on the ballot. That is why there are some people who sit at around and look at the Big Unit (300+ wins, 5 Cy Young Awards, 2nd most Ks ever, 4 ERA crowns, 8 seasons of a sub-3.00 ERA in a big hitting era) and say "Der, Pass." And then at the same time, someone like Aaron Boone is getting votes. What percentage of passionate, intelligent baseball people and fans actually believe there is nothing wrong with the process? 5%?
 
The steroid guys are so overwhelming, it insults the whole HOF. Bonds might be a cheater, a world-class asshole, and had a terrible relationship with the media. He is also one of the 5 best players ever, and he isn't even close.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
jsinger121 said:
He is in. Who cares about the percentage. We all know there are ahole voters.
 
It's possible to be both elated that Pedro got in and annoyed that the process that got him there is both flawed and sometimes criminally abused. I'm not so riled up that I'm willing to get into a back and forth over it, but it's worth pointing out that 91.1% is too low for the guy who had the most dominant peak in the history of the game. Preaching the choir, I know, but it's never not worth mentioning how dominant Pedro Martinez was during his prime.
 
Anyway, watching Pedro speak is always a treat. The man is just incredible in front of a camera. Now we're getting him and Millar together. The smile on my face is fucking enormous.
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,233
San Diego, CA
JohntheBaptist said:
 
These number are wrong--the vote total came before the name, so you cut off Unit's total and attributed the number to the next guy in the list. Players needed 412 to get in, and as you have it here Biggio reads at 384. Pedro had the 500 vote total, Smoltz 455, etc.
 
edit--Unit's total was 534. The vote total after each name then is actually for the guy below him.
 
This makes more sense - I was wondering how 40 people could've justified voting for Clemens but not Bonds. 206 vs 202 makes more sense.
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,760
I may be totally off base here, and I would love to hear from someone more versed in Statistics than me, but isn't it unlikely to ever get 100% agreement from a population of over 500, and isn't it also possible that you will always get some quack who votes for something or someone crazy. Calling Nate Silver?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
Schilling is going to be interesting to watch as this goes on, especially if they start letting voters vote for more players.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
E5 Yaz said:
Why these numbers are lower than what the tracker revealed, I think, comes down to the old guard types and outlier voters being less likely to agree to reveal their choices
 
I would argue that the outliers are the folks who made their ballots public.
 
Regardless, I'm glad it wasn't close for Pedro, although the 10% differential in his vote between those who made the ballots public and those who didn't gives some indication of the concern I had for him originally.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Merkle's Boner said:
I may be totally off base here, and I would love to hear from someone more versed in Statistics than me, but isn't it unlikely to ever get 100% agreement from a population of over 500, and isn't it also possible that you will always get some quack who votes for something or someone crazy. Calling Nate Silver?
 
Sure, but it's worth pointing out the quacks and deriding their continued ability to vote.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
There are many things about the voting that are difficult to comprehend, even with the 10 vote rule and PEDs.  I have a hard time seeing how more voters think Lee Smith is a HoFer than Edgar Martinez, for example.  I can't fathom how Smoltz got over twice as many votes as Schilling.   Etc.
 
But Pedro's in, so all is good (enough) today.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,473
Saskatchestan
Ed Hillel said:
Schilling is going to be interesting to watch as this goes on, especially if they start letting voters vote for more players.
But they won't change it.

I think Stark had a column discussing it more detail yesterday, along with his ballot.
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,099
Wesport, MA
I don't get Smoltz over Schilling. Career work is pretty similar, but Schilling had a better peak and has 3 rings. 
 
Personality bias?
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,760
foulkehampshire said:
I don't get Smoltz over Schilling. Career work is pretty similar, but Schilling had a better peak and has 3 rings. 
 
Personality bias?
Closer bias.