HOF vote watch

[Reuben]

With exactly one week to go, Baseball Think Factory has tallied about 17% of the total votes. Right now Biggio has 80.2%, trailing Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas. Bagwell has 64.6%, behind Piazza.
link

Jeff Kent is way down at 11%. No word on Moises Alou; hard to see him getting the 5% needed to stay on the ballot.

[Reuben]

Gammons has a rambling but interesting article up addressing the PED angle. This part caught my eye:

For all the preaching about cheating, no one has differentiated one form of cheating from another. A splitter killed a batter, one Hall of Famer wrote a book about throwing one 50 years later. The day after Sammy Sosa was caught with a corked bat, I participated in a two hour ESPN special in which one writer demanded Sosa be suspended; never mind that one of Ted Williams’ teammates regaled me with a story about Ted’s corked bats, and we all laugh every time we think about the superballs out of Graig Nettles’ bat.

Some writers say their eyes are judge and jury. Some go by hearsay; Ken Caminiti told many that Jeff Bagwell was a juicer, and it is accepted, yet one time Caminiti, a sad character, cornered me at a Players Choice Awards function and ranted about Steve Finley also being a steroids guy, which I do not believe. In any way. Or care, because Caminiti turned into one of those “everyone did it” persons.

I'd never heard that Caminiti himself said Bagwell was a roider; I guess that explains the "whispers" some writers have alluded to. I always thought people just judged him guilty by association. Equally interesting is how strongly Gammons discredits Cammy as a reliable source.

ETA link

[Bench]

I am continuously baffled by the apparent consensus that Thomas is a shoe in when all these other players aren't.

[Reuben]

I am continuously baffled by the apparent consensus that Thomas is a shoe in when all these other players aren't.

I know what you mean... he's sort of a rich man's Edgar Martinez: shitty fielder, known more as a DH, epically slow runner, but an outstanding all-around hitter - average, power, OBP; played most of his career with one team, seems to have a reputation as a good guy, and apparently, despite his enormous strength, he wasn't toned enough that the McCarthyists think he might've done 'roids. Had a longer career than Edgar and won 2 MVPs. Personally, I think he definitely is a HOFer, but then again, many others on the ballot are obvious HOFers to me as well.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I have always thought it interesting that Thomas had excelled at both baseball and football in high school, however, when he wasn't drafted to play baseball out of high school, he accepted a football scholarship to Auburn. He wasn't much of a football player for Auburn but he killed it on their baseball team and became a first round pick.

[HudsonHawk]

I know what you mean... he's sort of a rich man's Edgar Martinez: shitty fielder, known more as a DH, epically slow runner, but an outstanding all-around hitter - average, power, OBP; played most of his career with one team, seems to have a reputation as a good guy, and apparently, despite his enormous strength, he wasn't toned enough that the McCarthyists think he might've done 'roids. Had a longer career than Edgar and won 2 MVPs. Personally, I think he definitely is a HOFer, but then again, many others on the ballot are obvious HOFers to me as well.

Boy you wanna talk about the poster boy for typical steroid-induced body change, look no further than Edgar Martinez.  He makes Barry Bonds look normal.

[subnuclear]

I know what you mean... he's sort of a rich man's Edgar Martinez: shitty fielder, known more as a DH, epically slow runner, but an outstanding all-around hitter - average, power, OBP; played most of his career with one team, seems to have a reputation as a good guy, and apparently, despite his enormous strength, he wasn't toned enough that the McCarthyists think he might've done 'roids. Had a longer career than Edgar and won 2 MVPs. Personally, I think he definitely is a HOFer, but then again, many others on the ballot are obvious HOFers to me as well.

I think it helps, in terms of steroid suspicion, that he is 6'5". You would expect someone that large to hit the ball hard. But I don't really don't know what people are thinking.

[Waldo]

Wait.  I thought nobody was worthy of being a first-ballot HOFer anymore?

Nice to see that Bidge is trending over the top so far.  Bagwell has also gained a few percentage points and looks to make it in in a year or two.

[Lefty]

Boy you wanna talk about the poster boy for typical steroid-induced body change, look no further than Edgar Martinez.  He makes Barry Bonds look normal.

Julio Franco as well

[astrosfan76]

With exactly one week to go, Baseball Think Factory has tallied about 17% of the total votes. Right now Biggio has 80.2%, trailing Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas. Bagwell has 64.6%, behind Piazza.
link

Jeff Kent is way down at 11%. No word on Moises Alou; hard to see him getting the 5% needed to stay on the ballot.

Still not sure why Glavine is such a slam dunk. Yeah, I get that he barely eked out the magic 300 number, but his other numbers aren't that great. Career 3.54 ERA, 118 ERA+, 1.31 WHIP. He had a full season of starts in the postseason (35), but had a losing record (14-16).  Very good player for a long time, borderline HOF candidate. But, "97% on the first ballot" good? No way. That's higher than all but eight players "ever" (7 current members plus Maddux). That's higher than Babe Ruth, Rickey Henderson, Willie Mays, Reggie Jackson, Ted Williams and so on. Maddux isn't that good and Glavine surely isn't. Sure, my hatred of the Braves doesn't help, but am I missing something?

[HudsonHawk]

Still not sure why Glavine is such a slam dunk. Yeah, I get that he barely eked out the magic 300 number, but his other numbers aren't that great. Career 3.54 ERA, 118 ERA+, 1.31 WHIP. He had a full season of starts in the postseason (35), but had a losing record (14-16).  Very good player for a long time, borderline HOF candidate. But, "97% on the first ballot" good? No way. That's higher than all but eight players "ever" (7 current members plus Maddux). That's higher than Babe Ruth, Rickey Henderson, Willie Mays, Reggie Jackson, Ted Williams and so on. Maddux isn't that good and Glavine surely isn't. Sure, my hatred of the Braves doesn't help, but am I missing something?

You're missing the point that there is no absolute ranking of players based on vote totals.  Glavine getting 97% doesn't mean he was better than Babe Ruth.  It doesn't mean he's 22% better than some other guy who only got 75%.  Voters don't assign a relative "good percentage".  It's either a "yes" or a "no".  There is no in between.

[astrosfan76]

You're missing the point that there is no absolute ranking of players based on vote totals.  Glavine getting 97% doesn't mean he was better than Babe Ruth.  It doesn't mean he's 22% better than some other guy who only got 75%.  Voters don't assign a relative "good percentage".  It's either a "yes" or a "no".  There is no in between.

Sure they look at it subjectively. Why has there never been a player get in unanimously? That doesn't mean they assign votes based on some contrived all-time ranking, but voters do care about those things. Your argument still misses the point that he's a borderline candidate, not the nearly-unanimous candidate he's being treated as.

[subnuclear]

You're missing the point that there is no absolute ranking of players based on vote totals.  Glavine getting 97% doesn't mean he was better than Babe Ruth.  It doesn't mean he's 22% better than some other guy who only got 75%.  Voters don't assign a relative "good percentage".  It's either a "yes" or a "no".  There is no in between.

A better way to think about it is that the population voting today is a totally different group of people with totally different perspective than those that voted for Babe Ruth.

[geezerdonk]

Glavine had a perfect 11 score in the whining category. That increased his vote percentage.

[HudsonHawk]

Sure they look at it subjectively. Why has there never been a player get in unanimously?

Because some writers are simply assholes.

That doesn't mean they assign votes based on some contrived all-time ranking, but voters do care about those things. Your argument still misses the point that he's a borderline candidate, not the nearly-unanimous candidate he's being treated as.

The voters feel differently. Still, you are not allowed to pencil in "borderline" Or "56%". That's not how it works. It's either "yes" or "no". If every voter out there thought he was barely good enough, he could get 100% of the vote. That doesn't mean everyone thinks he's the best player of all time.

[astrosfan76]

The voters feel differently.

Which I don't get. Is this a reward for being a good player and being without whispers, unlike "other" good players?

Still, you are not allowed to pencil in "borderline" Or "56%". That's not how it works. It's either "yes" or "no". If every voter out there thought he was barely good enough, he could get 100% of the vote. That doesn't mean everyone thinks he's the best player of all time.

There are plenty of writers who withhold votes because they see a player as a HOF player, but not a first-ballot candidate; that is how they "vote" for a player as being borderline. Since a player only needs 5% of the vote, they can simply leave him off their ballot and vote for him in subsequent years (if he doesn't get that %, he didn't have a shot, anyway). It happens all the time, which is why you see guys gain votes during their 15-year window, with many of them getting in later years.

[Reuben]

Because some writers are simply assholes.

The voters feel differently. Still, you are not allowed to pencil in "borderline" Or "56%". That's not how it works. It's either "yes" or "no". If every voter out there thought he was barely good enough, he could get 100% of the vote. That doesn't mean everyone thinks he's the best player of all time.

Agreed. He's not one of THE best pitchers of all time, but he clearly belongs in the HOF.

Still not sure why Glavine is such a slam dunk. Yeah, I get that he barely eked out the magic 300 number, but his other numbers aren't that great. Career 3.54 ERA, 118 ERA+, 1.31 WHIP. He had a full season of starts in the postseason (35), but had a losing record (14-16).  Very good player for a long time, borderline HOF candidate. But, "97% on the first ballot" good? No way. That's higher than all but eight players "ever" (7 current members plus Maddux). That's higher than Babe Ruth, Rickey Henderson, Willie Mays, Reggie Jackson, Ted Williams and so on. Maddux isn't that good and Glavine surely isn't. Sure, my hatred of the Braves doesn't help, but am I missing something?

His career ERA is dragged down by a bad start and a so-so finish. From 1991-2002 (the height of the Steroid Era), his cumulative ERA was 3.15, W-L 209-102, ERA+ 134, WHIP 1.27, averaged 225 IP/year and only 16 HR/year, had 5 20-win seasons, won 2 Cy Young awards, finished 2nd or 3rd 4 other times... those are outstanding numbers. Even his postseason numbers are good, despite the 14-16 record, a 3.30 ERA and 1.27 WHIP, and a 2.16 ERA and 3 CG's in 8 World Series starts.

Throw in the 300 career Wins on top of that and he's much better than "borderline," unless you just have crazy-high standards. Dammit, I do hate that with Maddux/Cox/Glavine it'll be a Brave love-fest, though...

[astrosfan76]

A better way to think about it is that the population voting today is a totally different group of people with totally different perspective than those that voted for Babe Ruth.

Many of the same voters as Rickey Henderson, though. Maybe there was a certain percentage of voters who were confused by his usage of third-person and how to phrase that in quotes, but Rickey was a much, much better player than Glavine. This could really get into the "definition of a Hall of Famer" argument, but does Glavine have anything about him that defined greatness?

[HudsonHawk]

There are plenty of writers who withhold votes because they see a player as a HOF player, but not a first-ballot candidate; that is how they "vote" for a player as being borderline. Since a player only needs 5% of the vote, they can simply leave him off their ballot and vote for him in subsequent years (if he doesn't get that %, he didn't have a shot, anyway). It happens all the time, which is why you see guys gain votes during their 15-year window, with many of them getting in later years.

Of course.  I'm not sure of your point. 

[astrosfan76]

His career ERA is dragged down by a bad start and a so-so finish. From 1991-2002 (the height of the Steroid Era), his cumulative ERA was 3.15, W-L 209-102, ERA+ 134, WHIP 1.27, averaged 225 IP/year and only 16 HR/year, had 5 20-win seasons, won 2 Cy Young awards, finished 2nd or 3rd 4 other times... those are outstanding numbers. Even his postseason numbers are good, despite the 14-16 record, a 3.30 ERA and 1.27 WHIP, and a 2.16 ERA and 3 CG's in 8 World Series starts.

Throw in the 300 career Wins on top of that and he's much better than "borderline," unless you just have crazy-high standards. Dammit, I do hate that with Maddux/Cox/Glavine it'll be a Brave love-fest, though...

So, he had a Roy Oswalt-esque 11-year run sandwiched with some so-so years at the beginning and end, but played on better teams many of those years. Really, I don't have a problem with him getting in, I just think there's not enough discussion and don't see him as that much more of a no-doubt HOF than other guys from that era who get many fewer votes.

[subnuclear]

Don Sutton had a similar career and was put in the Hall by many of those same people.

[Bench]

So, he had a Roy Oswalt-esque 11-year run sandwiched with some so-so years at the beginning and end, but played on better teams many of those years. Really, I don't have a problem with him getting in, I just think there's not enough discussion and don't see him as that much more of a no-doubt HOF than other guys from that era who get many fewer votes.

It's a shame he can't go in wearing a Mets hat.

[astrosfan76]

Of course.  I'm not sure of your point. 

Your point was that if every voter thought he was worthy, he would get that vote this year. My point was that there are many cases where a voter doesn't vote for a candidate on their first year, though they would in later years. They use this as a way to distinguish the Babe Ruths from the Jim Rices. If the player still receives 75% of the vote, they'll still get in regardless of whether or not Ken Rosenthal was going to vote for them the next year. So, even if there is no sliding scale or 1/2 points, only a "yes" or "no" vote, voters still can "say" how they feel a player ranks among the other Hall members.

[astrosfan76]

Don Sutton had a similar career and was put in the Hall by many of those same people.

With 81.6% on the fifth try.

[Reuben]

So, he had a Roy Oswalt-esque 11-year run sandwiched with some so-so years at the beginning and end, but played on better teams many of those years. Really, I don't have a problem with him getting in, I just think there's not enough discussion and don't see him as that much more of a no-doubt HOF than other guys from that era who get many fewer votes.

Well, except Roy had 40 fewer Wins during his 11 years, and nothing else to his career... Glavine's extra, so-so years did happen, and do count for something. Longevity isn't everything, but when you've had a prolonged period of genuine greatness, PLUS the longevity, to me it matters. But sure, I think what you're getting at is that perhaps he's riding Maddux's coat-tails into a 1st-ballot induction to some extent... so I see where you're coming from there.

[astrosfan76]

Well, except Roy had 40 fewer Wins during his 11 years, and nothing else to his career... Glavine's extra, so-so years did happen, and do count for something. Longevity isn't everything, but when you've had a prolonged period of genuine greatness, PLUS the longevity, to me it matters.

I'm trying to keep their candicacies separate, but some of this is considered a knock on Biggio; that he held on to get to 3,000. So, for one it is considered a tribute to longevity, for the other it is holding on to reach a magic number. Not accusing you of this argument, but mediocre seasons do count. 

But sure, I think what you're getting at is that perhaps he's riding Maddux's coat-tails into a 1st-ballot induction to some extent... so I see where you're coming from there.

Not completely analgous since they weren't on the field at the same time, but, yes, I do think there's a little Pippen/Jordan in this scenario. So, yes, you are correct and I am impressed.

[Reuben]

I'm trying to keep their candicacies separate, but some of this is considered a knock on Biggio; that he held on to get to 3,000. So, for one it is considered a tribute to longevity, for the other it is holding on to reach a magic number. Not accusing you of this argument, but mediocre seasons do count. 

Not completely analgous since they weren't on the field at the same time, but, yes, I do think there's a little Pippen/Jordan in this scenario. So, yes, you are correct and I am impressed.

I know, it's annoying; the "Biggio was a compiler" argument. My rebuttal to that is not only

a) well, he was a truly great player in his prime - see every year from about 1993-99 as an example, but also
b) he would easily have HOF-worthy career totals even without the 3,000 hits - 2nd all-time in HBP, 5th all-time in doubles (1st among RHB), 15th in Runs, etc.

In fact, taking that part further, let's say he didn't "hang on" for "selfish" reasons. Well, that's really only his last 2 seasons - 2006 and 2007. Before that, he was still an above-average hitter: in 2004, 100 Runs, 47 2B, 24 HR, .281 BA, 105 OPS+. In 2005, 94 Runs, 40 2B, 26 HR, .264 BA, 104 OPS+; if anything, he was hanging on to try to finally make the World Series. When the 2005 season ended, he already had 604 doubles, 260 HR, 404 SB, 1,697 Runs (which would have been 27th all-time, ahead of Mantle, Griffey, Joe Morgan, Ripken...), 1,063 RBI... and 2,795 Hits. I think most HOF voters would agree that those are HOF numbers, especially coming from a 2nd baseman.

[HudsonHawk]

Your point was that if every voter thought he was worthy, he would get that vote this year. My point was that there are many cases where a voter doesn't vote for a candidate on their first year, though they would in later years. They use this as a way to distinguish the Babe Ruths from the Jim Rices. If the player still receives 75% of the vote, they'll still get in regardless of whether or not Ken Rosenthal was going to vote for them the next year. So, even if there is no sliding scale or 1/2 points, only a "yes" or "no" vote, voters still can "say" how they feel a player ranks among the other Hall members.

I understand that.  But you seem fixated on there being some requirement that there be a scale...that a borderline guy only get say 50% his first year.  You suggest that Glavine getting 97% indicates people think he's better than Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron.  It doesn't.  The vote total can be completely a function of the whims of the voters that particular year or who else is on the ballot.  It doesn't imply relative ranking of players.

[Limey]

Glavine had a perfect 11 score in the whining category. That increased his vote percentage.

If he makes it in, I hope they include a diagram depicting his strike zone vs. the regulation strike zone.  That's the most important factor in the career of this slop-throwing lefty.

[Uncle Charlie]

Here's what my ballot would be...what would your's look like?
Maddux
Glavine
Thomas
Biggio
Piazza
Bagwell
Bonds
Clemens
L. Smith
McGwire

[subnuclear]

Maddux
Glavine
Thomas
Biggio
Piazza
Bagwell
Bonds
Clemens
Trammell
Raines

I'd also be for Shilling, Mussina and Walker.

[Reuben]

Maddux
Bagwell
Biggio
Thomas
Raines
Mussina
Trammell
Glavine
Piazza

Call me old-fashioned, but I think Clemens and Bonds can wait. They are extremely historically important, but there is something to be said for HOF election being an honor and I think they've done a horrible job of honoring the game. I'm on the fence about Schilling, Kent, Walker, and Edgar.

[Mr. Happy]

I'll play along. My ten are:

1. Biggio
2. Bagwell
3. Maddux
4. Raines
5. Trammell
6. Bonds
7. Clemens
8. Glavine
9. Piazza
10. Thomas

[Bench]

Bagwell
Biggio
Bonds
Clemens
Maddux
Mussina
Piazza
Raines
Thomas
Trammell

[geezerdonk]

Biggio

Bagwell

[Fredia]

ryan has spoken
http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2014/01/03/nolan-ryan-optimistic-about-biggios-hall-chances-this-year/?cmpid=sportshcat

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

If I was inclined to consider some aren't first ballot material, and some need to wait due to PED behaviors, mine would look like this:

Biggio
Bagwell
Maddux
Raines
Trammell
Piazza

But I'm not so I would likely add:

Glavine
Clemens
Bonds
Thomas

[OregonStrosFan]

I am continuously baffled by the apparent consensus that Thomas is a shoe in when all these other players aren't.

Or the argument that it was okay to refuse to vote for Bagwell because "even if he didn't cheat he and his fellow players could have made a stronger statement against PEDs via the union" and yet vote for Glavine (former MLBPA head player rep (or something like that)).  Asshats!

[Houston]

My "ballot," in order:

Maddux
Bagwell
Thomas
Biggio
Raines
Glavine
Piazza

[ValpoCory]

Sample size is growing, and Bidge still projected to make it.  But vote hoarders may not be as enthusiastic about sharing the fact that they didn't vote for any/many players, so I assume Craig won't get nearly 81.2% at the end.   I just hope he gets 75.0%.

Updated: Jan.6 - 4:30 ~ 133 Full Ballots ~ (23.4% of vote ~ based on last year)

100%  - Maddux
97.7 - Glavine
91.7 - F. Thomas
81.2 - Biggio
———————————
72.2 - Piazza
64.7 - Bagwell

Link

[ValpoCory]

ESPN just released their 17 ballots:

Biggio got 13 votes, with Howard Bryant, Gordon Edes, longtime Astros hater Pedro Gomez, and Dan Graziano not voting for Craig.  (76.5% received)

Bryant, Gomez, and Graziano also didn't vote for Bagwell, along with 4 others (Caple, Knisley, Roberts, Stanton). (58.8% received)

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10231471/craig-biggio-tom-glavine-greg-maddux-frank-thomas-elected-espn-2014-baseball-hall-fame-ballot


One interesting thing is the same 13 people who voted for Biggio in 2014 voted for him in 2013.  However, one of the people who voted for Biggio in 2013, Gordon Edes, withdrew his support of Biggio in 2014.  Tow voters, Jim Caple and Brendan Roberts, lost faith in Bagwell this year.  

ETA: Upon further inspection, Edes, Caple, and Roberts all voted for 10 people, so Biggio and Bagwell may still pass their tests, but they didn't have enough votes for them.

[BudGirl]

Some people are stupid.

[HudsonHawk]

Several writers have remarked that the 10 player limit is wreaking havoc on their ballots and they predict it will only get worse, as they think their colleagues will continue to shirk their collective duty in the next few years. 

[ValpoCory]

Several writers have remarked that the 10 player limit is wreaking havoc on their ballots and they predict it will only get worse, as they think their colleagues will continue to shirk their collective duty in the next few years.  

I agree.  Gordon Edes did vote for 10 this year.   Likely Biggio still passes his test, but Gordon didn't have enough votes.   Same thing with Jim Caple and Brendan Roberts on Bagwell.  Ran out of votes.  Although who they voted for over Bagwell is interesting.

[Arky Vaughan]

The 10-player limit is wreaking havoc this year and will only get worse in future years. This is another consequence of the PED era. As known or suspected PED-users continue to clog up the ballot, there will be far more than 10 eligible players with statistics and other achievements that would normally attract enough votes for induction. The writers will split their votes, some of them willing to vote for known or suspected PED-users, others unwilling.

This is what happened to Biggio last year. It was not that 3,000 hits is no longer enough for 75 percent of the voters. But with McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and other known or suspected PED-users drawing votes from some segment of the writers, and with some writers willing to cast votes for few if any players at all, he fell short. I believe that prior to the PED era, Biggio would have been elected on the first ballot. He only needed 39 more votes out of 569 ballots cast.

[Jose Cruz III]

Here's what my ballot would be...what would your's look like?
Maddux
Glavine
Thomas
Biggio
Piazza
Bagwell
Bonds
Clemens
L. Smith
McGwire

Bagwell
Biggio
Maddux
Glavine
Piazza
Bonds
Clemens
Thomas
McGriff
Raines

[Bench]

McTaggart interviewed Bagwell.  Typical stuff, he's happy with his family (which must be a whole saga unto itself) doesn't really give a fuck about the hall but is still paying attention.  "The only thing I really care about Wednesday is that Craig gets in." 

It's a good read, but this nugget stood out.  On the transition from third to first base:  "At third base, most of your plays are to your left side," he said. "At first base, there's a lot of plays to your other side. So we had a pitching change one day and we were playing the Cardinals. Ozzie Smith was on first base and he said, 'How's it going?' I said, 'I'm really struggling with my backhand.' He goes, 'Well, here's what you do. You can't field the ball deep. You have to get out in front of it.' I was basically being given a lesson from Ozzie Smith at first base during a pitching change. It's pretty cool."

[subnuclear]

Great interview. I wonder what Ricky Gutiérrez had to say.

[ValpoCory]

The only real suspense on Wednesday is whether Biggio gets in or not.    All the others have their fates pretty certain right now, with the only thing at stake being how close they are and if there are hints for future votes. 

[roadrunner]

This would never happen, but I would love for Biggio to get in and dedicate a big part of his speech to Bagwell and rip the voting process that is keeping him out.

[HudsonHawk]

This would never happen, but I would love for Biggio to get in and dedicate a big part of his speech to Bagwell and rip the voting process that is keeping him out.

Why would you want to ruin such a special day for him?

[ValpoCory]

This would never happen, but I would love for Biggio to get in and dedicate a big part of his speech to Bagwell and rip the voting process that is keeping him out.

I doubt that would help Bagwell's chances in future years, as it would cause the anti-Bagwell voters to dig their claws in for the long haul.    Wait until Bagwell gets in, and then Biggio can get on his soapbox.

[Bench]

MLB.com voters.  Of the 17 MLB.com writers with votes, 13 voted for Biggio and 9 for Bagwell.

Other highlights include the myopic:  

MARTY NOBLE, national reporter
"Glavine, Maddux, Morris...  I don't want 28 people entering the Hall at once, so I limited my checks on the ballot to three. That ought to be enough to go along with the three managers."

and the blind:

KEN GURNICK, Dodgers beat reporter
"Morris... As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won't vote for any of them"*

*I'm genuinely curious as to what time period Gurnick considers "the period of PED use."  Pretty sure Jack Morris played at the same time players used PED.

[Randy Watson]

Here's what my ballot would be...what would your's look like?
Maddux
Glavine
Thomas
Biggio
Piazza
Bagwell
Bonds
Clemens
L. Smith
McGwire

You forgot Tim Raines.  He is a no brainer IMO.

[ValpoCory]

MLB.com voters.  Of the 17 MLB.com writers with votes, 13 voted for Biggio and 9 for Bagwell.

Other highlights include the myopic:  

MARTY NOBLE, national reporter
"Glavine, Maddux, Morris...  I don't want 28 people entering the Hall at once, so I limited my checks on the ballot to three. That ought to be enough to go along with the three managers."

and the blind:

KEN GURNICK, Dodgers beat reporter
"Morris... As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won't vote for any of them"*

*I'm genuinely curious as to what time period Gurnick considers "the period of PED use."  Pretty sure Jack Morris played at the same time players used PED.

Ken Gurnick ruins Maddux' perfect game.  He was 149-for-149 until this.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2013_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo

[ValpoCory]

You forgot Tim Raines.  He is a no brainer IMO.

You only get 10 votes.  Who should Uncle Charlie remove from his ballot to vote for Raines?   

[ValpoCory]

MLB.com voters.  Of the 17 MLB.com writers with votes, 13 voted for Biggio and 9 for Bagwell.

Other highlights include the myopic:  

MARTY NOBLE, national reporter
"Glavine, Maddux, Morris...  I don't want 28 people entering the Hall at once, so I limited my checks on the ballot to three. That ought to be enough to go along with the three managers."

and the blind:

KEN GURNICK, Dodgers beat reporter
"Morris... As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won't vote for any of them"*

*I'm genuinely curious as to what time period Gurnick considers "the period of PED use."  Pretty sure Jack Morris played at the same time players used PED.

"HAL BODLEY, senior correspondent
Glavine, Maddux, Morris, Thomas
    I'm not ready to vote for Biggio and once again have no intention of ever punching my ballot for the steroid-suspected candidates."


So Biggio is clean but Bagwell is not?  Why would they be any different?  It's far more believable that both Bidge and Bags used steroids than just one.

[ValpoCory]

It's becoming clearer and clearer that Biggio will not make it this year. 

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

It's becoming clearer and clearer that Biggio will not make it this year. 

Most of the estimates I'm seeing have him clearing the 75% barrier by about 4-5%.  He should be in this year.  Bagwell (and Piazza) are still a year out.

[Reuben]

Ken Gurnick ruins Maddux' perfect game.  He was 149-for-149 until this.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2013_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo

What a fucking self-righteous idiot. And hilarious that he doesn't think steroids were around yet in 1994.

[ValpoCory]

Most of the estimates I'm seeing have him clearing the 75% barrier by about 4-5%.  He should be in this year.  Bagwell (and Piazza) are still a year out.

After the MLB.com votes were tallied, we are at:

Updated: Jan.7 - 1:35 ~ 155 Full Ballots ~ (27.2% of vote ~ based on last year)

99.4 - Maddux
96.1 - Glavine
92.3 - F. Thomas
78.7 - Biggio
———————————
69.0 - Piazza
61.3 - Bagwell

Bidge has 122 of 155 so far.  He needs of 305 of the 414 estimated outstanding ballots (73.7%).

I would presume that private ballots would be harsher than public ballots.  Also, the Baseball Think Factory noticed that most new people on the ballots go down when the private ballots are included.

[Reuben]

I think they said that last year Biggio lost about 2% from BBTF's final tally. So, if we assume a similar drop, he is definitely on the bubble right now. I just can't fathom the stupidity and extreme levels of self-contradiction shown by some of these MLB.com and espn writers. The system is very broken right now.

[Arky Vaughan]

"HAL BODLEY, senior correspondent
Glavine, Maddux, Morris, Thomas
    I'm not ready to vote for Biggio and once again have no intention of ever punching my ballot for the steroid-suspected candidates."


So Biggio is clean but Bagwell is not?  Why would they be any different?  It's far more believable that both Bidge and Bags used steroids than just one.

More importantly, if he is not ready to vote for Biggio now, when will he be ready? When Biggio goes back and gets some more hits, or doubles, or runs scored?

Also, with respect to Morris, you get stuff like this:

"But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and Most Valuable Player Award votes in five."

"I respect the sabermetric argument against Morris, but he defined the word ace in the 1980s."

Yes, he got Cy Young votes in seven seasons. He placed 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 5th, 9th, 4th and 5th. In no season did the BBWAA voters consider him to be the best or even the second-best pitcher in the American League. How does that define the word ace?

[jaklewein]

Yes, he got Cy Young votes in seven seasons. He placed 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 5th, 9th, 4th and 5th. In no season did the BBWAA voters consider him to be the best or even the second-best pitcher in the American League. How does that define the word ace?

So you're saying that you have to have won a CY award to be considered an ace?

[Bench]

Yes, he got Cy Young votes in seven seasons. He placed 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 5th, 9th, 4th and 5th. In no season did the BBWAA voters consider him to be the best or even the second-best pitcher in the American League. How does that define the word ace?

Nolan never won the Cy Young either.

[NeilT]

Nolan never won the Cy Young either.

Nolan did that headlock thing with Robin Ventura though. 

[ValpoCory]

I think they said that last year Biggio lost about 2% from BBTF's final tally. So, if we assume a similar drop, he is definitely on the bubble right now. I just can't fathom the stupidity and extreme levels of self-contradiction shown by some of these MLB.com and espn writers. The system is very broken right now.

Yep.   Last year they had Biggio at 70.1% of the 194 public ballots.  Of the 375 private ballots, he got 252 votes (67.2%), for a total average of 68.2%.  So if Biggio can stay above 78% on the public ballots, there's a coin flip's chance he makes it.

Anyway,

10 more ballots in their count in the last couple of hours.  Biggio got 8 votes, solidifying his total a little.  He's received 130 of 165 now.  Bagwell keeps on falling.  Last year he got 59.6% overall (and 59.3% of the public).

Updated: Jan.7 - 5:10 ~ 165 Full Ballots ~ (29.0% of vote ~ based on last year)

99.4 - Maddux
96.4 - Glavine
90.9 - F. Thomas
78.8 - Biggio
———————————
67.9 - Piazza
60.0 - Bagwell

[ValpoCory]

5 more ballots.   4 votes for Biggio, just 1 for Bagwell, who appears will go down this year compared to last year's vote, almost entirely due to the voting limit of 10 per ballot.  Biggio is at 134 out of 170 ballots.

Updated: Jan.7 - 6:40 ~ 170 Full Ballots ~ (29.9% of vote ~ based on last year)

99.4 - Maddux
96.5 - Glavine
90.6 - F. Thomas
78.8 - Biggio
———————————
68.2 - Piazza
59.4 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
58.8 - Bagwell

[ValpoCory]

16 more ballots in.  Bidge on 12 of them, so 75% of this batch.  It's looking better and better for Craig, as the sample size grows and his decline completely stopped in the last 31 ballots (24 votes ... 77.4%).  I think he makes it tomorrow.

Updated: Jan.7 - 11:55 ~ 186 Full Ballots ~ (32.7% of vote ~ based on last year)

99.5 - Maddux
95.7 - Glavine
90.3 - F. Thomas
78.5 - Biggio
———————————
68.8 - Piazza
60.8 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
58.6 - Bagwell

[Reuben]

I don't quite share your optimism, I'm afraid. There's a lot of unknown sentiments among the remaining 66%.

[jaklewein]

I'm in the pessimistic camp as far as Bidge making it.  Can't help it...have to guard against a major let down.

[ValpoCory]

8 more ballots, Biggio gets 6 votes.  I think Biggio will make it today, between 75-78%.  He needs 427 of 569, based on last year's total.  So that would mean he needs 275 of the 375 private ballots (73.3%).

Updated: Jan.8 - 7:00 ~ 194 Full Ballots ~ (34.1%* of vote ~ based on last year) (*new pct. record!)

99.5 - Maddux
95.4 - Glavine
89.7 - F. Thomas
78.4 - Biggio
———————————
68.6 - Piazza
61.3 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
58.2 - Bagwell

[Arky Vaughan]

So you're saying that you have to have won a CY award to be considered an ace?

No, I didn't say that. Those are your words, not mine.

But I would consider someone who had "more than a decade of ace performance" or who "defined the word ace in the 1980s" to have a much stronger Cy Young voting performance than Morris did.

Jack Morris was a fine pitcher and a workhorse, but he is often romanticized by his advocates.

[Arky Vaughan]

Nolan never won the Cy Young either.

No, he didn't, but nobody has made the argument that he belongs in the Hall of Fame because he had "more than a decade of ace performance" or that he "he defined the word ace." He is in the Hall of Fame because he was the most extreme and prolific power pitcher in history.

[drew corleone]

Jack Morris was a fine pitcher and a workhorse, but he is often romanticized by his advocates.

Much of it due to one -albeit, masterful - performance.

[HudsonHawk]

Much of it due to one -albeit, masterful - performance.

I'd argue Morris had more than one masterful performance.  His performances in both the '84 and '91 World Series were legendary. 

Much the same can be said about Curt Schilling, who I see as a poor man's Jack Morris.  Schilling made his case with three really nice seasons at the end of his career (yet no one seems to mention PEDs when his performance jumped up dramatically late in his career then collapsed rapidly).  Prior to age 35, no one could imagine him getting a single HOF vote, now he's pretty much a shoo-in.  Morris had a more consistent career.  I'm a large hall guy and don't think Schilling belongs anywhere near it.  Morris is much closer, IMO.

[MusicMan]

I'm gonna see a HOF with Jack Morris, but not Alan Trammell; and Frank Thomas, but not Jeff Bagwell.

If the place burns down, I was RIGHT HERE THE WHOLE TIME, understand?

[subnuclear]

Morris's highest ERA+ for any season was 133. Schilling had 9 seasons 150+ inning seasons that were better than that about half of which came in Philadelphia.

Morris had 1 season about a 5 WAR. Schilling had 8.

Has Schilling not pitched for Arizona and Boston, his stats would have still been better than Morris's.

[HudsonHawk]

Morris's highest ERA+ for any season was 133. Schilling had 9 seasons 150+ inning seasons that were better than that about half of which came in Philadelphia.

Morris had 1 season about a 5 WAR. Schilling had 8.

Has Schilling not pitched for Arizona and Boston, his stats would have still been better than Morris's.

And if Morris got to throw as few innings as Schilling did, his stats would likely be better Schilling's.  Still, WAR and VORP and Range Factor and XYZ aren't the be all to end all.  I know it's gauche these days to consider things like consistency, length of excellence and actually contributing to winning baseball games, but those things still are part of a "career" for me.  I'd take Morris over Schilling for my large Hall every day and twice on Sundays.

[ValpoCory]

 3 more ballots in.  All 3 voted for Biggio.  Bagwell keeps on falling, but care more about Bidge right now.  Craig needs 272 of the 372 outstanding ballots (73.1%).

Updated: Jan.8 - 11:35 ~ 197 Full Ballots ~ (34.6%* of vote ~ based on last year) (*new pct. record!)

99.5 - Maddux
95.4 - Glavine
89.3 - F. Thomas
78.7 - Biggio
———————————
68.5 - Piazza
61.4 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
57.4 - Bagwell

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

And if Morris got to throw as few innings as Schilling did, his stats would likely be better Schilling's.  Still, WAR and VORP and Range Factor and XYZ aren't the be all to end all.  I know it's gauche these days to consider things like consistency, length of excellence and actually contributing to winning baseball games, but those things still are part of a "career" for me.  I'd take Morris over Schilling for my large Hall every day and twice on Sundays.

I'd probably opt for Schilling on Tuesdays and Fridays, maybe Wednesdays.

[ValpoCory]

8 more ballots in.  7 voted for Biggio.  Bagwell keeps on falling, but care more about Bidge right now.  Craig needs 265 of the 364 outstanding ballots (72.8%).

Updated: Jan.8 - 12:20 ~ 205 Full Ballots ~ (36.0%* of vote ~ based on last year) (*new pct. record!)

99.5 - Maddux
95.6 - Glavine
89.3 - F. Thomas
79.0 - Biggio
———————————
67.8 - Piazza
61.5 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
56.1 - Bagwell

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I give Morris more points for his mustache than I give Schilling for his bloody sock.

[HudsonHawk]

I give Morris more points for his mustache than I give Schilling for his bloody sock.

Jack Morris certainly out mustached Greg Maddux.

[subnuclear]

Speaking of Maddux, here is a nice article about his pitching style.

[ValpoCory]

I bet Biggio has already received a phone call.   2 more ballots in, both for Biggio.   Craig needs 263 of the 362 outstanding ballots (72.7%).

Updated: Jan.8 - 1:35 ~ 207 Full Ballots ~ (36.4%* of vote ~ based on last year) (*new pct. record!)

99.5 - Maddux
95.7 - Glavine
89.4 - F. Thomas
79.2 - Biggio
———————————
67.6 - Piazza
61.8 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
56.0 - Bagwell

[ValpoCory]

Watch Live:  http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?topic_id=6003532&content_id=31284637

[jaklewein]

Watch Live:  http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?topic_id=6003532&content_id=31284637

Thanks!

[ValpoCory]

Good Luck to Craig and Jeff.

[WakePhil]

Bastards

[Jose Cruz III]

Shows what a joke the HOF is now.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Fuck those fuckers.

[WakePhil]

Seriously, .02%. Bastards.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Idiots.

[ValpoCory]

What a clusterfuck of a system.

[Mike S.]

What a crock of horsehit.  Fuck Murray Chass.

[drew corleone]

Fucking disgrace.

[ValpoCory]

16 ballots with no Greg Maddux.   Good job writers.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

We can't let the late-career compilers in!  It's a disgrace!

...

Come right on in, Tom Glavine!

[subnuclear]

We can't let the late-career compilers in!  It's a disgrace!

...

Come right on in, Tom Glavine!

I'm glad I'm not near firearms or cans of gasoline.

[ValpoCory]

Name
Votes (Pct.)
Yrs on ballot
Greg Maddux 555 (97.2%) 1
Tom Glavine 525 (91.9) 1
Frank Thomas 478 (83.7) 1
Craig Biggio 427 (74.8.) 2
Mike Piazza 355 (62.2) 2
Jack Morris 351 (61.5) 15
Jeff Bagwell 310 (54.3) 4
Tim Raines 263 (46.1) 7
Roger Clemens 202 (35.4) 2
Barry Bonds 198 (34.7) 2
Lee Smith 171 (29.9) 12
Curt Schilling 167 (29.2) 2
Edgar Martinez 144 (25.2) 5
Alan Trammell 119 (20.8.) 13
Mike Mussina 116 (20.3) 1
Jeff Kent 87 (15.2) 1
Fred McGriff 67 (11.7) 8
Mark McGwire 63 (11.0) 8
Larry Walker 58 (10.2) 4
Don Mattingly 47 (8.2) 14
Sammy Sosa 41 (7.2) 2
Rafael Palmeiro 25 (4.4) 4
Moises Alou 6 (1.1) 1
Hideo Nomo 6 (1.1) 1
Luis Gonzalez 5 (0.9) 1
Eric Gagne 2 (0.4) 1
J.T. Snow 2 (0.4) 1
Armando Benitez 1 (0.2) 1
Jacque Jones 1 (0.2) 1
Kenny Rogers 1 (0.2) 1
Sean Casey 0 (0) 1
Ray Durham 0 (0) 1
Todd Jones 0 (0) 1
Paul LoDuca 0 (0) 1
Richie Sexson 0 (0) 1
Mike Timlin 0 (0) 1

[Limey]

We can't let the late-career compilers in!  It's a disgrace!

...

Come right on in, Tom Glavine!

Frank Thomas 84%, Jeff Bagwell 54%.  That is probably the only stat in which they have any meaningful statistical variance.

My life has been so much less stressful since I told MLB to go fuck itself.  It makes it easier to ignore the regular and incessant examples of when it returns the favour.

[Jose Cruz III]

Eric Gagne 2 (0.4) 1
J.T. Snow 2 (0.4) 1
Armando Benitez 1 (0.2) 1
Jacque Jones 1 (0.2) 1
Kenny Rogers 1 (0.2) 1

I would love to know who got left off the ballot of the ones that voted for these guys.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

I'm glad I'm not near firearms or cans of gasoline.

I mean, if he gets in 10 years later in an Andre Dawson kind of way, sure, okay.  But 92 fucking percent?  Whatever juju Glavine used on HPU's has been passed on to baseball writers.

[HudsonHawk]

I would love to know who got left off the ballot of the ones that voted for these guys.

I would imagine these were guys who didn't vote for Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, etc out of protest.  I doubt they filled up their ballots.

[ValpoCory]

From MLB.com

Maddux and Glavine, a pair of 300-game winners who pitched the bulk of their careers for the Braves, were the favorites, but the 571 voters outdid themselves by also adding Thomas.

Oh, how nice of the voters.

[ValpoCory]

Public Voters -- Biggio on 79.3% (165 of 208 ballots)
Private Voters -- Biggio on 72.2% (262 of 363 ballots)


It's human nature that people like giving good news and don't like broadcasting bad news.

[Bench]

So is Frank Thomas the first DH in the hall of fame?

[Fredia]

pissed of does not describe

[HudsonHawk]

So is Frank Thomas the first DH in the hall of fame?

No, Paul Molitor is in, first ballot, because he hung around and got 3,000 hits.  That number is first ballot automatic.

[ValpoCory]

So is Frank Thomas the first DH in the hall of fame?

Doug Harvey is in too.

[Limey]

No, Paul Molitor is in, first ballot, because he hung around and got 3,000 hits.  That number is first ballot automatic.

As Lecter said of Multiple Miggs:  "Not anymore."

[HudsonHawk]

I'm assuming this is a typo, but the HOF website says there were 569 votes cast and Biggio was on 427 of them.  Unless I'm missing something, that's 75.04%.

[Bench]

I'm assuming this is a typo, but the HOF website says there were 569 votes cast and Biggio was on 427 of them.  Unless I'm missing something, that's 75.04%.

There were 571 ballots cast.

[HudsonHawk]

There were 571 ballots cast.

Makes sense.  The HOF should correct that then, as it about sent me into a conniption fit. 

[ValpoCory]

There were 571 ballots cast.

Yep.  569 last year.

[Bench]

I would imagine these were guys who didn't vote for Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, etc out of protest.  I doubt they filled up their ballots.

Only 50% of the voters used all ten spots on their ballot.

[SoonerJim]

pissed of does not describe

Bobby Cox had two HOF pitchers in his rotation and won one WS. What an underachiever. And let Frank Thomas stand next to Craig Biggio, and the voters decide that Biggio is juicing. Awesome.

[Limey]

Bobby Cox had two HOF pitchers in his rotation and won one WS. What an underachiever.

At least, when some blowhard brings up B&B's alleged inability to hit when it really mattered in the playoffs, one can point out that they were facing first-ballot HoFers in about 60% of those games.  A percentage that's likely to increase next year when Smoltz becomes eligible.

Fuck the Braves.

[Bench]

It's a recycled joke but I heard that Glavine's plaque is going to be 8 inches wider than everyone else's. 

[Bench]

No, Paul Molitor is in, first ballot, because he hung around and got 3,000 hits.  That number is first ballot automatic.

Thomas played DH in 1351 of his 2322 games (58%).

Molitor DH'd in only 1188 of his 2683 games (44%).

 

[HudsonHawk]

Thomas played DH in 1351 of his 2322 games (58%).

Molitor DH'd in only 1188 of his 2683 games (44%).

 

What's a few percentage points among HOFers?

[hostros7]

It's a recycled joke but I heard that Glavine's plaque is going to be 8 inches wider than everyone else's. 

Cabrera missed by a margin less than 0.2%

Bagwell's declining vote total pisses me off more than Biggio waiting another year, even if I believe they should both be in already. 

[BudGirl]

It's all a joke at this point to me.  I rather think the writers/voters will take a stand next year and say neither Craig nor Jeff belong because they can.  Once an idiot, always an idiot.

[HudsonHawk]

It's all a joke at this point to me.  I rather think the writers/voters will take a stand next year and say neither Craig nor Jeff belong because they can.  Once an idiot, always an idiot.

I fully expect Biggio's totals to go down next year.  This year on the ballot, there were three 300-game winners, five 500-HR guys and two 3000-hit guys and Biggio simply got squeezed.  Two of the 300-game winners and one 500-HR guy got in, but will be replaced by another 300-game winner (Randy Johnson) and another 500-HR guy (Gary Sheffield), not to mention Pedro Martinez, who was the most dominant pitcher of his era.  Perhaps by 2019 the ballot will be unclogged enough for Biggio to finally get his due.

[Bench]

What's a few percentage points among HOFers?

Similarly, I think it's interesting that some voters voted for Clemens, but not for Bonds.  You'd think if you were going to vote for one you'd vote for the other too.

[HudsonHawk]

Similarly, I think it's interesting that some voters voted for Clemens, but not for Bonds.  You'd think if you were going to vote for one you'd vote for the other too.

I suppose they rationalized it with "Clemens is a HOFer without PEDs, but Bonds maybe isn't"?

[Bench]

I suppose they rationalized it with "Clemens is a HOFer without PEDs, but Bonds maybe isn't"?

Possibly, but Bonds was a HOFer without PEDs too.  There's probably a healthy dose of Bonds' asshole factor with the typical sprinkling of racism you get from a bunch of old white stiffs.

[Limey]

Possibly, but Bonds was a HOFer without PEDs too.  There's probably a healthy dose of Bonds' asshole factor with the typical sprinkling of racism you get from a bunch of old white stiffs.

Wait...Clemens isn't an asshole?

[HudsonHawk]

Possibly, but Bonds was a HOFer without PEDs too.  There's probably a healthy dose of Bonds' asshole factor with the typical sprinkling of racism you get from a bunch of old white stiffs.

It's hard to imagine anyone being considered a bigger asshole than Clemens.

[Bench]

Wait...Clemens isn't an asshole?

It's hard to imagine anyone being considered a bigger asshole than Clemens.

A yawning, gaping one.  But he's a media friendly asshole unlike Bonds.  

[Ty in Tampa]

I'm truly not surprised by the totals. I doubt there is a more undeserving committee than the BBWAA.

[drew corleone]

I do feel for the ones that take their job seriously and spend time weighing and debating the merits of inclusion, only to have such a notable minority turn the whole thing into a debacle each year.

[Ty in Tampa]

Public Voters -- Biggio on 79.3% (165 of 208 ballots)
Private Voters -- Biggio on 72.2% (262 of 363 ballots)


It's human nature that people like giving good news showing they are intelligent and don't like broadcasting bad news looking like an idiot.

[Arky Vaughan]

And if Morris got to throw as few innings as Schilling did, his stats would likely be better Schilling's.  Still, WAR and VORP and Range Factor and XYZ aren't the be all to end all.  I know it's gauche these days to consider things like consistency, length of excellence and actually contributing to winning baseball games, but those things still are part of a "career" for me.  I'd take Morris over Schilling for my large Hall every day and twice on Sundays.

The differences between Morris and Schilling aren't discernible solely using new-fangled formulas. If you look at things like consistency, length of excellence and actually contributing to winning baseball games, Schilling outpaces Morris by quite a bit.

Schilling won 59.7 percent of his decisions, Morris won 57.7 percent of his decisions.

Morris had a 3.90 ERA when the league ERA was 4.10, Schilling had a 3.46 ERA when the league ERA was 4.39.

Morris struck out 1.8 batters for every batter he walked, Schilling struck out 4.4 batters for every batter he walked.

Batters had a .247 batting average and .313 on-base percentage against Morris and a .243 batting average and .286 on-base percentage against Schilling.

Things like allowing fewer hits, fewer walks, fewer earned runs and striking out more batters contribute to winning baseball games.

Batters slugged .380 against Morris .387 against Schilling, so there is one place where Morris has an advantage.

For all Morris' justifiable accolades in the playoffs, he was 7-4 with a 3.80 ERA in the postseason, while Schilling was 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA.

In the World Series, Morris was 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA and allowed 1.2 runners and struck out 7 batters per nine innings, while Schilling was 4-1 with a 2.06 ERA and allowed 0.9 runners and struck out 8.1 batters per nine innings.

In his career, Morris pitched 563 more innings, but he also gave up 404 more earned runs. Morris won 38 more games, but he also lost 40 more games. I fail to see how that additional longevity puts Morris ahead of Schilling.

[Bench]

The differences between Morris and Schilling aren't discernible solely using new-fangled formulas. If you look at things like consistency, length of excellence and actually contributing to winning baseball games, Schilling outpaces Morris by quite a bit.

Schilling won 59.7 percent of his decisions, Morris won 57.7 percent of his decisions.

Morris had a 3.90 ERA when the league ERA was 4.10, Schilling had a 3.46 ERA when the league ERA was 4.39.

Morris struck out 1.8 batters for every batter he walked, Schilling struck out 4.4 batters for every batter he walked.

Batters had a .247 batting average and .313 on-base percentage against Morris and a .243 batting average and .286 on-base percentage against Schilling.

Things like allowing fewer hits, fewer walks, fewer earned runs and striking out more batters contribute to winning baseball games.

Batters slugged .380 against Morris .387 against Schilling, so there is one place where Morris has an advantage.

For all Morris' justifiable accolades in the playoffs, he was 7-4 with a 3.80 ERA in the postseason, while Schilling was 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA.

In the World Series, Morris was 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA and allowed 1.2 runners and struck out 7 batters per nine innings, while Schilling was 4-1 with a 2.06 ERA and allowed 0.9 runners and struck out 8.1 batters per nine innings.

In his career, Morris pitched 563 more innings, but he also gave up 404 more earned runs. Morris won 38 more games, but he also lost 40 more games. I fail to see how that additional longevity puts Morris ahead of Schilling.

Schilling 10 inning World Series games: 0.  That seems to be all that matters to a lot of people.

[Ty in Tampa]

Schilling 10 inning World Series games: 0.  That seems to be all that matters to a lot of people.

Bloody sock - Schilling 1 - Morris 0

[Arky Vaughan]

Putting aside the poor track record of a stubborn minority of the baseball writers, there is no reason why a voting system set up in 1936, when baseball writers were the one group of people who saw the vast majority of players play over a long period, should continue to exist. If you added the local TV and radio broadcasters for each team, as well as the national broadcasters, you would have about 140 more ballots. If you added living Hall of Famers, you would have about 70 more ballots. If you added the general managers, managers and coaches of each team, you would have about 180 more ballots. You could add in active and retired umpires, or players, or other front-office people. Even if you required a certain tenure, say, 10 years, you would get to a point where the writers would still be important, but not all-powerful. And while people from each of these other categories would have their own biases and might not make good decisions all the time, you would have a more diverse set of voters that would be much less susceptible to the frustration that arises from a cabal of self-insulated crotchety hacks who jealously guard what they believe is their birthright but which they find occasion to piss all over every 12 months.

[Ty in Tampa]

And while people from each of these other categories would have their own biases and might not make good decisions all the time, you would have a more diverse set of voters that would be much less susceptible to the frustration that arises from a cabal of self-insulated crotchety hacks who jealously guard what they believe is their birthright but which they find occasion to piss all over every 12 months.

Of the 4 votes that our fishwrap - the Tribune - has, only one has a MLB beat. One covers USF sports and the other 2 are columnists who write to inflame more than inform.

[Arky Vaughan]

the other 2 are columnists who write to inflame more than inform.

Isn't this the primary purpose of the modern sports columnist?

[Bench]

Bloody sock - Schilling 1 - Morris 0

Caused bankruptcies: Schilling hundreds - Morris 0.

[roadrunner]

The entire process is fucked up.  If the ballot were not limited to 10 players, Biggio gets in.  Several writers have already said they left him off because they didn't have room.

If it weren't the first Astros ever I really would just stop giving a shit, but I can't.

[Bench]

I suppose they rationalized it with "Clemens is a HOFer without PEDs, but Bonds maybe isn't"?

Maybe the ones who voted for Clemens but not Bonds remembered that a jury of twelve Americans found beyond a reasonable doubt that Clemens never used PEDs. 

[Arky Vaughan]

The entire process is fucked up.  If the ballot were not limited to 10 players, Biggio gets in.  Several writers have already said they left him off because they didn't have room.

If it weren't the first Astros ever I really would just stop giving a shit, but I can't.

You would think that even with the 10-player limit, they could find room for someone with 3,060 hits.

[HudsonHawk]

I fail to see how that additional longevity puts Morris ahead of Schilling.

Of course you do.  You're looking at career totals in a vacuum.  For 17 of his 20 years, Schilling was decidedly mediocre, and sometimes worse.  No doubt he had some tremendous seasons late.  But there is no way his career had the kind of consistent excellence that Morris had.  But if you think Schilling is worthy, by all means put him in your HOF.  He's not in mine.  And I'm glad he's not in the real one, though I suspect it's just a matter of time. 

[HudsonHawk]

I do feel for the ones that take their job seriously and spend time weighing and debating the merits of inclusion, only to have such a notable minority turn the whole thing into a debacle each year.

The BBWAA does a pretty poor job of setting its standards for HOF voting.

[Arky Vaughan]

Maybe the ones who voted for Clemens but not Bonds remembered that a jury of twelve Americans found beyond a reasonable doubt that Clemens never used PEDs. 

I don't recall exactly, but wasn't it actually that the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clemens perjured himself before Congress about using PEDs?

[HudsonHawk]

Schilling 10 inning World Series games: 0.  That seems to be all that matters to a lot of people.

You're not even the slightest bit familiar with Morris's numbers or saw him pitch, are you?

[Bench]

I don't recall exactly, but wasn't it actually that the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clemens perjured himself before Congress about using PEDs?

Well, these voters ain't exactly the smartest bunch.

[HudsonHawk]

Well, these voters ain't exactly the smartest bunch.

At least not American jury smart, eh?

[Bench]

You're not even the slightest bit familiar with Morris's numbers or saw him pitch, are you?

Both.  I have Morris over Schilling in my imaginary rankings but neither in the Hall.

[HudsonHawk]

Both.  I have Morris over Schilling in my imaginary rankings but neither in the Hall.

Which is really my point as well.  I wouldn't put Morris in.  But I'd sure as shit put him in over Schilling. 

[Bench]

At least not American jury smart, eh?

Finest system in the world.

[Arky Vaughan]

Of course you do.  You're looking at career totals in a vacuum.  For 17 of his 20 years, Schilling was decidedly mediocre, and sometimes worse.  No doubt he had some tremendous seasons late.  But there is no way his career had the kind of consistent excellence that Morris had.  But if you think Schilling is worthy, by all means put him in your HOF.  He's not in mine.  And I'm glad he's not in the real one, though I suspect it's just a matter of time. 

Look, I'm not a big Schilling-for-Hall-of-Fame advocate, but I don't think we're talking about the same pitcher.

Schilling was in the top 10 in ERA nine times, winning percentage six times, innings pitched seven times, hits per nine innings eight times, walks per nine innings 10 times, strikeouts per nine innings 10 times, strikeouts-to-walks 11 times, complete games 11 times and shutouts 11 times.

Morris was in the top 10 in ERA five times, winning percentage five times, innings pitched nine times, hits per nine innings six times, walks per nine innings zero times, strikeouts per nine innings five times, strikeouts-to-walks three times, complete games 10 times and shutouts eight times.

Schilling was better than the league ERA 14 times, 10 percent better than the league ERA 14 times, 20 percent better than the league ERA 13 times, 30 percent better than the league ERA 10 times, 40 percent better than the league ERA seven times and 50 percent better than the league ERA four times.

Morris was better than the league ERA 11 times, 10 percent better than the league ERA eight times, 20 percent better than the league ERA six times, 30 percent better than the league ERA one time, 40 percent better than the league ERA zero times and 50 percent better than the league ERA zero times.

A pitcher who was better than the league ERA by 10 percent 14 times should, by definition, not be considered decidedly mediocre, or sometimes worse, in all but three of his seasons. But even if you assume that Schilling was better than mediocre in only a few seasons, where does that leave Morris, who has barely half as many seasons as dominant as Schilling's?

[HudsonHawk]

Look, I'm not a big Schilling-for-Hall-of-Fame advocate, but I don't think we're talking about the same pitcher.

Schilling was in the top 10 in ERA nine times, winning percentage six times, innings pitched seven times, hits per nine innings eight times, walks per nine innings 10 times, strikeouts per nine innings 10 times, strikeouts-to-walks 11 times, complete games 11 times and shutouts 11 times.

Morris was in the top 10 in ERA five times, winning percentage five times, innings pitched nine times, hits per nine innings six times, walks per nine innings zero times, strikeouts per nine innings five times, strikeouts-to-walks three times, complete games 10 times and shutouts eight times.

Schilling was better than the league ERA 14 times, 10 percent better than the league ERA 14 times, 20 percent better than the league ERA 13 times, 30 percent better than the league ERA 10 times, 40 percent better than the league ERA seven times and 50 percent better than the league ERA four times.

Morris was better than the league ERA 11 times, 10 percent better than the league ERA eight times, 20 percent better than the league ERA six times, 30 percent better than the league ERA one time, 40 percent better than the league ERA zero times and 50 percent better than the league ERA zero times.

A pitcher who was better than the league ERA by 10 percent 14 times should, by definition, not be considered decidedly mediocre, or sometimes worse, in all but three of his seasons. But even if you assume that Schilling was better than mediocre in only a few seasons, where does that leave Morris, who has barely half as many seasons as dominant as Schilling's?

Where would Schilling have ranked had he pitched in the same years, the same number of innings, against the same opponents as Morris?

[austro]

Much of it due to one -albeit, masterful - performance.

Brandon Backe for the Hall!

[Reuben]

Where would Schilling have ranked had he pitched in the same years, the same number of innings, against the same opponents as Morris?

Or what if Schilling had the same pants as Morris?

[HudsonHawk]

Or what if Schilling had the same pants as Morris?

That would be one crowded pair of pants.

[Bench]

That would be one crowded pair of pants.

Just don't make them share socks.  That would be really unhygienic.

[NeilT]

Just don't make them share socks.  That would be really unhygienic.

Schilling had sox with Morris?

[Houston]

Putting aside the poor track record of a stubborn minority of the baseball writers, there is no reason why a voting system set up in 1936, when baseball writers were the one group of people who saw the vast majority of players play over a long period, should continue to exist. If you added the local TV and radio broadcasters for each team, as well as the national broadcasters, you would have about 140 more ballots. If you added living Hall of Famers, you would have about 70 more ballots. If you added the general managers, managers and coaches of each team, you would have about 180 more ballots. You could add in active and retired umpires, or players, or other front-office people. Even if you required a certain tenure, say, 10 years, you would get to a point where the writers would still be important, but not all-powerful. And while people from each of these other categories would have their own biases and might not make good decisions all the time, you would have a more diverse set of voters that would be much less susceptible to the frustration that arises from a cabal of self-insulated crotchety hacks who jealously guard what they believe is their birthright but which they find occasion to piss all over every 12 months.

These are great ideas! I also think voters should have to resubmit applications every year and they must have worked in an active baseball capacity (writer, broadcaster, etc.) during the majority of the career of each player on that year's ballot.

There are too many voters who haven't covered baseball in 30 years. Frankly, Jack Morris was probably the last remaining candidate they saw play.

[Limey]

These are great ideas! I also think voters should have to resubmit applications every year and they must have worked in an active baseball capacity (writer, broadcaster, etc.) during the majority of the career of each player on that year's ballot.

There are too many voters who haven't covered baseball in 30 years. Frankly, Jack Morris was probably the last remaining candidate they saw play.

One tweak:  like my insurance license - which waives the need for continuing education credits after 20 consecutive years of carriage - I would grandfather writers who covered baseball continuously for, say, 25 or 30 years.  The real problem is with those who qualify with the bare minimum of involvement, and then ride that train to their death bed.  If you don't have to justify your picks to other baseball people over drinks, then you don't have a rigorously tested ballot.

[Arky Vaughan]

Actually, some of the most dyspeptic writers have covered baseball more or less continuously for a very long time. It is not for lack of watching baseball that they stubbornly cling to foolish opinions.

[Arky Vaughan]

Where would Schilling have ranked had he pitched in the same years, the same number of innings, against the same opponents as Morris?

This is unknowable, just as it is unknowable how Morris would have ranked had he pitched in the same years as Schilling, when the league batting average, home run rate and ERA were considerably higher.

[drew corleone]

MLB.com writers are also not allowed to vote.

[HudsonHawk]

This is unknowable, just as it is unknowable how Morris would have ranked had he pitched in the same years as Schilling, when the league batting average, home run rate and ERA were considerably higher.

Then I'd say their raw stats are not a one to one comparison.

[BUWebguy]

MLB.com writers are also not allowed to vote.

17 of them were:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/how-mlbcom-writers-voted-in-hall-of-fame-balloting?ymd=20140106&content_id=66341930&vkey=news_mlb

[Arky Vaughan]

Then I'd say their raw stats are not a one to one comparison.

Which is why the statistics I presented were put into context.

[Kit]

Thomas, coincidentally, believes that he’s one of the reasons some players might have turned to steroids and the like.

“I think I was one of those guys that made a few guys go that direction, because of the size and the strength of a football player playing baseball,” Thomas said. “I don’t fault anyone, I really don’t fault anyone for what they did, but, hey, I did it the right way.”

guy didn't use his glove for most of his career.....what happened to stolen bases, great base running, fielding your position...oh I wanna be big like Frank Thomas...pass the roid bottle...grrrr

[SoonerJim]

Thomas, coincidentally, believes that he’s one of the reasons some players might have turned to steroids and the like.

“I think I was one of those guys that made a few guys go that direction, because of the size and the strength of a football player playing baseball,” Thomas said. “I don’t fault anyone, I really don’t fault anyone for what they did, but, hey, I did it the right way.”

guy didn't use his glove for most of his career.....what happened to stolen bases, great base running, fielding your position...oh I wanna be big like Frank Thomas...pass the roid bottle...grrrr

NPR's "Sports reporter" (yes, there is one) justified the selections on their "All Things Considered" program yesterday, saying Thomas started BIG as an Auburn FB player, and that Maddox and Glavine were "clean". Dave Zerin of the Nation magazine weighs in on the post-election carnage.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177860/baseball-hall-fame-vote-edge-sports-post-mortem

[Houston]

NPR's "Sports reporter" (yes, there is one) justified the selections on their "All Things Considered" program yesterday, saying Thomas started BIG as an Auburn FB player, and that Maddox and Glavine were "clean". Dave Zerin of the Nation magazine weighs in on the post-election carnage.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177860/baseball-hall-fame-vote-edge-sports-post-mortem

And their listeners all drank wine as they listened and pretended to know.

[NeilT]

NPR's "Sports reporter" (yes, there is one) justified the selections on their "All Things Considered" program yesterday, saying Thomas started BIG as an Auburn FB player, and that Maddox and Glavine were "clean". Dave Zerin of the Nation magazine weighs in on the post-election carnage.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177860/baseball-hall-fame-vote-edge-sports-post-mortem

I thought the Zerin article was pretty sane, with the exception of this from Zerin:

"I wish people taking their potshots at the BBWAA would reserve 99 percent of their ire for Bud Selig."

I've got ire enough for both.

[NeilT]

And their listeners all drank wine as they listened and pretended to know.

I rarely drink wine before 9 am. 

[drew corleone]

17 of them were:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/how-mlbcom-writers-voted-in-hall-of-fame-balloting?ymd=20140106&content_id=66341930&vkey=news_mlb

I should have clarified that some (Justice, for one) are grandfathered in, but people like Tags and Footer won't have the chance to earn a HOF vote.

[Bench]

Thomas, coincidentally, believes that he’s one of the reasons some players might have turned to steroids and the like.

“I think I was one of those guys that made a few guys go that direction, because of the size and the strength of a football player playing baseball,” Thomas said. “I don’t fault anyone, I really don’t fault anyone for what they did, but, hey, I did it the right way.”

guy didn't use his glove for most of his career.....what happened to stolen bases, great base running, fielding your position...oh I wanna be big like Frank Thomas...pass the roid bottle...grrrr

For all the mouthiness about steroids we always heard from Thomas I can't recall him ever voluntarily taking a test and publishing the results. Basically its the same story as Palmeiro but without the later tests.

[BUWebguy]

This is interesting -- from the BBWAA website (http://bbwaa.com/voting-faq/):

How is the pool of Hall of Fame voters different?

In order to be eligible for a Hall of Fame vote, a writer must be an active member of the BBWAA for 10 consecutive years. Once a writer receives a Hall of Fame vote, he is eligible to continue voting even when he is no longer an active member of the BBWAA, provided he becomes a lifetime honorary member.

Does that mean some Hall of Fame voters don’t even cover baseball any more?

Yes. The BBWAA trusts that its voters take their responsibility seriously, and even those honorary members who are no longer covering baseball do their due diligence to produce a thoughtful ballot.

Why don’t broadcasters or former players get to vote for the Hall of Fame?

The board of directors at the Hall of Fame is responsible for choosing the best way to select honorees. Currently, they have decided that the BBWAA is the body best-suited to vote, but the Hall of Fame board is free to make changes as it sees fit. The BBWAA selects players, not managers, executives or umpires. They are chosen by the Veterans’ Committee.

So basically, they throw the HOF under the bus when it comes to why more people don't get to vote.

[Bench]

The BBWAA permanently stripped Le Batard of his vote and banned him from attending baseball games as a credentialed media member for a year.

But hey all the assholes who send in blank "protest" ballots have "earned the right to do what they want with their ballots."

What a bunch of dumbasses. 

[Arky Vaughan]

The BBWAA permanently stripped Le Batard of his vote and banned him from attending baseball games as a credentialed media member for a year.

But hey all the assholes who send in blank "protest" ballots have "earned the right to do what they want with their ballots."

What a bunch of dumbasses. 

Hey, at least we now know that they have some standards.

[Limey]

Hey, at least we now know that they have some standards.

Yes, they hate the ticket buying public.

[WakePhil]

What a bunch of dumbasses. 

Indeed

Money shot:

In that same email, O'Connell named the members of the BBWAA board, among them the group's vice president, Jesus Ortiz of the Houston Chronicle. Funny thing, that: Earlier today, a member of the Houston baseball press dropped us a line. Among other things, he told us this:

As for the voter who seeks local input, that's BBWAA vice-president Jose de Jesus Ortiz of the Houston Chronicle. He gathers about 6-8 people over a lunch or dinner, they talk about the players, then he votes by how the majority tells him to vote re: each player. I was part of the panel one year.

I don't necessarily take exception with JdJO's voting process, at least he's putting some effort into it. His ballot was reasonable, given the difficult choices. On the other hand, perhaps they could find a better VP than the Chronicle's soccer beat guy/third string baseball beat writer.

[Waldo]

Didn't Noe attend one of those dinner meetings one year?

[chuck]

The BBWAA... banned him from attending baseball games as a credentialed media member for a year.

How does the association have any authority over this? He's issued a press pass by his employer(s), and the people at the media gate at Minute Maid or Flamingo Field or wherever the Marlins play can elect to honor that or not. But I don't see how some random professional organization can control who is admitted as a media member by stadium personnel.

[Ron Brand]

Maybe BBWAA has its own credentialed access, separate from his employer?

[Arky Vaughan]

It is the Hall of Fame that has given the BBWAA the power it has. There is probably not much that can be done to change the BBWAA, but maybe something could be done to change the Hall of Fame.

[Duman]

For all the mouthiness about steroids we always heard from Thomas I can't recall him ever voluntarily taking a test and publishing the results. Basically its the same story as Palmeiro but without the later tests.

No test but he was the only active player to take part in the Mitchel report and he did volunteer for that.  

[Limey]

How does the association have any authority over this? He's issued a press pass by his employer(s), and the people at the media gate at Minute Maid or Flamingo Field or wherever the Marlins play can elect to honor that or not. But I don't see how some random professional organization can control who is admitted as a media member by stadium personnel.

I think he's still allowed to go, just not as a credentialled BBWAA member.  If teams discriminate against non-BBWAA members, then he won't be allowed in to the press box.

[Bench]

I think he's still allowed to go, just not as a credentialled BBWAA member.  If teams discriminate against non-BBWAA members, then he won't be allowed in to the press box.

Of course it's probably been well over a decade since La Batard has seen the inside of a press box. 

[Bench]

The BBWAA published a list of ballots.  It's not all of them, but it is a consolidation of 136 ballots.

Meet Lawrence Rocca, who voted only for Jack Morris, Hideo Nomo(!), Tim Raines and Alan Trammel.  

[chuck]

Hideo Nomo yes, Greg Maddux no. Seems legit.

[Fredia]

another year of agony hoping for ecstasy

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I'm sure Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Rocca, all had their reasons for doing what they did.

[BUWebguy]

Meet Lawrence Rocca, who voted only for Jack Morris, Hideo Nomo(!), Tim Raines and Alan Trammel. 

Here's his clarification(?):
http://fansided.com/2014/01/10/honorary-bbwaa-member-larry-rocca-clarifies-ballot/

[Bench]

Here's his clarification(?):
http://fansided.com/2014/01/10/honorary-bbwaa-member-larry-rocca-clarifies-ballot/

Well, there's thought behind it.  I never really considered Nomo to be such a great "trailblazer" but whatever. 

[chuck]

He also spent five years working for a Japanese baseball club. It's like me voting only for Carlos Lee and calling him a trailblazer. He's full of shit.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Maybe a couple of writers thought that Biggio killed the radio star and held it against him.

[Ebby Calvin]

Maybe a couple of writers thought that Biggio killed the radio star and held it against him.

Potw

[VirtualBob]

Maybe a couple of writers thought that Biggio killed the radio star and held it against him.

Potw

+1

[Mr. Happy]

Maybe a couple of writers thought that Biggio killed the radio star and held it against him.

This. This right here.