December 20, 2019 at 10:24 am #117199December 20, 2019 at 5:35 pm #117219
He speaks for himself…
Putting my HOF ballot in the mail. I voted cranky old man style again, this time only 4 checks — Jeter, Schilling, Vizquel and Walker. Took a picture but couldn’t post it because I used Wite-Out for the second year in a row. As my friend @Kurkjian_ESPN would say, I’m the worst!
— Phil Rogers (@philgrogers) December 20, 2019
Thought hard about Rolen. I’d say it’s the difference between the positions and admit I’ve always highly valued shortstops on great teams. The position requires leadership, not that Rolen wasn’t also a leader. https://t.co/XBTQIjywat
— Phil Rogers (@philgrogers) December 21, 2019December 21, 2019 at 8:57 am #117244
I’m already tired of seeing these lazy writers trying to rationalize their laziness and incompetence.December 24, 2019 at 5:16 pm #117541
This is the sixth problematic ballot I’ve seen so far (there could be more) and it’s bullcrap some lazy writer submits this god awful ballot and gets to do anonymously. Hell I’d be embarrassed to submit such a terrible ballot.
Ballot #56 is from a voter who wishes to remain anonymous at this time. Sometimes anonymous Tracker ballots become fully public later, sometimes not. I am not able to reveal any gained or lost votes, if any.
— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) December 24, 2019December 24, 2019 at 7:55 pm #117545
Wow, that is really bad. Yes, I can see why he wants to remain anonymous. Why the BBWAA allows voters to hide is the real question. Of course, we know the answer. Protect your peers from accountability and potential criticism. I have experienced this first-hand.December 25, 2019 at 7:20 am #117552December 27, 2019 at 1:22 pm #117748
With 72 ballots revealed/~17.5% of the vote known:
Jeter – 100%
Walker – 86.1%
Schilling – 86.1%
BB/RC – 76.4%
Vizquel – 48.6%
Rolen – 43.1%
Manny – 40.3%
Helton – 38.9%
Sheffield – 34.7%
Andruw – 29.2%
Kent – 29.2%
Wagner – 29.2%
Sosa – 19.4%
— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) December 27, 2019December 27, 2019 at 2:25 pm #117749
I really hope Bonds and Clements don’t get in but they eventually will. It shows younger voters don’t care about cheating.December 27, 2019 at 4:48 pm #117756
Well, it would be good to remember that writers have to be in the BBWAA for at least 10 years before they are allowed to vote for the Hall of Fame. I’ve not seen any attempts at demographic splits for voters, but my guess is that more of the voters tend to be older rather than younger.
Based on their writing, many voters say they do not look at steroids as a black and white issue, but instead try to assess if the player would have had a Hall-worthy career had he had not used. This judgement call is why a Bonds fares better than a Sosa, for example.
However, rather than blaming it on the writers – who have a very tough job to do to sort this all out and invariably 420 voters are not all going to see it the same way – why not point back at the Hall itself? For decades, they have purposely provided only vague guidelines to the voters instead of taking on the issues themselves. By their inaction, it seems pretty clear they like things the way they are – with the voters taking all the heat.December 28, 2019 at 12:06 am #117763Bob ReedParticipantFree
“However, rather than blaming it on the writers – who have a very tough job to do to sort this all out and invariably 420 voters are not all going to see it the same way – why not point back at the Hall itself? For decades, they have purposely provided only vague guidelines to the voters instead of taking on the issues themselves.”
I agree 100%, Brian, that the writers have a quite difficult chore. And for far too long the Hall Of Fame wimped out re guidelines for voters. But it felt to me like the Hall finally provided the firm and explicit guidance you describe two years ago, when in November of 2017 vice chairman of the Hall Joe Morgan stated the following in a letter sent to all Hall Of Fame voting members:
“We hope the day never comes when known steroid users are voted into the Hall of Fame,” Morgan wrote. “They cheated. Steroid users don’t belong here.’
He continued, “Players who failed drug tests, admitted using steroids, or were identified as users in Major League Baseball’s investigation into steroid abuse, known as the Mitchell Report, should not get in. Those are the three criteria that many of the players and I think are right.”
And finally, “By cheating, they put up huge numbers, and they made great players who didn’t cheat look smaller by comparison, taking away from their achievements and consideration for the Hall of Fame. That’s not right.”
As respected baseball writer Joe Posnanski opined at the time, “Let’s not mistake this. The letter was sent from the Hall of Fame email address. This Joe Morgan letter is the Hall of Fame’s stance.”December 28, 2019 at 7:28 am #117764
Thanks for sharing, Bob. The message is clear. However, what Morgan wrote was clearly not binding. Otherwise said players would have been declared ineligible and removed from the ballot. Pretty simple.
P.S. Morgan supports Pete Rose for the Hall, another of his opinions that has been ignored.December 28, 2019 at 9:34 am #117783
And to the reference cited, here is that respected baseball writer Joe Posnanski explaining last year that he has and will continue to vote for Bonds and Clemens and gives the others his “consideration”.December 30, 2019 at 9:09 am #117873
Three open spots, with Omar Vizquel and Jeff Kent among his seven, but not Scott Rolen. Curious.
Ballot #94 is from Mark Saxon. No adds, no drops. The Athletic Drop: https://t.co/PGPmB9jkEa
— John Devivo (@jmdevivo) December 30, 2019December 30, 2019 at 2:44 pm #117908
This writer from the Cincinnati paper voted for Jeter… and Schilling… and no one else. He provides a one-paragraph explanation at the bottom of a long winding stream of thought article and closes with a challenge.
“Go ahead. Tell me how stupid I am.”
He already knows.
Ballot #105 is from Paul Daugherty. He adds Schilling (now +5) to go with Jeter on his 2-player ballot. From Doc's column: https://t.co/OD5F4A6d2B
— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) December 30, 2019December 30, 2019 at 4:15 pm #117911
Anyone who has Vizquel and Kent but not Schilling has bad thought processes.December 30, 2019 at 5:12 pm #117912stlcard25ParticipantPaid - Annual
No way should Viquel get in over Rolen, nor should Kent…and none of them should be in over Schilling. But Saxon is Saxon so maybe he will come up with another lie to support his shoddy choices.December 30, 2019 at 10:54 pm #117913December 31, 2019 at 9:08 am #117929
Rather than just complain about the voters who stand out for the wrong reasons, here is one who I respect. I don’t agree with all his choices, but I understand why he made each pick and why he passed over the others.
Your article was not too long for those of us who care why the voters make their decisions. Whether or not any of us agree with all of your picks is less important than the fact you put real thought and analysis into it and share your logic. Thank you. https://t.co/vGoIAtTe8s
— Brian Walton (@B_Walton) December 31, 2019January 1, 2020 at 4:13 pm #118025Bob ReedParticipantFree
“Well, Jeter is not going to get 100 percent. This is a most curious ballot, for nine, not 10 candidates.”
So, was that cited ballot just a meager practical joke by Mr. DeJesus, Brian? Because I still see Derek Jeter with 100% at Ryan Thibodeaux’s website.
And speaking of Marlins CEO Jeter, I don’t think he’s received enough attention for the attendance boost in Miami from 2018 to 2019. Specifically, the fish improved the head count from 811,104 all the way to 811,302. At that rate of growth they’ll top three million fans in just 11,055 more years.January 1, 2020 at 4:43 pm #118026
Yes, apparently so. Another writer who takes his responsibility lightly. (I have to admit that after I saw that ballot, I was not motivated to follow him on Twitter.)January 1, 2020 at 9:10 pm #118034
Mark’s ballot and explanation didn’t make much sense to me. I like his logic that you have to evaluate each player according to the position they played but he loses points when he says things like “using the eye test” in evaluating Vizquel. Also, if he had used his logic about evaluating each candidate according to their position he wouldn’t have left Rolen off his ballot because Rolen is a Top 10 third baseman of all time and Vizquel is not a Top 10 shortstop nor is Kent a TOp 10 second baseman.January 1, 2020 at 9:25 pm #118035
I am drawing the conclusion he did not undertake a thorough analysis ahead of time. I went to read his comments at The Athletic, hoping I would learn more than from his tweets. No luck. In the article, he did not write a word about the infielders.
His entire 345-word section explaining about his ballot is a diatribe about Curt Schilling and the character clause, which upset a number of readers based on comments following the article. So he is taking a pretty fair amount of heat on two difference stances he took.January 1, 2020 at 9:54 pm #118037
There ought to be an investigation of the writers if Schilling doesn’t get in.January 1, 2020 at 10:28 pm #118040
Well, that seems an unreasonable statement. Schilling was eligible for the last seven years and did not make it. FWIW, he looks close this year, but less than a third of the ballots are currently known.January 2, 2020 at 9:52 am #118086
Nothing unreasonable about it…he clearly has the credentials. His WAR is 79.5. He helped lead the Philadelphia Phillies to the World Series in 1993 and won championships in 2001 with the Arizona Diamondbacks and in 2004 and 2007 with the Boston Red Sox. Schilling retired with a career postseason record of 11–2, and his .846 postseason winning percentage. On merit, he is a lock but there some dumb-ass writers who hold his conservative views against him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.