- This topic has 163 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You miss the point. I am not debating Schiiling’s qualifications. I just find it strange to see you demanding an investigation eight years into his candidacy, while his vote totals are going up. Seems like extreme overreaction to me. I think I will just have to start taking your venting less seriously.
On merit, he is a lock but there some dumb-ass writers who hold his conservative views against him.
Lots of outspoken conservatives have been elected to the HOF, but none of them advocated for the hanging of journalist like Curt has in the past and none of them are as vile in their views.
Rolen will not get in this year, but he is making real progress.
If Scott Rolen's name is checked on the next ballot, he'll be at 50% on the Tracker with nearly a third of the votes accounted for.
Last year, he received support on 21.1% of pre-results announcement public ballots and ended with a 17.2% final result.
— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) January 6, 2020
With 142 ballots revealed/~34.5% of the vote known:
Jeter – 100%
Walker – 84.5%
Schilling – 80.3%
Bonds – 76.8%
Clemens – 75.4%
—
Rolen 50.0%
Vizquel – 46.5%
Sheffield – 39.4%
Manny – 36.6%
Helton 35.2%
Wagner – 33.1%
Kent – 28.2%
Jones – 27.5%
Tracker: https://t.co/bp1RXBnrHI— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) January 8, 2020
Scott Rolen trending upward…I like it. Hopefully he gets in before too long. It’s a real shame that Jim Edmonds didn’t get any support at all in his time on the ballot, although Rolen probably has a bit stronger case.
“It’s a real shame that Jim Edmonds didn’t get any support at all in his time on the ballot, although Rolen probably has a bit stronger case.”
Edmonds v. Rolen, huh? Good question, stl25.
Since the Hall Of Fame existed for many decades before WAR valuations were ever calculated, I like to primarily use the four classic Bill James HOF yardsticks to evaluate Hall candidates rather than WAR. (Yeah, I’m a heretic. Sue me.) For those not versed in said yardsticks, please check out Baseball-Reference.com.
Black Ink Test
Neither Rolen nor Edmonds score a point here, as neither ever led their league in a batting, baserunning, or (of course) pitching category.Gray Ink Test (144 points = average HOFer)
Rolen 27, Edmonds 60
Edmonds thrashes Rolen, but each of them falls far short, when it comes to ranking in league top 10’s.Hall Of Fame Monitor (100 = likely HOFer)
Rolen 99, Edmonds 88
Both have decent arguments here, Rolen a bit stronger. Neither would embarrass the Hall with their presence.Hall Of Fame Standards (50 = average HOFer)
Rolen 40, Edmonds 39
Fairly close in both cases, but certainly nothing persuasive in favor of either.So we’re left with a commonplace conundrum. If you’re a “large Hall” guy, Rolen is in, and maybe Edmonds. If “small Hall,” clearly neither makes the grade.
Another disappointing ballot hurting the chances of anyone not named Jeter and Vizquel. Looks like this voter only likes shortstops.
Ballot #150 is from Mark Purdy. No adds or drops for returning candidates.
In the Tracker: https://t.co/bp1RXBnrHI pic.twitter.com/OhbRGqeOzQ
— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) January 10, 2020
There have been two Jeter-Vizquel only ballots and two Jeter-Schilling only ballots. Certain St. Louis media types didn’t like it when I called HOF voters lazy.
Wasn’t it Beckett who was injured and then the Boston media caught him playing golf? He told them “It’s my day off and I do what I want” and was sent off to LA a couple months later.
He was also gunned down by Beltran on would be single to first at a game I went to.
BHC said:
There have been two Jeter-Vizquel only ballots and two Jeter-Schilling only ballots. Certain St. Louis media types didn’t like it when I called HOF voters lazy.
I don’t call it lazy. I call it irresponsible. Not the vast majority of the voters, but the handful who make a mockery of a very important honor to which they have been entrusted on behalf of all baseball fans. Those who do not take it seriously should not be allowed to continue. One tell would be to look at these voters’ annual history. Some change their view of who is worthy each year as they make their obscure points. How can a player be worthy last year but not this while voting for just two? These players have been retired for years.
Like most any group, voting members protect their own from outside criticism. Not defending the behavior by any means, just explaining. I have a personal example. When the first votes were coming in, I disagreed with Heyman on Twitter when he defended one of the Jeter-only voters, the guy who took off five or six players from his ballot last year, so Jeter could stand alone. I soon learned that voter is Heyman’s friend, which overrules objectivity.
Heyman kept on the point that the guy did not vote for Walker last year so leaving him off this year did not hurt Walker. I explained this is not about Walker specifically, but instead the harm caused by a one-player ballot. This voter’s changed ballot for 2020 hurt the 5-6 players who he voted for in 2019. On the main point, every ballot that leaves any player off hurts that player’s chances because the criteria is 75% of all ballots cast. That is why a blank ballot (which have been submitted by some voters in prior years) hurts everyone.
Heyman certainly understands that, but of course had no answer. So he instead continued to avoid the big picture, sticking on Walker, even as I tried multiple times to clarify. Others understood what I was saying and chimed in, supporting my position, but he ignored them. He was snipping my prior comments and twisting them to avoid the point. When I objected to him misrepresenting what I was saying, he turned snarky toward me personally, so I excused myself from the discussion. Disappointing, but I guess I should not have been surprised. (FWIW, this is public record if anyone cares enough to go back into the Twitter archives and review it.)
The general take seems to be that no one (whether fans or peer members) has the right to express concerns about any ballot cast, even if done in an adult manner, or risk getting treated like a troll.
The possibility of these “look at me” voters affecting the outcome is real. I saw a projection yesterday that had Walker at 74.8%, just one vote short of induction in this, his last chance on the ballot. Those four ballots could cost him his shot at the Hall (and of course, potentially hurt others’ chances, too). Hopefully not.
I don’t get too wrapped up in the HOF ballots but if I were a voter I would probably be a “small hall” kind of voter. To me it only belongs to the elite of the elite. I know some voters don’t view it that way.
Other than Jeter this year’s nominees look rather weak to me. Not many no doubters. Call it Yankee bias if you wish but Jeter was a great player on the biggest stage.
My Cardinal bias would like to see Walker and Rolen make it but Walker is probably still fighting the Coors Field bias. (how many times can I use the word bias?)
I would never ever vote for guys like Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa because I don’t like cheaters but they will probably slither their way in eventually.
Vizquel has defense and longevity going for him but his offense wasn’t much. If he gets in it would be like Bert Blyleven getting in just because they were above average for 20 years.
Schilling is borderline but there is no doubt he has hurt his cause with his big mouth.
One reason I call it lazy because there was an east coast writer who only voted Jeter-Vizquel and then said he was only familiar with AL players so he didn’t vote for any players because he never saw them play (mostly in regards to Walker). I call that lazy.
That person basically admits he does not have the necessary background to be able to vote responsibly. Therefore, he should either pass (not submit a ballot at all), or if he does, his voting privilege should be revoked.
As an aside, what kind of a baseball writer must this person be? Can you imagine what his work must be like if he doesn’t know the game any better than this after having been a baseball writer for more than a decade (the minimum voting criteria)?
But, yes, I get the lazy characterization. Anyone could do the necessary research to cast a responsible ballot if they chose to invest the time and effort. But if you don’t know the game well enough to have the necessary basis, why are you eligible to vote in the first place?
Lots of ballots being revealed today and some of them have been pretty terrible and Peter Gammons’ ballot is no exception. He’s voted for Walker in the past but didn’t vote for him this year because he’s now holding Walker’s injury history against him and basically said Walker should have played more. Seriously, that’s just a terrible excuse.
Here’s a video of his explanation: https://www.mlb.com/video/gammons-on-2020-hof-ballot
I have a big problem with the baseball hall of fame voting. the process and the voters themselves. first I don’t think all people should fall off the list just because they didn’t get a big enough percentage or they hit a certain year mark. if they were a defensive great with respectable offensive numbers they should stay on there, likewise the other way. obviously at some point if they didn’t get voted in, they should go off but 10 years is too short. this whole notion the hall should be small is a joke. having more people in doesn’t negate the greatness of the greatest to people who know the game. the people who don’t , don’t really care about that anyway. so we have people only voting for 2 people or 1 is a joke. plus jeter getting 100 percent of the vote is a joke when you consider a guy like vizquel getting hardly any love. I love jeter, he was my favorite non cardinal modern player. but he wasn’t a great defensive shortstop, he was ok, and his offensive numbers are skewed because he played a long time, played almost every day. I definitely believe he deserves in the hall but his numbers don’t dictate him being unanimous. he was a great guy and role model for baseball but that isn’t what should come into play in the voting. if he was a fifty fifty player, then maybe that would put him over the top. but shouldn’t make him unanimous. that’s my rant.
Another nightmarish projection. This one has @Cdnmooselips33 missing by approximately THREE votes. Well done “drop him” @pgammo and “Jeter is Jordan & Gretzky and should stand alone on the podium” @AnthonyRieber and “I didn’t know only 31% of his AB were at Coors” @MzCSmith https://t.co/DgqcL5QNta
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) January 21, 2020
That baseball hasn’t figured out that it’s HOF voting process is so flawed that it must be scrapped and re-done is an indictment on Cooperstown itself. I mean, the first unanimously selected player was a reliever. I love Rivera, but that’s a red flag.
It has basically become a place for moral preening and idiocy. There’s a better way, and 5 drunks in a bar could come up with one before they finish their first beer.
Walker is conceding. How disappointing.
Although I believe I’m going to come up a little short today I still wanna thank all you that have been pulling for me and showing your support. I’m grateful for all of you! It’s been fun leading up to today reading everyone’s thoughts. Cheers 🍻 LW
— Larry Walker (@Cdnmooselips33) January 21, 2020
Konerko and Jason Giambi, really? Being someone’s friend doesn’t mean you should vote for them? I also remember Ron Darling getting a vote.
Today, a reader re-tweeted part of my frustrating dialogue with Jon Heyman when the Jeter-only ballots first came out.
So, a player like Larry Walker doesn't get a fair shot in his final year on the ballot because some voters are purposely making it harder for anyone else to reach 75%. Call it what it is – an abuse of a privilege millions of us who cannot participate take very seriously.
— Brian Walton (@B_Walton) November 22, 2019
Jon, every other player on the ballot is hurt by this kind of vote. Walker happens to be one of the worst examples. The more this emerging trend continues, the more the result will be compromised. So, focus on the real issue, please, even if it means criticizing one of your own..
— Brian Walton (@B_Walton) November 22, 2019
You are focused on one voter and one player, Walker. That's not the point. As you noted, it hurts other players, too. Two of the four ballots disclosed are Jeter-only. If they are isolated cases, great. But if they are not, this will become a real problem. That is the concern.
— Brian Walton (@B_Walton) November 22, 2019
Jeter was a great player and will deservedly get into the Hall, but most of the time he wasn’t even the best player on his own team. That voters would say that another player was HOF worthy one year and then change their minds another because a middling Hall of Famer like Jeter comes on the ballot is absurd.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.