2011 Hall of Fame Ballot

[metirish]

I have to wonder... will the same questions arise about Mike Piazza two years from now? Or will it all be drowned out by the talk of Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens, who will also each be in their first year of eligibility?

Daily News today

Voting nowadays has become "the stickiest of wickets," says Tom Haudricourt of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, who has a vote. "The ballot talks about character. You just don't want to think people cheated the game. I don't like the argument that everyone was doing it. I don't think that's true and I'm not sure that's a good excuse for anything." "This is going to be something we wrestle with every year," adds Haudricourt. How voters from the Baseball Writers Association of America cast their ballots this year could also provide a sneak preview of voting on the Class of 2013, which will include Clemens, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa, who all have been linked to performance-enhancing drugs. The three were all bigger stars than Palmeiro and Gonzalez. Some voters believe, in the case of Clemens and Bonds, that both would've been Hall of Famers even if their careers had ended before the time they are accused of using performance-enhancers. Both Bonds and Clemens are scheduled to face perjury charges in federal court later this year, and while the general outline of the government's case against Bonds is well-defined, much less is known about what ground the FBI and prosecutors covered in a two-and-a-half-year investigation into whether Clemens lied to Congress when he denied doping. Over the next months, more of that evidence will likely become public, perhaps implicating not just Clemens but other pros. Jason Grimsley and Jose Canseco are known to have testified before the grand jury that indicted Clemens, and other witnesses may have come and gone from the jury room without being seen. Will Palmeiro and Gonzalez get the necessary 75% of votes? One voter, Marc Topkin of the St. Petersburg Times, likens Palmeiro to McGwire, who last year admitted using steroids. "If you base it on McGwire, he's got no shot," Topkin says. McGwire got 23.7% of the vote last year. Gonzalez is "different than Palmeiro, but I don't know how much," Topkin says. "There is now a sub-class of candidates, guys who are associated with it. Some vote for them, some don't." Bagwell's tally could be a window into the future, too. "Are voters apt to deny someone based on perception as opposed to any real documentation?" said one voter, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "If people decide they won't vote for him because they think he used steroids, then that will affect other players going forward, like, say, Mike Piazza (who is eligible in 2013, too)." Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2011/01/05/2011-01-05_hall_judgment_day.html#ixzz1ABmmxjeK

Did he bring up Piazza because he was talking to a NY paper?

[Frayed Knot]

Alomar & Blyleven

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Alomar and Blyleven

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Alomar gets 90 percent of the vote, Blyleven gets 80 percent.

[Benjamin Grimm]

How did McGwire and Bagwell do?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Piazza in my estimation is likely to be just as guilty as Bagwell, but will walk in because he has the superior narrative. It's totally unfair.

Congrats to Alomar & Blyleven. Too bad about Larkin and the others.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I don't know how much it matters, but Piazza did slug in the minors. A lot.

The argument will be there, but certainly lesser, and not enough to undermine him, unless new evidence comes to light that's more credible than the what's there now.

[metsmarathon]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Number 6 wrote: Nice article by Davidoff today in the Daily News. Not breaking new ground, but he does call out the anti-Bagwell argument for what it really is. Jeez, you had me excited that Davidoff joined the Snooze (I'd trade John Harper straight up, Long Island, what do you say?) I admit I'm suspicious of all those Houston players in the Caminitti Era. Bags had 6 home runs in 859 minor league plate appearances. Six! 859!

but caminiti didn't really start mashing until he left houston and went to san diego.

and he had claimed to only have started using steroids in 96, two years after he left houston, and two years after bagwell's first monster year.

i guess its possible that bags was the one who introduced caminiti to the roids, or that they had shared a common source.

but really, its almost as if these bbwaa voters haven't watched a single minute of non-baseball pro sports in the past 15-20 years. everybody looks jacked today, relative to the skinny ball players we think we remember from the 80's. hell, if we're using the photo test, then every football and basketball player over the age of 15 is on the juice. well, except eddie curry i guess.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: How did McGwire and Bagwell do?

Larkin ~ 62%
Jack Morris ~ 54
Lee Smith ~ 45
Bagwell ~ 42
Raines ~ 37
Edgar Martinez ~ 33
Trammel ~ 24
Larry Walker ~ 20
McGwire ~ 20

[Valadius]

Juan Gonzalez 5.2%.

[bmfc1]

2011 Hall of Fame voting
Name Votes Pct.
Roberto Alomar 523 90.0%
Bert Blyleven 463 79.7%
Barry Larkin 361 62.1%
Jack Morris 311 53.5%
Lee Smith 263 45.3%
Jeff Bagwell 242 41.7%
Tim Raines 218 37.5%
Edgar Martinez 191 32.9%
Alan Trammell 141 24.3%
Larry Walker 118 20.3%
Mark McGwire 115 19.8%
Fred McGriff 104 17.9%
Dave Parker 89 15.3%
Don Mattingly 79 13.6%
Dale Murphy 73 12.6%
Rafael Palmeiro 64 11.0%
Juan Gonzalez 30 5.2%
Harold Baines 28 4.8%
John Franco 27 4.6%
Kevin Brown 12 2.1%
Tino Martinez 6 1.0%
Marquis Grissom 4 0.7%
Al Leiter 4 0.7%
John Olerud 4 0.7%
B.J. Surhoff 2 0.3%
Bret Boone 1 0.2%
Benito Santiago 1 0.2%
Carlos Baerga 0 0.0%
Lenny Harris 0 0.0%
Bobby Higginson 0 0.0%
Charles Johnson 0 0.0%
Raul Mondesi 0 0.0%
Kirk Rueter 0 0.0%
Note: 436 votes (75%) required for enshrinement. Induction July 24, 2011 in Cooperstown, N.Y.

[bmfc1]

From the BBWAA:
First-year candidates who received sufficient support to remain were Jeff Bagwell with 242 (41.7%), Larry Walker with 118 (20.3%), Rafael Palmeiro with 64 (11%) and Juan Gonzalez with 30 (5.2%).

Other holdovers that will remain on the ballot in addition to Larkin and Morris are first basemen Mark McGwire, Fred McGriff and Don Mattingly; outfielders Tim Raines and Dale Murphy; designated hitter-third baseman Edgar Martinez; shortstop Alan Trammell and relief pitcher Lee Smith. In his 15th and final year on the ballot, Dave Parker received 89 votes (15.3%).

Me: Fonzie '12!

[Guest Edgy DC]

Congratualtions to Alomar and Blyleven.

Tim Raines:
2008 --- 24.3%
2009 --- 22.6%
2010 --- 30.4%
2011 --- 37.5%

Congrats also to Larkin for crossing the magic 60% threshhold.

You could whip Marty Noble senseless for his logic, but it appears that a lot of his colleagues were exercising it as well.

[smg58]

Blyleven should have been inducted a long time ago, but better late than never.

This is where the steroid issue creates a headache. Maybe Bagwell did something, or maybe he did not. I can understand why people don't want to put him in and then find out later that he took steroids, but there's no real credible evidence against him at this point.

[Valadius]

I'm honestly sad to see John Franco fall just short of making the cut for next year's ballot.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Number 6 wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Jeez, you had me excited that Davidoff joined the Snooze (I'd trade John Harper straight up, Long Island, what do you say?) Whoops! Those papers blend together for me. My news is all internetty. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I admit I'm suspicious of all those Houston players in the Caminitti Era. Bags had 6 home runs in 859 minor league plate appearances. Six! 859! Bags had plenty of doubles and triples in the minors, the way his power developed isn't close to unique, and there's no hard evidence of his usage that we know of, let alone proof. It can't be more than suspicion and guilt-by-association, not exactly a fair standard. Anyway, I'm sure you know all this. I can't really argue too much with suspecting that Bagwell used, but it's kinda shit that suspicion is the only argument against him.

Rogers Hornsby hit 7 HRs in the minors over 2 years and 822 ABs (figure on probably 900ish PAs). Just 6 years later, he hit 42. 42! Then 39, twice! During the Dead-Ball Era! Then he had a sudden performance drop-off at 36. A sudden, suspicious drop-off.

Obviously, there was something else in that there Maritana chaw. Well, y'know... either that, or he was some sort of exceptional ballplayer.

Screw "real credible evidence." There is no evidence. There are only aspersions.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Is Blyleven the first Hall-of-Famer born in Europe? A lot of early stars were born in Ireland, but not Walsh, not Delahanty, not McGraw.

[G-Fafif]

On MLBN, Gammons brought up without provocation Piazza and the back acne charge as an example of the kind of talk that goes around, though he cushioned it with Piazza coming to him and asking "WTF?"

Whereas Bagwell was a great-hitting first baseman, Piazza has that "greatest-hitting catcher" tag going for him, plus a large, favorable NY contingent (minus Chass and presumably a couple of contrarian cranks). Still, I wouldn't bet on first ballot for him -- unless he seems so much more appealing than his first-time ballot mates and voting for good ol' Mike indicates some sort of statement.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Looking at the first-ballot club again. Lou Brock's in there. So's Eckersley. Fine, I guess. Well and good.

Considering how relatively few HOF members make it in on their first crack-- and who's still waiting on the front step (I'm thinking of Edgar and Raines, specifical-mente)-- I'm not the only one who finds it odd that Paul Molitor got in on the first crack, right?

[Guest Edgy DC]

What makes a first-ballot HOF-er will always be an impossible cat to herd.

[Benjamin Grimm]

A lot of it depends on who else is in your graduating class.

As for Piazza, as I mentioned above, he'll be in the same group as Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens. Should be a very interesting election. I'm very much hoping that Mike gets 80 per cent, and those other clowns end up in the 20's with McGwire.

[Valadius]

What frustrates the hell out of me is that too many voters seem to restrict themselves to two, or three, or four players each year, even when other players are slam-dunk, deserving players. We're going to have a serious problem in 2013, 2014, and 2015 if people don't broaden their horizons and vote for everyone deserving of induction. Also, the ten-player limit is going to look completely foolish once those three classes are absorbed onto the ballot. That ought to be done away with.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think the self limits of four-five have victims (like Raines). I don't think the imposed limit of 10 does.

[Benjamin Grimm]

If I was a voter, the years when I'd vote for four or five players would be very few and far between. I would think in most years I'd only vote for one or two. I can't imagine that there would ever be ten deserving players on the ballot in the same year.

[Vic Sage]

Valadius, your point confuses me.

I agree that the system should allow voters to vote for as MANY candidates as they believe to be HOFers. They therefore should also be able to vote for as FEW as they believe qualify (as they are currently entitled to do), but you castigate those voters who do limit their vote to those few, rather than filling out names to fill an arbitrary list of 10 regardless of qualification, while insisting that the ballot should also be open-ended.

You should either vote for a fixed number of candidates each year, or be permitted to vote for as many (or as few) as you believe deserve the honor. I get that you want to throw the doors way more open then they have been (and i wholeheartedly disagree with you on this), but i think your position on this point is inconsistent.

[Valadius]

Vic, I don't disagree with you. What I do have a problem with is when voters arbitrarily impose upon themselves a magic cut-off number as opposed to voting in everyone that they believe deserves induction.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Is anyone actually doing that?

I have a greater objection to people who fill out all ten slots just because they can. (I don't know that anyone does that, but I suspect that some do.)

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I have a greater objection to people who fill out all ten slots just because they can. (I don't know that anyone does that, but I suspect that some do.)

I've heard some claim to do that in the past - although no one specifically comes to mind.
Newsday's Steve Jacobsen used to return a full or mostly full ballot each year.

[Vic Sage]

Valadius wrote: Vic, I don't disagree with you. What I do have a problem with is when voters arbitrarily impose upon themselves a magic cut-off number as opposed to voting in everyone that they believe deserves induction.

what makes you think that their limited ballots are the resulf of arbitrary cut-offs? Have they stated that they are doing that? It seems to me, absent evidence to the contrary, they're simply voting for the few they feel are HOFers, and they simply have a higher standard than you do for what that means.

[metirish]

Joe Posnanski with a good read as usual

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/01/05/the-hall-of-fame-recap/