Mike & The Mikettes: 2014 HOF Ballot

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

There were people who thought that Nolan Ryan might be the first 100 percenter.

But, truth be told, I don't think there will ever be one. There are, what, 600 voters now? Not sure how many there were in Seaver's time, but for some reason I think it was about 400. There will always be one guy protesting this or that, or trying to call attention to himself or pile up Internet clicks.

I'm all in favor of making these votes public to hold these goofballs accountable. "Hank Aaron's not a Hall-of-Famer, Mr. Sportswriter? Explain."

[Guest d'Kong76]

Welcome a-Bordick, TearTrax!

[Ceetar]

There are probably more than 10 candidates this year, so even if people were being realistic, they're all going to have to decide to leave someone off who deserves in and will inevitably choose silly reasons to do so, so a guy like Maddux would get left off just cause he struck out a writer's favorite player or something.

[dinosaur jesus]

Another factor with Seaver was that he was clearly the best candidate on the ballot; that's probably true of Maddux as well, but not as overwhelmingly. The only other candidate who made it in 1992 was Rollie Fingers, and several others, like Ron Santo and Tony Perez, eventually got in, but it wasn't one of the stronger ballots.

[Ceetar]

dinosaur jesus wrote: Another factor with Seaver was that he was clearly the best candidate on the ballot; that's probably true of Maddux as well, but not as overwhelmingly. The only other candidate who made it in 1992 was Rollie Fingers, and several others, like Ron Santo and Tony Perez, eventually got in, but it wasn't one of the stronger ballots.

Barry Bonds.

[MFS62]

Welcome a-Bordick, rookie.
Now, get up on that virtual table in the middle of this virtual room and sing us your school's fight song.
And you can tell us about yourself when you're carrying our bags for the next road trip.


Later

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

This is why no one will ever get 100 percent. There will always be someone stupid spoiling his ballot.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131219/SPORTS0104/312180123/One-writer-s-Hall-Fame-ballot-true-shaggy-dog-story?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

Leaving off a player deserving of a Hall of Fame vote � when a career so noble has been forged � is a negative exercise in what should be an inclusive process. It�s telling the Rhodes Scholar that Oxford is a bit full this semester. So, what to do about 11 names for a 10-spot Cooperstown roster? I�m going to do something cruel, and counter-productive, which in this context is what the restricted ballot is. I�ll leave off a great hitter, Martinez, who, because of bad knees was forced to perform most of his career as a designated hitter. But I�m going to do something else and hope that it doesn�t invalidate my vote. As a form of civil disobedience, and as a testament to Martinez�s genuine candidacy, I will write his name onto the ballot beneath the 10 boxes otherwise checked. And then I�m going to do what my neighbor�s dog did after the smell was subdued and its fur was smoothed: I�m going to get on with life, happily, and hope that it�s at least 12 months until I again confront a mess of the kind I just experienced.

So, people counting the ballots do what? Take the first 10? Toss his entire ballot? Tell him, "Look, dummy. These are easy instructions. If you can't count to 10, you don't deserve to vote."

[G-Fafif]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: So, people counting the ballots do what? Take the first 10? Toss his entire ballot? Tell him, "Look, dummy. These are easy instructions. If you can't count to 10, you don't deserve to vote."

Guy should check around, see which of his colleagues is leaving a space (or more) blank and quietly ask, "if you're not already, do me a solid and vote for Martinez, and down the road, when I'm voting for fewer than 10 and you're overstuffed, I'll return the favor." I doubt Edgar Martinez's case means that much to him, but it's better than guaranteeing your ballot won't be counted in advance.

[MFS62]

Where do I nominate Lynn Henning for the writers' wing of the HOF for coming right out and saying that he feels that a (mostly) DH does not belong in the HOF?
I wonder if Frank Thomas is on his ballot?
Later

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Have you tried ignoramus.com

[Vic Sage]

MFS62 wrote: Where do I nominate Lynn Henning for the writers' wing of the HOF for coming right out and saying that he feels that a (mostly) DH does not belong in the HOF? I wonder if Frank Thomas is on his ballot? Later

how about AL pitchers? Are they undeserving of a HoF vote, too? They don't hit, you know, so they're only half a ballplayer, and like their NL counterparts, starting pitchers only play 1 out of 5 games. And relief pitchers should absolutely not be eligible, right? they only pitch what, 60 innings a year, and hardly ever hit. Bah. Fie on them!

You've made this point about the undeserving DH before and guess what... it's still bullshit.

And any writer arbitrarily deciding that certain positions that baseball players currently play are unworthy of a HoF vote, no matter how good the player is at it, shouldn't get extra credit for that decision; they should just turn their balloting rights over to somebody who isn't an asshole.

[Edgy MD]

Can there be any doubt that many of the most unimpeachably great baseball players --- Rushmorian figures like Ruth, Williams, and Aaron --- would have spent half their careers or more as DH's if the rules allowed for it? They might have objected (which Frank Thomas did, by the way [and maybe Edgar Martinez, for all I know]), but they would have been advised by their manager that he's in charge of the team, and they would have sat down and eaten sunflower seeds until it was their turn to bat. Because that's what the manager decided was in the best interest of the team.

And being a good teammate is a Hall of Fame criterion too.

[Edgy MD]

Wille McCovey? DH.
Ralph Kiner? DH.
Mel Ott? DH.
Jimmy Foxx? DH.
Rusty Staub? DH.

[dinosaur jesus]

Derek Jeter? DH.

[Guest Trachsel My Tears]

dinosaur jesus wrote: Another factor with Seaver was that he was clearly the best candidate on the ballot; that's probably true of Maddux as well, but not as overwhelmingly. The only other candidate who made it in 1992 was Rollie Fingers, and several others, like Ron Santo and Tony Perez, eventually got in, but it wasn't one of the stronger ballots.

I like this argument--it explains Seaver's vote-gathering as essentially a lucky accident. I mean, him getting 95%+ of the vote is on merit, but his 95%+ total being boosted above that of equally-deserving candidates was just happenstance of who was on the rest of that ballot, which explains a lot. It never seems quite fair for someone to remain outside Cooperstown, either, just because he was up for a vote with a lot of other star players, does it? It makes sense that Seaver benefitted from the luck of the draw in the opposite direction. If he'd gone up against a Mike Schmidt and a Pete Rose and a Carlton and a Morgan and a Sutton and a Bench, he wouldn't have gotten quite the number of votes he had. Makes sense to me.

[Frayed Knot]

Trachsel My Tears wrote: ... It never seems quite fair for someone to remain outside Cooperstown, either, just because he was up for a vote with a lot of other star players, does it?

That usually doesn't matter--or at least it shouldn't.
With up to ten options on a ballot, none of the 'no-brainers' eligible that year should lose any votes - and by the time you're getting around to deciding on how to sort out those who are either just making it or just missing out (say like 8th place thru 12th) you're no longer talking about the true elites anyway. So while the stacked ballot may hurt the borderline candidates (like maybe this year) it shouldn't affect those at the top of the heap.

[Edgy MD]

Historically, it's more likely that a weaker candidate gets in because he tops a weaker ballot, than a stronger candidate gets left out (at least for a while) because he ended up on a stronger ballot.

But the latter scenario sure seems to be coming up now.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Early Returns: Piazza On Pace.

On January 8th, the players who will be inducted into to the National Baseball Hall of Fame next July will be revealed. No one was elected last year, and this year�s ballot is crowded � with new additions such as Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, and Jeff Kent. For Mike Piazza, widely viewed as the best hitting catcher of all time, this will be his second time on the ballot. Piazza was passed over last year, receiving less than 60 percent of the vote. Even though there is zero evidence linking Piazza to performance enhancing drugs, there were writers who kept him off their ballot last year simply due to the fact that he played in the steroid era, while noting that they would include him the next time around. There were also plenty of writers who recklessly lumped Piazza in with known steroid users such as Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa. Other writers cited Piazza�s lack of defending himself against steroid allegations as a primary reason for leaving him off the ballot. Now that Piazza has denied the steroid allegations in his book Long Shot, there seems to be no excuse left for the writers to hide behind. So, how�s Piazza faring so far? The ballot was announced about three weeks ago, and they have been trickling in from writers since then. Darren Viola (@RRepoz on Twitter) has been tracking the ballots and compiling the results. As of December 17th, with 4 % of the ballots counted, Piazza�s name appeared on 78.3 % of the time � a shade above the 75 % required for induction. If the current trend holds, Piazza will be inducted along with Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Craig Biggio, and Frank Thomas. There�s still a long way to go, but perhaps the momentum is (rightly) on Piazza�s side this time around.

http://risingapple.com/2013/12/19/mike-piazza-faring-well-early-hall-fame-returns/

[Edgy MD]

Even though there is zero evidence linking Piazza to performance enhancing drugs, there were writers who kept him off their ballot last year simply due to the fact that he played in the steroid era...

I have hearsay and conjecture! And
those are... kinds of evidence.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Hey look. I hate the whodunnit witch hunt as much as anyone, but if Piazza wasn't absolutely loaded with roids I don't know what.

"Let's face it, guys get paid for home runs," Piazza says. "If you hit 30 home runs, nobody cares if you hit .250 doing it. That extra strength may be the difference of five to 10 feet�the difference between a ball being caught or going over the wall. Why wouldn't you lift and take supplements? You've got one time in your life to get it right. I want to get it right." Piazza is the prototypical player of this new power generation. He was born 10 days before Denny McLain won his 30th game in 1968, the Year of the Pitcher. Only three major league players drove in 100 runs that season; in '97, Piazza was one of 35 players with at least 100 RBIs. No catcher has ever caught as many games (139) and batted higher than Piazza did last year, when he hit .362 (along with 40 home runs). Then he spent the off-season lifting weights with bronzed bodybuilders while his personal shopper-chef-nutritionist whipped up six meals a day for him: omelettes, pancakes, tuna, chicken, steak and, daily, a creatine shake. He reported to camp at 240 pounds, expecting the rigors of catching to wear him down to 225 by the end of the season. He says, "I want to go out and top last season."

[Ceetar]

breaking: They ALL were/are.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

but of course.

[Edgy MD]

No, I think saying they all are/were is as much of a washing of the hands as believing none are/were. It's unfortunately much harder than that.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Everyone is a suspect is what I mean.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: No, I think saying they all are/were is as much of a washing of the hands as believing none are/were. It's unfortunately much harder than that.

Maybe to you. It's not to me. Put the guys in that performed to Hall of Fame levels on the field and stop worrying about if the special substances they took were legal, not legal, legal in baseball, or even helpful.

And if you want to play some sort of morality police, wait for actual freaking evidence of cheating the rules and regulations, not wild speculation or assumption.

[Edgy MD]

Yes they are all suspects.

Ceetar wrote: No, I think saying they all are/were is as much of a washing of the hands as believing none are/were. It's unfortunately much harder than that. Maybe to you. It's not to me.

Yes, you've applied the notion of relativism to many, many things. But there is a truth that exists beyond what is true to you and what is true to me. And that's what we mean to pursue in our discussions

Put the guys in that performed to Hall of Fame levels on the field and stop worrying about if the special substances they took were legal, not legal, legal in baseball, or even helpful.

It's certainly a valid argument, but there are other perspectives, and the actual criteria of the Hall of Fame challenge voters to take these other perspectives.

Ceetar wrote: And if you want to play some sort of morality police...

How patronizing.

Ceetar wrote: ..., wait for actual freaking evidence of cheating the rules and regulations, not wild speculation or assumption.

Wait. WAIT! YOU, a few posts up, without any concern for "freaking evidence," just declared all MLB players to be guilty.

[Ceetar]

I didn't declare them guilty (because they're not guilty of breaking any rules. Not even Barry Bonds.) I declared them all users.

But whatever really. I've made my points earlier in this thread. I'm interested to see how it goes, but I no longer think of the Hall as an extension of MLB. It's a great museum and contains an arbitrary list of players representing a group of people's favorite players among the elite of the game.

[metsmarathon]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Other writers cited Piazza�s lack of defending himself against steroid allegations as a primary reason for leaving him off the ballot. Now that Piazza has denied the steroid allegations in his book Long Shot, there seems to be no excuse left for the writers to hide behind.

if tthat is truly the case with some of the writers, that they're out there thinking, "oh, gee, if only he would just deny using them i could vote for him with a clear conscience" then the voters are the simply the dumbest bags of rocks out there.

you know who denied steroid use?

barry bonds and roger clemens. if all it takes is a denial, vote their asses in.

the opposite standard, of course, will be used for pettitte. "oh, gee, he admitted using it (just that one time, he promised, and only to nobly to make him better - from injury of course - and apologized for it), so i can vote for him with a clear conscience."

[Ceetar]

I don't remember who it was, but there was definitely a writer that said they were holding off on Piazza to see if he admitted to anything in the book.

[Ceetar]

Ceetar wrote: I don't remember who it was, but there was definitely a writer that said they were holding off on Piazza to see if he admitted to anything in the book.

Peter Kerasotis