Mike & The Mikettes: 2014 HOF Ballot

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

My 10:

Jeff Bagwell
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Tom Glavine
Greg Maddux
Mark McGwire
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Lee Smith

Others I'd vote for if allowed more than 10:

Jack Morris
Craig Biggio
Alan Trammell
Frank Thomas


Oh, and we can expect that when Jeter is eligible, he will be the first candidate to receive 110% of the vote because he always gave 110% in the game.

[Vic Sage]

no Frank Thomas? really? not even on your "if i could vote for more than 10" list?

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Him too. We're just spoiled for choice.

[HahnSolo]

Ian "Jeter...Jeter...Jeter" O'Connor is tweeting the 14 people he'd vote for A) If he had a ballot, and if voters could vote for more than 10. Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Morris, Piazza, Raines, Schilling and Thomas + Glavine, Kent, Mussina and Smith.

Pretty sure he does have a ballot:

Listed in alphabetical order, here are the 17 ESPN voters who submitted ballots: Howard Bryant, Jim Caple, Jerry Crasnick, Gordon Edes, Pedro Gomez, Dan Graziano, Michael Knisley, Tim Kurkjian, Wallace Matthews, Ian O'Connor, Buster Olney, Peter Pascarelli, Brendan Roberts, Adam Rubin, Mark Saxon, Barry Stanton and Jayson Stark.

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

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I misread Ian's tweet.

Ian O'Connor ?@Ian_OConnor 18h
HOF Ballot 1: I would've voted for 14 candidates w/o the BBWAA's 10-man limit. I had 9 holdovers from last year's ballot...


Apologies to Ian for that slight.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24401353/steroid-users-shouldnt-make-10player-hof-ballot-at-least-not-yet

Heyman lumps Piazza in with the roid users, votes for McGriff, Schilling.

[metirish]

This is just fucking silly

http://deadspin.com/greg-maddux-will-not-be-a-unanimous-hall-of-famer-1496300490

Greg Maddux Will Not Be A Unanimous Hall Of Famer

Because one jackass just announced his ballot, and Maddux isn't on it. Our winning moralizer is Ken Gurnick, a very competent Dodgers beat reporter for MLB.com. Today Gurnick, along with MLB.com's other writers, revealed their ballots, and out of the 100-something total made public, Gurnick is the very first to leave Maddux off. He has just one name on his ballot: Jack Morris. Here's his rationale. Morris has flaws � a 3.90 ERA, for example. 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 Players votes in five. As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won't vote for any of them. Where do we even begin? By pointing out that steroids have reportedly been prevalent in baseball since the 1960s? That this is punishing Maddux (and others) through no fault of their own? That a Hall of Fame is useless as a museum if it's just going to pretend the offensive explosion of the '90s never happened? That Jack Morris was a pretty average pitcher? There's no point. Most voting BBWAA members are rational, intelligent people, and a few are squealing imbeciles, and when unanimity is concerned, all it takes is one. If Greg Maddux, the total antithesis of the PED era that so offends these dainty flowers, doesn't get 100 percent, it's a fair bet that no one ever will. The process isn't broken; it's unworkable.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Oh! The process is broken because Greg Maddux won't get in unanimously. But it wasn't broken when Willie Mays didn't get 100% of the vote? Or when Tom Seaver didn't get 100% of the vote. Oh, the humanity. Think of the children.

[metirish]

Don't really care about Maddux, the guys rational is silly.

[Edgy MD]

In general, the lack of unanimity doesn't bother me. Broad electoral processes should be a mess, with results gathered from a broad range of opinions. The idea that viable candidates --- including and especially "pre-steroid era" rock stars like Alan Trammell and Tim Raines (both better than Morris) --- are utterly lost in the conversation while we rend our shirts over the roid issue year after year, that bothers me.

As for "never" having a unanimous candidate, I think that's ridiculous. Jeter, for instance, has a damn good chance. It'll stink if he breaks Seaver's record and Maddux doesn't (although Maddux certainly still may, one vote being one vote), but c'est la vie.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metirish wrote: Don't really care about Maddux, the guys rational is silly.

Yeah, but he's only one guy. I'm wondering if the HOF induction process is really as broken as many seem to claim. It seems to be that they get it right for the most part. I can't think of an eligible Ted Williams or Tom Seaver caliber player who hasn't gotten in. Sure, there are a few HOF'ers who I would exclude and a few on the outside that I'd include. But that's just my POV. And I'm not gonna trash the induction process just because it doesn't jibe perfectly with my personal sensibilities. The process isn't perfect, but it's no more broken than any other voting process, I suppose.

[stevejrogers]

Edgy MD wrote: In general, the lack of unanimity doesn't bother me. Broad electoral processes should be a mess, with results gathered from a broad range of opinions. The idea that viable candidates --- including and especially "pre-steroid era" rock stars like Alan Trammell and Tim Raines (both better than Morris) --- are utterly lost in the conversation while we rend our shirts over the roid issue year after year, that bothers me. As for "never" having a unanimous candidate, I think that's ridiculous. Jeter, for instance, has a damn good chance. It'll stink if he breaks Seaver's record and Maddux doesn't (although Maddux certainly still may, one vote being one vote), but c'est la vie.

What was Seaver's? 5? Like 3 hardline "I don't vote for First Balloters...ever" asshats and a couple of Rose votes that were thrown out?

[Edgy MD]

I agree that it's not broken at all. The idea of an election is to get a rational consensus out of by polling a broad enough body all of our flawed perspectives that the particular irrationalities of this voter or that voter is filtered out by (or more accurately, sublimated by) the final process.

Last year sucked, but the conversation advanced, and it was an invaluable contribution to baseball understanding where it is and where it wants to go..

But seriously, people... RAINES!

[metirish]

So, Jack Morris never played in the "steroid era"?...

[Edgy MD]

I don't think any Rose ballots were thrown out. (Write-ins are legal, and if ballots were tossed, I imagine they wouldn't be counted.) They may have been blank submissions to protest Rose's exclusion, if that's what you mean.

Seaver was named on 98.84% (on 425 of 430 ballots), higher than Nolan Ryan's 98.79% (491 of 497), and Ty Cobb's 98.23% (222 of 226). Three of the five ballots that had omitted Seaver were blank, cast by writers protesting the Hall's decision to make Pete Rose ineligible for consideration. One ballot was sent by a writer who was recovering from open-heart surgery and failed to notice Seaver's name. The fifth "no" vote was cast by a writer who said he never voted for any player in their first year of eligibility. (source: USA Today.)

[Edgy MD]

metirish wrote: So, Jack Morris never played in the "steroid era"?...

I think, for most writers who believe there is a hard line, it begins after the strike. Ends with the advent of mandatory testing.

[stevejrogers]

I don't think any Rose ballots were thrown out. (Write-ins are legal, and if ballots were tossed, I imagine they wouldn't be counted.) They may have been blank submissions to protest Rose's exclusion, if that's what you mean. Seaver was named on 98.84% (on 425 of 430 ballots), higher than Nolan Ryan's 98.79% (491 of 497), and Ty Cobb's 98.23% (222 of 226). Three of the five ballots that had omitted Seaver were blank, cast by writers protesting the Hall's decision to make Pete Rose ineligible for consideration. One ballot was sent by a writer who was recovering from open-heart surgery and failed to notice Seaver's name. The fifth "no" vote was cast by a writer who said he never voted for any player in their first year of eligibility. (source: USA Today.)

Yeah, that's what I meant. That was the first year Rose would have been included so I figured there'd been some sort of protest that first year. I'd love to know when, or if, that practice ever stopped.

[G-Fafif]

The writer who didn't vote for Seaver out of first-ballot principle was [crossout]John Drebinger, with the Times from 1923 through 1964, and Spink Award winner the same year Tom won his second Cy Young, 1973.[/crossout] Deane McGowen who wrote for the Times from 1949 to 1981 and covered an array of sports. He admitted Seaver belonged, but you know...can't do a firstie.

So if the three Pete Rose guys hadn't had cause to be Pete Rose guys and the open-heart guy was in better shape, Seaver would've come in at 429/430, or 99.77%.

OE: Had Drebinger on the brain, conflated him with McGowen.

[Frayed Knot]

FWIW, Nine different NY Post writers have ballots (Nine? ... who knew?) and they made them all public.
Don Burke?
Ken Davidoff
Mark Hale
Kevin Kernan
Joel Sherman
George King
Mike Puma
Steve Serby (Really? .... I've never seen him deal with anything but football)
Mike Vaccaro

Six of them filled out the full complement of ten names, with the others going 8, 7 & 5
All nine went for both Maddux & Glavine. Eight each checked off Piazza & Thomas. Bonds appeared on Seven. Biggio & Clemens on six each.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

When does the actual vote tallying and announcement take place?

[Edgy MD]

Ma�ana, I think

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: FWIW, Nine different NY Post writers have ballots (Nine? ... who knew?) and they made them all public. Don Burke? Ken Davidoff Mark Hale Kevin Kernan Joel Sherman George King Mike Puma Steve Serby (Really? .... I've never seen him deal with anything but football) Mike Vaccaro Six of them filled out the full complement of ten names, with the others going 8, 7 & 5 All nine went for both Maddux & Glavine. Eight each checked off Piazza & Thomas. Bonds appeared on Seven. Biggio & Clemens on six each.

That's actually surprisingly high given the quality of the paper. wow.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: When does the actual vote tallying and announcement take place?

Announcement is scheduled for Wednesday at 2 p.m.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: metirish wrote: Don't really care about Maddux, the guys rational is silly. Yeah, but he's only one guy. I'm wondering if the HOF induction process is really as broken as many seem to claim. It seems to be that they get it right for the most part. I can't think of an eligible Ted Williams or Tom Seaver caliber player who hasn't gotten in. Sure, there are a few HOF'ers who I would exclude and a few on the outside that I'd include. But that's just my POV. And I'm not gonna trash the induction process just because it doesn't jibe perfectly with my personal sensibilities. The process isn't perfect, but it's no more broken than any other voting process, I suppose.

I think last year's non-election despite the plethora of qualified players is more of an indictment. I do think we're seeing more and more people voting for 5 or more players this year.

I don't think there will ever be a 100 percent player as long as there are 600 people casting ballots. There are bound to be some self-aggrandizing idiot, and the guy only voting for Morris is a prime example. I'm more outraged by the 20+ guys who didn't vote for Mays or Aaron. Given the era, it suspect they were lacking more than baseball knowledge.

[stevejrogers]

G-Fafif wrote: So if the three Pete Rose guys hadn't had cause to be Pete Rose guys and the open-heart guy was in better shape, Seaver would've come in at 429/430, or 99.77%

It'd be interesting to see who would have had a higher percentage if that cause hadn't been there.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: That's actually surprisingly high given the quality of the paper. wow.

Of course it's more the size of the paper than the quality - but, yeah, I was surprised they had that many as well.
Davidoff, King, Sherman & Vaccaro were no-brainers, but I have no idea who Burke is; Puma I wouldn't have thought was on the beat for the required ten years (maybe he wrote for a while under his non-porn name too); and I wouldn't have thought Serby knew what a baseball was much less covered it for a decade.

[Edgy MD]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: metirish wrote: Don't really care about Maddux, the guys rational is silly. Yeah, but he's only one guy. I'm wondering if the HOF induction process is really as broken as many seem to claim. It seems to be that they get it right for the most part. I can't think of an eligible Ted Williams or Tom Seaver caliber player who hasn't gotten in. Sure, there are a few HOF'ers who I would exclude and a few on the outside that I'd include. But that's just my POV. And I'm not gonna trash the induction process just because it doesn't jibe perfectly with my personal sensibilities. The process isn't perfect, but it's no more broken than any other voting process, I suppose. I think last year's non-election despite the plethora of qualified players is more of an indictment. I do think we're seeing more and more people voting for 5 or more players this year. I don't think there will ever be a 100 percent player as long as there are 600 people casting ballots. There are bound to be some self-aggrandizing idiot, and the guy only voting for Morris is a prime example. I'm more outraged by the 20+ guys who didn't vote for Mays or Aaron. Given the era, it suspect they were lacking more than baseball knowledge.

I don't know. Things don't happen until they happen. Black presidents, crumbling Soviet bloc, gay marriage. With ever-increasing pressure to fill out ballots responsibly, and an apparent diminishing (or outright disappearance) of the no first-timers-ever contingent, it is bound to happen in the not-too-distant future with some unimpeachable guy with fine teeth and a caring wife name Tamber. (She's stylish, but not huffy.)

But I really don't think it's worth getting enraged about. Willie Mays is still Willie Mays, whether 495 people think so or 497. The benefit of liberally embracing outlying votes far outweigh the alleged insult of non-unanimity.

I don't want to seem a Morris hater, but he's gotten really far on that most-wins in the eighties brand. I can probably name 10 starters with cases as good as or stronger than him who get little consideration. David Cone. Kevin Brown. Jerry Koosman. Ron Guidry. Bret Saberhagen. Frank Viola. Dave Fuckin' Steib.

Who blinked when Dave Steib got 1.4% of the vote and disappeared from the ballot after 2004? But he had 57 pitching WAR and Jack Morris had 43.8.

Tack a dubious 10 WAR onto Morris' career for his post-season heroics, and you're still in a predicament. Steib pitched mostly for a struggling Toronto team in an era of fewer post-season opportunities, and he's still ahead.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy MD wrote: metirish wrote: So, Jack Morris never played in the "steroid era"?... I think, for most writers who believe there is a hard line, it begins after the strike. Ends with the advent of mandatory testing.

So, really, it's not steroid use to which they object, it's presumedly-effective steroid use? Remind me to seek out these guys for my jury if I ever get tried for Attempted Murder.

MLB Network has its apparently annual "Hall of Fame Debate"-- featuring SNY's own Ron Darling, writer Ken Rosenthal, America's Wee Little Conscience Bob Costas, and Professional Shouting Chihuahua Chris Russo!-- on at 9 pm tonight, if you feel like a blood pressure raise or laugh.

[Edgy MD]

Well, accepting that as true, it's the presumably effective usage that taints the the statistical case of many of these guys, so that's not as illogical as all that.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Well, yeah, except how often do you see a voter publicly address whether PEDs had an actual impact on certain players' performance, and the degree to which it impacted said performance? And how often do you see it couched as a morality issue?