Mike & The Mikettes: 2014 HOF Ballot

[Gwreck]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: The Deadspin/Lebatard ballot: Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Jeff Bagwell, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds and Curt Schilling.

Looks just about perfect to me. Might have gone with Trammell instead of Edgar but that's an excellent vote.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Gwreck wrote: The Deadspin/Lebatard ballot: Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Jeff Bagwell, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds and Curt Schilling. Looks just about perfect to me. Might have gone with Trammell instead of Edgar but that's an excellent vote.

Hell, it's better than most of the ballots cast!

[Frayed Knot]

The thing is, if LeBatard is abdicating his vote in some sort of attempt to make a point about the balloting process (assuming that's what he's doing) it's a shame that he doesn't have a national radio program, a national television program, and a newspaper column to lobby for those changes.
Oh wait, he has all of those!!

I'd take his ballot away if I were the BBWAA.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I'd take the ballots away from the BBWAA. Problem is, I have no
idea who to pass the baton too.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: The thing is, if LeBatard is abdicating his vote in some sort of attempt to make a point about the balloting process (assuming that's what he's doing) it's a shame that he doesn't have a national radio program, a national television program, and a newspaper column to lobby for those changes. Oh wait, he has all of those!! I'd take his ballot away if I were the BBWAA.

for polling the fans, the people who are the ones that are supposed to come and celebrate the hall, to make his selections?

[nymr83]

I'd take the ballots away from the BBWAA. Problem is, I have no idea who to pass the baton too.

Yeah. I don't want to see a fan vote filling the hall with Yankees. I think the media is fine, but I'd change the criteria to reflect modern realities, I would add broadcasters as well using similar criteria that the writers have. possibly players/coaches.

fans would be fine, but it would have to be in such a way as to not stuff the ballot box all-star game style. maybe the fans of each team get 10 ballots (so 300 total out of a pool of say 1000-1200 once i add everyone above) and those ballots can only be filled out by voting at in-stadium kiosks that scan your ticket to ensure one vote per person per game. all 10 of that team's fans' ballots would cast a vote for anyone who topped 75% in that year's fan voting at the stadium.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: The thing is, if LeBatard is abdicating his vote in some sort of attempt to make a point about the balloting process (assuming that's what he's doing) it's a shame that he doesn't have a national radio program, a national television program, and a newspaper column to lobby for those changes. Oh wait, he has all of those!! I'd take his ballot away if I were the BBWAA. for polling the fans, the people who are the ones that are supposed to come and celebrate the hall, to make his selections?

He's not merely polling the fans, he's abdicating his vote.
The vote is an earned privilege and if his idea of using that vote is to give it away to someone else in some sort of childish protest against how things are set up then, yeah, I'd take it away from him. Like I said, it's not like the guy doesn't have SEVERAL nationals forums to air views if he wants to lobby for changes.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: He's not merely polling the fans, he's abdicating his vote. The vote is an earned privilege and if his idea of using that vote is to give it away to someone else in some sort of childish protest against how things are set up then, yeah, I'd take it away from him. Like I said, it's not like the guy doesn't have SEVERAL nationals forums to air views if he wants to lobby for changes.

if by abdicating you mean binding, sure. If they told him to vote for Jack Morris he would've. The whole point is that the "earned privilege" thing is bs. So many have abused said privilege and so many others deserve it and don't get it for whatever reason. Modernize or die out.

I think it's very enlightening, and something that would not have gotten nearly the attention it did if he just campaigned on his own forums. Plenty of people did that too, but to give it up to the fans, and pretty snarky ones at that, and have them actually cast a legitimate ballot and one of the better ones?

They're in a sticky situation now though. Even if they try to revoke his vote that sets the stage for revoking other votes and modernizing the whole process by kicking out people that don't follow the sport anymore. But it also opens the door to selling votes for real in the future for similar reasons. And there is really nothing they can do about it because if this guy didn't agree to have his name known, they'd never have known who did it.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: if by abdicating you mean binding, sure.

By abdicating I mean he's not taking the trouble to fill out a ballot himself. It's one thing to talk to others in order to get a better idea of who is more deserving. It's quite another to just say, 'I can't be bothered, here let someone else do it'.

The whole point is that the "earned privilege" thing is bs. So many have abused said privilege and so many others deserve it and don't get it for whatever reason. Modernize or die out.

What is "abusing the privilege" ... not voting the way you or I would? I'd like to see Tim Raines in but 50% or more of the voters have consistently disagreed with me over the last decade or more so I'm just going to have to live with that.
And at least those who vote for the wrong guys or for what you and I might consider the wrong reasons are taking the trouble to actually do it.

I think it's very enlightening, and something that would not have gotten nearly the attention it did if he just campaigned on his own forums. Plenty of people did that too, but to give it up to the fans, and pretty snarky ones at that, and have them actually cast a legitimate ballot and one of the better ones?

What was "enlightening" about this -- that some group of fans could fill out a ballot if you gave it to them? I think I could have figured that out going in. Other than that, what was his point and what did he prove?
Again, instead of working to change whatever it is he doesn't like about the current process (if that's even his complaint ... I don't know) he simply punted. Why, if I were the BBWAA, would I mail him a ballot next season after that?

They're in a sticky situation now though. Even if they try to revoke his vote that sets the stage for revoking other votes and modernizing the whole process by kicking out people that don't follow the sport anymore. But it also opens the door to selling votes for real in the future for similar reasons. And there is really nothing they can do about it because if this guy didn't agree to have his name known, they'd never have known who did it.

I don't understand a word of this.

[nymr83]

What is "abusing the privilege"

Voting for any reason other than the baseball careers of the players on the ballot, such as: submitting empty ballots because of Pete Rose, not voting for anyone who played after an arbitrary date because hte sport was not clean (as if it ever was), selling your vote, giving away your vote, not taking your vote seriously enough to do the work.

oh and Ballots MUST be made public... if you cant stand behind your vote you should be forced to give it up, because you are being given the privilege of voting on behalf of all baseball fans who deserve to know who and why.

[Edgy MD]

I'd suggest that "not voting for anyone who played after an arbitrary date because the sport was not clean (as if it ever was)" IS "voting for baseball careers of the players on the ballot," whether we like the way they voted for it or not.

[Frayed Knot]

What is "abusing the privilege"

Voting for any reason other than the baseball careers of the players on the ballot -- That the vote should consider a player's sportsmanship and integrity is written into the standards to be considered. To what degree a voter chooses to do so is up to that individual but that's what difference of opinion is all about. In the most recent few years as the first crew from the '90s steroid era start to come up this issue is a major part of the debate but you can't just label it abuse when someone following the instructions as written doesn't come out with the same answer as you.


such as: submitting empty ballots because of Pete Rose -- which happened with what, three guys a quarter century ago?


not voting for anyone who played after an arbitrary date because hte sport was not clean (as if it ever was) -- I certainly think that's stupid, I'm not sure it's abuse



selling your vote, giving away your vote, not taking your vote seriously enough to do the work. -- This is my very point with LeBatard. He didn't sell his vote but he certainly did the other two ... and I'm STILL not sure what his point is.



oh and Ballots MUST be made public... if you cant stand behind your vote you should be forced to give it up, because you are being given the privilege of voting on behalf of all baseball fans who deserve to know who and why. -- Fine, but then what? Or we going to decide (and who would decide?) that not liking how someone voted could then be termed "abuse"?




Look, if someone wants to suggest changes to the system in order to make it better, I'm all ears. But the arguments have to be better than: 'I don't like the results therefore the system suxx', or, 'the writers are idiots so let's get someone else' as if the flaws, biases, or odd logic of some in that group are magically going to be absent from whatever gang is picked to replace them.

[Edgy MD]

Forcing public ballots certainly seems against the spirit of the thing. Think about it for a bit, and you'll conclude that it'll almost certainly lead to unintended worse consequences.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Verducci reveals his ballot. No Piazza, no explanation of why. Voted for McGriff just so he wouldn't fall off the ballot.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20140108/hall-of-fame-maddux-glavine-thomas-biggio-piazza-bagwell-bonds-clemens/

[Ceetar]

There have been a billion suggestions to make it better including things like

getting rid of the integrity clause
expanding the ballot past 10 because sometimes there are more than 10 guys
having the right to vote expire, or limit it to active guys at least.
Finding a different group to vote, or at least a more inclusive group.
firmly defining how to treat "PEDs"

That the Deadspin ballot reflected guys that, statistically, are real Hall of Famers suggests that the process is not hard and that if the writers were actually unbiased observers, like I imagine was expected when they were given the vote, things would go smoother. Sure, it had it's own problems. Bagwell way too low, undecided on PEDs, but for the most part it seems better thought out, reflects more people. (and people that would actually got to the Hall for fun) I suspect if you took the 10 they voted for versus the 75% vote getters there you sorta have the big hall vs small hall debate.

More people will sell their votes. anonymously.


I don't think people would be as fed up with the hall if the class was Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Piazza, Biggio as 75% of Deadspin suggested. some gnashing over Bagwell getting robbed, and the steroids stuff that's not exclusive to this process, but that's it. And if you expanded it to their 10 guys? I think the only people upset would be the small Hall folk, and only a little, since all those guys are qualified.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: More people will sell their votes. anonymously.

Why do you say this? It's an amazing contention.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It does seem unlikely that there would be much of a black market for Hall-of-Fame votes.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It does seem unlikely that there would be much of a black market for Hall-of-Fame votes.

I think Craig Biggio will like to buy at least two more ballots.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: More people will sell their votes. anonymously. Why do you say this? It's an amazing contention.

did you read the deadspin article? Where it mentions that they had other conversations with other voters that didn't quite work out and that they intend to do this again?

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It does seem unlikely that there would be much of a black market for Hall-of-Fame votes.

What about Mets fans buying ballots on the black market to protect Seaver's percent-of-vote record when Jeter and Rivera become eligible?

Later

[metirish]

Frank Thomas

�They�ve got a strong stance against anyone doing steroids,� Thomas said of his fellow Hall of Famers, during a telephone news conference. �They do not want them in. For those guys, this Hall of Fame means a lot to them. � To be honest, I�ve got to take the right stance, too. There shouldn't be cheaters allowed to get into the Hall of Fame.�

Hold on a sec, am I expected to believe that Thomas has no whiff of use about him?, fucking guy had arms like tree trunks....

Davidoff thinks this all big hurts Piazza


http://nypost.com/2014/01/08/unfair-ped-backlash-could-keep-piazza-out-of-hall/

[Frayed Knot]

* getting rid of the integrity clause -- yeah, because if there's one thing I don't want in my sports hall of fame it's integrity
* expanding the ballot past 10 because sometimes there are more than 10 guys -- I'd be OK with this, but I don't think it matters that often or as much as folks think. The log jam now is more a product of the steroids era than anything else
* having the right to vote expire, or limit it to active guys at least. -- Again I'd be OK here, although do we know it's the votes of older guys that are the source of disagreement? You know what happens when we assume ...
* Finding a different group to vote, or at least a more inclusive group -- As I asked before, what makes us think that a different group would be freer of the charges of bias and/or incompetance that we're throwing at the writers? And would the more inclusive group include the likes Tim McCarver? Bet fans would be thrilled with that one. Or do we just want to be more inclusive for a group pre-approved by Deadspin?
* firmly defining how to treat "PEDs" -- Now THERE'S a topic just ripe for consensus!

[metsmarathon]

Going back to creatine... That's still perfectly legal in terms of baseball and the IOC, right? If so, what's the problem? Are contact lenses next? What about laser eye surgery?

also, it totally bothers me that some voters only vote for, like, 3 guys cos that's all they think should go in, and especially when its unrelated to the number of players who they feel are or sufficient merit to deserve eventual induction.

In other news, I'm starting to convince myself that Fred mcgriff might be a solid hall of famer, if we presume him to be clean of the peds. In any other era, he's a hofer. He's Willies McCovey & Stargell.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: More people will sell their votes. anonymously. Why do you say this? It's an amazing contention. did you read the deadspin article? Where it mentions that they had other conversations with other voters that didn't quite work out and that they intend to do this again?

Yes.

[nymr83]

metsmarathon wrote: Going back to creatine... That's still perfectly legal in terms of baseball and the IOC, right? If so, what's the problem? Are contact lenses next? What about laser eye surgery? also, it totally bothers me that some voters only vote for, like, 3 guys cos that's all they think should go in, and especially when its unrelated to the number of players who they feel are or sufficient merit to deserve eventual induction. In other news, I'm starting to convince myself that Fred mcgriff might be a solid hall of famer, if we presume him to be clean of the peds. In any other era, he's a hofer. He's Willies McCovey & Stargell.

Who gives a shit about the IOC? Unless a substance was either banned by MLB or illegal in the United States (MLB should not need to explicitly ban those) nobody should ever suffer for having taken it.

[Edgy MD]

metsmarathon wrote: Going back to creatine... That's still perfectly legal in terms of baseball and the IOC, right? If so, what's the problem?

You're going to have to ask Ashie. He introduced it as a concern on the previous page, unless he meant to reference a different substance and accidentally mentioned Creatine instead.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Saw this interesting tidbit in an Associated Press article:

Maddux and Glavine become the first primarily starting pitchers to enter the Hall whose careers began after Bert Blyleven, who debuted in 1970. Maddux reached the major leagues in 1986 and Glavine a year later.

That means that after the generation of starters that included Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, and Sutton, there's a long gap before another Hall of Fame starting pitcher came along. Gooden and Valenzuela are the pitchers that come immediately to mind when I think of the top pitchers from the time period between Blyleven and Maddux. And of course, Jack Morris has been discussed a lot lately. Who else?

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Gooden and Valenzuela are the pitchers that come immediately to mind when I think of the top pitchers from the time period between Blyleven and Maddux. And of course, Jack Morris has been discussed a lot lately. Who else?

Here are some recent pitchers who are not in the Hall. None of them ever won a Cy Young Award.
The list is in decending fWAR order. From what I read about it, fWAR is a good way of evaluating pitchers, based on some Fangraphs metrics. Still struggling to understand it.


Mike Mussina
Curt Schilling
Kevin Brown
Rick Reuschel
Luis Tiant
Tommy John
Andy Pettitte
Frank Tanana
Jerry Koosman
Dave Stieb
Kevin Appier
David Wells
Wilbur Wood
Jamie Moyer


Later

[Edgy MD]

I named a bunch above, many of whom were as good as or better than Jack Morris. In addition to those noted by MFS, there are Roger Clemens, David Cone, Ron Guidry, Bret Saberhagen, Frank Viola, Vida Blue, Dwight Gooden, Mickey Lolich, Dennis Martinez, Mario Soto, John Candeleria, Rick Sutcliffe, Orel Hershiser.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Some of those pitchers debuted before Blyleven (like Lolich and, perhaps, Blue) but most do fall into that Blyleven-Maddux gap.