WWTBAM Bored

Long-overdue congratulations to Tim ("Rock") Raines (10th and final ballot), and to Jeff Bagwell (7th ballot) and Ivan Rodriguez (1st ballot) on their election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Knocking on the door are Trevor Hoffman and Vladimir Guerrero (whom I once thought would be the last Expo standing, an honor that belongs to Bartolo Colon), who each received more than 70% of the vote (with 75% necessary for induction). --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: Knocking on the door are Trevor Hoffman and Vladimir Guerrero

And this is something I don't understand. If Trevor Hoffman is not worthy of being in the Hall of Fame this year, why would he be worthy next year? I'm pretty sure his statistics won't change one bit in the interim. Are there that many people who voted for 10 choices without Hoffman this year who will vote for him next year? My understanding is that most writers vote for far less than 10 people a year.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: Knocking on the door are Trevor Hoffman and Vladimir Guerrero

And this is something I don't understand. If Trevor Hoffman is not worthy of being in the Hall of Fame this year, why would he be worthy next year? I'm pretty sure his statistics won't change one bit in the interim. Are there that many people who voted for 10 choices without Hoffman this year who will vote for him next year? My understanding is that most writers vote for far less than 10 people a year.

Most of those aging, stingy, cigar smoking, blank ballot casting writers got purged from the voting pool a few years ago, which is the reason for the bigger bump in percentages for the fringe candidates.

The stats don't change, but the way we perceive them does. I'll bet nobody watching Tim Raines in the 80's or 90's ever thought he would be a Hall of Famer, because the stats that have been used to make his case now were either little known, unknown, or underappreciated at the time. Plus, the 10 player voting limit and PED-induced logjam on the ballot keep a lot of voters from voting for everyone they want to. I'll bet more than 5 voters would have voted for Hoffman had they not been forced to leave him off their ballot due to the limit...

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:The stats don't change, but the way we perceive them does.

That's what happened with Bert Blyleven. At first, the voters had a hard time looking past his won-loss record. As sabermetric analysis became more accepted, people began to realize (a) he didn't win as many games as he might have because he often didn't get much run support, and (b) his strikeout totals alone, although high, were nonetheless undervalued.

Then you have a fair number of voters who have concluded that if Bud Selig is in the Hall of Fame, it's really hard to keep out players such as Bonds and Clemens based on a perception of PED use. --Bob

Below are the results of the BBWAA vote to elect the Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2017 with vote totals and percentages. A total of 442 ballots were cast, with 332 required for election.

Jeff Bagwell, 381 votes, 86.2%
Tim Raines, 380 votes, 86.0%
Ivan Rodriguez, 336 votes, 76.0%
Trevor Hoffman, 327 votes, 74.0%
Vladimir Guerrero, 317 votes, 71.7%
Edgar Martinez, 259 votes, 58.6%
Roger Clemens, 239 votes, 54.1%
Barry Bonds, 238 votes, 53.8%
Mike Mussina, 229 votes, 51.8%
Curt Schilling, 199 votes, 45.0%
Lee Smith, 151 votes, 34.2%
Manny Ramirez, 105 votes, 23.8%
Larry Walker, 97 votes, 21.9%
Fred McGriff, 96 votes, 21.7%
Jeff Kent, 74 votes, 16.7%
Gary Sheffield, 59 votes, 13.3%
Billy Wagner, 45 votes, 10.2%
Sammy Sosa, 38 votes, 8.6%
--
Jorge Posada, 17 votes, 3.8%
Magglio Ordonez, 3 votes, 0.7%
Edgar Renteria, 2 votes, 0.5%
Jason Varitek, 2 votes, 0.5%
Tim Wakefield, 1 vote,0.2%
Casey Blake, 0 votes, 0.0%
Pat Burrell, 0 votes, 0.0%
Orlando Cabrera, 0 votes, 0.0%
Mike Cameron, 0 votes, 0.0%
J.D. Drew, 0 votes, 0.0%
Carlos Guillen, 0 votes, 0.0%
Derrek Lee, 0 votes, 0.0%
Melvin Mora, 0 votes, 0.0%
Arthur Rhodes, 0 votes, 0.0%
Freddy Sanchez, 0 votes, 0.0%
Matt Stairs, 0 votes, 0.0%

Vandal wrote:Below are the results of the BBWAA vote to elect the Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2017 with vote totals and percentages. A total of 442 ballots were cast, with 332 required for election.

I just saw an analysis of the vote numbers on mlb.com that made sense to me. The ballot's going to remain pretty crowded for a few years, but it looks like Bonds and Clemens are on track for induction in three or four years. I also agree with the point made that the 10-selection limit imposed on the writers almost certainly kept Hoffman out this year and probably resulted in Posada being one-and-done. I don't think it's a tragedy that Posada won't be elected, but I do think he deserved better than one-and-done. --Bob

Sigh... you know you're getting old when players are showing up on the Hall of Fame ballot that are younger than you are....

And Freddy Sanchez has to be one of the lamest choices to ever appear on the ballot with only seven full seasons. I guess nobody will ever forget that batting title in 2006...

lb13

Bob78164 wrote:and probably resulted in Posada being one-and-done. I don't think it's a tragedy that Posada won't be elected, but I do think he deserved better than one-and-done. --Bob

I like Jorge Posada, but unless and until they have a Hall of Pretty Good Players with Long Careers, he doesn't belong anywhere other than Yankee Old Timer Games where he will deservedly get lots of applause for years to come.

littlebeast13 wrote:Sigh... you know you're getting old when players are showing up on the Hall of Fame ballot that are younger than you are....

And Freddy Sanchez has to be one of the lamest choices to ever appear on the ballot with only seven full seasons. I guess nobody will ever forget that batting title in 2006...

lb13

I thought that a player had to play 10 seasons to be eligible for consideration. --Bob

I find it shocking that Pudge barely cleared the bar.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I find it shocking that Pudge barely cleared the bar.

On his first ballot? I don't. I find it unbelievable that Clemons didn't get in before him, or some of the others. I guess the steroid scandal took its toll. I wonder if he and his reputation had stayed clean if he would have been a first ballot inductee.

BackInTex wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I find it shocking that Pudge barely cleared the bar.

On his first ballot? I don't. I find it unbelievable that Clemons didn't get in before him, or some of the others. I guess the steroid scandal took its toll. I wonder if he and his reputation had stayed clean if he would have been a first ballot inductee.

Pudge is in the discussion for greatest Catcher of all-time. Most Hits (by far), Most Doubles (by far), 2nd most Triples, 4th Most HRs, Most Total Bases (by far), Most RBI, 2nd Most Stolen Bases

13 Gold Gloves (10 in a row)
14 All-Star Games (also 10 in a row)
7 Silver Sluggers

3rd highest career WAR for Catchers

Consistently ranked somewhere between 6th and 3rd on lists of greatest Catchers in baseball history.

Clemens was a great Pitcher. And, yes, but for the whiff of steroids, I believe Clemens would have been first ballot.

Bob78164 wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:Sigh... you know you're getting old when players are showing up on the Hall of Fame ballot that are younger than you are....

And Freddy Sanchez has to be one of the lamest choices to ever appear on the ballot with only seven full seasons. I guess nobody will ever forget that batting title in 2006...

lb13

I thought that a player had to play 10 seasons to be eligible for consideration. --Bob

Technically, he cleared that by playing from 2002-2011... but his first three seasons were all cups of coffee, and he missed the entire second half of his final season. His total number of games played was only 908. That's not even six full seasons worth of games...

Pudge should have and would have gotten more support were it not for the PED-phobes in the voting world. I think he also took a hit from the crowded ballot mentality that's hurting players early in their ballot runs (see: Biggio, Craig) as some voters are intentionally leaving off slam dunk candidates (knowing they'll easily get in one day) in order to vote for another worthy candidate they'd otherwise have to leave off due to the 10 player limit. Jim Thome and his 612 career homeruns is going to probably become a victim of this line of thinking next year....

lb13

BackInTex wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I find it shocking that Pudge barely cleared the bar.

On his first ballot? I don't. I find it unbelievable that Clemons didn't get in before him, or some of the others. I guess the steroid scandal took its toll. I wonder if he and his reputation had stayed clean if he would have been a first ballot inductee.

Undoubtedly...Bonds, too. If both had their numbers cleanly, they would've been easy first ballot inductees. Clemens, though...the numbers on the latter stages of his career may have been significantly worse (if not non-existent) without the PED's. Bonds was headed for the Hall (same with A-Rod) BEFORE the "suspected" naughtiness began, making it even more of a "why did you feel the need to do this?" thing (a combo of career extension and ego-driven desire to pad the stats, I suppose). In a way, kinda comparable to Nixon and Watergate...why was that even necessary when he was well on his way to destroying McGovern in the election anyway? Pure power tripping.

T_Bone0806 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I find it shocking that Pudge barely cleared the bar.

On his first ballot? I don't. I find it unbelievable that Clemons didn't get in before him, or some of the others. I guess the steroid scandal took its toll. I wonder if he and his reputation had stayed clean if he would have been a first ballot inductee.

Undoubtedly...Bonds, too. If both had their numbers cleanly, they would've been easy first ballot inductees. Clemens, though...the numbers on the latter stages of his career may have been significantly worse (if not non-existent) without the PED's. Bonds was headed for the Hall (same with A-Rod) BEFORE the "suspected" naughtiness began, making it even more of a "why did you feel the need to do this?" thing (a combo of career extension and ego-driven desire to pad the stats, I suppose). In a way, kinda comparable to Nixon and Watergate...why was that even necessary when he was well on his way to destroying McGovern in the election anyway? Pure power tripping.

To be fair, Nixon didn't have anything to do with Watergate. Just the cover up. At least that is the "official" story. Your conspiracies may vary.

T_Bone0806 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I find it shocking that Pudge barely cleared the bar.

On his first ballot? I don't. I find it unbelievable that Clemons didn't get in before him, or some of the others. I guess the steroid scandal took its toll. I wonder if he and his reputation had stayed clean if he would have been a first ballot inductee.

Undoubtedly...Bonds, too. If both had their numbers cleanly, they would've been easy first ballot inductees. Clemens, though...the numbers on the latter stages of his career may have been significantly worse (if not non-existent) without the PED's. Bonds was headed for the Hall (same with A-Rod) BEFORE the "suspected" naughtiness began, making it even more of a "why did you feel the need to do this?" thing (a combo of career extension and ego-driven desire to pad the stats, I suppose). In a way, kinda comparable to Nixon and Watergate...why was that even necessary when he was well on his way to destroying McGovern in the election anyway? Pure power tripping.

I figured politics would creep into this thread, as it does every other, but I was surprised that it came from you.

Estonut wrote:

T_Bone0806 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:On his first ballot? I don't. I find it unbelievable that Clemons didn't get in before him, or some of the others. I guess the steroid scandal took its toll. I wonder if he and his reputation had stayed clean if he would have been a first ballot inductee.

Undoubtedly...Bonds, too. If both had their numbers cleanly, they would've been easy first ballot inductees. Clemens, though...the numbers on the latter stages of his career may have been significantly worse (if not non-existent) without the PED's. Bonds was headed for the Hall (same with A-Rod) BEFORE the "suspected" naughtiness began, making it even more of a "why did you feel the need to do this?" thing (a combo of career extension and ego-driven desire to pad the stats, I suppose). In a way, kinda comparable to Nixon and Watergate...why was that even necessary when he was well on his way to destroying McGovern in the election anyway? Pure power tripping.

I figured politics would creep into this thread, as it does every other, but I was surprised that it came from you.

Too soon?

T_Bone0806 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

T_Bone0806 wrote:Undoubtedly...Bonds, too. If both had their numbers cleanly, they would've been easy first ballot inductees. Clemens, though...the numbers on the latter stages of his career may have been significantly worse (if not non-existent) without the PED's. Bonds was headed for the Hall (same with A-Rod) BEFORE the "suspected" naughtiness began, making it even more of a "why did you feel the need to do this?" thing (a combo of career extension and ego-driven desire to pad the stats, I suppose). In a way, kinda comparable to Nixon and Watergate...why was that even necessary when he was well on his way to destroying McGovern in the election anyway? Pure power tripping.

I figured politics would creep into this thread, as it does every other, but I was surprised that it came from you.

Too soon?

To bring up Nixon? Nope.

Lincoln is still off limits, though!

Estonut wrote:

T_Bone0806 wrote:

Estonut wrote:I figured politics would creep into this thread, as it does every other, but I was surprised that it came from you.

Too soon?

To bring up Nixon? Nope.

Lincoln is still off limits, though!

No worries there. I love me some Honest Abe.

BackInTex wrote:

T_Bone0806 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
On his first ballot? I don't. I find it unbelievable that Clemons didn't get in before him, or some of the others. I guess the steroid scandal took its toll. I wonder if he and his reputation had stayed clean if he would have been a first ballot inductee.

Undoubtedly...Bonds, too. If both had their numbers cleanly, they would've been easy first ballot inductees. Clemens, though...the numbers on the latter stages of his career may have been significantly worse (if not non-existent) without the PED's. Bonds was headed for the Hall (same with A-Rod) BEFORE the "suspected" naughtiness began, making it even more of a "why did you feel the need to do this?" thing (a combo of career extension and ego-driven desire to pad the stats, I suppose). In a way, kinda comparable to Nixon and Watergate...why was that even necessary when he was well on his way to destroying McGovern in the election anyway? Pure power tripping.

To be fair, Nixon didn't have anything to do with Watergate. Just the cover up. At least that is the "official" story. Your conspiracies may vary.

I am just using some...uhhh..."alternative facts".


OK. That phrase has already joined the words "amazing", "awesome", and "hashtag" as annoyingly overused.

T_Bone0806 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

T_Bone0806 wrote:

Undoubtedly...Bonds, too. If both had their numbers cleanly, they would've been easy first ballot inductees. Clemens, though...the numbers on the latter stages of his career may have been significantly worse (if not non-existent) without the PED's. Bonds was headed for the Hall (same with A-Rod) BEFORE the "suspected" naughtiness began, making it even more of a "why did you feel the need to do this?" thing (a combo of career extension and ego-driven desire to pad the stats, I suppose). In a way, kinda comparable to Nixon and Watergate...why was that even necessary when he was well on his way to destroying McGovern in the election anyway? Pure power tripping.

To be fair, Nixon didn't have anything to do with Watergate. Just the cover up. At least that is the "official" story. Your conspiracies may vary.

I am just using some...uhhh..."alternative facts".


OK. That phrase has already joined the words "amazing", "awesome", and "hashtag" as annoyingly overused.

It will be the Word of the Year for 2017. Oops, it's two words. It'll be the something of the year.