2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

But it's not a voter's job to make the situation nice and tidy, churn-wise. The voter is beholden only to himself and his standards, even if those standards are stupidly going to make Bonds and Clemens wait.

 

And Della is talking about the consequences of stupid decisions like that.

 

And we have our first JULIO FRANCO vote!

Phillip Hersh says -- Biggio, Franco, E. Martinez, Mattingly, J. Morris, Raines, Schilling, L. Smith, Trammell, L. Walker.

And the counter hit triple-digits (101 ballots) this evening. At 17.6 percent reporting:

67.3 - Biggio (has lost five percent of the vote over the last 20 ballots counted)
64.4 - Bagwell
62.4 - J. Morris (No change over the last 20 ballots)
62.4 - Raines
60.4 - Piazza
43.6 - Clemens
43.6 - Bonds
39.6 - Schilling
39.6 - E. Martinez
38.9 - Trammell
38.6 - L. Smith
18.8 - D. Murphy
16.8 - McGwire
15.8 - McGriff
14.9 - Palmeiro
14.7 - S. Sosa
13.9 - L. Walker
7.9 - Mattingly
3.0 - Lofton
3.0 - P. Rose
2.0 - D. Wells
2.0 - Bernie Williams
1.0 - J. Franco

 

FYI, there are no write-ins, so the Pete Rose votes don't count.

 

In your opinion. Until there is a WAR threshold someone must meet to make the Hall of Fame, "stupid" is merely in the eye of the beholder.

 

Stupid is Alomar getting 73.7 percent on the first ballot and 90 the second.
Stupid is Larkin getting 62.1 percent the second ballot and 86.4 the third.

 

How so?

 

This is all opinion, but yes, making Bonds or Clemens wait is stupid. Do you really think more evidence is coming one way or another on those two? There are there options. Judge them solely on their accomplishments in MLB, in which case not voting them in is stupid. You can disqualify them entirely due to PED use, which I think is stupid as well, but I get it. Or you consider the PED use a negative and weigh that along with the rest of their careers. In that case, again, it is stupid not to vote for both. They were both that good.

 

What changed in the ensuing 365 days? The only way to defend it is if there was a monster ballot ahead of them, hmmm, kinda like the one right now, where voters were up against the max.

There is no logical reason for a jump of that magnitude. Since 1965, 20 players have gotten 90 percent of the vote. Every one of them but Alomar were first ballot. Alomar at 90 percent is almost nine percent better than Joe Morgan. And somehow 126 people switched from his first year.

The same with Larkin. His jump was more than Alomar's 134 votes. How does a guy, who a year before hadn't convinced two out of three voters he was worthy, suddenly find more than four votes out of every five? It's comical.

This is not Blyleven getting 63 votes to lurch across the line. This is not Morris trying to find 48 votes to reach 75 percent It is a massive switch in the collective belief that Player X is now worthy.

And I am not condoning the slow buildup any better, that a Bagwell or Raines should just bide their time as each year they gain other 10 percent. But to see such massive swings from one year to the next is terribly inconsistent for people trying to live out all their cliches about upholding the sanctity of the Hall and making it the best of the best.

 

I agree with you, and I agreed with you from the beginning (tho others obviously don't agree). All I was contesting was Della's assertion that voters should ensure an even flow of inductees in their voting.

 

I see. I just read his comments a little differently than you do. I just thought he was pointing out one of the potential problems that can come with making guys wait for stupid reasons.

 

FWIW I think there are very few voters who are withholding votes from Bonds or Clemens with the intention of voting for them later. I think the vast majority of the no voters aren't planning to vote for him at all.

They may change their minds, but that's an entirely different thing than withholding a vote.