2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

And as far as Blyleven, the entire sabermetrics community was putting its weight behind that surge, so that increase was not surprising at all.

 

Maybe it was the last 2-3 years before he was voted in.

For the first 6-7 years, it was really a one-man campaign.

 

Bobcat, I think you might end up being a little low on that number. There are at least double-digits of the 100 ballots collected where voters against Bonds/Clemens have said it is either a one-year punishment or they would reconsider in the future.

I believe there is definitely a block of voters who want to see what the initial percentage is before committing to voting for them. I think if they can somehow get 50 percent or better, that there will be a big jump for them. They are trending waaay the other way though.

Dooley, I don't disagree with you on Blyleven. But it's like Morris this year. When you get that close, election won't take much. And I don't consider what Blyleven got to be anything close to a surge. 74.3 to 79.7 is almost a margin of error. Getting at least triple that is not.

 

I was speaking of the last year, where anyone not in favor of Blyleven faced a ton of wrath and bile. I still don't think he's deserving, but the voters have spoken.

 

At the 104-ballot mark and assuming the same number of ballots exist as last year, here is what people need to be elected.

Biggio-76.5
Bagwell-77.7
Morris-78.0
Raines-78.0
Piazza-78.0
Clemens-81.9
Bonds-81.9
Martinez-82.9
Schilling-83.2
Smith-83.4
Trammell-83.6

Everyone else is at 87.5

(Through 104 counted ballots)

 

No it doesn't, please provide a rationale that it makes sense

 

Um, these people don't think those three are Hall of Fame-worthy. Who are you to judge what makes sense for someone else?

 

Common sense. But shit if you have a HOF vote like Murray chass and guys who haven't covered the game in years, then nothing .

 

Well, that settles it, O god of all that is common-sensical. If it's so clear, why not just screw this voting thing and let you pick the Hall of Famers.

 

You're old, go to bed.

 

Those are two entirely different things.

A one-year punishment implies "I think this person is a HOFer and I will vote for him, but not now."

Reconsider means: "I don't think this person is a HOFer, but since I get a new ballot every year I will reconsider every year."

The former is, in my opinion, silly. The latter is the appropriate way to do it and I believe the way the vast majority of voters handle it. In fact, it's better to say "I'll reconsider" than to say "I'll never vote for this person."

Show me an example of someone who said they are withholding a vote as a punishment, because I haven't seen one.

 

You're a dick, bite me. Or, explain this magical common sense power you have to ascertain how everyone should vote.