2015 Hall of Fame Ballot

[dickay]

Source? What I heard was that he said he lost votes because he's a republican (and outspoken one at that) which is probably true. We know voters hold back. Toes for dumb things and how outspoken schilling is has earned him a lot of publicity and many shake their heads at it. He's probably correct it cost him votes but show me where he said it cost him entry. And not him joking around with the host, where he seriously said that.

Here's a quote from the interview:

"Absolutely," Schilling said. "When human beings do anything, there's bias and prejudice . . . I don't think it kept me out, but I do know that there are guys who probably won't ever vote for me because of the things I said or did."

[dps]

I knew that Schilling was an outspoken conservative, and as such most likely a Republican, but frankly I have no idea whatsoever what John Smoltz's politics are.

[dickay]

I knew that Schilling was an outspoken conservative, and as such most likely a Republican, but frankly I have no idea whatsoever what John Smoltz's politics are.

Agreed. He has donated to mitt romneys campaign However his wiki page says he's also held a fundraiser for a state democrat. Not sure of his political leanings and its poor of schilling to compare himself to him in anyway.

[HoustonGM]

Source? What I heard was that he said he lost votes because he's a republican (and outspoken one at that) which is probably true. We know voters hold back. Toes for dumb things and how outspoken schilling is has earned him a lot of publicity and many shake their heads at it. He's probably correct it cost him votes but show me where he said it cost him entry. And not him joking around with the host, where he seriously said that.

I think it's asinine to complain that he lost votes because of his politics. It's likely that he lost votes because he's a giant ass, which may be correlated with his political beliefs, but I don't think those beliefs cost him anything - though the way he expresses them may have. And yes, he didn't straight up say "I would've made it if I weren't a Republican." It's still a moronic notion to express.

Here's a quote from the interview:

"Absolutely," Schilling said. "When human beings do anything, there's bias and prejudice . . . I don't think it kept me out, but I do know that there are guys who probably won't ever vote for me because of the things I said or did."

Here's the quote about Smoltz.

“I think he got in because of [Greg] Maddux and [Tom] Glavine. I think the fact that they won 14 straight pennants. I think his ‘Swiss army knife versatility,’ which somebody said yesterday, I think he got a lot of accolades for that, I think he got a lot of recognition for that. He’s a Hall of Famer,” Schilling said. “And I think the other big thing is that I think he’s a Democrat and so I know that, as a Republican, that there’s some people that really don’t like that.”

The whole conversation is stupid. Schilling does have a right to complain about the fact that Smoltz sailed in first ballot while he's struggling to get 40% of the vote, but he can make that complaint without seeming like an idiot with a huge persecution complex. He can make the complaint by pointing to their respective numbers which couldn't be more similar. He doesn't need to bring up politics at all.

Agreed. He has donated to mitt romneys campaign However his wiki page says he's also held a fundraiser for a state democrat. Not sure of his political leanings and its poor of schilling to compare himself to him in anyway.

Same Wiki article mentions his robocall in support of Rick Reed, as well as speculation about him running for office as a Republican. Here's a list of his political donations. And in 2004, when asked about gay marriage, he said “What’s next, marrying an animal?” There's no doubt whatsoever that Smoltz is a staunch Republican. He's just not outspoken about it, nor is he the same type of condescending ass when he does talk about his political beliefs as Schilling is.

[dickay]

I think it's asinine to complain that he lost votes because of his politics. It's likely that he lost votes because he's a giant ass, which may be correlated with his political beliefs, but I don't think those beliefs cost him anything - though the way he expresses them may have. And yes, he didn't straight up say "I would've made it if I weren't a Republican." It's still a moronic notion to express.


Here's the quote about Smoltz.

“I think he got in because of [Greg] Maddux and [Tom] Glavine. I think the fact that they won 14 straight pennants. I think his ‘Swiss army knife versatility,’ which somebody said yesterday, I think he got a lot of accolades for that, I think he got a lot of recognition for that. He’s a Hall of Famer,” Schilling said. “And I think the other big thing is that I think he’s a Democrat and so I know that, as a Republican, that there’s some people that really don’t like that.”

The whole conversation is stupid. Schilling does have a right to complain about the fact that Smoltz sailed in first ballot while he's struggling to get 40% of the vote, but he can make that complaint without seeming like an idiot with a huge persecution complex. He can make the complaint by pointing to their respective numbers which couldn't be more similar. He doesn't need to bring up politics at all.


Same Wiki article mentions his robocall in support of Rick Reed, as well as speculation about him running for office as a Republican. Here's a list of his political donations. And in 2004, when asked about gay marriage, he said “What’s next, marrying an animal?” There's no doubt whatsoever that Smoltz is a staunch Republican. He's just not outspoken about it, nor is he the same type of condescending ass when he does talk about his political beliefs as Schilling is.

Agreed. Just don't see the need to embellish and put words in his mouth, he does enough damage without the help and theres more than enough to criticize with what he actually said. I've seen a few headlines that also said something to the effect of Schilling claiming being a republican cost him entry. That's not what he said.

I think it a bit naive to think that his outspoken heavy right leaning political beliefs did not cost him any votes. I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say here...whether or not you think his outspoken political beliefs cost him votes. Seems like you said yes twice and no once in this same sentence so i'll say we agree with yes lol.

It's likely that he lost votes because he's a giant ass, which may be correlated with his political beliefs, but I don't think those beliefs cost him anything - though the way he expresses them may have.

[HoustonGM]

Agreed. Just don't see the need to embellish and put words in his mouth, he does enough damage without the help and theres more than enough to criticize with what he actually said. I've seen a few headlines that also said something to the effect of Schilling claiming being a republican cost him entry. That's not what he said.

I think it a bit naive to think that his outspoken heavy right leaning political beliefs did not cost him any votes. I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say here...whether or not you think his outspoken political beliefs cost him votes. Seems like you said yes twice and no once in this same sentence so i'll say we agree with yes lol.

I'm saying that it's not the content of his beliefs that may have cost him votes, but rather the manner and tone in which he expresses those beliefs.

[MichelleWie]

I'm saying that it's not the content of his beliefs that may have cost him votes, but rather the manner and tone in which he expresses those beliefs.

Wait.. What?! Now you're saying being a douche does cost you HOF votes?! You should be a politician the way you flip flop on your arguments! Lol...

[HoustonGM]

Wait.. What?! Now you're saying being a douche does cost you HOF votes?! You should be a politician the way you flip flop on your arguments! Lol...

What are you talking about?

I'm not sure why you're unable to grasp the simple distinction between "Personality may be a reason some individual writers refuse to vote for a player" and "Personality has not ever been the primary reason that a player was kept out of the HoF." To quote myself explaining this distinction (since apparently it needs to be repeatedly spelled out):

I don't buy that there is a vast contingent of writers that refuse to vote for multiple years for players they think belong in the Hall and then at some point decide to say yes.

Are there a couple individual writers that don't vote for people they don't like? Yeah, but I think generally those writers stick with that vote, and even if sometimes they change it, I don't think it's such a widespread phenomenon that it can account for 50% jumps over the course of a decade.

My original statement was that it has never disqualified somebody from the Hall of Fame, except arguably Dick Allen. It's beyond clear that I'm saying it has never kept anyone out of the Hall of Fame, not that it has never been the reason an individual writer didn't vote for a player.

Yes, individual writers make individual votes with stupid reasoning like "This guy's personality sucked." My argument is, and has been, that this is not a large enough contingent of writers to have a meaningful effect on the voting, and that on the overall scale of BBWAA voting, players have been voted in or held out only on the basis of their playing career, and never on the basis of their personality or the way they acted.

I think it's possible that some individual BBWAA writers refused to vote for Curt Schilling because of his personality. POSSIBLE, not definite. I think it's absolutely NOT the reason that his voting results have been mediocre overall.

[Jeffy25]

Limiting myself to only 10

Clemens
Bonds
Smoltz
Johnson
Raines
Pedro
Biggio
Bagwell
Mussina
Schilling


I gave Biggio the vote over Piazza because I want to get Biggio off the ballot so there are additional vote spots next year (assuming they don't expand to 12 possible votes) and because Piazza isn't in any danger of not getting in in the future, and because I figure Biggio will remain out ahead of Piazza this year on the ballot (which was right). So clear Biggio, so Piazza can get in next year.

If I had room, I would also vote for:
Walker
Trammell
Edgar
Piazza


So there are 14 guys in total that I would vote for this year.

Next year, you can add Griffey to my list, and remove anyone that gets in (subsequently it's Johnson, Pedro, Smotlz and Biggio, meaning I have to keep one guy off the ballot, since I have 11 out of 10. I'll give it to Trammell since it's his last year and last hope, and hold off on whichever of the two had enough to remain on the ballot, but has no chance of getting electing between Walker and Martinez in hopes that there can be a push in 2017).

[Jeffy25]

Sosa, Kent, McGwire, and Sheffield seem statistically short for the hall to me

The average Hall of Famer has a 69 rWAR, anyone short of that threshold I feel needs a different reason to be pushed over the hump

As a position player, I'd hope you can be a top 15 player for your position, like Piazza 5th highest rWAR among catchers all-time
or Smoltz, being an Eckersley type with closing and starting time, suppressing his career WAR


Sheffield, Sosa, and McGwire are all one dimensional candidates.

All bat, nothing else. Which would be fine, if there was anything else to support them.

Sheffield has the 24th most runs created all-time, worst defensive metrics all-time and not really a lot of positional adjustment to help him either
Sosa is 64th in most runs created all-time, hanging out with Rusty Staub and Vlad and near Robbie Alomar who feels fringe to me in the first place, and he has the positional adjustment and base running to help him out.
McGwire is 79th in career runs created, and played first base

I can see a stronger argument for Sheffield because I think his defensive metrics can be called into question. But with a loaded ballot, I have no problem leaving these three off....especially when we compare them to the average hall of famer.


Kent has the 80th most runs created all-time, 8 less than McGwire, and one more than Stargell, Dawson, and Damon...and the 8th most among second basemen all-time

Kent is 17th in fWAR among second basemen, 16th in rWAR

With a loaded ballot, I feel it's okay for Kent to be held off for now, as he seems fringe at best as well.

WAR isn't the be-all, end-all, but being this far short of 70 WAR seems like great players who are just a bit short. Maybe I just want a smaller Hall of Fame.

There are a total of 99 players all-time with 70 rWAR
There are 134 players all-time with 65 rWAR
There are 179 players all-time with 60 rWAR
There are 230 players all-time with 55 rWAR

Other than catchers, I feel like you should at least top the 60 rWAR before having serious consideration for me. I want a slightly smaller hall, but I am good with special circumstances, with guys that could push themselves over, like Sheffield, who was such a fantastic hitter that you need to look at him more closely.

[Jeffy25]

What are you talking about?

I'm not sure why you're unable to grasp the simple distinction between "Personality may be a reason some individual writers refuse to vote for a player" and "Personality has not ever been the primary reason that a player was kept out of the HoF." To quote myself explaining this distinction (since apparently it needs to be repeatedly spelled out):





I think it's possible that some individual BBWAA writers refused to vote for Curt Schilling because of his personality. POSSIBLE, not definite. I think it's absolutely NOT the reason that his voting results have been mediocre overall.

I get the sense that Schilling has the added stigma that Bagwell has an expected PED user, despite a lack of evidence.

Add in that he was a douche
Add in that it's a loaded ballot

And I can see why he is lacking votes

I would vote for him before I would ever vote for Smoltz though, easily. Moose too.

[dps]

The average Hall of Famer has a 69 rWAR, anyone short of that threshold I feel needs a different reason to be pushed over the hump

Assuming that this is accurate AND that the median is close to the average, you do realize that it means that roughly half of the players currently in the HoF have less than that, right?

[Jeffy25]

Assuming that this is accurate AND that the median is close to the average, you do realize that it means that roughly half of the players currently in the HoF have less than that, right?

Correct, which is why a player below 60 is pretty much the bottom of the barrel.

And as history continues, we continue to see additional players who will push this mark.

We will continue to see 100+ WAR players, raising the average WAR value as more of those players exist.

[ragecage]

Johnson
Martinez
Smoltz
Piazza
Raines
Clemens
Bonds
Martinez
Trammell

I voted 9 on accident instead of 10. My 10th would be Bagwell.

[dps]

Correct, which is why a player below 60 is pretty much the bottom of the barrel.

And as history continues, we continue to see additional players who will push this mark.

We will continue to see 100+ WAR players, raising the average WAR value as more of those players exist.

So you're saying that roughly half of the current players in the Hall are "bottom of the barrel"?

And you do realize that no matter what statistical criteria we rank players by, half of the members of the HoF are going to be in the bottom half of the Hall's membership, right?