HOF voting

I won't touch the issue comparing different eras, but back to the original topic - all the votes have been submitted, and we'll know in a couple of weeks who's been honored for induction in the Hall of Fame. Here's something interesting about who's likely to get in:

http://www.thegoodphight.com/2016/12/31 ... 2017-class

It would seem Raines finally makes it on his last try, Lee Smith doesn't. Bagwell joins Biggio in the Hall along with Pudge. There's a 50/50 chance Guerrero and Hoffman could join them as well. Expect 3 to possibly 5 inductees this year in addition to Bud Selig and John Schuerholz. That's a lot of honorees on the stage!

Maybe the hall should use the Electoral college formula

Ahoy,

It would be Huge - Huge I say - if they would consider Rose - even though that *astard beat the lovable Ty.

Yettie

I never hear people bellyaching about players who are in the Hall who probably should not be ( Bill Mazeroski). I just think the writers are leaving very deserving guys out. For a short example Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, and Jack Morris are most definitely Hall of Famers in my mind.

I think I heard that 3B has the fewest Hall of Fame members. I think guys like Bill Madlock (multiple batting titles) and Buddy Bell who has comparable or even better offensive numbers than Brooks Robinson as well as many Gold Gloves should be given a serious look. Bell just didn't play for a World Series team, which in my mind should not be a factor... I am sure many will disagree that Bell and Madlock should get in.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/artic ... leid=30936

What a Ch***hole!

Deleted due to formatting problems.

I think one reason many deserving players fail to make it is how so many, myself included, got hung up on the hall being only for the greatest of the great. You know the old it is the hall of the great not the hall of the good concept.

Think about it. If Joe D. were finishing his career now and we were discussing him someone would point out how he fell short of 500 HRs, etc. I imagine people would be pointing out the same shortcomings in Yaz they did for Lynn, etc. I remember watching many guys like Raines and remember he was one of the best in the game.

Another problem from my point of view is many of the current voters are young enough they did not actually watch these guys in action. So Lee Smith and Hoffman are only numbers and those get discounted. Raines probably gets discounted because the saber numbers people fail to see the value an elite base stealer like him could have for disrupting a team. After all many saber people claim stolen bases are bad.

Another problem from my point of view is it is only baseball writers who get to vote. That may have been appropriate when it was first created. It was the dominant new media. But today the guys who probably know the players the best are the radio and television people. I think members of those media should also be included, especially the radio announcers and TV guys for each team. They watch every game their team plays. A beat writer understandably focuses on stories for his team and how willing a player is to talk to them and give a good story figures potentially as much in their eyes as what a player does on the field.

I just read might be as many as 5 make it in this year matching the 5 that made it in the first HOF class of 1936.

That begs two questions.

1 Who were those first 5?

2 Who were some of those eligible in that first election that were deemed not worthy? Who was the first biggest snub?

HOFer Gabby Hartnett was eligible for that 1936 vote but received 0 votes.
Ditto Charlie Gehringer.
Our Rube Marquard only got one vote.

My quick count is 40 of the 47 who received at least one vote eventually made it in.

Players getting at least one vote who never made it.....
Nap Rucker
Bill Bradley
Kid Eberfeld
Shoeless Joe If only he had shoes he might ...... just kidding.
Lou Criger
Johnny Kling
Hal Chase is the only one with double digit votes that year who never got enough support.

All of the top 24 that year eventually made it in.

First runner up was Nap Lajoie.
Cy Young would eventually get an award named after him but was snubbed in that first vote.

I've always felt sportswriters award bonus points in their estimation of players if they've been loyal to one team their entire careers like Ripken and Gwynn were.

The thought occurs to me it could be coincidence. Players in general since the advent of free agency have been less and less likely to spend entire careers with one team. So modern era players are less likely to fit mold of played for only one team. And there appears to be a bias against modern players as a consequence of the steroid era. So while it may be a true statement the root cause could be in doubt. It could be the era that has reduced number of players getting voted in as the root cause with the loyalty issue being a side effect.

Otherwise I would think that playing for multiple teams would get you exposed up close to more writers and help build support for your candidacy.