Cast your 2014 Hall of Fame Ballot (Update: Maddux, Glavine, Thomas Elected)

[scOtt]

Question - did any of the players listed above get as little as 20% of the vote in his first year of eligibility (as Mussina did today)? Any other players in the Hall who did that?

I was surprised Moose and Schilling both got as low as they did. Guess it was the super strong ballot class?

[Can_of_corn]

I was surprised Moose and Schilling both got as low as they did. Guess it was the super strong ballot class?

Don't worry, it will be easier next year when Randy, Pedro and John are eligible.

[TonySoprano]

Fact: Armando Benitez got more votes than Sean Casey, Ray Durham, Todd Jones, Paul LoDuca, Richie Sexson and Mike Timlin combined

O.K. Armando won 1-0 but the point remains the same When a writer is wasting a vote on Armando Benitex you have another writer who isn't taking the process seriously. Either that or the one writer really hated Tino Martinez.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZKIHNsf8O_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[scOtt]

Don't worry, it will be easier next year when Randy, Pedro and John are eligible.

I saw somewhere else you or Frobby posted the next three years. Still plenty of time for both.

[waroriole]

Jacque Jones got a vote. That voter should lose his vote.

[Can_of_corn]

I saw somewhere else you or Frobby posted the next three years. Still plenty of time for both.

I posted it a while ago when I was making the argument that Mussina would have a hard time getting in.

Wouldn't be surprised to find out that Frobby has also posted it at some time or another.

[OFFNY]

Fact: Armando Benitez got more votes than Sean Casey, Ray Durham, Todd Jones, Paul LoDuca, Richie Sexson and Mike Timlin combined

O.K. Armando won 1-0 but the point remains the same When a writer is wasting a vote on Armando Benitex you have another writer who isn't taking the process seriously. Either that or the one writer really hated Tino Martinez.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZKIHNsf8O_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This video has a direct shot of Darryl Strawberry's cheap shot on Benitez, and Alan Mills' subsequent right cross to Strawberry's face.

http://www.camdenchat.com/2011/5/19/2179723/thirteen-year-anniversary-of-the-orioles-yankees-brawl

[Oldorioles]

Question - did any of the players listed above get as little as 20% of the vote in his first year of eligibility (as Mussina did today)? Any other players in the Hall who did that?

Great question.

As CofC mentioned, Blylven got 17.5% on his first try in 1998. Others with first year totals lower than Mussina are:

Don Drysdale - 21.0% (1975)

Red Schoendienst - 19.1% (1969)

Duke Snider - 17.0% (1970)

Orlando Cepeda - 12.5% (1980)

Nellie Fox - 10.8% (1971)

Bill Mazeroski - 6.1% (1978)

Ron Santo - 3.9% (1980)

Larry Doby - 2.3% (1966)

Richie Ashburn - 2.1% only SIX votes (1968)

Others below 30% included:

Jim Rice - 29.8% (1995)

Early Wynn - 27.9% (1969)

Luis Aparicio - 27.8% (1979)

Bruce Sutter - 23.9% (1994)

Billy Williams - 23.4% (1982)

[Oldorioles]

Mack was still an active manager in 1936, the first year of voting, and he certainly didn't deserve to go in as a player. Gehringer was also active in '36. And everyone in '36 was going up against everyone who'd played since the start of baseball. Not quite the same as today.

So, let's talk contemporary. Did the BBWA get it right with Duke Snider, what about Jim Rice? Gossage? Sutter? Sometimes it takes a while.

The problem is that there are literally hundreds of players better than the lower limit of current HOFers who aren't inducted. So if you don't think there are deserving guys left out you have to conclude that many, many undeserving players are already in.

I do think there are still a few guys left to put in, especially from the 19th century - just not many. You'll get no argument from me that there are some undeserving players already in, which I already stated. Many are a result of the Veteran's Committee votes, which, I believe, started out as a good thing but morphed into a terrible lowering of the bar that saw players vote their friends and teammates in. I certainly wish this would not have happened.

That's no reason to stick with a system that is clearly broken. You're almost arguing that since we can't achieve perfection we might as well quit trying.

No, not at all, we certainly should keep trying to improve it. I just believe there will always be differences of opinion on many of the players and to me the one of the beauties of baseball. I'd love to see some changes to the current system. I'd like to see veteran broadcasters and bloggers be able to vote for one. There will never be some magic algorithm that spits out the answers for us and I'm glad for that. I like the human element of the vote, even though it's imperfect.

[Babypowder]

So, let's talk contemporary. Did the BBWA get it right with Duke Snider, what about Jim Rice? Gossage? Sutter? Sometimes it takes a while.

No, I don't think they did get it right. Snider has a good argument but is borderline to me. I don't think Rice belongs in at all. As for Gossage and Sutter, I find it hard to believe guys worth 20-30 wins for their whole careers belong in either.

[waroriole]

Yeah, I was shocked at first too....but then, you'd have to think most HOFs don't go to college because (1) they were studs out of high school and (2) needed the longevity to have HOF careers...

Still though, after 100+ years of baseball, you'd think there would have been one SEC grad...

Yeah that's true. I tried to find the members based on conferences, but the results only came back for College Baseball HOF.

[Frobby]

No, I don't think they did get it right. Snider has a good argument but is borderline to me. I don't think Rice belongs in at all. As for Gossage and Sutter, I find it hard to believe guys worth 20-30 wins for their whole careers belong in either.

I think it is somewhat dangerous to judge players' Hall of Fame credentials based on stats that weren't in use, or weren't stressed, in the days when those players played. At the time he played, Rice was considered one of the very best hitters -- maybe the best hitter over a few years -- in the game. Anybody who goes to the all-star game eight times and wins an MVP (finishing in the top five 6 times) is going to get pretty serious consideration for the Hall of Fame regardless of whether we've decided, 25 years later, that his stats weren't that impressive in hindsight and using modern analytical techniques.

Put it this way: I don't think it is embarassing that Rice is in the Hall of Fame.

As to Gossage and Sutter, they were among the very best at what they did. I don't want a ton of relievers in the Hall of Fame, but a couple per decade is fine.

[Babypowder]

I think it is somewhat dangerous to judge players' Hall of Fame credentials based on stats that weren't in use, or weren't stressed, in the days when those players played. At the time he played, Rice was considered one of the very best hitters -- maybe the best hitter over a few years -- in the game. Anybody who goes to the all-star game eight times and wins an MVP (finishing in the top five 6 times) is going to get pretty serious consideration for the Hall of Fame regardless of whether we've decided, 25 years later, that his stats weren't that impressive in hindsight and using modern analytical techniques.

Put it this way: I don't think it is embarassing that Rice is in the Hall of Fame.

As to Gossage and Sutter, they were among the very best at what they did. I don't want a ton of relievers in the Hall of Fame, but a couple per decade is fine.

So overall value as a player shouldn't count because analysis was primitive? You can use these stats to compare players from the same era. It's not as if no one really valued on base percentage so no one was getting on base. Jim Rice was the best hitter in the league in 1978 and had a few others where he was close to the top. He wasn't dominant over a large sample. MVPs and All-Star appearances don't matter to me at all since they are wrong so often. Jim Rice was a 50 win player, and around the 75th best outfielder of all time. There is a pretty long list of guys better than him that aren't in and got very little consideration.

Relievers just aren't that valuable. If they were good enough, they would have been starters. That's a different argument though.

[Frobby]

So overall value as a player shouldn't count because analysis was primitive? You can use these stats to compare players from the same era. It's not as if no one really valued on base percentage so no one was getting on base. Jim Rice was the best hitter in the league in 1978 and had a few others where he was close to the top. He wasn't dominant over a large sample. MVPs and All-Star appearances don't matter to me at all since they are wrong so often. Jim Rice was a 50 win player, and around the 75th best outfielder of all time. There is a pretty long list of guys better than him that aren't in and got very little consideration.

Relievers just aren't that valuable. If they were good enough, they would have been starters. That's a different argument though.

I don't think the Hall of Fame is, or should be, solely about which players were the best based on modern statistics. I think MVP, Cy Young and All-Star voting are highly relevant because they show how a player was viewed at the time he played. Performance in the post-season is also relevant. I don't have a problem with letting players in the Hall of "Fame" who have lower WAR totals than some guys who weren't thought to be as good at the time they played. There should be room for both types of players, in my opinion. But the threshold for getting in on WAR (or other modern stats) alone should be pretty high.